User talk:Mbwsn

I have deleted your article Milton Black since its text was a direct copyright violation of. As it says on every edit page in Wikippedia "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted.". We legally cannot accept copyrighted material in Wikipedia articles and since the Milton Black article contained only a direct copy of the Milton Black website page it has been removed. Gwernol 13:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for information, Milton Black wrote the bio and he has asked for it to be placed up on wiki to replace the old text which was 'low on facts' to say the least.

As his editor, I did this for him under the name "mbwsn" - miltonblackwebmaster and MY initials. If you send an email to miltonblackwebmaster@westnet.com.au, you will find me - this email also appears on his website.

I understand that wikipedia has rules, but what do you do in cases such as these where it is not copyright? Afterall, how do you breach your own copyright? Permission WAS obtained from Milton himself!

But we do thank you for your efforts, and I can understand how you were not to know that permission for using the copyright blurb on Milton's site was in fact obtained.

Regards

mbwsn (stands for miltonblackwebmaster and my initials)


 * Please read our guidelines on conflicts of interest. We ask editors who have a personal or professional relationship with the subject of an article not to edit that article. Second, the page in question is copyrighted. At the bottom of the page it says "All material copyright 2006 Milton Black". Mr. Black is entitled to release the material for use on Wikipedia, but he should be aware that this material will now be irrevocably licensed under GFDL and he has effectively given up all rights to it. Could you point me to the URL on the website where I can find the email confirming he has released this text as GFDL?


 * Finally, and most importantly, the material from the page cannot be used as the text of the Wikipedia article. It is clearly written from the perspective of Mr. Black and it does not maintain the neutral point of view that is required for articles on Wikipedia. At the least it should be rewritten so it does not read like an promotional piece for Mr. Black and we would strongly prefer it not be written by those directly involved with Mr. Black at all. Thanks for understanding, Gwernol 21:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol, ok, the conflict of interest bit makes sense. But with regards to this part of your answer: "Mr. Black is entitled to release the material for use on Wikipedia, but he should be aware that this material will now be irrevocably licensed under GFDL and he has effectively given up all rights to it."

Given the bio note was not accepted by wikipedia (ok, you've explained your reasons for that),...then surely nothing has been given up to GFDL? Your wording "will now be irrevocably licensed under GFDL" reads as though it is still going to be licensed - "will now be". The bio has been deleted by you, so how can it still be subject to GFDL rules?? I am not trying to be difficult, I just need your wording to be explained. Thank you. mbwsn