User talk:Mercurysjm1

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Dekisugi (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC

January 2009
I have to agree with Dekisugi here. You are making changes to the DSDM article which leave the article worse off then before you edited. It has gone back and forth a while now. Where are you getting the content you're pasting in from? Semafore (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

== January 10th 2009

Please, if you disagree with the original article, tell us WHY using this Talk facility.

Then take the time and trouble to correct and enhance the original article. Please do not simply replace it with material evidently copied from another source, which does not justify its content, and contains no references as to its sources. This is the kind of editing which gets Wikipedia a bad name.

82.240.209.13 (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Katriona22 (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

DSDM Content - Response to message you left on my talk page.
I will preface this response by saying I'm reasomably new to wikipedia, and if you doubt any of the response below you should seek help from a more experienced wikipedia editor.

I agree that the DSDM article at the moment has much room for improvement, and would like to see it improved. Please consider though that the purpose of the article is not to give a guide on the most recent version of DSDM - a good article would include information about the history of DSDM, how and why it has changed and developed, the differences between Atern and previous versions (which I assume are major). Also, you mentioned that the DSDM board is not happy with the current article. I'd encourage them to contribute to the article (they could no doubt provide a valuable contribution) but remind them that they do not have ownership of the article or power of veto with regards to content they are not happy with.

However we go about improving the article I think the changes that you made will always get undone quickly by other editors. I'll outline why I think this is the case and hopefully no one will see fit to revert anything you add in future:
 * The content seemed copied verbatim from other sources: we can see this because the original html tags still litter the content, this seems to be generally frowned upon.
 * A side effect of the point above - the formatting of the content was inconsistent with the other wikipedia articles. Lots of editors would see this as a problem, even if the content is better and even if they know next to nothing about the subject (anyone can edit the article, and if the current version looks significantly worse than the previous version I can guarantee someone will roll it back believing it is the right thing to do)
 * It only covers DSDM Atern - you remove lots of content about previous versions of DSDM

How significant are the changes for DSDM Atern? If they were so extensive that it is as though the methodologies are related only by name, then perhaps it would be best to separate things out into two articles. If you really believe the changes you made are the best possible change for this article then my suggestion would be starting a new section on the talk page for the article (Talk:Dynamic_Systems_Development_Method) outlining why you think the current version is misleading or accurate, the changes you want to make and ask for peoples opinion. The sad truth is that you'll have to do it this way because, even if you're changes improve the article in every way - they will not persist unless you get consensus from other editors on the talk page. Semafore (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How to verify copyright permission for article Dynamic Systems Development Method
Hello, Mercurysjm1.

Thank you for your interest in donating material from http://www.spoce.com/knowledge-base/dsdm-atern.aspx to Wikipedia. Since we do not currently have a method in place to verify the identity of account holders at account creation, we must verify such donations through external processes. The material has been removed and must not be restored unless one of these processes is followed.

The simplest way to verify is to place a release on that external website putting the material into public domain or releasing it under a license compatible with GFDL, which permits modification and reuse, even commercially, as long as authorship credit is given. This release is irrevocable and must continue to be displayed, or the material will need to be removed. A statement such as the following, including the link to the GFDL, would be sufficient: "The contents of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 and later." If you decide to take this route, please put a link to that release on Talk:Dynamic Systems Development Method before reintroducing any of the external site's contents.

Alternatively, you may choose to send an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org] or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL. There is a boilerplate release form at Declaration of consent for all enquiries which can be helpful. Please provide a clear link to the website in your e-mail and specify by name the article on Wikipedia in which the material is being used. Once your e-mail is received and processed by a member of the Communications Committee, the article's contents may be restored if your release is legally sufficient. The Communications Committee member who processes your e-mail will place a note on the article's talk page indicating that the letter has been processed and judged sufficient.

If you are closely related to the subject matter, you may also want to read our conflict of interest guidelines to get an idea how best to proceed. It may be necessary once permission is verified to address other concerns in the text, if it is otherwise inconsistent with our policies and guidelines.

Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)