User talk:MurrayCreekBard

Welcome!

 * }

About discussion at "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" of speedy deletion of Society for Psychotherapy Research
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is about the "speedy deletion" of Society for Psychotherapy Research as unambiguous copyright infringement.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Bob, I'm an administrator here on Wikipedia and also by coincidence a former member of SPR! (And a colleague of Glenys at Sheffield - you probably remember me from there or from Ravenscar).There were indeed some (actually quite minor) copyright problems in the article but to be honest they could have been deleted and the rest of the article left while a re-write was done. However we are where we are and I've restored the article (minus the 2 small copyright issues) to my user space at this page. Follow that link and you'll see the article draft - do feel free to edit it in any way you wish.


 * The problems were two-fold; the list of objectives was a direct paste from the SPR website, and the material about the Journal was a direct paste from the Taylor and Francis website. Even though I'm completely happy that SPR and T&F would be perfectly happy with this copy-paste, it does violate Wikipedia policy I'm afraid. Web based material can only be copy-pasted like this if there is either a very specific licensing statement on the original website, or via a rather bureuacratic permission-giving system by an authorised representative of the website owner. We could go down either route but frankly the easiest option is to simply reword those two sections and then republish. Ive noted in my userspace draft which sections need rewording - and I've asked Armin if he would make any changes.


 * Once the article is back in a form yArmin is happy with, I will then republish it to main article space. I'm copying this information to you, Chris, and others who wrote in support of the article; getting you to register as editors and message Fox in support of the article actually doesn't help as it looks like special pleading. I don't think there's any real harm done in this case, but if anyone has further problems with Wikipedia do please come to me direct rather than feeling the need to band together with others who are clearly identifiable as single-purpose accounts. (Of course if any/all of you guys want to contribute as editors that would be great! I've edited the article on Cognitive analytic therapy but there's a lot of work to be done on that and other psychotherapy related articles!)


 * I think to keep all the discussion in one place, it might be best if you reply to use the talk page for the new article. I will see if you reply here, but others may not. Hope this is helpful and I trust we can get the article up again soon. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  12:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)