User talk:Pageofmusic2

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Goapele has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bfacebook\.com (links: http://www.facebook.com/pages/goapele/6140859654). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

RESPONSE: That's fine if you just reverted one link but were you the one who erased all the revisions and new content I provided for Goapele's page which came from 2 hours of meticulous research? Did you erase all the statistics and blatantly factual information such as her Billboard charting action and corresponding reference links seen on every other musicians Wikipedia page but this one? I would really like to know because you see "Chocolate" was never a single and changeitall.org doesn't exist. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to keep information as factual as possible.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the "Help Desk". You can also leave a message on my talk page. Melchoir (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] Your recent addition  has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.  Melchoir (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I DO own the copyright to this photo. What makes you think othwerise? Was it just a hunch or did you do some investigative research? You can't continue to take photos down that are my own w/ no explanation. Also you keep erasing the biographical info for Slow Children Crossing. Just re-word it if necessary but don't delete valuable information on artists. I have cited and referenced everything to my knowledge.


 * I don't know about the image, and it hasn't been deleted. But the source of the text says "© 2009 Qthequestion.com. All rights reserved." If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike." Melchoir (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's because I sent this image personally to Quinton Hartfield, the editor at qthequestion.com. I'm the photographer of the original image and he is simply reproducing it. Why don't you reach out and ask him before you remove? Every website says All Rights Reserved. It's not talking about the photo (which they don't own copyrights to) it's talking about his website/design.


 * Wikipedia needs to protect itself. It's not the community's responsibility to prove that you have the authority to release the content under a free license; it's your responsibility, if you want to avoid deletion. Melchoir (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. You are being blocked for this edit. You were warned about copying material from other website without documented premission. Don't do it again. Melchoir (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You must be on some ego trip because I didn't violate any copyright laws. You're specialty is math and physics so why are you so sure a little biographical info about a comedy group is fraudulent? Did you even research the information? It was completely neutral and you can't site anything to prove otherwise. You are acting arbitrarily and without merit.


 * The law is not the only issue here.
 * I do not suspect that the information is fraudulent. I have no particular objection to the information being added. What I have a problem with is entire sentences copied verbatim from an external website without proof of licensing.
 * I am enforcing a completely standard process and I have advised you twice on how you may proceed without violating Wikipedia policy and getting yourself blocked. Melchoir (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as behavioral standards for both of us go, note what Assume good faith has to say about copyright: "When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. Good faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices." Melchoir (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The passages were not copied from qthequestion.com and if you had done further research as I would assume a Wikipedia contributor would do you would notice that the Website article just went live last week. Those aforementioned passages come from the bio written 2 years ago that the writer I commissioned wrote for us and we own copyrights. In layman's terms we gave qthequestion.com their ENTIRE article verbatim not the other way around. I'm just going to have qthequestion.com take down that entire page since you refuse to contact him for verification purposes, because it's interfering with important progression in regards to SCC's Wikipedia page. You do not conduct the necessary research before omitting words and blocking users. It would serve you better and be in better faith to do so next time.


 * Why don't you just add the license text to qthequestion.com then? Melchoir (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note, since you seem to be taking this personally, I am listing the article for review by another editor. You may comment at Copyright problems/2009 September 12; I'll unblock you in a minute. Details below. Melchoir (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's just annoying I did all this work putting this together, citations, links, etc. and you just take it down and block me for no reason. Qthequestion.com copied verbatim the Slow Children Crossing biography which is also featured on www.slowchildrenxing.com. I don't understand why you can't just do the research before taking such drastic measures. These passages are part of their official bio that should be on Wikipedia. And additionally the image was not a copyright infringement because I own the copyrights and let qthequestion.com use MY photo. His "rights reserved" is not referring to that photo, it's referring to the design of his website. I'm not sure how much more clarification I need to provide. Now you've taken down their ENTIRE wikipedia page for no reason you can substantiate. This is ridiculous.

Copyright problem: Slow Children Crossing
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Slow Children Crossing, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.qthequestion.com/?p=4861, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Slow Children Crossing and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Slow Children Crossing, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Slow Children Crossing with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Slow Children Crossing. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Slow Children Crossing saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Melchoir (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Per your request the website www.qthequestion.com/?p=4861 has now put up the text “Re-use is permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0″ in the first paragraph. Please revert this Wikipedia page back to what it was. There are no copyright violations taking place

Speedy deletion nomination of Slow Children Crossing
A tag has been placed on Slow Children Crossing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 23:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)