User talk:Stephmoore3745

Copyright problems with Mega planning
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Mega planning, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Mega planning appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Mega planning has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Mega planning and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Mega planning with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold 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 GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Mega planning.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Eekster - I have sent an email to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org explaining that I hold the copyright to that content and that I give myself permission to reuse it. What else must I do to get this page re-instated?

Had the person who noted the supposed copyright infringement dug a little further, they would have seen me as the author on the blog. My name and contact are all over that site.

Many thanks for your assistance in helping us get the entry re-instated. This is an historically significant model in our field of educational technology and performance improvement developed by one of the "founding fathers" of the field.

Kind regards, Stephanie L. Moore, Ph.D.
 * Since you and Roger Kaufperson have such a blatant COI in the subject, I have sent the article to AfD. In fact I suspect the conclusion will be: "keep after heavy re-write into an encyclopedia article". &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Haworth, I find your snips and sniper comments to be offensive, unprofessional and without merit. Roger's last name is "Kaufman" - for you to inject mindless PC into the revision of a professional's name is unprofessional on your behalf, which causes me to have no faith in your ability to be unbiased in your estimations.

As to conlifct of interest, I fail to see how writing on decades of research that have become the standard model and even standards of practice for an entire profession somehow represents a conflict of interest. You are quick to apply labels with little to no sound investigation. I have not benefited personally from this - nobody goes into academia to benefit financially. I have not earned a cent for anything. As for Roger, his work is no less different that other educational and performance improvement research such as performance improvement, situated cognition, and a slew of other topics that ARE in wikipedia. Because you are not familiar with it does not mean it has no merit or that we have a conflict of interest.

Needless to say, you leave me tremendously unimpressed both with Wikipedia (for employing people who are so quick to judge and very happy to intentionally offend) and with your temperament as an editor. Clearly, this is not a professional venue. We will stick to the large, nationally reknowned publication venues.

Stephanie

Stephmoore3745 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)