User talk:Walks on Water/Archives/2010 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Walks on Water, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Copyright problems with TWINS
Hello. Concerning your contribution, TWINS, 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). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://science.nasa.gov/missions/twins/. As a copyright violation, TWINS appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. TWINS 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 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:TWINS and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:TWINS 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 or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:TWINS.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy retracted
Based on the "public domain" note you left in the edit summary, I've retracted this nomination. The article however, should not remain posted in verbatim form. -- WikHead (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for (belatedly) paying attention to my edit summary. (What made you think it was a copyvio in the first place?) Agreed in that, it could benefit from wikification, categorization, etc. and I welcome you or any other editor to be bold, but there is no need for anyone to consider rewriting the content in their own words, or removal if it remains in verbatim form.  -- W☯W  t/c 20:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) I see that you had a PD source inadvertently tagged for infringement. I'm glad that's sorted out. I'd hope that any admin who popped in would have recognized that it was US federal source and handled it appropriately. One thing that could help avoid this in the future, Plagiarism requires the use of an attribution template or a specific note on the article's face when we incorporate public domain content. It's very obvious that you intended no plagiarism, given that you not only cited the source but mentioned the copying explicitly in edit summary, but among the advantages of using the method in the guideline is that it helps to avoid precisely these kinds of misunderstandings. I've gone ahead and added the attribution template to this one. If you incorporate PD content again, they're gathered at Category:Attribution templates. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the guidance and template and policy links. Will use those templates in future. -- W☯W  t/c 20:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. By the way, I don't have any problem with your current wording at (I watch it because I do a lot of copyright work, but as far as I'm concerned if it gets the information across it's good!), I do want to point out that the use of the royal "we" is common in templates: Uw-npa1, Uw-redirect1, Uw-nor1, Uw-move1, Uw-agf1. I believe that the thought is that as they are templates they represent a communal view, but I don't know that for sure; I didn't write of them, though I've used all of them at one time or another, I imagine. :) If this is a real pet peeve of yours, there's at least those and probably more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the follow-up. I'm sure WikHed's use of it was well-meaning.  But, I was peeved that that that template made it easy for editors to speak, inappropriately, as if they were speaking in an official capacity for Wikipedia.  I'll take a stab at the others, at least if my edit sticks for a while. -- W☯W  t/c 21:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit stuck, so I took a stab at the others. (Post-archive comment) -- W☯W t/c 02:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee, now everyone's mad at poor little WikHead ;). I'm just glad that everything is sorted out now, and that I recognised my own error in a timely manner. There's a few other points I can think of making while reading through this discussion thread, but they're basically all moot with the issue now resolved. The article topic does seem rather interesting though, and I would love to assist by contributing if it was something I actually knew about. Regardless, should either of you ever require assistance with something more... generic, please feel free to give me a shout. Regards, -- WikHead (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Re WikiLeaks
The policy in question is WP:BRD. You make a bold edit, I revert, and then we discuss. I'm sure you've been editing Wikipedia long enough to be aware how it is supposed to work. Once an edit is reverted, you take any discussion to the talk page, rather than reverting and trying to debate through edit summaries. I have raised the issue on the WikiLeaks talk page, can we now please discuss it properly there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank You for finally responding to my beginning said discussion in edit summaries, after my 3rd request. Congrats on misrepresenting an essay as policy. -- W☯W  t/c 02:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you going to discuss this on the article talk page, or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have. Are you going to keep misrepresenting an essay as policy, or not? Being right about an issue can be "wrong" if you act like a "bull in a china shop." Your voice may go unheard, even if you are right!-- W☯W  t/c 03:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)