User talk:Fox/September 2011
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
SPR, Society for Psychotherapy Research
Hello Fox, you deleted the SPR page, saying there was a copyright infringement. I expected everything but that! All material I posted is either authorized material of the SPR or created by myself. Where is the copyright problem??? Best Regards Armin Dr.a.hartmann (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC).
Dear Fox,
I'm really puzzled by this deletion. We haven't been told what the offending content is, or given a chance to correct the supposed copyright violation. I went to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations and looked up the Wikipedia policy defining this category of Speedy Deletion justification. I read the language there as indicating that a corrective, developmental approach to addressing problems such as this is the recommended course of action. Identifying specific potential problems with copyright would be a more appropriate course of action, and more just in the face of statements from the author(s) of a page that the material is original and not in violation of copyright. Deleting the page in its entirety without prior warning makes it very difficult to fix any problems.
Robert Elliott, Professor of Counselling, Past President, Society for Psychotherapy Research MurrayCreekBard (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Just adding my concern about the deletion, I had seen a draft of Armin's submission and can't see that there was any copyright violation there and I know that Armin is passionate about open access but also about meticulous attention to IPR and copyright issues. I hope this can be sorted soon as it's been a silly oversight that SPR hasn't had information about itself up on Wikipaedia. Many thanks,
Chris, Professor Chris Evans, Nottingham University and Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Cpsyctc (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I am also not aware of any copyright infringement issues on the SPR entry, and think it is important that this information is publicly available, so I hope the web page will be restored soon. Nick Midgley, Anna Freud Centre, London. 86.178.80.180 (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there Fox, perhaps can I be of help here? I'm an admin here on WP and by coincidence also a member of SPR! I know Chris Evans and Bob Elliott who have posted above. I'll post on their talk pages, and the others who have posted here, to try and suggest a way forward. I think the approach I'll take is to set up a page in my userspace which people can use to help me work up a non-copyvio version of the article. I'll post a link here once I've done this, to tidy up and point people in the right direction who might browse to your page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- (just a drop-by note, after spotting the discussion in the admins' noticeboard) This sort of confusion usually happens when someone copy/pastes content from their own website, with the website saying "All rights reserved" or similar. If this is the case, you will need to take a good look to Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've started a page in my user space to redraft this article. I've looked at the deleted text and I have not restored those parts which were a copyvio - two sections, one from the SPR website and one from the journal website hosted at Taylor and Francis. As far as I can see these were in fact the only copyvios and they could have been deleted from the original article while leaving the rest of the article intact; this might have been a less "nuclear option" than deleting the entire article but that's behind us now. I will post on the talk pages of each person above to let them know this, a co-ordinate writing a copyvio-free version and putting it in main space in due course. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Late to the party, but anyways - User:Shirt58/Society for Psychotherapy Research ---Shirt58 (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Shirt, thanks for your input. To reduce confusion perhaps you could incorporate your userspace material into mine, rather than having two places where re-drafting is taking place? Many thanks, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Shirt, your userspace page now nuked per your template. I think we can now get off Fox's talk page and mark this as Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Resolved
- Thanks Shirt, your userspace page now nuked per your template. I think we can now get off Fox's talk page and mark this as
- Shirt, thanks for your input. To reduce confusion perhaps you could incorporate your userspace material into mine, rather than having two places where re-drafting is taking place? Many thanks, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Late to the party, but anyways - User:Shirt58/Society for Psychotherapy Research ---Shirt58 (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've started a page in my user space to redraft this article. I've looked at the deleted text and I have not restored those parts which were a copyvio - two sections, one from the SPR website and one from the journal website hosted at Taylor and Francis. As far as I can see these were in fact the only copyvios and they could have been deleted from the original article while leaving the rest of the article intact; this might have been a less "nuclear option" than deleting the entire article but that's behind us now. I will post on the talk pages of each person above to let them know this, a co-ordinate writing a copyvio-free version and putting it in main space in due course. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Joseph Fox! First it was shocking to see the page vanish so quickly. But you are right, the paragraphs were too similar to the content of other websites. The team of authors of the article didn't notice the problem, as the other websites felt like "theirs" in a way. In backsight it seems rather some kind of "self-plagiarism" than a copyright issue. Anyhow, we appreciate very much that you brought the issue up and that you made us improve the article! Best Regards and have fun with future WP administration!!! Dr.a.hartmann (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
As suggested, I have started a discussion on the DYK discussion page. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 September 2011
- News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive
- WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport
- Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care
- Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle
ITN image
Hi, saw you posted the Jürgen Stark blurb and just wanted to let you know that there's a free image of Stark, File:JuergenStark01.jpg, that you can could add in place of the hockey player. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Moving to WA?
You're moving to Perth? Welcome! Might see you at Wiki Takes Freo. :-) Sam Wilson 03:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 September 2011
- News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked
- WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics
- Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures
- Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications
- Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live
- Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter
Is your solution to vandalism at Commons always to upload a duplicate copy locally? commons:File:September 11 Photo Montage.jpg is protected now until October. There are huge numbers of people watching commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections and so the file would have been protected faster than it took for you to upload it here had you bothered to post a notice. – Adrignola talk 03:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- I was curious when I saw the file deleted so many times at Commons, and then I noticed it wasn't being used on en.wikipedia. Will you be deleting the local copy anytime soon? I was actually interested in seeing how widely it was being used across all projects. Please send me a {{tb}} when you respond (or respond on my talk). Thanks, upstateNYer 02:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- And how exactly would I, someone who does not frequent Commons, know where in the hell that was? I think the currentness of the vandalism, coupled with the high-profile nature of the image, warranted a bit of improvisation. — Joseph Fox 23:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- UpstateNYer - I have now done so. — Joseph Fox 23:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Commons:Community portal is linked right from the navigation and on that page is a link to the Administrators' noticeboard. Now, you're an admin here. I'm sure you've seen Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. If you guessed that there would be a Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, you'd have been correct. It is important to ensure cross-wiki cooperation. Uploading a local copy doesn't let Commons admins know about the problem to help protect the other projects using the file. – Adrignola talk 23:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Listen, I did what I had to, and in the short-term it prevented the vandal achieving what he wanted to do. We informed the commons IRC channel, and helpful administrators on there dealt with the issue faster than those patrolling the page you mention, I'm sure. This is in the past now, so we should keep it that way. — Joseph Fox 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 September 2011
- From the editor: Changes to The Signpost
- News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised
- Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork
- WikiProject report: Back to school
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case
- Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word
- Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year
Grammar
I see what you mean, Thanks for the correction. Grammar isn’t something I’d normally focus on just some blatant misspellings got me annoyed such as Britain spelt incorrectly. Keep up the good work yourself. Regards (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 07:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC))
The Signpost: 26 September 2011
- Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews
- News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content
- In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references
- WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles
- Featured content: The best of the week
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)