Millard123

November 2009

Your 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 article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please disregard this warning, as it was an anonymous IP that added the copied text several days ago. Please do add text that has been rephrased and can be sourced, as well as appropriate images. Apologies for any inconveniences, and thanks. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

On second thought...if you continue to replace the article with content copied from another web site, the above warning holds. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated copyright violations. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Blueboy96 01:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=Hello,

My name is Andy Brick. I am trying to edit the Wikipedia page about me because the information that others have posted is wrong. I have an official bio which I have written that appears on several places on the web. I have tried to edit the page with the correct info from my official bio and photos that I own and have uploaded to wiki commons but overtime I do so it tells me I am in violation of copyright.

If you go to my official website andybrick.com and click contact and send me an email you can guarantee that this is me as I will reply with an exact copy of this message.

Please unblock me. Since I wrote my bio and own the copyright to all the photos there is no copyright violation and I would like for my wikipedia page to be correct.

Thank you Andy Brick

andy@andybrick.com}}

• There are two problems here that I would like to address before unblocking you:

1. Asserting that you own the copyright is not sufficient. There is a specific process for releasing copyright at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Any copyrighted material you wish to release to Wikipedia must be released under terms consistent with Wikipedia's licensing, which includes the right to edit or otherwise alter it and to re-distribute it elsewhere without compensation to you.

2. Editing the article about yourself is strongly discouraged as you have an inherent conflict of interest on the subject. The preferred route is to post on your article's talk page any errors you find, and ask that a neutral third party review your proposed changes and implement them if appropriate.

If you think you can work within these boundaries I don't see any problem with unblocking you. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|OK that sounds fine. For #1 I did upload the photos to wiki commons. According to what I understood there, I had to release the copyright to them (which I did via a pull down menu) and then they would be available for public use.

As for #2 now that you mention it, it does make sense that you wouldnt want someone to edit an article about themselves. I was only doing so because the info in the current wikipedia article isnt entirely correct. I am new to editing wiki but will certainly try to post my proposed changes to the talk page first. Thank you for clarifying the policy for me. I do accept the boundaries you have set forth. -Andy}}

Hi again, below is the edit I would like to make to the wiki page about me. Pretty much all of the information is a matter of public record and pretty easily verifiable. This is the same bio that is used by the university at which I am a professor. In fact, I think thats how the edit may have gotten tagged as a copyright violation. Nevertheless, this bio, which I wrote, does appear in various public forums so I hope that it doesnt present any problems. Here is what I would like to say:

Andy Brick is a prolific composer, conductor and symphonist. In 2003 Brick set a historic milestone conducting the Czech National Symphony Orchestra in the world’s first symphonic game music concert at the Gewandaus, Leipzig Germany to a sold out audience of 2200. Andy wrote the fanfare to this historic concert event which featured his music for Merregnon II. He has served as the exclusive principle conductor and music director of the concert series leading repeatedly sold out performances from 2003-2008. In 2005 Andy was appointed music director of the European concert series, “Heros of Imagination”. This concert series featured new symphonic music written by Andy and performed by the Neue Elbland Philharmonie. Brick also served as music director for the first Chamber Music Concert of the Kammerphilharmonie. Brick has conducted over 70 game titles including Final Fantasy, Super Mario Bros., Legend of Zelda, Halo, and World of Warcraft with orchestras throughout the world including The Prague Symphony, The Czech National Symphony, The North Carolina Symphony, The Bratislava Symphony, The Moravian Philharmonic, The Filmharmonic of Prague and members of the New York Philharmonic and Detroit Symphony. In 2007 Andy Brick was appointed associate conductor of “Play! A Video Game Symphony” and made his most recent appearance conducting the North Carolina Symphony in July 2009.

Andy has composed and/or orchestrated music for such blockbuster Game titles as Maxis’ Sim City: Rush Hour, Midway Entertainments’ Stranglehold, Electronic Arts’ Sims 2 and Warhammer: Day of Reckoning as well as Nintendos Super Mario Bros., Bungie’s Halo 3, and Square Enix Final Fantasy series. His music has also been featured in such game titles as Arc The Lad by Working Designs, Shadoan by Interplay, The Far Reaches by 3DO, Tesselmania by MECC and others.

As a protégé of Walt Disney Pictures’ Andy wrote scores for animated feature films such as Little Mermaid II and The Lady and The Tramp II. In 2007 Andy was commissioned by Walt Disney to compose and conduct music for Sinbad’s Storybook Adventure. In 2008 Disney/ABC Television again commissioned Andy to write new music for ABC’s Schoolhouse Rock. Andy re-orchestrated the classic film Mutiny On the Bounty for Warner Bros. Pictures. Andy’s Tone Poem The Story of The Red Rose was used in its entirety on the film of the same name and earned him best original score for the film which debuted at the Sundance Film Festival. He has also scored various independent films including Uphill All The Way with Susan Sarandon and The Cine Golden Eagle award winning Chatham County. In 2009 Andy was retained as senior orchestrator for the upcoming Broadway musical Verse of Fortune.

Andy has been featured by the American Music Center’s “The New Music Box”, PRI’s “Studio 360” the National broadcast of the CBS Evening News and various local and national media outlets. In Print, Andy has been the featured composer in the New York Times article “A Composer Gives Video Games a Musical Life” and was the featured “Songwriter” in Billboard Magazine’s. article “Brick Brings Videogame Scores to Life with Orchestra” Recently, Andy was selected as the featured conductor in the “Young, Gifted, and Engaged” issue of SYMPHONY Magazine. In October 2004 Andy received his first orchestral concert commission. The resulting work entitled “Gygrans Song” was performed live by the Moravian Philharmonic. In June 2005 Andy won the prestigious “Masterworks of the New Era” award for his concert composition “Hungarian Overture”. The work was recorded by the Kiev Philharmonic and released on the ERM label and distributed in all major retail outlets throughout the US and Europe. In Jan 2009 Andy completed work on his most recent concert piece entitled The Peacock.

Andy Brick is a graduate of the University of Michigan where he studied Composition with Pulitzer Prize winning composer Leslie Basset. Brick continued his studies in composition and theory at Mannes College of Music, New York. He currently serves as Associate Professor and Director of the Music program at Stevens Institute of Technology.

More information on Andy Brick is available online at www.andybrick.com

As you note, the above is what I tagged as a copyright violation. If the copyright issue is transcended, there are still a few issues, so far as I can see: While it's helpful to be able to confirm information with the subject, Wikipedia must rely on objective third party sources. Perhaps, as you suggest above, there is published biographical information about you that was written by someone else? Right now the article is lacking in reliable third party sources. That text which you've offered is also a bit promotional in tone, but it's not difficult to copyedit. I concur with Beeblebrox's suggestion, that you post the errors you've found in the current article on its talk page. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added some content, with cites. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I guess what I dont understand is how can something that I own be a violation of my own copyright? I really appreciate you guys trying to help out but I fear that the information that now exists on the page does more harm to me than good and, in places is simply incorrect. If someone wanted information about me, the information they receive from the current page would terribly misrepresent me.

Here is a link to bio info published by someone else: http://www.oneworldartists.com/stevens/AndyBrickBio.htm The problem is that whereas much of this is true, some of it is misleading. In anycase, its much more complete and if we could start with this I could then edit the errors.

Moby Games, one of the most trusted sources for information about the video game industry has published this bio http://www.mobygames.com/user/sheet/userSheetId,46922/ but it is very old and so I would like to add some of the above to it.

Stevens institute of Technology published this: http://www.stevens.edu/cal/people/faculty_profile.php?faculty_id=929

Finally there is one here: http://www.musa.cz/brick.php again this one is mostly correct but old and missing a lot of stuff from the past 5 years.

So Im wondering what your advise would be? My page on Wikipedia has for quite sometime been incomplete and prone to many errors. Even some of the references from known sources like the New York Times article have errors. (sometimes the press gets it wrong too ;-) Even if I post the errors on the talk page, the article is incomplete and missing a lot of facts that I think some of the readers would want to know. The current page I feel does more harm than good. I could enlist the authorship of someone else who knows my history to write my bio on the wiki page but that information would basically be the same as I have previously posted. Please understand Im not trying to be difficult, Im just trying to get the correct and complete info into the wiki. Im willing to do anything and work with you guys so long as the correct information is ultimately posted.

Please advise Thank you again Andy

Hi, its me again ;-) I just found this wikipedia policy. Doesnt this policy state that I can use my bio as I presented it since it was material about myself via press release?

Using the subject as a self-published source Main article: WP:SELFPUB Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it; the article is not based primarily on such sources. These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published. [edit]Dealing with edits by the subject of the article Shortcut: WP:BLPEDIT In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, a tolerant attitude should be taken in cases where subjects of articles remove unsourced or poorly sourced material. When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this may be an attempt by the subject of the article to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material:

Good catch. The problem for me was your blanking of the article and substituting it with your own press release and numerous photos--in the end it really did have a promotional rather than an encyclopedic look. Do remove erroneous material. Disclosure: I am the subject of a biography on Wikipedia, well-sourced and well-written, and I don't go anywhere near it for conflict of interest concerns. Yours is a notable bio, but I think these things are always better if one is patient and allows others to do the writing--I am a subscriber to the "if you're notable then others will write about you" philosophy. Perhaps Beeblebrox can offer more suggestions. And don't forget to sign your talk page messages. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, I won't pretend to be the overseer of the article, nor expect you to agree with my philosophy re: editing. Your accomplishments merit notice, and I've tried to help with the addition of content from the Times interview and links to the Stevens bio. If I can be of any help, let me know. And congratulations on your fine work. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken. If I tone down the promotional look and edit the text to make it more encyclopedic may I re-upload the bio? I would gladly post it here first so that you all may take a look and I could add a few less pictures. It does seem that such a thing is within the parameters of Wikipedias guidelines. I do really respect Wiki and what it has become to society. I guess thats why I am trying to get this right. Thanks again -Andy

I've asked for input here: [1], which ought to be helpful. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your bio

Hi: If you would care to post your concerns at Talk:Andy Brick on a point by point basis, I'll be happy to look at them and remove any factual inaccuracies that concern you. Would that be satisfactory? Ray^Talk 17:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ray thank you for your reply. I would like to continue by following the guidelines set forth in Wikipedias stated policy"

"Using the subject as a self-published source Main article: WP:SELFPUB Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it"

In this case, the subject is me. I am living. The bio I have presented is a press release and can be found as such. I will edit it a little to make it less promotion. As you can see it makes no claims about third parties nor does it make claims about events not related to me.

The original tag that started this issue was for copyright violation and its clear that this is not the case. The current information that is posted on wikipedia is incorrect and somewhat libelous.

I would prefer not to bring this issue to a public forum as I am clearly complying with the stated wikipedia policy. Tomorrow I would like to post the bio as stated and am hoping that the mods here are agreeable.

Thank you Andy Brick

Andy, you don't seem to understand the meaning of conflict of interest. We can't have people writing their own biographies. If there are specific points you object to, you should raise them individually, instead of trying to replace wholesale the page that exists. Best, Ray^Talk 20:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ray.

thank you for directing me to the COI. I read it and would like to point out the following policy:

"COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests are more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."

I never intended on this bio to be self promotion. when the earlier consultant mentioned that my edit "in the end it really did have a promotional rather than an encyclopedic look" I responded by asking

" If I tone down the promotional look and edit the text to make it more encyclopedic may I re-upload the bio? I would gladly post it here first so that you all may take a look and I could add a few less pictures. It does seem that such a thing is within the parameters of Wikipedias guidelines. "

Wikipedia policy states that an individual can infact write their own biography:  This is an exact quote from the wiki page 

"Using the subject as a self-published source Main article: WP:SELFPUB Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves.'Bold text'

The policy then goes on to explain how we avoid conflict of interest by stating:

Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it"

All Im asking is that I be allowed to abide by the policy of self-publishing that is publicly stated by Wikipedia. I am completely willing to work with the Wikipedia staff to come up with a version of my bio that is not self promotional.

With this in mind, I seek approval to do the following:

Self-published material used in a biographies of myself, {a living persons} and written by myself, {the subjects themselves} and post that biographie on my talk page first so that the Wikipedia staff may determine that it qualifies under the guidelines expressed herein.

The wikipedia policy clearly states that what I am doing is OK but I do understand and respect your concerns so I have tried to meet you guys half way and let you have editorial control over my bio. All I am asking is that you let me abide by the stated wikipedia policy Please advise if I may abide by this publicly stated wikipedia policy .

Thank you and Im really sorry to be such trouble but I really do value wikipedia and I really am trying to correct the page about me so that it contains correct factual information. As it currently stand it is plagued with errors and omissions that would be damaging to me if the wrong person were to read them.

-Andy

Andy, you're misunderstanding. the WP:SELFPUB thing relates to reliability of sources. All it says is that something you write about yourself can be used as a source for information. It does not say that you can write your own autobiography. WP:COI is very explicit on that point. Please submit any changes you would like made to the Talk page, and, as I said, I'll add them if I think they're appropriate. I should also add that it's completely erroneous for you to assume that you're dealing with Wikipedia staff. I am not a Wikipedia staffer, merely another editor like you. So has been everybody else you've dealt with. Wikipedia staff, by and large, do not get involved in the content on the site. Ray^Talk 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

OK good point, I do actually see that now that you point it out. So if I understand correctly someone else may use that bio as a reliable source if they are editing my page but I cant use the info to edit the page because it then presents a COI Is that right... if so, I suppose that is Fair enough... it does make sense.

Give me a day or two to edit the current page and, if its OK send you new info that I would appreciate. Ill post my edit here first as you suggest.

Thanks for putting up with me.  ;-)

Andy