User talk:Mah Jong

Hello, Mah Jong, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Re: Donna J. Stone

Hi. Thank you for your efforts to prevent the possible deletion of the article I wrote about Donna J. Stone, and particularly for removing the request for speedy deletion. I did, in fact, write the article myself, and obtained written permission from Dr. Christopher Stone, Ms. Stone's son and the copyright holder of the photo I used in the article, to use the image in the Wikipedia article. (I know you didn't mention any copyright concerns about the image, so you probably saw that I got permission for the image.)

I know about the Wielder of Words website, of course, since I linked to it in the article and included it in the references. Dr. Stone also holds the copyright to the site. What I'd like to clarify is that I wrote the Wikipedia article before Dr. Stone made his website. This is verifiable by the recorded creation dates of both web pages. The history section of my Wikipedia artice, which can be viewed here, shows that I created it and wrote the bulk of it on December 29, 2009. The Who Is website shows that the Wielder of Words site was created on April 5, 2010, which can be seen here. (You'll have to enter the domain name to see the date; I can't link to it directly.)

Although I don't think it was necessary given the free nature of Wiki information, Dr. Stone did get my permission to incorporate the text from my Wikipedia article into his website about his mother. (I'm certainly not implying that he violated any copyright, either.) I believe the dates of creation should allay any concerns about copyright infringement.

As for the numerous references, I was trying to list everything even alluded to in either the article or its links. Admittedly, my compulsive nature probably led to overkill, with some references having only a tenuous connection to the text of the article. I'm a literary historian (with a special interest in modern poetry), and am prone to being overly inclusive. I'm happy to clean up the references section.

Since it seems unlikely that most readers of both web pages would check the dates the pages were created, your concern that the page I wrote might be deleted due to copyright concerns is a very good point. I can think of a couple of ways to prevent this. The easiest thing would be for me to ask Dr. Stone for permission to use text from his website in my Wikipedia article. Another option would be for me to rewrite the article from scratch, although I must admit that the time and effort involved make this a less desirable option for me. But I don't want the article to be deleted. What would you recommend?

Thanks you for reading this long entry.

Mary Ann

--Mah Jong (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was asked to help out here, since I am experienced at working with copyright issues on Wikipedia.

First you are, of course, quite right that Dr. Stone has not violated copyright. As you were the sole contributor of the content on Wikipedia, you retain full copyright to that text, and you have the right to make whatever arrangement you wish in regards to publishing it elsewhere. Had other Wikipedians contributed to that text, he would have had to honor the conditions set out at WP:REUSE.

But even with the dating of the domain, there could be confusion about this text in the future. We will not be able to prove, for instance, that Dr. Stone did not publish this in some magazine or newspaper article or at another domain prior to your placement of it here. I'm not doubting your word at all, just explaining why additional verification is a good idea. Otherwise, we do run a chance that the content may be deleted in the future.

The easiest thing for Dr. Stone to do would be to acknowledge your contribution at his website. If he indicated that the content was courtesy of you, that would simplify matters considerably, although unless he used your Wikipedia username and mentioned your Wikipedia affiliation, we'd still have to connect you to the name he used. Not impossible, and if this is the route you prefer, let me know.

It may be easier to have Dr. Stone write to the Wikimedia Foundation acknowledging the origin of the material to you and the Wikipedia article. If you want to go this route, I can help, as I am a volunteer of the Wikimedia Foundation's e-mail system. That means that I could be your correspondent and I'd already know what's going on. A huge time-saver. :) I'm keeping an eye on your talk page, so I should see any reply you leave me here. (And if perchance you answer here and I don't pop by, then probably I have overlooked it, in which case please come by my talk page and give me a nudge. I have around 2000 pages I watch, and while I try not to miss anything I'm sure I occasionally do!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help! Most of the text on Dr. Stone's site was not based on my article, only part of it -- mainly the summary on the first page. So I'm not sure about asking him to list me as the origin of the material. He does link Ms. Stone's name to the Wikipedia article at the beginning of the main biography page, which I took as acknowledgment. Do you think it would be enough if I asked him to link to the article on the first page, as well? This would link the summary I mentioned above directly to the Wikipedia article. --Mah Jong (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your note at my talk page. It does make it easier. :)

The link, I'm afraid, wouldn't be sufficient. Since this is a legal issue, we need something a bit more concrete. The e-mail is probably the best approach. If you can, please ask Dr. Stone to write to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. This is our specialized e-mail address for copyright matters. The e-mail account he uses to contact that address should be clearly connected to the domain. Please ask him to mention by name the Wikipedia article, to provide a link to his website, and to explain that he did not author the content on his website that also appears in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donna_J._Stone&oldid=356336059>. Providing the specific link can help avoid confusion if another OTRS agent should pick up the letter before I do. If he's willing to do this and you let me know that he's sent the letter, I'll head to the e-mail queue to see if I can intercept it. If there are any particulars that are missed, I can communicate with him directly to let him know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've put a "welcome mat" at the top of your talk page. You may already know everything it has to offer, but I found the one I was given useful for quite some time. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the welcome mat, it is quite helpful. I heard back from Dr. Stone, and he rewrote the home page to Wielder of Words. I looked at the page and the text has been completely revised, no longer resembling the Wikipedia article I wrote. Didn't expect him to do that, but does that solve the copyright problem? --Mah Jong (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance he'd be willing to send the e-mail, too? I'm afraid that removing it from publication doesn't change the fact that he did publish it under claim of his own copyright. :/ Sorry this is so complicated! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...I don't know. I'll email him again and ask. I assume he'll ask me so I'll ask you: Since he didn't violate copyright, why is the email still needed? --Mah Jong (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we can prove that we didn't. As I said, the fact that his website postdates the entry is good, but it would be difficult to prove that he hadn't published it elsewhere. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember now. I'll email him. Thanks for all your patience! --Mah Jong (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I do this a lot, so it's old hat for me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Received word that Dr. Stone sent the email today. Did it do the trick? --Mah Jong (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thank you for the heads up. I went to check the e-mail queue, and it has arrived, and he has beautifully explained the situation. I've marked the material as cleared at the talk page. His letter will be retained in the Wikimedia Foundation's e-mail system so that any future confusion about the origin of the text should be swiftly dealt with. Thank you very much for your patience with the process. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm so glad it worked out. Thanks for reposting the page, and thank you so much for your help in resolving this issue. I'll let him know that his mother's page back up, and I know he'll be grateful, as well. Have a nice weekend! --Mah Jong (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You, too. And good luck with your future contributions. If I can be of help to you in any way, feel free to come by. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]