User talk:Tammydunst

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Janice Urnstein Weissman

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Janice Urnstein Weissman, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/feminist_art_base/gallery/janice_weissman.php.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw your question on Coren's page. He hasn't been on on a few days, so I thought I'd give you an explanation here. Essentially, the issue is that the text on her web site (which the museum copied) is not published under a free license. Since Wikipedia releases its content under This Free License (which allows anyone anywhere to use, re-use, copy, modify, parody, or basically any purpose whatsoever, and not just on Wikipedia), we must ensure that source material is similarly licensed. I'm sure the artist doesn't mind her bio being distributed freely, but she may not want it changed, copied, or any of the other possibilities that our free license allows. In order to make sure we are allowed to basically "give away" that content, it must be clearly published under a compatible free license, otherwise for legal reasons it must be removed.
So, there are a couple of options as how to move forward. If the artist is ok with releasing that text under a free license, she can state so on the web site. It must be stated in a specific way, with links to the license, and so on: see WP:DONATETEXT for the format (or I can spell it all out here if that is the plan). Secondly, the copyright owner who wrote the original text can e-mail the address specified in the previous link (permissions-en@wikimedia.org) and discuss that through email. This will take a bit longer, as there are steps that must be taken to ensure the identity and ownership of the material. Lastly, if the artist wants to keep total control over the use and re-use of that text, then the text appearing here must be re-written in your own words to avoid copyright infringement.
I hope this helps. Feel free to ask me any questions here. Crow^Caw 22:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crow Crow^Caw: I have no idea if you are going to see this because I am completely clueless on all of this! But, many, many thanks for your input. I greatly appreciate it. I will forward this on to the artist and help her decide the best option. I am sure I will need your help again!! Thank you! Tammydunst (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tammydunst yes I did see it (of course) and you can reply here with any questions. Responding to your comment on my own page, the main issue is more of a legalese one than an internetty one. If she wants to keep control over how that text of her bio is used, then that's option 3 above (remove it or re-write it). If she wants to "donate" that text so anyone anywhere (not just wikipedia) can use it for any purpose they want to, then that's option 1 (easiest) or option 2. Crow^Caw 21:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Janice Urnstein Weissman

Hello Tammydunst,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Janice Urnstein Weissman for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. LowLevel73^(talk) 04:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Tammy, I saw your note and yes, the page was deleted for copyright concerns. You can still move forward with releasing the content, and in fact I would advise to get that all properly done before re-creating the article, or it will probably just be deleted again. As for hiring people to write articles, we tend to frown on that here. I still think your best bet is to just write the article in your own words as, copyright issues aside, that text is also rather promotional in tone, and is likely to get heavily edited down from that state by others.
The ideal way to proceed is: slowly. There's no need to have the article in its final state on day-1. In fact, if you write it in the Draft area of Wikipedia, there's no deadline at all, as long as you keep working on it. I can help with this as well if you'd like. Crow^Caw 23:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Crow^Caw. Thanks again for continuing to help me out. Janice has submitted the email with appropriate verbiage to the email indicated in the guidelines. At this point, I'm not sure if I should just attempt to rewrite the bio. The artist statement is trickier. The artist statement is interesting and pertinent to her feminist viewpoint in her artwork and how it applies to the nudes she paints. Tammydunst (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since an email has been sent, the best bet right now is to start it in the draft space as the email volunteers will want an article to refer to. To start in Draft space, click this link and save the page: Draft:Janice Urnstein Weissman, and note on Draft talk:Janice Urnstein Weissman that "an OTRS email has been sent" regarding release of the copyrighted text. The other nice thing about Draft space is that you can work on the article without fear of it being summarily deleted, as happens all too often to new editors; the draft will have a "Submit" button that lets someone else review it and offer feedback on what may still need to be worked on.
Additionally, there is the Teahouse where you can ask opinions without actually submitting the whole article, such as if you wanted to check to see if text would be considered overly promotional. I hope this all helps! Crow^Caw 23:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would suggest before anything, reading This Page about Notability. That word, as used here, has nothing to do with real-world significance or importance, but is a term-of-art (no pun intended) to show how much other people have already written about the subject. In order to be accepted as an article, the topic must have been the subject of coverage by multiple, non-trivial, not-related-to-the-subject, articles or other coverage by reliable sources. I see a lot of exhibition summaries and "teaser" type blurbs to attract an audience when I google her name, but not a lot that goes in depth into the artist herself. Granted I didn't look too deeply, but I'm just letting you know the proverbial bar here. And lastly, consider This Article which lets you know what to expect once an article is written. Again, I hope this is helpful and not too overwhelming! Crow^Caw 23:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]