Jump to content

User talk:Waterfox1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Waterfox1, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Oxymoron83 11:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}
Thank you for the helpful response. I have made considerable progress working in my sandbox on Cold War Legacies.

I'm about ready to start uploading my text, which has been reformatted to wikipedia standards. However, I keep encountering a problem for which I cannot find any wikipedia "help" advice. The problem is: when I load text separated by double break or Hrt intervals, the previewed text looks fine, but the editable text gets bunched up into a single blob (containing and ignoring the various break or hard-return codes).

No matter what I try, including copying and resinserting existing wikipedia articles, the bunched up non-conforming result reoccurs. Any ideas?

waterfox1 17:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You sound like you're encountering a recent bug that is still being tracked down. To turn off the problematic feature, go into "my preferences" at the top right, choose the "editing" tab, and scroll to the bottom and ensure all three experimental features are unchecked. I think that should resolve your problem. Hope that helps, --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! The unchecking ridded me of this elusive problem that plagued me for days. waterfox1 20:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Cold War Legacies

[edit]

Hello, the article Cold War Legacies which you added contains only a small amount of information that appears to be a draft. In order to remain on the article space, the article must contain sufficient information to show that it meets the notability criteria. If you would like to work on a draft for later posting as an article, I can move the article to your userspace (which is not private) where you can work on it until you are satisfied that it can be posted to the article space. Note that doing this is not a guarantee that the article merits inclusion criteria, but it will save you a lot of headache and heartache. In its current state, the article may be deleted rather quickly; in fact, I'm surprised it hasn't already been deleted. Let me know if you would like me to move the draft by responding below and I'll gladly do it for you. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Help Me}} Thanks for the advice received to date. I have been working on a contribution (derived from one of my published books) that will flesh out Cold War "legacies." I have spent the last month or so creating and editing text and loading it into my sandbox User:Waterfox1/Cold War Legacies. I'm not done quite yet, but getting close enough to request assistance in preparation for uploading it as a subsection to the Legacies section of Cold War. Please advise on how to go about the it and gain the benefit of experienced Wikipedia editorial assistance. waterfox1 21:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia Project for "Cold War". It would be more useful for you to post a question on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cold War, then like minded editors can give you the assistance you need. A quick view of your 4 new pages - shows one major problem :- No inline references - please have a read of WP:CITE, a manual list at the end will not do, editors will add bits, and no one will want to keep changing numbers to keep the list correct. Properly cited in-line references number themselves automatically.
Thanks for the response, and I will follow up. Your view of the four "pages" might have been a bit too quick, as there are over 50 citations spread throughout; nevertheless, I don't doubt the need for more. waterfox1 17:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Why remove the Amazon link? I presume that the only reason to link to Amazon is not because they're the publisher of the book, but for some other reason. In reviewing some of the information that's been provided to you on how to do inline references and topic headings, it doesn't appear that you're grasping some of the basics. Another issue is that this material seems like a book, rather than an encyclopedia. A lot what you've written seems to be original research and if that's the case, a lot of the material you've generated isn't appropriate for this resource. You could instead post most of this to Wikibooks. You need to take a lot of the analysis out, and some of the speculation in what you've written. Another thing is that a lot what you've written is prescriptive, rather than descriptive. What you've written is great, detailed, but not suitably referenced. Consider making a contribution to wikibooks instead? Hires an editor (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you and others taking the time to respond. However, there are still a number of my questions that remain unanswered. I did try posting earlier on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cold War, but I received no responses at all.

I notice that you and another respondent mention what might appear to be a lack of inline references. As I’ve indicated, there are many cited, and I think the reason for the disparity is that the six main articles I wrote have not all been posted. While the summaries and lead-ins, which you might have read, have only a few citations, there are many in the six main articles.

That brings me the main problem that no one seems to be able to help so far. I followed somebody’s advice and deleted the / preceding the names of the six articles, but to date only two are published. Where are the others? Someone, PLEASE help with that problem. We can deal with the other issues later. I do have copies of my original postings, but I did make some changes to the wikipedia versions afterwards of which I do not have a record.

There should be six self-standing articles, replete with citations: Cold War Radiation Legacies, Cold War Nuclear Legacies, Cold War Military Legacies, Cold War Security Legacies, Cold War Institutional Legacies, and Cold War Economic Legacies. Each of these is reached through the umbrella title and summary Cold War Legacies, which was intended to be linked to Legacies section of the main article Cold War.

After this matter is sorted out, I am willing to respond the other questions you raised. waterfox1 (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Cold War Legacies

[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help request, re. Cold War Legacy

[edit]

{{Help Me}} Having completed text to be added to the Legacy subsection of Cold War, I am requesting step-by-step assistance or fulfillment in carrying through that transition. I have no experience in exporting an article and importing it into an existing page, and I don't want to take the risk of creating problems with the main article. The Cold War Legacies article is currently in my sandbox User:Waterfox1 and is ready to be imported into the main article, at which time it can undergo peer review and editing. In the meantime, I will be working on importing some images, subject to their validation. waterfox1 19:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have moved your request for help over to your own talk page, and I will try to assist you here. I will respond more in a few minutes; I think I see what you want to do. More soon,  Chzz  ►  19:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In User:Waterfox1/Cold War Legacies, in the subsection headings, you should write a summary of the sub-article, and use the {{main}} template; the headings don't need the word 'legacy', because the is the article subject. For example (just a vague idea).
==Cold War Radiation==

{{main|Cold War Radiation Legacies}}

Following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during [[World War II]], 
...etc. (further summary here)

...each section would then look something like this;

Cold War Radiation

[edit]
Main article: Cold War Radiation Legacies

Following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, ...etc. (further summary here)

...and so on, for each sub-topic.

  • Next, before making the sub-articles live, I suggest that you work on the references, and try to add in-line references; currently, it is not possible to tell which facts come from which source. I will add a guide on referencing to this page.
  • Once the sub-articles are ready to go live, you should move them to the live area.
  • Finally, you should copy the User:Waterfox1/Cold War Legacies (with the new summary-style 'see main article' things) to the Cold War article. You do this with copy-and-paste; as it is your own work, this is fine. In fact, it is far more preferable for you to do this yourself, so that your username is correctly attributed with the authorship in the target article.

Some clarification of this whole concept may be gleaned from WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.

I hope that this is sufficient explanation to get things started; if you do require further assistance, please use a {{helpme}} here, on your own talk page. You may also wish to contact me directly on my talk page, or obtain live assistance. Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your prompt and thorough response is appreciated. I'll start right away, trying to follow your guidance. As for inline references, there are over 70 unique citations spread throughout the 6 articles, in addition to the wikipedia article references. I do, however, need to apply the second-usage shortcut. I expect that after posting, I will receive requests for specific citations. waterfox1 21:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
User:Chzz asked that I take a look and offer help which I am happy to do. I think he has answered your questions nicely. A couple of questions:
  • Are you creating an article separate from the main cold war article - a kind of content fork?
  • Do you need help with the references?
Sorry for my delay in responding but I've been tied up in real life. JodyB talk 12:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up. The article is essentially a expansion of the Legacy section of the main article Cold War. I think I have the references well enough in hand for this stage. I'm just about ready to post it. waterfox1 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Help Me}} I'm ready to post (move) my article "Cold War Legacies." I have the following question: What do I do about the 6 subpages? Right now they are posted with a slash designation (i.e., /Cold War Radiation Legacies). Do I remove the / in front of each subpage before moving the main article Cold War Legacies, or are some other steps required so the entire article is moved as one coherent block?

Second question: Once the Cold War Legacies article with its 6 subsections is moved to the mainspace, I want to place a link in the Legacy section of the main article Cold War. My provisional intent is to edit that Legacy section and add the following sentence: "A more specific description of Cold War radiation, nuclear, military, security, institutional, and economic legacies can be found in the following article:

Main article: Cold War Legacies

." Is this an accepted way to start out the merge?

Any experienced guidance would be appreciated waterfox1 19:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Remove the /. The articles will be called simply "Cold War Radiation Legacies" etc. Wikipedia articles are a 'flat structure' - the subdivision/subtopics is implicit; the intent is to create a theoretical structure with a 'top-level article' pointing to sub-articles, but that structure is merely created by the links you make. Other articles may well link in to the "sub" articles directly, and they will link out to others. There is no hierarchical structure. Article titles describe the topic, nothing more, nothing less - no "/".
  • Yes, your idea for linking using the {{main}} is perfect. Note that the main template should appear right at the beginning of a section, directly under the heading - e.g.
== Legacy
{{main|Cold War Legacies}}
...summary paragraphs here, summarizing the content of the 'cold war legacies' article'
Hope this answers; please feel free to ask for more clarification, it's not the easiest of topics. The articles are looking good though - interesting stuff.  Chzz  ►  21:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{Help Me}} Everything went well except that the six substantive articles Cold War Radiation Legacies, Cold War Nuclear Legacies, etc., have disappeared! The main article links have at least temporarily taken hold up to Cold War Legacies, but the sections that previously had a / are not -- at least now -- visible.

waterfox1 16:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I should add that those six articles contain the vast bulk of content that I am adding to Wikipedia; everything at higher level was simply an introduction to the six substantive articles. waterfox1 17:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question. I still see your content at User:Waterfox1/Cold War Legacies/Cold War Nuclear Legacies. Is this what you were referring to? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I see that one article there, but it -- along with five other articles (Cold War Nuclear Legacies, Cold War Military Legacies, Cold War Security Legacies, Cold War Institutional Legacies, and Cold War Economic Legacies) were supposed to transferred to the main space so they would be linked to the article title "Cold War Legacies." I thought I had followed Chazz's instructions properly, but apparently not. Your help would be appreciated to install these linked articles. It is well outside my experience level; I have enough difficulty just trying to figure out how to ask for help. waterfox1 17:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Help Me}} It seems like my request for help has fallen in the cracks. I'm worried that what I had in mind is getting all bolexed up. I had intended to add six subarticles to the Legacy section of Cold War; however, in following previous suggestions it seems to have gone awry. In fact, I don't even see what I added to the Legacy section as links to be there any longer.

Basically, I have written 6 long articles as mentioned above, following prior discussions I have attempted to move and link them with the following heirarchy intended:

Cold War

Legacy
Cold War Legacies
Cold War Radiation Legacies
Cold War Nuclear Legacies
etc (for four more articles as mentioned above.

The article Cold War Legacies is OK, except that its "Further information" links are missing. Each topic has a brief summary, but the Further information in red is supposed to link to the original articles that were in my sandbox and previously preceded by a slash, which I removed as advised.

Someone please help a neophyte out, especially before several months of writing and editing disappears. Right now, I have no idea where the six big articles are, and nothing seems to linked as planned. The topic Cold War Legacies was intended to be directly accessed from Legacy and not as a "see-also" article placed at the end of Cold War. I hope someone can sort this out as it is not being posted like it was intended. waterfox1 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to move the pages as well. They are still at User:Waterfox1/Cold War Legacies/Cold War Radiation Legacies and User:Waterfox1/Cold War Legacies/Cold War Nuclear Legacies  fetchcomms☛ 00:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Help Me}} The problem is not resolved. If you look further and follow the links, you will see that only the summaries for each topic are there, but the main articles (for further information) are highlighted in red, (such as Cold War Military Legacies); they do not link to what were the original long main articles for each of the six topics. waterfox1 (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to manually move the pages into the mainspace first.  fetchcomms☛ 17:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I see that the first two of the six articles have appeared and are being edited by the community. Maybe in my fledgling state, I am unaware of how the process works, and should be patient for the other articles to appear? I'd be relieved if someone would clue me in. waterfox1 (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How references work

[edit]

Simple references

[edit]

These require two parts;

a)
Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>
b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";
== References ==
{{reflist}}

(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)

To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:Waterfox1/reftest and try it out.

Named references

[edit]
Chzz was born in 1837, <ref name="MyBook">
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 
</ref> in Footown.<ref name="MyBook"/>

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

Citation templates

[edit]

You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look; 

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
 | last = Smith
 | first = John
 | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
 | publication-date = 2001
 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Your signature

[edit]

Hello, it appears you are using a custom signature. To assist others, it is generally preferred that your signature include a link to your user or talk page (the default signature uses both). Currently there is no link. Could you please correct this to assist other users that may need to get in contact with you? Thanks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I unchecked the box for custom signature, which I think is what you are suggesting. Let me know if that works. waterfox1 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helping you out

[edit]

The problem with asking for help on wikipedia, is that almost no one will help you. They will maybe see something they're interested in, and do something, but it doesn't happen right away. You have been given help on how to do things, but haven't done them. I've found that WP is more of a "teach you how to fish" kind of place, than a "catch the fish for you" kind of place.

Part of what you've done is everything. Most of what you've written needs to be wikified. With Cold War Nuclear Legacies, for example, it doesn't just need wikifying, it needs copious references. I think you have 8, and for an article of that size, I'd expect 50 or more. How did you come up with all of this information? Where did it come from? Need references to show where it came from. It's like math: "show your work."

Another thing I notice is your reliance on the "help me" thing. Looking through the comments on this page I see that people have been willing to help. What you're not doing is responding to them on their talk page. If you look at my talk page, you'll notice that I respond to people on their talk pages after they respond on mine. Sometimes the whole conversation is on one person's talk page, sometimes not. In your case, I'd say you would get a lot better conversation if you respond on their talk pages asking for help. They probably aren't responding to you on your talk page because they aren't "watching" it. They may respond to you on your talk page, or they may respond on theirs. Because you're the newbie here, I'd say you should keep up with their pages, rather than expecting them to keep up with yours. (you may have had that expectation without even realizing it, btw)

As for why your articles got deleted right away? That's a problem that WP has. I'll move them over to the main space from your userspace, and they should stay there, but we'll need to tag them appropriately as needing work, but suitable for staying in...Hires an editor (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War Legacies, Part II

[edit]
Somehow, the Legacy section from Cold War has been copied by someone else almost in its entirety into my lead-in to the six-article series, so that now Cold War Legacies is almost all duplication of Legacy with nearly nothing of my original lead-in. I don’t think the complete duplication is desirable or necessary, inasmuch as the exact text resides in the main article. The introduction I had prepared did not have such duplication, and it was intended to make a smooth transition to the new series of articles about each of the six delineated legacies. Is it possible for you, since you seem so experienced, to revert to the original lead-in that I supplied, and then reset the editing/revision process from that starting point? In fact, I had tried to emulate the other sections under Cold War such that Cold War Legacies would be treated similarly as a “main article” referenced at the beginning (or end) of Legacy.
I'm responsible for cutting and pasting from the main article that section to the Cold War Legacies article intro. The reason I did that is because I realized that the original intro wasn't at all encyclopedic, and was very self referential. I also put that in there as a way to get out of being locked into what was already there, since the article is a little more tightly focused than it should be for the topic. I thought that the intro should be broader, to guide the article to be broader. In the Institution legacies, I'd expect to see something about the CIA's loss of raison d'être, and the same kind of thing for the successor to the KGB. There's also nothing about the Soviet Satellite states' transitions/legacies, either. The nuclear legacies could be its own article almost, but instead, I just made subsections, since those three are all the same topic, "nuclear/radiation" related. There's more, but I hope you get the idea. It's a lot of work to work on what's already there, and lots more could be added to the article along the lines I've mentioned. Hires an editor (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that somebody experienced in WP and in CW history has seized the initiative, and I'll happily leave the ball in your court (to mix up metaphors). I assume you'll take into consideration my original strategy, but adopt whatever you consider to be a coherent approach that will eliminate the specific duplication I mentioned.

As for the CIA and FSB transitions, I frankly didn't and don't give much weight to their new roles.

I agree about the articles' shortfall in FSU satellite conditions, and don't doubt that there's some redundancy and value in reorganization.

Being self-referential is part of a scientific tradition to begin at some previously published point, with all of its own internal backup and references, and then go from there. Of course, it's not particularly appropriate for an encyclopedia. Please ping me if I can be of any specific help, such as digging out some specific references.

Meanwhile, I'll attempt to insert some images and occasionally monitor progress. 72.197.143.144 (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Cold War nuclear legacies, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://openlibrary.org/books/OL16273988M/Nuclear_shadowboxing Nuclear Shadowboxing" Volume 2: Legacies and Challenges, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Cold War nuclear legacies saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — CactusWriter (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Cold War Radiation Legacies, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from Nuclear Shadowboxing: Legacies and Challenges by A. DeVolpi, V.E. Minkov, G.S. Stanford, and V.A. Simonenko, Fidlar Doubleday, 2005, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Cold War Radiation Legacies saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — CactusWriter (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Military effects of the Cold War, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from Nuclear Shadowboxing: Legacies and Challenges by A. DeVolpi, V.E. Minkov, G.S. Stanford, and V.A. Simonenko, Fidlar Doubleday, 2005, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Military effects of the Cold War saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — CactusWriter (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Since we do not yet have verification of permission by the processes set out above and sufficient time has passed since the placement of the notice, the articles have been deleted for copyright concerns. This deletion is not necessarily permanent. If you have already sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), the articles will be restored when that letter is received and processed by the Wikimedia Communications committee. Likewise, if you have not yet sent a letter, you still may (or resend it, if you believe your original may have been lost), and the articles will be restored when that letter is received and processed.

As Wikipedia does not require proof of identity on account creation, it is essential that we receive external proof of authorization in order to ensure that we remain compliant with US Copyright law. It is also essential that we verify that copyright holders understand the extent of the release they are authorizing, in that our licenses permit modification and reuse in any forum, even commercial publication, as long as authorship credit is maintained and future copies are compatibly licensed.

Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your response at my talk page, but I'm afraid that we do require external verification by one of the processes above for the reasons that I explained. This requirement is universal; all Wikipedia contributors, even administrators, must go through it. If you need help completing the processes, I am happy to facilitate in any way I can. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I happened by Wikipedia today, and tried to check on the status of my contribution, Cold War Legacies, but frankly I have obsoleted myself, and need to ask for your help, if any is needed. Because of an unrelated book I'm writing at the moment, I just don't have time to attend to this; in fact, I have no idea where the matter stands and I find the related Talk pages overwhelming.

As I mentioned before, I am the copyright holder for both Nuclear Shadowboxing and Nuclear Insights; so please help by taking care of the issues. Because I don't have any time to track the talk pages, any inquiries will have to be sent to me directly at waterfoxg@gmail.com

Sorry, but that's the best I can do. The Wikipedia relearning curve is too steep and time-consuming, and I admire those of you who have the time to persist. In fact, I'm a inveterate Wikipedia user/absorber for the unrelated book that I mentioned.

--Alex

____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfox1 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm very sorry, but I cannot take care of the issue. It has to be handled externally. Because Wikipedia has no means of verifying your identity on your account creation, it requires that all copyright permissions be provided outside of Wikipedia. This requirement holds true for contributors of all levels; even though I am a system administrator, I could not myself place previously published content on the project without verifying copyright through one of these processes.
When content is copied from a website, that permission can be easily provided at the website. When it's taken from a book, the situation is more complex...not only because it's much harder to prove identity, but also because the ability to license the content can be complicated. A few years ago, we had to remove quite a bit of content placed by the author of material from his books on Scottish history because it turned out that his publisher's license required that they also give permission, and they would not. It seems like these books have been published by "Print on Demand" imprint Fidlar Doubleday. If they are the sole publishers, then it is unlikely that they retain licensing rights. In that case, you may be able to release the content at your website. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the processes.
There is no urgency; the content has all been deleted. But verification will have to be supplied by you through one of those acceptable methods if it is to be restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org cc: Moonriddengirl (via Talk page)

In connection with articles I have published on wikipedia under Cold War Legacy, I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Nuclear Shadowboxing: Contemporary Threats from Cold War Weaponry, published by Fidlar Doubleday (Volume 1: 2004 ISBN ; Volume 2: 2005 ISBN ) I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

--Alexander DeVolpi, lead author, copyright-holder, and appointed representative of copyright co-holders.

11 December 2010 waterfoxg@gmail.com waterfox1 (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Waterfox1&oldid=1148812563"