User talk:Marchingnews2015

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

Wrong place[edit]

Hi Wiki, I added 2 articles but it does not seem like I added them in the right areas. Can you please look at my username and confirm. -Tuxedo Nature Book -Richard Kimball ComposerMarchingnews2015 (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Marchingnews2015, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy deletion candidate). Doing so will take you to your user talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also edit this page directly to give your reasons, 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 help make it encyclopedic. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (I understand your concern, allow me to remove the promotional content and add more content related to the essence and value the book offers its readership, the author is donating the profits to the town of Tuxedo and the environmental biodiversity value it quite stupendous but it should be more clearly stated as you notedMarchingnews2015 (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)) --Marchingnews2015 (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Deb (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb,

Yes, I understand your concern and realize it should have been written better. Allow me to resubmit... Marchingnews2015 (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tuxedo Park: The Gift of Nature (October 9)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Primefac (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primefac, thank you for your comments i will improve the article the best I can, if still not suitable then we can come back to it another time since the book was only recently published and it may need more time to acquire stronger notability for Wiki's requirements.Marchingnews2015 (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marchingnews2015, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Marchingnews2015! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! ChamithN (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks[edit]

Please learn that Wikipedia is not a reliable source - we do not create links to Wikipedia as <ref>s. If you had actually looked at this edit, you would have seen that I had converted four refs into wikilinks. With your latest edits to draft:Richard Kimball (pianist / composer) you have put in more refs to Wikipedia. I have taken them out but this time I leave you to create the needed wikilinks. Also note that we do not start the text with a == heading: we go straight in with a "lede" section a few hundred bytes long which should state clearly why the guy is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I am sorry but I am confused about something, I received this notice on the first submission, "This article has no links to other Wikipedia articles. Please help improve this article by adding links that are relevant to the context within the existing text". That is the reason why I added the wikilinks to the first few names in the beginning of the article. Now you told me you took them out and ask me to create the needed wikilinks. What is the different between what I first did, which you removed, and what you want me to do? And can you give me an example of what you mean by lede section? I understand your point in theory but I would like to see an example. I can look it up, of course, but just asking in case you have one I can reference. Thank you for your help.Marchingnews2015 (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake! Cannot you see the difference? <ref>"Luciano Berio". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)</ref> is triply wrong: it is a ref, not a link, it uses external link format (ie. not a wikilink) and, for some strange reason, links to a specific state of the article instead of the latest. Luciano Berio is a correct wikilink. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede? Again, for goodness sake! Try following some of the links you created: Luciano Berio, Alexander Gretchaninov and Hall Overton. In each case the lede is that which precedes the contents box. The lede in this state (note this is a example of a valid link to a specific edit) of the Kimball article shows promise but could be about twice as long. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry, I am getting it all now. I found the right button and added the lead in.17:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Marchingnews2015 (talk)

Norman J. Rees[edit]

Hello Marchingnews2015, thanks for your additions to that article. Just a few tips: most Wikipedia articles do not have a section named "summary", the summary (called lead or lede) is simply the first section in the article and the only visible section without an own header (see MOS:LEAD for more information). Also, headers don't get an additional bold format - being headers they are automatically formatted by the Wiki software.(more information about general article structure can be found at MOS:LAYOUT). Hope those tips are helpful, if you have questions please feel free to ping me or post on Wikipedia:Teahouse for assistance. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Germanjoe, I greatly appreciate your comments. Thank you 08:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Marchingnews2015 (talk)

Nomination of Rick Kimball for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rick Kimball is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Kimball until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oscarthecat (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oscarthecat, I based my decision to make the article given there are many VC's on wiki with similar backgrounds. What is notable about Kimball, he has brought many top household names to the public market and is responsible for some of the culture today with the internet fascination. please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_venture_capitalists Marchingnews2015 (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oscarthecat, I meant to include this too....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brook_ByersMarchingnews2015 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Distinguished Careers Institute[edit]

Hello, and thank you for adding material about Stanford's Distinguished Careers Institute to Wikipedia. I wanted you to know that I have moved the information from the Stanford University article, where it was excessive detail, to Stanford University centers and institutes where such institutes belong. At that article I wasn't sure whether it should be listed under "Independent laboratories, institutes and centers" or "Other research centers"; which would be more appopriate? --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melanie, thank you very much. I was trying to find the right place and was not happy with the location I choose but I knew the DCI content was relevant to the institution. I think it is best under "Independent laboratories, institutes and centers" the latter 2 being the most appropriate. Again, thank you very much. 07:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Marchingnews2015 (talk)

Hi Melanie, I would like to include the fellows since they all have significant backgrounds. Do you disagree? Or I could create another page.08:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Marchingnews2015 (talk)

Certainly the fellows have significant backgrounds; they are "distinguished" by definition. But if you look at the article, Stanford University centers and institutes, you will see that although the directors are usually listed, the fellows are not - probably because listing all the fellows in all the institutes would quickly overwhelm the article. I suppose you could try creating a page "Stanford Distinguished Careers Institute", but I suspect it would get deleted. Please see WP:GNG. In order for a subject to have an article here, it must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources - reporting not from Stanford itself, not press releases, not the Daily, but actual reporting from significant outside sources. It is very unlikely that the DCI has received such coverage. Look at it this way: Stanford has many "centers and institutions", but the only one that has a separate article is the highly notable Hoover Institution. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tuxedo Park: The Gift of Nature has been accepted[edit]

Tuxedo Park: The Gift of Nature, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SwisterTwister the article was now deleted, is it normal to be approved one day and deleted the next?

Speedy deletion nomination of Rick Kimball[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Rick Kimball, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  GILO   A&E⇑ 16:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Marchingnews2015, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Richard Kimball (pianist / composer) has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello CactusWriter My apologies and I will be more careful. Was the content taken down due to a plagiarism check of did the copyrighter complain? Should I resubmit with new content?02:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Marchingnews2015 (talk)


Copyright violation in Tuxedo Park: The Gift of Nature[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the page Tuxedo Park: The Gift of Nature, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition was deleted under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." You may also e-mail or mail the Foundation to release the content. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more.

While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit I will have it rewritten. Can you tell me how you are testing for infringement since I believe that I changed the content rather well from the original source.11:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Marchingnews2015 (talk)

Fuhghettaboutit, any reason why you couldn't just delete the section of content you felt was infringement? I am fairly certain the whole article was not a blatant infringement.11:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Marchingnews2015 (talk)


Fuhghettaboutit, Do you still have a copy of the original content? 12:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Marchingnews2015 (talk)

It is viewable by administrators. If you want to work on it again, I can userfy it with a skeleton of the former content. By the way, if you want to draw someone to your page, you have to provide a link to their username in a signed post. I happened to see your post, but was not notified of it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit (talk) thank you for your response. Sorry I did not use the link in the username. I must say I truly respect ALL you editors and wiki personnel for creating such an excellent WIKI system with all its checks and balances. Super Kudos. Yes I would like to see the skeleton please.04:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Marchingnews2015 (talk)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hotel Olympia - New York City[edit]

A tag has been placed on Hotel Olympia - New York City requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2 (talk) I feel the hotel has significance, an unsolved murder happened there in 1919 and it is the site of the Lorillard building today. I will place the remaining content shortly. I tagged this on Talk thinking it will give me time to build the page. Can I place it in another category so I have more time?01:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)01:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Copyright violation repost[edit]

I went to userfy a skeleton of the draft article just now, as I offered to do, and found that you had recreated it again, copyvios and all. Accordingly, it is now deleted, I will not be userfying it and I am notifying you that any further copyright violations may result in an indefinite block from further editing without further notice. Copyright infringement is a serious matter, not just some internal norm, with a possibility of legal consequences for both you and for Wikipedia. With the fair use exception of short quotes, marked as such with quotation marks and cited through an inline citation, you may not copy other's writing. Everything else must be written entirely in your own words.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Fuhghettaboutit (talk) Before I re-posted, I rewrote the content, it is different than the original (With minor overlap which was impossible to avoid due to the scientific terms) and I checked all the content on plagiarism testing sites and it was not copied at all. I am not seeing where you find it was copied. Can you please be more specific as to where you are finding the duplicate content? I understand and respect the rules but if I cannot see the issue you are referring to. I included the quotes, provided relevant wiki links, changed all the content around once again, except for scientific words/titles. 01:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)01:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

(e/c) I've just spent a few hours going through your edits hiding the visibility of numerous copyright violations, and deleting others. I write this mainly for others but they include:
  • List of Brookings Institution scholars
  • Stanford University
  • Coffee table book
  • Chronic care
  • Capital (economics)
  • Floristic Quality Index (deleted)
  • Ralph Lauren Center for Cancer Care and Prevention (deleted)
  • Tuxedo Park, New York
The warning above is from before seeing the breadth of the copyright violations; the issue is further highlighted now. Additionally, please stop promoting Richard Kimball across Wikipedia. Luckily, many different users reverted your edits so I only need to add a few to the mix.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I edit conflicted with you and this message was written before seeing you post above, I will respond in a little while to that separately.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no, we're not talking about some minor close paraphrasing of a few words.
The "rewrite":
"...is the third volume in an illustrated trilogy about this historic New York community ... characteristics that have placed Tuxedo Park in a league of its own ... Proceeds from all three books benefit local community not-for-profit organizations."
The source
"...is the third volume in an illustrated trilogy about this historic community ... characteristics that have put Tuxedo Park in a league of its own ... Proceeds from all three books benefit community not-for-profit organizations."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit (talk) I do not mean to cause you extra work and I will back off from any more edits until I get what I have submitted correct and acceptable. I want to understand a few thing please: List of Brookings Institution scholars - you are telling me that adding the LINK and the name Richard Kimball was OK but how I described it was a violation? Stanford University - MelanieN (talk) approved this edit and only moved the location (see my talk page) what is your concern on this edit? Coffee table book - I added an example of a coffee table book (Tuxedo Park - The Gift of Nature) doesn't it make sense to show examples for someone who is not familiar with the term? Someone else made a mention that Madonna's SEX book was the best selling coffee table book, that is mere soft porn and not a coffee table book, it is inappropriate for this WIKI so why not remove that too?) Chronic care - I added a third party resource from an expert, was that not sufficient? Foreign "Capital" is a valuable contributor to all forms of Capital and many overlook its significance and the Kimball article helped explain its value. Floristic Quality Index - yes, I could have written that one better but I think it has value and is unknown to most. Ralph Lauren - the duplicate content you mention was removed already. However, a better location would be the RL page itself. Tuxedo Park - It is rare for a trilogy to be written about a US town, why are those books insignificant to the Tuxedo Park page itself? Richard Kimball is an expert in healthcare and has many insightful articles written about him, why are they not relevant to the pages I added it to?? They each provide more commentary on the issue at hand.

I think the point I may be missing is how independent the reference source must be and from what I can tell you only want articles that are totally and wholly unknown by the person being mentioned. I understand the content needs to be original and I have been testing the content with copyright websites.

Wiki needs to continue to prosper and the only way to do that is by teaching the new guard how to respect it and do it right. I have learned and I appreciate your council.02:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)02:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)02:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)02:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)02:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)02:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)~

What are you talking about? They were deleted as copyright violations – totally blatant ones, and on no other basis. So why are you trying to substantiate why the topics belong?
List of Brookings Institution scholars blatantly copied from here – almost the entire last paragraph from that paper, copied and pasted in its entirety (the one that says "We look at the impact of the financial crash..."
Your edit to Stanford University was all copied from here
Floristic Quality Index blatantly infringed from various pages at Bowman's Hill such as this one.
I'm going to stop there. Every one on the list above was a copyright problem. Are you actually reading my posts – since your post above has a complete disconnect from the issue and reason for these redactions and deletions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Fuhghettaboutit (talk) I understand, my mistake I forgot to upload the edited version of those original sources, like I did for others. It will not happen again. So you were referring only to the content duplication and not the links themselves or the relevancy of adding the links. What are you using for content plag check so I can be on the same page and make sure this does not happen again. I will get an account with a paid service and perform more efficiently.03:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)03:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)03:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)~[reply]

Well I'm baffled. As far as I can tell almost every edit you've made to Wikipedia of substantive content of any kind has been you copying content and pasting it here. You're talking as if it was someone else doing these things. There is no content check so we can be on the same page. There is no paid service to check anything. I can't imagine what you're talking about. There is just you not copying and pasting anything from anywhere, ever again. You would "make sure" by not doing it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit (talk it will not happen again.05:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)05:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)05:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)~[reply]


Hi Fuhghettaboutit (talk) I will fix my deleted contributions and rid them of the duplicate content items you've mentioned and resubmit. I am confused why you deleted the "Kimball (surname)" additions I made. That was original content (no plag) sourced from the web and relevant to the page, in addition you removed from that same page "Richard Kimball (pianist/composer)" addition which is an approved wiki article. Furthermore I provided a family wiki source which included original sources in the ref, including free books on google, (http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_Kimball_(1595-1675)), so technically not only wiki links were included as you stated in your note. Can you please help me with something...why does your submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Gottlob_Leidenfrost have plenty of plag, 0% of the content is unique to your article, and you have no links other than wikilinks. Can you please explain so that I may learn?08:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)08:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)~~


Fuhghettaboutit (talk) I will use this action below for the Tuxedo Park: The Gift of Nature submission. For text, you can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries: (1) From an address associated with the original publication to [email protected]; (2) After sending the email, place {{OTRS pending}} on the article's talk page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received. For images, you can send an email, ideally using the language from the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries: (1) From an address associated with the original publication to [email protected]; (2) Then upload the file to Wikimedia Commons and place {{OTRS pending}} on the image page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received.08:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)08:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)08:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)~

Let's start from first principles because I don't think you understand the purpose of the consent above or the email process you're referring to, and you seem to be conflating Richard Kimball matters with copyright matters (which are entirely apples and oranges).
  • Your edits regarding Richard Kimball have been reverted by multiple different users as spamming Wikipedia, and you are. You are seeking to promote this person by slotting him into to every conceivable location whether he fits there or not. I am guessing your motivation is probably because he's your relative (and therefore you have a conflict of interest in doing so). That is not an issue of copyright but misuse of Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion. Don't conflate the two. If you read my message higher on this page to you, I first talked about copyright violations. I then said, separately, "additionally, please stop promoting Richard Kimball across Wikipedia." I am trying to separate this out because you seem to be mixing up these two matters, or at least that's the way I've read some of what you've said. As for the family wiki source, that's not a reliable source because it's user generated.
  • Copyright is a legal protection given to creative expression, both visual and textual. Someone's book; a newspapers article; the content of a website— they are all protected by copyright, meaning no one can use the unique manner of expression contained in them (except under certain circumstances). Plagiarism and copyright are not the same by the way; you have been plagiarizing as well, but the concepts are not in the slightest interchangeable.
  • This is how you write an article (or add content to an existing article): Find good, reliable, secondary sources that are entirely unconnected to the topic (e.g., The New York Times, not "MyfamilyWiki" or a blog). Digest what they say. Start writing using pertinent information they reveal, but not the words they use, and as you do so, cite to the sources you've read that verify the information, corroborating the content you are adding. The existence and citation to such sources if they contain substantive content about the topic can also demonstrate its notability. You don't copy the words of the source. You don't paste someone else's words here. Again, sources are used for their information, not their words. I don't wish to cause confusion but there are a few exceptions, and I'll only go into the obvious one here: You can use short quotations of copyrighted material (under the legal doctrine of fair use). But you must clearly indicate you are quoting someone else's writing – by placing such material in quotation marks, often by placing in-text attribution, and by using an inline citation for the source of the quote.
  • If you are the owner of copyrighted content – usually because you are the author of it, or possibly by legal inheritance from the original author – then it is possible to use that material here, only if you irrevocably release your ownership of that content (to the world and not just for Wikipedia use) under a free copyright license compatible with Wikipedia's free licenses, or into the public domain. Again, this only applies to text you own. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • You have been copying and pasting text from numerous different places in your edits, rather than writing in your own words. You cannot send an email through an OTRS permission process for a copyright release unless you are the owner of the original content. That's where you may still be misunderstanding matters, because I know you can't possibly own the copyright to the numerous sources you've been copying from. It is possible you do own some of the source content. It seems you may be involved with the Tuxedo Park books. Do you own the copyright to the three separate sources I found that article's text had been copied from? Only then could you be situated to provide any release – at least as to that first version of the article. Your second effort did rewrite some of the content, but as noted higher in this thread, where you asked about that, I quoted content from the very first paragraph of the "rewrite", followed by the source, to show it was near identical; that it still contained substantial content copied from at least that source. I did not check further to see if the balance still was a copyvio. Focusing on that first paragraph, are you saying that you own the content from here? And if you are the owner, do you really want to release the material irrevocably and forever to the world? You realize that would mean the website/author/jacket blurb, etc. would not longer be able to ever exercise non-free copyright and anyone else could use that content freely, even for commercial purposes, so long as they complied with the free copyright license? If you just write in your own words from the start you won't have these problems.
  • What copying did you find in Johann Gottlob Leidenfrost? I understand your motivation. Wouldn't it be great to turn it around on me? But I'm guessing you did a Google search and found lots of other sites using the content from that article – not the other way around. Wikipedia has lots of mirrors and re-users, both legal and illegal. When you see a relatively new article, and find its source already present somewhere else, it is easy to determine if it's a mirror or not and which is the actual first source. When an article is from, say, 2006, as that one is, you will find tons of other sites using that content originating here. You can sometimes still ferret out a copyright violation in such old articles, but describing how to do that is far beyond this post. In any event, I translated that article from German, though lot's of other users have edited that page since then, so you're off target.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Richard Kimball (pianist / composer) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Kimball (pianist / composer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Kimball (pianist / composer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kimball name[edit]

Hi, Marchingnews2015. It appears that you have been running afoul of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on content by adding the name Richard Kimball to various article pages. In addition, you have been creating pages for non-notable individuals with that name. These edits have been violating several guidelines on original research, notability, promotion, etc. (and this is beside the current problem with copyright violations). As such, your edits have reached the point of disruption. What is your reason for creating entries for people with the name Richard Kimball? — CactusWriter (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marchingnews2015&oldid=1141475975"