User talk:Cherryblossom1979

What copyright infringement are you referring to? If it is the Linda McQuaig quote, I can ask her for permission, we are speaking on a panel together in 2 weeks. Also, if I changed MunkOUTofUofT to a website instead of a blog, would it then be allowed? I hope you understand that I have an interest in getting this information out there, for the public good, and would appreciate more detailed advice as to how to do that while respecting ya'lls rules. This is all true and sourced information, so please let me know how I can add it to Wikipedia. Thank you Cherryblossom1979 (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Cherryblossom1979[reply]

The entire text you added has already appeared on MunkOUTofUofT and is therefore copyrighted. I'm not sure what you mean by changing it to a website instead of a blog but presumably it would still be self-published, see WP:SPS, particularly the note about living persons. See also the notes about sourcing and WP:BLP at Talk:Peter Munk. WP:Advocacy may also help to clarify why concerns have been raised about your editing. January ^(talk) 17:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

I added a note on the MunkoutofUofT website that says that all information on the site is copyright free! see: http://munkoutofuoft.wordpress.com/about-us/ . Now, if that was the only problem, I will repost my Munk entry on wikipedia! (I will first wait a few hours out of respect for you to respond with more issues if you have them) Cherryblossom1979 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)CherryBlossom1979[reply]

Also, regarding the site being self-published.... if I include other authors will it not be self-published? I assure you I have many writings about Peter Munk and in particular references to his donations that I can post – with the authors' permissions - to the site (that I work with many people one, but just happen to be the editor and main author of). p.s. thank you for your responses! I hope we can clear this up! Cherryblossom1979 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Cherryblossom1979[reply]

Please see my note on the talk page yesterday, I already highlighted that it was not the only problem. January ^(talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that I am violating my own copyrights? Because I wrote the factual evidence on MunkOUTofUofT as I have already stated in previous talk posts. I am an activist that wants to get this information out as it is in the public good. I am the editor of ProtestBarrick.net and MunkOUTofUofT. I hope that this is cleared up now, and you can return the Munk entry back to what I posted. I am being wholesale censored. thanks Cherryblossom1979 (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)CherryBlossom1979[reply]

You have not donated it to Wikipedia, and I have also highlighted other problems with this material. January ^(talk) 18:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note on the website that it is coyright-free.. is that not enough? Also, I can not find your other issues. where do I find those? Cherryblossom1979 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)cherryblossom1979 Cherryblossom1979 (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)cherryblossom1979[reply]

Talk:Peter Munk, it was a reply to your first message yesterday. January ^(talk) 18:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my edits have been repeatedly censored from the Peter Munk wikipedia page, despite the fact that I have linked all of the stated facts to news articles and primary sources. I deserve an explanation as to why this is allowed. Additionally, I believe that the munkoutofuoft.wordpress.com website contains information that is critical to an understanding of Munk's charitable contributions, and I request that the censoring of this site get the attention of other editors of wikipedia. You say that this site is not for self-promotion, but the munkoutofuoft site is an activist and informational site, it exists to promote a cause and critical information. It does not exist to make a profit (nor does it even have a donation page!) and does not promote any products. I believe that censoring this site sets a dangerous precident for wikipedia, one that I'm sure would damage its reputation with its supporters. I know that myself (as a past financial contributor to the site) am disgusted at my censorship in favor of a gold mining magnate!

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Peter Munk do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. January ^(talk) 17:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was a template message, ignore the self-promotion part. The issue here was that you can't add a blog/self-published site as an external link, see WP:ELNO. January ^(talk) 08:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Peter Munk has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Your edits are technically a copyright violation since it is previously published material which you have not donated to Wikipedia. I have explained the other issues at the talk page. January ^(talk) 07:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]