It appears that you've made it through yet another challenge to the DizzyFIX page! You are to be commended for your patience with Wikipedia. I personally thank you for putting up with us.
I think the page really looks good -- much better than I expected to see so early. The only thing I'm concerned with is the "source" part. Giving permission to Wikipedia alone isn't enough, because Wikipedia can, and often is, republished. The permission has to apply to the republisher, too. Because of that, Wikipedia asks that contributions be licensed under GFDL. See WP:COPY for the nitty-gritty details. Check out the talk page for Cockapoo and the discussions with User_talk:clippclan to see an example of when these discussions get ugly.
So where does that leave us? Uh. I'm afraid I'm really not sure. I think the article needs to be jiggled so that it isn't a direct copy of the source site. Then the source section needs to go away, and worked back into a regular reference. --Mdwyer (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well I'll have to check with the makers of the DizzyFIX. I have no idea what sort of license they want to give out. The wiki page really isn't in any way a direct copy - I just used their web site to find out about the history of the device and the research and then asked them a few questions directly. They were, not surprisingly, very happy to have me doing this for them. I thought I was just being respectful having the 'source' listed. Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of the 'source' tag. I'll remove it for now and put a reference in where I used information from their site.Mmargerisson (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
