Talk:Jimmy Pursey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Redirect

I redirected the Jimmy Pursey article to Sham 69 because the Pursey article was almost an exact duplication of the Sham 69 article, and had next to nothing that was specifically about Pursey. Spylab (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plagarism

The new version is directly copy and pasted from http://www.jimmypursey.co.uk/Jimmy%20Pursey.htm so I added the plagarism tag. Spylab (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

N.B. I believe you're actually supposed to blank the page unless your tagging with {{db-copyvio}}, per WP:CV. I haven't done that because of the suggestion below that the creator owns the copyright.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Changed my mind, this needs to be blanked until the issue is resolved.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issue

As a representative of Jimmy Pursey, and webmaster of his website 'jimmypursey.co.uk' I am entitled to use the material from this website - most of which I have written or edited anyway. The 'jimmypursey.co.uk' website is undergoing radical changes in the light of Jimmy's move from Sham 69 to his new band DAY 21. Some of the information about his upbringing remains history, but the new pages will reflect his new career. The links between 'jimmypursey.co.uk' and any entries in Wikipedia will always be close - this doe not represent plagiarism, merely duplicate information. Should you wish to verify my position you can send an email through the contact link on http://www.jimmypursey.co.uk and I will respond to you from there. MaxLondon (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you stating that you in fact own the license to all of this material under UK law and that you are placing it here under the WP:GFDL or some other appropriate free license? --Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Or I guess, alternatively, that you are the agent for the copyright owner as you suggest and that you have authority under that agency relationship to license the material under WP:GFDL here. We've gotta know the or the stuff will have to go. :-)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As previously stated - I have the authority to use material copied from the old jimmypursey.co.uk site as agent for Jimmy Pursey. That site has now been totally changed (by me as webmaster - check link above)and the text on Wiki is now the only viewable copy remaining about Jimmy's history. Please can we now get back to normal and move on with new updates. MaxLondon (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not the only viewable copy, because I found it here today. For now, I took out the content in question, which is sufficient. Please don't readd it unless permission can be verified. I don't think the article needs to be deleted, but it can't share content not clearly licensed under the GFDL, nor can a claim of ownership or permission work unless it's verified by our process.
If you believe that this article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at here (which you've done) and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note here with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so here.
I'm sure you understand that without confirmation, we can't just take your word because you could be anybody, including someone who likes to pretend to have associations with the subject of an article. It's for the same reason a bank asks for identification when you cash a check. We simply are asking that you verify your claim. It's not personal, but it's important. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 07:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)