User talk:BlueCottonCandy

Welcome!

Note to other editors. Yes, the article BCC created was taken from another site. However, that text is clearly licensed as cc-by-3.0, which is compatible with Wikipedia. The text is free. —C.Fred (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But the article was CC-BY, which means that attribution is required. I have added such in an edit comment to say where it came from and who the author was. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 404 podcast[edit]

I'm reviewing the article now to see how much it has changed since the previous article was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 404). If there is not substantial change, I will move it to your userspace. In that case, you will need to file a request at deletion review to get the article restored. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hurdle for The 404 podcast is speedy deletion criterion G4: A page may be speedily deleted if it is "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." The underlying reason for the original deletion was lack of independent sources that show real-world notability of the subject. The new version did not add any additional sources.

Accordingly, it should not be in the enyclopedia "mainspace", so I have deleted the article. However, I moved the content of the article to User:BlueCottonCandy/The 404 podcast so that it's available for continued improvement. When there are additional independent sources cited, please leave a message on my talk page, and I'll review it. If, in my eyes, G4 no longer applies, I will reverse the deletion and move the text back to mainspace. If the problems have not been corrected yet, we can discuss what needs to be done to fix them.

If you disagree with the deletion, please explain below why you disagree with it. Please note that you do have the relief available of a WP:Deletion review, but per the instructions there, you should not file a review request until after we've discussed the matter here. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other editors viewing this discussion: It is this administrator's opinion that BlueCottonCandy has been editing in good faith. The original challenges to his article were on the issue of copyright infringement, but the text found on another website was under a CC 3.0 license. He then recreated, as the copyright problems were solved. The repost problems were not. He's now been advised of the repost rules and how to proceed to correct the problem. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the good faith editing here but fail to understand why its necessary to copy from another website, CC 3.0 license or not. If this subject is notable, a well written, well referenced article demonstrating significant coverage in verifiable 3rd party sources should be possible. Moving this article to BlueCottonCandy's user space for further development is the right move IMHO.--RadioFan (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding (BlueCottonCandy, correct me if I have this wrong) is that the text was taken from Wikipedia to that website (oy, let's not ponder the attribution issues with that for the time being) and edited there. I agree that with good references, a good article can come from this. Personally, I think some rewriting should also take place, but that's secondary to the sourcing right now. —C.Fred (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]