User talk:Randy Rand

Steeling text

A Record Collectors Guide to Steely Dan was apparently stolen from Record Collector magazine August 2007. In any case we already have Steely Dan discography. We do not need another article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a record collector and have a massive selection of rare vinyl

However I generally focus on five key bands Yes, Pink Floyd, Genesis, Led Zeppelin and of course Steely Dan

I did not steal the article in question, but wrote it as the UKs leading authority on Steely dans music I was paid by Record Collector for my article, and oftern contribute to the magazine about other rare vinyl

Check out my link http://www.recordcollectormag.com/articles/article-detail/90

The reason for its inclusion, is due to the demand out there from collectors who regularly email me and ask for a copy or information regarding rare recordings

The article is not a discography but a guide to vinyl gems around the world

Pete Rand

Randy Rand (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of A Record Collectors Guide to Steely Dan

A tag has been placed on A Record Collectors Guide to Steely Dan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites 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 verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 07:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Steely Dan / A guide to rare records

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Steely Dan / A guide to rare records, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not for WP:OR and essays. I don't think it meets criteria for CSD, though.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not repost your same essay across multiple titles, as you did with the above essay at Steely Dan : Vinyl Collectors Guide. It implies that you are trying to just promote yourself, which is inappropriate use of Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concern

From your own comment above:

I was paid by Record Collector for my article,

Do you retain the right of subsequent republication? There is a clear conflict between Record Collector—which is selling access to the article—and inclusion of the article at Wikipedia. Unless you can demonstrate that you do retain the rights to the article, including the right to license it under GFDL, it could be deleted under the Wikipedia:Copyrights policy. —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I can provide confirmation from the editor Alan Lewis there is no conflict will that suffice? -- Randy Rand (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't bother. Even if you get copyright release, I say again, your stuff is likely to be deleted on the grounds that it is a fork of Steely Dan discography. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]