Talk:Mark Andrew James

The content I have included here comes from the Sussex Symphony Orchestra website - I am the chairman of that Organisation and have the right to place copies of the content. It is NOT a commercial site - this is an amatuer orchestra and a registered uk charity.

Please see WP:CP and arrange for an email to be sent to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org to officially confirm this. In the mean time I am reverting to the article, but if such an email is not sent in due course the article may be deleted. Kcordina ^Talk 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I will do that Andy Wooler 15:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

---

hangon rationale: www.ssomusic.co.uk seems to be a website for a non-profit org. That may make it ineligible for speedy, though I am not sure. furthermore, the author is asserting that as chairman of the nonprofit org, he has the right to do whatever he wants with the Crighted contents, which I am not sure is correct either. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I am surprised by the lack of trust being shown here. This sort of open web based resource relies a lot on trust and it needs to be a two way thing. Check with the UK charity commission you will find I am indeed the chair of this fine orchestra. You will also discover its charitable (non-profit) status.

Oh, I acknowledge that it's a real non-profit, and that you're the chairman. I am just not sure that cures our copyright defects. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I contest the speedy delete as he is a well known local figure and his orchestra is very well known throughout Sussex. I'd like to give it the change to fill out as an article. Sophia 15:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Being a newcomer to this site, I find it odd that a key source of information cannot be used. Does this not restrict the site's ability to be 100% accurate? As to the "vanity" clause, simply being associated with a musical group doesn't automatically violate that principle - as stated in the relevant guidance on this site. So, IMHO, the site needs a way in which people who have deep factual knowledge on a subject have the opportunity to help enhance the site. Current practice is doing the exact opposite. Is not an article author equally a valid reference? Whilst appreciating the amount of time you guys put into this, in the original short article on the SSO, I have had to change 2 incorrect references and 1 spelling mistake - yet am not allowed to enrich the page with factual information because of my association with the subject. To a newcomer that does seem rather odd.Andy Wooler 15:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

How embarassing - I know I'm not very good at spelling but I thought I'd caught them all. The point of the WP:AUTO rule is to stop people and organisations "blowing their own trumpets" to use a musical analogy. The only way to maintain a neutral article is to have uninvolved people write it - like the difference between a newspaper review of a concert and the blurb in the programme notes. Both will be very subjective but the blurb is likely to gloss over any issues the artist/orchestra is not happy about. You can contribute to the talk pages of the articles and other editors like me who feel this is a worthwile subject will take up your info and add it to the article for you (as long as it's reliably sourced.

As to the copyright stuff - wikipedia is in such a potential problem if copyright is violated that they take this probably very seriously. When I have time I will chance my luck with spelling and try to rewrite the info on the website in such a way as to be copyright OK. Please don't let this put you off contributing your knowledge to other articles. The music related ones can always do with a boost. Give it a bit of time and you'll get the hang of it and when you see these seemingly daft rules come into play because some minor celebrity is trying to control their public image you'll see why these things are important. Sophia 19:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)