:Hi .  I appreciate your taking the time to communicate. 
 :* The process of copyvio review takes place by people placing comments either on the Wikipeda:Copyright problems page or on the article's talk page.  I favour the former.  The admin taking final action (after about a week) should check both.  I note that it's actually relatively rare for a copyvio to be contested, and most pass without comment.  The ones that are contested often end up in the sections at the top of the page, and get considered for longer. 
 :* I feel that I should clear up one other point.  You seem to be drawing a firm line between me and my "editorial colleagues", and yourself.  We are all editors, including you, and WIkipedia is the result of our community efforts.  Some editors are also admins, and have access to certain additional facilities, but other than that, they are not supposed to have particular control over content.  We are peers, you and I, and I am merely acting in line with what I believe to be community consensus, and in the way I think will be most helpful to you. 
 :* Regarding avenues of complaint, see Wikipedia:General complaints and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  You can get general help on using Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Help desk. 
 :* Re 1. The new messages notice appears if someone has modified your user talk page since you last viewed it.  I get the same message when you leave me a note.  Unfortunately, because you're not logged in, I can only leave a message for your IP address and hope that it doesn't change the next time you visist.  This is one good reason to log in.  I will often copy messages I write onto my own talk page to make them easier to find.  If you're looking at a user page or user talk page, you should see a link at the left under "Toolbox" labelled "E-mail this user".  For users who have supplied an address (like me), this allows for private communication.  (I'm not sure whether this works when you aren't logged in.)  I do, however, prefer open communication on my user talk page if it's at all possible. 
 :* Re 2. The EB page I'm referring to is the one originally referenced.  I hope you'll see why I see some similarity.  I imagine that some Wikipedians have a subscription, but I do not. 
 :* Re 3. I covered the practice of restoring copyvio notices above, and I haven't done enough research to comment more specifically.  It was rude of people not to respond to your question about how to prove ownership.  I can't offhand find a page that documents the answer, but the usual two options are either to send a mail from the same domain as the website to a trusted Wikipedian (say an admin), or to place a notice on the website.  In both cases, it's important that the message explicitly releases the text under the GFDL (or into the public domain).  Wikipedia does not, in general, use text "with permission".  This is important because there are others who reuse Wikipedia content under the GFDL.  By the way, you would be amazed at some of the bold but unfounded claims past contributors have made about copyright ownership.  It is to protect ourselves, and the rights of copyright owners, that we try to be so careful. 
 :* Re 4. You are quite correct.  I apologise if my remark was snide. 
 :* Re 5. I do not have access to any special posting info.  It's all available to everyone, although some of it is better hidden or harder to use.  I seem to have developed a "nose" for likely copyright violations.  (Note that I did not, I think, make the initial identification for any of your articles.) 
 :* Re 6. I understand your position.  My position is to use my account, and guard its reputation. 
 :* Re 7 and 8. See Wikipedia:Template messages.  This is not complete, but it is most of the useful ones. 

  02:05:18, 2005-07-14 (UTC)