User talk:Mgreason/Archive 2

Current status

First, I must note that I have taken the liberty of archiving your talk page with the belief that it may make further use of the long page easier for you and others. If you disagree, please accept my apology; let me know, and I will undo my action.

Second, you are probably aware that you have been indefinitely blocked by User:Garion96 for extensive copyright infringement. This block was made with the suggestion and support of several administrators at the administrator's noticeboard. There is concern that you may still not understand how to utilize external sources to avoid infringement. Although this block is indefinite, it may not be permanent. I believe that what would be needed here is some showing that you understand the extent to which text needs to be revised to avoid infringement and also acknowledgment that you understand that pasting chunks of text from copyrighted sources (as you did in the original version of Hospice care in the United States as well as some other articles you have created) is not permitted under our copyright policy. In spite of copyright concerns, I am still of the opinion that you are operating in good faith and that your infringement was not intended. I still believe that you are essentially a good and dedicated content contributor, and I don't think it's in Wikipedia benefit to lose you, if these copyright concerns can be eradicated. I would be happy to work with you on paraphrasing issues in userspace with an eye towards requesting reinstatement of your editing privileges. I will keep your talk page on my watchlist; if I can assist with this, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, first of all, I apologize for the work I have caused you by my long-term misconceptions about sourced content and the resulting list of articles. Back in 2007, I added an article that was immediately deleted for copyright violations. From that, I learned that sources cannot be copied verbatim, but it was my understanding that a source could simply be paraphrased if the source was attributed. One new article I created contained sources, but was criticized for containing original content not found in the sources, so I stopped writing “term papers” and stayed close to the sources. I began using a Thesaurus more often, but certain phrases are difficult to avoid, especially if the subject involves unusual words or technical jargon that cannot be easily replaced. Thank you for your patience and assistance. I think you will see that the few items I’ve added since we began our discussions do not violate copyright rules.Mgreason (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I can certainly understand the challenge of avoiding original research. I tend to be a zealous over-citer precisely for that reason. Paraphrasing is often a bit of a challenge, too. Finding the balance between staying true to your source and taking too much from it can be hard. And sometimes it just feels ridiculous to have to dig around for a different way to say something that was well said to begin with.

Garion96, who does a lot of copyright work as well though these days mostly with images, expressed some concern with your recent edits to Episcopal Diocese of Florida. Let's take a look at that and see if I can figure out what triggered those concerns. I presume that the source in question is [1].

It seems to me that you've done a good start on paraphrasing here, but your paraphrase remains very close to the original source both in language and in organization. Take the first two sentences of the source: "In June 1924, near St. Augustine beach, the Diocese of Florida sponsored its first summer camp. 40 children from the Young People’s service leagues in Jacksonville attended." The first two sentences of the article say, "The first summer camp in the Diocese was held near St. Augustine Beach in June, 1924, attended by 40 children from the Jacksonville young people’s service leagues." (Italics added to emphasize language similarity.) This follows fairly closely on the original; by itself, it would be a small matter of concern, but the article goes on in the same vein. Copyright protection consists of more than simple organization of words, although that's the most common and most likely to be problematic type. It also covers creative structure of facts and ideas. "The camp was successful and was given the name, "Camp Weed" to honor the late Right Reverend Edwin Garner Weed, Third Bishop of Florida", your sentence, is much too close to the original "The camp grew, prospered and acquired the name, "Camp Weed" in honor of the late Rt. Rev. Edwin Garner Weed, Third Bishop of Florida." While this is not the most problematic passage of this sort I've seen, it does suggest that you might need to practice paraphrasing a bit more. As this guide from Simon Fraser University notes, "When you paraphrase, even the sentence structure must be your own."

For example, the source says:

“ In June 1924, near St. Augustine beach, the Diocese of Florida sponsored its first summer camp. 40 children from the Young People’s service leagues in Jacksonville attended. 1925, the camp was held on St. Andrew’s Bay near Panama City. The camp grew, prospered and acquired the name, "Camp Weed" in honor of the late Rt. Rev. Edwin Garner Weed, Third Bishop of Florida. In 1929, the Diocese purchased 10 acres of land overlooking the bay, including a former hotel and 4 screened bungalows. In 1930, the Diocese held more than one camp session.130 youngsters attended the youth camp, and church school teachers and other interested leaders had their own program. By 1940, about 400 people were coming to Camp Weed every summer. ”

Your version of the text says:

“ The first summer camp in the Diocese was held near St. Augustine Beach in June, 1924, attended by 40 children from the Jacksonville young people’s service leagues. The following year, camp was moved to a location near Panama City on St. Andrew’s Bay. The camp was successful and was given the name, "Camp Weed" to honor the late Right Reverend Edwin Garner Weed, Third Bishop of Florida.

The camp remained in Bay County and the Diocese purchased 10 acres (40,000 m2) of land that included four screened cottages and a former hotel in 1929. The next year, the Diocese began holding multiple camp sessions with Church school teachers and leaders conducting their own programs for 130 children. Attendance had risen to nearly 400 by the start of World War II.

”

A usable paraphrase/summary, however, might be more like this:

“ Summer camps sponsored by the Diocese of Florida began modestly. 40 children from Jacksonville's Young People's service leagues attended the inaugural camp in 1924. In 1929, by which point the camp had acquired its present name after Florida's Third Bishop, Garner Weed, the Diocese purchased a campsite that boasted 10 acres of land with bungalows and a former hotel. The following year, they had to divide the camp into several sessions to contain the attendees. Within a decade, attendance had climbed to 400. ”

You do lose detail, but that's an inevitable cost of working for a tertiary source. (Also note, please, that I was working off of the original; some of the details you added--like the Bay County location--were omitted just because of that, not because there's anything wrong with them.) Some of the individual passages you've revised are fine: "Attendance had risen to nearly 400 by the start of World War II" certainly doesn't follow too closely on "By 1940, about 400 people were coming to Camp Weed every summer." But the problem of trying to revise sentence by sentence is that inevitably you're going to wind up reproducing the structure of the paragraph or paper you're using as a source as well as likely infringing on individual sentences. This is why college writing instructors advise writing students to read the entire passage, fix the ideas in their heads, and write them down all at once. Then, they go back to compare to make sure they didn't commit unconscious plagiarism, where they accidentally followed too closely on the original.

I noticed more extensive problems with close following in an article I just evaluated today, Alhambra Dinner Theatre. That one was also a problem for direct infringement, since it quoted material directly but did not cite its source: article as it was; source. To examine one passage, your article said, "In the early days of dinner theater, it was the stars—albeit faded--who were the main attraction." The source says, "But in the early days of dinner theater, it was the stars -- faded though they may have been -- who were the main attraction." As you can see, not only do you have duplicate runs of text, but you have utilized the structure right down to the interjection. You could revise this passage individually; it helps to turn on its head. "Former stars attracted audiences to early dinner theaters." That sentence, in itself, is not an infringement. But if you're utilizing around it, you might have to restructure even more if you run the risk of mimicking the overall pattern of the original piece. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I'm still watching. I believe there may be room to discuss these issues further, but that doesn't mean I think this is an insurmountable problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl: The rewrite I did for Camp Weed was my best effort, and I was certain it was not a copyright violation, nor was it a paraphrase as the original article was. Because you still object to the structure, I decided to abandon writing new articles, and stick to adding references and information in existing articles. Unfortunately, the indefinite block seems to be punitive, rather than encouraging rehabilitation. You have always assumed good faith, so what do I need to do? Mgreason (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think, given that even after the 2007 incident you still placed substantial material verbatim from an external source (I am thinking specifically of the one that was first listed at WP:CP: Hospice care in the United States, where multiple paragraphs were pasted from this site in December of 2008), that a voluntary restriction on placing extensive material may be a good idea. If you are willing to accept that and to seek review before placing substantial text in articles, I will speak to the administrator who blocked you about lifting your indefinite block. I do believe that you are a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, and I do not want to see you barred from contributing. My primary hope is to insure that your contributions stay in line with our copyright policies. In terms of Episcopal Diocese of Florida, I agree that you did not cross the line into infringement, and I believe that the blocking admin did as well, as he chose not to remove your contributions. However, I have seen a good many articles that do cross that line. I am willing to work with you if you need help in rewriting material to avoid following on the structure or language of the original; I've had a lot of practice, both professionally and on Wikipedia. Would you be willing to accept such a voluntary restriction? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  Yes. I think that is a reasonable request, based on the problems in my prior submissions. Mgreason (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All right. I will talk to Garion96. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternate account

←At this point, I have reason to question if you have registered another account. If you have, please review our Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Creating accounts to evade a block can lead to your account being infinitely, rather than indefinitely, blocked (an indefinite block is simply an open-ended one, and it can be lifted at any time), and can also lead to the immediate blocking of all identified alternate accounts. It is much to be preferred that you deal directly with the problem here and have your editing privileges reinstated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:JMShuskielogo.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:JMShuskielogo.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:ChristChurchLogo.PNG)

Thanks for uploading File:ChristChurchLogo.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking

I have the consent of the blocking administrator to unblock you, although he has misgivings not only because of past behavior, but because of probable sock puppetry during your block and because your view of the block as punitive suggests you may not understand how important an issue copyright is for Wikipedia. (We have to exercise due diligence to prevent our site being used to host material illegally; failure to exercise due diligence could lead to serious legal ramifications for the project if we lose our status under DMCA, which has been challenged in the past.) I also have some concerns, for reasons I've expressed above, but I've agreed to take responsibility for your behavior. Before unblocking you, though, I want to be sure that we are clear on the restrictions which you are accepting, as my unblocking is conditional on these.

You are agreeing not to place substantial content on Wikipedia without seeking review of material first. Of course, this doesn't mean that small amounts of infringement are acceptable; although brief text is more defensible under fair use, Wikipedia has adopted its own narrow non-free content guidelines which set forth exactly how we may duplicate text from external sources. But the restriction on adding extensive content without review does not refer simply to not creating new articles. Your contributions to Fort Zachary Taylor, for instance, here, infringed on 1, 2 and 3. For example, the last of those sources says, "But the brass told England he could volunteer his time, if he wished, and examine the fort. England gathered a group of volunteers and they went to work. During a ten year period, England and his "sandhogs"...." The text you added said, "He persisted, and the Navy told England he could volunteer his time, if he wished, and examine the fort. England gathered a group of volunteers and they went to work. During a ten-year period, England and his "Sandhogs"..." (This is a single example of the problematic text added to that already existing article, but there were others; as one further extreme example, the next text you added to the article, "...uncovered the largest collection of Civil War armaments in the United States, including cannon, guns, a desalinization plant and thousands of cannon balls and projectiles" was copied verbatim from source #2.) The purpose of the restriction is to help ensure that you are paraphrasing properly, which is considerably harder to evaluate with large chunks of text.

I have to ask you to be transparent with your sources so that we can easily compare, if necessary, to ensure that material you've added doesn't inadvertently infringe. Although you closely based the passage beginning "He persisted" on source #3, you did not cite it at that point. It would be far better to over-cite than under-cite if it means that we can be sure infringement doesn't continue.

I have agreed, as I said, to take responsibility for your behavior. If you infringe on copyright again, I will reinstate your indefinite block without further warning. If you are unsure if text you are going to add infringes on copyright, please seek feedback. I will also reinstate your block if you deviate from the restrictions that you are agreeing to. If we reach a point where I can assert with confidence that you understand how to use external sources without infringing, I'll be happy to propose the lifting of those restrictions.

I'm also asking you to make transparent the alternate account you were using during your block, by publishing the username here. I'm assuming that you were unaware that the use of an alternative account in this fashion was against policy; now that you've been notified, I trust you'll realize that should you ever do so again, that this in itself will probably lead to sanctions.

Please let me know if we're on the same page or if you have any questions about this. Once it's clear we're on the same page, I will unblock your account, with User:Garion96's permission. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe I understand what you require of me and have a clear understanding of copyright infringement and plagarism, problems which will not recur. If I have a new article I propose to add, I will place it in my sandbox for your review prior to posting. Ditto for large additions on existing articles. If I add a reference or a fact to an existing article, you have not requested prior notice.

I moved Multiple Accts template to User:Mgreason/AboutMe I was unable to add the User Alternate Acct template to Jaxguy24.

All right. I've unblocked you; you should be able to add the alternate account tag now. I would only ask notice if you add small bits of text if you aren't certain of how best to rephrase the material. Please feel free to come to me if you have any questions about this. My primary goal here is to allow you to continue contributing constructively to the project while at the same time avoiding potential problems with copyright infringement. I don't doubt that User:Dcoetzee would also be happy to talk to you about any questions or concerns. I imagine you could also get valuable feedback from any of the contributors to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing or Wikipedia:Plagiarism, and you should also be able to get feedback at WT:CP, all else failing. I mention these because I'm always mindful of the possibility of things that may interfere with my responding, and I don't want you to feel you've been left hanging. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to archive all this, I think that's appropriate. The userbox should go on the userspace (or some other note there identifying your other account; mine is a little note under "What I do here" on my userpage, but I don't see any need for the rest of it to hang around. Fresh start and all. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Update

Sandbox version looks good; good catch on the existing copy! I left a note in your sandbox about one point. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mgreason. I sometimes work with Moonriddengirl on copyright issues, and followed a link here from Moonriddengirl's talk page. I'd just like to point out that we also have to be careful about large blocks of copyrighted text on talk pages and in sandboxes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. I've made some notes in your sandbox, and you also have a couple of messages at my talk page in the new section you opened. If you want to discuss my suggested revisions, the sandbox itself might be a good place, since we have plenty of space there to work through material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Earl Holliman

Notes:
I have proposed a few points of revision above. It can be a challenge to revise bare-bones biography like this, and while what you have doesn't cross the line into infringement by any means, it follows a little closely in a few points.

• The article did say: "He got a job as a movie usher in Shreveport, Louisiana, saved his money, and hitchhiked to Hollywood in September, 1943." The source says, "I got a job working as an usher at the Strand [movie theater] in Shreveport [Louisiana] making 25 cents an hour. I saved a few bucks and hitchhiked to Hollywood." The passage as it was in the article basically duplicated the original in language and structure, with only a few alterations ("got a job...as...usher...in Shreveport, Louisiana, saved..., hitchhiked to Hollywood") In small quantity, this kind of thing would be considered "plagiarism", but not copyright infringement. If it comes in quantity or if reproduces essential text, it crosses into infringement. The information is free for use, but when possible we should restructure the sentence completely, which is why I propose (after gnawing at it myself for a few minutes): "He saved some money from his job ushering at a movie theater and left Shreveport, Louisiana, hitchhiking his way to Hollywood." This small rearrangement separates the material from its source. Whether you use my proposed text, I think a change of this nature is necessary.

• "He couldn’t find work and was talked into returning to Louisiana." This one is even less of an issue than the last, but it's easy to further separate it from the source with some minor restructuring. This change is not essential.

• The article said, "It took the Navy a year to discover Holliman's true age, and he was sent home." The source said, "When the Navy discovered Holliman's age deception, he was sent home...." This one is too close. You have essentially the same structure and a run of the same language: Navy discovered age; "he was sent home". I've revised this one by thinking about what "he was sent home" means; he was discharged (this is also obvious because he had to reenlist). Some kind of revision of this is necessary. The revision I've done is relatively minimal, but I think it is sufficient. If it were surrounded by more problematic text, a more extreme overhaul would probably be necessary, but the next run of text you have is well revised: "When he could, he joined the Navy again and was stationed in Norfolk, Virginia. While there, he was cast as the lead in several Norfolk Navy Theatre productions."

Please let me know if you want to discuss this. My goal is not just to review this material, but to show you where I see problems and why and to demonstrate ways that those problems can be addressed/avoided. (Not to unnecessarily complicate things, but there are notes for you in my talk page as well. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Anthony DeSantis

By the way, I presume that you will receive it in due course (if you have't already), but I wanted to let you know that I have written you an e-mail about this one...not because I don't want to discuss it on Wiki, but because I am asking to see more of a published source than we can comfortably place even temporarily here. Between the two of us, we'd have no problem with a fair use defense, but on Wiki, given the potential for widespread republication, that would be harder to do. :)

If you'd rather not respond via e-mail, that's fine; my Wikipedia e-mail address is specific to Wiki use, but not everybody has that private an e-mail account. If you would prefer to discuss the matter on Wikipedia solely, that's fine with me. For the record, outside of that material (which involves the Chicago Tribune article and which I can't currently judge), everything looks fine. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Preston Haskell

Hi. Looks very well done to me. :) I've made just a couple of minor alterations directly to the text with notes of explanation in edit summary. Feel free to utilize those without credit; I hereby waive my GFDL mandated attribution right. :) I've gone over it with a fine toothed comb, so to speak. The first text I revised was certainly minimal. The passage on his marriage, though more substantial, was in no way a copyvio; it would have passed "fair use" easily. However, since Wikipedia prefers to avoid fair use and since the passage could be easily revised, I did so.

One point unrelated to copyright. Your use of blockquote here is not consistent with WP:MOSQUOTE. According to my widescreen monitor, the section is not long enough ("A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines)".) If my widescreen monitor is wrong on that, you should remove quotation marks. In a blockquote, the quotation marks are presumed.

You pick some very interesting subjects to write about. This one looks ready to go live to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:NMSvikinglogo.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:NMSvikinglogo.PNG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Crunchbunch.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Crunchbunch.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Crunchbunch

Hi. Everything looks clear except the GFDL violation. You should not copy text from any Wikipedia article into any other space without acknowledging the contributors. If you place this into article space, you must acknowledge the contributors as we discussed here. (I looked back through the article's history to make sure that you had not yourself placed the text, in which case its unattributed use would not be a copyright violation, but it doesn't seem that you did.) Please be sure to put in edit summary or on the article's talk page that you have utilized text directly from List of NFL nicknames.

Also, please, when you ask me to review articles let me know every source you've used. It would be fine by me if you placed a separate section on the bottom noting other Wikipedia articles you may have utilized. But it would be very helpful in saving me time. You may also want to tag the assertion about Mario Sestito as unverified, since that name does not appear in any of your sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I swear I went back to my talk archieve and looked up the requirements to document use from another wikipedia article. I even remember copying the text, "Note for GFDL compliance; some text from this article duplicated at creation from Type rating" and changing the source article name. I did not make a notation in the talk page, but I realized that when the article got moved into production, the notes would need to be duplicated.

Regarding the info from List of NFL nicknames: I could not find an online source to support the Mario Sestito statement, and the brief article from NYT says, "But the quartet has been lacking one important asset - a catchy nickname. So the players themselves created one."

In this situation, what do you recommend that I do? Mgreason (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. :) I wasn't sure if that particular issue had been lost in all the other conversations. I looked for online sources for that, too, and couldn't find any. I'd probably leave it in the article and tag it with a "{{fact}}" tag to invite others to confirm. Otherwise, I'd stick with what's verifiable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:TcJayFund.PNG)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:TcJayFund.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — neuro^(talk) 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom Coughlin Jay Fund Foundation

Looks good to me. :) Also inspirational, that the courage of one family facing the unthinkable could lead a friend to help so many. Wow. (Just a note on the above, to save this hassle you should wait to add non-free images until these go into article space. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Template loop

You had template loops on you pages User:Mgreason/Template:User Member Years and User:Mgreason/Userboxes/User Member Years. I stress the word "had", because I took the liberty of fixing them. That was pretty straightforward. The idea was to make User:Mgreason/Userboxes/User Member Years into a documentation page for User:Mgreason/Template:User Member Years. In other words, the template code should be in only one of them, and the sample should be in the other one. Having the example together with the code is what created a self-referrence, which is the cause of a template loop in Wikipedia.

I hope you're happy with the result, even if my help was unasked for. You still have some work to do to explain about those parameters. You made a very nice and usefull template. Best of luck. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mgreason. You have new messages at Unionhawk's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Unionhawk (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Red links

This edit summary makes it look as if the reason you got rid of the red link was ONLY that it's a red link, i.e. that the article doesn't exist.

I hope you're not going around getting rid of links ONLY because they link to non-existent articles. We need good red links. See WP:Red link. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tom Coughlin Jay Fund Foundation

On March 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom Coughlin Jay Fund Foundation, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mgreason. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Christ's Church

Hi. I'm working on this one right now and have made some changes directly to the text. So far, I'm a bit concerned about close paraphrasing on the official website. One example is this: The source says, "Always looking for opportunities for outreach, the Sharing Tree Preschool began in 1987, as a vehicle to attract young families from the growing Mandarin community." The article says, "The Sharing Tree Preschool began in 1987 for members, and attracted other young families from the community." (I've bolded to highlight how much of that is taken directly from the source.) This is always more of a problem if there are other examples in the text, and some of the sentences leading up to this seem a bit close, too, as do some after: "The church began to hire staff members to specialize in youth, children, music, pastoral care, outreach, and seniors." in the source is quite close around the edges to "The church began to recruit staff with experience in the segments expanding the most, which included youth & seniors, music, pastoral care and outreach" It's a whole lot easier to revise a large chunk of text than one sentence. For instance you could do the whole chunk of it something like this:

As the church grew, it expanded in membership, requiring more space and more staff. In 1982, the church constructed a Family Life Center. Church members themselves volunteered their time and expertise to lower expenses of construction, finishing the interior of the professionally-assembled shell. In 1987, the church increased its services for families with young children in the area, opening the Sharing Tree Preschool. It also extended its offerings for teenagers with a teen program eventually settled in a separate property called "The Ranch". Along with new staff to address the needs of youth and children, staff was added to assist with seniors, pastoral care and outreach, as well as to address needs in the church like music.

Growth continued to exceed space. A 1,000-seat worship center built in 1986 had to be expanded in 1991. Nevertheless, and even with the addition of multiple services including the popular "Saturday Night Alive" service on Saturday evening, the church realized in 1994 that it needed more space. At the same time, it decided to open a Christian school.

Do you see the kind of revision that I'm recommending? I'm not, of course, hung up with any particular wording changes I'm suggesting. But what you seem to have done here is attempted to revise on a sentence by sentence basis, which makes it very difficult to get enough distance from your source. (I see that the next section begins with, "Mandarin Christian School opened its doors on August 29, 1995." The source says, "Mandarin Christian School opened its doors in the fall of 1995...." This is too close, I'm afraid. Most of the rest of that section seems to either come from another source or from further down.)

I see the next section also runs close in spots:

• Source: "in the fall of 1995...37 acres of land were also purchased on Greenland Road on which to relocate the church building."
• Your article: "In the Fall of 1995, 37 acres (150,000 m2) of land was purchased on Greenland Road for a new Church campus."

• Source: "On June 6, 1999, the congregation left the Old St. Augustine Road property after the final service and walked to the new campus – 4 ½ miles away. The next weekend, services were held in the new 2,250 seat Worship Center. Christ’s Church had a new home."
• Your article: "On June 6, 1999, the congregation as a group walked 4½ miles to their new [church] home. The following weekend, services were held in the new 2,250 seat Worship Center."

This is a good revision: "Ground was broken on January 25, 1998 and the members received frequent progress reports." But I'm afraid that additional revision to separate from source is probably necessary in this section.

It's kind of an odd thing on Wikipedia. While in most academic work, we're expected to intersperse original thought and observations with previously published, on Wikipedia we're expected to mirror pretty much everything. But under US copyright law, we can run into problems when a reasonable viewer, reading your article, might reasonably presume that you have copied it from another work. It's obviously a lot easier to deal with this when we have multiple sources. If there were five or six sources describing the history of the church, you could easily include some detail from source a, some detail from source b, etc., creating a wholly original paragraph that does not draw too closely on any one while being fully verifiable and without WP:OR. The best way I know around it when there is only one source (not licensed for our use) is to either lose a lot of detail and provide a very bare-bones summary or get very creative in presentation.

I haven't compared other sources yet, but I want to save this before a power outage or something takes it all away. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You need some quotation marks. It's good you've provided a source for this and attributed it: "According to Bratton, every activity of the church helps fulfill Jesus' great commission to preach to the world and to provide for those less fortunate." But "to preach to the world and to provide for those less fortunate" is copied exactly from the source, except that the word "the" has become the word "those." When you quote verbatim from a source, even if you're attributing it, you need to mark the text precisely copied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done a few more changes directly to the page. I really think that the problem you've run into with this one is that you're trying to fit in all the detail. Wikipedia has that whole tertiary source thing going, where we provide a "synoptic overview" (see the linked article, for attribution. :)) It can be very difficult to revise external sources sufficiently to prevent infringement while still accommodating all details. Generally, when distilling, I try to ask myself what would be of encyclopedic interest to our readers. The link to relevant sources, like the website, will give them access to more particulars if they are of interest.

Anyway, the material from http://www.ccontheweb.com/index.php?page=42 needs some revision, as I mentioned above. Why don't you see what feels comfortable for you with revising some of that (feel free to use any text I suggest here, by the way, without need of attribution. I'm comfortable releasing my copyright to anything I suggest here. :)) When you're ready, I'll be happy to take a look and see if there is further input on that I can offer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the critique. I discovered that if I try to include all the facts from a source, the new text always mirrors the source, so I had started dropping some info when I rewrote St. James Building. Your guidelines above are helpful. I'll let you know when I finish Christ's Church. By the way, thanks for being my mentor. Mgreason (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. :) And I'll try to get to the next in the stack very soon! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

←Good revision. :) It's taken care of my concerns. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Jacksonville Maritime Museum

This one seems good to go. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

St. James Building

Seems fine. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:STBAN3.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:STBAN3.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:NatGlover.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:NatGlover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading.STBotI (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your uploads

Good day. I see that you have uploaded a number of images to Wikipedia. First off, thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, there are some guidelines that we need to follow with copyrighted images. Specifically, you need to add a source for the image (a link to a website will do), a copyright tag (there are some listed at WP:ICT), and a rationale explaining why we can use a copyrighted image (explained at WP:NFURG). I see that your images fail to include one of these. Please stop uploading images and address the concerns listed above. If you need assistance, you can ask at the help desk. If you do not fix these images, and you continue to make bad uploads, you will be blocked and your images will be deleted. Thanks for your contributions! STBotI (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:NatGlover.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:NatGlover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading.STBotI (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your uploads

Good day. I see that you have uploaded a number of images to Wikipedia. First off, thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, there are some guidelines that we need to follow with copyrighted images. Specifically, you need to add a source for the image (a link to a website will do), a copyright tag (there are some listed at WP:ICT), and a rationale explaining why we can use a copyrighted image (explained at WP:NFURG). I see that your images fail to include one of these. Please stop uploading images and address the concerns listed above. If you need assistance, you can ask at the help desk. If you do not fix these images, and you continue to make bad uploads, you will be blocked and your images will be deleted. Thanks for your contributions! STBotI (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Angela Corey

Your paraphrasing & summarizing here look good. I noted some very skillful revision of the about.com source in particular. What an interesting woman she is; I laughed out loud when I read in one of your sources where she said, “Repeat offender court is a blast. It’s the one place where you try good cases and the sentencing stakes are high.” Very frank of her. :) Few of the attorneys I've known would openly admit to the press that they enjoy convicting criminals.

One thing I did change was the quote from Bridget Murphy's article, [2]. If you add something to a quote, you put it in brackets, not parentheses, under our WP:NFC. Also, we have to be careful with punctuation not to imply that our quote is verbatim if it isn't. We don't know what was omitted from White's statement because Murphy didn't include everything, but we know something was because of her ellipses. We either have to separate the sentences or add in the ellipses ourselves. He could have had a paragraph between those two sentences. :)

With the Dana Treen article, here, you did include a passage in the blockquote that is not attributable directly to Tanner. The sentence "She will again be involved with homicide cases, trying cases, working with investigators and training prosecutors" is attributable to Treen, who was evidently paraphrasing Tanner. Since she didn't enclose it in quotation marks along with the material that she reported from Tanner verbatim, we can't do so either. We would either have to quote it with attribution to Treen (ex. "Dana Treen of The Florida Times-Union said Tanner had indicated that Corey "will again be involved with homicide cases, trying cases, working with investigators and training prosecutors.") or paraphrase her paraphrase. For now, I've just removed it, since it seemed to be covered in the material that introduced the quote.

One thing you might want to be careful of—and I don't think it's a problem in this article, but I note the tendency here—is overusing quotes. Newspaper articles, obviously, use source quotes as their bread and butter. Encyclopedias are a little bit different, because they're one step removed from their sources. WP:NFC suggests using quotes to "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." That's a pretty good rule of thumb in figuring out when a quote is appropriate. It occurred to me that I might want to mention this while reading Corey's statement after Shorstein announced his retirement. I would myself at least truncate the four sentences you quote from her response to Shorstein's announcement down to the last sentence, with a bracketed [with Corey's campaign]." At the very least, I think the first two sentences are probably unnecessary. But your use of quotes here doesn't cross the line into "excessive" by any means, so it isn't a copyright problem; it's a stylistic note and offered only for your consideration. :)

I'll get to the other one in just a minute. While writing this, I've had a new copyright question. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Midland Community Center

I didn't see any issues there. :) (Oh, except that I moved one of your refs. I couldn't see the sentence it was attached to sourced there, so I moved it up.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Midland Community Centers, Inc.

Text looks fine. I am a bit nervous about that many non-free images in one article, but images are not my thing. I'm not sure if you can do a defensible fair use for the logos for the individual units. You might want to get feedback on that one at WP:MQC. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Christ

I think there is no justification for any one establishment sitting on the Christ's Church title. So see Christ's Church, Jacksonville. (And Dublin is not in Great Britain!!!) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Shirk

First, I see no issues with regards to paraphrasing. :)

I'll note that you should probably revise the open to fit within the Manual of Style--the usual "John Smith (dob) is a Nationality notableprofession blah blah."

With respect to your sources, I don't believe you can use #6 & #7 according to policy at Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 (sorry for not prettying up that paste). #7 is a particular problem: it is [a comment on a blog left by somebody who doesn't seem to have any particular claim to authority. (This guy.) This would be a problem for WP:V in any article, but is likely to lead to serious trouble in a "BLP", which must use very high quality sources, particularly in potentially controversial areas. The other blog looks like it might have some claim to authority, [3], though I don't know if it would be considered a reliable source for a BLP (when in doubt, I would check at the reliable sources noticeboard or the biographies of living persons noticeboard). In this case, though, it is again a comment in a blog--though it as at least by the author of the blog. However, since the information is already present in source #1, I would strongly recommend you cite to it. I'm also concerned about your citing a second-hand quote in this journal. :/ Any chance you can track down the original? (I think your reference to the controversy being posted to blogs is okay.)

For BLP reasons, I'm glad you mention the specifics on Littlejohn's op-ed piece. Since it's in a newspaper, it is probably usable, but you do have to acknowledge whose opinion it is. You should probably also note that it is also Littlejohn's opinion that the relationship between policy & attorneys should be adversarial, unless you have access to enough sources saying this to suggest it's "common knowledge." And you should be careful not to imply that Littlejohn mentioned Brenton Butler. The placement of your footnote might inadvertently suggest he did. I don't see any reference to Butler in that op-ed piece. You'll need a reliable source indicating that the police lied in the Butler case if you want to include that, and separate the citation from Littlejohn's. The policemen involved in the Butler case are also covered by the BLP policy. (Not that I'm saying the assertion isn't true, mind you. Simply that it needs its own reliable source.)

There are some things I see that need citation. You should probably source the # of votes in the lead sentence, since I see immediately that your first source has a different number: 13,490. If all of your other sources say 25,680, you might use the more regularly reported number with a few citations, noting in footnote that this other source has a different count. Speaking of that source, I may have missed where it said he was the first Republican to qualify; I only saw that he was the first to run. Also needing a source: "Shirk did not extend the common courtesy of contacting each of his former co-workers, all of whom were in the PD's office during his five years as an APD." Whose opinion is it that this is common courtesy? This needs a citation. So does "one of the most respected lawyers in Jacksonville" and "Reaction in the legal community was mostly surprise, then anger" (one example notwithstanding). Even if you're citing the sources close around, you need to specifically cite matters of opinion.

I can't really judge if this article is neutral, because I have no idea what the "other side" is saying. It doesn't paint a pretty picture, but we aren't required to: we only note what reliable sources are saying. If they're negative, we say so. But you do need to be very careful to stay within BLP. Very sensitive ground on Wikipedia. You want to be sure that you cite everything that can lead to trouble with high quality sources. I've changed a header to avoid implying wrongdoing on the subject's part and reiterated a source (you don't want to delay when the words "sexual harassment" are used), plus a few other smaller things that I can't remember at the moment. :D (All explained in edit summary.) From a copyright standpoint, I think you're quite clear. From a neutrality standpoint, I don't know. For BLP, you'll want to tighten up a few sources.

I'll try to get to the other one tomorrow. :)--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've resolved all the issues raised. Mgreason (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you have. :) I don't see any BLP concerns. NPOV still comes down to how even-handed the coverage is, but I'm sure that if he has supporters who feel that he's been treated unfairly, they'll speak up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

AT&T Tower

This one looks good, too, except you have one source that can't be used on Wikipedia: [4]. No offense to the Jacksonville Wiki. We can't even use Wikipedia articles for each other. :) It's an open-wiki, which makes it a "self-published source". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

World of Nations Celebration

Excellent start for an article. Since World of Nations is coming up, will you be there? I am volunteering there and will be taking pictures, and some will be posted on Wikipedia to illustrate the article. TechOutsider (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dynamy

Looks good. I don't see any issues with language, and I think you're right that it should be uncontroversial. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Dynamy and Santa Rosa, California: I actually was looking into this recently for something else altogether, and found out that the SR office never opened. I've changed the two articles accordingly. Hope that's okay—Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 20:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mgreason. You have new messages at DoriSmith's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Frank Stanley Cerveny

Seems fairly uncontroversial. :) I don't see any language concerns, but I do have one question: you seem to be taking the word of a mailing list that he was born in Ludlow when what looks like a more reliable source says Springfield. Are there other sources that also say Ludlow? If those are the only two sources to address his place of birth (I didn't really notice in the others), I'd be inclined to go with what looks like the more official one. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mgreason. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:TimeJimMoran.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:TimeJimMoran.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Hi, I noticed that you have been linking some dates at Frank Cerveny recently. This practice of linking dates for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. Please see WP:LINKING and WP:MOSNUM. Furthermore, there is an temporary Arbcom injunction on mass linking/delinking of chronological elements. I'm happy to respond to any inquiries you may have about the matter. Thank you for your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Arabian Nights (disambiguation)

You should read WP:DAB (exclude partial title matches; one bluelink per item). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not picking on you (honest!), but as to the dinner theater, it either has to be WP:NOTABLE (I've read some of the reviews - not so good) or at the very least be mentioned in the article which is linked (see WP:MOSDAB#Red links). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacksonville National Cemetery

Looks good. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Susan Fromberg Schaeffer. Off to the other. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Jim Moran, for the most part, looks very good. You do have to cite your source any time you quote from something. Where is the source for "innovation in yacht design and technology with a commitment to ocean preservation"? It could have come, say, from this: [5] or this. But there must be a citation if you're quoting. Also, I note in passing that your citation for his being the only of his sort on Time magazine is not what you need for that purpose. If I'm remembering correctly, the Horatio Alger website supports that; Time magazine, dating to 1961, can only support assertions about things that happened before 1961. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

←I haven't done a close comparison, but it looks about the same and if you say it's essentially the same, I'll take your word for it. :) By the way, checking through your older contributions should be almost completed. I'm sorry that it's taking so long. We have had a number of multiple article checks needed (including one that involved literally thousands of articles), and it's developed a bit of a backlog. My thought is that as soon as this check is completed and I can confidently assert that we have checked and cleared everything in the past, I'll propose that you fly solo. Not that I have any objection to giving feedback, but I think you're pretty much on top of this situation. :) (Just be sure to put your citation for quotes right next to your quotes, even if you wind up citing the same source two sentences in a row.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Jessie Ball duPont Fund

Hi. I've had an opportunity to look, and I'm afraid that this one needs some more work.

• "For four decades, she funded hundreds of scholarships for college students (mostly in the southeast)" (article)
• "For four decades, she funded hundreds of scholarships for college students, mostly in the southeastern states." (source)

As you can undoubtedly see when the two of them are placed side by side, these sentences are identical except in the finale. Utilizing parentheses is a superficial change, so that doesn't help. It needs to be either completely rewritten or quoted.

• "The Jessie Ball duPont Fund today directly supports the work of more than 325 "eligible institutions" - those entities that benefited from her gifts during the specified time period." (article)
• The Jessie Ball duPont Fund today directly supports the work of more than 325 "eligible institutions" - those entities that benefited from her gifts during the specified time period." (source)

I can't access all of the sources that you list, but those passages are problematic. We can only duplicate creative expression from non-free sources if we quote them in accordance with WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Counselor-in-Training (CIT)

Hi. I'm looking over this one. While this is not something I'm typically looking for, I was puzzled by your use of [6]. The article says, "The duration of the training may be as short as a weekend, longer than a month or an entire summer" The source says, "The Counselor-In-Training Program (CIT) is a 6 week program...." Did you mix up your sources? I also noticed that [7] doesn't say anything about 14 or 15 year olds. Is there another source for that? From a copyright perspective this one seems fine. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Harry Shorstein

I will respond to your concerns at the article talk page shortly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Next in line

Just to let you know (and to remind me), I'm down to User:Mgreason/Sandbox#Chanhassen. I'll pick it up tomorrow once I catch up on the copyright listings a bit. I've been dealing with a migraine, and I'm afraid I'm falling a bit way behind. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've looked through it, and everything seems fine. Sorry for taking so long to get back with it. I've only just caught up on the copyright problems board, and there are other copyright issues waiting. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I responded to your message on my talk page. I did not mean to offend by my edit of Ms. Corey's page, and I think we can work together to publish a lot of information on Jacksonville and its politics.

The Younger (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Angela Corey

A person with the user name The Younger removed text and sources, claiming that he "tidied up the article, edited some apparantly biased language". He replaced the sources with Citation needed tags. I restored the original version and reapplied a couple of valid changes he had made. Today he revised a paragraph, gutting most of the factual detail from the sources. I don't want to get into an edit war, but it seems like this person has an ax to grind. I value your opinion. Would you review this and tell me if I should back off? Mgreason (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As you may have guessed, since I still haven't finished review your most recent, I am scrambling to keep up. :) But this seems like something I can probably help out with, at least to help figure out the best approach. Let me go take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. This seems to be a straightforward editing dispute. It's not clearly disruptive of the article, as he is editing with plausible reasoning, so this is a case to assume good faith and launch a conversation about your concerns, explaining cordially why you disagree. I would suggest placing a note at the article's talk page explaining how the sources supported the text and why you think it belongs and then putting a note at his page telling him where that can be found. Give him a few days, since he's not an active contributor (I would guess, based on his redlinked talk page). If he doesn't return, you may restore the text if you're confident that it's all neutral in weight. If he does return and the two of you cannot reach an agreement on what the page should say, you might start by asking for feedback at the neutral point of view noticeboard or, since there are only two of you, requesting feedback at WP:3O. This is not exactly the fun part of Wikipedia, but it's an important part of the process. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tim Holland

First, I got a 404 Error on http://www.on-line-backgammon.com/backgammon.articles/TIM-HOLLAND_bgmnK28ivX05rM. I'm not able to access the text of the book. I can also only read the abstract of the New Yorker article. I can't access more than a snippet of some of the New York Times. This hampers me as a direct comparison. :) It looks okay, though I see right away a point where you need sourcing: "it is viewed as one of the best ways for a novice to learn the game." By whom? You need to attribute a statement like that. If more than one person has said so, you can just put in a couple of links. Otherwise, you've got a WP:Weasel situation. :)

I ran you through a plagiarism detector, and the only problem I encountered was duplication of text from our own article Backgammon, which I see you've edited quite a bit. I'm sure you remember that if you are not the only contributor of that text, you have to attribute. Generally, a note in the edit summary of each article is a good start. We've also recently picked up a new template: {{Copied}} which I think is easy to use. {{Copied | from = source article | to = destination article | diff = permanent URL or change when text was added}}. That goes on the talk page of both articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:310WChurchSt.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:310WChurchSt.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Polly (Parrot) 18:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:File:JFRescue.PNG]]

This file or media is currently the subject of a Commons:Deletion_requests/File:JFRescue.PNG| Deletion discussion]] at Wikimedia Commons.

If you have an interest in this media, or have information which could prevent it's deletion, please participate in the discussion, or contact someone from Commons as soon as possible.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Couple of pointers for writing articles.

1. Don't use the word "your" or "you". Wikipedia is not a game guide or walkthrough. Use words like "the player's" or "the player".
2. Don't add descriptive words that are disputable such as "Amazingly, animals won't leave your property...". Some people may not consider it amazing, some might. Either way, don't put it.

Jolly Ω Janner 17:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Farm Town DYK

Hello! Your submission of Farm Town at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jolly Ω Janner 22:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Cecil Recreation Complex

Looks fine. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarasota National Cemetery

Looks good. I did change one thing, altering "average" of 10 to "over" 10 in line with the source. It's kind of an awe inspiring thought, isn't it? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:TheySaiditwasMurder.JPG)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TheySaiditwasMurder.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Clara White Mission

Hi. I've had an initial look. I'm afraid that the history section paraphrases too closely from http://www.clarawhitemission.org/history.html. There are strong similarities in syntax and diction throughout.

Some of the more problematic passages:

• Article: "Eartha White obtained the closed Globe Theatre Building on West Ashley Street, and the facility was dedicated in her mother's memory."
• Source: "Eartha White obtained the old Globe Theatre Building on West Ashley Street, and dedicated the facility to the memory of her mother."

• Article: "The facility itself housed a variety of projects and programs over the years in addition to the feeding program for which the agency remains best known. During the Depression, Works Progress Administration (WPA) arts and sewing projects were located at the Mission; during World War II, soldiers stationed in Jacksonville stayed in the Mission's upper floors."
• Source: "The facility itself housed a variety of projects and programs over the years in addition to the feeding program for which the agency remains best known. During the Depression, WPA (Works Progress Administration) arts and sewing projects were headquartered in the Mission; during the Second World War, soldiers away from home lived on the Mission's upper floors

• Article: "Through the CWM, Eartha White also provided rooms to released prisoners and the homeless, while she fed, clothed and helped them to find jobs; the agency offered on-site canning, cooking, typing, and ceramics classes, in addition to Braille instruction."
• Source: "Eartha White also provided rooms to released prisoners and the homeless, while she fed, clothed and helped them to find jobs; the agency offered on-site canning, cooking, typing, and ceramics classes, in addition to instruction- in Braille."

That section, at least, needs a pretty major overhaul. Remember that it may be necessary to sacrifice detail, if you've only got the single source. Alternatively, it can be helpful to rewrite whole paragraphs rather than sentence by sentence. I'd start there.

Why don't you overhaul this section and address any other close paraphrasing issues of which you may be aware and let me know when you're done? I'll come finish reviewing then. I would prefer to review the whole thing at one time in case there are changes made to other sections.

Do remember, too, that you can't use non-free content in userspace in accordance with non-free content policy & guideline. I've temporarily deleted the logo of this organization, since it is unfree and not used in any usable space. When this is ready to go into article space, I'll restore it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That was very careless of me. I had done a rewrite of the History original source, but neglected to put it in the sandbox. While I was looking, I made a few other changes, too. I think it will pass muster. Mgreason (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

All right. I'll take a look at it today. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Finished my review, and it looks good. :) Let me know when you move it into article space, and I'll restore the logo. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Lifetime

I noticed when editing you recently added the template {{Lifetime}} to an article, replacing DEFAULTSORT or categories in the process. While the template {{Lifetime}} is a useful short-cut when setting up biographies it is not generally considered wise to replace existing categories or DEFAULTSORT for a number of reasons. The chief amongst them are that the template hides information from editors and automatic processes or requires additional knowledge to understand. This is only a minor point, many thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, please keep it up!

Reagrds, Rich Farmbrough, 15:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC).

Farm Town

Regarding this edit, my explanation was given as WP:GAMEGUIDE. Thanks. --Gnomus (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Review

User:Mgreason/Sandbox seems fine. :) I don't know that I'll get to review anymore today, but I will try to pick it up tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Everything seems clear at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 3. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mgreason/Sandbox 7 seems fine. And I'm very sorry for the delay in reviewing it. Between my computer problems, work issues, and the ongoing copyright matters on Wikipedia, I've been fairly swamped. I have glanced at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 5 but don't have time to thoroughly comb it right now. However, I ran it through my mechanical plagiarism detector, and it hit a match: "Mac Graphics provides pressroom related products such as printing plates, film, ink, pressroom chemicals, prepress supplies, press supplies and CTP solutions." The source says "Mac Graphics provides pressroom related products such as printing plates, film, ink, pressroom chemicals, prepress supplies, press supplies and CTP solutions." Please remember that to comply with WP:C we can't use their words unless we are quoting them as set out at WP:NFC. I'll try to get back to this one later today, though it may be tomorrow or even Friday depending on my workload. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed the sentence in question, so it should be fine. User:Mgreason/Sandbox 6 is the last related article in this group. Thanks for your help. Mgreason (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, User:Mgreason/Sandbox 5 seems fine now. I'm going to look at 6 right now before some other fire springs up somewhere. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems a bit odd to review User:Mgreason/Sandbox 6 when the article is already at Tom McGehee. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, duh. It's not. :) It just contains some of the same text. (The program I use picked up duplication to your own article which is, of course, perfectly okay. Just tricked me for a minute into thinking it was the same article.) Okay, now that I've got that cleared, I'm off to review. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. That's all sorted, then, and it seems fine. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

One for rewriting

Hi. :) As we are trying to launch a new process board, I am particularly motivated to clear out older issues. I see Betty Skelton Erde likely needs to be rewritten, and I thought you might like a shot at it. It's blanked. You probably know that it links to a temporary space where you can put a new article. I'm going to go ahead and list it at WP:CP per process, and it will be evaluated after 7+1 days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Mgreason (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. :) Here's another one. I've only tagged this one for close paraphrasing, but please try to get to it soon, as it is in some places really close. We have only 13 articles to go. I'll revise if I see small stuff or pick it up piecemeal, and I'll let you know if I find major taking from one source. I'll be very glad to get this one closed, and I'm sure you'll be happy to see it done, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mgreason,

I'm working on the WP:CP queue with Moonriddengirl. As you've indicated a willingness to rewrite Betty Skelton Erde from scratch and it was due today, I relisted it, to give you another 7 days to do so. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween

Happy Halloween from a Moonriddengirl to a very valued colleague.

Your patience, diligence and courtesy are inspirational. :) Thanks. (It will not hurt my feelings if you want to get rid of the shiny Halloween image, though I loved it when I stumbled across it. :D I hope the "card" renders well on your page, because I don't usually make these things for myself.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Honest services fraud

On November 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Honest services fraud, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 14:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Congratulations on the DYK. :) I didn't manage to finish the list before WP:CCI went live, but you are a high priority for me. There's always more to do than I anticipate, particularly with new stuff cropping up every day. :) But I've reviewed Catherine Street Fire Station, and the history section needs reworking (I've blanked it, since the whole section is a problem). I did a bit of revision and cutting from Epping Forest (Jacksonville, Florida) as well. So as not to overwhelm you, I'm only planning on dropping two on you at a time. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that Neighborhoods of Jacksonville, Florida may need quite a bit of work. :/ I've blanked several sections. On a positive note, we are down to 7 articles now. Almost through! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Lake City Community College needs revision, but we're down to 5. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on a major revision of Lake City Community College.Mgreason (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For weathering the challenge and keeping your eye on the goal: good content on Wikipedia. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. The cleanup project is finished. :) Furthermore, I don't think you need further review. I've been evaluating your material for about 10 months, and I think you have a very good grip on how to handle sources. Which doesn't, of course, mean that you can't come by if you want feedback, but it means that you can go ahead and put your latest work directly into article space.

Some of Sam W. Wolfson Baseball Park is blanked at the moment for revision, if you want to work on that. But otherwise, your listing is archived. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File:CarlingHotel.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:CarlingHotel.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. NW (Talk) 02:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving pages

Hi, when you want to move a page (such as Riverside Theater to Riverside Theater (Milwaukee), you should click the move tab at the top of the article, not copy and paste into a new article. This is because we must preserve the article history. I deleted your copy&paste version of Riverside Theater (Milwaukee) and moved it properly. LadyofShalott 15:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Riverside Theater (Jacksonville)

On January 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Riverside Theater (Jacksonville), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wolfson The Fabulous Junkman

Dear Mr. Greason I have begun a biography on the life of Louis E. Wolfson. Part 1 is currently posted for download at wolfsonraider.com. Please view and let people know how they can learn about the greatest financier of the last 100 years---the first corporate raider and the last triple crown winner.

Russell Williams [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.12.67 (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Augustine High School

Good work on removing that redirect and reinstating the dab page. You might want to take a look at how it appeared before the anon editor made it a redirect: [8] (diff from current: [9]). I am leaving on vacation in a matter of hours so am time-crunched, or I'd have a go at it myself. Clearly, it wouldn't be correct to revert back to the pre-redirect state, because your update has improvements over that, despite missing one or two things. Again, nice work. TJRC (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:BallWakullaSprings.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BallWakullaSprings.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom for Bobby Weed

Hello, I just nominated your new article. You can see the nomination here: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Bobby_Weed. --Morenooso (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Weed will be on the DYK in about 9.3 hours. 5 PM PST. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Class Officers

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Class Officers. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Student council. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Student council - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, 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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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 render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. — Timneu22 · talk 15:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)