User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 → Archive 35

Need Help

Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir. There is this user Coolrockstar999 who keep adding Top 10 list of shows under the following articles Zee TV, STAR Plus, etc, without any reference whatsoever. The information has been removed so many times but he keeps adding it back even by logging with different IP addresses. The list changes almost everyday. Besides, these channels have produced so many hit shows, so it is difficult to list them in order. Also, there is no reference to support the info at all. Can you please help him/her stop this. Look under STAR Plus, Zee TV. Thank you. Survir (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Survir. :) I've removed it and left him a note. It's a good idea to explain at a user's talk page why you are removing content. Maybe he'll stop once he understand why it's gone. If not, additional steps may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your wisdom is needed

... at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I picked a bad day to have a migraine. :/ (Not that any day is really good for that. :D) Let me wade in and see what still needs sorting, if anything. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
There. I've weighed in. Hope I made sense. I'm in a migraine medication fog at the moment. But it's not like I'm unfamiliar with this work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much -- gosh, so many of us are terribly ignorant in your department, and you do such amazing, hard work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

girding one's loins

For what it's worth, there seems to be an earlier version of jockstrap#History. I haven't checked it out. Uncle G (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one that blanked it but I haven't looked at the history either (or even compared what was removed to the asserted source), I just wanted to make sure it got listed at CP for further review. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I've identified the point of origin of this text to User:TimmyTruck, an indeffed sock, on 22 October 2007. Unfortunately, User:TimmyTruck did quite a lot in this article. I need to scan his contribs to see if he pasted content from any other websites. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's hoping that the copyvio isn't widespread for that contributor - a CCI for 20+ socks doesn't sound fun. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Bite your tongue. :) I found other content that seemed highly suspicious, but it is long gone from the article and I got no hits whatsoever through my plagiarism detector. Not even a mirror. I've noted the copyvio in this article at the talk page of the master account. If these add up, we may have to bite the bullet (more or less pleasant than biting one's tongue? I'd rather do neither. :P). There's a single Coren notice at Timmy's talk and nothing at the main account. Image issues seem more prevalent. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm going to keep an eye on the article for a time but not do a revision deletion yet. That's a lot of history to be swept away. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dispatch

I think y'all need to strike while people's attention is focused on this -- see User talk:SandyGeorgia#You made me look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Merciline Jayakody

Dear fiend Thanks lot for your feedback about this Article.I avoid all copyrights problems you mentioned here Talk:Merciline Jayakody/Temp. could you please see and make your responce. --Wipeouting (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear friend I got your points and did my best. Thanks for your attention. I would like to continue my articles with out copy right violating . could you please see gin . --Wipeouting (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

To MRG: I just removed most of the content from Lionel Wendt again for the same reasons. I tried to leave an explanation on their talk page, but I'm not sure how well our comments are getting through. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be clearly a language barrier here. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Another writing assignment

So what with the latest news of plagiarim hitting ANI, there's been a request for a follow-up to the Plagiarism Signpost article from a year-and-a-half ago, and I figured the article you wrote for WP:MILHIST seemed to at least be a good start, so I kindly mentioned you with all of your free time. Or maybe we could try and tidy up User:MLauba/Cv101 and get it posted somewhere? Something to make it easier for everyone to help out and encourage them to do so. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I was posting to Sandy's talk page at the same time! :D I think that it's a great idea; I've been wanting to do it for a while. I am asking Sandy, though, if there's somebody who could guide us in this. I've only helped in the one Dispatch, and it would be great to have somebody more familiar with the style there to pitch in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
See my talk. Won't go into the unfortunate story of what happened to the Dispatches, but if you write it, it will get published. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Seven Kingdoms (band)

I don't think the article creator is getting the message about the reviews as they keep adding them. Mo ainm~Talk 18:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Still working on it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to write a review section incorporating the reviews. Mo ainm~Talk 19:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
That would be fabulous and might very well side-step the need for the fuss and bother. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Not easy when it is a subject I have no clue about :) Mo ainm~Talk 19:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible?

Would it be possible for me to be voluntarily blocked starting November 1 until the end of November (or until I finish the project)? I am going to be participating in NaNoWriMo and I am completely sure that Wikipedia will serve as a distraction to my goal. Because of that, I would rather that I not have the option of going on Wikipedia during the month of November. SilverserenC 21:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's possible. There are some admins who will do self-requested blocks, and I could hook you up with one, but would Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer do it for you? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The script is preferable, but if you absolutely insist on being blocked, I'd be willing to press the button. Courcelles 21:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Courcelles. :) That'll save me having to ask somebody. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know that there was such a script. That'll work. SilverserenC 22:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess I wouldn't want to activate that until the 1st though. SilverserenC 22:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay. :) If you finish your project early, you can request {{admin help}} to adjust the enforcer when you're done. Alternatively, you might set it for week-long batches or something. Good luck with your project! Hope all goes fluidly. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University

Hi MRG, been looking at Special:UncategorizedPages today and found quite a few copyvios, among them a number of different campuses of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. The issue here is Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University also appears to be written like what would be written on a website about the university, but a Google search (even with "-wikipedia") is fruitless as there seem to be too many sites, facebook and otherwise, that use the exact text that's been on wikipedia. I'm pretty convinced that this is a copyvio from somewhere, I just can't find where. Any advice or opinion on where to proceed from here? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That's always an uncomfortable feeling. :/ As a general rule of thumb, here's what I do: I start looking in the history. First thing I do is look to see if there was a large influx of text or a overhaul to the article. Sometimes, content will be tweaked after that in a way that makes it harder to find the source. In this case, there's no sudden change of size, so I'm looking for the words "imperative need" through Wikiblame, to see when it entered. I find this. I grab runs of five words that seem distinctive and search the web and google books. I do not put them in quotation marks, first, because close paraphrasing can be excluded that way. I may also pick a very limited run of words. In this case, I'm still focused on that "imperative need". I do a google search of "'imperative need' + Jawaharlal Nehru" and voila: [1]. My first hit is to the Handbook of Universities: [2]. Zeroing in on the page shows me the following:

Under a broad policy framework of providing new technological education required for the industrial growth of the country in general and more particularly for the State of Andhra Pradesh, "Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University" was established on 2 October, 1972, by an act of State Legislature. Rightly named after the ardent lover of science and technology, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, the University was established with the noble objectives of strengthening and improving the standards of Technological Education and making it relevant to the rural and industrial development of the country

That text looks pretty familiar; in the article, on the day of the link above:

Under a broad policy framework of providing new technological education required for the industrial growth of the country in general and more particularly for the State of Andhra Pradesh, "Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University" was established on 2 October, 1972, by an act of State Legislature. Named after the ardent lover of science and technology and first Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the University was established with the objectives of strengthening and improving the standards of technological education and making it relevant to the rural and industrial development of the country.

(My next step is making sure that this is indeed where the text entered the article. Wikiblame can fool you; if somebody reverts vandalism, for instance, it might single it out as where the content entered the article.)
If I had not found a match, I would at least have put {{cv-unsure}} on the talk page of the article. But, copyvio confirmed, I have some additional legwork to do here now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Wikiblame has done it again: Note the edit summary here. It was actually entered by an IP quite some time back...far enough back that I have to be sure it's not a reverse infringement! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it does not look like reverse infringement. The first edits to the content moved it away rather than closer to the source content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I kind of overthought that one. :D Knowing Wikiblame's proclivities, I should have had it search further back (and had I noticed the name of the editor it stopped on, I probably would have). Since official sources are most often the origin of this kind of stuff, I did a wayback search of the website dated between 12/31/2005 and 1/1/1996, and its a match. So, before following any of the above advice, remember what I did not: keep it simple! I should have checked the official site to start with! And I need more caffeine. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am in awe. :) Thanks for the pointer on {{cv-unsure}} too. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoot! One of my favorite holidays! Thank you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack1956's DYK submissions

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Multiple plagiarized DYK submissions by Jack1956

SandyGeorgia got the mirror wrong. I've identified what was actually been mirrored. However, that, and my subsequent cleanup efforts of the other citations, have revealed the situtation to be worse rather than better. There a link to the OUP's own on-line version of the OUP article in the citation, now. But you can use the answers.com mirror to see much the same text. Please compare article and source. I'm rather annoyed that, after all of my work researching and looking things up, it looks like the article has to go. I'd like a second opinion on how close the paraphrasing is. Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi. I'm looking into this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • This is very worrisome. This user quietly and without commenting (marking his edit as "minor") delisted his own article from WP:SCV. We need to look at Pons Neronianus more closely to see if it has lingering copyright concerns. Meanwhile, I'll take a look at Charles Fitzroy Doll. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, he's incorporated the structure of the original and only minimally changed its language. We might be able to gut the article to leave a usable stub, but I have to ask: are we confident that the user didn't copy content from his other sources? :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi, I don't know if this is the right place to weigh in in defence of myself. I used the text from here in the belief that the site was a copyright-free Wiki - I was unaware of the OUP book. As I thought the text could be used I delisted the article from WP:SCV. I'm not really very good at this, am I? Jack1956 (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Hi. I appreciate your willingness to talk about this. Under the instructions at SCV it says (bolding in original) "Do not remove listings, even if the article has been deleted or no violation was found." So,not, you cannot delist the article. It really worried me that you marked the edit as "minor", which makes it look like you were deliberately minimizing, but I've noted since then that you mark everything as minor: [3]. This is a problem; you should only mark "minor" edits that really are Wikipedia:Minor edit. I suspect you've inadvertently set your preferences to do this; do you know how to fix it? There are very few copyright-free Wikis. Wikipedia isn't even copyright free. In the case of answers.com, it says at the bottom of that page: "Copyrights: Architecture and Landscaping. A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. Copyright © 1999, 2006 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved." Even if it did not, though, answers is itself copyrighted: "Copyright © 2010 Answers Corporation". This is one of the reasons why you should not delist your articles from SCV. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I didn't know any of that and I don't know how to undo my 'Minor edits' preference. I've only just now seen the section at the bottom of the Answers.com page - I didn't scroll down that far when writing the article. Although fairly experienced when it comes to writing articles, I am much less experienced when it comes to understanding Wiki policies. I delisted in the mistaken belief that the material I had used was copyright free. I accept now that I shouldn't have done that. Jack1956 (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. :) There's very little that we can actually safely copy as the basis for new articles. Unless we can prove that content is public domain, we can't copy it, and even if we can, we have to attribute it properly to meet the guidelines on plagiarism (Wikipedia:Plagiarism) (attributing it properly doesn't just mean citing the source; per guideline, we need to acknowledge that it is copied). There's quite a lot of attention on copyright/plagiarism concerns floating about Wikipedia at the moment. This is a good thing, since these are serious issues that our project needs to address, but it also may mean that people will lose sight of WP:AGFC. Please forgive them the lapse, if they do. In my experience, it's a lot more productive to work through these kinds of issues cordially, and so when I say "I appreciate your willingness to talk about this", I really mean it. Given that this issue exists, are you aware of any other articles that you may have created by copying or closely following content from previously published sources?

      In terms of "minor" edits, the way to repair this is to go into your preferences (see Help:Preferences), under the "editing" tab. Midway down is an option that says "Mark all edits minor by default." If this is checked, you should uncheck it. If it is not, please let me know, and I'll look for somebody more computer savvy to figure out while yours are being so marked. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

      • None that I can think of. I will undo my 'Preferences'. I can forgive most things, MRG, and have done over my years on Wiki, but never before have I been called a 'liar' and a 'dishonest editor' - that's hard to walk away from. Jack1956 (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I understand. I could show you some of the things that I have been called on Wikipedia in the last few years (some have really stung; others are garden variety obscenities), but we really each must decide where our line is. For what it's worth, I keep in mind the project when I encounter such difficulties. I really believe in what Wikipedia stands for, and unless the Wikipedia community at large develops into something I can't support, I will not let the attitudes or opinions of a few drive me away. Please let me know if you have any problems with resetting your Preferences. It may be necessary to look at some of the other articles to see if there are issues that you do not recall, but anything we find can be addressed. In the meantime, would you please rewrite "Charles Fitzroy Doll" so that it does not constitute an ongoing copyright problem? We do need to handle this fairly swiftly, but if you do not have time to rewrite it at once we can blank it and list it at the copyright problems holding pen, where articles typically sit for a week to allow contributors time to work on them at more leisure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I've reworked the Doll article, removing anything I think resembles the article on Answers.com/OUP book. I've also changed my Preferences. Thanks for your help and understanding in this. Jack1956 (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I will show you one. Here it is. I commented on the noticeboard about the namecalling that has happened in this discussion overall. It hasn't really helped. But then it never does. I am amazed that people don't learn this from experience. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The irony here is that (a) you've shown that our answers.com article is out of date, (b) you've shown that Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc#Answers.com is probably out of date, (c) you've shown that there's another route for people to read some OUP reference books for free and without subscription.

      What you have also shown is something that is an endemic problem here on Wikipedia. People look at WWW pages and think of them as WWW pages. I've lost count of the times that I've seen {{cite web}} mis-used. Quite often, if the source is a good one, the WWW page is a copy of printed item, such as a newspaper or a book. All too infrequently do people look at the source and think to themselves: "What am I actually citing, here? Who wrote it? Who published it? Is it really a book, or a newspaper, or a thesis, or a journal article, or a conference paper? What is this WWW page a copy of?"

      The good news is that if one always tries to tie down the author, date, publisher, title, and work of source, as a full citation rather than as a partial citation or (worse) a bare URL, one becomes a lot more conscious of what one is using. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

When you have time

I hate to make your orange bar go off again in the middle of this, but when you have time, we need to have a discussion at FAC to make sure this doesn't happen again. I never pass an article until someone has looked at the images, and I know the reviewers who know image policy best (there just aren't enough of them, and others can't be faulted when they try to help out, because I'm always asking for help). But, we need to put something in place to make sure some screening for plagiarism or close paraphrasing is in place. At FAC, it's harder to pick out prose that looks "too good to be true" and screen it, because the level of prose there is expected to be professional. I can, at best, not promote until someone has spot checked sources (reviewers have gotten lax on that, because Ealdgyth and Brianboulton spot check for source reliability but they don't verify content) and confirmed that on the FAC. The good thing is that we have many repeat nominators at FAC, so we'll quickly get a sense of who is "safe". Would that work? What else can we put in place at FAC in terms of general screening instructions? It would probably be best to wait a few days before tackling this, to let the kerfuffle (hopefully) subside. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Spot-checking sources is all well and good in theory, but breaks down in practice when one's dealing with historical topics, especially in foreign languages. I'll lay a reasonable bet, for instance, that there is nobody in a position to check the mix of 19th-century books which only exist in the Buckinghamshire County Museum archives and a couple of copyright libraries, arcane technical books on poultry, and specialist works on the construction and impact of railways that make up the bibliography for Aylesbury duck. With that level of difficulty regarding an article on a relatively well-known animal species and the history of a town in the most densely populated area in Europe, what's the realistic likelihood that someone will be in a position to carry out spot checks on Witold Pilecki or Act of Independence of Lithuania? – iridescent 15:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Yikes. I'll consider this one after I've done a bit more poking at User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright. If I try to juggle more thoughts, I'm likely to get them all muddled. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that we need to be realistic about what can and can't reasonably be done, and perhaps not beat ourselves up too much about won't get done. One very straightforward thing we could do is to implement some kind of check for copyvios from online sources similar to the Corenbot that runs against new pages. Wikipedia apparently has a technical/legal problem because of the page history though, so I've seen it said that the likelihood is that the majority of pages are in breach of copyright because am earlier version of them was at one time; not sure what can be done about. But even reputbale academic publishers don't always spot even tghe most blatant plagiarism or copyright violations. I have a book on database technology published by Academic Press in which one whole chapter has been copied from a book on a rather obscure technology not much in favour these days, without attribution and without even mentioning the original author once. Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Revision deletion helps a lot with the page history problem. The closest thing I have to Corenbot for established pages is Earwig's article copyvio quickscan. It's manual, and it does have some challenges. Among them, of course, it's not really engineered to pick up close paraphrasing problems. Somebody can render it useless by changing a few words here and there consistently throughout the piece. I really think that one of the best things we can hope for is to keep people conscious of copyright problems at various points of Wikipedia. In just the twenty years or so I've been doing copyright work on Wikipedia (times are subjective and based on the perception of reality rather than reality itself), I've seen big improvements there. I see a lot more people these days who seem to know and care. Spread the word. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Brutally, one thing you can do is look back into the main editors contributions on other articles. If an editor plagiarises once, my experience is that they do it repeatedly :( and they have probably done it in the past with sources that are online.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, my experience coincides with yours. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't keep up, my doggie died, but can't slow this down. Could you peek in at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Plagiarism issue? My idea is that you draft some basic info that can be used across all content review processes (DYK, GA, FA), and the nominator signs off that they've read and understood all of it, and haven't plagiarized/copyviod before they nominate and certify that as part of the nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Sandy, I'm sooo sorry. :( I'll certainly peek in there, and I think it's a very good idea. It would also serve as an opportunity to educate those contributors who don't already get it and may cut down some future inadvertent infringement from those who read it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ibero Cruises/Iberojet

You have made changes to the article I wrote about Iberojet and I don't understand why? You say I copied text from Ibero Cruises into the article which is not the case. I created the article as new, because Iberojet was previously a redirect to Ibero Cruises, even though they are actually two different companies. You've now re-instated the redirect, when the company Iberojet has no link whatsoever to Ibero Cruises. Crazy-dancing (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry; you're right. I was misinformed. The contributor who tagged the article indicated that it had originally been placed at Ibero Cruises by another contributor, and I took his word for it without verifying that myself. I've repaired it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ivankinsman continued copyvio

Hey, sorry if I was supposed to put this elsewhere, but I decided your talkpage would be most efficient. As you may remember I am doing some work on the old Ivankinsman CCI case. I was a bit suprised when I saw he is still allowed to edit and after checking some recent edits of his I found what I was afraid of: this edit seems copied from http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth103. What should I do about it? Yoenit (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what you've done; thank you. I'll look into it. (Alternatively, you could list it at ANI, but generally taking it to an admin who works copyright is a good start.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked him, but probably not long enough. (I'm not really much for the hammer part of my tool set. :/) See the ANI request for review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
We will see, I will definitely keep an eye on him. Thanks for your quick action. Yoenit (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You poor thing

That is more cheerful than editing a page on Wikipedia? Do we need to get you some good meds? Do you like chocolate chip cookies? :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Who doesn't love chocolate chip cookies?! :D (I need to schedule a day to take off my "copyright" hat and write articles. That's fun! Sometimes the copyvio stuff is pretty depressing, though, and I'm feeling pretty gloomy over some recent developments. :/ </self pity party>) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

VernoWhitney has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I'd give you a barnstar, but it got eaten by a bear... Honest! How about some WikiChem free beer for your Halloween? Physchim62 (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. :D The combination of cookies and beer could probably go a long way to lifting my mood. And I do get to see tons of cute munchkins in costumes tonight, so that's always a plus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Iberojet

My apologies for the Iberojet mess. I thought the content was authored by Yankeesman312, but on deeper investigation, it wasn't. However, I still think its a copyright violation of http://www.orizonia.com/en/fichaiberojet.html, and have retagged as such. -- saberwyn 20:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your most recent comment re. copyright tag on my talk page, thanks. Crazy-dancing (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Spooky day!

Thank you! :D And good point. Cheers! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Bravehrt77

Sorry to bother you again about this, this editor has serious ownership issues with this article I asked him what he was trying to do with his latest edits and got this reply. IMO it is starting to become disruptive. Mo ainm~Talk 18:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a bit. He evidently has his own idea of how he wants the article to appear and hasn't quite caught on yet that we do things in certain ways. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the note on his talk page hopefully they will listen to you. Mo ainm~Talk 21:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Big sock farm detected~!

  • Once they go down the slippery slope, they seem to just keep going. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, major copyvios detected~!

  • MRG, it's like you what you've said, he seem to just keep going down that path... especially when I found a couple of serious copyvios problem he has. See his upload log for more details. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Omigosh... this guy is really incorrigible... see User:LS C HIST/pages/HumanGeography, so much bogus claims in there. Being the sleuth that I am, I've checked and noted that he's not listed as a member of Singapore related taskforce or for that matter neither is he a member for Malaysia and Indonesia related taskforce but yet he claims to be one. This boy is a train wreck, what's wrong with him? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, dear. :/ I'm going to have to look into this one later. I've got to get back to my "they pay me for this" work, and that's going to occupy me for a while. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Haha... I used to have that "job" thought too but since the start of the year, I was told to think of it by the Missus as: "I'm so happy to bring home the BACON~!". I can never fully understand what woman think sometimes... oh well~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Images

Could you tell me why the image on Gossip Girl (season 4) won't show up please. Does it need admin approval? Jayy008 (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

On another note. Say is a repeat rating is added, isn't saying a repeat of a low 0.86 an opinion and fancruft? The source doesn't say "a low" just the number. Jayy008 (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. In terms of the image, I'm afraid I have no idea. It does not need admin approval, as its display should be automatic. I'd suggest asking at WP:HELP about that one. Calling 0.86 "low" isn't fancruft unless citing the repeat rating itself is fancruft. But it may be opinion; I do not follow television and I do not know what assumptions are a given. If it would be readily understood by anyone viewing the number who has the least familiarity with repeat ratings that the number is low, it may be appropriate. Alternatively, it should be sourced or presented as a bald number to let readers draw their own conclusions. But that's the kind of thing you should talk about with other contributors to reach consensus and, if feedback is needed, it can be requested at WP:ORN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Further copyright review

Hello. Please note that your doubtful questions kills me and makes me to go hanged. You guys want me to get out of wiki for ever. You say me directly I will leave. Instead of killing me again and again asking questions on this. Even I do edit wiki after doing my work whether to do or not. Why are you like this. If you can prove those images are others owned, please let me know I will get killed myself. You are seriously hurting here raising questions just others asking you so. I am a true wikipedian want to spend good values in wiki. But seriously thinks like these makes users like me to get vexed. Please for god sake understand.

Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding ANI on DYK

I felt it was necessary to mark it for archive so that people did not need to post more "incidences" onto the page. And I did mark in my closing statements that someone could "move this [thread] to WP:AN, a subpage, WT:DYK, or some other page, but do not continually repost more incidences here. The main issue has been resolved, there is no need for further discussion." So I felt it moot that further discussion was necessary, since the two editors who started the thread and were in the dispute have resolved their case. Further discussion about DYK, I feel, may reference this ANI discussion in the archives, but that they be located elsewhere. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree with you that the ANI issue is no longer pressing, but closing off constructive conversation which may lead to the improvement of the project is generally not a good idea. There have been quite a few opinions and ideas bandied about in that thread, and rather than archiving them, it would be better to make them accessible at the new discussion. I'm in the process of doing so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The potential copyright issue with Grace Sherwood is rather pressing, and still an open and unresolved incident. It's today's featured article! I'm currently looking at this old revision and comparing against the USA Today source. Uncle G (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, I didn't realize that had not yet been handled. I'll mention that one in the summary, unless you think it should be restored until that is resolved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I think that we need several eyes upon it in addition to mine, however we achieve that. We need a fairly clear retain/remove decision for Raul654. I'd certainly like my opinions double-checked. Uncle G (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I see that whilst I've been looking at this, this happened. We're less pressed now. But whilst I've got the tabs open … Uncle G (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh dear! This is the revision that makes me say "Ouch!". We're going to have to ask the FA people what they want to do, here. Uncle G (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Is it still the USA Today source you're comparing to? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, I see. Yes, that's a problem. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes. Example comparison:
        • Old prose: On March 7, 1706 the court had a jury of 12 "ancient and knowing women" search Sherwood's body for suspicious or unusual markings, thought to be brands of the devil. They found two suspicious moles "marks not like theirs or like those of any other woman." After being tried in the second Princess Anne County Courthouse, Sherwood consented to be tried by water.
        • USA Today:The court had "ancient and knowing women" search Sherwood's body for marks of the devil, Nash said. They found two suspicious moles. Sherwood then consented to be tried by water.
      • This is why I want double-checking. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I focused in on (old prose) "Sherwood actually went to court a dozen times, either to fight witchcraft charges or to sue her accusers for slander." The source says: "Sherwood actually went to court a dozen times, either to fight witchcraft charges or to sue her accusers for slander, Nash said.". Except for cutting off teh attribution that is a word for word paste. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I left the easy ones. ☺ Another example:
        • Old prose: The first accusation of witchcraft against Sherwood was a court case held on March 3, 1697 in which Richard Capps accused her of casting a spell upon his bull, causing it to die. There were no findings in the case but the Sherwoods then brought suit for defamation, which was dismissed by agreement of the parties. Then in 1698 she was accused of bewitching neighbor John Gisburne's hogs and crop of cotton. James Sherwood brought another action for slander but lost that suit.
        • Old Donation Episcopal Church: Grace's problems started in March 1697 when Richard Capps accused Grace of casting a spell on his bull, causing it to die. There were no findings, but the Sherwoods then brought suit against Capps for defamation which by agreement of the parties was dismissed. Then in 1698 Grace was accused by John Gisburne of bewitching his hogs and cotton. James Sherwood brought an action for slander, but lost,
      • Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you have seen it already, but since it wasn't made explicit and some people actually suggested that the section added in this edit wasn't even plagiarised because "only" two sentences were "only" almost verbatim as in the source: The edit plagiarised 8 consecutive sentences, with only a minimum of rephrasing, dropping only one sentence from the original 9 sentences in the source, and adding only a tiny amount of additional information. See my analysis at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page#Which is witch? Hans Adler 14:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A very thorough analysis, thanks! I find this whole situation very disheartening. Frankly, it's an inevitable side effect of our editing model. We expect contributors from all walks of life to have a clear understanding of how to handle source material. I deal nearly daily with people who do not. It often takes multiple passes to help them see the concern and learn to address it properly. Has this copying been documented at the talk page of the article? (I guess I could go look for that myself. :D) We need to make sure that contributors fix the problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
(And I did look myself, and, yes, I see it has. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC))
As far as how to handle the FA/FAR, I would say 1) wait to see if Rlevse comes back or 2) Malleus is willing to rewrite (if you ask him nice, he may-- it's troubling to him that he may get blamed for this simply because he copyedited, and when he copyedits, he only smooths prose, doesn't add prose), and 3) ask Raul if he wants it to go through FAR or if he wants to handle it himself. He's the boss :) MRG, I am constantly amazed by you. At one point, I was a little worried that I shouldn't have added the copyvio tag, but it appears that was right and I'm learning a wee bit about this business from you. We really really need to run those Dispatches, because we need to start educating people, in very plain language. The problem with what is written now is a lot of it goes over the heads of us who don't know intellectual property. What A Mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

So what do we conclude about Grace Sherwood? Our bigger concern is copyright. So: Copyright problem? Or not? Is it a derived work of the versions that you, I, and Hans Adler looked at? I'm inclined to say that on balance there was a copyright problem. I'm also inclined, given the current text, to say that derived work does exist and is now spread through at least three sections (counting the blanked one) of the current article. I really do not like to be in this position, but if the FA people asked I'd (currently) opine that fixing the problem would require expunging a fair amount of text, just to deal with the USA Today and Old Donation Episcopal Church text, which would render a large portion of the article into disconnected nonsense. And that's just two sources. Uncle G (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Attribution as a magic wand against copyright violation

You might want to read and comment. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your infinite wisdom is requested

here. Shubinator (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Weighed in. Sorry for my absence! I've got unfortunate timing with a real world deadline that ate yesterday and will probably consume most of this afternoon and early tomorrow. :/ I'm going to try to catch up on the rest of that conversation after I take care of talk page issues and anything pressing in my watchlist. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, especially at such a busy time. Shubinator (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Keyan20

MRG (or any talk page stalkers), I've been off for a long time, and don't have much wikitime in the near future, but User:Keyan20 continues to upload copyrighted images (he's now started uploading them on Commons and using them here since we deleted a bunch out here, and I'd blocked his IP once). Can you or any of your talk page stalkers take a look at the history of contribs please? There are too many articles affected for me to handle in the near future. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've mass nominated for deletion here. Courtesy of User:Yoenit's detective work, we know now that one image was copied from another user on Wikipedia, though now we have to figure out if that was ever properly verified. Oi! It never ends! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I've also PuFfed the images he claims per "self" here. More specific link, if you're interested, at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. I come back after a month, and this is the first thing I see! MRG, as for the Kumarrajendran images, I believe there was a discussion earlier, User:Sundar and/or User:Sodabottle might be able to provide some context on it, it was at one point in time generally accepted as a family collection or something, but I don't know the history. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Kumarrajendran is indeed a relative of Janaki Ramachandran (i checked off wiki). And he had scanned and uploaded his family albums. Over time a lot of them were deleted since, we couldnt be sure it was him who owns the copyright (those who were taken in the 60s and 70s). But the scans of documents like MGR's ID card and Janaki's Bharat Ratna citation were done by him. (going by the metadata).--Sodabottle (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, welcome back Spiff.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been sceptical about the Kumarrajendran images for a while, because these images are widespread, but, as mentioned above, a "private family collection". Quite a few images that explicitly said that were deleted via PUF after nomination by me and others, but since Sodabottle explained the situation, perhaps those with no other info should undergo some discussion as well unless a valid permission is produced. You think so too? But that's another case of mass discussion which doesn't work well on this wiki (I remember discussing something like that with you). Hekerui (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I think additional review would be a good idea, yes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

clarification

Hello guys, please see that asking again & again it disturbs me. I am trying to make the best work that I can meeting the norms. Raising questions again & again clearly violates the trust on a regular user who does work based on true facts/events. I agree kamal with sivaji.jpg ( no 4 and 5 ) feels like a screen-shot from the movie Thevar Magan, so you are doubting that. I got those from my collections and if anyone can prove those are others owned, I give you knife to kill me. I really mean it. I have lot of Tamil cinema connections and friends -- that I cannot explain all here. Please understand this. But raising questions on Ilaiyaraja the maestro.jpg, Anbazhagan.jpg is not at all fair -- all are incidents inheriting with my previous works. Beleive me, give some air to inhale. All are bowing arrows at me in a single shot. Jayalalitha image is already there in wiki but not in wikicommons, so I added it. Trust me here - whatelse you want me. Please !!

I owe you all with good respect and continued experience working so long here. But do not view all like the same. I started in wiki casually. You know I use wiki right from year 2004 heavily. But all these times I never made efforts/learned whats going behind wiki & others. Seeing me daily constantly using wiki, one of my friend told me some basic instructions how to edit wiki. So I slowly started and now just like it doing. I do work based on my heart and truth. I am not mistaking you for all that you do, but never never take all cases to be the same and since you had experienced before like this and expecting it to be the same. what can I say, I feel I am throwned away.

Please understand me. I will be very very disappointed and feel like there is no good justice done in wiki if those are deleted. I have no other words to explain to you. You might feel when reading this, what is this guy. But beleive me you destroyed my whole day on this and it will be like a biggest hardest thing to upset and setback me. Please please please understand me please.

Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yakami-ryu/Bujutsu Kodusokokai

Hi Moonriddengirl

How are you? some time ago i wrote to you about some help on the "Bujutsu Kodosokukai" article that we now have divided into a series of articles. We are very eager on getting this project in the air so we would still like your very useful help and support. Hope you have time soon to get a brief look and comment on our work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freezydk/Yakami-ryu Freezydk (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but it's going to be quite a while before I have enough spare time to help with material like this between work engagements away from Wikipedia and pressing matters that require administrator review here. I would suggest that you consider asking for feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. I will, however, note from a single glance that the article seems to have no sourcing whatsoever. Until reliable sources are added to verify the information, I would not bother requesting review. That will be the first thing that a reviewer notes. Good luck with it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any problem here?

Yuma War (written I presume in ignorance of the article Yuma Expedition seems to follow quite closely this book [4] eg " The raft was too small to carry the provisions so Heintzelman directed First Lieutenant Edward Murray to cross into Mexico with a train of wagons to retrieve the supplies. Fortunately for the Americans, their little invasion of Mexico in January 1851 went unnoticed and the much needed supplies were brought to the fort.[2]" "nally able to tree the vessel, Willcox piled the rations on some driftwood on the Sonora bank and sailed away. Unable to carry the vital supplies in the small raft, Heintzelman ordered ist Lt. Edward Murray and nine men to open a wagon road through Mexican territory to the cache. By late January 1851 Murray's wagons had begun to arrive at the post with the badly needed items; at the same time, a train of eight wagons with foodstuffs arrived from San Diego. Back at Fort Yuma, Heintzelman sent Colonel Smith a lengthy report of his trip. He also mapped a portion of the lower river and sent a copy to Major Emory of the Boundary Commission. The Colorado was navigable, he concluded, though the channel was crooked and filled with shifting sandbars. He remained convinced that the best way to supply the post was by steamboat.2 Although authorized to use armed escorts to accompany the supplies across Mexican territory, Heintzelman was prohibited from pursuing hostile Indians into the neighboring republic." (and I think that the bit about an invasion going unnoticed is OR). and " Heintzelman sent two soldiers with two mules packed with supplies to rescue the Oatman Party. But when they arrived after a 120 mile journey, all they found was two graves and an abandoned wagon. Captain Heintzelman later discovered that six people of the Oatman Party had been massacred, and two young females named Olive Oatman and Mary Ann Oatman were abducted."

"Heintzelman dispatched 'two men... and two pack mules and a few provisions... 100 or 120 miles up the river' to assist in "getting them in." Arriving on the scene, the two bluecoats found two graves covered with stones near an abandoned wagon on top of a ridge and a few carpenter tools strewn about. Still, Heintzelman could not believe the immigrants had been murdered. He would later learn the grisly details. The Oatmans had pushed ahead of other immigrant parties and had been attacked by a band of either Tonto Apaches or Yavapais, though Heintzelman thought at the time the Maricopas were to blame. Six of the family members had been killed, while two girls, Mary Ann and Olive Ann, had been carried off as captives." Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. Maybe. It depends on how much of this kind of stuff there is. If there's a lot of it, you might tag the article with {{Close paraphrasing}} and drop an example or two at the article's talk page. If it's just that, given the scale of the document, it's probably okay, though a {{Single source}} tag would probably be good. It would certainly be better if he were drawing content from more sources to help avoid close paraphrasing. I'm sorry that I don't have time to dig right now further myself, but we have several days worth of backlog at CP and, of course, all the recent hullaballoo about copyvio to keep me hopping! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Widespread plagiarism on Wikipedia identified in 2008

Hi Moonriddengirl,

I'm curious: were you aware of this study? It's published in 2008 and based on analysis of nine Wikipedia articles conducted in 2007. The full text states:

Eight Wikipedia articles contain unattributed quotes and at least five [contain] cases of possibly plagiarized content (material found verbatim elsewhere). The researcher found these cases easily without intense scrutiny; more text may have been copied. This lack of attribution is of serious concern; without an evaluation process or peer review, plagiarized content on Wikipedia may go unchecked.

I had no idea plagiarism was so rampant on Wikipedia until recent events, nor was I aware the problem had been identified in published academic literature. I just wonder if this study has somehow escaped the community's attention, given it's not cited in Reliability of Wikipedia or Criticism of Wikipedia, and doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the Signpost.

Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! And, no, I don't think I've ever seen that. (I have a terrible memory, but I'm pretty sure I'd recall that!) I am aware of several other issues related to plagiarism on Wikipedia, including media references, but not a serious study.
In 2007, Wikipedia did not even have a plagiarism guideline. This was only adopted by the community (and narrowly at that) in 2009. I really wish that I knew whether the study had found what we define as plagiarism (unattributed free content) or what we define as a copyright problem (improperly used non-free content). I know that to much of the academic world, it makes no difference, but to me it's huge.
Have you brought this up at any of the fora where plagiarism is currently been discussed? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't know if I've ever looked at that page, either. :) If I ever get free time again, I'll have to see what else I'm missing! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't tell from the article whether the problems found are plagiarism or copyright; as far as I can see, the author just looked for "(material found verbatim elsewhere)". I'll email you the full article, in case your interested. (If any stalkers want a copy, I can send one tomorrow, maybe 10 hours from now.) I haven't mentioned this anywhere else – discussion seems terribly fragmented at the moment. The English pages linked by Uncle G only mention this article in passing. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Scratch that, seems you can't send an attachment through Wikipedia email. Well if anyone wants a copy, just email me. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Adrian, I have access to the article through my school and have sent a copy to MRG. Dcoetzee 19:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I should've mentioned that I asked Adrian to send it to me and already passed it along. Oh well, the more copies the merrier! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Shocking copyvio from regulars on this page! :P Physchim62 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair use is much easier to satisfy than WP:NFC! :-P VernoWhitney (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The abstract, as I read it, seemed to describe points that should have been referenced but weren't. There is no mention of large scale verbatim copying, and I think any such copying would have been mentioned had it been found. Referencing of new materal has improved a lot since 2007, although there is still a lot of badly referenced older text on WP. Physchim62 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am now in possession of two copies! Riches in e-mail. Thanks to all. :) There is reference, as mentioned above, to "at least five cases of possibly plagiarized content (material found verbatim elsewhere)." There is, alas, no detail whatsoever. I do not know if these are Wikipedia mirrors or public domain sources or stuff that should have been at CP. It does occur to me, though, that we ought to be able to figure it out in the event that any of us ever gets substantial spare time. The articles evaluated were Badlands, Chautauqua, Free Soil Party, Harper’s Ferry Raid, William Kidd, Mexican-American War, Niagara Movement, Sand Creek and Harriet Tubman. OTOH, I'm not sure it would do more than satisfy idle curiosity to find out. We know that copyvios happen; we know that reverse infringements happen; we know that content is copied without attribution from PD sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, far be it from me to do serious work when I can track down random possible antiquated copyvios! It may take some time to even figure out which rough version of the articles she was working from because while the article was received by the journal in September '07, she mentions quotes without attribution which are from a section in Chautauqua which was removed 19 January 2007. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
There's more detail there than I realized! I had only read the conclusion when I posted, and we know what happens when we assume. :/ For example, she says of Free Soil Party, "Wikipedia contains a quote apparently from the party’s platform with no attribution." That would presumably be non-free. I'll now have to take a quick look at that one myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no it's not. It being a long dead party and all. Suppose she means the italicized content here?--Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Victor F. Lawson

Can you advise me as to why the Wiki page on Chicago publisher Victor F. Lawson was deleted.

Hauganm (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and yes. It was deleted as a copyright infringement. The article was created by a contributor who has demonstrably copied content from a number of sources in violation of our copyright policy. In this case, it is confirmed that he pasted content without evidence of authorization from [5]. For example, the article said at the time of its deletion:

After the death of Ivor Lawson in 1872, Lawson took over the administration of his father's estate, which included the Norwegian language newspaper Skandinaven. Another tenant in the same building was Melville E. Stone, who about to launch an as yet untested one-cent evening newspaper, the Chicago Daily News.

The source, copyrighted 2006, said:

After his Iver Lawson's death in 1872, he took over the administration of his father's estate, which included a Norwegian language newspaper called the Skandinaven. Another tenant in the same building as the Skandinaven was Melville E. Stone, who about to launch an as yet untested one-cent evening newspaper, the Chicago Daily News.

The article said:

Ivor Lawson came to prosperity principally by buying and selling real estate in Chicago during the mid 1800s. The family was active in Chicago’s first Norwegian Evangelical Church and maintained a fashionable residence on North Clark Street.

The source says:

His father, Iver Lawson, was a Norwegian immigrant, a laborer who came to prosperity buying and selling real estate in Chicago during the mid 1800s.... The family was active in Chicago’s first Norwegian Evangelical Church and lived in a large house at 1136 North Clark Street.

There were other examples of copied and closely paraphrased passages in the source we were able to identify. Cumulatively, it represented a derivative work of that source; content which he added that did not come from that source may have come from others, given his history.
The article was tagged for over a week to allow interested contributors an opportunity to salvage the article by rewriting it, but unfortunately there were no takers. While the article had been expanded by others (including you), the foundational content by the article's creator had to be removed. If you have interest in writing a new article on the subject, I would be happy to salvage the references as well as the content which you had added for you to work with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page

Hey MRG, no issues, don't worry! I was just wandering if I could "steal" your hours of operation box? Also, how would I change the header colour. And on a final note, how would I write in bold, moved into the middle of my page "Welcome to my talkpage." I know I ask you everything, and you must get sick of it. But I know, you'll always know, lol. Thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, have at it. :) The code is as follows:

{{Quote box2 |width = 30% |border = 1px |align = right |bgcolor = |fontsize = 1em |title_bg = #F5DEB3 |title_fnt = |title = Hours of Operation |halign = top |quote = In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 11:00 and 19:00 [[:Coordinated Universal Time]], less frequently between 19:00 and 22:00. When you loaded this page, it was {{Time|UTC}}. [[Wikipedia:Bypass your cache|Refresh]] your page to see what time it is now. |salign = |source = }}

To change the background color, pick a different color value for "title_bg". If you don't know the color codes, see Web colors. To write "Welcome to my talkpage" in bold and centered, you can simply put the following at your talk page top: <center>'''Welcome to my talk page.'''</center> . It will produce this:
Welcome to my talk page.
I don't know everything, but I've picked up a few things here and there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Can the "Welcome" be any bigger or different colours? And can I change the colour of my archive box? Thanks for the help, I'll try and learn myself from now on. Jayy008 (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you can adjust font size and color for your welcome. For example, <span style="color: Red"><font size="6"><center>Welcome!</center></font></span> produces:
Welcome
You should be able to find more information at Wikipedia:User page design center. I believe you can customize the archive box, though I don't know if it goes to the extent of color. See Template:Archive box for instructions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks MRG! jayy008 (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

Hi, it has been long time since I received your help regarding wiki matters. Recently, on article Boxer Rebellion, user Дунгане has begun to accuse me of various things, simply because we disagree on that topic. If you read Talk:Boxer Rebellion you would have more ideas of the dispute. What I am saying is, whatever disagreement there is, editors can talk it out on the talk page, yet user:Дунгане has yet to show any good faith on the talk page, he did not even try to go into detail discussion, instead, he started to accuse me of "Arilang frequently insults non chinese ethnic groups and uses wikipedia as a political platform", which is short of calling me a racist. And if you care to have a look at the total number of articles I have created, and among those 8000 plus edits, you would know that I am here to contribute, not to create hatred as suggested by user:Дунгане.


I strongly feel that some admin actions are need to intervene in this case, and I hope you can help me. Arilang talk 05:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, admin, I'm afraid that User:Arilang1234 has been exhibiting blatant POV and has not shown and interest in constructively contributing to wikipedia. This is not a mere dispute, i actually tried to talk it out with Arilang, but unfortunetly, he revised massive sourced sections of the article without giving an explanation, falsely claiming that the "Lead section changed per talk page discussion", no one except Arilang had agreed to change anything in the lead on tthe talk page.
Also, Arilang displays extremely hateful and uncivil language toward manchus in his sandbox intro
Arilang violates WP:SOAP by suggesting that wikipedia articles are to be edited for political reasons
Also, lets take a look at Arilang1234's earliest edits on wikipedia- quote directly from what Arilang added to the article in 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaric Дунгане (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope you will objectively analyze Arilangs "contributions", to the article, and his massive copy and paste from wikiesource into the talk page, claiming these wikisource text should be used as a "reliable source" for the article.Дунгане (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Arilang1234 does not understand that wikisource is not a reliable source- [6]. Not only That, even if wikisource is counted as a reliable source, User:Arilang1234 has either not read it, or, I'm afraid to say- has lied about the contents, saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed hereДунгане (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Arilang is also engaging in Ad hominem Straw man attacks, claiming that the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China" was used as a source in the aritcle, yet i only see western sources in the refernces, none of them from the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China".Дунгане (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
in another edit, User:Arilang1234 either did not read the content, or, again, i'm reluctant to accuse people of this, but this is the only other possibility- lied when he said "Remove unreferenced content", since there was a reference in the information he removedДунгане (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Arilang1234 claims here that "Jane E. Elliott's book is not about Boxer, it is about art.)"
Yet anyone can see the description of Jane E Elliott's book "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war", on google books is "This book marks a total departure from previous studies of the Boxer War. It evaluates the way the war was perceived and portrayed at the time by the mass media. As such the book offers insights to a wider audience than that of sinologists or Chinese historians. The important distinction made by the author is between image makers and eyewitnesses. Whole categories of powerful image makers, both Chinese and foreign, never saw anything of the Boxer War but were responsible for disseminating images of that war to millions of people in China and throughout the world."Дунгане (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu.Дунгане (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus.Дунгане (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Arilang also thinks wikipedia is a platform to accuse Manchus specifically of perputrating atrocities.
Arilang also does not understand that the article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers, just because it has "Boxer" in the title, Boxer Rebellion. According to Arilang's logic, all references to British should be remove from the French and Indian War article, since the title only says French and Indian, yet the British played a major role in the war
arilang seems to think that since the title only contains the words "boxer rebellion", that the article should only be about Boxers, and that massive sections should be deleted because they don't contain the word "boxer".Дунгане (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello to both of you. I'm afraid that this is not the right forum for this conversation. Several appropriate fora are suggested in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you have not already, you might try Wikipedia:Mediation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela (song)

The article Venezuela (song) strikes me as dubious - it includes the entire song. What do you think, and what's the best way to handle this? Rd232 talk 11:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and yanked them, in accordance with WP:NOT#LYRICS. Unless they were published before 1923, we can't presume they're PD. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thought so, but wanted confirmation. Thanks. Rd232 talk 11:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman888 is back

Based on the content added, arguments made, edit warring, and writing style I am 100% I am dealing with Roman888 over at 1Malaysia and ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problems_with_IP_editors_at_1Malaysia_adding_and_re-adding_coatrack_content_again_and_again.. I think your perspective is needed. Monkeyassault (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite as familiar with Roman as User:Mkativerata, whom I see you've notified. If this is Roman, however, the article should be protected to prevent his ongoing disruption. He is not welcome to contribute here in any capacity. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

John Warner & Sons

Hi, sorry to bother you but I was wondering if I could get a second opinion. I just tagged and reported John Warner & Sons as a copyvio and now I'm wondering if that was a bit harsh, would a close paraphrase tag have sufficed? Looking at their contribs I'm worried I might have bitten a well-meaning newbie. (I thought I'd ask now because the user doesn't seem to be editing at the moment, so I could withdraw the warning before they see it if it's wrong.) January (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Urgency understood. :) I'll take a look right now. BRB! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
No, that's definitely the right tag. :/ What you might do is add a little note after the template indicating that you can see that he has rewritten some of the content, but that unfortunately it remains a very close paraphrase of the source. User:VernoWhitney frequently does this, I've noticed, and I think that it might help explain the problem to those who don't know that they can't minimally modify a source. If it were less clear cut, I'd provide examples, but that one is kind of all just out there and visible. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Today's request

What to do with Microsoft Fix It Center following this edit? Still seems like a copyvio to me. TIA ww2censor (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Green tickY Took care of it. Hope you don't mind. :) Theleftorium (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Theleftorium, that's what I thought but I'am not so good on text, better on images. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible sock

Medical-grade N2O tanks used in dentistry.

Do you think that Simbhu-936 who uploaded File:Vaanam.jpg yesterday could be a sock of Vadjihoudine, whom you blocked him a few days ago for uploading numerous copyright violations, and uploaded the same image File:Vaanam.jpeg about a week ago? Of course it could just be a coincidence. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Do you want to open the SPI or should I? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I have stuff to do right now, so would you mind doing it? Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Filed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
And checkuser confirmed. Good work on this. Maybe we'll succeed in getting his attention this time. Please feel free to let me know if you see any others. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Helpful here, he wants us to know who he is: [7]. So now we have an IP to keep an eye on. Kids. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you ever need any help in laughing, here's some medical-grade nitrous oxide courtesy of WP:CHEMS ;) Physchim62 (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL! You, sir, are ennabling me. :D Keep it up. (I am within spitting distance of the end of yesterday's CP listings! Almost...there....) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll keep my eyes open but for now can I have some nitrous oxide too!! ww2censor (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not funny, that's rocket fuel! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Blurbs, summaries and attribution

Can I check something with you, please? I've created just a couple of the 1,000+ portals here on Wikipedia (P:OXFORD, P:ENGLAW) and, as you may know, portals highlight articles in a particular topic area by presenting a summary (generally some or all of the lead section) with a "more..." link to the full version. It's been suggested to me that, when I create a blurb or summary for use on the portal e.g. Portal:Law of England and Wales/Selected article/1, I need to state somewhere e.g. the edit summary that the wording comes from the article itself, lest there be a failure of attribution. Is this really correct? In such instances, it does seem to be stating the obvious. If so, shouldn't Raul be stating his sources when composing TFA blurbs, for example? Have we got several years of TFA blurbs and several hundred portals that ought to be deleted for licence vios, or tediously attributed? BencherliteTalk 14:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, dear. That's a big question. :) I've never seen this discussed before; the closest comparable that I can come up with is when people create summaries of one article in another and add a {{Main}} tag. So far as I can recall, it's always been agreed that the implication of attribution in those cases is not enough. I believe personally that if we are copying content from those articles or paraphrasing closely enough that it would constitute a copyright problem if they were, say, in the New York Times, then we really should put in the edit summary where it's from in order to comply with our reuse policy and particularly the WMF:Terms of Use, which explicitly guarantee attribution through a hyperlink or list of authors. I wonder if there's some way to annotate this that will save us several years worth of tedious attribution...perhaps by bot? It seems to me that if a null edit is made saying something simple like "Summary taken from main article, which see for attribution" there'd be no question. We can, of course, take this to some other forum to get wider input. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No, Bencherlite is safe. All authors to WMF projects agree to be attributed by a hyperlink or URL to the article to which they contributed (point (a) of the second paragraph of the ToU). Physchim62 (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
That's the situation I've seen discussed in reference to {{Main}}. It's not attribution if sourcing is not acknowledged. The link does not itself necessarily communicate that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
As the one who kicked off this question to Bencherlite based on discussions about Portals - can I add a comment. I asked because of our recent discussions (User talk:Rodw/Archive 10#Copying within Wikipedia & the other half of the conversation at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 28#Copying within wikipedia with pointers to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia) about creating a list which has summary text of the articles within it ie List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England when I was advised I had to add {{Copied multi}}. I can't see how the summaries in Portal are different & both are linked to the original article.— Rod talk 15:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The only difference that I could see would be that in each case only one article is under discussion, but despite that difference I do agree. I think that a bot could make quick work of this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are clear situations where a link is needed in the edit summary: where you're merging something into an article; where you're starting a new article with something demerged from an old article; when you're translating from another Wikipedia. If you're constructing a subsection de novo using an existing article and hatting it with {{main}}, I would say that Terms of Use are respected in the letter (if not, perhaps, in the spirit). How would click-through attribution for images work under your interpretation? Physchim62 (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There's no conflict. Images have different attribution requirements. At WP:REUSE it is specifically provided, "Each media file has its own information page which includes source and licensing information. Clicking on the media file will lead to this information page." At WMF:Terms of Use, it says, "Please view the media description page for details about the license of any specific media file." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a severe and ludicrous conflict (in WP practice) if we're saying that links in the edit summary are needed for text input which contains a link back, but not for image input which also contains a link back! WMF:Terms of Use do not override copyright law (as I know you're aware ;) Nevertheless, they do say "As an author, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, ..." So the owness is on the people who are complaining about suage at {{main}} to justify why they think WP users must be acknowledged with both a link in the article and in the edit summary, while thord parties are only acknowledged with a (rather non-obvious) link in the article. If you hear of any more discussions of this type, feel free to let me know so that I can contribute in my usual diplomatic manner ;) Physchim62 (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL! Sure. :D I think the difference is that we know that image attribution will not be present in edit summaries, and we know where to look for them. If we could click on words in article and see who wrote them.... (Well, that would be really horrible, really. Never mind.) If we only ever linked Wikipedia articles from which we copied text, there'd be no problem. But a wikilink has multiple meanings, and its primary meaning is just "there's more information over here." When we copy content from CC-By-SA sources published elsewhere, we're meant to note that we've done so; we've got Template:CCBYSASource and Template:Dual to help out. As you know, Wikipedia:Plagiarism suggests plain attribution in the article's face when anything is copied. Beyond the attribution element, there are of course good reasons to note origins. Rod and I met over copyright concerns in St Petrock's Church, Parracombe. He had in good faith copied over a copyvio from Parracombe. The article Parracombe was linked in the new article (albeit just a garden variety link, not with a {{More}} or anything, so one could say that he had technically met the letter of the ToU, but not only would that link not give reason to image copying, it wouldn't let us know that Rod was not the origin of the copyright problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can see the exact case with Parracombe was perhaps going too far beyond the spirit of the Terms of Use. However, I'm still clear in my own mind that portals and the Main Page are OK for this sort of link-back attribution. Maybe we should take the wider debate to Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia to get more input. Physchim62 (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Fine by me. Especially with the Portal question, I think this is an area that needs clarification. Would you mind launching it? I'm really desperately hoping to catch up at CP today...or at least come close. :) I'm clearing up some pretty blatant copy/pastes. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#How to attribute Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to be completely clear, that's Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#How to attribute, not "how to attribute Physchim62" (who usually doesn't care how he's attributed) :-P Physchim62 (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
No amount of nitrous oxide could have made me laugh more heartily than this! Good one. :D I'll go see what's up with the conversation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think here is where we over-engineer things. The "more" link goes directly back to the article, just like the reproduction or reuse of our content on third party sites is allowed if there's a simple linkback to the wikipedia article. Transforming the "more" link into "read more about that topic and by the way see where we compiled that summary from and make sure you click on history to check the 103 people who wrote the article" is over-the-top. After all, we have a much less stringent attribution requirement for any of our re-users. MLauba (Talk) 15:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The question isn't one of changing the {{More}}, link but providing an attribution note in the "edit history", which is where one looks to see who wrote the article. But it sounds as though conversation about Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is necessary, as it says, "At minimum, this means a linked edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied." Any other reading does not conform to that. If that doesn't reflect consensus, it needs to be changed.

For the record, I do disagree. {{More}} suggests nothing about attribution, since it can be placed after content is split or after content is merged or when two articles develop independently. I see the possibility of ambiguity in the original question, but not in the {{More}} tag. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There might be some confusion here between "(more...)" – implying a link to the blurb's full article – and {{More}}, which has a more general use. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. That makes sense. I'd agree that "(more...)" is pretty clear in that regards. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi MG, how are you? :) I'm very, very sorry for being so inactive the last few months (thank God for VernoWhitney!). School is keeping me busier than ever, and lots of stuff have happened IRL that have kept me away from the computer. Is there anything "big" that I have missed? Any new policy changes or stuff like that? Cheers, Theleftorium (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Good to see you, and, yes, I agree about Verno. :D He's really a huge help around here. And you are always welcome when you have time. I see you've already pitched in above! Thanks. :D There haven't been any major policy changes that you've missed, but there's this current drama, and User:MLauba is trying to pull something together for the Signpost about copyright at User:MLauba/Signpost definitions. I want to get over there and take a look at that today to see if I can help. :) (That current drama, by the way, is evidently taking place at several different points.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that discussion and I can't really say I'm surprised. I've spotted plagiarism and copyright violations tons of times in the DYK queue. Great idea about the Signpost article! Might bring in some new "volunteers". :) Theleftorium (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Flavour of the fortnight

It appears the copyvio flavour of the fortnight for me is Indian educational institutions. Remember I asked you about Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University? Including that spree, I'm up to six (seven?) such copyvios. With India being such a large country and having possibly thousands of educational institutions with wiki articles, it boggles the mind as to how widespread this could be. And unfortunately it's not any single editor, but rather apparently one-off (good faith?) contributions from single-use accounts. I've left a message for the India Wikiproject. Maybe they can help. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Your attention to such issues is always appreciated. :) Coincidentally, I cleaned something similar this morning, United States-India Educational Foundation, which copied content from the official website. We see this fairly regularly in education institutions around the world...which is kind of peculiar, when you think about it. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Not if you know some of the people employed to promote these institutions, I'm afraid! Physchim62 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

public domain claim?

Hi MRG, could yuou have a look at this pic File:FIT_spotter_card.jpg and its related thread at the BLPN here , seems to me to be a weak claim of PD and also a whole bunch of unidentified people associated as by association with crime. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Off2riorob, I took a look at this. Putting aside BLP issues, I think it's clear this image is not in the public domain, as it is a composite of images taken from unidentified sources - many appear to be posed (e.g. the ones smiling and looking directly at the camera, which they would not be doing if it was a furtive photo by government agents) and some appear to be professional photos, and so are probably downloaded from the web (e.g. Facebook sites) or obtained from private third parties. However, I think an excellent case exists for fair use, since this image clearly exposes the practices of the Forward Intelligence Teams in the UK. This would also diminish BLP concerns, since any use of the image would (by WP:NFC) be accompanied by explanatory text about its precise purpose. Dcoetzee 21:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Derrick here. Although the Guardian does indicate that the photograph of Emily Apple is public domain here, there's no real information on the status of the card in total, and it's pretty unlikely that the photographers of each of those images released them. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, I will link the uploader to these comments to help him makes a decision. Many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Roald (Animal Crossing)

I'm asking you as I've dealt with you before over copyright issues and I'm unsure where else to ask questions like this (if there is somewhere I'd like to know). Anyway I've removed the speedy from this page as the website ([8] ) it was copied from has a compatible licence (CC-BY-SA) but the licence does mean it has to be attributed. The list of contributors to the page on the other website is quite long so can't just be used in a edit summary. Presumably we can't just link to the history on the wikia as we have no control over whether that will stay around so I've no idea how best to proceed. There is of course the quite separate question as to whether this is a suitable article for wikipedia, but I don't think it meets any speedy criteria. Cheers, Dpmuk (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Hi. :) This would probably be a matter for {{CCBYSASource}}. If the Wikia page is ever deleted, then we'll be put in position of having to delete the article, but that's the standard handling of other Wikis. (I say probably because I'm not familiar with a Wikia specific attribution template.) (Though we've got Template:Wikipedia from back in the GFDL days!) (Enough parentheses.) Like you, though, I'm rather more concerned about the content itself. I agree that it doesn't meet speedy, but it's probably a valid redirect candidate to Animal Crossing. I'd be inclined to add some brief prose on Roald there rather than merging. Then I'd attribute it and redirect it. If it's restored, it's attributed, and if it's not, the unsuitability of the content is handled. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. Done as suggested - I wasn't aware of that template. Although my prose writing isn't the best, which is why I don't do much article work, so no doubt it will get changed soon. I've been meaning to get more involved in the tool / bot side of thing if I could find a worthwhile project and I think I may have just found a semi-useful tool to write as a useful, but not particularly important, first tool - namely a tool that checks the articles in that category and ensures the pages the template links to are still there (although I'd have to be somewhat clever as wikis won't throw a 404).
As an aside I notice that CorenSearchBot has a whitelist for CC-BY-SA sites. Does that mean we never check additions from those sites so we may be allowing the introduction of material without proper attribution or is there another bot I don't know about? Dpmuk (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I...don't know. Bots to me are grand and mysterious things. I don't know how they do what they do. But I bet Verno knows. And if not, I'll ask Coren. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it means we may be allowing the introduction of material from any of those whitelisted sites without proper attribution. There's also a (very incomplete) list of attribution templates (e.g., {{1911}}) which it looks for on the article before it tags it. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Right, decided to raise this with Coren here. Dpmuk (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
For comparison, List of Hetalia: Axis Powers episodes is another copy from Wikia. What was done is listed at WP:Articles for deletion/List of Axis Powers Hetalia episodes. I think the attribution is sufficient, but it would benefit from standardization. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Calling all talk page stalkers!

Myself and our favorite Moonriddengirl are arguing ourselves round in circles at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#How to attribute. When I get to compare myself to Galileo, it is surely the moment to ask for some outside input! As it concerns a fairly esoteric copyright point, I couldn't think of a better place to ask than here, although I'll also post some more conventional announcements in more conventional places ;) Physchim62 (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL! That page has supposedly got watchers of its own, but bringing attention to it can't hurt. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ron Sharpe

why are you blocking Ron Sharpe on Wikipedia??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.157.84 (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is Ron Sharpe? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Ron Sharpe is a Broadway performer and producer, per [9]. The article on Ron Sharpe was deleted in 2008 as a copyright infringement, as it was comprised of text previously published at this source. The contributor of the article was advised of the problem, but did not remedy it. A new article on Mr. Sharpe may be appropriate, but in addition to copyright concerns the older article was really inadequately sourced to verify notability. If writing a new article, please be sure to incorporate reliable sources not only to verify information, but to verify how he meets the notability criteria for people. Sources published by him or by individuals close to him cannot be used for the latter purpose; for that, we need independent sources such as newspaper or magazine articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your post

Contributors who are indefinitely blocked are not welcome to edit Wikipedia under other accounts. - Why not? Huelva (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it's against policy. Disruptive users are disruptive users; new usernames do not make you less disruptive. Rangeblocks can do great harm to the project, but sometimes they are necessary to prevent determined disruption. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Is copying this much of a poster copyvio?

There is a ridiculous edit war going on about a poster at Genealogy of Jesus, see [[10]]. It's also being discussed at WP:RSN. The question has been raised as to whether this is copyvio. I think it probably is but I'd like your opinion. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, Doug. :) Yes, leaving aside the RS issues, I believe that's likely to be a copyvio. The copyright status of lists depends upon their creativity in presentation and selection, and it seems from that description as though non-obvious criteria were utilized: "having attempted to compensate for omitted generations by comparing various verses, and placing Luke's genealogy as the ancestry of Mary." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible CCI?

MRG, Should a CCI be started on Vrghs jacob (talk · contribs)? I deleted a couple of articles as G12 and went through a couple of earlier articles created and found them to be copyvios:

  • Juan E. Mestas - Source is NEH.gov portal announcement, so I'm guessing it's PD per US govt copyright, but it's plagiarism.
  • Ruth J. Person - different sections are copied from different sources, but other editors have contributed significant non-copyvio bits
  • Barbara Kornblau - Source appears to be copyrighted.

There are a lot more articles that need checking, I just checked these three creations randomly. Editor's been to ANI twice for other reasons (never responds on talk page and keeps making the same disruptive edits).

While a majority of the edits are trivial, there are some significant bits of text introduced in many areas, and by the looks of it (especially since any full sentence that I've seen from the editor is lifted off from elsewhere) most major edits could be problematic. Does this need a CCI? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :/ Plagiarism doesn't feature in, although we do need to attribute that. For now, I've blanked Barbara Kornblau. You don't identify the source for Ruth J. Person, but anything copied there should be removed. I'm looking a bit more, and I'll get right back with you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The Pearson one is a bit tricky as the copy pastes seem to have appeared over different periods and have been subsequently edited by others, I found a couple of sources [11], [12] etc. I'll need to look at individual edits and search on that though. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm trending "yes". "China’s emergence as America’s most visible source of goods thus reflects a structural change in the Asian economy more than it reflects new Chinese trade or labor policies. The development offers economic and security opportunities, carries with it potential sources of risk and financial instability, and also means a powerful new competitive challenge." is copied verbatim into Asian Union from [13]. Usually, five articles is a good sign of a trend for me. Still poking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, following one of the edits, I hopped over to Commons, and all the images uploaded there are copyvios too (with the exception of one). There are a couple I can't tag for speedy yet as I haven't been able to find the sources, but it's very unlikely that he got to see the Indian and Chinese Premiers shaking hands in Hanoi when he has his sophomore classes in Flint. —SpacemanSpiff 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Slim odds, I'd agree. :/ I've requested a CCI; since I requested, I'll let somebody else open it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll help out with some articles on the CCI. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 21:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (unrelated to the above): Is holybooks.com a valid EL? They say that the ebooks are PD, but the link is to a book published in 1957/India (Ramayana (C. Rajagopalachari)) and my copy from the 1990s has the copyright symbol. They have a lot of ebooks online, so I don't want us to be linking to a copyvio site. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd say no to that one. They have Rainbow Painting by CHÖKYI NYIMA RINPOCHE; Translated from the Tibetan by ERIK PEMA KUNSANG Compiled by MARCIA BINDER SCHMIDT And edited with KERRY MORAN RANGJUNG, first edition 1995. Seems pretty unlikely that's PD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, removed the offending link. I have to search for it to make sure it's not on other articles. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Spiff, what are you doing here? I thought you were out on the road, living the life we can only imagine--and you you are here, talking shop. Get outside, enjoy the sunset, and try to scrape a meal together! Drmies (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi MRG!

What's cooking? I hope you have a minute for a question--but maybe typing "there's no way" will only take you two seconds. I want a picture for my latest masterpiece, Charles Chauncey Burr, a most disagreeable anti-abolitionalist (later in life, anyway). I found this, which has an image of him (the bearded dude, fourth image from the top). I can find no other copy of it, I can find no publication info, and I doubt that some Croatian dude somewhere "made" that engraving of an American who died in the 1800s. In short--how can I get it? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. That's not an easy one. But we haven't reached "there's no way". :) I'll tell you what I would do: I would haul that to the reference desk. Those people are amazing at digging stuff up, and one of them may be able to identify the source of that for you. If not, you might try WP:MCQ, but that's not exactly in their area of specialty. It's more of a long shot. If that doesn't work, I'd find some Croatian dude on Wikipedia and ask him to contact that source to see if he can find out information on the image. (There's always somebody who speaks the language I need. Bless our multicultural project. :D) I would agree with you that this is almost certainly PD; some people would probably upload it under that presumption, but I myself have watched wistfully as images drifted away because I couldn't verify their origins. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I might give any one of those a shot. I have met some Croatians here, and not all of them hate me, I think. I'll try the reference desk first, though--they got some smart people womanning the phones there. Hey, while I have your ear, can I get your opinion (and Sandy's, if you're hanging out) on Singular they? Drmies (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
You mean in general? I use it sometimes begrudgingly, though I trend towards universal masculine. I recognize that this trendency is controversial. :) I find "he or she" unwieldy, but sometimes do that instead. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to User talk:Moonriddengirl. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want. I can see no reason for using the word "trending" as if "to trend" were an acceptable verb, as you did in this edit, other than improper humor. If this goes any further, I shall have no choice but to either Noticeboard you, or possibly even RfCing you. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Oh, dear. If I'm going to get in trouble for improper use of words, I'm doomed. :D I think we're just going to have to embiggen the dictionary. (A hearty laugh is always a good way to start the day. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm always amazed at how J.delanoy is everywhere all the time, and how careful he is with his edit summaries when he's unsure :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
J and I are old friends. :) (Old in Wiki years, that is.) I particularly owe him for helping me out with some of the templates I use and teaching me well enough to cobble them together now on my own. Glad to know he's still keeping an eye on me. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Embiggen is nice. Last week I watched "Ink and Incapability" on YouTube, and added an absolutely necessary redirect for Contrafibularity. But Moonriddengirl--"trending"? Like Rachael Ray's "to garbagebowl"? Drmies (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really familiar with Rachael Ray. :) But I have no real claim to coining "trending" as a verb, I'm afraid. :/ [14] --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Need Help

Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir. There is this article Rock N Roll Soniye about a television series that actually was never made into a television series. The show was scrapped (cancelled) by the channel and there were few articles on the NET indicating the show was cancelled. Some other user did nominated the article for deletion before but the tag was removed. So can you please look at it. Also, can you please merge the following articles, Grihasti and Grahasti, the original title of series is Grihasti; and Karma-koi aaraha hai waqt badalney and Karma (TV series), suitable title of the series is Karma (TV series). I will appreciate your help. Thank you! Survir (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi,Survir. :) Good to see you. In the matter of the first article, there are several options if you think it is not notable. You can nominate it for WP:PROD or you can nominate it for WP:AFD. Ordinarily, you would not nominate an article for "PROD" if speedy deletion has already been declined, but in this case I think it would be okay since the decline was on the technicality that the speedy criterion did not apply. If you nominate it for "PROD" and nobody objects, it will be routinely deleted after a week. ("Nobody" includes the admin who gets to it after the week.) If somebody does object, you would then have to take it to AFD for community review.
I've taken care of the redundancy with those two sets of articles, but really appreciate your drawing the second set to my attention, as these were a massive copyright violation. I've taken care of that, too! Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Malke

I'm quite willing to report him, but it looks as though you are in some way responsible for his behavior (as his mentor), so I'm coming to you first. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm actually in the process of writing her about this. I do not know if you will be satisfied by the outcome of that contact or not. In any event, after I hit save (I'm afraid this kind of stuff goes slowly), I'll come back here to extend my reply. I don't want to lose my chain of thoughts. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I'm sorry, while I wasn't aware that you were in the process of acting, I should have been more patient and given you a chance to do so. Please don't respond here: this was just a gentle prod to get your attention. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I have given Malke my input. As I said, I don't know if you'll be satisfied by the outcome of that contact or not. I appreciate your coming to me first, but understand if you feel the need to pursue the dispute at other fora. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully, I won't have to. Your advice was common sense and he should just take it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, he rejected your advice, which was a very bad mistake on his part. I've already wrapped the 3RR section so that it's collapsed. If he leaves that intact, I'll move on. If he un-collapses it, I will have no options left other than to demand a block. I'm trying very hard to be reasonable about this, but there are limits to my patience. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

section header

Hi Moonriddengirl,

I've changed the comment you made in the section header. It's not accurate and it seems to me to be aggravating the situation. I did not make any allegations. I simply posted the diffs. My edits are good faith and I did not create this drama. I'd appreciate it if you'd allow me to handle this. I've already told Dylan Flaherty that I'd agree to hatting the thread. I'm not agreeing to changing my section title. Would you be kind enough to restore the section title? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Malke. You don't have to agree to change your section title, as I explained at the mentorship subpage. You yourself said that the section was in response to 3RR allegations in edit summary: this one. The section header does not say that the allegations were yours. But this actually demonstrates what I'm talking about at your mentorship subpage. People sometimes misunderstand what is being said or done, and deescalation is the right thing to do. I'll add a link in case others share your impression. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, MRG, but it's best if I handle these matters. And I'd appreciate it if from now on you refrain from making mentorship page posts until after an issue has been settled. I appreciate it.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I've responded at your mentorship subpage. If the link does not resolve your concerns, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I commented here. You may wish to, as well. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I have commented. I understand that this has been a frustrating event for you as well, and I do appreciate your comments at the EW board. I hope you don't mind my removing the section below. I'm not comfortable guessing the causes of people's behavior on Wikipedia, and if Malke wrote that about somebody else, we'd be having long conversations at her mentorship subpage about why I think she shouldn't. :) My goal is to keep a close focus on behavior. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
No offense taken. I was less speculating about Malke than mentioning a somewhat similar incident in my past. My point, which might have been lost somewhere, is that I understand that sometimes the behavior that frustrates us is not entirely a matter of choice. For this reason, we should try to be more sympathetic. I suspect that blocking Malke at this point would only make things worse. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad nothing came of it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Chhe

I don't know what he's talking about regarding mentors. I didn't respond on the noticeboard because the admin closed it. I've not had any mentors other than you and LessHeard. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

He's talking about stuff mentioned here, I would imagine. You probably recall that claims were made there that User:Gwen Gale and User:SGGH had "attempted to informally mentor" you. I realize that you have never agreed with that characterization. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't know where Toddst1 got that notion. Chhe's wikihounding is, at least, becoming very clear.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty

Hi Moonriddengirl,

This seems way beyond the pale and I think this is something that should go to AN/I. It's way out of line and the post he made above seems to be adding to it.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought the comment was not a good idea and removed it accordingly, but since he suggests above that he meant it in good faith and since he has not protested its removal, I believe it's best to let it go. At this point, what's needed is quiet and calm, not more drama. (By which I mean that AN/I is seldom anything but.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The edit will come in handy down the line.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Come in handy"?!

Malke, I just bent over backwards to save you from a block you deserved, and all you can do is bite the hand that feeds you? If you dare try to use that good-faith edit against me, I assure you that I will not be merciful to you again. Your behavior is outrageous! Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You did nothing of the sort Dylan, because she deserved no block. Normally I wouldn't, (and I'm not an admin,) but I've followed everything in this curious case. What you are saying right here sounds truly ridiculous, while I don't know what to say about the removed post above. Obviously you're feeling not a little victorious, but for very little reason. DinDraithou (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I spoke out on the ARI page in their defense and even asked the person who made the complaint to retract it. Clearly, I was mistaken in doing so. Don't worry; I won't repeat this mistake again. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not quite how things went, Dylan. You made all those posts after LessHeard made it clear there wasn't anything actionable there. But in any event, Thank you, Din. I agree with you. And Dylan you should consider getting a mentor. A mentor could help you see that you really would do well to rethink your comments to others. And not just the obviously over the top comments you've made about me, but what you say to every editor on TPM. Willbeback has had to bring an inappropriate comment to your attention, which you then redacted. As regards your post that MRG removed, she's already told you that if you were being mentored by her, she'd have quite a bit to say to you about making such a comment. A mentor could make a big difference for you.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm in the same position as User:DinDraithou and like him/her I'm in Malke's camp. You broached the threat of blocking Malke when you discussed the issue with MRG. You wrote: "I will have no options left other than to demand a block," and "there are limits to my patience."
When it made its way to the noticeboard, you said that you weren't bothered by the 3RR violation accusation. When the tide of the discussion turned to acquitting Malke, you submitted that you did not want to see her blocked, and then celebrated the inert conclusion. So you haven't been the constant champion of fairness or a party against Malke's persecution in this thing. I also recommend that you consider accepting a mentor. It's very common, is not perceived as weird or shameful (if you were worried), and could be good for you. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to note that Malke, Digiphi and DinDraithou are egregiously violating WP:AGF. I genuinely tried my best to save Malke from a block, and I'm genuinely offended by their hostile response. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the highly controversial area in which the group of you are working adds considerably to the tensions of collaboration. I have myself noticed that my tensions increase when working on hotly contested Wikipedia policies, where it seems all too easy to become polarized. I have not followed the development of the article Tea Party movement, but I would imagine that one of Wikipedia's strengths—that contributors of conflicting views can work together towards a neutral presentation of all views—also represents one of its greatest challenges.
I consistently advise Malke to overlook it when she feels offended by others and to focus on content. This is the same advice presented in such policies as WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and Wikipedia:Civility. It is what I do myself: I try to be flawlessly civil, but I routinely overlook what seems to me to be incivility addressed by others towards me.
All I can really say here is that I am sorry that you are offended and that this situation has been frustrating for you, but I suspect that this approach would serve you best as well. As Malke's mentor, I need to be clear that I am not trying to discourage you from seeking sanctions, if you feel these are warranted. It is, of course, your choice. But I think if you review my advice to her in her mentorship subpage and its archives, you'll find that what I'm saying is my honest opinion and what I feel is the best approach.
I hope that everyone will be able to put aside their feelings from this incident and focus on making our articles the best they can be—hopefully with as little interpersonal conflict as possible. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not escalating this. I'm going to drop it and walk away. Thanks. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Conk 9

Do you notice any similarities between the now indef blocked Conk 9 (talk · contribs) and Jcon9 (talk · contribs)? Both upload pictures of Norfolk Virginia, both edit List of tallest buildings in Hampton Roads, and the user names are similar.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. There's certainly some strong quacking here. I don't see any sign of image issues, though. Might be good to keep an eye out! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Any thoughts on what to do with Wat Pasantidhamma? (See this for context, if you can bear to read the site of an Evil Banned User.) I think the odds of any kind of legal action are zero—if anything, I imagine they'd be pleased that Wikipedia's noticed them—but obviously In The Current Climate… – iridescent 00:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. :/ It needs to be reviewed for current issues and, if they persist, cleaned up. I'll go take a look at it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
They persist. I've blanked it and listed it. Hopefully somebody with knowledge of the topic will help out. I really think at this point that a CCI is inevitable. I don't know how extensive issues may be, but there is a cloud of suspicion that will persist unless this is done. :( (I have no clue who the Evil Banned User is, so I feel no problem reading the evidence.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Cory Howerton

We've received an email confirming that this was reverse copied, so it looks like it can be restored if you're willing to do the honors. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. :) Restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I was wondering which template to place on the talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

New to copyvio tagging

Hi

I just tagged an article but am unsure as to further steps (or if I did it correctly)

The article Pujya Mota seemed to have several sections of text from sources, one Feb 2005 [15], and after finding two I have tagged it. I am unclear as to whether I should have informed the editors as they were ip and single page editors from 2004 & 2006.

Can you give it a quick look to see if it in fact did need tagging and whether I should have informed them?

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, and thanks for keeping an eye out for this. :) Yes, you were right to tag it. I seldom inform IPs unless the edits were recent or unless the IP has repeatedly and recently edited similar pages (which suggests a consistent user), but I do inform registered contributors no matter how long ago they were active. People sometimes do eventually notice that their articles or gone, and they have returned even years after the fact to find out why. He probably won't, but just in case I'll go ahead and give him the notice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that - its only the second copyvio I have caught and will make sure I inform correctly from now on :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Another request for redaction

I found this edit added by TucsonDavid was a copyright violation of http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Avionics/BE499-TACBE-Tactical-Beacon-United-Kingdom.html . I originally gave a note to him at WP:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. Which reminds me, I shouldn't really keep posting this to you. I'm thinking of making a WP:Requests for Redaction page to alert administrators as to which revisions need deleting. Minimac (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, feel free to post to me. These are easy. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
We already have a "requests for Redaction page" for copyvios at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/RD1 Requests, with the template {{Copyvio-revdel}}, although that is still being developed. Yoenit (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL! You'd think I'd remember that. Generally, it can be a mistake to presume I remember things, though. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting page. I hope this development of Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/RD1 Requests will take over part of my proposal. Minimac (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio continued

A day or so ago, you blanked Namira Salim and posted a bit of the history of the situation on the AFD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namira Salim. I believe that the user (User:Mar4d) who wrote this version has shown himself to be a sock, and has also undone your blanking of the article claiming there was no copyright violation! Since you have some history dealing with this I thought it best to let you deal with it. -MBK004 07:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's best to let MRG deal with it, she must be far too busy with a million different things! The changes Mar4d made were in no way sufficient to remove the copyvio so I've reverted it back to her blanked version. I will also drop Mar4d a note about it. I might have a look at re-writing it later on. Bigger digger (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :/ I appreciate both the heads up and the action. I've got a sock report in already, but checkuser data is stale. Since I think it very likely he is a sock of a contributor who is a known serial copyright violator, I would prefer to let another administrator make the determination if he's evading a block. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Which came first?

[16] - viewing the source says copyright 2002-2008 or [17] April 2007. That section of the article has no citations either, which suggests to me it was copied from the web page, but then the English on both has errors... Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I see nothing to point this being a reverse copyvio. The wikipedia version was changed a mere 3 days after it was added. The source is the official site of the HARC and also has blurbs on people who do not have a wikipedia page. Much more likely his assistant just screwed up. Yoenit (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Or you could just check the Wayback Machine: Here is the source on january 2007. Yoenit (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Now that is odd, because I did that. Talk me through the steps you used, will you, because I used a Firefox extension and god 'sorry, no matches'. Thanks very much. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Did you search for the url of his specific page or just for www.harc.edu in general? The first gave me no results either, but the second one gave a whole lot of archives [18]. Yoenit (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I gave up to easily. I'd looked for his specific page. Thanks. I'll rDougweller (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Whoot! I talk page stalkers. :) Nothing like getting to work to find that a problem has already been resolved. :D Thank you, Yoenit. And, as always, thanks Doug for your careful attention to copyright matters. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Tool time?

Wouldn't now be a good time to press for more copyvio tool development? At this point, we seem to have only two in-house tools, CSBot and Earwig's tool. Both of these were developed by, and are maintained by, individuals...sub-optimal.

A fair number of editors here probably have access to Turnitin, maybe our developers could consider how its output is formatted. I can envision table output: First five words in flagged sentence, source(s), repeat as necessary. On subsequent passes, click checkboxes to select/deselect matches in selected hosts. That kind of input/output would be so helpful.

Somewhere you posted about Gbook copyvio searches. There isn't a complex technical problem with searching any of the Google domains, including Gbooks. The issue is that CSbot is an automated task. If Google permitted all robotic searches it would be swamped - many entities would like to poll Google every 5 nanoseconds and it would break if they let them, while the other search engines might welcome our traffic. But Google does permit singly-launched search applications, that's why Earwig's tool can do it. Which would be most helpful for checking high-profile articles. The search requests might occasionally be refused on grounds of over-frequency, but we could probably live with that. (Retry).

An example of the need for Gbook searches. Several paragraphs at Root trainer, which I looked at some weeks ago during and shortly after its AFD, kind of rattled around in a corner of my head as maybe a problem. So today I checked this sentence in Google "For many years, the production of trees, shrubs, perennials and annuals was done with various modifications of field production agriculture". It didn't bring up any matches in Google besides WP and what looks like a mirror [19]; but in Gbooks it shows up immediately [20] from a 1984 book. Four paragraphs are verbatim or very close to verbatim from there. (Going to delete them momentarily). I really wasn't expecting that, Gbooks results usually show up in a general Gsearch. Not always, apparently.

Best wishes, no hurry (Good heavens, this page is busy). Novickas (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the tool questions about beyond me, except the part where you ask, "Wouldn't now be a good time to press for more copyvio tool development?" Yes, indeed. :) But I don't really know who to ask, and I'm swamped by both conversations about the copyvio issues and keeping up with them (I'm trying to whittle away a little backlog at WP:CP). I'd be especially keen to get something that can scan Google Books, but so far I've had no takers. And I'd really love to perfect something that can compare two documents--whether that be two Wikipedia articles, two versions of a Wikipedia article, or a Wikipedia article and another URL. Oh, that would definitely make my Christmas. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Thanks for the clarifications about Google searches: I'd long presumed that was the case, but all this "bot" stuff is a bit beyond me ;) I just type in places where I think it will get me useful factoids (like copyvio)! I'm trying to work on a practical protocol for copyvio checking by human editors, but any new automagic assistance would obviously be helpful. Physchim62 (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll note that Coren is planning to look into modifying the functionality of CSBot to address some of these issues relevant talk page comment; however I agree that several avenues should be explored, let's not leave all our eggs in one basket.--SPhilbrickT 15:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
More tools would be great! And, yes, plenty of baskets full of eggs would be better! :D Physchim62, any input you have at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Copyright would be very welcome. Input also welcome at Wikipedia talk:Cv101. Of course, input is welcome from anybody, but given your focus I thought to point them out to you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
IMO, there's a shameful aspect to plagiarism/copyvio that may have contributed to our lack of in-house tool development. But since MRG treats it very sensitively - and since we can foresee that her ongoing participation will continue to defuse and de-shame the problems - how about we post a request for more/better tools at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I'll go first if you-all see yourselves as supporting it :); will post a link here. Really, two developers - one of whom is an arbitrator and the other a student - is too few. Novickas (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I hereby pledge my support. :) Tools, yes, please. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
As we're now all concerned about clarifying, I started drafting something for the signpost here: User:MLauba/Signpost definitions and would also welcome input, feedback and of course fixes for my typos, my horrible grammar and my deficient syntax. MLauba (Talk) 17:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a number of ideas for tools that I've discussed with MRG at some point, both for text and for images. However, a number of them are sophisticated enough that they would require substantial development effort. I think what we would be helpful is a space in which to collaboratively list and discuss high-level designs for new tools - even people with little to no software experience could participate in this. This could be further generalized to discussion of designs for tools for any and all purposes. Deciding to be bold, I created Wikipedia:Proposed tools and announced it on the technical Village Pump. Please give any feedback you have on this new process and if you have ideas of your own please feel free to add them! Dcoetzee 02:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks D - I put one out - Wikipedia:Proposed tools/Cvcheck. Hope to see you all there. The tool proposal process looks like a good idea; just a little worried that proposals won't be as visible as they might be; maybe a dedicated 'Tool proposals' addition to the template at the top of the V.P. technical article? (Proposals, right now, goes to the VP general proposals page). Novickas (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
How would we participate there? Happy to throw in a "pretty please' if it will help. :) Can somebody who understands such things request my "page comparison" tool? That would be an extremely valuable tool saver in figuring out if copyright problems have been eradicated or dispersed in an article (comparing old edits to new) or figuring out where precisely in a lengthy document copyvios are supposed to be (it can take a while to find the problem text at CP sometimes). The latter is especially true when .pdf sources are used, but I don't know if it's even technically feasible to scan those. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm competent with the MediaWiki API, so I might be able to help with the "page comparison" tool. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I would be ever so grateful. That tool has been at the top of my "wishlist" for a long time. We could quickly compare "temp" rewrites with the original copyright problem or, as I said above, check to see if a copyvio introduced in 2007 is still lingering in 2010. :O --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, a pretty please from you would undoubtedly be very helpful :) So would banging the drum wherever possible - doesn't WP have like a million dollars for software development? (not sure where that number came from, it might be one of the 95% of statistics that are made up on the spot). On the other hand, any significant allocations probably have to go thru some Foundation approval process...
WRT to the Cvcheck tool request, at this point, it's pretty new, so you should probably go ahead and edit its Requirements section to include your thoughts and wishes - at some point detailed discussion will probably need to move to the talk page but it's surely not there yet.
The 'page comparison tool' might need to be a separate request, but we could wait for input. For now (the iron is hot), I'd put it in that same proposal. If they say it needs to be separate, I'd create a new proposal, writing something like 'request a tool with two inputs - both are WP urls - the tool would find and display close text similarities. This is needed because...' Software developers and end users sometimes have communication problems, but it can be done :)
About pinpointing where in the source the infringing text is located - to me seems useful, but maybe difficult, let's hope any developers that show up will weigh in. Novickas (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hurray, responses! [21]. You and the other major cpvio people are the neediest and best qualified to carry on tho. Maybe soon, you'll have a little more time to talk with the interested developers there? They are clearly willing and able but you-all could help a lot by prioritizing (sorry, language mavens) and specifying your needs. Novickas (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Genealogies redux

Is the first list at Alternate successions of the English crown a copyvio of [22] (it appears to be the website turned into a list). I'd never thought of this sort of problem before. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I almost overlooked this! Sorry. It would depend on the criteria of that chart. If it's not creative, then, no, putting it in a list is fine, since the U.S. doesn't recognize "sweat of the brow". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Image copyvio

Hey, sorry to be bothering you with this, but I am unsure where exactly I should bring this up. I am pretty sure File:William Boyd.jpg is a copyvio uploaded by a sockpuppet of user:Ivankinsman, but it is on commons. Do you know anybody (besides little overworked you) I can bug with this sort of stuff as I don't understand commons at all? Yoenit (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to bug me. :) But since I'm not an admin at Commons, I'd just wind up bugging somebody myself. Too bad it's on Commons; if it was here, we could list it at PuF. :/ Hmm. Actually, I think I will bug somebody else; I'm not sure what to do with an image on Commons that looks like it may be a copyright problem. I sometimes nominate them for deletion debates if I'm unsure, but I usually have evidence of other uploads to point to, and there's no other uploads on Commons from that user. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Certainly looks suspicious. Can I ask what made you link the upload to that particular user? J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Ivankinsman had uploaded copyrighted images of this guy before file:A photograph of William Boyd.jpg, File:William boyd.jpg. However, I just noticed that this particular image was added to the article by a single edit IP from the UK, while Ivankinsman is Polish. It might very well be his publisher noticed the red image link and uploaded this in response, but don't we need OTRS or something to confirm it? Yoenit (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Has the image been published somewhere else? I can't see it on his official website, tineye and Google images throw up nothing. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Not that I could find. I assume it is different from the deleted pics uploaded by Ivankinsman? Yoenit (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Filing a deletion request is the way to go - if there's any evidence on En that is inaccessible to admins on Commons, I'd just paste it into the deletion request or a linked subpage of it. Almost all deletion requests are "possibly unfree" (for various values of "possibly") since obvious copyvios get speedied. A case like this might have a long processing time though. Dcoetzee 23:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. This picture is different from any uploaded on en and I can't see it anywhere online. J Milburn (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, J and D!:D I appreciate your pitching in here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, another question?

Your talk page is seeing a lot of traffic. Maybe you should charge by the word? And I got something for you too: I noticed this diff, where a perfectly good image was changed to an ugly montage. I reverted; such a changes needs talk page approval, I feel. Then I note that the editor is doing tons of those edits. I left them a note, I'm not about to use rollback there of course, but I started wondering where these collages came from--they come from user The Emirr on Commons, and at least one of their images was found problematic. I find it hard to believe that someone has all those photos of all those cities all over the world, and so I have serious doubts about the legal status of those images. Also, I think they're ugly--but that's just me. Do you have any advice? And what shall I do about those many, many changes made by User:Karlos87? Just leave it be? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Doc, these montages seem to be the current flavor of the day (I tried to fight it on a few India articles, just see that eyesore on Chennai, your adopted hometown). For most of these (such as the LA one) the source images are PD/Sharealike ones (see the "Source" description at Commons), I've found a couple that don't list the source, having managed to find that one of the many individual pics were copyrighted I deleted them as F9 here (you can tag as copy vio for speedy on Commons); if it's less clear, you can take it up for the longer Puf/FfD and Commons equivalent. As for the changes, I believe more (vocal) editors prefer these collages. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Spiff, good to see you. I've noticed that I'm not the only one changing them back, and in some cases there are talk page discussions. These specific montages, if they replace older ones, they don't identify the elements in them, and I find that problematic. As for your copyright explanation, I have a feeling that I can almost understand it. OK, so File:Karachi montage.PNG is acceptable, right? And The Emirr's File:TE-Collage Los Angeles.png is a bunch of Commons images stuck together, so that's OK too? Maybe I should stop talking about these rights for images, since the best that can happen is me sticking my foot in my mouth. Thanks Spiff! Now back on the road you go! Drmies (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Er, now that I read what I wrote, I can't understand it either. What I meant: If the source images are documented and PD/Sharealike they are ok. If the sources aren't documented and/or the licenses for the sources do not allow such usage, then it should fit in one of the deletion methods. BTW, you'll see me around for a while, I'm on a break from traveling now. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Still talk page stalkers. :D Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
And we love you, MRG. In fact, if I wasn't already engaged to LadyofShalott, beholden to Cirt, and brazenly attached to Spiff, I'd have your baby right now. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep, we all love ya, Moonriddengirl. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Oh, my stupid phone is ringing again! :P --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Was it me, asking you out? Drmies (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I told you we couldn't talk about that here! I mean, no... Not at all. (P.S. If you decide to have a baby, you have to take care of it. I'm far enough behind in my work already.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvios on air crash articles

It seems 24.117.173.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been trying to help with lengthy quotes from archived news stories. To my eye they look rather longer than should be permitted, could you take a look please? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish my stupid real life would leave me alone! It took me forever to leave a note for that contributor. Hopefully it will resolve the issue. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, you are ever so much more diplomatic than I might have been. I do hope that the IP does indeed become a constructive contributor. We can always use more editors with access to good sources. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward on IP certification

Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Suggestion; momentum seems to have stalled at WT:FAC. My idea is to create a page that would be useful across all content review processes, and where we would have a centralized registry so we don't have to clutter each nomination with the same questions to repeat nominators. I'm not sure how we would name the page, so I've put it in my userspace for now-- feel free to edit. See also User:MLauba/Signpost definitions, an upcoming Signpost article. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandy. I'll go read over it and see what I can do. I have been meaning to contribute to the Signpost definitions article as well, but there is absolutely never enough time in the day. :/ There are several policy and guideline related conversations arising out of recent situations that are a bit time-consuming, and the regular work of copyright keeps rolling in. I've just discovered that a prolific serial copyright infringer is probably back with yet another sock. Add to that a busy work season off Wikipedia, and I'm feeling very much like I'm caught in a hamster wheel. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, gee, who knew you were busy ?  :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I've done some editing at MLauba's article/essay, trying to keep the "simple" language sought. I'm too specialized. :) I had started User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright for the Signpost, but I have a bit of trouble explaining things for people with zero familiarity. I may finish it up at one point, as a kind of "level 2" survey. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology Page

Hi,

Last month you deleted a page that I had created for the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology. I completely understand why - I copied things from our museum website and did not present formal permission to do so.

I have rewritten the article, keeping what was not copied from the website and rewritting large portions. Only a few sentences now are taken directly from the website, and I have cited each of them. I would like to post this new article on wikipedia, but I don't want it to be deleted again. Working on this article is my first experience with wikipedia and I am still trying to figure things out. Should I just post the new article and cross my fingers? Is citing each sentence from the website enough? Or will the article still get pulled because they are copied?

I have the article created in my userpage ready to go. I appreciate any help that you can provide.

Thanks Mgandsi (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I appreciate your work to rewrite the article. I know it's difficult first getting started. In terms of the sentences you've used, it depends on if they are used as quotes and, if so, if there is good reason for the quotes. You might need quotes if you're attributing a point of view, for instance. If you just want the information, it should be rewritten unless permission is supplied. I could probably be more specific if you gave me an example or two. We don't actually want to lose notable content, and I am very happy to help you overcome any issues that might linger. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The items that I have copied from the website are our programatic goals. They are bullet pointed on the website and were carefully worded by our staff and Advisory Committee. As such, I cannot rewrite them. Is putting them in quotes and putting a reference at the end of each enough? Mgandsi (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say for sure without seeing the lengt of their article, but in their entirety, they're probably too long, unless the museum is willing to release them. Quotes need to be brief in relation to both the length of the source and of the new document. An alternative, if you feel that they cannot be changed without sacrificing accuracy, would be to reference them with a link back to allow interested readers to visit the museum's website, where there is no issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that I have fixed everything and I will now post the page. I hope it goes well! If you have any time (and I recognize that you are probably very busy) I would really appreciate any feedback you could provide for me. Thanks for your help! Mgandsi (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I just created the article and I cannot find it when I search. Is there a wait time before it goes live? Is that so someone has the chance to look at it? Mgandsi (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There's no delay; is it possible that you're looking under a slightly different term? I see it at Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology. :) I'm taking a look now; there's some work that needs doing with the categories, since many of them aren't actually existing categories. I'll see what I can do about that! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I am far behind in my copyright work, I'm afraid, so I don't have time to closely evaluate it, but I did clean up the categories (the problem was the capitalization; only the first word is capitalized, unless its a proper noun). I've compressed your "ibid"s into a single reference, as is our custom here. And I've reduced some US specific language. Since we are writing for an international audience, we don't refer to "this nation" or "this hemisphere". I also neutralized the text "one of the nation's most recognized repositories". This may be and probably is true, but to conform with our neutral point of view policy and our policy on verifiability, we really need a quote from a source that is disconnected from the subject to substantiate such claims. At a glance, it seems like you've done a pretty good job keeping it neutral. What it could really benefit from is some additional sourcing. Our favorite kind of sourcing is newspaper articles, journal articles or book references that aren't related to the museum.
You do have a bit of a challenge, though, in your connection to the museum. You're not forbidden to edit the article (or we'd have mentioned that sooner), but you are encouraged to carefully remain within the "conflict of interest" guideline. Again, it seems like you've done a good job with that at a glance. :) You might ask at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback for further responses to the article. That board tends to be a bit overworked, but they may point out some additional development that I haven't seen. And, by the way, you'll probably notice that I've dropped a "welcome mat" on your talk page at the top. It contains all kinds of useful links that might help you navigate your way around. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been super helpful. Thanks so much for your suggestions. I will find some outside sources (definitely see your point there) and add those in soon. I really do appreciate the help as this article is the culmination of many hours of work and I am pleased that I am finally on the right track. Thanks again!  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgandsi (talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Wipeouting

Thank you for being far more tactful than I could be. --Stephen 22:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) It's a challenging thing to say! We'll see how it goes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Good news, bad news.

Which do you want first? I'm an optimist, so let me be the first to inform you that you have an excellent mentoring opportunity with Malke. The bad news is that there has been some atrocious behavior on their part. Good luck sorting it all out. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

[23]. Also, he was edit warring on my talk page last night and making uncivil comments over on the Mediation Cabal project page and the talk page there. He was all over the place in a very short period of time. He reverted edits on the Tea Party movement causing the page to be locked by Magog the Ogre. He has gone from the Mediation Cabal page to Tea Party movement talk page to my talk page and also over to the AN/I thread Magog the Ogre opened up about maybe putting sanctions on the Tea Party movement page. Every page he's gone to, he's left edits about me. I left diffs on Willbeback's page as Will seemed to be helping him by giving him some very good advice. And then when he started edit warring on my talk page, I asked Magog the Ogre to help but he doesn't want to get into it, which is fine. But in the meantime, Daedulus did a pretty good job of trying to point things out to him. So, for now I'm just ignoring it. It's just a timesink. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, good morning to you both. :) I've read through various noticeboards and conversations, and I believe I understand the basic point of contention. But as the overall debate is under mediation and the specific incident here is already under review at ANI, we'll see how things go. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


To tie up a loose end, I posted a request to disengage from each other to both, and I do hope that is the last I read about it. MLauba (Talk) 14:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from the Contribution Team

Greetings! Please excuse this intrusion on your talk page, and allow me to invite you to participate on the newly-formed Wikipedia Contribution Team, or WP:CONTRIB for short! The goal of the team is to attract more and better contributions specifically to the English Wikipedia, as well as to help support the fundraising team in our financial and editing contribution goals. We have lots of stuff to work on, from minor and major page building, to wikiproject outreach, article improvement, donor contacting, and more -- in fact, part of our mission is to empower team members to make their own projects to support our mission. Some of our projects only take a few minutes to work on, while others can be large, multi-person tasks -- whatever your interest level, we're glad to have you. If this sounds of interest to you, please visit WP:CONTRIB and sign onto the team. Even if there does not appear to be anything that really speaks out as being work you'd like to do, I'd encourage you to join and follow the project anyway, as the type of work we'll be doing will certainly evolve and change over time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, or ask on the Contribution talk page. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 19:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Thing (art project)

Hi

Valueyou seems to have been in contact with the site ownerUser talk:Valueyou and has posted a reply Talk:The Thing (art project).

Is it the case that only admins can look at incoming emails to [email protected] ?

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Only OTRS volunteers, some of whom are admins and some of whom are not. :) I'll go see if I can find it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Found it! The e-mail isn't quite usable (since there is confusion over whether it is public domain or licensed), but once we get that clarified, it should be good to go. I've put the OTRS ticket on the article's talk page and let the user know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem! And thank you for following up on it so diligently. :) It's all complete now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To MRG and any interested stalkers

I had a question posted at Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations#Rollback bot about an appropriate trial for a new VWBot task and would appreciate feedback...any feedback at all.

There's also a posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup#WikiProject Copyright Cleanup in the Signpost which could be a good way to try and recruit more lambs to the slaughter copyvio volunteers. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Did this last thing last night. Let's hope I made sense. :D I'll reread it a bit later today with fresh eyes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of discussion post

It's something that has been bothering me for a while. Our discussion comments are made under the site's license, right? If so, can they be deleted and when? I am looking at U1 and Wikipedia:User_page#Deleting_your_user_talk_pages, which suggests - but is not clear - that discussions with more than one significant contributors cannot be deleted. I also tried and failed information on what happens (and should happen under our licensing) to discussion pages of deleted articles... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the reasoning behind not deleting User talk pages involves their likely usefulness to other users (one sentence in WP:User pages#Deleting your user page or user talk page), not licensing concerns. If I remember correctly, the limitations on U1 are to prevent users from using deletion to sanitize their talk pages. Talk pages of deleted articles are usually speedied G8. Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The CC-BY-SA license, like most other free licenses, does not ever imply a mandate to distribute. As such, Wikipedia can delete anything it chooses to at any time, or shut down entirely, without violating the license (as long as attribution is not deleted without deleting the associated content - see Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Reusing_deleted_material). Dcoetzee 07:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Good morning! Concur with both. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Random question

Wouldn't this mean that I shouldn't have been helping at SCV/CP for months, since there's not a whole lot of difference between resolutions at the different boards? Of course I also removed blanking templates more than once before I was an OTRS volunteer, and by the letter of the template I shouldn't have done that either... VernoWhitney (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) No, there's a big difference between resolutions at the boards. WP:SCV is meant to be reviewed by anybody; WP:CP is meant to be reviewed and closed by an administrator. The problem I'm trying to avoid is when contributors mark tickets at CP in such a way that I presume they've been closed by an administrator (or OTRS agent) when they have not. There've been a couple of cases of that in the last few days. Of course, I routinely WP:IAR when the template is removed or matters closed properly, but I would like some way to avoid the improper seeming of resolution. Do you have a different idea how I might do that? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I have a different perspective, but I was under the impression that anything at either board could be marked resolved by anyone uninvolved (i.e., not the contributor) and competent. I can see how limiting it to OTRS volunteers and admins may help with the competency issues, but I have come across more than one admin who's called articles clean when they're clearly not. I'd say formal clerkships like at SPI would be a way to guarantee that things are actually clean when marked as such, but I get the feeling that would just scare potential help away except for people looking for something to put on their WikiResume. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. The header says, "Listings typically remain for seven days before review and closure by an administrator." I probably made it say that myself, for all I know, but before I ever edited the page it used to say, "Listings should be checked and processed by administrators after 7 days." (formatting omitted, because i'm lazy. :)) It has similar instructions all the way back to 2005. My impression has always been that it's an admin review board, like WP:3RR or WP:AIV. We might want to ask for clarification at its talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, clearly an admin is required for deletion, overwriting copyvios with clean rewrites, and histpurge/revdel when those are required. That said, relisting/redirecting/confirming appropriate licensing/reverse copyvio don't take the admin tools. Maybe I'm just getting the informal environment vibe because of so few people handling the workload, or maybe it just strikes me as odd that adminship automatically implies competence (which I think we can at least agree is, or should be, one of the minimum requirements for closing investigations). VernoWhitney (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I would definitely agree that competence is required. :) Non-admin closures are permitted in some fora, like WP:AFD, although they're frowned upon in contentious matters. I'm not sure, because I've never thought about it deeply, but I think it might be a mistake to "officially" open up CP to closure by anybody, although clerks would be fine. Just like with the template that should only be removed by admins and OTRS agents, I routinely overlook valid "IAR" removals, but I think that the danger of bias in closing CP listings is a serious one so I'd be uncomfortable opening it to everyone. That said, I'd love to have more workers over there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OSUHEY/Archive

Hi there, I was just fiddling about looking in archives of Sockpuppet Investigations, then I came across User:RM82087, I noticed that user wasn`t blocked. So I double-checked the sockpuppet investigation. I didn`t see any mention of User:RM82087, then I checked the revision history and found that you flagged RM82087 as a confirmed sock, could you explain why? Thanks! --Addihockey10e-mail 21:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Hmm. :/ He's a sock, but on behavioral evidence. He contacted us to confirm OSUHEY's copyvios (see User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_12#Ohio_State_Senate_articles). The 18th of October was only a month ago, but it feels like a billion years. :) I'm not entirely sure why I switched the templates. I'm afraid that I must have inadvertently mistagged him as CU-confirmed as part of establishing the Category for his sock--presumably, I moved it from the non-existant "suspected sock" category at the same time I moved over the socks from this related sockpuppet investigation. I'll switch him back to suspected. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay - thanks :) I`ll maybe contact a CU to see if we can confirm this guy is a sock. Thanks again :) See you around! --Addihockey10e-mail 21:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
They won't be able to now, I'm afraid. He hasn't edited since March 2009, so his IP information won't be in the system anymore. I suspect he's moved on to other names, all things considered! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of a page I wrote

Hi,

You've deleted the page I wrote about filmmaker Pierre-Yves Borgeaud, arguing that it was a copy from a press kit: http://www.paff.org/home/files/pressroom/presskits/Film%20-%20Return%20to%20Goree.pdf

In fact, I wrote the text you mention as a reference and the text is not under copyrights.

Could you bring the page back or do I have to write it another time? or another version? Thanks for your answer.

Ab uno —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab uno (talk • contribs) 11:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I have replied at your talk page. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl!

sorry to bother you with the old question. Tonight I finally got around to trying to upload the updated logo for the wikipedia page on the Asia Petrochemical Industry Conference. You may see I made 3 futile attempts and cannot figure out why the logo does not appear on the page after my uploading. Did I miss out any steps here?

Do you have any detailed guidelines which are bozo proof??

Thanks for your patience.

Have a nice weekend!

JDW Wilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdwwilson (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL! If we did, I'm sure I wouldn't make so many mistakes. :) Whatever may have gone wrong, it looks fine on this end. I see your updated image, and it's showing up properly at the article page. Maybe you need to refresh your browser? Or maybe it was just a temporary glitch that has resolved itself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Professional approach

Re: RAN's images. It took some time (and drama) but finally we have a professional approach to handling FUR-related problems for multiple images involving a single user. I also appreciate that you cared enough to mention to other editors not to mass-tag RAN's page with image-related notifications and gave them the correct reason why not to do it. Being efficient and caring is professionalism at its best. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. :) I do appreciate your comment. Among my main goals in these situations is to focus on making sure that content is usable and to remember that the people who placed the content very seldom intended to cause problems. It's best for everybody when things proceed professionally, without unnecessary drama. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It is an enlightened approach. In a difficult environment such as PUF it is both efficient and humane. It satisfies the needs of the project while treating individual editors with tact and respect. A very difficult combination, which has eluded many in the past and has caused a lot of problems. You just set a great working example for others to follow. This is what leadership is all about. Well done. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we have commons agreements with Flickr ?

Hi

Bit strange but this article Majha seems to have the intro from a Flickr page [24] which says © 2010

I cannot work out if ours is a copy of theirs (although I assume it is the other way around) or not and how to find out.

Any ideas ? Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It seems both are a copy of http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Majha. I have reverted the page to the version before User:Love luvs started editing, which seems fine. It is always a good idea to check the page history for recent mass additions when you find articles like this. Yoenit (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I was aware of that - the only reason I did not do that was because of this [25]
If that is correct then that article can be used, although there are no refs.
The next problem was whether the Flickr was the original or the SkihWiki - If the Sikh wiki came first, or both were copy free, then that version would surely be ok to use ? (assuming refs could be found.
To take it back to before that version was a moot point at the time I was considering it as the only version prior to that, the one you also chose, was also unreferenced.
Chaosdruid (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The Sikhwiki version is from 2007, so it is definitely older then the flickr version. I did notice it in turn seems partly copied from http://www.thesikhencyclopedia.com/world/majha.html, so it is still a copyright violation. Also, the current version is not unreferenced. Yoenit (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Oi. The joys of copyright work. :) If I were coming upon this fresh without Yoenit's dating, I would have looked at when the image was taken on Flickr. Since the image was apparently taken in May 2010, I would then have checked the history of the Sikh wiki article to see when the text entered there. If it was published prior to May 2010, I would presume Sikh wiki was the point of origin. Determining whether Sikh wiki or the Sikh Encyclopedia came first is a bit more difficult, since Wayback doesn't give me the Sikh Encyclopedia page. But that's not definitive, because the website itself is archived to 2004, and they might have rearranged content. (And even if the website didn't archive to 2004, that's not definitive, either, because they might have moved the site from another address.) If the Sikh Encyclopedia had copied from Sikh Wiki, they would have had to have done so prior to 2008, when these changes were introduced. We can see that they had an article on that topic in March of 2007 (#58), though it's not archived. We can see that the title bar was present in 2006, here. I think in the absence of other evidence, we have to assume that the Sikh Encyclopedia came first and Sikh Wiki made a derivative of their work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems, problems

Dear MRG, sorry to bother you on such a beautiful Saturday morning. Believe me, I'd rather you and I were drinking coffee and doing the crossword puzzle while exchanging loving glances over our toast. Can you have a look at File:Gates2009.jpg? I tagged it (cause I had no faith) and it was subsequently deleted; now that same user, who has a history of unlicensed uploading, contributed a new masterpiece, File:ThomasNSA.jpg, which seems to be stolen from an ABC News article, "Feng Li/AFP/Getty Images". I was getting ready to report them for vandalism and ask for a block, but I will gladly let you make a decision on it (BTW, I tagged the image before I found the ABC article). I'm going through the editor's work--they seem to have a couple of IPs attached to them, making the same edits with similar edit summaries and typos (improper spacing in dates, for instance). Now, shall I squeeze you some more orange juice, and can I have one of your buns? Cinnamon buns? Drmies (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Who knew you were such a roue? :O I've deleted the latest as an F9. You've given the contributor a clear block caution. The next move is up to him, I think, as regards copyright. Otherwise, I'm not sure he's intentionally disrupting. His changes seem like they could be well-meant, but misguided. I wonder what all those letters mean in his edit summary? :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC) (actually eating popcorn)
Hmm, yes, it may be good faith--but they have been warned before... I'm afraid I might be trying to show off my masculinity to you; forgive me. Well, we will wait and see. Thanks again, MRG, and have a lovely day! Drmies (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

User blanks out copyvio plagiarism warnings

Hello Moonriddengirl, I hope you are doing well. :) I just wanted to check with you - is it appropriate for a WP:SPA user on a particular topic to blank out from their user talk page warnings regarding copyvio and plagiarism (these edits [26] and [27]) ? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(Talk-page stalk) I remember a similar case that went to ANI where the consensus ended up being that you can do with your talk page what you want (unless it's attacks etc.), what you do in the mainspace is what matters. The user got the messages if he/she deleted them, so if copyvios persist appropriate action should follow. Hekerui (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. :) I always check for that kind of thing when investigating copyright problems. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. But perhaps it might be helpful for someone such as yourself to investigate and leave a warning for the user - might be better rather than coming from me, as I have written WP:FA and WP:GA material on the topic, so you are more "uninvolved". Thoughts? :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure, if he continues, I'll be happy to. If you work in similar areas, might you give me a heads up if you see that the problem is ongoing? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, will do. Thanks very much, -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, as thanks for my warning of the above user regarding copyvio and plagiarism, I have been reported to ANI, here [28]. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Concerns

For whatever reason, I have not received any of the accumulating messages about copyright concerns for my multi-article contribution on Cold War Legacies. Today I happened to do some browsing that brought me to Wikipedia, and came across the copyright issues. It happens that I am the lead author and copyright holder for Nuclear Shadowboxing and for Nuclear Insights, as well as being the original contributor for the Wikipedia subsection regarding Cold War Legacies. Therefore, the copyright approval is granted.

Because I have been very busy writing another book (on a completely different topic), I haven't had the time -- and won't have it -- to keep up with Wikipedia activities.

I hope you or someone can take care of this issue. Please excuse my inattention.


waterfox1 (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

complex copyright issue on Anthony Paulet

Could you look at Anthony Paulet and a complex copyright issue. On the talkpage an editor is claiming "I wrote the original article on my own site. Leo cited ME, and then I cited him as well. That's not a copyright violation" - it's a bit out of my comfort zone to sort that one out.— Rod talk 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) supposed source acknowledges wikipedia as a reference, even naming the page creator. Clearly not a copyright violation. Yoenit (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to both; I've removed the EL from both articles per WP:ELNO. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

edits

Hi can you take a look at Miley Cyrus because people keep removing the lead roll notations in the filmography section so i have reverted them a couple of times would like to have your opinion thanksTucsonDavid (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

He's talking about this information, which is obviously incorrectly formatted, as well as spelled incorrectly. I've just left a notice on his talk page about it. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Good morning to both of you. :) I'm afraid I have no special authority over this issue and my opinion would be uninformed. I've heard of Miley; that's about that. However, the words "people keep removing" are generally somewhat alarming, as are the words "reverted them a couple of times". If someone objects to content, it's usually a good idea to find out why; if people (multiple) are objecting, all the more so. The first thing to do is find out why; conversation at the article's talk page is a good place to start. If after that you feel additional assistance is needed, you should generally follow the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Asking for feedback at a proper board is more likely to get you an individual in position to provide neutral feedback. In this case, if you disagree with AussieLegend's rationale, you may wish to open up a conversation at Talk:Miley Cyrus first to see if you can reach consensus on the matter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

American Mountain Deer and Odocoileus lucasi

I found the articles American Mountain Deer and Odocoileus lucasi, written by Flueck (talk · contribs). They read like they were copied from some technical paper, but I haven't been able to find a source. Could your or your stalkers' superior copyvio detection skills perhaps shed some light? Ucucha 13:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look and see if I can find something, unless a stalker manages before I do. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't find anything besides mirrors. However, the material is obviously original research and should be removed on those grounds. Yoenit (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I suppose so. The material seems written like a scientific paper, but not polished as one might expect from an actual published paper—perhaps Flueck tried to publicize his summary of the issues with these deer on Wikipedia instead of a scientific publication. I'll try to rewrite the articles—though that may not be easy because I can't access Morejohn and Dailey (2004). Thanks both for the assistance! Ucucha 15:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I haven't found anything to contradict this. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wipeouting

I think I've noticed you and Vern (hope that's an acceptable contraction!) having plenty of interation with User:Wipeouting about copyvio issues. I've crossed paths with this editor after a WP:3O and the article in question re-appeared recently on my watchlist today. Special:Contributions/Wipeouting suggests edits to the articles you had problems with before. I'll try to bring good news the next time I drop by! Bigger digger (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In a way, this is good news. Better that we find out now than months from now when we've got dozens of articles to clean up. Thank you. And I'm sorry that we weren't able to help him. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm not quite sure what positive contributions there were, and the user talk page formatting really hurt my eyes... I think maybe the language barrier was too much, Wipeouting just never seemed to get the point. Bigger digger (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm.. I see you've cleaned up some of Wipeouting's recent edits. I've reverted Sugathapala de Silva to a "cleaner" previous version, but still have some concerns which I will look at tomorrow. Lionel Wendt Art Centre was created by User:Cossde a few days ago with close or no paraphrasing and so perhaps it's a WikiProject Sri Lanka problem? Sorry, I'm now using your talk page as a notebook as I'm off to bed and don't want to forget this. I'll pick it up again tomorrow. Bigger digger (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Feel free. I don't have time to look into it this evening myself, I'm afraid. But it evidently needs looking at. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Still time limited. I have to leave in about 10 minutes, and will be away from my desk for possibly a couple of hours. But I've not forgotten! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Me neither, it's just that you're too quick! Bigger digger (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Assistance of talk page stalkers requested – I have looked at two articles by User:Cossde after following Wipeouting's contribs and have commented at the editor's talk page of problems identified with Lionel Wendt Art Centre and S.J. Walpita. I'm not sure whether the articles should be tagged {{Close paraphrase}} or Template:Copyvio, which seems a bit harsh. Do I then need to work out the rigmarole for a CCI, these are the only two articles I looked at but it's not a good start, and it takes ages! Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It does take ages. :/ I'll tell you what I do: I begin by listing some of the problems I found on the talk page. While doing so, I often reach a conclusion whether blanking or tagging is the better solution. If the problem is widespread and seems substantial, I blank. If not, I tag. In all cases, noting some of the concerns you find at the talk page is a good thing to do, because it can certainly help us zero in on the problem when it comes to doing cleanup. :) That way, we aren't doubling up on the labor. Once you've figured out whether tagging or blanking is appropriate, I'll help you work out whether a CCI is needed, unless a stalker does so first. :) I am determined to get CP caught up today before something else happens to demand my time! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I've tagged both of these articles as paraphrases so they get listed, since there's been no response to the comments left on the creator's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't stay away

MRG, A few questions:

  1. Does this (and a couple more insertions of the same) have to be RD1'd? I was involved in a content dispute on this - removing it from the article, but I didn't know this was a copyvio until another editor pointed it out on the talk page. If yes, as I'm "involved" in the article could you do it?
  2. Game (2006 film) started off as part copyvio but the editor removed the offending portion and the bot note on the article. How should that be handled?
  3. Kerala Forest Research Institute an old copyvio clean up that I did, can you take a look at this one too? It started off as a copyvio, someone else cleaned it up, then it returned to copyvio and I cleaned up and decided to tag for G12 as there wasn't any other content left, but it was declined by another editor; not sure if that content would classify as derivative.

These three seem to be standard experiences for me, so if you give me the answer once, you won't be bugged again :) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to stay away. :) With your first question, I don't think we need to RD1 it, since it's pretty minimal. I've left the contributor a note to tell him that we can't copy content, though. With your second, you'd generally just note at WP:SCV that it's been cleaned up. If the content is extensive, you can Rd1 it. In this case, I'd put a {{Plot2}} at the article's talk page (and will). The next thing to do is see if he does a lot of this kind of thing or if this is a one-off. If it's a one-off, we hope he got the message. If he's been doing it a while or keeps at it, more steps may be needed. With 3, the new version is unacceptable. I've restored Eastmain's and blocked the contributor again for copyright problems. This one doesn't look to be going well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
THanks for that. The third one, I don't think it's the same editor who did the new copyvio, but his talk page appears to be full of copyvio notes so this might get his attention anyway. I just remembered about it because it came up on my watchlist yesterday. BTW, Keyan20 (we deleted a bunch of his images here and on commons) has posted on my talk page (again) saying that they are his images and he wishes to upload them (again). I'm not sure I'm getting through to him and neither have any of the other editors who've tried to counsel him here or at commons. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, editor #3 was blocked last month for copyvios. :/ I remember User:Keyan20. If he keeps it up, we may have to head over to ANI on this one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't notice #3's earlier block. I've deleted one article as G12 and an image as F9. There could be a couple of PUF cases too especially the image on Naveen Chandra. Sigh. —SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll request a CCI on this one MRG, unless you think it's not needed. I've deleted two articles as G12, another image and now these edits are copied from here. The same content has also gone into Banking in Thrissur also. —SpacemanSpiff 18:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
And btw there's block evasion going on now, I think he's back as 124.124.211.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'll ask YellowMonkey for a CU on this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I missed this up here! Thanks for keeping an eye out for it. As for the CCI, if you think that there's more than can comfortably be checked in one setting, by all means, request one. I'd be happy if we never got another, but that doesn't mean they aren't needful. :/ I am, by the way, afraid that we may be about to get a big one related to India. See User_talk:LRBurdak#Copyright_problem and subsequent. I'm hoping there's some good reason for what looks to be extensive copying from books. If not, we're going to have hundreds of articles at risk dating back years. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding, LRBurdak is on my list! He's an admin over at Jatwiki and we have a lot of "cross posts" from one book to both wikis and then there's the flora and fauna thingy. As far as this Thrissur one goes, if I can get the new articles deleted as G12 I won't request a CCI and spare the folks. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, on the Jat garden, User:Dbachmann and User:Dougweller might be able to help, we've had numerous discussion on this topic at WP:FTN too and both of them along with some of the other regulars on that board have spent time weeding the garden. —SpacemanSpiff 17:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you want to take a look at Jpullokaran (talk · contribs) talk page? I made an offer to not block longer term if he comes clean on his copyvios, but he says he doesn't remember and for us to ask questions about individual articles. I have a feeling that everything is a copyvio now. —SpacemanSpiff 12:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • He probably doesn't remember. But I'll go take a look and see what's going on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm looking. I don't think they're probably all copyvios, but that doesn't mean there aren't significant copyvios. I am not the most aggressive blocker on Wikipedia by a long shot. If I were, I would have given him longer than two weeks this time. My approach is crafted by a combination of optimism (if we can get through that we mean it, they may stop) and pessimism (if they have nothing left to lose, they will create socks and carry on violating copyright, making it only that much harder to identify). I've seen both my optimistic and pessimistic sides validated repeatedly. :) I will note, though, that he's right at least about Chit fund. He may have copied content from some source, but he didn't get anything from [29]. If you compare the article before he touched it to after his changes, you can see that their website includes material from both. See the "example" given in the older version; it is duplicated by that website. That one's almost certainly a reverse copyright infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Good thing I just tagged this one instead of cleaning it out myself as I wasn't entirely sure about it as there seemed to be prior content that was similar too. THe block for this one is not entirely copyvio, it's also a lot of POV pushing into the Thrissur set of articles through misrepresentation of sources etc. Let me see if I can clean up some more stuff over the next few days and we can think of a CCI after that. BTW, I've had to take another PD tagged + Fair use tagged image from Keyan20 to FfD (since it had both, I couldn't F9). You could try your luck with him as you're far more diplomatic than I could aspire to be in this situation.... cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I won't argue with you if you extend his block. I don't always block long enough, and even without considering the other factors the copyright concerns are serious. I'm not sure diplomacy is going to work with Keyan20, but I can give it a go. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders

I stumbled upon this, and the language made me suspect some close-paraphrasing or copyvio troubles; brief googling of some phrases e.g. "him with a baseball bat and locked him in the", escalated "capital offense" Komisarjevsky "offering post-traumatic stress assistance to jurors" and suchlike, it appears some bits are straight from syndicated news.

Can you take a look, if you have time? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

On it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
So far, I haven't found anything, but I've formed the opinion that this was contributed by somebody with a great appreciation for the purple prose of crime narrative: "These preliminary measures employed by the police exhausted more than half an hour of critically valuable time and proved ineffective at serving and protecting the perilous needs of the Petit family." "The notoriety of this heinous crime extends well beyond Cheshire, and even the state." Not exactly encyclopedic! Given the evenness of the tone throughout, I would expect that it was either (a) copied wholesale or (b) contributed/copy-edited by somebody who writes that way. Since I can't find (a), I'm leaning towards (b). And that's a horrible crime. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Heh; many thanks. I'm sorry to have bothered you once again. Yes, the language and tone is exactly what made me suspicious.  Chzz  ►  14:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries about bothering me. :) That would have made me suspicious, too! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Having contributed the specific prose cited above, I absolutely refute the suggestion that the prose was copied wholesale. It is my manner of writing which is reflected, and I am slightly concerned that you would exclaim it as non encyclopedic. While it does diverge slightly from the prose of other contributors, it is not original research or even point of view. In fact a reference stream can be produced to substantiated each adjective. What concerns me most is your closing statement; "And that's a horrible crime." My concern is that I don't know if the comment attributes to the circumstances of the crime, or to your reaching "(b)" as more likely. If my writing style is a horrible crime, please advise.My76Strat 17:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The crime about which you are writing is horrible. Your writing is not at all a horrible crime. :) It's very well written for crime reporting; I'm afraid that it is non-encyclopedic, at least as Wikipedia defines such things. See Wikipedia:TONE#Tone. Your writing is very colorful; content such as that I singled out isn't at all "businesslike". For example, even though I agree with you that the crime was heinous, it's not our place to comment on it. We're just here to report it. If other people call it heinous, we quote them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree. In fact Chzz and I have discussed this very counsel during the interim between these posts. And I thank you for clarifying the respects of my writing. I will remove the purple hue and steadfastly resist using prose which does lean towards support of a position. Kind regards.My76Strat 18:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Tall Cool One (novel)

Isn't that a bit long, as a synopsis, given that there is nothing else but the synopsis? --JN466 01:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) yes it is too long. A good guideline is 2 words per page, while this is more then 4 words per page. Tagged the page with a plot summary too long template. Yoenit (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I would have restored the earlier plot summary, but it looks likely that it was actually copied verbatim! :/ I did put a {{Plot2}} on the article's talk page. Ideally, somebody will shorten the plot description and add critical commentary on the book. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This CCI

Hi MRG. I have now gone through the 14 film entries and marked them in the usual way. I have also added some thoughts to the general MO of this contributor regarding films. As this is only a 'partial' CCI I wasn't sure whether you wanted to review this one and determine if we need to do more. Boissière (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :D I think it's very plausible that this is the limit of her copyright problems. A lot of contributors seem to think that plot summaries are by default public domain, for some reason. I've seen other users in the past who have pasted these while otherwise contributing their own content. I did leave a note at the archived CCI, though, that if she's found to be copying content into other areas, we'll need to revisit the past, so to speak. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Hey! How are you? I'm working on the Public Policy Initiative this semester and one of the student groups has copied some material directly from a source at Workforce development - you can see my comments at Talk:Workforce development. I'm afraid I don't have time to go through the entire article looking for other instances, but I was hoping you could help them out. They are graduate students, so they should learn quickly. Awadewit (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm fine; hope you are. Off to take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
(Re: the message you left for Fetchcomms) I think Awadewit has left a message for the student about it, but you should feel free to do so as well, you think more needs to be said.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Err, nevermind, it might have been a different student I was thinking of. So yes, please do leave them a note. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't sure if there was special handling of these situations per the PPI and didn't want to step in directly if passing it to an ambassador would be a better idea. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio emergency; see WP:ANI#Main Page ITN image copyvio

Hi MRG, I see you're around right now; could you review WP:ANI#Main Page ITN image copyvio and WP:ERRORS#F1 image and see if it is indeed a copyvio (and if it is, replace it)? Thanks! StrPby (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks iffy. I'm working on this, but I don't know what ASSK means and am having to figure out how best to proceed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry; Aung Sang Suu Kyi was the last image on ITN. Meant that that would be a good replacement. StrPby (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
All right, it's done. I need to upload a local copy and protect it. This is not my area, but I'm working it as fast as I can! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no I don't. Evidently a bot does that. Yay, bot! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for the quick response; I think we agree having a copyvio image on the main page was bad. :) StrPby (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

about my article

Hi, I received your comment about the changes that I made on MY page and that YOU reverted. May I tell you that I find those last lines about my private life totally unappropriate, intrusive, and not of the level of an encyclopedia? 1. They are uncomplete. If you really need to talk about the women of my life, then talk about all of them. If you really can't avoid mentionning my ex-wife, then MENTION HER NAME, she's a well known mezzo-soprano in France, Elsa Maurus. Why to randomly choose Nancy Gustafson who was only a girl friend? It's not an "encyclopedic information", it draggs the level of Wikipedia to any "people magazine". If you were a composer, as I am, I would say that you end your sonata on a vulgar, pedestrian note. So, please, either NAME my ex-wife, as I did in my new edit, or don't mention her. And mentionning the "girl friends" is completely out of the subject, or at least make an exhaustive list.... That, too, would be, if I may say so, totally uninteresting. I just find really unfair, unpleasant to mention "non official partners", because the "current partners" are always offended by the mention of the previous ones. Do you get my point? Thanks for your comprehension Frederic Chaslin Fredchaslin (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Chaslin, I will refer you back to the message I left you at the talk page of your IP: User talk:210.253.152.135. When you remove sourced content, you need to indicate a reason. This allows others to understand your actions and to see why the removal of sourced content may be constructive. Typically, articles are developed by adding content, not by removing it...even when old information is superceded by new, it remains of interest to our readers as part of complete biographical coverage. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ooops

Apology Moonriddengirl (and Fredchaslin), I reverted an entry on your talk page by mistake, sorry. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It happens. I've done it myself. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding plagiarism in Wikipedia teaching assignments - student handout

I was going to tell you about the File:PlagiarismHandout.pdf, then I noticed you are one of the authors :) Good job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks. :) I didn't know it had been transformed into a handout. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to say a quick thanks for helping me with my copyright concern (National Capitol Columns). I was browsing and saw that it looked suspicious so I wanted to flag it, but I didn't have time time to investigate right then. So I'm happy that it successfully got sorted out!

Best, Qwerty0 (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem; working copyright is what I do, and I'm always happy when people come forward with their concerns so that we can either address it or clear it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A thought

A thought struck me recently. In the recent furore in the press about oil drilling in the Falklands I noticed several UK papers cut'n'pasted text I'd written on wikipedia (without I might add attributing where they got it from). It then later struck me that if someone were to match the two at some later date I might be falsely accused of plagiarism. The revision history would of course show I wrote it before it was published.

What would happen in the mean time though, would it have been deleted. What about if I was no longer active or on an extended wikibreak? Is there checks and balances to make sure before action is taken? Justin talk 00:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Don't worry, we check what came first. With newsarticles this is simple, we check the last page revision before the newsarticle came out. If the suspicious text is present in that revision they copied from us. However, it is certainly possible that you are falsely accused over this in the future. Therefore I would advise putting {{Backwardscopyvio}} with some links on the article talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
(Another TPS) And you should write to the newspapers and demand a credit for the work they stole. Editors round here are bending over backwards to make wp copyright compliant and the professionals can't be bothered to extend us the same courtesy? Outrageous! Bigger digger (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, when items are listed at WP:CP, we check to see which came first as a matter of routine. I'll second the {{backwardscopyvio}} recommendation; more than placing it, I would recommend explaining it in a section at the talk page. In this case, the date of the newspaper article should easily clear you, since the history of the Wikipedia article shows when the content entered here. I've run into a few items that have been deleted where we had the content first. What I do is restore them, note the backwards copying, and explain to the deleting admin why. We also try to keep up WP:MIRROR with websites that routinely copy us, which helps prevent the confusion in the first place. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
OK cool, lots of good advice there, thanks. Justin talk 13:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Foreshadowing

Our conversations at User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Copyright seem quaint in hindsight now. Do you think WP:Plagiarism has been sufficiently buzz-sawed? It seems a lot better to me now, and awareness is at new highs. Gigs (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a lot better, yes. :D I'm not entirely sure about the advice in WP:Plagiarism#Where to place attribution, since I have never followed it myself (I attribute at the top of the ref section), but it's not worth the fuss and bother. What matters most (to me) is that we clearly define what we consider to be plagiarism and clearly identify how not to do it. That keeps us from the hand-waving of "It's plagiarism!" vs. "No, it's not!" --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Jean Tyrrell and Harry Baldwin

Oh! I don't know what I was thinking! Inexperience. Delete both articles please, I don't have time to work on them. Could you check Don't Forget the Bacon! for copyvio/plagiarism? I'm reviewing it for GAN and I don't want to pass it to GA if there are any such issues. Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess i'm done

I've withdrawn from NaNoWriMo. I'm just too far behind and, with finals coming up, I just don't have the time to write. I'm sad about it, but there's nothing I can do. I'll just have to make sure to actually finish my novel in December after the semester ends. I mean, if I still finish the novel, then it's a net win, right? ;) Anyways, could you go ahead and remove the Wikibreak Enforcer from my account? I'd appreciate it. (Silver seren) 165.91.173.45 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. ^_^ SilverserenC 01:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
If you even enjoyed the time you've already put into it, it's a net win. :) Welcome back. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Haha, Silver seren, if you happen to be a member of Sigma Tau Delta, one of the chapters in the Southern region, we have a competition related to NaNoWriMo, with cash prizes! Get back to writing: 50,000 words! Drmies (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Update or Request for Deletion

We have been in discussion on a number of occasions in the past about the Wikipedia page for Sassy Pandez. In the light of some recent negative feedback from potential clients, it seems that older material on the Sassy Pandez page is having a detrimental effect on her career, and is potentially jeopardising her future work and income. This seems wholly unfair, especially given that the original page was posted some years ago by a unconnected third party. I wanted to discuss with you again about making some alterations to the page, along the lines that we have discussed previously. If you feel that this is in fact not possible, because it does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, then it would in fact be better for the page to be deleted from Wikipedia so that no further damage is done to Sassy Pandez and her career. As it stands, the potential benefits of being included in Wikipedia are currently very much outweighed by the negative effect of some of the older material in the article and associated references. In an ideal world, it would be great to have an article that is just about Sassy Pandez, and does not include references to the earlier work, since this does have associated legal issues, as I have mentioned before. If this is not possible, then we would have to consider deletion of the page as a last resort. I look forward to your feedback on the above. Thanks for your time. AquilaUK (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that we do not necessarily delete articles on subject request. If there are specific passages that you feel are damaging to her career, you should certainly point them out and explain why, but I have to say that the article about her seems to be well sourced and relevant to her notability. You should also review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help and Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) (which is intended as well for those who represent subjects) to get a basic idea of what we may be able to do for you and what we may not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have mentioned in the past, there are legal issues associated with the older material which it is not appropriate to discuss in an open forum like this. There have been discussions in the past about deletion of this article, and it's continued inclusion was deemed marginal at the time. It seems wrong to me that an individual has no rights over the material about them on Wikipedia, especially when posted by a third party, and when such information is proving to be detrimental to the career of the subject. What grounds would be considered acceptable for deletion of this article? I have looked through the two links you suggested but I am still unsure of how best to proceed from here. AquilaUK (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The article would be deleted if Sassy Pandez was insufficiently notable for inclusion. Wikipedia does not include articles on private individuals, of course. We excluded her real name on your request based on her marginal notability. However, last time the conversation of her notability was raised, she was deemed notable enough based on reliable sources to retain the article. I suspect that as there are even more sources now, the article on her would not be deleted. If there are private concerns, you can communicate them to the volunteers who work the e-mail addresses linked at both of those pages. They will protect your privacy, but you will need to tell them specifically what your concern is and why in order for them to help you. Please especially read Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for the best means of approaching them about your concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. I need to think about this and work out the best way to proceed, but maybe an email like you suggest would be the next step. AquilaUK (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking more about this issue since yesterday, and I had an idea for an alternative solution that could work for all parties. The concept is simple - split the existing page into two - or rather, unlink the old DJ Sassy page from Sassy Pandez, and include on each page only the material that is relevant to each name. Then the older references would all be on the DJ Sassy page and the newer references would be on the Sassy Pandez page. This addresses the biggest issue that we have with the current page (for legal reaons) which is the link between the older and newer references. And the DJ Sassy page should also incude references to the various other DJs around the world who also use that name (I know of at least two, one in the US and one in the Far East). I would appreciate your feedback on this. AquilaUK (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I doubt that this would be deemed acceptable. We don't usually fork articles; although we may split out articles that become too large, even then we leave a summary of the contents of the split in the main article. An encyclopedic article on one person generally covers all notable aspects of their careers. I think your best bet at this point is probably to write to the OTRS team to explain to them what kind of private concerns there are that make the contents of the article a problem. As far as the DJ Sassy redirect, if Wikipedia gets other articles on individuals known by that name, we might create a "disambiguation" page, but we wouldn't do this until there are at least two people of equal notability. Generally, we use "disambiguation" pages when we have three articles to which a title might point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

How to help?

I checked Cervical cancer symptoms from Corenbot's list at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 November 16 and found it to be a full copyvio, cut and paste, replaced the template with copyvio, and notified the editor (can't delete the page 'cuz I'm not an admin). The same editor has similar. Tell me how to let you know of these in the future ... do I add comments at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 November 16 or what is my next step? I didn't have time to do any more on same editor. Also, how do these get past New Page Patrollers? How can we tell which NPP let it by? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since the pages tagged by CorenSearchBot are listed at a Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations subpage you don't have to report them, only notify the contributor like you did. You can mark what action you've taken on the article (we even have {{SCV}} for common actions), but if you don't someone else working through the list can do that (I just did it in this case). You can look at the patrol log to see who marked it patrolled, but you'd have to ask them why they didn't follow up on the possible copyvio tag. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking for some guidance

Hi, I'm looking for some guidance in an area where I know you have expertise. An editor asked for feedback at Requests for feedback, specifically, with this request

I note that a number of the photographs (possibly all, I just checked a few), are identified as coming from "Alberto Terrile's personal archive".

One possibility is that the article has been written by the subject, which would raise COI issues. While the main editor is User:Drwho72, which doesn't settle the question, the feedback question was signed by Claudio Castellini.

Anyone can type anything on the internet, so I don't that Castellini is or is not a real name, the same person as Terrile or not, and if a different person, whether Castellini has the authority to posy Terrile's work.

Obviously, I can ask, but I'd like to be delicate about this.

I'm no expert photographer, but to my untrained eye, the work looks quite good. My understanding is that if a copyright holder releases their work under a CC-SA license, they cannot revoke that license. If my understanding is correct, I think we ought to have a duty to ensure that the person releasing the rights understands what they are doing, but I don't know to what WP policy has to say on this issue, if anything. I know I have released my rights on many photographs, and no one warned me, but then again, if you look at my work, no one is beating down my door offering to pay for it.

Even if the rule is that Terrile can release it as CC-SA, it appears that some other person is uploading the photos. Do we need to request OTRS confirmation?

I'll also note the existence of what I assume is an Italian version of the page, raising different issues. I have no experience in cross-language issues, but I assume we have guidelines when one article is a translation of another.

MRG, I'm not looking to dump this in your lap; I'm interested in taking the next steps (although I will be other of town until Friday) but I think you can see that there are several issues to be addressed, and I'd like us to sound like we know what we are talking about. We are already starting on the wrong foot because there was an original request on 4 October, which we didn't get to.


I'm tentatively considering a quick response, something like, "My initial reaction tot he article is quite positive. However, there are some issues raised. I want to get some feedback from other editors with more experience in certain areas. It may take a couple days, but I've added this article to my list of things to do, so it won't fall through the cracks this time."

(TPS, don't hesitate to chime in if you have any advice)--SPhilbrickT 19:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since it's not clear that the uploader is the same as the copyright holder and especially since they've used a different name, we need OTRS permission from the copyright holder for the images. The template (WP:CONSENT) that we ask people to send in to grant permission is pretty explicit about what the license entails.
The article at it:Alberto Terrile was created after the one here and by the same editor, so there aren't any attribution issues, and even if there were they would be at itwiki, and I don't really know how the procedure works there. If it was written there and then translated here we have {{Translated page}} to handle that situation.
I haven't looked at the request for feedback, but I'm going to go through their images and tag them as needing permission. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks VW. I'll take care of the specifc feedback on the article content. I know you are one of our image experts, so I'll look at how you tag the images and learn. Do you plan on placing a note at the editors talk page urging them to check the images to address the issues, or will that happen automatically?--SPhilbrickT 19:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
All of their images were on commons, so I tagged them there and that's where the notification messages were left (not automatically, although there's a gadget which bundles it with the tagging). I'm also going to leave a short message here directing them to commons for the details. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I completed my feedback, and left a note at the editors talk page. My feedback mentioned that there were permission issues to be addressed separately.SPhilbrickT 20:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks both of you for your attention to this matter. :) I'm here for a little bit, but not long. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_29&oldid=1147949550"