User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 → Archive 40

Clan Of Xymox edits

Dear Moonriddengirl,


from the edit history of the Clan Of Xymox page it seems you are the only one who can prevent this page from being vandalized by the likes of Dr.mies who seems to revert versions to his own outdated versions all the time without being constructive. Please have a look at this editing behavior and maybe lock the page till the last time you had a look and say in it .

thank you72.13.91.134 (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I hope that this is a joke? The idea that Drmies (who is one of the most friendly and careful contributors I know of) would go off on a disruption spree just beggars my belief. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Sitush. What we have here is a case of COI and socking--see User:Knowitallfortoday. BTW, it may well be true that there factual inaccuracies in the article, but those are caused by factual inaccuracies in the sources. I'm in the process of finding better ones, but that's not easy given the topic (it's not the biggest band in the world), the time (pre-interwebs), and the place (media archives in Dutchland aren't easily accessible online). Now, if the IP in question wished to help the article, they would do so on the article talk page, and they might notify interested editors, but their edits to the the article were simply unhelpful--against guidelines, against policy, and most likely motivated by the desire to downplay the role of certain band members. Thanks, and thanks to MRG who has invested more in this article than she probably wanted. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. 72.13.91.134, I gather that the concern here is that you may be an indefinitely blocked user, returning in spite of your block to edit the article. This is not permitted, and policy does allow the removal of all edits under such circumstances.
Given that, Drmies, is it possible anyway that we can evaluate the content and add in what's confirmable? For example, Allmusic does list Ronny Moorings and Anka Wolbert as the core founding members of the band, so noting that discrepancy from other sources is probably worthwhile. Billboard is stubbornly refusing to load for me ([1] :P), but does it confirm that two singles made the Billboard charts? Darkest Hour seems to have been released now, per [2]. I'd be happy to help clear what can at least be sourced online. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 again

Hi, it's me again. Hopefully this one will be easier. Do you think that this would qualify as public domain? I am looking at the letter from Ester Jusuf. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I...don't know. :/ I'm a little concerned about it. Congressional Record About says, "With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no restrictions on the republication of material from the Congressional Record." Ester Jusuf is evidently an Indonesian human rights attorney, so she is not a US federal employee, and this is published in the "Extension of Remarks" section and thus was not presented before Congress. I'm not sure how one identifies "copyrighted articles" in the Congressional Record. I'll ask for opinions at WT:C. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Have done. As I said, I'm a bit concerned about it. Hopefully we'll get somebody weighing in there who knows for sure! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. She is an Indonesian attorney and head of the NGO Solidaritas Nusa Bangsa, which deals mainly with the human rights violations in Indonesia in May 1998. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed

Hello, an uninvolved admin is needed to take a look at this.

I previously started a discussion about articles calling places in West Jerusalem "in Israel": [3] there is also discussion here: [4]

I asked for evidence showing that West Jerusalem is internationally recognized as part of Israel, and I don't believe I have received it.

I believe the point has now been reached were no one could confirm that West Jerusalem is internationally recognized as part of Israel, and therefore I believe that I can now remove this what I believe is a non neutral pov from articles.

Do you think you can take a look at this and see where to go from now? You can reply here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to help out, but I'm afraid that one looks way more complex than I have time for at the moment. :/ Have you considered WP:RSN? It's a bit out of my area. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey MRG. Could you delete One Tree Hill (Season 9) for me please. There is already a page called One Tree Hill (season 9), a user made a page using a capital letter because I redirected the original. Thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Individual admins only have jurisdiction to delete pages when they meet one of the speedy deletion criteria, which this page does not. The appropriate venue to request deletion is therefore the articles for deletion process. Yoenit (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)2 This is an uncontroversial move, the user is only requesting the capitalization be moved to the lower case "s" and then any data can be merged. An AfD is not required. Jayy, you can wait for MRG to move it, or make a request at WP:RM just ask for the capitalized one to be moved to the lowercase one. CTJF83 22:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Err, do you want it deleted because you feel it should be a redirect? In that case, yes AfD definitely, sorry, I may have misunderstood. CTJF83 22:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it would need to be an AfD. :) However, I've moved the page, merging the histories. This should be uncontroversial, since the article is in the wrong space. Why not talk to the other contributor about whether or not it should be a redirect for now? If he agrees, you can just redirect it. If he does not, you'll have to get consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't care what's done with the original page, my only issue was a new one being made with a capital letter as that's not what the name's supposed to be for any television page. Either way, thank you everyone for your help :) and thanks MRG for making the correct changes. Jayy008 (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

Unattributed automatic translations from German Wp and copyvio from EB

Sorry for troubling you again but could you (or someone else watching this page) please take a look at User talk:Thewar364 and the contributions of this user. I have tried to be non-"bitey" and started by leaving a personal message rather than one of those officious-sounding templates. --Hegvald (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Thanks for following up on this! Personal notes are always nice; I appreciate your taking the time. I've left him a note; if he doesn't correct attribution, we'll have to give him a hand. Hopefully, he will, now that I've explained it in more detail. Generally, I don't assume that people are intentionally causing problems when they first have issues. Many people just don't realize what Wikipedia's policies and practices are. I find most people are happy to work within them, once they're made aware. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. As I wrote, I tried not to be "bitey" about it (at first, at least), but I think you made a superior job. --Hegvald (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you; I have a lot of practice talking about these issues with people. :D I think it's great that you're conscious of the biting problem. Your opening to him was admirably diplomatic. Your second post was necessary, unfortunately, since he has to know he can't do this. There's not always a pleasant way to approach this. Probably I would have omitted the question "How can you possibly believe this to be acceptable?" (which might put him on the defensive) and instead just pointed him to the policies that forbid it. My basic goal is to neutrally present the policies on first contact on the issue. For better or worse, internet culture has evolved so that people copy and paste things from one location to another all the time; they usually don't think of it as plagiarism or consider the copyright dimension because they see it done everywhere. Sometimes, I do wonder the same thing, especially when dealing with scholars I'd expect to have a different approach—student and professorial writing. :/ But even with people where I wonder that, I usually go at it from a "We can't do this here" angle. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Slavko Pengov

I do not understand why you have eliminated my photos of Pengov's paintings in Bled, in Žale and in the Parliament House of Slovenia. I have made these photos myself and I have dedicated a lot of my time to recover the work of this slovenian artist. I am very dissapointed with this violation of my work.--Oliver-Bonjoch (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Oliver-Bonjoch#Slavko Pengov. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of photos of contemporary artists in Wikipedia. So all this photos have permission? Pengov's paintings in the Parliament House belong to the people of Slovenia, and the painting in Žale is outside, in a public place. Who owns the rights of Pengov's work? There are no books of Pengov's paintings anywhere. So I am the only one doing the work of getting to know Pengov's genius around the world.--Oliver-Bonjoch (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing allegation of Ruth Glass article

Have you got time to look at the conversation at User_talk:TransporterMan#Ruth_Glass about a close paraphrase situation at Ruth Glass - it is fairly short conversation. I think someone may have over-reacted here, especially as it was clear that I was looking at it. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've had a look at the conversation and the article, and I've seen these kinds of situations before. Except when there's straightforward copy-pasting, there's always going to be some disagreement over when the line is crossed and how much. There's not an admin or an editor who works copyright (that is, heavily, since I've been involved) that I have not disagreed with at some point or the other, and I'm pretty sure they've all had moments of disagreeing with me. :) This is pretty normal considering that there's often dissenting opinion even in the Supreme Court when these cases go to trial. I've seen articles blanked that I thought should not be and others marked clear that dropped my jaw.
I believe that the first edit needed to be revised to further separate it from the source. This is not wrongdoing of any kind on the contributor's part; it's a delicate skill to rewrite from scratch without heading off into original research. :/ I would not have left him the cp template; we don't really have a template for this situation. :( I have a few stock phrases I use, but I don't even have a template of my own. I suspect that what TransporterMan is responding to is the sense that incremental variations on a work can create an unusable "derivative". When you can trace the development of material, that's sometimes a problem. It's obvious that you were making good progress, and I would have myself been inclined to wait for you to finish and see if I still had concerns, but if I were in your position (and when I have been, in the past :D) I'd just go on to finish in the temporary space.
One thing I'll warn you about in terms of doing these rewrites, because it is a subtle danger: sometimes incrementally altering the sentences in a close paraphrase can leave you still with the overall structure of a source. For that reason, I will myself generally try to find a new way of ordering the information we get as well as varying up the language. The only time there's no worry about this is when the structure of the original is purely non-creative. In this case, I'm not sure, for instance, why the information on the term gentrification is in the last sentence of the source. Is that chronologically when this occurred in her life? I'd probably haul that information up to the top of the article with some kind of "best known for blah and blah as well as for coining the term "gentrification". And one of my favorite techniques for addressing paraphrasing is drawing in information from a couple of more sources. First thing I look for: can I find a few facts somewhere else that aren't published in the suspected source? If so, I work them in immediately. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. My next move was going to be to shift the comment about gentrification in the first paragraph, because it is a significant term and it is alleged that she introduced it. Thereafter, the article creator had already provided sources that could be dug into & in fact the source that the complainant picked up on was a precis of the much larger ODNB article that has a bundle of content in it. I just feel that the entire reporting situation was all done a little on the quick side.
I'm not keen on people jumping on newbies within 10 minutes, but jumping on someone who has been around for a while within that timespan really irked me. Stick it on a watchlist and revisit in 12 hours, or even a couple of hours, would be my reaction. That is what niggled me: the CSD came while it was obvious that edits were going on and then the full-blown copyvio report went in while I had joined in and had commented on the reporters' talk page. I do accept that differences will occur but this has the "stink" of a new page patroller who is being unduly diligent and it worries me. There are rules and there are realities. It is a fine line.
I will restart the entire thing from scratch, mainly because I am serious "narked" about what has happened here. I know nothing about the woman but am, at least relative to the average Wikipedian, sh*t hot with sourcing. You know me a little by now, I think: I am totally "pro" dealing with copyvios etc and the extent of them has driven me to despair on occasion. This occasion was not one of them. It was a hasty, unconsidered piece of trigger-happy notification. Something that, I think, we are all guilty of from time to time but is worrying if the person is indeed contributing primarily in a NPP role. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Quick is a problem. And I share your concerns about biting, whether the contributor is new or not. We don't want to sour the experience of contributing on Wikipedia to anybody who is working in good faith...the ideal goal is to repair the problem, keep the contributor. And I certainly know that you are very diligent in dealing with copyright problems. :) I appreciate your work there.
Sometimes in working copyright problems I have encountered people who seem to me overly diligent or who have become very angry dealing with those who actually have violated our copyright problems. It's a very tricky balance; we want and need new page patrollers who are conscious of copyright issues. They provide tremendous value to the project, too. It can be hard to both validate the work they do (so they don't stop doing it) and encourage them to approach it differently (so they don't run off innocent or salvageable contributors). Pointing out when you disagree with is important. And it's even more important to interact with the contributors you feel have been "bitten"; I appreciate your doing so. (I very much regret this situation, for instance. That was awful. :()
I understand how you feel; really, I do. I've had content actually deleted after I had become involved with it. I've had to bite my tongue and dig for my diplomacy more than once. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks both for taking this matter seriously. Past encounters at Wikipedia have made me reasonably robust but being "bitten" is still an unpleasant and deterrent experience. MRG's intervention in a recent situation not only mollified me but helped make me a lot more aware of and respectful of copyright issues (whatever my reservations in principle). I know other people less determined than myself (particularly non-native Anglophone contributors) who sadly have abandoned Wikipedia after getting a "working over". Heavy-handed "law enforcement" is as counter-productive in Wikipedia as it is in the real world. Opbeith (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, and amen. This kind of situation makes me sad. I've got some major goals for my work on Wikipedia in weeks to come. I'm making lists. :) One of the things I hope to be doing is talking to a few groups that I'm hoping can coordinate more closely—Wikipedia:Welcoming committee, Wikipedia:New page patrol and any other project I can come up with that regularly interfaces with newer users—in the hopes of generating some good discussion about how to encourage and retain new users. I'm also hoping that Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings will help evaluate our templates to make sure that the balance is good between "education" and "encouragement". Even our copyright templates need work in that direction. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I, too, would like to thank Moonriddengirl for her caring and thoughtful analysis. I don't entirely agree with everything that was said, but you might be surprised at just how much with which I do agree. On the quickness / biting issue and what might be done to be more welcoming to newcomers I've stated my opinion and reservations in this thread and won't belabor the point further here. While this instance with Ruth Glass may make me look a bit bitey, I'd like to point out that I have a track record of trying to give newcomers who show some bona fide interest in really improving the encyclopedia at least some advice and encouragement. See, for example, this and this and this. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: I do have to admit that I got one thing wrong in this case. I was, perhaps, a bit more certain in my reaction to the close paraphrase copyvio than I might have otherwise have been with some other editor because of the number of copyvio (and other warnings) on Msrasnw's talk page. I came away from seeing them with the impression that s/he was cavalier, frivolously sloppy, or had a "if you catch me I'll fix it" attitude, indeed to the point that in the heat of things I was considering reporting him/her to WP:CCI. Having taken a closer look I've now come to believe that those problems were far more innocent than they appeared on first blush and that the creator appears to be a good-faith, hard-working editor with a enviable sense of kindness. I was wrong, I believe, about him/her and I'd like to admit it here and apologize to him/her for my false impression even though I never expressed it before now. That is not to say that I would have done anything different if I had had the correct impression about Msrasnw from the beginning, but I do want to admit and apologize for misjudging him. Respectfully, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for joining in the conversation. :) First, let me say that there have undoubtedly been people who have felt bitten by me in copyright work over the years. Some of them probably have been; others, maybe not. I try to be careful and conscious of these issues, but we're human. Sometimes things don't transpire the way we'd like; sometimes, they aren't received the way we meant. I've seen your work, too, and just like Sitush I know you to be good at your self-imposed job. :D I would be sorry if you came away from this feeling like you've been globally misjudged; this seems to be a disagreement over how to handle a particular situation.
Fact is, we don't have good tools for addressing close paraphrasing. We do have a tag that can serve ({{close paraphrasing}}) but it is not widely publicized; I don't know if it's even mentioned at WP:CP. We don't have any kind of template or recommended approach, really, for talking about this with people, and it's one of the most difficult areas to discuss. Straightforward copy-pastes are simple. There's not much room for disagreement over whether copying happened. :) It's all down to determining if the content is free for use.
Recklessly categorizing off the top of my head, we have two kinds of people who have problems with close paraphrasing: (a) good faith contributors who don't know they are doing anything wrong, and (b) contributors who don't care that they're doing anything wrong. Sometimes, group (a) can be instructed in community norms to stop close paraphrasing. Sometimes (sadly) they can't. :/ Our challenge is to present group (a) with a means of instruction that is as effective as it can be without angering and alienating them. I have a couple of "form letters" I tend to use as the base of my approach (this one, freshly tweaked; the one immediately above it). Maybe these can be tooled somehow into an actual template, or maybe we should add a section to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing about how to discuss it with others. It's hard. The ill-will generated by close paraphrasing concerns played no small factor, in my opinion, in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket. :/ We need to figure out some way to help these conversations go smoothly, with good outcomes for the person who placed the content and the person who noticed it, which is all to the best for Wikipedia. I'm very open to ideas from anybody to that end. I really do hate to see conflict between people who are just trying to help the project. Much better when we can find ways to eliminate it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, even if you don't tweak the letters into a template, you could add your two form letters to the appropriate pages as examples of how to discuss paraphrasing issues with the apparently-plagiarizing editors. I'd offer to write it into a template completely myself but that's not one of my strong suits. I can maybe try to find someone who'd be willing to do a template or walk me through it if you like. Just let me know, Shearonink (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion; I'll go ahead and add them in. :) I don't know about templates; ideally, we'd like people to offer examples, and that's just difficult to do at any length in a template. :/ I don't know enough about templates to know if we could easily make it work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've created an example at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. What do you guys think? Helpful or otherwise? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I've checked it over & it seems fine to me. These things are never going to be easy to deal with, either in terms of handling the contributor or with regard to filling in the blanks. Yours is a good effort. About 99% better than I could do (the 1% deduction is due to my ability to create wikilinks). - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree and I like it. Despite what happened in this case, I rarely encounter close paraphrases which appear to be good-faith, so I'll find the language to be of limited utility. However, I've looked at the {{db-g12}} CSD tag, the {{nothanks-sd}} user page G12 notice, the {{copyviocore}} template, and the {{Nothanks-web}} user page copyvio notice and none of them address close paraphrasing. I suspect that many even good-faith editors don't know that close paraphrases aren't acceptable and I wonder if we shouldn't work towards getting some language in each of those templates about close paraphrasing. I fear, however, that we'll strike a lot of resistance changing them at all and also fear that making them longer will just cause fewer people to read them at all. Your "form letter" on the talk page of the editor may be the most effective thing to do. Thank you for doing it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that if I were a newcomer to Wikipedia that I'd understand it all, particularly the sentence about using temporary space at the article's front. Also it would be useful to give a *very brief* explanation of what the basic issues are, in particular the issue of other people's use of material made available through widely reproduced Wikipedia articles - for someone who isn't familiar with the issues it's not easy to see why the way people normally cut and paste useful information they want to pass on to someone else should be regarded by Wikipedia as such a major problem. Opbeith (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Those are good observations. :) Does this help? More? Less? (I also added a second example, for when the article is not blanked). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Is "rightsholders" a word? I've never seen it before, but over here in the UK we use English English & have done for quite a long time. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The short answer is yes. :) Sometimes you see it hyphenated (rights-holders). Sometimes you see it with a space. I had inserted the space, but decided to remove it until we talked about. Rightsholders is a legal term for somebody who owns copyright; rights holders seems to be used in that and other contexts. So "rightsholders" may be more correct, but "rights holders" would also work. Which do you think would be less jarring to our readers? Or is there another term that is more user friendly? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd probably use "copyright holder" or "holder of the copyright(s)". But I am not fussed: as long as it is a word and its meaning fits the context then who am I to argue debate contest dispute it. ;) - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I just ran into an edit conflict as I was about to say the same thing as Sitush, per the following - (1) I really like the intro "As the website is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, to ensure that we protect the interests of rightsholders as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers." That's succinct and meaningful. I wonder, though, if it might be helpful to apply belt and braces and refer to "copyright-holders" even though the meaning of rightsholders should be clear from the context. (2) "Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch." suggests that absolutely everything not completely reworded has to be in quotation marks. Which begs the question for the novice of what quantity of words strung together in the same way constitutes a quotation that demands the use of quotation marks? Everything? Doesn't the citation of a reference allow for a short repetition without quotation marks? "clearly indicated" or "clearly acknowledged" might be less draconian than "clearly marked" (and result in more legible article text). (3) I'm afraid I have to confess that after all this time I don't know what an article's "front" is. Is it the top of the article? Opbeith (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Just passing-by, and this is only my personal opinion but the word "rightsholders" looks archaic to me while "rights-holders" looks better and the meaning seems clearer, as in a (copy) "rights-holders", rather than copyrightsholders. Interesting discussion btw. Shearonink (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done some general rewording and rearranging to make the meaning and instruction of the examples a bit more clear. Let me know what you think. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(Thanks for clearing up my "front" confusion. Opbeith (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC))

PS: Can someone familiar with template editing figure out why the {{quotebox}} template — at least I think that's the villain — causes the following See also heading to disappear? — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC) PPS: I've kludged around it but it needs to be fixed properly. TM 15:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that'smuch improved, TransporterMan! Thank you. :) And I have no clue what's up with {{quotebox}}. The stuff either works for me or it doesn't. Sitush, I've tried holders of copyright. I don't know if that will be better. :) If not, maybe Shearonink's recommended "rights-holders" will do.
Opbeith, that's a tough one. The only time we don't have to use quotation marks is when we are using uncreative text or properly handled indirect quotation. WP:NFC requires that all other duplicated content be clearly marked, not just acknowledged. ("Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method.") It is possible to use indirect quotation, but this can be a difficult skill, and I'm not sure how to communicate that briefly, particularly since we'dpresume that most editors receiving this may already have a tendency to the other extreme. We don't want them to replacing their content with a bunch of quotations, though. :/ Any idea how to avoid the other extreme? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
As with most things I think you have to start at the place the people you're talking to are coming from. The way I see it, there are five different approaches to contributing material - as a parrot, an enthusiast-disciple, a wavelength-sharer, a disconnected observer and/or a distorter (no value judgments to be attached to these ad-hoc descriptions). None of these approaches is problem-free when it comes to treading the line between achieving accurate and useful communication and avoiding legal/moral issues. But if you can get people to look at what they're actually doing, they can think about and hopefully work out for themselves where they may be getting things wrong. That's the point at which they can be encouraged to think about rewriting, direct quotation or indirect quotation as a way of avoiding the real-world problems their approach runs into. It's after that the real problems arise, when there's a genuine conflict of opinion. As you know from your experience dealing with me, people may have strong views about the legitimacy of using original wording (and about what constitutes original wording) in specific situations. Where the people who know the issues adopt a (genuinely) cooperative approach at an early stage it's easier to negotiate an appropriate solution or narrow down the more difficult fundamental problems.
This discussion and the proposals people have made are certainly a positive advance. But nevertheless at a more basic level Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a solution to the problem of how you mediate the exchange of information in a world of remix and mashing, apart from a (legitimate) insistence on respect for the law. Just switch on the radio and listen to how the privacy baby is being drowned in the bathwater because Parliament and the judiciary haven't worked out how to cope with the real world challenge of Twitter - the effort to enforce a not unreasonable law has already badly damaged respect for the law. In a democracy the law can't be enforced unless it's respected and respect depends on understanding and acceptance. So commendations (I didn't want to bash the word "Respect" yet again!) to you for these constructive efforts to communicate with the people who need to be convinced rather than leave them feeling they're being told off. Opbeith (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Just noting that the {{quotebox}} problem has been fixed by the kind assistance of Gadget850; anyone wanting a how-to on that should see here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Some of this is getting a little beyond my knowledge/experience now. I was already well aware that copyright/close paraphrasing is a messy area but, really, the community is relying on other (equally voluntary) members to have a degree of knowledge of laws that are subjected to continual testing by very highly paid professionals in the real world. There is only so much that can be done and then it becomes judgement calls. Given the vagaries of real world law, the judgement calls here need always to err on the side of caution. As I have seen it, that is in fact the path taken in most instances.
There have been many good points made and we have at present an outcome which appears to me to represent a pretty decent stab at improving how these issues are dealt with. You may want to bear in mind that we Brits have a reputation to uphold regarding use of the concept of "understatement" ;) What started out as a bit of a spat (no offence, I was at least 50% of it) has produced not only much thought but a practical outcome, and some extra knowledge about templating issues to boot!
There is no way that I can add significantly to the debate at this stage but I would like to put on record my appreciation of the manner in which the participants have collaborated and also, individually, the contributions that have been made. Awesome, as I believe the teenagers say. I presume that they are the same age cohort that use words such as "remix" and "mashing" <g> - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that, too. :) One of my favorite things about Wikipedia is the way that contributors work together to solve problems and keep the encyclopedia going. Truly, I think it's what makes our site so monumental. :) And I appreciate you guys helping with this.
Opbeith, my personal opinion is that copyright law is a few lightyears behind the reality of current internet culture. Sooner or later, they'll catch up. :) Maybe the answer here is to improve Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, which this notice points to, to talk a little bit about WP:INTEXT? We'd need to caution people against taking that too far, though, because I have seen in my years doing on this Wikipedia people who think that if they introduce a paragraph with "Jane Smith said" and change pronouns from "I" to "she" that they're in the clear. Unfortunately, that's not the legal reality. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Indirect quotation is now addressed at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing; see relevant changes here. Let me know if you see any problems with it, especially problems that may result in more copyright problems on Wikipedia. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I liked the simplicity of the WP:INTEXT approved format. It makes it easier to respect what may be very carefully chosen original wording while avoiding quotation mark acne. However there's a problem if you don't have an easily named author to attribute to. The "disapprovals" aren't terribly helpful - a set of several graded examples might have been more helpful. I still find the advice on Close paraphrasing has too negative a feel to it. It's hard work watching out for too close paraphrasing when you're also anxious about the risks of rewriting. You don't want to be a lazy thief but nor do you want to be the equivalent of "traduttore, traditore!" (I'm trying to think of something appropriate - "reviser, revisionist!" perhaps?). There's a fair amount of perhaps overclose paraphrasing that's the result of conflict between a pressing awareness of the need to have information available and a contributor's lack of confidence in their own writing capabilities. That springs from the positive wish to contribute to the spread of knowledge - at whatever intellectual level, even about Pokemon characters. So guidelines should take encouragement and example as the starting point before warning where the electric fence is located. As always it's a lot easier to criticise broadly than to provide constructive detail but I'm not thinking too clearly today, I'll try and think more about it when the brain's less clunky. Opbeith (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I read the indirect quotation late last night. Gosh, that is an uncomfortable area for decision-making. I would never use that as a rationale for anything I add to an article because it is just too subjective & I can envisage situations where people would weigh in with a plagiarism argument. Having said which, your changes at close paraphrasing seem good to me. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Being a policy nerd, let me note FWIW that:
I don't have an axe to grind or a point to make, I just looked all this stuff up and thought it might be beneficial to list it here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not prohibited by name, but by implication at WP:C: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely. (See our Copyright FAQ for more on how much reformulation may be necessary as well as the distinction between summary and abridgment.)" The copyright FAQ is not particularly well written in this area, says:

Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, although the structure, presentation, and phrasing of the information should be your own original creation. The United States Court of Appeals noted in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service that factual compilations of information may be protected with respect to "selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity," as "[t]he compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers."[5] You can use the facts, but unless they are presented without creativity (such as an alphabetical phone directory), you may need to reorganize as well as restate them to avoid substantial similarity infringement. It can be helpful in this respect to utilize multiple sources, which can provide a greater selection of facts from which to draw. (With respect to paraphrasing works of fiction, see derivative works section below.)

There's some really awkward language in there, and some of it is my fault. :/ Haven't got time right now to try to address it. But I did want to point out that even if not by name, too closely paraphrasing is against policy. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Foreign language tip

Just FYI, I did an end run around the foreign language problem by trying this at the Swedish Wikipedia and it may have worked. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC) PS: If we keep hanging around the same places, people are going to say we're in love. . TM

LOL! Let 'em talk. :D
That's a great idea! I've often dug through lists of contributors familiar with certain languages looking for one I know or at least one who is currently active. I've made my way to bilingual contributors on other langauge wikis and asked for help, but it has never occurred to me to ask at the help desk. So much less time consuming! I bow to your brilliance, sir! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks, Philippe. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thought you'd enjoy that :P Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!!

I just learned of your promotion. Wonderful, wonderful news! Sad to say, I already have a request. You have likely heard of the hard-banned user Bambifan101. This is a ninth-grade boy in Mobile, Alabama who is single-handedly responsible for staggering cross-wiki abuse and he's returned to wreak more havoc. Check the ANI board to see what I mean. I tried three times to mentor him and three times he continued to create abusive, insulting socks while pretending to accept my offers. Worse, he followed another hard-banned and truly dangerous user who had me in his sights across several Wikia projects and other wikis. BF followed his example and I lived a nine-week-long nightmare last summer over this idiot child. It was only when he'd wreaked that havoc via his school IP that I got the district's IT department to step in and they did so immediately. They're the ones who told me that he was a student and his computer privileges were revoked but of course could not elaborate further, nor did I pry further as to his identity. He hasn't attacked me yet, but he just got through with yet another cross-wiki rampage with machine translated garbage on non-English WP projects. I'd contacted Bell South to no avail. Perhaps you'll have better luck if you decide to step in. Thank you SO much. All my best, PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: Here's the ANI discussion. Take care and congratulations once more. [6] PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. :) Although new at my job (and accordingly lost), I'm exploring options on this. --Mdennis (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Bless you. The majority of his edits have come from Bell South in Mobile. It shouldn't be difficult for them to ascertain who was using the IP, assuming that they look into the abuse. I as a simple user might not have had sufficient gravitas for them to respond to my complaints. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Would you be comfortable dropping me an e-mail at mdennis@wikimedia.org? If so, I'd like to update you. :) --Mdennis (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Coming right up. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor suggestion re table presentation in FAQ/Copyright

I was momentarily confused by the table in FAQ/Copyright. Not a big deal, but I left a suggestion for improvement on the talk page. Yes, I know about bold, but when something has been around this long, and possibly the result of solid discussions, I want to talk about it before doing it, in case there are solid reasons for the existing presentation I missed.--SPhilbrickT 11:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Replied there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Issues with a member

Hi, I already posted this on PBS's talk page -- but he's too busy to help --
It seems to be that the editor Boleyn is using incorrect information and creating pages that are under the incorrect title. I have found two HUGE mistakes lately. One having to do with Thomas Burgh, 3rd Baron Burgh in which the page she started was originally named Thomas Burgh, 7th Baron Strabolgi. I had to move the page and re-do it! I now find that she edited the page Kirton in Lindsey putting incorrect information which she quoted from a book -- only problem being it was not what was written in the book, it was completely wrong. She quotes that Catherine Parr and her second husband, the 3rd Baron of Gainsborough lived there -- er, incorrect and not even what it says in Porter's Katherine, the Queen. I corrected her info and put another source by it. I have the two books right here in front of me and I can tell you that what she quoted was/is completely false -- and I'm pretty sure that there is a snippet of Porter's book on Google ebooks which states the correct husband but does not have pg 55 -- it's blocked. To see what she originally put in there -- see Revision as of 13:19, 29 March 2011 -- should I address this person or leave it to you because I am really starting to get annoyed with her -- she doesn't use correct sources, quotes what's not even in the book, creates pages with titles that are incorrect, and is spreading the wrong information around Wiki. I'm frankly tired of cleaning up her mess (which seems to have to do with Catherine Parr and her husband's families). -- Lady Meg (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) You should always first try talking to somebody with whom you have an issue, generally diplomatically with the assumption that they mean well and will be happy to consider your concerns. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution talks about this a bit. I'm afraid that even though I'm an administrator, I'm not any more empowered than any other editor to deal with general dispute resolution, and I don't know much about Catherine Parr. :/ I think if you approach Boleyn in a spirit of collegial collaboration, you should find her open to conversation. I've found her easy to approach. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For now I think I will just let it go. I might say something, but I don't feel like dealing with confrontation right now. I'll check her editing in the future and confront her if I see anything else. Thanks for your input. -- Lady Meg (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at these?

Surat al-Muddaththir see [7] and Surat Qaf see [8] - this bit about see someone for detailed analysis is the giveaway, although the first article has a lot of other text that's pretty clearly copied. I've got to get out of the house shortly or I'd deal with it myself. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be copied; hard to tell. But I can't find any direct source for the translation and explication. I've removed it as OR. Exegesis requires authority. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I couldn't find where it was copied from either, possibly someone's personal essay or something else not on the web. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Either one of those seems like a valid guess. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I need some advice from you, please have a look:[9], I had a big and tedious argument with user:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ(Dungane) over Boxer Rebellion. It will take forever to read through it, but basically, I was advocating implementation of WP Neutrality, and he was:

User Dungane had written more than 10,000 words of argument, mostly consist of personal attacks against me and user John Smith's, and just refuse to calm down to join me on discussion on how to implement WP rules. Since no admin had even care to make any statement on this ANI, let alone any decision, I hereby come here to seek your advice. Arilang talk 05:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) If it's just the two of you, I would recommend you try Wikipedia:Mediation, formally or informally. If this represents a problem that others have also attempted to address, you might try an WP:RfC or WP:RfC/U. I'm afraid ANI is seldom the best forum for this kind of thing, since it really excels in quick and clear issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you MRG for your comment, I shall try WP:RfC if need be. Thanks for your precious time. Arilang talk 15:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Concern re chart listings

User A Thousand Doors is making article after article of nothing but lists of top-chart songs taken from, in each instance, a single chart source. See Special:Contributions/A_Thousand_Doors. These sources seem to me to be the exact type of source which was described in your last quote in our Ruth Glass discussion, above, and to merely copy them from that source and relist them here seems to me to be a copyvio. What do you think (before I make a fool of myself at WP:CCI)? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: Maybe it's not quite the same thing. What the chart source puts out is a weekly list of the top, for example, 40 dance albums that week. What ATD is doing is making a compilation article of the number one album from each week. I'm not sure whether that's a copyvio or not (though I wonder if WP:INDISCRIMINATE might not be an issue). What do you think? — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Eh. I hate list articles. Working out copyright on those is so complex. :( Looking into it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, based on attorney input and long precedent, we don't worry about lists where information is purely factual and obvious--that is, anybody making such a list would come up with the same figures. Things get slippery when they aren't really using purely factual information, but educated guesses. I think UK Official Download Chart may be purely factual and so copyright free, unless creative presentation is being reproduced (such as the facts selected, etc.). But the complications come in with their inclusion rules: maximum play time of 15 minutes; minimum set price for downloads. What I would do if this showed up at CP is take it to the talk page for further opinions...and cross my fingers that somebody showed up to give any. :) But I would be opining in such a conversation that they are okay. I think they count as "formulaic". In either event, I think he'd probably be fine with the compilation list. These are well within precedent, ala List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2010 (U.S.). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And another one involving a different kind of list

This is more for my future reference than immediate (because I think the article isn't long for this world on other grounds), but I removed a long copyvio at McMaster Association of Part-Time Students as a copyvio of http://www.mcmaster.ca/maps/history.html. The last section of that was a long list of past and current officers. The editor rewrote a chunk of it adequately to avoid the copyvio but restored most of the officers list character-for-character verbatim. Is there any Wikipolicy or Wikiprecedent for whether those kinds of list constitute a copyvio? (Oh, and much belatedly, congrats on the new job.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. :) It's not that much belatedly. :D Here's what we have, and it's just my essay: User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. But this much of it is established precedent: if the list is uncreative in content or structure, then we can have it. I think we're probably okay on that because it's a chronological list of officeholders.
To anyone else looking at this page, I'll be catching up tomorrow. I promise. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Message for you in your function as a representative of the WMF

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Mdennis (WMF)'s talk page.
Message added 12:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks. :) I'll take a look at it when I'm "on the clock" and get back with you ASAP. :D I'm handling my backlog of volunteer stuff this morning. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Allright. I hope you like your new role. :) Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! It's a bit of a challenge at the moment, but it's always challenging starting something new. And trying to create something new. We don't haveany processes in place yet for much of what I'm supposed to be doing. :D It'll come together, though! (P.S. I will have answers for you; promise. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A question for the copyright investigation guru

Hi;
Could I bother you for some suggestions?
A long-term editor has produced a large volume of edits, of which a small subset seem to be... unhelpful (not copyvio per se). I'm wrestling with a huge Excel spreadsheet, trying to separate positive edits from a minority which are problematic. Edits to well-trafficked articles will have been seen by others and probably fixed where necessary; so it would be helpful to identify obscure articles which have been edited solely or mainly by this editor (apart from bots and the occasional passerby who fixes spelling/categories &c) as these are likely to pose quality problems. Maybe copyright-cleanup can involve some similar work; so are there any tools/scripts/whatever which I could use? Simply looking at article creations isn't helpful, as there are cases where this editor added the vast majority of the content to an article which somebody else started as a microstub.
Are there any tools from the world of copyright cleanup which could be helpful here? Feel free to say "No" bobrayner (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How about "maybe"? :) Our best tool for that is not as customizable as you might want so it does not show what he has edited solely or mainly, but it does produce a list of every article which a contributor has non-trivially edited. After it completes a scan, it allows you to eliminate reversions (helpful with vandal cleaners), to specify time ranges, and to set the minimum contrib. size you want to evaluate. It lists its output in order of "most contributed" articles to "least", with diffs. The tool is here. This isn't exactly what you want, but perhaps it can be helpful to you anyway? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your suggestion; I'll try that. (It's taking a while to digest the contribution history...) bobrayner (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a problem with long-term contributors. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Game

A discussion about improving the help documentation inspired an idea--Wikipedia tutorials would be best if they were interactive and immersive. The thought of a learning-teaching game came up, one based on a real interface with realistic 'missions'. Would you be interested in providing some feedback or helping work on it, or know editors who might? The idea is just getting started and any assistance with the help/policy side, the experienced-editor side, or the coding/game-making side would be great. Cheers, Ocaasi c 03:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please put your responses at User_talk:Ocaasi/The_Wikipedia_Game to consolidate discussion. Dcoetzee 11:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought linking to it in the header would be enough. Too cryptic? I'll place a link in any future notices. Ocaasi c 15:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I would love to provide feedback and try to find others to work with you. I'm already aware of what you're up, have already enthused about it to staff, and have already asked if I can pitch in "officially". But, alas, it's the weekend, and a holiday weekend at that. :) I don't see why I couldn't, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For copy editing the No. 79 Squadron RAAF - much appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not much for me to do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert Garside

Hi Moonriddengirl. Sorry to bother you, but could you please edit "www.robertgarside.com" back onto the "Robert Garside" page? It is the official web portal and was recently (sneakily) deleted by CanadianLinuxUser. No surprises there! Many thanks. It was in the box on the left hand side of the page, underneath where the photo is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.122.103 (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. I don't think it was a sneaky deletion, though. He said it was gone. I noticed the change and followed it, and it did certainly seem to be. I see it's back. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

ItsLassieTime problems

Hi Moonriddengirl, I realize you're very busy, but wanted to bring your attention to this ANI thread. Specifically I'd like to know how we deal with persistent copyvio vandals and what to do about the pages they edit. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm clocking out as Maggie Dennis and clocking in as me to address this. Be right there! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I just read about your job today - congrats. That must be exciting. Regarding this edit you made - [10] - I can help with CCI and should probably learn how to update the investigations. Unless it needs tools (which I haven't got), I'd be happy to figure out how to do it myself if you can point me to a link or something to read. I'd like to see the work you do as Moonriddengirl continue, but understand that you'll have less time now, but I'd be happy to pitch in where I can. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see that work continue, too! :D I intend it to, although I know I'm not going to be able to put as much time into it as I was before the role started. And I would love to have you pitching in at CCI! It's fairly anemic, and it could certainly use fresh blood. It doesn't need admin tools, but there are a couple of useful tools for the work that anybody can access: [11] does some kind of magical internet scan where it lists text matches to articles, eliminating as many known mirrors as it can. [12] compares an article against a specific source. And [13] is the tool for providing a complete list of diffs, clustered by article, from any given contributor. Given the last tool, updating investigations is easy; you just put in the username, wait, and refine the parameters. These are check boxes after the initial scan--I tell it to "hide reverts" and "hide minor edits". If you download it as Wikitext, it can be pasted in directly, although there are complications with expanding an existing listing. Nothing major; I just insert headers for the different names, and I add a list of names to the first page of the CCI. (See, for example, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Paknur.) If it turns out that this contributor has been very active, we may need to consider a more aggressive response. The continued growth of the CCI backlog suggests to me that pretty soon we may need to start implementing more heavily the "presumptive removal" of such text--and I do this particularly with socking serial infringers. . --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I have another question. Under the user name SusanneNYC2009, ILT took The Story of Miss Moppet to FAC and it passed. Later, I scrubbed the page, removed the plagiarism, and rewrote sections with the copyvio. I documented what I found in my edit summaries and on the talkpage. However, the plagiarism still exists in the page's history which has not been scrubbed. In my view that should have been done, and should be done now. Then I'd like to send the page to FAR. How do I go about having the all of Susanne's edits deleted? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We can do revision deletion if necessary. There's a tag for this: {{copyvio-revdel}}. But you can also just tell me the run that needs deletion, and I can do it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think what I'm asking is whether we have a consistent policy that we apply. We know a banned sock puppet made edits to the page. We know it achieved FA status. Sandy tells me to get you involved, so I think the decision is yours whether to delete the edits per WP:BAN or to revdel so the history is clear. If it's revdel, I'll let you know which edits. If deletion, I think that's mostly done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Also I think this post might give some perspective. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, I helped some with cleaning up Miss Moppet's copyvios and too close paraphrasing. I am also an admin so I could do the rev dels if that would help (although I am an involved party too). I guess the question I see Truthkeeper88 as asking is basically should all of ILT's edits be rev del'ed since so many of them were copyvios, or do we have to identify specific edits (this sentence was bad, so these edits have to go)? The other issue here is that ILT was a banned user at the time, so anyone is free to revert any of his or her edits - does this extend to rev deleting them all? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. That would be great.:) This is generally not going to be an involvement issue; if you were in some huge content dispute with the user, that would be one thing, but rewriting copyvios does not create involvement. Rev-deletion for copyright violation is not firmly nailed down. The policy says on revision deletion says, "Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion." Such as they are, those practices are spelled out at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins, incorporated by reference, and say:

It may be a good idea to use Wikipedia:Revision deletion on the versions that contain the copyright infringement to help avoid inadvertent restoration in the future if the copyrighted content is extensive. Otherwise, so long as the infringing text is removed from the public face of the article, it may not need to be removed/deleted permanently unless the copyright holder complains via OTRS or unless other contributors persist in restoring it.

This is always going to be a judgment call. If the content has been there for a while, I try to judge how extensive it is in deciding to do rev deletion. The more extensive it is, the more likely I am to rev delete.
Rev deletion policy also includes at this writing "Valid deletion under Deletion Policy, executed using RevisionDelete." Copyright violations are the first of those. WP:CV says "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." I think that justifies revdeletion in such cases.
My policy with CCIs: I do not always rev delete these, but will when I think return is a high possibility. And when we have a serial infringer who just can't grasp it, definitely. We have no reason to trust that person and every reason to suspect that anything he or she add was written by somebody else. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I have rev deleted all of Susanne2009NYC's contributions to Miss Moppet per the above. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions old & new

Not sure if the issue about using ads has ever been resolved or not. Had copied my findings to the page after bringing them up with you here. Haven't uploaded or transferred anything like this to Commons since because I'm not certain it's settled.

I seem to have some kind of "vio magnet" because it seems like I either am reading for information or trying to expand/ref an article and there's the vio. :( Am now working on restoring my last "find", Red Skelton. Is there possibly some way users could be made aware of the articles that need to be redone after they've been cleared of vios to try to get them back in decent order again, and possibly some type of encouragement for those who would be willing to do this? Seeing what was left of Skelton afterward started me thinking about this. Thanks! We hope (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, question old: some things never are resolved. The continued existence of the template means that at this point, however, nobody has felt strongly enough about concerns to nominate it for deletion. It's usable in the meantime, though I have just added some usage notes to the template documentation at Template:PD-ad. There are two factors to consider here: (1) Wikipedia's handling of these, and (2) personal liability. In terms of factor (1), if you have good faith reason to believe that you are uploading content that is in public domain and you have not been informed that consensus is otherwise, you are free to continue uploading it. For the sake of comparison, if Wikipedia were to decide that unfree images of dead people were not defensible under fair use after all and eliminate them from NFC, there'd be a lot of deletion going on...but none of the uploaders would be at "fault". :) It's a similar situation. (2) is a slightly different story. We all bear personal responsibility for any image or text we upload. Wikipedia's policies are devised to protect it; not us. For example, some of the content we allow as legal in the U.S. is not legal in other countries. (I've been thinking lately that we should make clear in our policies and guidelines that contributors need to be conscious of and responsible for the legality of their actions in their jurisdictions, but haven't done anything substantial to pursue that yet.) If I found an ad of this sort and had good reason to believe it was not stock photography, I'd upload it. But we each have to determine our own risk. :)
As far as Commons is concerned, it might be a good idea to launch a discussion at their village pump about it, filling them in on the objections and support raised here?
Question new: there is a project alert bot that used to tell projects when articles in their bailiwick were marked as copyvios. It had some kind of problem; I don't know the background. The newly launched version (see Wikipedia:Article alerts) has us on their "to-do" list, but we've been there for some time. I don't know when that will change, but that would be a great way to help make users aware of articles that need to be redone. Article rescue has, I'm happy to say, given CP a mention (Wikipedia:ARS#Instructions), but I don't know if it's brought us much attention. :) If you have any thoughts about how to enlarge the ranks of copyright cleanup, I'm all ears. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we come up with a template that would replace the copyvio one after the article has been cleaned which would basically say that the article now needs restoration? If a list of these articles could be found on the project page, it would be a central location where those who want to help get articles back in shape could find them. If we could also come up with another template that can be placed on the article's talk page after it's been restored, saying something to the effect that the article was restored by the copyright project, it would make a bit more "noise" toward awareness. :) If there proves to be enough articles in need of restoration, perhaps a drive to work on them similar to copyedit, wikify and BLPs? We hope (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

We could, certainly. I'm not sure if the community would support a tag on the faces of articles, since it might linger for some time (or forever). But probably on the talk page. I don't know any way to alert projects to them, though, outside of that bot. :/ We could create a category, but I don't know how to tag it for specific projects in any manner that isn't labor intensive. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If you'll consider a category for them and a link to it, I'll keep my eyes open and see what I can help out with in the way of restoration. (Only fitting since I seem to have a copyvio magnet. :) ) Am about to say "Good night and may God bless" to Red, so I'll be open to lend a hand if needed. We hope (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you advise on a thread at NortyNort, please? No rush.

I asked a question here on NortyNort's talk page in an attempt not to overburden you. I got some useful advice but (contradiction, I know) am still confused. Do you mind taking a look please, if/when you have some time + are wearing the correct hat ? - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Advice for clerks

Good morning, I made a draft here. It is based off of Advice for admins but with some of my changes, I added some new/different tips that apply to both. Let me know what you think and feel free to make changes.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS question

Is the ticket related to image File:HesburghLibrary.jpg having to do with the photo or with the mural? If it has to do with the mural, is it from someone who can legitimately state the copyright status of the mural? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It's to do with the mural, and it seems to be from the executor of the estate of the artist. It indicates that copyright created by the artist for Notre Dame has expired. Permission was forwarded by User:Nv8200p rather than mailed directly, but gives every appearance of being a legitimate authorization. I don't mean to imply that this isn't allowed; it is. But it's a detail worth noting. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

mail

Hi Moonriddengirl. Congrats on your good news. I have been away for a few days. Please see my reply to email. Best. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob! I will, though it may be a day or so before I get back to you. Thanks for your response. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

General Ziegler

Blatant copyvio is a bit harsh verdict on too close paraphrasing. But you are right that it had to go. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It's the standard text for copyright concerns; it's used for instant "speedy" deletions of blatant copyvios, but also for issues that have been listed for 7 days at the copyright problems board (as this one was), to avoid inadvertent restoration down the road. Ideally, I suppose, the text would be longer to note the dual usage, but shorthand sometimes wins. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Goldie Hawn link deletion

Please note that your recent link deletion was not explained. There is a Talk page discussion on the link that is still ongoing, and has been added to ENL: Goldie Hawn link. There are two editors that were discussing it, but you simply deleted it with a rationale that is the essence of the discussion, and without any explanation. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It is explained at both the talk page and the ELN discussion. I have removed this in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, and it is not to be restored until there is some consensus that it is acceptable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

One Tree Hill - Season 9

Hi MRG, somebody has recreated the page with the capitol letter. I'm not touching it as I would ask you to take a look. I thought since you merged it only an admin could bring it back? Jayy008 (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it just left a redirect page; anybody can edit a redirect page. :) I merged again, but this time did not leave the redirect page. The problem may have been that the redirect ended in a loop, so the IP looking up information did not get any. When a redirect points to a redirect, it doesn't keep following the chain, but stops. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I get it. Thanks for all your help as always :). Jayy008 (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Public domain and movie trailers

Hi Moonriddengirl, I have a doozy for you. I know you don't focus on images, but could you help me with this? I recently (boldly) uploaded this picture to the Commons. It is a Photoshopped combination (i.e. derived work) of two screenshots from The Seven Year Itch's trailer, which seems to be in public domain because it was released prior to 1964 and never copyrighted separately; therefore, the chance to register it for copyright has expired (1955 + 28 = 1983). I am basing my reasoning off of a couple other The Seven Year Itch uploads by other editors and this site. Could you take a look and let me know what you think about the status of the trailer? Should it be on Commons? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. You ask very complex questions. :) It seems to me that the first thing we need to know is whether or not copyright in The Seven Year Itch was renewed. If not, and if the trailer was not copyrighted separately, then we can all go home happy without looking at the larger issues. If The Seven Year Itch is still under copyright, then we have some things to think about.
First, unless the trailer used different footage, then it is itself a derivative work of the film. (I am presuming that the film was copyrighted before the release of the trailer.) The creative compilation of the trailer may be copyright expired, but elements used from the film could remain copyrighted—which may mean any stills taken from the trailer that were originally of the film are still under copyright, especially if copyright notice of the film was displayed in the trailer. If copyright notice of the film was omitted.... I find other examples at Commons where people presume that when copyright was not renewed on the trailer, this means those images common to the trailer and the film are free of copyright. I don't know if there is legal precedent for this, whether by reusing their copyrighted content in a derivative work without registering (or renewing) separate copyright, the copyright owners of the original forfeited copyright to those elements reused. And as you've discovered at WT:C, asking questions doesn't always help. *sigh*
We could try asking at WP:MCQ. That page does draw a much more regular audience than WT:C, and they generally know their stuff. Somebody might have an actual statute or a precedent to point to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I will try asking there. At DYK we have a hook for the dress Marilyn Monroe wore, so if the image is public domain it would be a good addition to the mainpage. As for the complex questions... I have no idea why that happens. Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I have an idea. :) It's because you know your stuff and don't ask easy questions. :D Please let me know what you find out; I'm interested in where this goes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm still somewhat unsure of myself when it comes to copyrights. I have posted the question here. Hopefully it will help. Cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
No offense intended to anybody, but anyone who is "sure of themselves" when it comes to copyright has no clue what they're doing. :) Some areas are pretty obvious, but there's a whole huge mix of uncertainty in the middle. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
LOL, I'll remember that. It certainly sounds like the voice of experience. Thanks for all the help. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this help? We hope (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It may well. :) The thing that concerns me is this: The major argument has been that the scenes from the film itself were protected by the copyright on the complete film. However, one could argue that once you cut a clip from a film, it is a separate entity and without a complete and separate copyright and notice, it too becomes public domain by its publication. Because of this, most studio contracts have required licensees of clip material to copyright their productions so as to maintain the studio's copyright in the clip." The "one could argue" bit, though, is a bit concerning. What would be really great to know is if anyone has successfully argued that. The person behind that website seems to have some professional credits, but it would be very nice to know if he is regarded as an authority on the question. Whether it nails anything down or not, though, I am very impressed with your research abilities. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like she has earned a living with the information. I just started reading things like this and bookmarking them when I started uploading files, so I at least had some guidelines before deciding to use a file or not. :) We hope (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Impressive indeed, We hope. Shame nothing like this is posted on www.copyright.gov or something similar. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A question on blocking

Gamaliel recently blocked the IP address 68.255.4.56, whose single contribution can be seen here. Obviously, this seems like a case of WP:INVOLVED. But, first, backstory time: Yes, the IP address is very likely to be a banned user, known as Victim of Censorship over on WR. Apparently, he and Gamaliel know each other in real life, where a lot of this stems from, and it's been spilling over onto both of their internet activities. There have been numerous other clashes between the two, but I really believe this is a situation where Gamaliel needs to step back and let other admins take care of it. He's only perpetuating the drama by doing things like blocking after VoC makes a rude comment on his talk page.

I just came here to get your opinion on the subject. Oh, and the WR thread about this is here, where VoC is complaining about...something. It's rather incoherent. (Any talk page stalkers, feel free to weigh in) SilverserenC 21:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough of the backstory here (not reading the rant at WR due to shortage of time :D), but I have to say that I have myself blocked banned contributors who have trolled my talk page. This is because I've only interacted with them in an administrative role; their trolling me doesn't make me (in my opinion) involved. :) One month seems like a long time, unless we know that this is a stable IP for this banned user. :/ I usually just block for 3 to 24 hours and move on. But, again, I don't know the background here. If Gamaliel is really personally involved, then, sure, he should let somebody else protect him from the trolls. Have you talked to him about it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I am a little hesitant to talk with him about a situation that he is personally involved in. :/ SilverserenC 22:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I can drop him an e-mail and invite him to the thread? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
By thread, I assume you mean here. Um...i'll go do it. It's only proper that I do it, since I brought up the question in the first place. I just hope he doesn't get angry at me. ^_^; SilverserenC 22:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I did.:) I was going to send him a friendly e-mail to avoid feeding any trolls that might be watching his talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Good point, I didn't think of that. I guess we just wait then. SilverserenC 22:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This probably isn't the forum to debate any of this, but I did want to say some things for the record:

  • I have never had any interaction with User:Joehazelton (or whatever he is calling himself on Wikipedia Review) outside of Wikipedia. I do not know him in real life, and whomever is claiming that I do is mistaken.
  • In every interaction with Joehazelton, I have acted in the role of administrator, so WP:INVOLVED doesn't come into play: "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role...is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor".
  • He has been vandalizing and attacking for four years, so getting a little snarky after all of that isn't perpetuating anything. His obsession was already well established years ago. If I wanted to feed his obsession, I'd go "debate" him on Wikipedia Review so he could scream at me all he wanted.

Please feel free to ask me anything you want to know about this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood. The person on WR who said you knew VoC IRL must have been wrong. Sorry about that. Just remember that, as an administrator, you're supposed to be an icon for others, so even if you're dealing with a persistent troll, please try to stay away from comments like "feeble man-child" and the like. If a vandal is causing you to become too emotional about a situation, just get someone else to deal with it instead. That's always the better course of action. SilverserenC 05:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I cannot argue with you in principle, but administrators are only human, and to expect total stoicism after four years of attacks is unrealistic. Even so, this conversation has given me much to think about. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/NewListings

As you may or may not have noticed, VWBot destroyed your nice new changes to this page last night. I'm still not up to speed again, so I'm not sure what's going on with clerking instructions and the like, but feel free to revert the bot - it only edits that page because Zorglbot requires it (should it ever be unblocked and run as primary again), not for any actual functional reason. I don't think I'll be home before VWBot runs again tonight, so it'll probably ruin your layout one more time before I can disable or update that part of the code. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's no big deal; it was just to help the clerks see what was pass the 5 day mark. We can fix it later, as needed. :) (Please pretend I'm Moonriddengirl. :D) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you get to become your own talk page stalker. Spooky. MLauba (Talk) 15:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Not too often. :) I have to be scrupulous about separating out my work when I'm on the clock. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

An Encyclopaedia Brittanica error

Perhaps you can assist in this one. In Phoenix Park an anonIP, using a few similar IP addresses, keeps adding material with an Encyclopaedia Brittanica citation that is proven to be in error but he insists on using WP:V as his reason for readding it many times. Even though there has been a full discussion on the talk page at: Talk:Phoenix Park#Europe's largest enclosed urban park he keeps up the same actions; now it is just vandalism to me or at least disruptive editing. Opposed editors have quoted alternate sources and there is a consensus not to have the inaccurate citation, even though EB is generally regarded as a WP:RS, this is an instance where its inclusion is not justified and only this one editors insists. Besides 3RR warnings and the discussion he keeps reverting or refactoring the same error. Mainly Special:Contributions/46.7.29.75, Special:Contributions/46.7.72.30 and most recently Special:Contributions/46.7.72.149. ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's strange. :/ I wonder why he is so intent on introducing this content against consensus? It would help if there were more people involved in the conversation to nail consensus. Strange that our WP:V policy doesn't say anything about what to do when a source is added that it is demonstrably in error; perhaps we rely on WP:IAR?
I'll have a word about tendentiousness at the talk page. If it continues, page protection may be necessary again. I'll also reach out to WP:RSN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks ww2censor (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Need Help!

Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir again. I need your help with the following user who has logged in with the following IP addresses and user names User:71.93.75.114, User:71.93.68.103, User:70.27.13.55, User:188.135.116.29, User:Tamimomari, etc. This user keeps adding Top Shows or whatever list to the following pages: Zee TV, Sahara One, Imagine TV, STAR Plus, STAR One, Aapka Colors, etc... (either under the main page or list of prgrammes page), without any proper references. This is just personal opinion becasuse their is no such list on the Internet exists. He/she keeps adding "Citation needed" tag but not adding any reference, and I don't think that anybody can add a reference to such list because it doesn't exists. Besides, these channels have shown a lot of hit programmes, so it is hard to choose top 10 out of all the programmes they have shown. I have removed this list several times, but he/she keeps adding it back. Just to let you know that there was a user in the past who was doing the same thing. Can you please help me remove this bogus info and stop this user from making such edits. Thank you, your friend, Survir (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Survir. I'm afraid that I can't really help you directly with this one right now, but I can tell you what to do. You are welcome to remove the unsourced, personal opinion from the article—though be careful not to edit war! If it comes back too often in a 24-hour-period, get help, say from the neutral point of view noticeboard. It's hard to stop rotating IPs from doing the same thing over and over again, but you can also request page protection at the proper board (WP:RPP)if it comes back into any one article too frequently. You'd want to explain there that a shifting IP is placing unverifiable personal opinion into the article. Meanwhile, I'd also recommended placing a note at the talk page of each article where it occurs explaining why it isn't permitted and notifying the contributors at Wikipedia:WikiProject India, in case they are willing to help keep the content neutral. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Process question and a specific question

Abdul Majid Abdullah was proposed as a CSD G12. I reviewed it, had some questions about whether it was really unambiguous, and shared my concerns with the tagging editor. I intended to return and remove the CSD, then nominate at Copyright problems so someone with more experience could sort it out. However, it wa deleted before I remembered to follow up. I thought perhaps it would be reported to Copyright problems anyway, but it appears not to be in the list. I do see some deleted items in the list, so my first question is simply to confirm process. My guess is that tagging an article with a CSD G12 does not also list it at Copyright problems. My guess is that is someone does list it there, then concludes it is a G12, it gets deleted, but stays in the list.

I do see that some of the items in the list come from CorenSearchBot. I assume those are automatically added by the bot. I'm not sure what happens if CSB tags an article, and someone CSDs it. One possibility is that all CSB items are added to the list, and a CSD action removes it from the list. Another possibility is that CSB adds it to the list and if CSD'd, someone manually removes it from the list.

Separate form understanding the interaction between Automated duplication detectors such as Duplication Detector report or CSB and the list at Copyright problems, I'm not sure how to handle Abdul Majid Abdullah. I'd like some other eyes to look at it, to see if my suspicion about reverse copyvio is a possibility. Should I:

  • add it to the list, but leave it deleted? (My concern is that reviewers may skip over a deleted item, assuming it has been resolved)
  • add it to the list, leave it deleted, but add explanatory text, noting it should be reviewed?
  • undelete it first, and add it to the list?
  • something else?

SPhilbrickT 23:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yes, article tagged for G12 are not listed at WP:CP. If somebody does list it and it is subsequently G12ed, though, it does stay listed. Sometimes this happens because they change their minds (and the tags). Other times it happens because a random passing admin decides it was G12able. (Sometimes I agree; sometimes I don't.) But I don't generally review redlinked articles listed at CP unless it looks like some admin might have moved the page without a redirect...that's happened. If you do list an article that's been deleted to get a second opinion, you should definitely leave a note explaining that, or it will almost certainly be passed over. In a case like that, to facilitate the work of copyright problems board clerks, I would recommend restoring and blanking it with the {{copyvio}} tag.
CSB lists the articles it finds to WP:SCV. This daily list is transcluded to CP to make sure that items do not go unaddressed. Currently, we have some very good workers at SCV, so I find most days the only SCV items are (a) items tagged for admin follow-up or (b) articles deleted by G12 and recreated between the CSB listing time and the CP closure. In the latter case, they are sometimes still copyright problems, sometimes not. Items are never supposed to be removed from SCV or CP, whether they are G12ed or not.
In this specific case, this article was not a G12 candidate. G12 is only for articles in which there is no clean version in history ("Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. ") Even if this were not a backwards copyvio, the earliest versions are clearly not copied from that page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Developer communication suggestion

Hi there, I wonder if in your new-found role you could do anything in relation to the suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#Developer_communication_suggestion, or whether you could nudge some people who might be interested? Rd232 talk 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi! :D I can certainly pass along the suggestion. I'm already exploring with staff several ways to improve communication with the communities about what the WMF is doing (you can see a little more about that at my "other" page, User talk:Mdennis (WMF)), so this fits nicely in with that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion not recognized by Facebook

Hey there! My Wikipedia profile for "Trevor Wayne" was deleted over a year ago. The problem is Wikipedia created a Facebook page for "Trevor Wayne" (me) and won't delete it! Facebook keeps linking my official public page to it and calling me a "Community Created" page. That is not true. I have asked Facebook to delete the Wikipedia made Facebook page and they just don't answer. It is really messing with my actual official page. I am at my end.. is there anyway Wikipedia will delete it from their end? Thank you so much! The URL for my Wikipedia Facebook created page is: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Trevor-Wayne/113239452022740?sk=info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.56.207 (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't believe Wikipedia has any control over Facebook's page grabs; you're going to have to convince them, I think. Sorry, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm very much afraid that Ed is right. :/ However, I will look into this further later today. I've made a note on my to-do list just to see if there's anything that can be done on the Wikimedia Foundation's end. I'll try to remember to update here, but if I do not, please feel free to prompt me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Srebrenica genocide

MRG, I think you've got more on your plate at the moment than is good for you, so perhaps you could place this with someone else to deal with, but you're obviously my first port of call!

User:OpenScience has just posted a message noting that the Srebrenica Genocide article is a (partial)copy - or vice versa - of the webpage at http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/srebrenica_massacre.html

There's certainly duplication of material but having been involved with the article for several years I'd be pretty certain that the material added to the article during that time was assembled at the article rather than being lifted from elsewhere - the process has been too much like hand-to-hand combat for anything else. I can't speak for earlier content but for obvious reasons reflected in the fact that it wasn't until yesterday that Ratko Mladic arrived in The Hague I imagine that the earlier development of the article was a similarly organic process. I did a quick breeze through the martinfrost.ws material and it doesn't appear to mention the outcome of the the ICTY Krstic appeal findings in 2004 but does include reference to the video of the Trnovo killings which Natasa Kandic submitted to the ICTY in 2005. The lacuna suggests that it's not an authoritative original source. There's no mention of the International Court of Justice ruling in 2007 so it's presumably older than that. I'd appreciate it if someone can help check User:OpenScience's implicit copyright violation suggestion. Opbeith (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I took this one up if no one will mind. It looks like a backwards copy, I left details on the talk. At least two articles on that site were taken from us.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks NortyNort for that very quick and helpful intervention! Opbeith (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could help. Quite a 'colorful' revision history with that article as you suggested.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
"if no one will mind". I got a good and hearty laugh out of that one. :D Thank you, NortyNort, and thank you, Opbeith, for noting the reverse copying. We have to check on duplication when it's found, but it's always very satisfying to me when we can prove that we had something first. It's very "defender of the wiki"ish. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Your welcome, I didn't even see my own subtle sarcasm in that comment. Haha.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Good to hear about your new role. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A doubt

Hi, I had a doubt about copyright stuff, but in connection with another Wikipedia project. The thing is: I have a few verses of text, which are in the public domain. Now, I want to copy that text on to Wikipedia. But, all text in Wikipedia comes under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL (if i'm not wrong). So, this being the case, is it necessary to specify explicitly that those verses (which are in the Public Domain) are under the Public Domain?

I hope you got my question properly; will offer a better explanation if needed. Thanks :) Lynch7 11:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got your question properly. :) Are these verses of text written by you or by somebody else? If they're written by somebody else, and you are placing them in the article, there's not really any concern because we do not warrant that material in quotations is licensed that way...but I would still recommend putting {{PD-notice}} in your ref, especially if the verses are lengthy. That way, people won't worry that you're overdoing WP:NFC. Actually, I'd recommend that no matter who wrote the verses if they are lengthy and going into article space. If on your user page, a clarifying note might be helpful. However, we do accept PD donations from the public when they want to grant us their text, so I can't imagine any reason we should not able to accept yours. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Those are verses written by people who passed away more than 700 years ago, so they should be in the PD in all countries. The material in question is to be placed in the main page (of Sanskrit Wikipedia), and I really don't want to mess it up with references or something of that sort. If there is no real need to explicitly mention that it is in the PD, I won't bother. Lynch7 12:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
They don't use references at Sanskrit Wikipedia? :O
I have to say, though, that local policies and conventions also need to be factored in. I have no idea what Sanskrit Wikipedia may require for noting "PD" text, if anything. They may have more strict requirements than ours. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is quite a small Wikipedia as of now, and I am encouraging users to use references. But what I meant was that I don't want to clutter the main page with references or anything of that sort. And there are no local policies as such there; there are only around 10 active contributors; I'm the sysop and bureaucrat, and I'm trying to take the lead in developing policies there. Thanks, I'll take your advice and mark them as being in the PD. Lynch7 12:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, you know the Sanskrit Wikipedia better than I do. :D Good luck growing it! That sounds like exciting work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks :) Lynch7 13:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your new job! I believe you will be an excellent liason. I would have used a fancy template for this message, but could not find anything appropriate. Instead you get some homemade Dutch apple pie, like my grandma used to make them. Yoenit (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Congrats from me too. They picked the right person for this. Good luck. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Just hope it doesn't mean too much of a drop off in your copyright work as I'd hate to think what the backlogs would be like without you. Dpmuk (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
My favorite copyright guru! Many congratulations to you, you're a fantastic choice for this. -- Atama頭 23:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful! Well done- it's great to know someone on the staff for a change. I guess that's exactly the point of your position! J Milburn (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Just stumbled over this somehow. Congratulations from me too. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Me, too. If things pan out then you may need to set archiving to, say, 30 minutes or so on that user page. I wish you well. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations from me as well. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Add my congrats. It was a great choice by the WMF. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you all! :D (mmm, apple pie!) Yes, J Milburn, I think that's the idea. It's a big job, I think, setting up systems of communication. I'll be tapping a lot of shoulders for input. :D (Dpmuk, I'm hopeful that there won't be a substantial backlog. If this proposal comes out workable, that'll help a lot. And I will still be pitching in at CP, hopefully every couple of days.) (Sitush, it's more my inbox that I'm wondering about!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hadn't seen that. Haven't got time to read it all through and comment there at the moment (plus I'd have a COI as someone that would be interested in clerking) but from the quick browse it seems very sensible. Still haven't forgotten that I said I'd get a bot up and running to help with some tasks but I planned to clean out the copypaste backlog first (very nearly there now) and attempts to finish my PhD have got in the way of both as I generally don't have time to spend the longer amount of times here to do either so have generally been doing things that only require a small amount of time (checking C:CVSD among others). I have to have submitted my thesis by end September so should have more time then. Dpmuk (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on your appointment! It's difficult to think of anyone better suited for this position; I look forward to seeing you in action. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Congrats from me too. You'll do a damn fine job in the position. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Fantastic! Can't think of a finer choice they could have made. Cheers! --joe deckertalk to me 05:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations. I am in no way surprised you would be chosen for such a job! Good luck and don't worry, I won't treat you any differently now that you are staff.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Congrats and best wishes! Jusdafax 07:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
A late but heartfelt congrats from me as well - you're a natural choice for the role. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Adding my congratulations on your new, frequently misspelled position. Deor (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. :D I'm excited about it; going to be fun figuring out how to create said "systems so that every contributor to the projects has a way to reach the Foundation if they wish and to make sure that the Foundation effectively connects the right resources with people who contact us." But I'm working on it. :) NortyNort, lol! I don't feel any different, except that I have more defined goals and more dedicated time to them. :D I kind of see myself more as a bridge with staff; I'm here to say, "This is what we need; can we do that?" I had a great time talking to the staff (I went to SF recently) about their ideas. I had no concept how passionate these people are about what we do. We have some dedicated fans. :D I'm excited about some of what they're doing, too; I've been with Wikipedia for over four years now and had no clue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
That the WMF has hired you gives me much greater confidence and respect in the WMF. They done good. (OTOH, that new username is just... kind of, I don't know... wrong. Like, who is that guy? It's gonna take some getting used to.) Congratulations and good luck, MRG. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
LOL! :D I've already changed the signature to "Maggie Dennis." I was hoping to be "User:Maggie", but, alas.... Thank you very much for the confidence. I will do my best to uphold it. (insert snappy salute) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Grats from me as well :-) I really think you're the best possible choice to be the pioneering first Wikipedian in this position. Dcoetzee 23:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations! Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! :D Time to get back at it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Hey Maggie, Also from my side congratulations and success with your assignment as community liaison! -- SchreyP (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Signed, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the new job. Good luck. Racepacket (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. Luck is always good. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Help on copyright question

Hi

Don't know if you can help, but is there a problem with File:Mohammad Najatuallah Siddiqui.jpg and copying it from [14] ? Mtking (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there is. :) Very probably the uploader thinks, mistakenly, that since the website does not indicate copyright, there is none. This is not the way copyright works; copyright is automatic. The thing to do here is tag the image {{db-f9}}, following up by giving the uploader the notice that it generates. Given that he is a WP:SPA (or seems to be, at this point), he may have permission to use this image. I don't remember what the F9 deletion warning looks like, but if it does not include a link to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, I'd recommend dropping a little note underneath the template pointing it out, in case he can verify license. Let me know if you'd like assistance with this. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, noticed that you have just deleted it - can you also look at File:SharpSH251iS.jpg (see comments on Talk) page and also File:Galaxy s2 three views.png, not sure the Free Use thing holds up now as the phone is on sale now. Mtking (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you get a chance to look at File:Galaxy s2 three views.png ? 22:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I missed it! Hold on. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. How about tagging it {{dfu}} with an explanation? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Done - can you check I have done it correctly. Mtking (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks great. :) Now, if you haven't, just notifying the uploader with the tag generated for that purpose and drop the note in the image caption. Thanks for noticing that, by the way! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

More help

Thanks for all of that, can you suggest how to approach User:BenJBass and his picture uploads, he is just copying them off websites. 11:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the one that is quite obviously a copyvio.
You've given him the templates. I would say the best thing to do is to drop him a friendly personal note. I'd start with the assumption that he didn't realize there was a problem (he probably doesn't; internet culture is very unconcerned about copyright), explain to him that he can only upload content he owns, unless he can prove that it is public domain or compatibly licensed; I'd point him to Wikipedia:IUP#Copyright and licensing, and I'd work in a carefully worded block caution, something like, "If you aren't sure that an image is public domain or compatibly licensed, please get feedback at WP:MCQ before uploading it. Wikipedia is very serious about copyright concerns; contributors who repeatedly upload copyrighted content must be blocked by policy to protect the project and its reusers, so being careful is a good idea." (That's off the top of my head, and you can have any of it you might find useful. I waive attribution requirements. :D)
The goal here is to correct the problem, keep the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I have (hopefully fairly) re-used alot of the text above here and hope that helps him. Mtking (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Another one

Can you look at File:ForeclosureRescueAd.jpg and tell me if there is an issue, the uploader took it himself, but I think the sign it'self is copyright of the sign's creator. Mtking (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you have a look at this ? Mtking (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Not yet. :) I'm working my way up from the bottom; good idea to draw my attention to it, though. I sometimes assume I'm done when I hit familiar text. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. :/ Well, there's two issues there. First, the sign is being used to illustrate "Foreclosure rescue scheme" which is described as a "scam". If this is a legitimate company, we have libel issues on behalf of the visibly named Perry & Associates (in Maryland, I'd guess, based on the area code). Second, if the content on the sign is judged to be creative enough, we have a derivative work. I'd take the former to WP:FfD. I'd take the latter to WP:PUF. I'm not sure what to recommend here--you might discuss both issues at FfD, but you'll get a more focused look at the copyright concerns at PuF. One or the other of those would be the place to go. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Now you have me all confused - can you help. Mtking (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I'll try to clarify. If you think there's a problem with this image, you have two options for this kind of situation: to list the image atWP:PUF (instructions are at the top of the page) or to list it at WP:FfD (ditto). PUF is a board for specifically discussing whether images have copyright issues; FFD is, of course, for general deletion reasons. In addition to the potential copyright issues with the sign in the picture, there is another potential problem with this image--the way it is being used may be libelous as it suggests that "Perry & Associates" of Maryland is committing a scam. It's being used to illustrate an article about real estate scams. That said, you could file it at either board. Does that help? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, have removed it from the article and listed on WP:PUF. Mtking (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The uploader has commented here saying it is an illegal sign, is there anything I need to do in reply ? Mtking (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War

I have added the following comment to the copyright violation page and hope you will agree. I have notified User:Kirk who brought the original complaint and will notify others who have commented. I might add that this is a lengthy article or list of events with many discrete entries and many references (about 8 or 10 are most cited; many entries have more than one reference). That is why it took some time to go through it all. Also, with the 150th anniversary of the Civil War upon us, a few articles about events which took place 150 years ago needed a little attention. Thanks.: "The two editors who have worked on this article most recently have reviewed the entries and checked them against the citations; and added additional citations and a few entries. We believe there should now be no objection to restoration of this article." Donner60 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting me know! As I said at the entry, it's difficult as an admin to assess a situation when you can't see the books. :/ Let's give it a few more hours in case User:Kirk (who does not edit often) should show up to disagree; I'll put the temp in article space later today if he does not. (I hope. If I get swamped with work, I may not get back on Wikipedia today. But I'm noting this recommendation at CP as well in case another admin attends to it.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. No rush as far as I am concerned. It's taken awhile to write and then review it. It has been in limbo for two months. So another day or two won't matter in the scheme of things. It is a long article, and is in effect a list, so I see no need to rush. I am sure our goal is to get it right and settled and make the information available to people. It is a serious subject and should be treated as such. For what it is worth, neither of the recent editors who have worked on this article created it. We found it in incomplete and rather unsatisfactory condition and expanded and tried to improve it. So we don't have a vested interest in keeping "our" article up, just in getting an improved article available for public information. Some of the books are on line but I assume some of the recent ones on which some reliance is placed are not. Most of the entries are rather brief and straightforward statements of indisputable facts so I think that they should have a sort of face value as such. By this I mean that I think many of the statements are in a form that should be at least some indication of an absence of a copyright or plagiarism problem. This should especially be so after the recent review and revisions. Another such indication might be that many entries have multiple citations for the same point. If I can be of any assistance in completing the process or helping out in some way with respect to this article, please let me know. Donner60 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this. Good luck with your new role with the Wikipedia Foundation. Donner60 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Begging your pardon for all this...

I have a complicated question. It is to me, at least.

So a froofraw has occurred at AN where User:Damiens.rf nominated dozens of nonfree images to be deleted for not complying with NFCC policy. I got into it because he tagged three images in articles I wrote. (These are the images: 1, 2, and 3) I feel rather certain that I fully justified the inclusion of these images based on my experience writing FAs and GAs. In fact, the third image there was included in a 2009 Featured contact Dispatch about how to write a fair use rationale. But now I get from the disjointed discussion that the issue of "transformative use" is undecided and without consensus. According to those pushing for transformative use, a historical image has to be involved in the article, which qualifies for the historical images in Birmingham campaign, which I wrote.

I apologize because this is now so spread out I can't keep track of it anymore. There is the AN discussion here, an RfC about the issue of transformative use, which I can't even track it's so all over the place, and the discussions about each of the images that were tagged for deletion (start there and scroll down).

  1. I'm asking you if you can shed any light on this, specifically what I need to do to keep the images in the articles, because you have in the past treated intelligent editors looking to do the right thing with respect. I'm not seeing this in the other discussions. Not that I'm surprised.
  2. It's my contention that when other editors insist on bulky justification of images in article prose that does not reflect the weight of what sources say about the images, that that is a violation of WP:UNDUE and is a form of original research. I think--and I'm not clear about what is being asked or demanded of me--that a couple other editors are insisting that I make a section in the article about the image in order to keep it in the article. If, for example, three sources state that the image of Emmett Till's uncle is significant and they devote half a page in each book to how significant it is, but in the overall scheme of Emmett Till's story that is decreased to three sentences, would it not be OR to inflate how much prose is dedicated to the image?
  3. Why is the issue of what qualifies as fair use in images left up to consensus? Why haven't copyright attorneys taken this over? It seems if Wikipedia is doing something illegal or extralegal that there should be no questions about what qualifies as NFCC. I think part of why I'm so confused is that the editors insisting that the images be deleted are unsure of the legal literature themselves and have replaced clarity with force, pseudo-authority, and confusing language. Not that I'm surprised.

I learned how to justify images by being schooled by User:Elcobbola, who is semi-retired. He did pop into the FfD discussion for the Stonewall riots image to say that the "transformative use" interpretation of the NFCC rule is "a profound misunderstanding and misapplication of NFCC and sourcing policies". I'm not a copyright attorney. I can't parse all this. I just don't want the articles' qualities decreased because someone went on a deletion tear when none of the rules are clear. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A necessary clarification: the quoted remarks relate solely to the belief that fair use rationales must be sourced, lest they be considered original research. "Transformative use" is an entirely separate matter and one on which I have not commented. Эlcobbola talk 23:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
So clarified. As much as that can be. --Moni3 (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) It's not just a complicated question for you; it's a complicated question for anybody. I'm afraid that I am myself a bit flummoxed by our "nonfree content" approach at times, so you're kind of out ofmy area, but I'll do my best to answer you. Mind you, I don't have any easy answer. :/
Let me start with the bottom, which is the easiest: there are two basic reasons why copyright attorneys haven't taken this over. First, it would be prohibitively expensive. WMF has a very small staff which includes only two attorneys, both of whom are wonderful and very harried people. Second, WMF does not manage, maintain or oversee content on their projects, other than advisory resolutions and policies. If they began micromanaging, they would no longer be an online service provider, but a publisher, which would mean that OCILLA would no longer protect them. (Just have to make clear, though, that these basic reasons are my opinion, not something I've been told by staff. They are wonderful and harried people, though. :)) We've been left on our own to create policies that meet their exemption doctrine policy, and since we don't have any means to delegate the work to professionals in the community (who may well be loathe to take it on anyway because they realize that they might themselves be liable, if they are interpreted as offering legal advice) we kind of muddle on the best we can.
NFC is deliberately devised to be narrower than fair use allowances. As I understand it, this is not only for the benefit of our reusers (ala Wikipedia:NFC#Explanation of policy and guidelines), but also for ourselves because only a court of law can affirm that use of specific content is "fair". Keeping the parameters narrow means we don't push that boundary and find ourselves on the wrong side of the issue, or put our good faith uploaders (guided by our policies and guidelines) on the wrong side of it. The US Copyright Office itself notes that "The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined."[15]
The question of transformation in copyright law has to do with whether you are using copyrighted content to build and create something new or simply superseding the original. Stanford has a little discussion of it here. Where courts come down on this can be difficult to predict. Stanford also has an overview of some significant cases, at [16]. For a specific case dealing with a "news" photo, see [17]. As Brad Templeton notes at [18], use is more generally determined "fair" when it is talking about a copyrighted work than when it is simply appropriating one ("The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author." emphasis added) I suspect that this is the reason why "historic works" are singled out in NFC; when the article talks about the photograph, the odds of it being regarded as "fair" use are significantly higher when it is the subject of sourced commentary. How much sourced commentary? In the absence of a court decision, that comes down to consensus. :/
When it comes down to it, that's what you need to keep the images in the articles--whether that's image by image, or by clarifying policy. I can certainly see your point about not wanting to overwhelm an article by putting in more sourced commentary about the image than is justified in the overall weight of the story, but there's not really a strong policy there to override consensus (one could argue, after all, that if the weight of commentary on the image is insufficient to focus on it much, then we don't need the image). Clearly, given all the discussion that's been generated by this, we need to come up with an easily understood approach to the issue. That's not easy to do, though, when even the so-called expects (the US Copyright Office) describe it as "unclear and not easily defined". :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your response in all its length. I'm not sure how that makes me feel to know that not only are Wikipedians basically clueless about this but the legal community appears to be pretty muddy about it as well. I understand your point about the very nice but harried attorneys who work for the Wikimedia Foundation, but this makes me think then that violating NFC with historical images seems a fairly low priority to Wikimedia's legal team if they leave it to the Wikipedia community to figure it out. (I mean, they've seen the way we bungle about, right? They know this is a distinct possibility that copyrighted images are being used for no good reason, yes?) But of the images that are being used for legitimate reasons, what would be the worst case scenario? That the copyright holder would sue the Wikimedia Foundation? Or pressure them to take down the image? What are the editors insisting that these images be deleted protecting or guarding against? Clearly you can't speculate on another's motivations, but I don't understand why hairs must be split this way. What's the rush and where's the fire? I'd think if it's so important to remove the images that this is an issue for Wikimedia Foundation attorneys to prioritize. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Having followed NFC issues on and off for several years (I also helped out slightly with the Birmingham campaign images), I think I can answer the question about the motivation. It is less about legalities (though that is often used to raise FUD), but more about the mission to produce free content. Many of those seeking to minimise non-free use do so because they want Wikipedia to be as free as possible, and one way to do that is to take a hardline stance on non-free use. Essentially, the decision where to draw the line on various issues is a subjective one, and people bring their own interpretations to the table. It would be useful to have examples to point at, and proper community discussions on where the lines should be drawn (thus making things slightly less subjective), but things tend to be a bit chaotic in this area, so no-one has really managed that yet. User:Masem would be one person to talk to, as he has followed some of these issues for a while as well. One thought about image commentary - I had the idea that maybe commentary that would be WP:UNDUE in an article could be added to the image page. Not sure if that would fly, but it would remove some of the WP:OR accusations regarding image rationales, and would be good scholarship in any case. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Carcharoth, this is not about a mission to produce free content. I produce free content, and a lot of it. If Damiens and the editors who are joining this mission are using the words "produce free content" by deleting a bunch of stuff, you know, under no definition could that be producing anything. I know and remember that you assisted with the images in Birmingham campaign, and I appreciate it. I don't know if you're on Damiens' bandwagon, but if you are, you guys need to get a better slogan--or actually start producing content. Otherwise you're going to come off sounding like Fox News' "fair and balanced" when everyone knows it's a lie. What Damiens is doing, if this is indeed his philosophy, is making the maintenance of excellent articles more difficult and quite outside the bounds of common sense. If he actually produced free content he would understand how counterproductive this is.
I have no objection to making the image summary page ridiculously detailed. I want to do the right thing by the law and the artist/originator of the images. But to force me to work more for a misguided adherent to a false objective is somewhat offensive. It should be antithetical to the community goals of Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You undoubtedly have more of a sense of NFC philosophies than I do, Carcharoth. :) I've only kind of tangentially paid attention to it in doing my text based copyright, and I haven't often participated in conversations related to developing it. Moni3, I know it would be really reassuring if there were clear-cut guidelines from the US courts, but, alas, there's not much we can do about that. :/ On a meta sense, the question plays nationally much like it does here; there are vague guidelines, and we are expected to do our best to comply with them. If these were not so vague, there'd probably be far fewer lawsuits.

In terms of the attorneys, Wikimedia has two attorneys serving every project WMF sustains--English Wikipedia is, obviously, the biggest of these, but there are over 270 other language versions in addition to the other projects (Commons, Wikiversity, Wikiquote, Wikinews, etc.). Two attorneys simply could not micromanage on such scale, but, again, that's not to address the major point that they don't want to. If WMF became a publisher rather than a service provider, the entire project would change. They would no longer be able to allow contributors to post content without screening it, because they would be directly liable for content that was placed here. I suspect it would kill the website.

That's not to say that WMF doesn't care about these issues. For instance, the Board has recently passed several image-related resolutions, based on Controversial content and Images of identifiable people.

Just as with the exemption doctrine policy, they put out the principles and trust us to work out a sensible approach within them. The community has done a really good job, I think, of working with the WMF over the years, but that's not to say it's without difficulty. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:New portrait.jpg

A user, User:Paul Stephen Farmer has uploaded a "self portrait", for use on an article about himself, setting aside WP:COI issues, and the fact the article is at AfD at the moment, he with this edit asserts his copyright over the file, my question is, is this allowed ? Mtking (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I got a bit distracted there; I wanted to see if I could find his books. He's allowed to upload a self-portrait (sometimes people claim studio pictures are self-portraits, but I bet this one really is), but "used with permission" is not going to cut it from a licensing standpoint. :) My guess would be that he's trying to address the licensing requirements set out at his talk page but doesn't understand them. What he needs is a friendly pointer to the proper process. Although he's unfortunately run afoul of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, it seems that this gentleman is trying to do things the right way, and whether his article is determined to be notable or not (I have a not-very-strong opinion that it may be) we don't want him leaving Wikipedia unhappy with his experiences with us.
Can you provide him with a better explanation of the licenses he can use and where to put them, or would you like me to? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
no problem, would you mind doing it (that way I can have a source in case I need it in future). Mtking (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind at all. I'm off to do it now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I moved it to File:Paul S. Farmer.jpg. "New portrait" is not really a good title. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
All right; I've left him a note. It's a bit more complex than it would ordinarily be because I also need to e-mail him to verify his username, but that'll actually kill two birds with one stone: we won't have to verify that he's the copyright owner via OTRS. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Mtking (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

My congratulations on your new role. A few months ago you very nicely recreated the Max Conrad article after it was deleted and I appreciated this. Thank you again for what you do for Wikipedia.RFD (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) I'm afraid I can't take too much credit for Max Conrad, that one was purely moving and organizing, but I do try to help out where I can. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio template

For the benefit of my talk page stalkers (hi!), who I presume are generally interested in copyright, we're talking about revising the copyright problem template to make it more user friendly (literally). See the copyclean discussion and the mock-up at User:MLauba/Copyviocore, please, if you want to provide input. I'm hoping that we can keep it informative (it's actually more informative; the directions for cleanup have been expanded behind their little hide boxes) but make it less accusatory and officious, at the same time avoiding watering down its message or making it seem like we aren't serious about the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Portrait of tommy allen.jpg

Hi! Congrats on the Community Liaison thingy! :) I've been working through some image backlogs today [19] and I came across File:Portrait of tommy allen.jpg. Is the copyright stuff here really correct? This doesn't seem to be right: "i have no knowledge of the author but as this is a family member we have rights of the deceased in the photo". Have a look whenever you have time! Thanks, Theleftorium (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Left! Hi! Long time no see! :D
No, the copyright there is not correct. Being a family member of the photographed does not convey rights to the image. :/ I'll raise the flag at Commons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I'll probably get a bit more active around here now that school is out! :D Thanks! By the way, do you have the link to that thingamajig that searches an article for copyvios? Theleftorium (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Yup! [20]. By the way, have you met our newest tool? [21] And do you know about the new clerks at WP:CP? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Ooh that new tool looks fancy! And the clerk thing seems good! I have to get acquainted with this NortyNort guy. :) Theleftorium (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a sweet tool. :) And NortyNort is the savior of CP. Without him, there's no way I'd be able to keep up with CP these days. With him, I might be able to. :) (especially with User:MLauba pitching in). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Heh, sounds good :D Theleftorium (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

Buster Seven Talk 15:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! :D That's quite a milestone! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

this is the real airrunwesker

hey, I commended you to wikipedia, my account is either block or compromised, or perhaps both! sorry, I did not know how else to let you know! Someone said I said some mean things about you, this is not true!

Again, the airrunwesker account does appear compromised!

Someone did promised me a "lifehack" and I have filed a police report against them.

I am sure you already know both I appreciate your help, and that I also use better grammar :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.128.225 (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad if I was able to help you. :) Your account is not blocked; if you can log in, since you're e-mail enabled, you might be able to request a new password? See Help:Logging in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

TY

Just wanted to drop a note of thanks for your help with Dr. Blofield. I got an email from him, and it appears things aren't nearly as dire as I first thought. OHHHH ... and by the way ... congratulations (although a bit late) on that job/promotion thing too. Always glad to see someone getting ahead in life. Cheers and best MRG. :) — Ched :  ?  14:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I've got messages! I'm glad I could help. :) And thanks for the congratulations. It's a temporary position, just trying to help out the community in a new way for a while, as I recharge my copyvio batteries. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

copyright expertise/experience

Greetings! I was talking with La goutte de pluie about a copyright violation I spotted and how to handle it. I showed her what evidence I'd taken with me, with the potential that I'd need to go back to the library for a full scan. She said we may need more expertise. I also received a message at NFCR suggesting that I put a tag on it so it gets a proper review. I'm unsure how to proceed. But I noticed you're somewhat of a specialist in this area, if not an expert. Keep in mind that the article is currently at AFD for a combination of reasons, including but not limited to WP:COPYVIO.

I've sent you an email so that I'm not posting huge copyrighted quotes on your talkpage. Would appreciate any guidance on the next appropriate step. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for bringing this to the community's attention. I would recommend that you blank the section with {{copyvio}} and at the talk page explain that the timeline is copied. I have verified, for instance, through Google books beyond what you've e-mailed me that such content as "The Calormenes in Telmar behave very wickedly and Aslan turns them into dumb beasts. The country lies waste. King Gale of Narnia delivers the Lone Isiands from a dragon and is made emperor by their grateful inhabitants" is entirely reproduced. This is not permitted by policy, whether the article itself stands. Make a note at the AfD of what you've done and why, in case people are confused. If the article is retained, the copyright investigation will be completed after a week. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I wanted to deal with this sooner rather than later, and wanted to make sure I wasn't acting out of turn. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Something seems wrong here re: file

File:Holy Wood logo.jpg This is listed here as not free and "not replaceable" with free media. But go to Commons and it has a free license. ???? Thanks, We hope (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

My guess would be that somebody has decided it is not creative enough to warrant copyright protection. :) The user who did so seems to have some issues with copyright in his history. But they may be right; I'm not really familiar with the symbol. I'd recommend asking feedback at WP:MCQ. If there's not a clear opinion, a deletion discussion on Commons might resolve the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Hello

About a year ago you intercepted an article on Antonio Paoli I had edited using some material you identified as CR violation. While I meant no harm or malice with my actions, and had always thought I was actually -helping- the encyclopedia, I learnt quite a bit from that experience. In particular, I wanted to thank you for having provided me the opportunity to fix the article (Tony the Marine did most of the fixing) in such gracious manner. Your approach, which involved no chastisement (as it unvaribly always occurs with every other CR-protestionist at WP), did not go unnoticed. Thank you.

Now I have come across an edit in an article I had edited in the past called Puerto Rican citizenship and which contains THIS edit that, based on whatever little I learned from my own experience before, appears to be CR violation. I did not want to undo those edits since I don't have the expertise in CR vio that you seem to have. The information seems to have been all taken verbatim from these 2 sources: 1 and 2. And the editor then appears to have just mingled the 2 sources interchangably into the wikipedia article. If you can take a look at this and determine if there was a CR vio, I would appreciate it as I was looking to take this article to GA status. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm glad to hear that the experience was (if not positive) at least as non-negative as it could be for you. I try for that, so I very much appreciate feedback on when it's working. :) I'm off to take a look at the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, the good news is that some of that is not a copyright problem because the content it copied is not eligible for copyright. The United States government has renounced copyright on documents prepared by its employees in the commission of their duties. It also does not allow copyright protection for court judgments, regardless of whether it is a US federal court or another. But [22] is not excluded from copyright. As I realized that the content was just placed yesterday (I didn't notice the date when I followed the diff), I just went ahead and processed it immediately. Thanks for letting me know about it, and good luck with the GA review! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Galaxy s2 three views.png

What happens about this now the seven days have gone past ? Mtking (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

An administrator will review it and, unless they think the tag is blatantly wrong, delete it. If they think the tag is blatantly wrong (which I find unlikely), they'll remove the tag, and the article can be nominated for review at WP:FfD. Sometimes they will put it up for review there themselves; sometimes the editor who tagged it will. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems: Aristolochia baetica

Hi Moonriddengirl (or any helpful talk-page stalker), I'm having a discussion with a user who appears to have some misunderstandings about copyright. I think I've explained everything to him correctly, but it might be good if someone else also clarifies things to him. The copyright violation I found was in this version. Ucucha 15:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I wasn't going to do anything about this and was just going to take a quick look at what was going on. However I ended up reverting one of this user's changes where they reinserted stuff Ucucha had removed so thought I'd best comment on it, so have now added my own explanation of our concerns to the discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Between the two of you, you seem to have done the job. :) Thanks, Dpmuk, for helping out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Dpmuk. Ucucha 06:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement of faith on Eston College website

Hello, Moonriddengirl. Is this [23] statement of faith on the Eston College website [24] copyrighted? How am I supposed to know? Thanks for your help. Kenatipo speak! 19:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm afraid that we have to presume that it is unless they have explicitly released the content somewhere on their website or we can prove that it isn't copyrighted for some reason. Copyright protection used to require a specific statement, but for many years now copyright has been automatically extended to new publications. I don't see anything that would suggest the content is PD. Do you know when it was originally published and where? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No. All I know is what I see on their website. I don't see "all rights reserved" or a copyright mark anywhere, or very many dates. Kenatipo speak! 02:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Lack of "all rights reserved" doesn't help anymore. :/ If we knew that it was published without notice before 1978, it would be public domain, but that can be hard to verify. And without a date, we really don't have anywhere else to go. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
We have guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines on what should be included in a school article, and as they suggest not including mission statements I'd say that generally applies to statements of faith. Unless of course it's notable enough to have been commented upon (not just mentioned) in a reliable source elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Lyrics

Am I right in thinking the lyrics should be removed from Ich will? The source [25] says " Lyrics by Rammstein are the property of the respective authors, artists and labels, Ich Will (Actually English) Lyrics by Rammstein are provided for educational purposes only" and is used in a number of other articles. Do we consider it a copyvio site? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah! Just because the source is breaching copyright doesn't mean that we should perpetuate it. I doubt that there is major country where copyright on lyrics ends in ten years. In any case, WP is not a lyrics database. Now, if there was some sort of interspersed commentary on those lyrics (meaning etc, as with a poem) then there might be a non-free use argument. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed them. There is an external link which goes to the another lyrics website, but I am unsure what to do with that one as it is used on a lot of Rammstein songs I might take it to wp:ELN for further discussion. Yoenit (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I removed the link from that particular article, but I'd agree that we should take that one further. There's no indication that the site has license to display or translate those lyrics. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I went ahead and removed a bunch of them. But I'm cooking, and I'm out of time! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
All the lyrics gone that aren't on talk pages. Anybody know: can I spamlist herzeleid.com/en/lyrics? It's questionable whether the site should be linked at all, but certainly the lyrics should not be. I'd prefer to block the lyrics section rather than the whole website. But I think the lyrics section needs control. They were added at various times. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, if you didn't know. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, thanks; I did know that. What I don't know is if I can spamlist that specific a range, so to speak. I didn't see anything else with slashes going that way. :D Would \bherzeleid.com/en/lyrics\.com\b work? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The correct regex is \bherzeleid\.com/en/lyrics\b. Don't forget to log the addition. MER-C 10:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :D Done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Creating an article that has previously been deleted

Hi Moonriddengirl,

I am looking to create an article/page for OSF St. Joseph Medical Center, but I think the previous page that has been deleted may have had similar information that I want to post. Should I continue to create it, or will that cause a problem?

Thanks for your help!

Aschrader18 (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) The problem with that article was not with the information, but with the fact that it ran afoul of our copyright policy. Basically, (aside from brief, clearly marked quotes), we can't copy content from copyrighted sources. We need verification of license from the copyright holder if they are willing to release the text. (See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted material.)
Certainly, you'd be welcome to create an article on that subject, although you need to write it in your own words. I'd recommend checking out the Wikipedia:Article wizard to help you; besides giving you information on how to format, it has a ton of recommendations for sourcing and neutrality and etc. that can help you avoid running into other issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

adequate steps to eliminate copyright problems (request)

Greetings, I was given your name as a person to possibly help confirm that I have taken adequate steps to eliminate any copyright problems associated with my Wikipedia entries.

My entries are for public places in Austin Texas and the content is taken from a website that I have authored. I live in the neighborhood and I have done extensive research on these topics. The intention is not to “advertise” for the neighborhood or parks, rather create/start Wikipedia entries and let others contribute. Although I am the author, the material is not copyrighted and the content is to be considered that of the public domain. To make certain however, I have added the following statement “The text of this web page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License” to the web pages used as source information for the Wikipedia articles. I have read the Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials page and I *think* that I have taken necessary/required action.

My Wikipedia entries are : • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brykerwoods/Bryker_Woods • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brykerwoods/Bailey_Park • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seider's_Springs

My associated web pages: • http://www.txinfo.com/brykerwoods/BWNA/index.html • http://www.txinfo.com/brykerwoods/History/index.html • http://www.txinfo.com/brykerwoods/Parks/index.html • http://www.txinfo.com/brykerwoods/Parks/BaileyPark.html

Please take a look and let me know if I am in full compliance. Many thanks for any time you can give this request. Brykerwoods (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) If all of the information in those pages was authored by you, then that's absolutely correct. There should be no further copyright concerns. If the content was co-authored, there would be an additional step or two necessary. Thanks for taking the time. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the note. Now that I have eliminated the copyright problems associated with my Wikipedia entries, how can the articles be made active again? Can you republish and make official the Wikipedia entries listed below?

Many thanks again for helping me with this important and fundamental issue. Brykerwoods (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

All good. I've moved the two that were "userfied" back into article space and restored the text to visibility in the other. :) Please note that I did leave you a comment at Talk:Seider's Springs about attribution. Now that I've told you that, I'll save you the trouble of reading it. :D We don't need to do anything else here from a copyright standpoint because you were the original author of the page. If you ever copy content from a compatibly licensed source that you did not copy, there'd be an extra step to meet the terms of the license and the requirements of Wikipedia:Plagiarism: Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Sources under copyleft. That's just an FYI because, again, it doesn't apply here.
One more thing, while I've republished these, I do have to make clear that I am not in position to make them official in any respect other than verifying that there are no copyright concerns with the taking of content from your website. :) Wikipedia's content may undergo constant review for other concerns--particularly related to the core content policies of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. It's always a good idea to keep an eye on articles of interest to you so that you can help address concerns that may be raised in the future. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again and point noted re: making articles official. Brykerwoods (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright admins

Do you know any good copyright admins at Commons? (I don't want to bother you all the time!) I don't really know how they handle copyright problems over there but I keep finding images that need to be taken care of... Theleftorium (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes! I know several good copyright admins at Commons. :) If I needed one, I'd go to User:J Milburn or User:Dcoetzee first. More recently, I've become aware of User:Adrignola through permissions queue at OTRS. I haven't worked with him, but I wouldn't hesitate to give it a try.
Mostly, though, I find Commons is pretty good about processing speedy deletion tags. I can generally find one at Commons:Category:Problem tags. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! I asked J Milburn. :) Theleftorium (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright clerking

Hi. Posting here rather than replying on my talk page as I want to suggest something about clerking that I'd be interested in any talk page stalker's views of. Sorry for not replying earlier, I wanted to give it some thought and I've been busy arguing with LaTeX to sort out the formatting for my thesis. Yes, I would be interested in clerking, although as you rightly assumed I may not be that active over the next few months (I would imagine I'll be dipping in for a few minutes at a time to escape writing).

It occurs to me that we now have clerks for CCI and CP and that there is a significant amount of overlap between them (especially as the new CP clerk page gives as one of the tasks "Evaluating if repeated prior issues warrant contributor copyright investigation and requesting an investigation if so"). I've also been dealing a bit with C:CVSD removing the G12 tag from pages where it doesn't apply (PD source, backwards copy etc). Would it be sensible to combine the two clerking roles into one? Even if people don't think that's sensible is it worth including in the CP Clerk page that they can also deal with G12 tagging as much as a non-admin can. In essential what I'm suggesting is a single (text) copyright clerk role. Dpmuk (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Some interesting thoughts there. :) I'd be interested in talk page stalker's views, too. :D
We only have two CCI clerks, and one of those is a former admin who I'm not even sure knows he is a CCI clerk. :) User:MER-C could definitely use some help. The jobs are different, though. While I'm sure that User:MER-C would make an excellent CP clerking, I can conceive of an excellent CCI clerk who might not. CCI clerks need to be discerning (to judge when a CCI case merits opening); they need to be thorough (to make sure that all notices, etc. are filled), and then they need to populate a list using a tool. CP clerks need to be good communicators. While they should be able to recognize when a problem may have reached CCI levels, they are a line to help prevent problems from reaching that point. All that said, I think it's worth talking about. :) Why don't you bring it up at WT:CCI to see what people there think? Just as much as User:NortyNort could use the help at CP, Mer-C could use help at CCI.
One thing, though, if we do combine them, I think we'll need to be very careful to separate out the roles. Mer-C has a CCI request that somebody else needs to evaluate; CP clerks should not process their own CCIs. The only time I ever list a CCI directly myself is when I am 100% sure that I can make such an iron-tight case that nobody could disagree with the need. Given the allowance of WP:CV for presumptive deletion, CCI is a tool that can be destructive if inadvertently misapplied, and we need to guard against that.
It strikes me that G12 issues shouldn't have to be dealt with at the clerk page, though, since any contributor should be able to remove a CSD tag. If nothing else, the tag should be converted to WP:COPYVIO if the situation is not "blatant". We might need to work that one out at WP:CSD. :/ Let me know if you launch a conversation, please. I'd like to pitch in, and it's a little harder for me to keep up at the moment. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) (as requested, heh) I'd tend to agree that the two areas have some overlapping qualities, but are distinct enough that the clerking roles should remain separate. I suppose when the occasional CP that's part of a wider CCI comes up, then the either role would be redundant to the other, but I gather that rarely happens. Just my TPS two cents. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Some interesting points there and at least some of them hadn't occurred to me. The overlap as far as I can see is that both clerkships have to check for copyright violations and doing this properly takes some knowledge, e.g. PD issues, backwards copies etc. I accept that after that the roles deviate somewhat but I think I'd still prefer a clerk from one process acting in the other to a completely unknowledgeable admin acting in either case (which at the moment they're allowed to do).
I'm aware that anyone is allowed to remove a SD notice (hence the notice at the top of my talk page) but G12s are often viewed as one of the exceptions to that. I think it would give non-admins dealing with them more weight. People probably wouldn't re-add after a admin had deemed it wasn't a copyvio and be putting in a statement that clerks are trusted to deal with G12s it may make things easier for all involved. I can see it happening quite easily where someone tags G12, a knowledgeable non-admin removes (say for example it's a US government work), the article gets re-tagged and deleted. It's that sort of thing I would hope this might avoid.
As a more general issue it's been a concern of mine for a while that any admin can (theoretically) deal with the whole raft of copyright issues despite having shown no knowledge of the area and indeed possibly having an incorrect understanding and yet knowledgeable non-admins could do very little (at least until clerking came along although I realise it was unofficial before that). Copyright issues rarely come up at WP:RfA so we can't be certain they know and understand the area. Now I realise that we trust admins find out about things etc before acting but I'd suggest the potential for good faith mistakes in this are being much higher than in many other admin tasks (e.g. WP:RM or WP:AfD) as the area is so complicated.
I'll probably wait to see if any talk page stalkers have anything to add before taking this to any more public venue. I suspect most directly-interested people watch this page.
Also I've requested clerkship following your suggestion. Dpmuk (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Based off of the CCI clerk roles and and "All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to clean up.", I see the different role between the two. As a CP clerk, I could help clean up cases at CCI but cannot accept, open and evaluate cases. I am sure if I learned the process and became more experienced, I could become a CCI clerk as well. As far as your point on inherited admin copyright experience, I do see merit to that. I think copyright problems stand apart from content creation, CSD, UAA, vandalism and other common roles at RFA. While admins are specialized and trusted by the community to use the tools, they should not be presumed to be copyright experts.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Vrghs jacob redux

He's now back as Goldfinger123 (talk · contribs). This set of edits intro'd some copyvios (the section on Second admin commission is enmasse copyvio). I'll look up and clean soon, but if you get a chance to clean the rest, please feel free. Now he has three accounts on Commons for us to keep track of, though no copyvios on this one yet. —SpacemanSpiff 14:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Contribution survey:
MER-C 04:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I've deleted two new pages he's created, both had copyvios from multiple sources starting with the first edit. I'll take a look at the rest soon. —SpacemanSpiff 06:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I've checked all of the contribution survey above. There was clear copying in several, ironically even one that he alleged to be fixing for earlier copyvios. I've accordingly deleted everything he added of substance to any of them. I've also temporarily blocked two IPs he was using. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, I think it's now time for us to evaluate if collateral damage is minimal compared to the level of disruption, especially given his manifesto. —SpacemanSpiff 17:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
That's always a good question. :) I'm going to have to leave it to you to work it out, though. I don't have quite as much time on Wikipedia as I did (which sounds really weird, under the circumstances :D) and won't be at full "volunteer level duties" until my contract expires. Putting in as much time as a sanely can on the weekends, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been offline for a while too, and my on-time isn't much, so I'll check as quickly as I can. cheers. 10:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Due appreciation

The Socratic Barnstar
I hereby award you this barnstar for all the time and effort you take to eloquently provide wisdom and knowledge to inquiring editors.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks in particular for answering all my copyright questions and helping me learn a lot. I originally wanted to make this a 'Yoda award' but I couldn't find an image of Yoda that would pass the fair-use/license test, especially on this talk page.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :D That's a great way to start the day. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your copyright cleanup efforts at business broker! I am frankly floored by your diligence, dedication, and hard work. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for noting the problem. :) It's important that we verify the copyright status of uncertain text. I'm very happy that we had enough evidence to draw a safe conclusion about it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Originality in photographs

I know images aren't really your area but I still feel you may have something useful to add so would you mind taking a look at the conversation at User_talk:J_Milburn#Question and comment if you feel you have anything to add. (Don't worry it's not a non-free use issue). Dpmuk (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Would you or one of your talk page stalkers mind giving a second opinion here. I'm pretty certain about what I've said but that one phrase makes me think getting a second opinion is worthwhile as I'm still not that confident when it comes to questionable close paraphrasing issues. Dpmuk (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume a tps has done this as someone else has commented. Also apologies for not leaving the below editor a note earleir - I was most of the way through writing it when my supervisor popped round for a chat. Dpmuk (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I took a coffee break. :D I was going to get this one on my next coffee break. Glad to hear it's been handled! --Maggie Dennis (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Joey Foster Ellis v.s. Joey Ellis

Hey Moonriddengirl,

The person himself wants it to be Joey Foster Ellis.... So I delete Joey Ellis....Sorry for the short notice, as I am new to Wikipedia... Thanks for paying attention. And I change it back!

Hope you had a nice day!

Ellen.clementia (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Highest Grossing Bollywood Films

atleast update the list.. ready is the new highly grossing movie.. i dont know how the current list is legal.. and the list is not so useful.. dabangg is not there in the list.. atleat update the list with new grossers..User talk:Geocraze (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I don't think I should become involved in editing this list. It looks as though the effort to keep it clear of copyright is going to require that I remain uninvolved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A post on WP:AN that may be of interest to you

Here. → ROUX ₪ 22:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Garside/Olsen

CANADIAN LINUX USER IS VANDALISING "ROBERT GARSIDE"-RELATED PAGES ON WIKIPEDIA. IN THIS CASE HE HAS DELETED AN ENTIRE ENTRY ABOUT ROBERT GARSIDE ON THIS PAGE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_run_across_Australia. Robert Garside was the first person to run around the world, including Australia. This is public knowledge and there are numerous media stories on the Internet. In this case I feel he has finally revealed his intentions against Robert Garside, as I stated in December 2010. Why is he allowed to hide behind the mask of an established editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.122.103 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You're not supposed to be editing Wikipedia; you know that. I am willing to talk to you about issues with the Robert Garside article in spite of this, but that does not mean that you are free to edit.
In terms of this article, I am rather appalled that content is being added and removed from List of people who have run across Australia when I was able to find verification for both Garside and Olsen having run across Australia in a matter of seconds. (Verification for the record I could not find; that needs an accessible source.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

All content from User:Dromeaz is suspect as he is banned user. As per policy, it is WP:BRI, therefore I am reverting all his edits first and asking questions later as per all blocked users. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, that's understandable, but the information seems to have been placed in the article by User:Bezza84: [26]. Admittedly, it changed quite a bit from the early edits. I can kind of see why those might have been upsetting. Best thing to do, I think, is to make sure that information is neutral and referenced. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

JESPER OLSEN (RUNNER) page

Moonriddengirl, my gripe is with the Jesper Olsen (runner) page. If you look at the pattern of edits by CanadianLinuxUser, you will see that he is promoting the "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page. When I initially complained and resisted he simply tricked me into getting blocked. He made sure to elect himself as an 'established editor' first by editing other pages and then drew me into an "edit war". It was a trap that I assumed you would see through.

CanadianLinuxUser's edits are signature of who he really is and he is promoting Jesper Olsen, pure and simple. Now he appears to have complete control of the Jesper Olsen (runner) page and any other page related to the name Jesper Olsen (runner). It's a marketing campaign, that simple!

He also has a control on Robert Garside pages and regularly tries to play down Robert's success in any way he can get away with it. My only way to deal with this guy is to encourage you (Moonriddengirl) in the hope that you will ensure articles are fair. I sensed you had a strict sense of fairness and impartiality. I hope I'm right.

Is it not offensive to me that this other editor is allowed a free reign to re-write history however he chooses? Of course it is. It is propaganda. CanadianLinuxUser uses shaky references to puport the Jesper Olsen (runner) page, that should not even exist.

FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED:

1. Jesper Olsen has NO world record or Guinness World Record and he has NOT circumnavigated the world either. His distance was far too short and there is no proof that he has actually even done the distance he said, except his own web site. Propaganda. 2. Talk Archives on the Jesper Olsen (runner) page have been concealed. Is it not because that it says there that he takes taxi cabs across bridges? 3. The person protecting the Jesper Olsen (runner) page is a part of his team. Bias. 4. The Jesper Olsen (runner) page is an advert, wholly controlled by CanadianLinuxUser. Try editing it and you will see that he'll be there observing you. WHY?

I want to be sure I'm perfectly frank here. It doesn't matter what you think about Jesper Olsen. You are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. Period. I am willing to talk to you about concerns about material related to Robert Garside, but until you negotiate an unblock of your account, you are not a part of the Wikipedia community and you have no voice in the development of any other content. Contributors who are blocked are not welcome to return under other usernames or as IPs.
I have done my best when alerted to issues regarding Robert Garside to continue helping to make sure that your views are fairly considered, but you are endangering my ability to do this by continuing to press against User:CanadianLinuxUser and focusing on Jesper Olsen (runner). If the community tells me to stop talking to you altogether, you will be restricted to e-mailing the info mailing list to get assistance, and I know that you are aware of the limitations of that forum. If you want to be able to continue to be heard here, you really must de-escalate your behavior, no matter what you may think of CanadianLinuxUser's motivations or Jesper Olsen's achievements. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


IP Block 194.153.138.23 and 135.196.122.103

Requesting block for block evasion, Edit warring and personal attacks. here here as well as here CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for a change

Desired changed: Robert Garside, also known as "The Runningman"

References (from AP, PA to CNN and Reuters): http://www.deseretnews.com/article/786406/British-runner-hoofs-it-in-LA-during-42000-mile-footrace.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1019897/index.htm http://www.deseretnews.com/article/775603/Runningman-get-chased-on-bad-days.html http://printstore.pressassociation.com/round_the_world_run_robert_garside_piccadilly_circus/print/1922323.html http://www.deseretnews.com/article/815052/Running-Man-runs--from-Colombia.html http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/PlanetaBizarro/0,,MUL15762-6091,00-BRITANICO+DA+A+VOLTA+AO+MUNDO+CORRENDO.html http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/53/53379_running_man_still_on_for_record.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/24/i_at.09.html http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/27403_race_to_finish_for_global_marathon_man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.153.138.23 (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I will not be considering changing anything that is not a clearcut violation of our biographies of living person's policy until we have resolved the issue with your flagrant ongoing violation of your block. So long as you are editing Wikipedia, I cannot help you with anything that I do not regard as an emergency. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Query regarding non-free media

Hey there! I uploaded a file similar to this file, because it was of a higher resolution, but the uploader keeps reverting my edits saying no guideline stipulate that all non-free images must not be in high resolution. What do I do? Appreciate your help. GaneshBhakt (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the intention. Low resolution is what we prefer. :) The higher the resolution, the more likely our use of their copyrighted work is to be seen as infringing. This is why the "fair use rationale" includes the question: "Low resolution?" It's explained a bit here. It's encoded in non-free content policy as, "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." Low resolution images are generally of acceptable quality for viewing online, but do not print out well. Since you agree that the image is not "low resolution" (in your upload summary, you answered the "low resolution?" question by saying "no"), you may wish to tag the image for deletion by using {{db-G7}}. If you think that it is still low enough, you might ask for other opinions at WP:MCQ. But in either event, you should probably request that File:The Looney Tunes Show - Characters.png be deleted, since you had uploaded the higher resolution over the original anyway and that one could simply be restored. We can't have two copies of the image hanging around. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Please delete the file per this policy! GaneshBhakt (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. :) Again, if you think that the image you uploaded is not too large, you might get feedback at WP:MCQ. You can use the larger image at this name. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Technical Copyvio at Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India. My view is that the administrator who originally removed the {{db-g12}} from the article was in error. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, removing G12 was the right thing to do, because it doesn't apply when we have unverified permission. But it needs to go a step further, with blanking with {{copyvio}} and an explanation to the contributor how to verify. I have my own template I use for this purpose: User:Moonriddengirl/vp. Unless you or a friendly talk page stalker help out with it, I'll see what I can do when I'm off work. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Article blanked, listed at WP:CP, comment left at the AfD and contributor notified as to procedure. Also the same for Solid waste policy in India (except the AfD bit as it's not currently at AfD). Dpmuk (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks to you both! Voceditenore (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, Dpmuk. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
As I was writing the above, the OTRS ticket came through. ;-). Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That's sorted, then. :) The AfD can proceed without concern for copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird

Hi, I just wandered across the images [27] and [28]. They seem to be the same, but the one on enwiki has a fair use tag, while the one on commons is licensed under free licenses. Is there something I am missing, or is there a problem with the licensing part somewhere? I also left a note on the commons helpdesk, but I've seen that you answer better and faster than helpdesks :P , so here I am. Lynch7 19:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a copyvio to me! I'll poke at it a bit more and may tag it for deletion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Its been deleted now. Thanks. Lynch7 05:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for Revision Deletion

Hi Moonriddengirl (or a stalker). I was wondering if you could delete all revisions prior to the current one at Talk:Morotai Island Regency. An IP user wrote their email address, so I think it would fall under Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#HIDINGBEFORESIGHT. I have removed the email address, but I think it would still require oversight. Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. :) Are you contacting oversight? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll try, but I'm not quite sure how.
Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Eep, there's a double request then. Normally I just redact email addreses but I found a further concern with revealing a name in somewhat non-encyclopedic and vulnerable circumstances, so I further removed content and requested oversight of the lot. I'm sure they'll sort it all out at the far end of the request(s). :) Franamax (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in that; at the very least it'll get their attention. Thanks, Fran. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks, both. It was a bit late for me last night, so I just trotted off to bed after the revdeletion. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:PERM/A

When you have time, and if it's not too much trouble, could you please provide some input here? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Provided. :) For my own records, I've offered to do a random spot check of recent contribs this weekend. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Luang Pu Thuat

It's hard for me to tell, but it looks like the copyright issues you identified[29] and deleted in 2009[30] have been restored. Could you or someone else take another look? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly raises some red flags! Investigating. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, this was the content that was previously copied. It had been a direct duplicate. It's not that now, and the duplication detector doesn't find many matches.
So I took a random phrase and did a google search. Bingo. A 2005 blog. (Dupdet looks very different.) Checking to see when this showed up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

RD1s and attribution

Just wondering – when using RevDel on multiple revisions for a copyvio that's been in an article for quite a long time, this may entail hiding revisions where non-infringing content which remains after the copyvio is cleaned was added. Does this cause attribution problems? January (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It shouldn't. One of the advantages of revdel is that one can hide the content of the revisions without hiding the names of the contributors so good faith edits which end up being revdel'd are still attributed (We don't have to say who added which particular piece of text just that the person contributed in some way). Boissière (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks, Boissière. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

re List of highest-grossing Bollywood films - if I contact the site and ask them for permission to let us present all their data, will it be acceptable? Shahid • Talk2me 07:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Only if you can get them to release the data under a open license such as the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). Just "permission" is not good enough. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information. Yoenit (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
And if they would do that, that would be absolutely awesome. We would need them to either publish the release on their website or mail it to the Wikimedia Foundation. If you decide to ask them and need any assistance with the language of your letter or anything like that (we have some examples at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permissions), please let me know.
If they don't, it may be best to move the article from "List of highest-grossing Bollywood films" to "Highest-grossing Bollywood films" and turn it into a discussion article instead of a list. I understand why people are expecting a list. The thing is, we can actually get more information in if we're not just reproducing their list. For a completely off-the-top-of-my-head example, if an article said:

Tracking gross income of films in Bollywood is complicated by the fact that there are no official sources to list income, although there are two prominent sources that publish estimates: IBOS Network and Box Office India.([31]) The rankings provided by the two sources do not agree, and neither source adjusts their estimates for inflation, which skews the results for recent years.([url]) The two sources can diverge widely in their estimates as well, with IBOS suggesting that top-ranking film 3 Idiots had earned 202,57,00,000 Indian rupees as of [date], while Box Office India estimates 189,38,74,729. Both lists show a tendency in recent years of [genre] to dominate the list. Among the top ten are four examples of [genre], Title 1, Title 2, Title 3 and Title 4, which combined grossed XXX to XXX, more than twice as much as the next ranking genre, [genre].

Please remember that's off the top of my head. :) There's a tiny bit of sourced info in there, but I have no idea what genre dominates or how much more it might earn. (I've put two figures in to account for the differences in the lists.)
Of course, the challenge with such a conversion is that we have to have sufficient text to support the information, and we couldn't possibly work in the entire list. But it seems to me that there's a lot of room for sourced conversation in an article on the subject, including on how these lists are generated. The article could talk about India's film distribution practices; [32] (for instances) talks about the limited number of screens on which 3 Idiots actually played and also the economic impact abroad (cf. [33]). Articles such as this talk about how Bollywood is expanding economically into foreign markets.
Anyway, if they grant the lists, such a conversion wouldn't be necessary. If they don't, it might help make something useful out of what we're allowed to print. :)--Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi, MRG!

I have a French magazine (Jan 1932) and I'd like to use the cover to illustrate an article I'm working up. The reason I ask is that I've spoken to a French publisher friend about this and she says she would reproduce scaled-down images of pre-World War II book jackets, magazine covers, newspaper front pages etc without a moment's hesitation and has done so on hundreds of occasions. Any idea how this would be viewed here, given US law may be involved? Have you any idea whether this is now PD for Wikipedia purposes? Or whether it qualifies otherwise? Many thanks in advance,  Roger Davies talk 11:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Roger. :D You caught me just after I "left" for work, but if one of my lovely talk page stalkers (who do truly rock) don't help with this, I'll look into it later today. I'm not familiar with the copyright laws of France, which would weigh in on their upload on Commons. They have a balance of US/local law that I haven't firmly nailed. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!  Roger Davies talk 12:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think you are out of luck, but wouldn't mind some confirmation of my reasoning: France has a life of author + 70 years as standard, so unless the creator of the cover (probably a photographer?) died in or before 1940 (and not in service to France) it is not yet PD in France. Per the Uruguay Round Agreements Act the same terms apply in the US if it was not yet published there. The only loophole I see if the cover was a "pseudonymous, anonymous or collective work", in which case copyright has expired (70 years after publication). Yoenit (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Boy, you said that so much more succinctly than I was going to. :) First, obviously I didn't get to this last night. Sorry, Roger! Family stuff came up after work.
Like Yoenit, I don't believe that this stuff is likely to be "free" for use on Wikipedia. France is confusing (not that the U.S. has room to talk); per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, their expiration was at the time 50 years post death of the author unless the material was published in wartime or the author "died for France" (the former added a variable number of years, depending on which war; the latter added 30 years). But in April 1997, France retroactively altered these terms to 70 years after the death of the author. Our guideline doesn't mention anonymous works, but according to our article on French copyright law, Yoenit is right about that one.
There is a possibility that these works were briefly public domain under the prior terms, but copyright retroactively restored by France's extension. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act makes all this extremely complicated, because if the content was PD in France as of January 1, 1996 (and had never been copyrighted through US formalities), it would have been PD in the US as well. If France retroactively restored copyright in 1997? I have no idea how the US would handle that. If it was not PD in France on that date and had not been copyrighted through US formalities, it will not be PD in the United States until 95 years after publication. (See [34]).
If we can determine date of death of the creator, that could be a lot easier for us. There is a possibility that if it is PD in France but not the US, it may be uploadedable on Commons using a combination of Commons:Template:Anonymous-EU and Commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA. Frankly, I don't really know how Commons can take images that aren't PD in the U.S., but I'm looking into that with a Commons admin. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(od) Thank you both for your very helpful input. In fact, there are a run of covers about an event serialised across six issues. The subject of the article (Michel Vieuchange) died in Nov 1929 (so pictures he took are okay) but I cannot readily establish the DOD of his guide/companion (El Mahboul) who took many of the others. The route forward seems to be to rely solely on covers using images by Vieuchange until and unless the DOD of El Mahboul turns up. A further complicating factor is that some of the images themselves were taken in the Spanish Sahara (then a Spanish protectorate) and others in French Morocco (then a French protectorate). An interesting issue here, I suppose, is not the technical and theretical issue about whether copyright subsists in El Mahboul but whether in practical terms there is anyone to enforce his rights. I mention this because the pictures he took he did at Vieuchange's request, using Vieuchange's equipment and film stock, and passed to Jean Vieuchange (Michel's brother) for processing and publication.  Roger Davies talk 16:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The material was published posthumous? That may complicate this further. According to French copyright law posthumously published material is protected for 25 years, but I believe that is incorrect and only goes for works published more than 70 years after the authors death (see List of countries' copyright length). With regards to the country where the pictures were taken, I am under the impression that does not matter and it is the country where the picture is published that determines copyright. Yoenit (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again!  Roger Davies talk 18:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Need advice, please.

Did some research on this item: NBC Parade of Stars 1947. Have located the Billboard articles that detail how the images were heavily promoted in 1947. Checked for copyright renewals for Sam Berman and National Broadcasting Company for 1975 (huge list--needed to use year of possible renewal). There was no information that the series' copyright(s) were renewed, and it's understandable as network radio had vastly changed by then.

Will be using some of these as "copyright not renewed", but see we already have quite a few of the caricatures from the portfolio on articles about the older stars. Would like to change any I find to free use, copyright not renewed. Would this be OK after I get my rationale "hammered out" :) and the images I want to use uploaded with the "not renewed" free license? Thanks, We hope (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, copyright renewal is not my strong point (I have tended to turn to some friendly Wikisource admins to help me when I run into those questions :D), so I'm not really the one to ask about whether they weren't renewed, but that's not what you're asking. :) If I follow you correctly, you want to know if you can change "non-free use rationales" on images that you believe are actually public domain. That answer I know: sure! If you have done your due diligence and have strong reason to believe they are pd, put your explanation up and convert them. I would be very thorough in explaining where you checked and why you think they are PD, perhaps at the talk page of the image. If the copyright status is ever challenged and you are not available to explain, that detail could be crucial. And I hope that you're right; those are fabulous images. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much! We had at least 15 online here that needed changing. Can now consider adding some of these elsewhere ;) We hope (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

CanadianLinuxUser

Again he has remolved the name "Robert Garside" from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumnavigation&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.153.138.23 (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I removed Robert Garside and 25 other circumnavigations (Including Jesper Olsen I might add) from that article because the list was growing too large. That is an editorial decision, one which every wikipedia editor is welcome to revert and discuss with me till we reach consensus. However, you are blocked and not allowed to edit, so your opinion will be completely ignored and everything you do reverted. Canadianlinuxuser was just enforcing the latter (unfortunate, as I asked him not do so). Had I seen it first I would have reverted it as well and I will do so with any future edits which are not both legimate concerns about the Robert Garside article and posted here on Moonriddengirls talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

ROBERT GARSIDE completed the first run around the world and has an official Guinness World Record. The references are there. It has been properly cited. He also EXCEEDED the distance necessary for a circumnavigation. You have not explained *why* you would remove a foot circumnavigation. You can remove Jesper Olsen because he has not achieved the distance necessary for a circumnavigation but Robert Garside has. Please expand on your "editorial decision". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.122.103 (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a matter for Wikipedia's editors in good standing to resolve. It is not clearly targeted against Garside, as it removed many entries, not merely his.
But I am appalled to see that you are continuing to flagrantly violate your block. You have absolutely no business doing things like this. This is not a move necessary to protect Garside; it's simply pressing forward the Olsen dispute. If you continue in such behavior, we will begin simply removing your notes from any page and locking down articles that you are editing, as I have temporarily done now to Circumnavigation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
MRG, you might be interested in this ANI posting by CanadianLinuxUser. To be honest I agree with him, protecting yet another page is liable to cause collateral damage. Yoenit (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid at this point I have to agree as well. Dromeaz does not seem willing at this point to restrict his activities here to protecting the Garside article. He gives every appearance instead of actively pursuing a vendetta against Jesper Olsen. Whether that's because he thinks another contributor is promoting Olsen or not is immaterial; he should know very well by now that he is not permitted to do this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighted text; need your advice

hello,

I want to copy and paste most of the text in [35] to Cal Lampley. Yes it is copyrighted, but is it possible to bypass the copyright? Should I send them an e mail? Please I need your advice. Thank you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 14:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission should contain everything you need. Yoenit (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
That said, I'm afraid they are unlikely to put it under copyleft, as AllAboutJazz licenses their articles at $125 a pop for single time print use. They don't even say what they charge for web reproduction. :/ You'd need permission of both the website and the article's author, as their copyright notice indicates content is copyrighted by "and/or". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Which came first?

Quran and science or this document? I can't figure it out. Our article's pretty naff. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Uhmm... some weird document with wikilinks? I would consider that a dead giveaway. Yoenit (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The wikilinks incline me to agree. :) Which doesn't mean of course that our article doesn't take content from someplace else. :/ I won't be surprised if we see more of this kind of thing as time goes on, which is going to be a problem in determining origin. :P (lots of expressions in this reply!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Doh, how did I miss that? I didn't check the article, it was heavily cut a few months ago. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Palazzolo

Hi Moonriddengirl - You commented on Palazzolo before, so I want to bring your attention to a new BLPN section I have presented at - Neutral BLP for Palazzolo

Struggling to find equity for this case, I was advised by an editor (after a long wiki journey) to give a few pithy examples of what has been written that is wrong, and then offer an alternative BLP, which I have done.

Thanks in advance for considering this case. I merely ask that someone adjudicate as my pleas to the present author fall on deaf ears.

--Fircks (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I can't serve in that capacity on the subject, as I've already discussed the matter with you via our OTRS system. :) While I used to attempt to keep this account anonymous, the cat's out of the bag: I'm Maggie Dennis.
That said, it can take a few days to get good response to a BLPN notice, and I'm afraid that your listing probably is a bit longer than will garner many readers. I would suggest putting the bulk of it inside of a collapse box. You can do this by adding {{collapse top}} at the top of the section where the collapsing will begin and {{collapse bottom}} underneath it. This requires brackets and all. If it doesn't look like a wall of text, you're more likely to get people to notice the conversation around it. (you might, say, collapse the entire section from the first "From the BLP:" to just after "Palazzolo did not hire Aldo Sarullo, nor ever considered hiring him." and then from "Proposed:" to just above your signature. I would, if it were mine. (Two collapse sections are okay; it will help highlight the different areas of your note.)
If the BLPN listing does not reach consensus, you may have to go the more laborious route of Wikipedia:Mediation or WP:RFC. I'll be happy to talk to you about the procedure for those, if it comes to that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

awards information and copyright guidelines

Hi Moonriddengirl, I have been looking around but could not find any guidelines on the copyright rules specific for awards & medals articles. My feeling says that:

  • "copying" citation text for every recipient of the award or medal in the award/medal article is over the edge, even when put between quotation marks and providing the references. I quickly looks that more than 50% of the article is a copy. I have seen this practice used, even with nice tables and links in the citation text to wikipedia articles.
  • But providing the citation text in the article of the individual recipient seems ok? I found it regulary used like that.
  • Is it still ok to list the years of rewarding with the names of the recipients in the award/medal article? There is not much copyedit you can do with names and years, besides a re-order compared with the original. And if available using links to the articles of the individual recipients.
  • Evidently the text on the award itself must be a copyedit of the original, to avoid copyright problems.

-- SchreyP (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't have specific guidelines. :) Some general issues here: if more than 50% of an article is a copy, unless there are tons of different sources, we probably have a problem of excessive use of non-free content, which is forbidden by policy. Most content we have should be summarized in our own words. Sometimes awards descriptions, however, are non-creative. If that's the case, then it doesn't matter how much we copy, with or without quotes. The creativity threshold is really low, though, so this one would really require a strict bare-bones recitation of facts (say, a list of placements in Olympic races, chronologically). It should be fine to list the years of rewarding with the names of the recipients unless the award is completely subjective, in which case reproducing the list could be a copyright problem itself. For instance, if an agency gives out an award for "The 100 Best People of All Time", the list itself is copyrightable. A list of Olympic Winners is not. While it's just an essay and in limbo until we work out details of how to handle certain elements, User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists still might help here. It's based heavily on information from one of our attorneys. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, your User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists is indeed a good start. I will study this in more detail. Already some questions:
  • Did I understand correctly that when the award recipients are selected by an award committee, we can use this as a criteria that the list itself is not creative and we can list the years of rewarding with the names of the recipients?
  • And what if the reference doesn't list any citation text, but just years and recipient names, like Frederick Emmons Terman Award from the American Society for Engineering Education, can we still reproducing the list with years & recipients? On one side it looks non-creative, on the other end copy-paste.
-- SchreyP (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding copyright status of LinkedIn material

I just deleted an article as a copyvio of an entry in LinkedIn. My full response is User_talk:Rolf.Reinhardt#Why_the_article_was_deleted. Note that the user purports to be the author, and did add a release to the talk page, which I concluded was inadequate, but that's not my question.

Mt question is whether we know the copyright status of material posted on LinkedIn. I read the LinkedIn copyright policy but the emphasis there is on material which may be added to LinkedIn in violation of copyright. I don't see any discussion about whether contributors retain any rights over material they add.

I realize that LinkedIn does not qualify as a reliable source (except for very narrow use), so perhaps this is a moot point, but it is a big enough site that we may have addressed this issue before. It occurs to me it is possible that LinkedIn might retain overall copyright of the entire site, but allow contributors to reuse material they contribute elsewhere. Do we know one way or the other?--SPhilbrickT 13:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) LinkedIn does not require surrender of copyright, only license, as per [36]: "You own the information you provide LinkedIn under this Agreement.... you grant LinkedIn a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual, unlimited, assignable, sublicenseable, fully paid up and royalty-free right to us to copy, prepare derivative works of, improve, distribute, publish, remove, retain, add, process, analyze, use and commercialize, in any way now known or in the future discovered, any information you provide, directly or indirectly to LinkedIn, including but not limited to any user generated content, ideas, concepts, techniques or data to the services, you submit to LinkedIn, without any further consent, notice and/or compensation to you or to any third parties." Since it's a non-exclusive right, the copyright owners can still license it for us. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just to add; using a sample entry, "Commercial use of this site without express authorization is prohibited." towards the bottom indicates entries are for non-commercial use and incompatible with Wikipedia. It is possible to verify use of the text through OTRS, via the directions here.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I had hoped the answer would be straightforward, but it involves copyright, so of course, it is not:) I think the comments of Maggie and Norty are compatible - let me suggest why and see if you agree. The restriction noted by Norty appears to apply to material I find on LinkedIn written by others. For example, if I were wilting an article about Maggie Dennis, and found her LinkedIn entry, I could not use it in a Wikipedia article because the non-commercial reuse is prohibited (ignoring other issue about whether the information is deemed reliable.) On the other hand, if Maggie Dennis contributed some material to LinkedIn, she has the right to reuse that in any way, including adding it to Wikipedia under a Wikipedia license. (A complication is verifying identify, so it still would have to be done with an OTRS ticket.) Do you two agree with my distinction, that the contributor retains rights, but if I'm browsing LinkedIn and find something interesting, I can't use it because of license incompatibility? (In the instant case, Rolf can use the material he contributed, although there are separate issues re AUTO and other issues.)--SPhilbrickT 13:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh and of course, thanks to both of you for prompt, relevant responses. MRG's TPS's are the best. (although I'm not sure if Maggie qualifies as a stalker:) ) --SPhilbrickT 13:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
LOL! :D Yes, I could reuse my own LinkedIn content, although we'd have to verify that I was the creator. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I think non-commercial use applies to the whole site. I mis-typed above, as the disclaimer states "site" not entry. Ultimately, as you stated, the entries are self-published and shouldn't be considered a reliable source. I am not too sure who this rather new know-it-all talk page stalker Maggie is. Maybe MRG wants to increase stalker competition on her talk. :)--NortyNort (Holla) 01:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Help needed as facts are being manipulated

I Appeal to administrators and moderators and even other users to make notes of following 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Jayalalithaa&action=historysubmit&diff=434791233&oldid=434790873 This link given clearly shows that I have provided all the necessary references and added lots of valid information. But the user is smartly trying to make excuse to block me and removing information from the wiki article on Jayalalithaa. Dont know whether this user Sodabottle is an anti Jaya, but its a blame on me that iam reverting. Iam searching for an interview which was telecast on Jaya TV of an eminent journalist and director (Chitra Lakshmanan) on 16th June 2011 saying Jaya was not born in Mysore but in Sriranagam. 2) Also do read this para.. In her 2011 campaign, she will be focusing on corruption. With DMK’s A Raja jailed in connection with the 2G scam, Karunanidhi may find it tough to counter her allegations. Opponents may ask whether she has any locus standi to speak about corruption since she herself has been an accused in many cases. “The DMK foisted some 11 cases over her. She has been acquitted in nine of those. She is fighting the remaining cases,” says Cho, who rates Amma as the best bet for Tamil Nadu politics. source http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_jayalalithaa-mother-of-comebacks_1524790 3)_ Read this link. Jayalalitha in interview to Times of India says herself that all cases foisted by DMK against her were false http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/DMK-spent-Rs-57-crore-to-foist-cases-against-me-Jaya/articleshow/6995405.cms continuing her tirade against the previous dmk government for the financial crisis being faced by the state, tamil nadu chief minister j. jayalalitha on monday accused the karunanidhi government of wasting nearly rs 57 crore in foisting false cases and fabricating evidence against her. but various courts finally acquitted her, jayalalitha said in theni, inaugurating various projects for her andipatti constituency.Paglakahinka (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

How to deal with images with a viable claim of permission?

Hi. As my normal goto guy on image issues, Verno, is quite busy I thought I'd ask you. How do will deal with images were there's a credible claim of permission. Obviously for text I'd just use {{copyvio}} but I have no idea what to do with images and this case seems to be ingnored at Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion. The uploads in question are here which I came across because of the Elizabeth II coin being tagged for speedy yesterday (now been re-uploaded and tagged again by me) which is an obvious infringement given the coin is copyrighted. Given the age of the other coins we're OK in that regard but given the source given doesn't release the photos we need some proof of permission. Dpmuk (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the images ('cause i'm on the clock), but the situation is described at GID as "If the image lists a source with no evidence of permission". :) This is a case for {{npd}}. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. Think I missed that because the wording at WP:CSD doesn't make it sound like it should be used in that case although the wording on the template does. Think the wording at WP:CSD may need a tweak (I'll get round to that later). Dpmuk (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Should also add that the paragraph at WP:GID also says "This does not apply to images where the uploader claims to be the copyright holder", as was the case in this instance so this probably needs updating as well. Dpmuk (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say that's a problem. That rationale is used for images in that situation all the time. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Images needing YOUR attention

Hi again! I found some copyvio images which have been tagged with a CC license, so I have nominated them for Speedy. Please spare a look:

  1. File:MNIK58.JPG;
  2. File:MNIK68.JPG; and
  3. File:Raajneeti-Image21.JPG.

See you around. GaneshBhakt (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you did a fine job. The images should all be processed in due order. I note that number 3 seems to be gone already. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bollywood films of 2011

Hi, I have raised the same issue on this list as the previous larger list based on BOI. As it relates to the same legal advice, you may want to keep an eye on it. Cheers Fæ (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dear. :/ Watchlisted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Need a non-free image file history deleted

Hi, could you (or an admin tps) be so kind to delete the history of the non-free file File:Sesamstraatident.png? I couldn't find the right template or board to request this. Yoenit (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Z@ppelin logo 2009.svg as well please (does that also need a licensing tag? I am honestly not sure). Yoenit (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
You bet. :) Done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I never knew it was possible... could you do it for File:Nancy.jpg? And please explain how you did that :P! Thanks!--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 18:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's two different ways. I used both of them.:) You can either delete the whole thing and restore just the version you want--I did that with the first image because it had 176 edits--or you can selectively delete the version you don't want. I did that with the one you listed, because there's only the one problem. It's actually much easier to do this with images than with text; it's a simple click of a button and an explanation (if the pull down reasons don't quite fit).

Yoenit, I almost overlooked the licensing question. Yes, I think it needs a licensing tag. I added one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

BBC content

A quick query - Can BBC.co.uk's content reused under a CC BY SA 3.0 licence in wikipedia?. I am not able to make out from their terms of use. Can you take a look?--Sodabottle (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In general, no. "Unless otherwise expressly stated in the Additional Terms of a particular BBC Online Service...you may not copy, reproduce, republish, disassemble" etc. etc. etc. :) Even where business users are permitted under different license terms, there are (in my opinion) far too many restrictions on reuse for us to assume it is compatible with CC BY SA. Wikipedia itself is probably excluded by clause 3.2. Take 3.2.1, for example: "contain offensive text or images". Such as? Facial (sex act)? Depictions of Muhammad? How do they define "offensive text or images"? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! :-)--Sodabottle (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Cattell15.jpg

Hi. User:Taketa left this message on my talk page about this file:

"Hi, via otrs ticket:2011062010001214 a complaint was received about the copyright of File:Cattell15.jpg. According to the email the picture is taken from [37] and has copyright on it. Also since it was a pic from 1920 it was not 100 years since the death of the author. As a precaution I have requested immediate removal of the image. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)"

Here is my reply on his talk page:

"As stated on the file page, the image was taken from this source in this article (where it is marked "Cattell aged 15") and not the site mentioned in the otrs ticket. There was no mention of the photographer on the site I used. The picture was taken in England so I assume that the correct template is {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. I remember a discussion on a similar issue here, where the 70 year rule for images taken in the United Kingdom was discussed. The expert on this is the administrator User:Moonriddengirl. It might be wise to ask her advice again. I understand that in real liife Cattell has been at the centre of an acrimonious controversy recently which has become the subject of a book.[38] Mathsci (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)"

Since the otrs ticket names a different source (not used by me), I am unable to tell what the copyright issues here are. Please could you help clarify this? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I left a copy of this message on the talk page of the file, to clarify why the copyright issues were unclear and to underline the incorrect claims in the otrs ticket about where the image originated. User:Fastily did not respond to the message and within a minute or two of it being left (impossible for me to tell now), speedily deleted the file. Since as an administrator you can view the details of the deleted file, please could you nevertheless clarify whether in fact there were any copyright issues. I believe that you have more expertise in these matters than Fastily, who appears to have possibly acted too hastily here. Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Good morning. :) This is a tough one. And, ftr, I don't claim more expertise than User:Fastily, by any means. Images are not my major area, and I'm sure Fastily knows his stuff. :)
I'm freshly awake and barely have any caffeine in me, but I'll see if I can clarify the concerns.
Copyright on the photograph is determined by who took it and where and by when it was first published. I've italicized that bit, because it's the hardest part. If that photograph was taken in 1920 and published in 1920, by Wikipedia's policies, it would be usable on Wikipedia without question. It could be uploaded on Wikipedia with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} or on Commons, even, with their templates commons:template:PD-UK-unknown and commons:template:PD-1923. At that point, the correspondent would have to send an official takedown notice to our designated agent to dispute the hosting of the photograph, rather than the unofficial complaint they have mailed us.
The complication here is that while studio portraits of this type are generally published soon after they are taken (in class albums), we can't always presume that this is the case. If the photograph was published after 1923, it may still be under copyright in both the UK and the US.
I think I myself would have listed this either at {{PUF}} or {{FFD}} to allow the community to investigate the matter rather than deleting it speedily, since the question is complicated. But it's always difficult when we are dealing with an official complaint. Do you by any chance know when the image was first published? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl and many thanks for the detailed reply. I understand the difficulty with the unofficial complaint which considerably complicated matters. I have no further details about the publication date. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_36&oldid=1204685163"