This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think perhaps Chzz linked to the wrong edit? The one he linked to has nothing to do with reactions. :/
Not being sure that I'm opining on the aspect you'd like me to, personally, I'm inclined to agree that the material probably doesn't need to be in the main article. If somebody reacted in an unexpected way (supporting the murderer :() that would certainly be a different matter. But if it's the usual condolences, I'm afraid it might overbalance the rest of the content. But that's my two bits. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Your help is requested
I am reviewing a GAN and I have a question regarding fair use of block quotes. Here is the edit where I said my thoughts, and stated that I will seek expert advice (that's you). The comments regard the text shown in the references section of the article I am reviewing. Please comment at the bottom of this section and if I was wrong in my counsel, correct me with the kindness of tact few others have achieved. With esteem, My76Strat (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, as there has been multiple repeated additions of the same copyright material to Bollywood films of 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), do you have a view on raising protection from non-confirmed indef to, say, a week at a time of admin only protection whilst there is active discussion or research on finding a resolution to the copyright problem (assuming that this is still considered on-going)? Particularly given the context of the sock activity we have seen recently plus that the article is a bit of an unfortunate bear trap for less aware newer contributors. Thanks Fæ (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm worried about that one, too. :/ I've created an edit notice. Maybe we can see if that will help first, and, if it does not, consider full protection. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
What do we do about unattributed machine translations from other language Wikipedias?
[1] is clearly from the German article. I'm assuming it's a machine translation but it might just be a bad manual one. Not sure what to do about it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Doug. :) I'm on my laptop away from home at the moment, and it's a bit difficult for me to evaluate it fully. :) But if it's copied from the German Wikipedia, that's pretty easy to fix; we just follow the steps at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. We use an edit summary with a link to the German article and put {{Translated page}} at the talk page. You might want to ask the user who inserted the text if he's translated the content from there, if you aren't 100% sure, and if you are 100% sure, you probably ought to point out to him attribution requirements. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Roger. :) I'm looking into this one. My gut tells me that the second one is probably a backwards copy; we see a lot of that from tourist sites. But I never rely solely on my gut. :D I'm double-checking. I'm also seeing what I can do to date the first one. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
My gut was wrong; this content was entered into Wikipedia in 2009; Wayback has archived that site to 2006. I've reverted to the last clean. Worrisome, the contributor has a history of copyvios...with a first warning well predating this edit and the most recent explicit warning to February 2011. I'm heading to the airport in an hour, but I wish I had time to do a spot check of other contribs to see if there's a lot more of this kind of thing in his history. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
That one isn't being used in the article at the moment, but it seems like it could be converted to a proper FUR as per WP:GID? :) (I see the contributor is open to talking now: [2]) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl, I see you have been actively involved in editing and maintaining one or many similar pages (List of highest-grossing Bollywood films). You would have definitely notice all the films mentioned under various categories on that page are either ranked 1 or 3 or 6 or 10. This instantly brings us to the most possible and predictive question of every reader of that page: Where are the ranks 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and which are those films? Therefore I would just request you to edit the rankings and please list all the movies ranked from 1 to 10 in all their categories. That page is semi-protected and I didn't want to get into any sort of Edit Warring over already a controversial page. I see you are well familiar with the controversies surrounding that page. Thanks --ZoomTV (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
DYK redux
Hey, MRG. We've got a complete repeat of last year's DYK debacle, no change, DYK regulars denying the problem, a repeat offender with hundreds of DYKs that DYK continues to run to this day, no change whatsoever from the issues of last October. I think a copyvio investigation may need to be opened? Please see WT:DYK and User talk:Billy Hathorn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, dear. :/ I've added some thoughts there. I'll try to take a look tomorrow when I'm back at my home computer to see if a CCI seems advisable here, unless somebody else has already done so. I see that somebody is talking to the contributor about it. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
If a Copyvio investigation is opened on Billy, please contact me. He is the largest uploader of files to Wikipedia by bytes uploaded, and I had the pleasure of going though all of them looking for copyvios. About two dozen went to PUF, one or two wound up at FfD by accident, there's links to the affair on his talk page, but long story short he dosen't understand that he can't photograph someone else's work and then release it under a free license as his own work. Sven ManguardWha? 03:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
MRG, he is much too big of a problem for me to take on alone, DYK has done zero about him and has allowed him to continue for at least three years since he was last discussed, and Iridescent was taken to task at ANI (according to his post?) for trying to do something about him. I'd rather tackle the bigger problem at its source-- that DYK coddles, enables, and supports editors who have no business writing anything on Wikipedia, much less placing it on the mainpage. Every single piece that I have looked at from this editor has numerous flaws: I am truly uncertain if a CCI is needed, or if admin sanctions should be requested at this point through ANI, or if an RFC would be best. I'm stumped, but what is clear is that no one is doing anything. At least he's not creating content as of two days ago: I fear no one will ever clean up the hundreds and hundreds of policy violating articles he has created, and I credit DYK for feeding and enabling this kind of editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Sandy. By no means should you have to take it on by yourself. I'll look into the CCI question (I've just finished up my talk page responses), and if you think that the DYK approach itself needs modification, that would seem to be worth an RFC or something of its own. CCI is not set up for admin sanctions, but I'll look and see where Iridescent discusses taking the matter to ANI, and a spot-check of contribs for issues might clarify. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I have been looking at his contribs for a bit (whilst also packing to fly to SF tomorrow) and have found one article that is clearly a problem. Many of the sources he uses are not accessible to me, which makes it difficult to assess how widespread of an issue this is. I will keep looking, but for now I have to chip at the massive backlog at CP for a bit. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Update: There is now a CCI request on Billy link. Sven ManguardWha? 19:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Wrestling with the best approach to some apparent copyvios
Hi, Moonriddengirl – Atama offered your name as someone who might be able to help on a copyvio issue that I’ve encountered. (She did not actually recommend you as a first choice, you being as busy as you are, but her praise was high and I am lazy. Feel free to push me off in another direction if you haven’t got time.) An editor appears to have used too-closely paraphrased copyrighted material in more than one article he has created; but because I’ve been in content and other disputes with him, I think it’s inappropriate for me to try to remedy the situation by myself. In addition, he has already filed one ANI report on concerning me, here, and he’s got a quick trigger finger. I have little appetite for another even if it is swept away as easily as the first. Finally I’m uncertain about where or how to report the problems I suspect but haven’t got evidence for. WP:CCI seems right, broadly, but the instructions seem to counsel against my filing anything based on what I’ve got, and the dispute (which I’m assuming for now to be continuing).
The disputes and their resolution are all pretty well laid-out in the ANI. It’s not that long; let me know if you want to see more.
User:Ken keisel created an article last week, Anthony A. Mitchell, which was a close paraphrase of Mitchell’s Washington Post obituary. Text was reordered, but sentences or phrases were often left largely intact. Upon realizing this, I blanked the page and put up a template notice. Within a few hours and despite a copyvio warning from SarekOfVulcan, Ken restored the article to more or less the same state it had been in before I'd blanked it, arguing that facts can’t be copyrighted (well, true) and that his (lightly) revised version of the Post’s obit was fine (I disagree). He’s now blocked for a week. Since then Ken, still with access to his Talk page, has challenged Sarek to address Ken's assertion that the reintroduced text is fine under the copyright laws.
This unapologetic response made me wonder if perhaps the Mitchell article was not the only instance in which he’d copy & pasted material, and a quick review of just some of the 40+ articles he has created turned up one clear instance of shuffled paraphrasing, Kokosing_Gap_Trail, (the "Nature" section in particular) taken from here, as well as a fragmentary example of close paraphrasing, Olentangy_Park#The_1910s from here. I am guessing that other parts of that page are not original, and came from sources covering other decades. Several other articles, including Noguchi_table and Marshmallow sofa, are written in a style that does not seem to match the (admittedly limited) samples of Ken’s prose that I’ve seen in the course of my dealings with him, and while I’m suspicious of those, they cite extensive off-line sources and aren't as easily checked.
The upshot is that I have some but not a lot of evidence, plus some reasonable suspicion, that an editor has over a period of time been pulling together material from various sources, jiggering it around a bit and then adding it to Wikipedia. It's also possible that I'm making too much out of this and should find something else to do. In either case I think it’s inappropriate, in light of my history with him, to undertake remedies on my own; not to mention that I lack the expertise to detect and evaluate additional copyvios – if any – in any but the most blatant of cases.
What do you think is a proper course of action here? Thanks for any and all advice. JohnInDC (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I am traveling (will be flying home today), but this is concerning. :/ Looking at Kokosing Gap Trail, I can certainly see the issue you find. His defense that facts are not copyrightable is a familiar one, but cannot be used to excuse such close following as "it's not uncommon to see deer, wild turkey or a great blue heron skimming the top of the Kokosing River in search of food" to represent the fact that deer, wild turkey and blue heron are local residents--not when the source says, "It's not uncommon to see deer, hear the gobbles of wild turkeys or see a blue heron skimming the top of the river looking for food." There's obviously been an effort to rewrite, but the evocative imagery of the herons skimming the river is highly creative.
The proper course of action for you, in my opinion, was to do exactly as you have done--note the issue and point it out to somebody who is not involved with him to follow up. Needless to say, I'm going to have a lot to do when I get back to my desk, but I will add looking into his contribs to that list. :) Sarek has explained to him some of Wikipedia's norms, but there may be additional cleanup to be done.
(Anybody waiting for an answer from me above, I have only a few minutes before I have to get ready to fly home, but I hope to be able to catch up over the weekend.) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. This is helpful and reassuring. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. JohnInDC (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Re BOI again
Hi MRG :)
I've received a reply from the BOI admin. He has some trouble filling in the blanks of one paragraph:
"I agree to [STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).]"
Also, he wonders whether he really is not going to have any chance of withdrawing the agreement in the future, which he thinks is a little problematic as there can always happen something unexpected. I also think it's a bit weird because after all he's making us a favour and I understand why he would not like to be "trapped" forever.
Thank you. Shahid • Talk2me 17:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The standard choice is perfectly fine, if he wants to go for that. :)
In terms of it being irrevocable, I'm afraid that there's nothing we can do about that one. :/ Content that is published on Wikipedia, as you know, is widely reused elsewhere and it could even be fixed in print, which is one reason why the license cannot be withdrawn. It's the same for each of us; every time we hit save, we "irrevocably agree" to license our content. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Non free use rationale
Hi, I don't know if you missed my comment above, but could you please check over my rationale? I need to know if it is good quickly, as I need to respond to another user. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I have informed you how to appeal your ban. It is not through me. I will not be discussing this matter with you any further. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You've previously said that it's important for us to keep accurate records, so can you restore my evidence to the record of the community ban discussion? 195.195.89.70 (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This was not advice, but a simple statement of fact, unless you're talking about a different talk page. Clearly, WP:ANI is not your talk page, and you are unwelcome to contribute to it so long as you are blocked and particularly now that you are banned. While I feel it inappropriate to remove a section that includes comments from others, removing your comments is in keeping with policy until you negotiate a return to Wikipedia. Because you are banned, I will not be talking to you further about this, but please see Wikipedia:BAN#Appeals and discussions for accepted procedures for appeal. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Margaret, as I have neither a computer nor an email account, the guidance to which you refer is of little use to me. The following remarks are addressed to you as Liaison Officer with the WMF and thus have nothing to do with membership of the project.
The following false and damaging claims have been posted on this website: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community ban proposal:Vote (X) for Change and references in the banning log to "vandalism", sockpuppetry and a link to the above. Both documents are permanent records, visible worldwide. They are partisan and inflammatory and the allegations are untrue. In particular, the word "vandalism" nowhere appears in the discussion, and in the log the link is held out to be a full and accurate record of the discussion, which contains not one diff to back the allegations. It is in fact a vote - stacking exercise by corrupt administrators desperate to save their own necks.
You say that "removing [my] comments is in keeping with policy". I do not think so. A ban comes into effect when the discussion is closed, and the comments were posted before it was closed.
In any event, Courcelles was not qualified to close it, being "involved" as (s)he had a few minutes earlier blocked me while the SPI remained open. The guidance requires the subject of the discussion to be notified for the purpose of filing a response. It is implicit in that that once filed the response must not be tampered with.
The "sockpuppetry" allegation should be balanced by reference to the following. No administrator may ban unilaterally. The so - called "indefinite" block was intended to be infinite [4] and therefore invalid. The attempt to validate it by the ban discussion initiated last year failed.
As indefinite siteban is the ultimate sanction it can only be enforced if specifically asked for. Consensus is never a simple tally of votes - it is affected by the severity of the sanction proposed and duplicate or involved votes are discounted. Although the guidance does not set a fixed tariff, for bureaucratship the level is 90%, and for an indefinite siteban it must be at least that.
Please let me know how you wish to handle this. Can you (in order of preference) provide me with (a) your telephone number (b) your email address (c) your mailing address? If you do not wish to reveal your telephone number publicly it may be possible for me to get someone to email you with my telephone number. If I do not hear from you it will be apparent that you recognise that the "ban" is invalid. Best wishes. 195.195.89.70 (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
By replying to my post Margaret has already indicated that she wishes the thread to remain. Please do not hassle her. Also do not hassle me - comments such as "borderline threatening MRG -- toddle off now" are very juvenile and your removal of her comment is blockable - I would advise you not to try that stunt again. 92.24.107.88 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Every corporation must provide a physical mailing address to which communications may be sent. Please provide yours, preferably with the name and department of the person who will be handling this. Best wishes. 86.162.234.186, 16:45, 25 July 2011.
To SpacemanSpiff -- England 474 - 8 dec & 269 - 6 dec bt India 286 & 261 by 196 runs. (I used to work in the tickertape room). Hope you enjoyed the cricket. The inflammatory material has been taken down but there is still a link to it which needs to be removed as well. Over here we are told to be wary of websites which do not provide a physical mailing address - Wikipedia doesn't. There is a local contact, who bid to bring the Wikimania conference to Oxford a few years ago, but it seems that all we can do for the moment is await Margaret's return. I note that ErrantX, who is a key player in this, unsuccessfully ran for the Board a few weeks ago :)93.96.149.196 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Margaret, Have you been following what's been happening on ANI? They have now started removing other editors' comments from the page. Can you step in and restore order? 94.194.158.164 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See The Foundation's website, specifically the information at "Contact Us." I am an independent contractor and do not work at the Foundation's home office. I cannot tell you who will reply to your contact to that address. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the headsup. There are two addresses on the link:
Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
149 New Montgomery Street
Third Floor
San Francisco
California
94105
and
Registered Agent (Legal)
c/o CT Corporation System
818 West Seventh Street
Los Angeles
California
90017
Which one of the two will handle the matter?
The following is a draft of the letter I propose to send. Do you have any comments?
<snip>
217.169.37.146 (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter which address you send it to; if you send it the wrong one, they'll get it to the right person. That said, there doesn't seem to be any request for legal intervention, so quite likely you will simply delay response if you send it to the second address.
I've removed the actual content of the letter, as it is inappropriate here. Please don't restore it. I will not be commenting on content, except to note that you have probably a 50/50 chance that your letter will be read by a woman and that there is a much higher chance that this woman will have no clue what you mean by things like "AN". The Wikimedia Foundation does not manage content on Wikipedia, and many members of staff are not Wikipedians. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Anatolia
It seems that good chunks of this article: Anatolia are copy/pasted from this copyrighted source: [5]. I was going to slap a {{subst:copyvio}} template on the article, but thought I'd ask about it first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) That one looks like a problem under Wikipedia:Plagiarism rather than a copyvio, since the source is public domain. It should have {{Country study}} at the top of the reference section. I'm not sure how long ago this content was placed--it might have predated that guideline. Alas, I don't have time to check it out further. I've got to run finish packing! But I've placed the attribution tag, even though the link doesn't seem to be working. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You were missing the abbr parameter ("abbr=tr"), apparently it's required even if you have the country name. I've fixed it and moved it to an inline reference at the end of the climate section though if others sections also copy it they should be go the footnote as well. With the exception of that (and it could be separate templates linking to the individual sections of the work if someone wants to go that far), I believe it is as fixed as is necessary per Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Repairing plagiarism.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! So... I got a few more but it looks like you're quite busy. What should I do with them? Honestly, I have a suspicion that with everything going on right now (DYK etc.) once people start scratching the surface they'll find out that half the Wikipedia is all copyvios, plagiarism and close paraphrasing. Which would mean way too many problems and way too few resources. Don't know if I want to wish that upon you. Again, thanks!Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, here's another one (two actually), and this one's a GA: Ein Avdat, stuff taken from here and here (both websites indicate their sources which appear to be copyrighted and checking the Wayback Machine at least the first one dates back to 2000, whereas the article was created in 2009), and maybe here [6]. I haven't checked the other sources used in the article. Since this is a GA I listed it for review [7] (I'm not clear on the exact nuts and bolts of the GAR process so I'm not sure if I followed it correctly). However I thought you might want to take a look since the whole GAR process may take time.
The same user also created Al-Muallaq Mosque in december 2008, which is verbatim from here - this site existed in December 2007 with that text [8]. In this case though I'm not sure what the exact nature of the site is, it appears to be at least partially user generated content [9] so I'm not sure what the copyright status here is (it may even be possible that the same person created both entries).
Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
More CV GAs
In addition to the GAs I brought up above [10], Gazette Building (Little Rock, Arkansas) also appears to be mostly copied verbatim from here (DD: [11]), which predates the creation of the article on Wikipedia (May 2008 vs. Nov 2007), and which is a copyrighted source [12]. I think. I really could use a second pair of eyes to make sure I'm checking these things correctly.
I found additional copying from other sources. The article is now blanked. I also found a WP:FAKEARTICLE copy (User:Tdmcg82/Sandbox) which I also blanked. MER-C 09:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Massive sigh. :/ I don't know what to do about this widespread problem, frankly. WP:CCI helps in theory, but it's so understaffed that all we're doing is just creating a bigger and bigger list of people whose edits need checking. I've been urged by a number of people to push for more aggressive deletion in these cases, but I'm loathe to do so. Maybe I'm part of the problem for that reason. :P --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This user has been adding non-free content to the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology, Four of their edits have essentially copy-pasted segments from journal articles, where there was no reason not to paraphrase. Miradre's native language is not English and they do not write fluently in English. They have adopted the policy of adding some content to articles by copy pasting content and placing it in quotes, without direct attribution; there has been no attempt at paraphrase. The four edits that were copyvios are all described on the talk page of the article.[13] The fourth edit was made even after the precise policy for directly quoting text had been explained to Miradre. In this fourth edit they simply added quote marks around the copy-pasted passage with no attribution. I have not looked carefully at whethe Miradre's other edits have followed the same patterrn. I do know that exactly the same problem of copy-pasting instead of paraphrasing occurred on Malaria. Because of the quality of Miradre's written English, copy-pasting of this type is easy to detect. After Miradre's wikibreak and enforced change of subject, following a topic ban, I have the nagging doubt that many of their edits are being done in this way. What is the best way to proceed? Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Mathsci. Hopefully, the problem is more limited than that. I did a spot-check of contributions and didn't find any issues in the six or seven articles I looked at. If issues prove to be more widespread, of course, a more systematic approach to evaluating and fixing issues may be needed. That said, I've dropped a note at Miradre's talk page discussing in some depth how non-free content is handled on Wikipedia. I realize that you've laid the groundwork for that on the talk page of that article, but this can be very unfamiliar ground for those not used to it. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Complaints about Mathsci
If you look at Mathsci's edit the last 3 days he has done little except followed me around Wikipedia. Including to articles he has never edited before and made complaints and reverted my edits (almost never due to copyright claims). As well as making complaints to several different noticeboards. This seems to me to be just another, new part of his harassment campaign. But I welcome any scrutiny. I may certainly on occasion have made unintentional mistakes, such as missing direct attribution for quotes in addition to the footnote, but if so they are IMHO rather minor. I have always marked sources and certainly not copy-pasted lengthy texts.Miradre (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Anybody can edit wikipedia articles. I have made hardly any edits to articles recently (indeed this year). [14] I added a tag about the inadequate lead of Criticism of evolutionary psychology after Miradre's removed most of it. It is an article that many people watch. With Itsmejudith I monitored Miradre's controversial changes to academia. I am unaware that I have reported Miradre at multiple noticeboards. Miradre did suggest that Itsmejudith and I, as presumed academics, should not be editing academia because of a WP:COI. Itsmejudith and I then both separately and independently queried Miradre's charges of COI at WP:COIN, Miradre's position was not supported; he was given a warning by Atama not to harrass me. Mathsci (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I fear that Mathsci's answer misses some of the points. Le me help to elucidate.
Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles (unless they are banned) but not every edit is therefore permissible.
Need I go on? A.B.C.Hawkes (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by sopckpuppet of A.K.Nole
Hi. I'm afraid that I don't see any mention of Miradre at [17]. The COIN listing Mathsci already mentioned. However, while I can well understand that working on articles can become heated and that it can be uncomfortable to feel scrutinized, I'm afraid that I would just have to recommend Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if these problems cannot be resolved through cordial conversation. While I do work extensively with copyright concerns on Wikipedia and am happy to help out with issues in that area, the overall topic is certainly outside of my area of work, and I have no special authority to resolve questions about interaction. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, per checkuser and WP:DUCK, A.B.C.Hawkes appears to be a sockpuppet of A.K.Nole, a long term wikihounder, who is known to the current ArbCom. Before seeing this comment, his name was brought up by a checkuser as being related to another presumed sockpuppet of A.K.Nole and the above edit confirms that. I have accordingly scored through the edit (previous disruption of this kind has occurred during ArbCom cases). Mathsci (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. :) Certainly, his contrib history would have suggested he's a sock of somebody. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you are part of this group. I was wondering if it would be possible to get this article (and its history for attribution purposes)? Perhaps it could be placed here for 24 hours so that I may have a chance to recreate it at another website. Thanks for your time. Cogitating (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I moved it for you.--SPhilbrickT 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Sphilbrick. I got the article and history, so I marked it {{db-u1}} since I'm done. Cogitating (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl, a user has reccomended you to check over my free use rationale... if you don't mind :) My image is not yet uploaded, and I want to place it on a certain article, but a user states that I'm not giving enough reasoning for placing a non free image on the page.
This image is of a caertain size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily in high resolution.
An images that specifys other characters in the film. This should be adressed to readers when reading the plot to identify the characters with their names, (with the exeption of one character in the image). Other than the current image in the infobox, this picture gives clear names to define the four main characters in the film.
Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary.
Hi. Sorry I could not get back in touch with you more quickly, but I've been traveling and had only been able to respond to one message during my trip. (I generally work from the bottom up.) I'm afraid that I'm really not the best person, though, to give you feedback on this. I don't do that much work with non-free image rationales. I would myself wonder why we need an image of these owls, when there are owls depicted in the non-free poster already in use in the article. :) But you may get more valuable feedback if you ask at WT:NFC. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries, it is summer after all :) But may I ask, why do other movie articles have images other than the image in its infobox, for instance, Toy Story 3? Wouldn't the page look better with an image or two added? Regards, Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
You got me! I'm a bit thrown off by our NFC guidelines sometimes. That's why you'd be better off asking somebody else. :D For instance, I don't understand why we can't use a non-free image of Kristen Stewart, but we can use a non-free image of her for Bella Swan--even though the only thing remarkable about her is that she, well, that she's a teenage girl. (I can kind of understand needing a non-free image of Clover (creature).) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is all very confusing! (Even gets to the point where it is VERY annoying.) So would it be better if I just put this problem with the non free image for Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole behind me? It looks like it will only get more complicated anyway. :( Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I'd go that far. :) If I were you, I would at least try asking at WT:NFC. If they say it doesn't work, they may be able to explain why. And you may be able to explain it to me someday. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that is a great idea. :) I will be sure to ask the WT:NFC and maybe just get back to you to explain why if it doesn't work :) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this a case of closeparaphrasing?
Ref Sidalcea nelsoniana. Using Duplicate detector on the very first source itself, I found a slew of commonalities of very short phrases. Is it a case of fair use or copyvio? AshLin (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
If I may interject as a an editor who has contributed to many botanical articles and created some, it is extraordinarily difficult to come up with totally new ways of saying things about plants and their distribution that do not use the same words as other sources. If a flower spike has up to 100 individual flowers, that what all the sources will say, but it doesn't make it a copyvio. If it only lives in a particular locality then all sources are going to call the place by the same name. I think the editors here have done a pretty good job of re-phrasing and re-organising information to keep as far from copy-vio as possible. That my personal opinion but I won't be offended if other think I've got it wrong! VelellaVelella Talk 22:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you in this case, Velella. Mind you, I've just flown back from a trip and am a bit hazy, but it looks to me like an occasion where scientific language limits diversity to a certain extent. While we still have to watch out for following more closely than necessary in such cases, I think this one is probably okay. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
(insert generic topic name here)
(Yeah, I was too lazy to make up a section name) I keep forgetting to ask this, but I just wanted to make sure of this for once. This user was a alt account I made, simply because that username is what I use on youtube. (not trying to advertise) (basically, I don't want someone impersonating me by using my youtube username) Since this is the case, would it be a allowed legit alt account, even though I'll likely never use it? LikeLakers2 (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Not explicitly, but I doubt that it's a harmful use of a secondary account. What you do need to do, though, is claim it. :) See WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Step 2 is the way to go here. It can help you avoid misunderstandings down the road. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, thanks for letting me know! :D Yes, I know there are other admins out there I could annoy ask these questions to, but I guess I prefer to just ask you them. LikeLakers2 (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Looking for TPS with merge/cut and paste experience
This is not so much for MRG as for her knowledgeable TPS. I want to do something, while preserving the history, and I have no experience with the cut and paste and merge techniques designed to preserve editing history.
I'll try to give a short summary here, but the longer details are at my talk page: here
Short version:
The current text in Haroon Rashid was added by a single editor with two edits in history, both on 4 July 2011. The first edit blanked the page, the second add the text you see now. (other minor edits has added cats etc.) I don't think it would survive a BLProd, but if it did, it would almost certainly fail an AfD. I do think the redirect of Haroon Rashid Harun al-Rashid. However, if the current version is deleted, the edit history would be lost. What I would like to do is carve out the existing text into a new article, Haroon Rashi (engineer), let that one stand or fall on its own merits (BLProd, and AfD if needed), and restore the main article to the status of a redirect.
I don't know how to do that and preserve the edit "history" of User:Cutehr.
Suggestions?--SPhilbrickT 13:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't the simplest thing be to move the entire page to the new article title (reverting to the proper version if need be), then recreate the redirect at the current title? LadyofShalott 13:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
If I'm following you, that was my original plan. However, I anticipate that article being deleted. The article has a long history including an original formulation as a (non-notable) security manager. While not much would be lost, I'd hate to lose that history, in case someone whats to know what happened. The ne redirect would have no history, and if someone came along to add the security manager or the engineer, the page history would give no clue. Maybe that's not the end of the world, but I hate to through away the institutional history (I realize it wouldn't be totally gone, but what are the odds, a year form now, that someone would know to search for the deleted article Haroon Rashi (engineer) and review that history to find the real history of the page? Or maybe that's not a big deal? I'm probably making a bigger deal of it than it deserves, but I didn't want to do something and find out there was a better way. --SPhilbrickT 14:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit jet-laggy (and just got back from a vet visit, as my pet sitter apparently didn't notice that my dog was getting hot spots), but if I'm following this correctly it seems like the thing to do is split the article. I'm going to look at it more closely and make sure that I'm not missing something...entirely possible under the circumstances. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
All right; I've separated out the four different articles that have existed at that title (!) and turned the page itself into a disambiguation page. It may well be that every one of those four should be deleted, but I'll leave that to others to work out. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm in the middle of some template work, but when I finish that I'll come back and take a look at the results, and start the deletion process where warranted. (I knew merge wasn't what I wanted, but I had a mind blank and didn't think about Split, partly cause I've never done one.)--SPhilbrickT 15:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Understood. :) I've had to do a fair number of them; for some reason, I've come upon a lot of article hijacking in my career! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Atlantic City)
Is there a reason you have chosen to gut this article rather than address copyright issues? Thanks Djflem (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I did address copyright issues, by removing the text in accordance with procedures at the copyright problems board. You were given the standard notice of issues - including notice that the entire article could be deleted - and allowed time to propose a rewrite. You didn't. Neither did anyone else. It's unfortunate when that's the way it happens, but that's often the way it goes. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not find an explanation for why an entire article would be gutted of content and references including all parts which were not subject to questions of copyright. Can you point out that policy on the page you've cited. Thanks Djflem (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
No one is able to determine how much of that content was copied by you as opposed to what may have been authored. It is undeniable that content was copied. After seven days, as you were advised, the entire article may be deleted if the problem is not addressed. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins. In this case, as I often do, I attempted to salvage at least a stub. It is not the responsibility of administrators or copyright clerks to rewrite problematic content. You should be aware that several other articles you've written are currently listed at the copyright problems board; if you do not take responsibility for repairing these issues, they will almost certainly be handled in the same way, if they are not deleted altogether. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Both of the above seem to indicate that the investigator should thoroughly investigate each article before deciding to keep, alter, or delete it and that if there are clean versions in history or salvageable content on the page revert back to the last clean revision or remove the infringing text from the article, using an appropriate edit summary. As the copyright clerk specifically cited the sources where there were copyright issues, why would you choose to delete material where there were was none? Djflem (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
First, there is no clean version in history, as yours was the foundational edit. But beyond that, there is no reason to presume that you copied from only one source. You have multiple articles up for copyright cleanup right now drawn from multiple sources. WP:CV discusses handling of contributors who have been shown to have extensive copyright issues; we cannot assume that content you have placed is safe. This is why there is a WP:CCI opened to evaluate your contributions. At this point, policy supports presuming that all content you have placed on Wikipedia is a violation of copyright, but in practice we do try to make sure there are actually issues with an article before deleting the content. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
One presumes a copyright clerk has does his or her work before tagging an article, would properly identify the section and/or text at contention, and then tag it correctly if a s(he) felt there was an issue. One would presume that the investigator would look at the text and sources noted by the clerk and report provided in the tag. Do you believe that has been done w/ the above or any other articles? Incidentally, where and why does the opening of an investigation establish a policy that presumes anything? How does remove the infringing text from the article translate to gutting a article? Djflem (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It's understandable that you would think so, but perhaps you're less familiar with WP:CP. I suggest you review the language at the top of your CCI. This community-approved process includes the following text: "If the contributor has added creative content, either evaluate it carefully for copyright concerns or remove it." (emphasis added) I'm sure that you may have pasted content onto Wikipedia without realizing that this is against our policies, but unfortunately it does necessitate some clean up. I realize you may not always be happy with the process, and I'm sorry that we don't have enough people to carefully clean up such problems. Frequently, removal is the only option.
Incidentally, I am looking at the current crop at WP:CP, and you should be aware that another administrator has found problems with your proposed rewrite of Perth Amboy City Hall. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 July 12. Please be careful if you do attempt to help clean articles to ensure that you are completely rewriting content in your own words. I have not looked closely at the rewrite yet myself, but certainly can understand her concerns. For instance, the source says:
It was again burned in 1765 or 1766 when a man named Martin, angered by his earlier imprisonment in the City Hall on debt charges, allegedly set fire to the building.
It was again burned in 1765 or 1766 when a man angered by his earlier imprisonment on debt charges allegedly set the building afire..
This sentence is clearly a derivative of the original, to the point that every word in the sentence is in the original source, in almost lockstep order, with the exception of your alteration of "allegedly set fire to the building" to read "allegedly set the building afire."
You may wish to review Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, which includes some suggestions for how to rewrite content in a manner accepted on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind adding your observations concerning Paul's inquiry about the COI tag on the article talk page Talk:Paul S. Farmer? Thanks Opbeith (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that was a helpful intervention and I found it educational too! Opbeith (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Vic Reinemer deletion
Hi, I am one of Vic Reinemer's sons. I did not create the Vic Reinemer entry and was not aware of its existence. So now that I've come across an apparent deletion of it, I'm curious to know what it said, who had posted it and, specifically, why it was deleted. Is any of this information available?
Hi.:) The biography was a brief overview of your father's career. It was posted by an alternate account of contributor User:Pohick2, who has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia due to repeated copyright problems. Unfortunately, although he knows he is not currently welcome to contribute, he has persisted in doing so, creating new accounts against policy to add content. When contributors are no longer welcome to edit, their contributions are frequently deleted as a matter of routine, particularly when they have a history of copyright problems. The article on your father was one of hundreds deleted for that reason at the same time. The deletion of the article in no way reflects on your father; Wikipedia would welcome an article about him if created by somebody who was willing and able to comply with our policies. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to get a transcript of what had been posted for Vic Reinemer?
There are licensing issues with my providing you the full text, I'm afraid, but looking at it, it wasn't much of an article. It opened with the note that he was associate editor for his paper. It included a line about his college and three brief sentences about his political service to Lee Metcalf and James E. Murray, including note of his involvement in the Federal Advisory Committee Act. It gave the current location of his papers. It listed two books which evidently he co-authored and noted that he had received The Hillman Prize in 1954. The sources used in the article were the following: [19], [20], [21]. Most of the biography seems to have been taken with minimal alteration from the last source. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
If someone trouted Jimbo Wales...
If someone was planning to {{trout}} Jimbo Wales, what would they use? I'd say they could use a barnstar on him, since he is a/the founder of Wikipedia. LikeLakers2 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess one would need to figure out why they wanted to trout Jimmy first and then check to see if he is open to trouting. Generally, a "trout" means "Hey, cut that out" while a barnstar means "Well done." I wouldn't leave either one without a clear reason. I myself wouldn't leave Jimmy a barnstar simply for having been a/the founder of Wikipedia, as he's probably gotten a few of those already. I'd give him one for something he's doing now. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
When I said using a barnstar, I meant whacking him with one. (and I randomly feel like giving him a custom barnstar with this name: "The Barnstar of IMA FIRIN MAH LAZOR BLAAAAHHHHHH"; it picture would be a barnstar pic, with a Shoop Da Whoop in the middle, firin' his lazor to, say, the left) LikeLakers2 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
And mainly, I think troutings are not only for that purpose that you mentioned, but just for general messing around and having fun with people. Though its not to be used on me abused too much. LikeLakers2 (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
If it helps, this user once "whaled" Jimbo. I happened to be around Jimbo's page at that time and got into a conversation about trouting. (It so happens I ended up getting trouted, too.) CycloneGU (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Proof that CycloneGU iss right is located here :3 LikeLakers2 (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been suggested that, either in a volunteer or WMF position (use whichever is more appropriate), that you might want to observe this proceeding. A BLP is complaining about a photograph taken of her; meanwhile, the copyright holder of the photograph took it legally at an event with about eight other pictures (see Commons discussion). It seems that this BLP isn't aware of how Wikipedia works and is not happy with the fact that a picture and article about her are present on Wikipedia. Might it be prudent to take this one over? Your comments at AN/I are welcome. CycloneGU (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) I'm happy to weigh in as a volunteer. (As community liaison, my job involves interaction with editing communities, not really BLP subjects. In fact, until my contract expires, there's a lot I'm not able to do anymore at OTRS. :/) I'll come take a look. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
FWIW I wrote to her through the "email this user" function to encourage her to follow Voceditenore's advice. This is not the first time I've seen a BLP subject unhappy with an image of themselves; we can't always make them happy, of course, but even if we have to tell them that we can't remove the picture, it's a good idea to try to avoid making a hardcore enemy of Wikipedia. No reason to generate ill-will amongst readers and BLP subjects if it can be avoided. Hopefully if she does write to OTRS, she'll get somebody diplomatic. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, that's pretty much what she has to do to verify her identity. On the flip side, I've been involved in a BLP dispute of my own choosing before (no picture issue, mind) with Harold Covington and - well - that didn't go well. He seemed most of the time not to acknowledge the efforts of myself or anyone else to help him, even calling out a newly appearing user as an enemy of his from his blog (and THAT is colourful, I think it's linked from User talk:Off2riorob or perhaps his archive). Most recently, I saw a remark (see linked talk page above) where he accuses us of hiding five years' worth of discussions (which is was bluntly pointed out that it wasn't, and it was necessary to create this archive only because Covington continually removed things he didn't like from people's posts as an IP). Quite a colourful two weeks on that article and talk page up to now. He now writes very disparaging remarks against Wikipedia off-site, and frankly, I gave up on him after a couple of days. I can be patient, but when someone spits in your face in response, patience wears thin. =) CycloneGU (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
We can do our best, but it happens. :) We had one BLP subject write to OTRS who I was able to help (she had legitimate complaints, but the errors in her article were kind of mild), and she still talked about how awful Wikipedia is in her last letter. Didn't make any difference to her that I personally went out of my way to research and rewrite the problematic section of her biography. :/ Oh, well. I'm happy to say that more often than not, the BLP subjects I've encountered at OTRS have left happy with us, even if not always with their articles. Maybe those people will help counter the others. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It is my opinion, faulted as it might be, that those who don't fully understand how Wikipedia works will never be truly happy with what goes on here. How many of these famous notable people are among our highly active editors? How many are administrators? We might possibly have a dozen on the former (though not likely, they have better things to do, like photo ops), but on the latter, I'd be surprised if anything greater than 0 comes up. =D CycloneGU (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Depends on how you define famous. There's David Eppstein/User:David Eppstein (an admin), but I doubt he has too m any photo ops, being a mathematician. :D (That said, there are a surprising number of transclusions to connected contributor. 1914!) You're probably right about that; that's why one of the first things we usually do at OTRS is explain how Wikipedia works. Since I started my contract with the Foundation, I've been surprised by how many people call or write it, thinking that Wikipedia is professionally written and maintained! I thought everybody knew that Wikipedia was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I am a professional thread-closer at AN/I. =D But yes, I thought Wikipedia and what it is were common knowledge. I suppose a poll question should be used for a future game show regarding what people think of Wikipedia' it's been ten years now, it's good enough for trivia. =D CycloneGU (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Dispute about acceptable level of source use
Hey, MRG. Could you take a look at User talk:Ken keisel and either explain to him or the other editors who've chimed in (including me) what's wrong with their understanding of Wikipedia copyright policy? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure. I'm pretty sure he's on my list of "things I didn't get to while gone last week." There's been a lot of that. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Gracias. Sanity checks are good things -- after all, I might be setting the line too far to the side here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
No, you're not. Looking back at what happened to a bureaucrat and arb whom I quite liked makes amply clear that the community does not support his view. Policy is itself explicit; the word "only" in the relevant portion I quoted does not leave room to argue. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Your input appreciated
Hi MRG, you may remember a while back the issue we had with foundational copyvio at Vivian Balakrishnan, where we found text in the first diff identical to that on a government biography in 2004. It now appears this same text is available on his personal website licensed under a CC license. A number of anonymous IPs, likely the same user on a (very) dynamic IP, has repeatedly reinserted this material, going as far as to claim that the text "was obviously written by him too". My opinion is that we should err on the side of copyright and I absolutely do not buy what the anon editor is saying (there has been a much larger issue of pro-government POV pushing going on), but I will defer to your copyright expertise on whether or not this text is legit. Please be aware that the article currently contains this text, as it was readded today.
It would be helpful here to date this website, but I haven't been able to get WhoIs information on it. :/ If you could ask somebody at the help desk, maybe they could help come up with that info, which would advise us how to proceed? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
There are no Wayback Machine archives for the site, which leads me to believe it is a fairly recent creation. Certainly, I don't think it was around in 2004. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
That would be my expectation as well, but it's hard to say for sure since I can't get any WhoIs information coughed up for the site. :) It would be best if we could find out more definitively the age of the website, and I'm afraid I've got quite a lot of backlog to take care of after traveling this week. :/ Maybe a talk page stalker will know? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
If it's of any use, the most simplest of checks shows that the archive of blog posts on his website show the first post being in July 2010. That would seem to suggest the site did not exist prior to that, at least in its current form. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
That may be what we have to settle for, then. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Please check the legal position. The original author has published his updated CV under Creative License on his own website. He is a politician holding public office in Singapore. The purpose of this publication (and that of earlier government versions) is to provide relevant information to the public. The government must be aware of the fact that he has published his own CV on his website and has never objected given his authorship and purpose of publication. It seems strange for Wikipedia to now be unable to rely on WP:ABOUTSELF to use the material. Apart from legal perspectives, there is the question of common sense. How many ways are there of saying "His early education was at Anglo Chinese School and National Junior College"? Thank you very much. 220.255.1.132 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
NPOV - La goutte de pluie accuses many editors of COI. However, a detailed look at the history shows that she has consistently been pushing her own POV in the Vivian Balakrishnan page since 27 April 2011, the Nomination Day of the Singapore General Election of 2011. Her pattern of edits show her political bias and obsession with one issue. Furthermore, she has abused her admin rights in making questionable edits and even resorting to protecting the page when other editors intervene. This behaviour should make her subject to recall - which she has consistently declined. I am forced to use IP because of the risk of her targetting my contributions to Wikipedia 220.255.1.132 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
You should be aware by now that by doing so, you are committing sockpuppetry. Considering your edits are controversial and often contested, this is a problem and could (should, imo) lead to blocks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial about restoring material from verifiable sources to the article. This does not constitute committing sockpuppetry. Everyone on wikipedia, including you, has the right to use pseudonyms. Your threat to block illustrates why I have to use IP. I hope the full history of edits on Vivian Balakrishnan (dating back several years) will be reviewed by an impartial panel. The pattern of POI pushing by La goutte de pluie and allies will be obvious to a neutral observer. Thank you. 220.255.1.134 (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not the anonymous IP above, just so you know. La goutte de pluie removed the entire biography section in late June claiming it's copyrights violation and protected the page. She did not even try to put it back. When the page was unprotected, I rewrote the section in early June and placed it back up. La goutte de pluie once again started accusing the same thing about sockpuppets and copyrights violation. I am merely replacing my work because I do not see what is wrong. I am not related to the group of IPs/editors who have been trying to add Vivian Balakrishnan photos and replace text with that from his blog. I would also like to highlight that when the page was protected, I had asked La goutte de pluie to add new information on the page. She simply refused it, challenging me to be the one doing it, even though she knew the page was protected. People make edits to make the page more informative. For La goutte de pluie, I don't see how she's contributing. She just keeps expanding all the trivia sections and focus on the negative issues. I have seen no effort on her part to contribute, if she even knows what the word means.202.156.13.10 (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
User:La goutte de pluie is a self-declared lesbian - see her user page. Now we know why she is so fixated on a vendetta against Vivian Balakrishnan. She removed long standing material, and single handedly wrote the section on so called Electoral Issues - with undue weight and tried to paint Balakrishnan as anti-gay. User:Strange Passerby has a bit more careful in his edits, but clearly knows User:La goutte de pluie personally. So who are the people with a real COI ?? 220.255.1.153 (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I see that the content has been rewritten; this is always a good alternative when we can't be sure of the copyright status of the original. We can't assume that "the government must be aware" and that their lack of reaction indicates they don't care. The stakes particularly for our reusers are too high if we are wrong.
In terms of protection, if the page is semi-protected, you have the option to use your named account to edit it. You have no explicit right to expect others to edit it on your behalf if you're not willing to do so.
"Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP" is specifically mentioned as a form of sock puppetry. If you believe that any administrator is abusing his or her authority, you need to take action under Wikipedia:ADMIN#Disputes or complaints rather than violating policy yourself. Please be careful to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It's rather tenuous to suggest that EditorA must be biased because she is a lesbian and EditorB must be biased because he may know EditorA. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The evidence for the biased behaviour of User:La goutte de pluie is overwhelming if you take a look at her over aggressive POI pushing on this particular page since 27 April 2011. She had no prior interest in this page, but has since become obsessed. I notice that you removed the original page on the 17 May 2011. Although attribution remains, the actual edits prior to 17 May 2011 are not available to normal Wikipedia users. Please restore Vivian Balakrishnan entire history so that the Wikipedia community can see how much User:La goutte de pluie has pursued this action and judge her, and I can then take action under Wikipedia:ADMIN#Disputes or complaints. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.112 (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I am not logging in and "logging out to make problematic edits". I've made it clear from the beginning that the Starhub ISP I am on causes IP to jump whenever there are multiple users on it. Why am I not allowed to highlight information to be added and ask others to add it in when the page is semi-protected? It was stated clearly on Wiki page that anon IPs can request others with named accounts to add it in for you. Seeing how La goutte de pluie visits Vivian Balakrishnan's page everyday, why can't she show some initiative to add in relevant edits? Please kindly refer to the talk page. FYI, these are information that she insists be placed on Tin Pei Ling page even though I find it redundant but yet when I request she does the same for other poilticians, she refuses to expand the section and add it in. I still don't see you addressing how my edit is considered copyvio. The way his "early life" section is written now seems like a joke. And why was the word "originally" added to the statement " He believed in ideals like..". Isn't that La goutte de pluie's own POV again? If you want to talk about sockpuppets, I would also like to highlight that La goutte de pluie has been using sockpuppets to make edits too. So why wasn't she dealt with?202.156.13.11 (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I need to make clear here that I am not the dispute resolution board. :) I've given you a link that explains what you need to do if you feel that an administrator is misusing his or her tools. You'll need to follow those steps if you want the matter to be "dealt with". --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol is a trainwreck and has been for a long time. It is most unlikely that the majority of those who purport to patrol new pages even bother to carry out the most simple of checks requested in the task list at WP:NPP. The only way to fix the copyvio problem is to turn New Page Patroller into a user right, for experienced editors only. CorenBot will just have to be fixed very urgently, while those of us in the minority who are admins and experienced users who occasionally have a stab at NPP, generally carry out the controls you suggested. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Thanks for letting me know. :) Coren says he's talking to Google about it, and I'm really hoping we can get up and running again. That bot is crucial, I think, to the operation of Wikipedia. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
From my experience, NPP'ers usually pick up the obvious copy and paste stuff. CSB was good at the not so obvious potential copyvios.--NortyNort(Holla) 13:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Many NPPers can't tell the difference between A1 and A3, so they are probably a long way off recognising the ' obvious' signs of copyvio.Things should show a marked improvement when the new rule goes into operation next week to allow only autoconfirmed users to create new pages. FWIW, I've been patrolling the patrollers since Oct last year and I've come across about two (2) new pages that were manually and correctly tagged for copyvio. More recently, Corenbot was reporting a lot of false positives, such as phrases that are the long names of people or long titles of books and movies etc.
Is there a way of linking manually to the page comparison tool?
Do you mean linking the "duplication detector" tool which compares the two pages ([22]) in Corensearchbot's note? If so, once the search engine problem is fixed, that could be a good idea. Unless somebody had already done that and I've simply forgotten, which is possible. :D If you're talking about Earwig's tool for comparing a specific page to the internet ([23]), it's dead as well, since it used the same search engine as Coren's bot did. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the duplication detector. Corenbot was a brilliant piece of equipment - probably the the best bot there ever was in the first line of defence against inappropriate new pages. It must have caught hundreds of pages every day. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Just indeff'd an editor for copyvio
I've indefinitely blocked Arfaz (talk·contribs) for continued copyvio (following an OTRS complaint). He's edited/created a lot of articles which may need review. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I have to leave the computer so I don't have time to file the CCI right now, but this will hopefully save you some time Moonriddengirl if you want to go ahead and do it! Theleftorium(talk) 23:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. You guys are awesome. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Weird upload query
Hi, I am struggling to convince an experienced contributor on my talk page that GBooks is not the same worldwide. They cannot believe that this applies to out-of-copyright, "full view" books, with my point being that the book in question is not full view here in the UK even though it might be in India or wherever the contributor is. I tried pointing to Uncle G's essay and that hasn't worked; I even mentioned AGF. Bit of a mess, really, since this person seems to be claiming that their having had no previous sighting of this issue (in five years of experience and something to do with FAC) is a reason why I am doubted.
I have taken a screenshot to demo the GBooks page that I see but am unsure whether or not I can upload it, even for ten minutes or so. I rather think that FUR would have to be deployed. Your thoughts would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
(stalker) I don't think that it would be allowed, even with a FUR, as it is not for an encyclopedic purpose. Imageshack or something similar may work, but I'm not sure of their policies. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Issue now resolved. Why an experienced contributor could not AGF on the point is beyond me. But I guess that they have learned something. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad that the contributor has learned something. I remember what a surprise it was to me when I found that out myself. :) In terms of the screenshot, I think Crisco 1492 is probably quite right. :/ You can always convey it via private e-mail if you and the other contributor are willing to talk that way next time. (Understood it is no longer needed here.) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Heads up
I've just done this. Not sure if it represents an ongoing pattern or not. LeadSongDogcome howl! 18:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for finding those problems and fixing them! I'll have a word with him about our procedures for using text from other sources and have made a note to myself to spot-check to see if this is a pattern over the weekend, when I have more time to volunteer. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Your phrasing is much more diplomatic than mine. Cheers.LeadSongDogcome howl! 13:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Copy of deleted article
please can I have a copy of the article 'Surveyjet.net' so I can put it on WikiAlpha. Thanks Alicianpig (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I've userfied it for you and left a note at your userpage, in case you need to access procedural information after this one archives. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Reminder: New Page Copyright Issue
Hi, earlier last month we were discussing how to best rewrite an article I was creating in order to answers copyright and notability concerns. I think I have fully addressed those concerns, but since the article had been removed once previously I was hoping to get your opinion before trying to re-create the page. I just wanted to give you a kind reminder that the proposed page is available on my user page. Thanks again for all of your time and assistance. It is sincerely appreciated.Win.monroe (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for the reminder, although this is a little longer than I expected when I asked you to remind me again in a few days. :D I'm afraid that this is twice now that you've caught me traveling. I think the copyright concerns are addressed, but notability concerns are far more difficult to predict. It seems like, aside from primary sources, you've got two news articles--[29] and [30]? Can you find any more? I personally tend to be very conservative with that in terms of creating my own articles, and the more indepth references there are to this in secondary sources, the less likely you are to run into trouble! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly (especially after I dropped all wikipedia projects for an extended period while I was busy with school and work). I'm glad we've dealt with the copyright issue sufficiently. If any additional concerns come up on that front, I will be more than happy to help address them. In terms of notability, I will look for additional sources, but from my understanding the two articles are more than sufficient since they both discuss the topic in depth and detail and are from reliable sources independent of the subject. Should I hold off on creating the page for now? It seems to me that it is more likely (and probably more efficient) that if notability is generally established that the larger wikipedia community will add additional sources over time as the page evolves. Either way, I immensely appreciate your time and assistance. Win.monroe (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
It really depends on how you read Wikipedia:ORG. I am, as I said, very conservative with that in terms of my own articles, so I may not be the best person to advise you there. :) I like really solid sourcing to verify notability before I create an article. I've seen plenty of people create articles with fewer sources than I would have wanted for myself and those articles do just fine. If you want to get additional feedback, you might try pointing to the article at WP:DBor following the steps being considered at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Changing Howto article: Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft.
There, in a conversation that is having low participation, User:Mabdul is recommending that we encourage people who have userspace drafts such as this one to get feedback by putting {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} on the page. That tag would invite another contributor (ostensibly one experienced in evaluating new articles for such concerns) to look at the article and, if they think it would stand, to move it to article space.
Since none of us has any special authority in this area, there's no guarantee that this would secure permanent publication of the article. My favorite article could be nominated for deletion tomorrow. :) But it would be helpful to see that at least one other person who has not been involved with you thinks it is guideline and policy appropriate. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for all of the information! I will follow up with some of your recommendations. Thanks again for your time and advice. Win.monroe (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Article concern
In your eminently knowledgeable opinion, is this article too close of a paraphrase of the bio from this website? From what I've compared there appears to be entire phrases lifted verbatim. The material was added in a series of edits beginning here. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a problem. :/ I've blanked the sections and left the requisite notice for the contributor (notwithstanding his recent retirement). (Boy, I hated that website! Why would somebody make something deliberately hard to read?) Thanks for picking up on that. I'm going to guess it was the highly polished turns of phrase that caught your eye. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The website was painful. I felt like I was caught in a really bad Saw knock-off and I'm not entirely convinced I didn't have a small seizure while reading it. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
yoshiko chuma
hello moonriddengirl
I am the managing director of the dance company of Yoshiko Chuma, called The School of Hard Knocks. Several months ago, I submitted an article about Yoshiko Chuma, which you deleted since it resembled her webpage. I am also the author (uncited) of her website pages, so I would like to please request that the article about Ms Chuma be submitted to wikipedia again. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashadetroit (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your note. In order to restore the older versions of the article, we would need you to provide verification of license for the content at [31]. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.
However, I do need to let you know that it is unlikely that the community would decide to replace the current version (which is sourced to multiple references) with the prior content, which was brief and only referenced to her website. Wikipedia as a "tertiary source" prefers to draw content from secondary sources such as newspaper articles or magazine profiles or book references wherever possible. Certainly, though, we should be able to incorporate some content from the earlier into the current if permission is provided. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Possibly copyright violation issues
Hi Moonriddengirl. I know you're the expert around here about investigating copyvios and related matters. If not you maybe a talk page stalker could investigate but it seems that The Cloud (poem) might have some copyvio material (text) added in it by Carl savich (talk·contribs). The (many) IPs that have been editing that article also appear to be "in" on it and may or may not be Carl whilst logged out. Killiondude (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
(stalker) Totally copyvio. A goodly bit of it is from Cliff's Notes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both. I've tagged and listed the article and given the contributor proper notice. He's had issues before, it seems. :/ Hopefully this will serve as a wake up call, because now that he's received the proper block notice, the next step is blocking. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Crisco and Maggie for the prompt action. :-) Killiondude (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on my talk page regarding the article I wrote on Anthony A. Mitchell. I have taken your suggestions to heart and have fully revised the text so that not a single sentence bares any resemblance to the original sources. Please review my updated text and offer comments on the new version. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The rewrite seems fine. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
AF 447
Recognising input for copyedit from User:LeadSongDog and User:Moonriddengirl, two of the above passages and respective input on the main page is also corrected. Thanks.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyper Island until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Albacore (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Albacore and Twinkle. :) I'm surprised this page has survived as long as it has. Chalk it up to some determined employees? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Argentinian government images
Is there a list somewhere here which tells whether images from websites of different national governments are public domain? The images at [32] would be possibilities for our new article on Hylesia nigricans, but I have no idea whether they are PD or not. Can you (or a TPS) enlighten me? LadyofShalott 23:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There is no list I know of but the commons licencing page is very useful, so perhaps commons:COM:L#Argentina will help you determine what age such image for it to be PD. ww2censor (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I would guess that they are too new to use then... LadyofShalott 04:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately that's what it looks like. ww2censor (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
NP, I know you are busy elsewhere these days. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Plagiarsm etc.
Hi, I was wondering if you could clear this up for me. In cases where a source is old enough to be in public domain, and where the article pretty much copies it verbatim what level of attribution is necessary? I'm thinking specifically of this article Hayyim Selig Slonimski which is copied verbatim from here, which was originally published 1901 and 1906. The article does have some inline citations for particular sentences to the original source but nowhere does it say, "this has been copied-pasted from the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906)". How do we deal with stuff like this? Thanks (and I know you're over worked and I very much appreciate your work here) Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)This should do. The article just needs to attribute it uses the text and the copyright status of it.--NortyNort(Holla) 09:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. :) People like User:NortyNort have certainly done a lot to make things easier. :D And Volunteer Marek, I appreciate your work in this area, too. The more people who know about and pay attention to these issues, the better our odds of getting them under control. There's a whole category for attribution templates to help out with that kind of thing at Category:Attribution templates. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Delayed reply - I was on holidays :) Hi Moonriddengirl, sorry for the confusion - I will put next time all details on the related Copyright problems day page. I'm learning every time more :) -- SchreyP(messages) 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't remember any confusion. Sufficient unto the day are the confusions thereof. Confusions of yesterday? Old news. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 02:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Retirement
@Moonriddengirl. I think you have behaved in an entirely appropriate manner in your recent interactions with a user about copyright. If you take a look at the history page of this user you will find that he has a habit of retiring in a huff and then reappearing afterwards. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC).
Thank you. I'm a little taken aback by the whole incident, but I gather that there are great tensions between the two at this point. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 02:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
@Xxanthippe. Wikipedia is a hobby when I have time for it and access to the internet. I'm employed sometimes doing long days and I have sometimes to travel with no internet access. I'm also a father and kids require sometimes immediate attention. And this time I had long holidays also without internet access, but found it appropriate to reply a message from Moonriddengirl I couldn't during my holidays. In what sense is this habit a problem?
@Moonriddengirl. Now you confuse me: what do you mean with "I gather that there are great tensions between the two at this point"? -- SchreyP(messages) 07:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that's in answer to Xxanthippe. :) I was overdue for bed when I wrote that (particularly as I'm under the weather) and did not create a separate header. It's completely unrelated to you, but instead refers to this. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Oef, I got a little worried. Hey Moonriddengirl, take care of yourself. Your new job I presume takes also a lot of you. -- SchreyP(messages) 12:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
:D
You know whats fun? Making personal templates, userboxes, books made with Special:Book, and stuff like that, inside my userspace. I wish to say that the one personal template I do have is like Template:Subpages, but the difference? It actually shows a dynamic listing instead of a simple link. All it simply uses is "{{Special:PrefixIndex/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/}}". Perhaps you could take a look at what I have made and tell me what you think? (or you could even help make them better and stuff by editting them with some things that will, well, make it better. (or at least fix any problems one may have) I don't mind anyone doing so, so long as it isn't intentional vandalism) LikeLakers2 (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you're learning your way around that kind of thing, but, alas, I'm not the one who can help you make them better. :) I'm not in the least bit "techy" and recently had to ask for help at the IRC "help" page with fixing margins on my own coding! (I didn't actually know about {{Subpages}}. Brilliant! Dynamic list or link, that could save me a lot of time trying to remember where I've put stuff.) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Images where copyright has been purchased
Hi I have just logged onto my account after a long time not active - in part because of frustration at increasing bureaucracy to do anything, and in part that hard work was all to easily deleted by people who knew nothing about the topic. I see unfortunately the images were deleted in the meantime. Having read both your polite note on my page and your web page notes about copyright and deletionism, I see you have actually thought about the matter. I would like to belated provide an answer to you.
Let me give you some background to my views and why this sort of thing frustrates me.
AS you mentioned, you are not a lawyer. As you may or may have not noticed from the profile page I was a lawyer, though neither an IP nor a US one, so I wouldn't pretend any great expertise. However I do know enough to know the threat of a New Zealand copyright holder's first approach being to sue Wikipedia over hosting an image (rather than proving ownership and requesting it be taken down) is virtually nil - we simply lack the legalistic culture of the US.
As you are no doubt aware, Wikipedia tends to have an American bias in content. One of the ways this shows in insisting upon applying American law - and in particular American intellectual property law - to postings from the rest of the world about the rest of the world - in the past other deletionists have justified that by the all but irrelevant to the rest of the world fact the servers are located in the US.
One of the problems driving the US bias is Wikipedia's "Free Use" policy dovetails with the way the US government has released many historical government images into the public domain - but not with other countries. Most commonwealth nations have also allowed free publication of historic government images but in a slightly different way that hardline wikipedia policy makers are not flexible enough to allow use on Wikipedia; Commonwealth nations have "crown copyright", which usually allows reproduction free of charge, but unfortunately for the free use policy, with some trivial conditions which vary from place to place - typically these are noting the crown copyright, not altering the image so as to mislead, or misrepresent what it shows. Often commercial use is also banned.
Now - as is also the case in the US - all images taken by government employees are the intellectual property of the government. Therefore finding any images which are not crown copyright to illustrate a New Zealand article is almost impossible. To me the logical thing would be to create a category for crown copyright images but this has been suggested before by others and I understand from my point of view voted down by American free use ideologues who don't care if Wikipedia is unrepresentative provided corporations can use images off it in advertisements :-).
Even when - as a colleague did - permission was with great difficulty obtained from the crown to release an image for free use on Wikipedia, it was promptly deleted again because the deletionist could find it elsewhere on the web with crown copyright tagged on it. One reason why this is not a bigger issue is in commonwealth articles many clearly crown copyright images have been added and have gone unnoticed by deletionists.
Anyway as a New Zealand aircraft article writer frustrated by this, I was delighted to find a whole filing cabinet of aircraft photos from the 1920s to 1950s for sale amongst the estate effects of a PRIVATE photographer. Furthermore, after a lot of explanation about your policy and essentially WTFing from the vendor, they were quite happy to release the images of the photos I purchased into the public domain.
Naturally the 'tick which box of American Intellectual Property Law Applies to your image" was too simplistic to cope with this reality, hence my explanation. I have no idea what the usual WP:OTRS procedures are, had never heard of them when I added the material and searching Wikipedia for that produces a lot of German and no answer. Frankly I don't care; the images are no longer easily accessible and frankly my frustration with the increasing number of hoops to go through to add content and this sort of accidental well intentioned entirely within policy vandalism and has seen me give up.
I still think Wikipedia is a great idea, but since I see you are paid staff, can I leave with a plea you consider making it easier for new and occasional contributors, especially from outside the US, because it seems to my frustrated mind that the only thing not being deleted is the 9/10s of Byzantine pedantic policies comprehensible that just serve the tiny shrinking core of regular editors. Winstonwolfe (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) I do a lot with copyright work on Wikipedia (though not so much with images); a contributor raised the question of the license on this image at my talk page. I see that you purchased the copyright to this image, but I don't see any sign that you've confirmed this via the usual WP:OTRS procedures. Can you please send that documentation to [email protected] so that the verification can be logged? I've tagged the image as missing that verification, which may result in its deletion if verification is not supplied within seven days, but if it is deleted prematurely it can be easily restored once that verification is supplied.
I'll be watching your talk page for about a week or so, if you want to talk about the best ways to move forward. You are also always welcome to come by mine. Thanks, and sorry for the red tape, but when it comes to copyright we do try to keep everything on the record. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Other photographs seem to be in similar condition: File:Fariey IIIF of NZPAF.JPG, File:ZK-AFH Miles Whitney Straight.jpg, File:Gloster Grebe and Bristol Fighters NZPAF.JPG. File:Etrich Taube replica.JPG is also lacking evidence of permission. Given the breadth of the issue, I double-checked with an admin at Commons, who agreed that the tag was the best way to move forward here (at my talk page). Accordingly, these images have also been now tagged. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry that you're frustrated. I do understand. :/ I'll see if I can clarify and also improve the situation a bit by explaining why these deletion are not necessarily permanent. This'll be long-winded, I'm afraid. Please bear with me. :)
First, though, I need to make clear that there is a separation between my work as a volunteer and as a contractor with the WMF. As with all edits in this account, I'm speaking now in the volunteer capacity.
Since the Wikimedia Foundation is subject to U.S. law, it requires that content hosted on Wikimedia Foundation projects (like this one and Commons) comply with it. There is some flexibility in the "free use" provisions, as these have been largely determined by the Wikipedia volunteer community, but in all cases it is mandated to us as volunteers that this policy must comply with the Board of Trustee's licensing policy, which allows us an "exemption doctrine" "in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status" (emphasis added). This mandate by the Board means that, of course, our "free use" provisions must comply with both local approach and US approach, which may in some cases be more limited (although in others, such as the German Wikipedia, less--unfortunately for German Wikipedians).
There is room for user input on the rules of the "free use" policy, within that allowance. Anyone can propose changes to the exemption doctrine at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Other editors will consider whether it meets the mandate and best serves the project. (I won't pretend this conversation will be easy; because there is room for interpretation, there's a lot of room for disagreement!)
That explained, I'm sorry I didn't give you a more complete description of OTRS. I didn't mean to be unclear there. There are different processes for them depending on what you're doing, but all that is really needed in these cases (since you already have permission) is for you to forward the permission that you were given to the address I supplied. The volunteer who receives it should be able to evaluate it to see if there are any questions and follow up with you about it.
I do understand that this kind of red tape can be frustrating, but the policy requiring it does make sense after you've volunteered at the administrative side for a bit. One of the major reasons it makes sense is that content on our websites will (hopefully) be quite long-lasting. Copyright is long-lasting, too, as you know, and the Wikimedia Foundation needs to be able to show these license grants on future challenge (even long after a file uploader may have retired from editing and no longer be reached for comment). Without such a letter on file, content needs to be taken down on challenge. I've seen this happen, even when permission had been asserted, because we could not prove that it had been supplied. Since this may affect not only us but also those sources we encourage to reuse us (including books, which may need to be pulled from publication), practice has evolved to proactively collect and document license grants. These permission letters we receive are carefully logged with file numbers on each image and can be called up in a minute, protecting us, our uploaders, and our reusers.
The good news here is that the images are easily accessible; while they have been removed from publication, deleted content is not purged from the Wikimedia Foundation servers. If you still have the permission letter (and it is usable under Wikimedia Foundation's requirements, which can be a bit specific), administrators can restore them at any point. (I myself could restore any on Wikipedia, although a Commons administrator would need to do so on Commons.) All you would need to do is produce that letter to the address I supplied above, with a list of the images, and the volunteer response team will proceed from there. (The list of images is easily obtained, as it was left on your userpage. :))
Speaking now briefly as paid staff, the Wikimedia Foundation would love to make it easier for new and occasional contributors and is funding a number of studies even as I type working out how to do so. There are some complexities that are hard to easily overcome when you are based in one jurisdiction and working on international scope. But I feel sure that WMF will continue trying to overcome them...at least as much as they can. :)
Back to the volunteer side, we certainly need to do the best that we can to keep procedures clear and simple (insofar as we can). And I do hope that we can still resolve this issue satisfactorily. Please feel free to drop me another note if I can help with that or if I can offer any further information. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Want to see a funny discussion? Check this out
Since you are probably interested in discussions regarding NFC, reading through the following discussions might be fun:
Hi, could you revisit your comments on the article talk page with regard to the full list being a copyvio? It has since been re-added and we probably should stay consistent, if indeed this is a copyvio. Cheers Fæ (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that it's already been removed by User:Masem. :) I've added a hidden notice adapted from the one I recently placed in the 2011 Bollywood film article. Let's hope this helps. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The paper under discussion
Hi Maggie. The paper seems to be freely available for view here to everyone at the second author's previous place of employment.[33] Google scholar points to other freely available versions on academic websites. So I think the worries about piracy that Miradre expressed were unwarranted. Mathsci (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
If the paper is freely made available by the copyright holder, you are certainly welcome to link to it. The prior place of employment seems a likely one. However, we can't link to it somewhere that we know is unlikely to have licensed it or received permission, just as we can link to a news video on an official site but can't link to it on YouTube, unless the uploader is connected to the source. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Then you should be able to link to it, not only at the talk page but in the article. That should make things easier. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, particularly your patience, and apologies about any misunderstandings. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Question
Hi Maggie. I'm sure you're very busy, but there's no-one whose opinion on copyright issues I respect more, so if you could quickly cast your eye over something for me, I'd appreciate it. This section was something I wrote a while back, heavily quoting from an academic article, in bullet point form. It was supposed to be the ground work for a proper prose section, but I never got round to it. Recently someone claimed that this section was a copyright violation [34], though the decoration of the section with POV tags is indicative of their real complaint, I think. Anyway, is there a real concern here or not? PS Just so you know, this is currently an issue in an ANI thread, but don't worry about that, I just want your opinion here. Thanks. Rd232talk 09:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Okay. I have not looked at the ANI thread. First, let me say that I've found it slightly hard to follow since the duplication detector report is looking at a user page and not the source document. Now that content in question is actually at [35]. That said, I'm reading through it now. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Step one: the duplication detector has an option to "exclude quotations". Excluding quotations, the results of comparing the userpage are somewhat different: [36]. Leaving aside the wiki text matches, everything I see is titles. (Not sure why it isn't working with the pdf directly; it's supposed to. That's concerning. :/) Moving on to step two: human review. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Applying the strictest reading here possible, the biggest concern I see is the lack of intext attribution and some verbatim replication of Giannone's language without quotation marks. Looking at it here, you are quoting from Giannone, but not naming him in the text itself for text like "have pointed out that the index...." or "For instance, Scoble and Wiseberg...." (You did give him intext attribution further down, though: "However, Giannone (2010) finds....")
Giannone does not own the words in the studies he is quoting, but you do copy some of his words without quotation marks:
lack of specificity and rigorousness in construction
inadequate level of transparency and replicability of the scales
ideological biases of FH methodology
Whether this is a "real" concern depends on what you mean by it. :) I'm not a lawyer, but in terms of law, I'd hazard a guess that this is not substantial. In terms of policy, well, we are required to put words we copy from non-free sources in quotation marks in most cases per WP:NFC, and Wikipedia:Plagiarism urges clarity when copying words from people to ensure that we make plain who said what. That said, this certainly doesn't look to be a flagrant problem by any definition.
The final question, I guess, could base around whether you are too closely following his selection and arrangement of facts and, if so, whether this constitutes a Wikipedia:Close paraphrase to the point of substantial similarity or not. I don't think so.
I would agree that the content should be tweaked, though, because of the lack of "intext" clarity and the runs of words that aren't quoted. I have not looked at the extensiveness of the quotes and if any of these can be comfortably abbreviated in accordance with WP:NFC, but I will do so now, as I'm about to fix the material I think should be tweaked. :) The blanking for a week is unnecessary. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Your analysis helps remind me of the background, which was that this was a very dense section of highly relevant text in the source, and it was very very difficult to be sure of retaining the exact meaning without direct quotation. But it was supposed to be a placeholder; I was going to follow up by going to the sources Giannone cites and replacing his summary of their points with my own, and I never got round to it. The brief phrases not quoted I used because I couldn't find any non-trivial paraphrasing that didn't impute meaning beyond what the source justified, so I just left them there as part of the placeholder, on the basis that whatever (de minimis, I think) problem that was would naturally disappear as part of the rewrite from bullet points to prose. PS I'm not entirely clear about your point about intext attribution though; to me it seems clear that the whole section derives from Giannone, with everything footnoted properly. Much of the confusion I think arises from the placeholdery attempt to clarify who the sources are that Giannone is talking about in the quotations. Obviously, being retired, I'm not going to do anything with it now; but if you have time to tweak it enough to ensure it's OK (until someone can rewrite it properly), that would be great. Rd232talk 15:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I have rewritten it and closed the CP listing. "Intext" means that when we directly quote somebody, we don't just cite them, we name them before the quote. "John said...." :) When we do a lot of direct quotation, that can get a bit redundant, but it's hard to avoid. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean. I think that again that's because of it being a placeholder; if I'd intended the text to be permanent from just that material, I'd have written it differently, and it would have all been clearly attributed to Giannone in text, rather than just footnotes in some cases. Anyway, thanks for sorting this out. Rd232talk 15:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I can see how that would happen. :) Happy to expedite review. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Rd232 still hasn't checked the scholarship of his source, despite my suggestion that he look at Bollen's articles.
Rd232 has not claimed to have read widely and deeply in the social-science literature on human rights and democracy or claimed to be a statistician. If he had 2% of my competence, he would recognize his use of an unreliable and politically biased source.
He is not alone in editing badly and then complaining when I correct his mistakes. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyright cleanup is what I do. I understand that you guys are disagreeing over something, but you're already at ANI. (I've not read that thread; as I said above I wanted to keep my review mine.) I'm happy to help with copyright cleanup, but I'd really appreciate it if you could keep the other stuff at ANI. I'm not even able to keep up with the copyright stuff, but I'm trying to clear out some of that backlog. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I trust that the discussion has been moved there. You are welcome to strike-through or make-small or even remove the entire note if you remove the personal attack from RD232. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Just so long as it goes on elsewhere and I can keep doing copyright, I'm good. :) I've just spent over an hour on one listing and there are days of backlog yet, so I'm hoping to get a bit more done before I run out of time. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Maggie, I'm sorry about this, we're actually not disagreeing over anything, because I'm retired and Kiefer is welcome to do whatever he likes with the page, without concern about input from me. The only reason I'm saying anything at all is that Kiefer's aggressive and persistent accusations of copyright infringement required me to make some post-retirement comments to deal with that. I thank you for helping resolve that. I'll respond to Kiefer at ANI. Rd232talk 22:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
For the record, Kiefer is now declaring on his talk page that "Now User:Moonriddengirl has cleaned-up the copyright violation at Freedom in the World: Shall a stream of apologies be forthcoming from those who accused me of manipulative tagging of spurious copyright violations, duplicitously to further some political agenda?" i.e. that your edit is effectively a vindication of his accusation of copyright violation on my part. Do you think this a fair and/or accurate characterisation? Rd232talk 23:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, dear. One of the things I really like about the CP board is that, generally, it is low drama. :) All good faith editors more or less agree that we need to keep content free of copyright problems, and while there are occasional disagreements about whether or not something constitutes a copyright problem, we mostly just get stuff done there (albeit, with backlog, due to being short-staffed). All my edit did was clean up some content that needed a bit of cleanup. I can see why he would have found the duplication detector report that he generated alarming, but, as I noted above, once direct quotes are removed, the results are not so scary. There were a few phrases copied outside of quotation marks, which is problematic under WP:NFC, but as I said above, I did not see an egregious issue. Without looking at it, I would imagine it was maybe a dozen or so words, scattered. It needed tweaking to put that content into quotes. Too, there was some clarification about who said what. This is not generally something that would have been hidden under {{copyvio}}. That said - without looking into it - I accept that Kiefer could very well have been motivated by copyright concerns. These often come up in the course of investigating other issues, as people seldom check sources unless they either feel there's (a) a copyvio "red flag" or (b) a sourcing problem. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I just saw this comment. I was cleaning up the article, following your rewriting.
Please note that I clarified that you judged the copyright problem to be minor at the ANI, BEFORE I SAW THIS. I shall examine what I have written on my talk page and rephrase anything that is problematic.~Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This is not the first time that Kiefer has got himself into a difficulty like this, and rather recently too. It may perhaps be best if Kiefer were to take some time off from making public accusations of plagiarism or copyright infringement - on political articles, at least - and use that time to review the guidelines and policies so that he is clearer about what merits an accusation. When he finds an outrageous case of copyright violation that demands immediate action, he could send his thoughts privately to a trusted colleague, for them to take up publicly. This might avoid some of the problems we've seen. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, Demiurge1000,
Given your accusations that my tagging is politically motivated, I certainly won't agree to your political-article ban---particularly when every article I've tagged had a problem that prompted either extensive rewriting or deletion of a section or more. I haven't read any acknowledgment by you that there were any problems with any of the articles I tagged, or any appreciation that I have cleaned up many of them myself.
As usual, we should follow our own advice. Had you mailed this suggestion to a trusted colleague, who then suggested it to me, I would have probably immediately agreed.
Now, I shall remember the suggestion that I ask for advice, as a good suggestion, and I shall certainly remember Mrg's judgment that the Freedom in the World problems were not mortal sins. (I am curious whether any action would have need been taken after a week, if nobody had rewritten the section ...) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl.
I wish that I haven't caused you even a small headache. (I am sorry to read about the migraines.)
I rewrote the phrase that alarmed you and offended Rd232. I trust that the rephrasing is suitable, but I would welcome criticism and correction.
BTW, MRG, I examined the source and was alarmed at seeing so many paragraphs from Giavonne's page reviewing previous studies. I was surprised that the matchings were so low, when I consulted the tool, but reported its results because the tool's output is standard. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
To make the section more readable. I moved the most interesting and controversial section, alleging ideological bias, to the top. I added explanations of unfamiliar terms. I would appreciate your criticism.
There are some criticisms of the methods by the Italian fellow that are about specifics of Freedom House's reporting, which should stay, of course.
There are other criticisms that apply to all such indices; because a proper (expanded) discussion of any of them is rather technical and dull, I would rather drop everything that applies generally. (Perhaps such items could be moved to the article on such indices.) If you agree or don't object,then I/we could discuss this more formally on the article's talk page.
Hi. You'll need to change your annotations of Giannone's quotes to accord with WP:NFC policy and guideline. NFC requires that "Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)"." There is nothing to indicate that these annotations are not original to Giannone, and I'm not sure that there is a good way to mark that from within the quotation itself. You may want to aggregate the notes to a single annotation after the quote. But you can't leave them as they are, because that's potentially misleading, which is why it is against guideline.
I note footnote #14 has now become messy from a research standpoint. Formerly, it made sense because it was a single footnote reference for a single passage. It is now used in multiple points which do not all reference the sources used. You should probably make separate references, so that each citation accurately indicates what Giannone is referring to.
For content questions, you may wish to ask somebody who is involved with the article for feedback on your changes or request feedback at one of the many content noticeboards floating around. As I indicated above, if you have questions about copyright cleanup, I'm happy to help. But I do not have time to invest in this article, and I don't have any interest at all in the subject. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again! (I did ask another editor for a review.) I'll fix the bad footnotes about Gramsci and Wallerstein, as you suggested. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Moon! Over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#poppy tea article, a writer named Peter Thompson alleged that our Poppy tea article "draws a lot from" his widely published Confessions of an eBay Opium Addict. Thompson's report and our article are both rather lengthy, so I haven't been able to tell if there's plagiarism or copyright violation going on there. Would you be willing to look at it for me? All the best, – Quadell(talk) 13:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
(Stalker): Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6, and Page 7 look fine. Considering our article is written in the third person and his is in the first, a copy and paste is quite unlikely. However, if we have similar information it may be wise to cite his article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I can't help with any plagiarism investigations though. Hope I helped a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
That helps tons, User:Crisco 1492! Thanks. You've saved me a lot of work. :D I'll look for the kind of plagiarism that the dup detector can't report. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it, but it doesn't help that our article is not much fun to read. :P I'll ask for clarification from the author. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again, Moon! – Quadell(talk) 16:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing: on the same page in the "cc-by?" section, a user wants to know the proper protocol for reusing text from another website, where that text says "The material in this publication may be reproduced if [publisher and authors] is acknowledged as the source". He wants to know how to properly attribute in a Wikipedia article in this situation. I don't want to inadvertently mislead him, so I was hoping you might give a more definitive answer. Thanks! – Quadell(talk) 16:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure it can be. :/ Our license requires reuse and modification...that website doesn't mention modification and could well come back against our derivatives, arguing that they only meant to authorize reproduction. I'll suggest he ask for a more liberal/specific license. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi Moonriddengirl!
I just want to give you a personal thanks for your rewriting of Freedom in the World.
I shall have to read up on WP's policies, because I apparently applied the copyvio template(s) roughly. I really appreciate your help, which has ended the debate about whether there was a problem.
Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm always happy to help with copyright problems (time permitting). There are a number of different approaches to copyright concerns. I see that you figured out how to limit blanking to the specific section; sometimes {{close paraphrasing}} might be sufficient in a case like that, but it is harder for me to recommend it now that we no longer have a bot listing those articles at WP:CP. They may never been reviewed. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to run the Russell Woollen article by someone with more copyright violation experience. The original article was deleted due to being a copyvio (I was the original CSD tagger). The article's creator created a new version of the article. At the bottom of the article, the editor notes "This article is substantially drawn from Patrick M. O'Shea's A Stylistic and Structural Analysis of Russell Woollen's La Corona, DMA dissertation, Arizona State University, 1995, and is used by permission." Of course, this does not meet WP:DCM. I also note that I believe the creator of the article previously identified himself as Patrick O'Shea (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick O'Shea). Anyway, without seeing the O'Shea dissertion, I cannot say that this is a copyright violation. But given that the creator has had prior issues with copyright violations on this subject, states that he substantially drew matarial from a dissertation, and is probably the author of that dissertation, I think this needs further follow-up as a potential copyright violation. Singularity42 (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Always weird cases, but, yes, we need verification of permission. :) I've blanked the content for now and explained how to the creator. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Interview today
Ticket is 2011080810006695 and they want an interview on women contributors in 3 hours (you may have seen my email). You'd be good for this! Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2011080810006695 2011080810006695
Hi, Doug. Not sure if I can, because of my contract. :) I'll take a look at the e-mail. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you said on! I thought you meant with. :D I'm looking into it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Many thanks for your work on copyright matters RFD (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much! That's very kind of you. :) I try to keep up with it. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey MRG... I know, I know, I only call when I need something. But you're just so helpful!
Okay, so, I ran into this conversation at PUF. The contributor uploaded a large number of high-quality photos and licensed them under a free license. These same photos are at his website, without notice of a free license there. He got a lot of notices about these uploads and gave up on Wikipedia in disgust, sadly enough. I e-mailed him through his website (as I detailed in that conversation), and he verified that he was the same person as User:Dmitri1999 (which is kinda obvious if you look at his user page). Does something more need to be done here? Thanks again, – Quadell(talk) 00:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Pshaw! I've bugged you for assistance so many times.
The only thing that should need to be done, really, is for you to forward that to OTRS with a list of the images involved. Let me know when you do, and if nobody gets to it before I do it, I'll handle it. :) In your cover letter, just explain that you are verifying the identity of the uploader. permissions-enwikimedia.org should be the place to send them, unless they've been moved to Commons. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, great, I have forwarded the e-mail and listed all applicable pictures. Thanks again! – Quadell(talk) 12:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I see it; I'll go ahead and process them. :) Thanks! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. I am continuing contact with the photographer, to try to get as much information as possible about the existing images, and even (perhaps) to persuade him to license more of his work under a free licence. – Quadell(talk) 13:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Request for Close Paraphrasing Check
Hi Moonriddengirl, I was wondering if you could check Herb Kawainui Kane to see if the paraphrasing is too close. I have already used the Duplication Detector (results posted at the DYK nomination), but I am not sure if it is too close or not. Could you leave the feedback at the nomination page? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll be happy to take a look at this one, but it'll have to wait until I'm a bit more awake. :) Assessing paraphrasing takes more cognitive skills than I could muster at the moment. :D I'll aim to do it on my lunch break. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you feeling a little more awake today? You seem to have gotten swamped with OTRS and picture migration yesterday. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I never took lunch. :) I am a bit more awake now; let me take a look and see what's up. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again (and hopefully things aren't too hectic today). Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the double check and I will try and take your suggestion to heart. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Happy to help. Sorry for the delay. :) And the tool should probably default to the 5 word minimum. I may speak to Derrick about that. The smaller stretch is sometimes useful, but most of the time not needed. --User:Moonriddengirl 15:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
That might help. Thanks again. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
A Wikilove balloon!
For your work in helping to save many, many excellent images, including a few I brought to your attention, please accept this Wikilove balloon! You're a shining star of Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell(talk)
Thank you! But you did the hard work there. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I've rolled back recent edits, but I don't know if we need to expand his CCI. :/ What do you think? Did he do much text? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
CitSci.org plagiarizes Wikipedia
While trying to improve sources for Alliaria petiolata, I saw that the first part of the "Description" section is word-for-word identical to this article at CitSci.org. They list four sources, but Wikipedia isn't one. At first, I thought we plagiarized them, but after carefully inspecting the history, it's clear that they plagiarized us. Is there a list of pages that are known to have plagiarized Wikipedia, so that we don't accuse our own articles of plagiarism when they are similar to one of those sources? – Quadell(talk) 19:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not MRG, but you can place the template {{Backwardscopy}} (filling in the appropriate URL) on the article's talk page to preclude anyone's identifying our article as the copyvio. Deor (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly right. :) And if you see that the website has copied from multiple articles, you might want to list them at Wikipedia:Mirrors. Though I'm not sure that people check against that list very often; frankly, I seldom think of doing so myself. :/ Still, I try to keep it up to date with what I find. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Public domain and movie trailers revisited
Hello, there is a discussion here about certain movie trailers and the public domain. I saw that you discussed it a few months ago here, but there does not seem to have been a final answer. Any suggestions on how to follow up? Please comment at the new discussion! Erik (talk | contribs) 19:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I wish I had a concrete answer for you! I've made a fairly useless comment there. You've already got User:Quadell involved, but you can still ask for more input at WP:MCQ, if you like. That's where I would have gone with it myself. Most of the people who hang out there seem to be pretty up on such issues. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
RFA question (sort of)
Does anybody check Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls? I'm considering looking for a nominator after the snafu at DYK settles down, but it would be nice to know that I may have someone looking into me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea. I've never seen that category! :O Have you considered looking at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status? I've thought about adding myself to that list, but for the next little while my time is limited in this capacity and my focus is so niche that I'm not sure I'd get many takers. :) (Sadly, not so many people want to be "copyright" admins. :/) Is it culturally frowned upon these days to self-nom? Some of our best have done it. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
@MRG - there are still a few who will oppose a self-nom, simply because it is a self-nom. Not enough to derail a bid by themselves, so only worth worrying about if your goal is an unopposed bid.
I don't know if it is taboo, but people who are nominated generally have a higher approval rate... if I remember correctly. RFA can be scary enough without having to worry about the headache that is copyright; I think the last comment here may be a general feeling in the general populace. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: I've seen it already... just don't feel comfortable asking someone I don't know yet.Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
If you want an introduction, let me know. :) I know quite a few of those people. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyright check
I would like to do a copyright check on some of the articles I have created or improved. Is there something similar to the duplication checker which checks an article against the web?RyanVeseyReview me! 13:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yikes, I was going to point you to User:CorenSearchBot/manual, but I just read the announcement. That may well be why you are asking.--SPhilbrickT 13:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The only thing I have now is this external checker, which is a bit of a pain, as it can't exclude mirrors and you must exclude footnotes when copying content into it. :/ Generally, I find it's easier to just spot check a few striking phrases. And hope Coren works things out with Google quickly! --User:Moonriddengirl 13:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Jeeze, maybe Wikipedia has to get an account on Turnitin :) I was freaking out because every sentence of my lead was labeled possible plagiarism and then I realized it thought I plagiarized Wikipedia.RyanVeseyReview me! 14:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, MRG. I'm reviewing the GA nomination of John Neild, and I was wondering if you could help me determine if there are copyright problems. The author has heavily used this biography, and adequately credits the source. None of the information is copied word-for-word... but there are many tracts in which each sentence of the article corresponds to consecutive sentences in the source. Check out the three paragraphs in the "Early life" section of our article, and compare to the first two paragraphs (and first two sentences of the third paragraph) in the source. See what I mean?
On the one hand, we can't allow close paraphrasing of a copyrighted source, especially in Good Articles. On the other hand, there are only so many ways to state facts in someone's life, and we kinda have to order biographical statements sequentially, just as the source does. So is this (A) a serious problem meriting a {{Copyvio}} tag, (B) a minor problem that should be fixed before GA status is attained, or (C) not a problem?
(As an added concern, his other principle source is a hardcover book which is not available online, even in snippets, and I have no way of knowing how close the text is followed at this source.)
Thanks again for your help, – Quadell(talk) 20:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Quadell. I couldn't ask for a better description than this, by the way. :) Which is helpful, as I am struggling on day 3 with a persistent and annoying migraine. I can medicate it into near-submission, but it just won't go away. :P
Migraine or no migraine, it's immediately obvious what troubles you in comparing the two documents. I also understand why you're a bit concerned about the hardcover. :/ I think I would opt for (B) here. It does follow lockstep on the source, but it is as you note sequential biographical detail. It's not so devoid of creativity than it cannot be altered, but it's close enough that I don't think it warrants immediate removal. If he were not actively working on it, I'd be inclined to tag it for {{Close paraphrasing}}. I'd recommend that he try to mix it up a bit--are there are any biographical details of the period that can be obtained from other sources to break the reliance on the single source? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl. Sorry to bug you but I have a something I want a seond pair of eyes on. User:HighKing has been one of many parties involved with the disute over the inclusion/removal/alteration the term 'British Isles' from WP articles. This dispute is covered by WP:GS/BI. HighKing has a series of cautions from me about edits from June of this year to present[37][38]. He was formally warned to stop edit warring with user Stemonitis in the last 24 hrs (see[39]) and reverted him on a new article today spilling over from the dispute at the Myrmica_ruginodis article. However (and this might seem wonky but I know this action will creat a s**t-storm so I want 'all my ducks in a row') he questioned my warning and made this edit while I was in the middle of confirming that warning. Thus I want another uninvolved admin to review and give another POV on whether sanctions are warranted. I have come to the opinion that it has and have sanction TB01 (topic ban from article but allowed to discuss) from the list of remedies available at WP:GS/BI in mind. Sorry to dose this on you but I'd really appreciate some input--Caililtalk 18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
A history of this dispute can be seen at WP:BISE however it is a very long one--Caililtalk 18:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Please note also that HK as his self reverted - see here[40][41] - this hsould probably be taken into account but I would still like your POV on this--Caililtalk 19:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It should also be noted that this latest BIs 'drama' is intimately related to User:MickMacNee's recent 'departure', and his determination to pull down the tent before he left. RashersTierney (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for my delay, but I sometimes have a hard time getting back on in the afternoon. :) I've got a doctor's appointment in a few minutes, and I'm going to need a little bit of time to look into this--I hope to be able to get back with you in about an hour. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Okay, first, this is obviously outside of my usual area. :) I agree with you that sanctions seemed called for (TB01 sounds like a good one) prior to the self-reversion. I don't know if the self-reversion is sufficient, because I do not know the editor's pattern as well as you do. Do you believe that (if MickMacNee was an aggravating factor) the contributor will be able to work within the general sanctions now? I gather from your earlier notes to him that you regard him as generally a productive contributor. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at his Moonriddengirl. In fairness to Rashers's point, MickMacNee did insert himself into a conversation about the harassment of HighKing (an ongoing problem on and off site) trying to cause trouble but I shut that down. So as regards this issue, MickMacNee has in no way shape or form been involved either with my review of HighKing's edits since June or with this last issue. He had no impact on the series of edits in question. I agree, the self reversion gives pause for thought - as it shows HighKing understands what the community's problem with this type of edit is. HighKing's contrib history, while not a single purpose account, is dominated by removals of the term British Isles. However, in the last 4-8 weeks the majority of those edits are explicitly mandated by policy. (There has indeed been action at least in the past by 'the other side' to insert the term in articles without sources. That said the confrontation with Stemonitis is not part of that dispute, as far as I can see Stemonitis is correct in his edits.) Perhaps there is another remedy that can be tried, a 0RR (zero revert restriction) for HighKing on the British Isles naming topic widely contrued. But before we go further with that - you've got mail. I'll come back to this again later tonight but thanks for your time and your thoughts, it's always good to thrash these things out with someone who's got a fresh eyes--Caililtalk 15:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Note: there are issues outside of Wikipedia that make this a sensitive subject to discuss publicly, but I feel it's necessary at this point to note here that I support at least a 0RR restriction on HighKing. He is evidently familiar with Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log which notes that "Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors." "according to Flora Europaea" is not "clear sourcing" for this edit (or [42], this, [43], etc.) On July 25th, another contributor at HighKing's talk page recommended that HighKing take a break, noting "[y]ou're still labouring over replacing/removing British Isles wherever possible." HighKing took issue to that, without diffs, but actions such as the ones I've just linked seem to support that. Given the level of disruption that ensues when agendas of the sort are pursued, it is not in Wikipedia's best interests to allow it to continue unchecked. Since HighKing is by no means interested in only this one activity, putting a halt to it would not prevent his constructive contributions, but I defer to Cailil's greater experience in the area if he does not think a topic ban is the best approach. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if you've my Talk page on your watchlist - I've responded to your specific concerns there. I'll also add that the comment you refer to above was by an editor called GoodDay, and should be understood in the context that he has been admonished several times by editors and admins alike for making general comments such as these on numerous Talk pages. --HighKing (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You're too kind. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record GoodDay is a conflict junkie on BI pages. He makes no contributions to content, but leaves provocative comments at the least excuse. If there is no BI dispute for a period he will either initiate an edit, knowing it will be provocative, or will go to one of the known edit warriors and ask why they have not been active for a period. You would have to be a saint not to react that that particular Troll; lowgrade disruption, always pulling back at the point where he might be blocked, its very disruptive and HighKing cannot be blamed for reacting. --SnowdedTALK 14:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You're behind the times. It's been ages since I've asked anybody why they don't fight over BI. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Question about "reciprical" editing
Hi Moonriddengirl!
It's been a while. Hope you've been having fun dealing with copyright concerns. Quick question:
If my company wants to make corrections to their article but, obviously, shouldn't be editing it since we have a conflict, is it appropirate (allowed under conflict policies, etc.) for us to go to a competitor (who appears to be editing their own page I'd say inapropriately but maybe not knowing that they shouldn't be) and suggest that we submit edits to one another in a reciprical fasion, rather than each editing our own pages (since I won't do that, I'm not sure how else I'd get the edits done)?
(talk page stalker) The policy allows you to make edits carefully, so you wouldn't have to trust your competitor. If something is veritably false (as shown through references to reliable, third party sources), it could be changed. However, to avoid COI problems you should make sure to follow all of the policies to the letter (as shown at the 4th criteria on that page). At least, that's my reading of the policy. Just keep #4 in mind. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
That's very good advice, Crisco 1492. :) For changes within the guideline, Ludasaphire, you can do them directly.
Your company would also have the option of proposing edits on the talk page and placing {{Request edit}} next to it. My observation suggests that you are more likely to get response to this if your edits are incremental. I wouldn't propose a major rewrite in this way, but only a paragraph or two here or there.
You might also go to the conflict of interest noticeboard and ask the editors there to review your proposed changes and, if they think them neutral, implement them. I've seen that successfully used before.
In terms of reciprocal editing, well, I think the thing you'd really have to be careful about there is an appearance of "meatpuppetry", a lovely term which refers to contributors solicited to promote the interest of another user. If you entered into an arrangement like that with a competitor, I would recommend being very open about what you are doing at the talk page of the article and being scrupulously neutral in any edits you make. The fact that the arrangement is reciprocal may be seen as a "conflict" in itself, if it seems likely that you would be inclined to slant your writing in favor of your competitor in the hopes that they would do the same for you.
If I were you, I would either go the {{Request edit}} route or the WP:COIN route. If you want to talk more about how to do that, let me know. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Crisco and Moonriddengirl.
Based on your feedback I'll drop the "reciprocal editing" idea. Instead, I'll write up an internal policy for how we should update our Wikipedia article using your suggestions. Depending on how they turn out, maybe I'll propose them be added as guidance on Wikipedia since I bet there's a lot of marketing people within corporations, not-for-profits, law firms, accoutning firms, and on and on, who would find specific guidance in this area helpful.
Thanks again!! Ludasaphire (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Vincent Versace
You have deleted my article about myself because of copyright issues with the bio that I wrote about myself that is on the Acmeeducatioanal.com website that is owned by me. HOW can I be in copyright violation of my own copyright? There is no such violation under the 18976 copyright act Copyright holders do not self violate the copyright they hold when they use their copyrighted material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.156.252 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. The article was deleted because permission was not verified after more than a week was permitted to verify. If you were the contributor of that content, you were given information at your talk page on how to verify. As we have no means of verifying identity on account creation, we do need you to follow those processes if you wish to reuse content you have previously published elsewhere. Please let me know if the note at your talk page does not make the procedures clear. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Carotid siphon
Hi MRG,
You probably shouldn't have gotten rid of the 'carotid siphon' article. Emphasis on probably. I'm actually pretty sure the source from which I was accused of copyrighting from actually copied the Wikipedia page. I take responsibility for not defending the page earlier (got a full-time job now, didn't before). Anyway it's no biggie. I don't really care too much. Good work on Wikipedia overall. Jefferson61345 (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) Thank you for the note. I'm afraid, though, that the source predates the Wikipedia article by more than a year, according to the Wayback machine. It was a very short article, and it's possible that similarities were circumstantial, but I'm afraid that in these cases we don't have much choice but to be cautious. The structure of the two was extremely similar. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 02:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
For your tireless work on copyright problems. :) Obsidi♠nSoul 20:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! And especially thank you for finding the problem. :D With CorenSearchbot not functioning at the moment, we really all need to keep a good eye out for these issues, or I'm afraid we'll be swamped. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Not merely on removing it, but the additional work on using the plagiarized sites as a source to at least leave the article a 'respectable' stub is particularly very nice of you. :) I wonder, would it help If I do things like that beforehand just so it won't be that much of a problem when it reaches the noticeboard? i.e. attempt to patch copyvio'd text with acceptable text, even if not quite at the same level of detail pre-copyvio. Not that I actively hunt copyvios though, I prefer article writing and losing my temper in discussions I really didn't care about that much anyway. LOL. -- Obsidi♠nSoul 20:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It's always helpful. :) I try particularly to help out in articles that experience tells me are likely to be repeated targets of copyvios. School articles fall into that category. If there's a void and people want to fill it, they're more likely to paste, particularly if they are (1) not good at expressing themselves (in English or just in general :D) or (2) part of a culture not that bothered about copyvio. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 03:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Heh gotcha. I was afraid that attempting to fix it beforehand would somehow invalidate the copyvio investigation process. Will do, cheers. :) -- Obsidi♠nSoul 04:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Another set of eyes needed
I just came accross some strange uploads and I nominated File:Tenbyoil1996.jpg and File:Sea empress2.jpg for deletion as Copyvios. Amonst the other uploads of the user I found File:Stackpole Elidor Church Wales May 2010.jpg which has the cryptic remark WWP as author which leads me to believe that is a lifted image as well but I can't place the acronym unlike the CCW used on the two images I nominated. Also the user created a rather well written article Sea Empress oil spill in one sitting and then redirected the previously existing article MV Sea Empress as a merge It is not a cut and paste move but I have a stomach feeling that something fishy is going on. Can you have a look? Thanks Agathoclea (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Very strange. The article has a lot of red flags for copyright issues, but I don't find any text matches doing random spot checks throughout the article except Wikipedia mirrors. The merge may have been done in response to this, but this user gives every evidence of being experienced from the get-go. His first edit shows familiarity with edit summaries. There's the option of tagging the talk page of the article {{cv-unsure}}. As to the image, I haven't found a match for it anywhere. It's strange that he lists CCW as the author but indicates he took the photo himself. (Is that an autofill thing?) I'll take a look around a bit more in the morning. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 03:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged each image with {{subst:npd}} instead, because the uploader didn't provide any evidence that the copyright holder of each image had released each image under a free license. Jsayre64(talk) 01:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
...in case you're running out of work. :) Hi MRG! I decided to look over some recent DYK noms and on the 3rd one ran into Surajt88 (talk·contribs). It appears that basically every substantive article edit they have made is a copy-paste, with either very minimal or usually no rewriting at all. If you look at my contribs over the last day, you'll see what I've found and removed. Some questions:
At Stand-alone inverter I removed one clear copy, but I'm uncomfortable with the rest. I rather suspect there is more copying, but it becomes difficult to spot as there is so much interleaving of sources, and I'm not clear on whether "slicing and dicing" as in the Features and Applications sections crosses the threshold of impermissible copying. Can you have a look? I'm not sure whether removing everything as presumptive copyvio is in order here or not.
Some of their articles have been userfied, do these need to be further checked for copyvio, or blanked?
Do we need a CCI? I'm basically going through their new articles one-by-one anyway, but not sure what to do about any loose ends I leave behind.
And is rev deletion in order here, or is my slacker approach enough? ;)
I've raised the issue on Surajt88's talk page and they haven't returned to editing yet, so I'm going to wait a while for their response. Just wanted to bring it to your attention for now. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no doubt this is a case of mass copy/pasting, but. The editor appears well meaning and a newbie, from India, where copy/pasting is a norm. Thus I felt like trying to make the author rewrite their articles, which is why userfied some of them which I immediately saw (delisted them all from DYK suggestion page). It would be a pity to lose a prolific contributor by drastic measures, thus I think a soft approach is worth trying in this case. Note that my measures were a quick reaction and are likely incomplete. Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree the editor seems well-meaning and that they may find it a great surprise that the work they are most proud of may be largely invalid. That's why I'm waiting for their response before moving ahead, There seems to be some good material there and it would be much better to keep the editor, minus the bad habit. Hopefully they will respond soon, but I vculd understand someone taking a few days off when they get that kind of news on their talk page. Franamax (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Franamax, Materialscientist. Good to see you. :D First, I really like the approach that both of you took to this contributor at his talk page. I really hope that we can convince him to stick around and conquer these issues, and I agree with you, Materialscientist, that this is a cultural problem.
The question of a CCI: oi. Well, first, CCI is barely functioning. There are some contributors who keep working there (I'm sure there are more, but I regularly note and appreciate the efforts of User:Wizardman and User:MER-C) and I intend to dive in hard core once my contract ends, but it's got major limitations in getting things done. That said, it's the only option we really have if a contributor's work is too extensive for you to go through yourself or in a timely manner. (Back note: CCIs used to be something I did, unofficially, in my own userspace. Until it overwhelmed me. :)) If he's got too much to do for you to look at it, Franamax, the CCI is the best option.
In terms of rev deletion, we sometimes do, sometimes don't. :) If you don't, you need to be especially clear that you're removing copyvios to prevent later inadvertent restoration. I usually do when content is extensive, because I have myself inadvertently restored copyright problems. (Contributor introduced identified copyvio in edit 12, say, of an article, and I reverted back to edit 11--not knowing that his copyvio had replaced an earlier one by somebody else.) But what really matters is just getting the stuff out of publication. The first community wide CCI we did, we didn't bother with rev deletion--we just stubbed everything the guy ever wrote. (User:GrahamBould).
Just let me know if it's more than you can / want to handle alone, and I'll do the needful. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I have responded to the concerns in my talk page. I have asked one of the articles to be reviewed here. I would welcome your comments there. Thanks. SurajT 11:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Please look into User:Surajt88/Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 when you can and please inform me if I can move it, so I can assure myself that I'm doing it right. Thanks. SurajT 08:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of Duane Hitchings " Captainhit"
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I believe I had contacted you before about my deletion of me - Duane Hitchings "Digital Hitch". I had an article on me and my history as a songwriter and musician when Wikipedia first started. Following is the first letter I sent you. Thank you. Duane Hitchings ( By the way, I no longer want "Captainhit" included in my credits. I have NO idea why Wikipedia put that on their page for me. I use that sometimes to keep my privacy and real name private on music and music business sites before "checking them out" Below is the letter I sent you.
I was shocked to find out I was deleted from Wikipedia for "blatten copyright infringements". I just found out about this recently. Everything that was on my page was/is true. Example. I was a co-writer of the super hit "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" by Rod Stewart. Long story but my name was mistakenly left out as co-writer. It took forever, but my name is now listed in SOME later "best of albums". I have co-written 3 other hits with Rod – “Young Turks”, “Infatuation” and “Crazy Bout Her”. I have also written other hits and have songs for major artist's releases ( Heart, Pat Benetar, Michael Bolton, Dennis Lambert of the Temptations – my bass line and chords have been sampled on over 120 hip hop and rap artists including Tupac , Notorious Big, Snoop Dogg, Lil Wayne, N-Trance ( Europe) etc. . I am a Grammy Award winning song writer with Kim Carnes and Craig Krampf for a movie called Flashdance - "Home Where The Heart Is". I am also a well known musician/keyboard player since 1968 having recording playing/credits with Jimi Hendrix, Buddy Miles, Cactus, etc. Two notes on Rod Stewart's " Blondes Have More Fun" album - John Jarvis, a friend of mine, was not the main keyboard player on that album, I was -- AND David Foster played the Fender Piano on "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" with me playing synth and organ. I wish you would look into this ! I was sent an e-mail from you folks about where to correct this but received a e-mail telling me I had sent my info to the wrong place to your site. I truly hope we can resolve this and I can either be put back on Wikipedia as I was before or left out because the explanation why I was from your site is wrong and very embarrassing to me. I have had quite a few inquiries from friends and powerful people who are also friends that want to know why and what dod I do wrong ! As you surely know, this is the wrong business to have bad information that makes me look like a liar. I would appreciate this being resolved as I am sure you can understand OR take the note OFF Wikipedia that I preformed a dishonest act on your site. The information Wikipedia wrote and claim is blatantly wrong as I am sure you would agree if Wikipedia would REALLY look into my history.
Thanks for your time
Regards,
Duane Hitchings
615 447-5121
[email protected]
Reverbnation
Songwriter Institute of Nashville
MySpace.com/duanehitchingsdigitalhitch
Facebook
If you would , Google my name and you will find many references to me. I am a very well known songwriter and musician since 1968 when I joined the Buddy Miles Express to 2010 AND just started writing for Rod Stewart once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhit (talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You did indeed contact me before, and I left a note at your user talk page in reply which includes an explanation of how to resolve this: User_talk:Captainhit. If you need assistance with that, please let me know. (It includes the address to which you should send your correspondence.) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Why can't other people taking action which is liable to be interpreted as "disciplinary" be as careful, explicit and helpful as you always are? Can't you get "Be as considerate to editors as MRG" adopted as WP policy?! Opbeith (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Certainly I'm being appreciative but it's not just fluff. This is a very serious issue at Wikipedia, and I'm not flattering you for the sake of flattery. Quite simply, you understand how things should be done in a collaborative enterprise that nevertheless has to have rules. It's appalling to me that so many other people I've come across at Wikipedia lack your intuitive sense of how to build and operate a system like Wikipedia. In a stretched voluntarist endeavour that's perhaps understandable but it's not acceptable. If a minimal amount of the effort devoted to policing "quality control" - notability, point of view, referencing, conflict of interest etc. - went into promoting "constructive engagement" with editors, Wikipedia would be a much more solid enterprise. Opbeith (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll put my natural bashfulness aside, then, and agree with you that we really fall down in general in treating other people decently. There are some great contributors on here who go miles to be collegial with people, and sometimes even the best of those fall down (I know without a doubt that I have on occasion in spite of my best efforts). But I admire them tremendously, because personally I hold the civility policy as right up next to copyright and BLP in my priorities. Not for the pleases and thank yous of it (though I like those, too), but for the essential philosophy that we must assume good faith (until proven otherwise) and we must create an environment that is inclusive and inviting if we are to keep Wikipedia thriving. In my personal opinion, it doesn't matter what other good work I may do for Wikipedia, if I am driving off the next "featured article" writer or arbitrator or bot programmer, I am not a net benefit. Any contributor who wants to work on Wikipedia needs to be helped to do so in the right way, and only if they cannot and will not do it in the right way should we politely show them the door. Politely. Because there's no reason to generate unnecessary ill will even amongst them, and if they cannot do it today, they may be able to do it tomorrow.
All that said, I now feel terribly self-important. :) But I don't know what to do to spread that philosophy except by continuing to live it to the best of my ability. And showing appreciation to others I see doing the same. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The reason I commented was because I think you do "lead by example" but your example needs (much) wider dissemination. There is a structural problem, in that Wikipedia is so large and amorphous that it's hard to communicate that example widely enough. It was that concern that was at the core of my off-the-cuff comment that "Be as considerate to editors as MRG" should be adopted as WP policy. In fact I should have said "as the core of WP culture". Not everyone is as articulate, patient and reasonable as you (certainly not me). But why does someone coming onto Wikipedia very rapidly get the feeling that it's a minefield of esoteric values and determined personal opinions rather than a repository of useful information and helpful principle-based guidance? It's not simply a problem of robust individual attitudes, the dominant culture appears to be one of enforcement on the basis of affirmation. What you do is acknowledge the legitimacy of a mistaken point of view and then explain fully and adequately (over again when the nature of the issue doesn't appear to be understood) why it is mistaken in an important way and action needs to be taken, rather than simply using a Wikipedia policy reference like a brick to the back of the head. Is it possible to achieve a culture change in that direction or is it always going to be just a matter of "luck of the draw" that someone like myself ended up having my specific problem dealt with by someone as conscientious as yourself? It's nice that I'm constantly impressed by the way you deal with problems, but it's a bad sign that I am. Opbeith (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to encourage a culture-wide change of that sort. :/ I think my own approach besides what I said above has two other major factors in it: (1) I don't believe that all policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are best practice, but I support them anyway because I believe in the consensus model (hence I recognize room for good faith disagreement :)) and (2) I am sadly aware that I myself require patient guidance in some things (even repeated patient guidance :D), and I'm all about the so-called "golden rule". But we have all kinds of policies to try to require people to treat each other well, and they don't seem to work very well.
Mentorship might do better, but we don't really have a culture that supports that approach. Take adminship, for instance. While the "new admin school" has been vastly improved over the years, it's really a "sink or swim" kind of proposition. I always thought that partnering a new admin with an experienced admin would be a good idea. Many experienced admins encourage new admins to ask for help if needed, but new admins might not even know they need help. :) (Example: I remember one new admin who was closing AFDs not per consensus, but in accordance with what s/he thought best. It was a good faith misunderstanding of the admin's role there.)
I guess as with anything that we have to make people care first, though. Creating a collegial environment isn't easy; it takes a lot more time (beginning, often, with biting one's lip and wiping out the first irritable reply :D). People would need to believe that it's important enough to justify the extra work. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Admin mentorship is not a bad idea, though I'm not sure new admins are necessarily the problem. In the absence of a "culture enhancement" mechanism, at least your example is effective as far as it penetrates - I'll try to remember the lip-biting recommendation! Opbeith (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first
I have identified a book which seems to copy Wikipedia content, but the guidance in "Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first" does not seem to have any real advise on what to do once it has been identified. After reading Template:Backwardscopy/doc, I think I ought to be using Template:Backwardscopy but I would prefer to discuss it with editors who have used it, before doing so and I am not sure which talk page to use for such a discussion. What I would like to do is know if there is such a place and then to update the section "Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first" so others who travel in my footsteps know what to do and where to go. If you can help me it would be much appreciated. -- PBS (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I should have checked here first. :) I looked in at WT:CP before coming to my own talk page and have already answered it there. Does my answer there help? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
New York Academy of Medicine copyvio problem is also a COI problem
Hi Moonriddengirl, I found and reported a copyvio problem of 205.232.35.3 (talk) on New York Academy of Medicine. More details can be found in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 August 12. But checking on this IP-address I just found out that it belongs to the New York Academy of Medicine itself! So the copyvio problem becomes also a COI problem. What is the best way forward? I think we should inform this organization about it. I guess there is some standard email template we can send via OTRS? I looked up on their website an email address we can use: msandersnyam.org of Mary Sanders; she is executive assistant of their president. -- SchreyP(messages) 21:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
OTRS does not often initiate contact, although individual volunteers have the option to do so. It may not be necessary, though. If it were a registered contributor, we'd simply leave the coi warning at their talk page. Since the IP is registered to the school and since there is a history of editing that article, that works here, too. :) On it. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your updates. One question still: is there a reason why the actual revision of 205.232.35.3 on May 13th creating the copyvio is still visible in the article history? With revision diff we can still see the copyvio text. -- SchreyP(messages) 18:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Human error. I ticked the wrong box...or, more accurately, didn't tick the right one. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, this case is closed :) -- SchreyP(messages) 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio question
Hi Moonriddengirl. I recently came across an article, All-time Allsvenskan table, which I sent to AfD (see AfD) mainly on notability and NOTSTATS grounds (both of which may be fixed). The other issue was a copyvio concern. The article, which is just a table of statistics at the moment, is basically exactly the same as the article's only reference, except that it is in wiki-markup. I know that facts are not copyrightable, but it seem like a copyvio to me to just lay it out in practically the exact same format. So, is that a copyvio? If so, can anything be done to avoid it being a copyvio, or will it need to be deleted? Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :)
Copyvio in lists, charts and tables can exist in several different factors. The material in the list can be copyrighted, or the arrangement of material can be copyrighted. When the material in the list is flat fact (and not selectively chosen fact), we're okay on that front, but the list/chart/table might still be copyrighted if it is arranged creatively.
Looking at this chart, I have a few concerns. To start, I'm unsure if the ranking system itself is creative. It says the system gives three points to wins, for instance, and one team seems to have had points deducted one year for some reason. I'm not active in sports (much less Swedish sports :D), so I'm not sure if the "three point" win system is common or universal. If the system itself is creative, there's nothing that we can do to salvage the chart and would only be able to talk about it, not reproduce it.
If the system is not creative, the next question is organization. The list seems to be organized based on the highest number of points cumulative. That's probably not creative in itself. But I don't know why the other elements are organized as they are--Seas, Pld, W, etc. I don't know what these mean, and I don't know if there is some obvious reason why they should be organized like that. Unless this, too, is a completely obvious and natural way to list elements, this may be creative.
If those in the know about sports (and Swedish sports) determine that the system is not creative, the chart may be salvageable by looking at the organization of elements within it and figuring out if any of that content should be removed or reorganized.
Please let me know if I'm unclear on any of this. :D It's a complex issue. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. OK, at the moment, I'm thinking that it might not be arranged creatively. The three points for a win system is pretty universal in soccer, in that the large majority of leagues use that system. On the other hand, as it says in the article "It uses three points for a win even though this system was not introduced until the 1990 season", which was a choice the reference made and that was followed in the article. The three point deduction did happen, but it's also in noted in the ref.
Regarding organisation, the format of W (wins), D (draws), L (losses), GF (goals for), GA (goals against), GD (goal difference—goals for minus goals against), Pts (points) is again fairly universal and used in the majority of soccer competitions (as far as I know nearly all soccer competitions have a league table formatted in a similar, if not identical, style).
So, I've confused myself really :) I'm still unsure if the table is creative or not. Sorry to be a bother, but do you have any more advice?
On a related note, I also found All-time Argentine Primera División table, which is similar, but I feel it is creative. The article apparently follows the refs exactly in awarding two points for some wins, while three points for other wins, two points for some draws, one point for other draws, etc. Again, sorry to bother you, but is that a copyvio then, if the table is deemed to be creative? Thanks in advance, Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I took the liberty to post this on your talk page because I saw on the Copyright Problems page that you are an active administrator. I don't know what to do exactly, but I have noticed that material from the English article on Thessaloniki (more specifically the section on Historical ethnic statistics) has been copied to the Macedonian wikipedia. Not only is the text not attributed to the original source (here and here), but there is no mention that the material has been copied from the English wikipedia. Moreover, the statistics have been changed to portray a view of Macedonian nationalism: the word "Bulgarians" was changed to "Macedonians" (see here) while the numbers are the same both in the English and the Macedonian articles, although the original source has nothing to do with Macedonians. This would be a copyright violation of work published by a user on Wikipedia, would it not? I am unsure as to how to procede from here, and I would like your opinion on this. Thanks for your consideration. --Philly boy92 (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Original contributions to Wikipedia are granted by their authors under a very permissive license which allows re-use and modification, but very definitely requires attribution to the authors of previous versions, as set out at the Copying... and Translating... sections of our guideline. To fix the attribution problem on mk:wiki, you can make a null edit to the article there and use an edit summary to note the copying (with a link to the en:wiki article) and preferably add a note to the article talk page also, giving links to the specific mk: edits where material was added amd to the en: versions where the material came from. That's one way we solve these problems here.
As far as mk:wiki goes, 1) you might want to check the editor's other contributions and mark similar copying in the same way; and 2) address later changes to the text (like changing/falsifying nationalities) on the Macedonian wiki itself, as once text is copied somewhere else, so long as the source is attributed, we don't really care what happens to it. If something has been changed so that it is no longer supported by the sources, then hopefully the editors of mk:wiki will correct it very quickly. Regards from a random watcher of this talk page! Franamax (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
regarding your query before I disappeared -- some of the socks have been adding copyvios. Also, checking the contributions of the 59.178.xx.xx range on a regular basis would help as will protecting some of his regular articles. I don't know if adding these to the CCI is necessary right now, but noting the IP range (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vrghs jacob) might probably be needed. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. :/ We don't have the manpower to check his contributions on a regular basis. Even with Corensearchbot (and reducing the copyright work load by dozens of articles a day), we've got backlog in current copyright cleanup at WP:CP (I try to knock it down as much as I can on weekends, and there are a few people plugging away). Meanwhile, the CCI list keeps growing. Protecting some of his regular articles is probably the way to go. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I currently do that every few weeks and clean out chunks of them, I've short term protected a few articles in the past, but I think it's time for a longer term protection on some of these at least. The range is really too broad for us to do anything else. His topic area is mostly related to the Indian National Congress, Government of India, Civil Services of India and United Nations. A look at one of the /18 ranges he uses shows many other contributors. —SpacemanSpiff 12:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) Thanks for the notice; I will try to read through it later today when I have more time. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Otis Redding popular culture section
hello,
can you please check the "In popular culture" section in Otis Redding? It looks like a copyvio of [44], but it could be just a mirror site of Wikipedia. Thank you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 13:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
On first glance, I think it's probably them copying us. :) The website in general has archives dating back quite some ways ([45]) but that subpage doesn't seem to be that old. I need to identify when the text entered the article and look for clues of natural evolution as well as checking the closest archive to that date. BRB. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, contextual clues support the conclusion that we had it first. For instance, I looked for the phrase "Steely Dan" and found it introduced in May 2008, when much of the content of that section was already there. We find a different IP adding in another phrase in June 2008 that is also used in that external site. The next day, another IP added information on Nick Hornby. Later that same month, a registered user adds info on Dirty Dancing. It's quite unlikely that multiple users over an extended span of time copied content from that page bit by bit, so I think we can safely assume that at some point after June 2008, they copied it from us. We could narrow down exactly when by finding the point where language matches precisely, but that's too much work. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I bet we had it first, but I could be wrong. :) I'm looking into it! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm even more convinced that's true. First, there's no archived version for the Huffington Post page.
In July 2008, "WaxploitationWiki" started adding familiar content, with: "In 2007, the label released Causes 1, a benefit for non-profit organizations working in Darfur. The album includes songs from The Shins, Death Cab for Cutie, The Cure, Thievery Corporation, The Black Keys, Spoon, Animal Collective and others." We can see the germs in the second sentence of "The albums include songs from Diplo, Spoon, LCD Soundsystem, Animal Collective, The Shins, Devendra Banhart, The Decemberists, Death Cab for Cutie among others", but Causes 2 was not yet released. In July 2009, the language was updated by User:Tiltshift (who I suspect has personal involvement) to included Causes 2, bringing it closer in line with the external site. Further edits that brought it closer included this in December 2009.
We see the entry of the "infamous Grey Album" here in February 2010 and here in April 2010 we learn that he was "the first photographer ever...." In January 2011, we learn about the destabilized Haiti.
These incremental edits offer clear evidence of evolution...just as they are strongly suggestive of a potential COI. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Moonriddengirl,
You really deserve this. You're an outstanding contributor, have an answer to everything, and have been helping a lot of people, not to mention writing. :o) Thanks for all your contributions! NehaMich. (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. That's very kind of you. :) I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia in a lot of different ways, and I hope that you will, too! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Here's another one, since they look good together--for your continued efforts to keep the place clean. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
LOL! You have an eye for design, Drmies! Thank you. :) And I'd best get to it. There's more than a week at CP sitting waiting for finalizing. :P --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Suppliers Credit Article
I had reverted back for the article "Suppliers Credit" stating that the original source is my article and it is not copyrighted, still the article has been deleted.
Can you please reverse the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.104.54.148 (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Assuming you were the creator of the article, you were given instructions on your talk page for how to assert your authority to release it to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that there are only a few forms of permission that we are permitted to accept, and if those are not supplied we have no choice but to delete the article. Please see User talk:Sanjaymandavia#Copyright problem: Suppliers Credit for the procedures. If you have any questions about how to follow through, please let me know; I'll be happy to assist you. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I'd love to write more; it's deeply satisfying to eliminate redlinks. :D I'll take a look at the lists. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Very nice :) Hope you do get the chance to write some more. Novickas (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It's now featured on Portal:Germany. If you have more DYK related to Germany, please feel free to place it there yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Removeal of User page
Can you please direct me to the place where it says you are able to remove User pages? Thanks Djflem (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Without knowing the specifics of your beef (you have provided none), I would conjecture that WP:CSD is probably the likely justification. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Todd. :) This one is actually Wikipedia:Copyright violation. The article in question was listed at CP for well over a week, and the user page was a draft of the temp which included content copied from or closely following its sources without permission.
Djflem, user space drafts are not immune to deletion during copyright investigations. The user page contained some of the same copyrighted content that was removed from your proposed clean up of Wind power in New Jersey. What content could be salvaged was, and is in article space...as I see you are aware, since you've copied it to your user page. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Howdy
Just saying hi and thanks for jumping in at Bar, Montenegro. Not too many of us will venture into Balkan territory. I haven't bumped in to you in quite a while. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I saw you had cleaned up some copyright problems there. :) I tend to develop tunnel blindness when I'm working copyvio, though, so I have to admit I didn't pay much attention to the political aspects. :D I just noticed some very iffy content. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently some but not all. Thanks for weighing in there. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
You cleaned up all that was identified. :) I couldn't find a source for the edits that seem hinky to me...but text like "What is bound to fascinate you when you encounter Bar Old Town is its monumental size, the scale of its fortress and the variety of culturally significant heritage." and "It would be very difficult to list all the remarkable monuments in Bar, so we will mention only some of them."? So travel guide. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello
I am not asking that you get involved, (yet), but am I on a correct track with this edit? My76Strat (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
That seems to be a bit closely paraphrased, yes. If it's just the one instance, it's probably a simple matter to tweak. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes thank you, that's all we're doing is tweaking. I just wanted to make sure it was a legitimate example to deserve tweaking. Again thanks. My76Strat (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Wow, now i see why he doesn`t want to use google translate, i`m afraid the translation you received indeed could be better, like this:
Encontre un voluntario que traducira y estare feliz de escuchar como podemos ayudarte. Espero tu respusta.
That faithfully translate your message, only thing, i wrote down "how can WE help you" hope is OK.
BTW... is that your given name? M****e? If it is, cute name. Zidane tribal (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll have to run his response by you in e-mail, since that is private, but this particular note certainly isn't. :D And "how can WE help you" is much improved.
And it's quite okay to call me Maggie on Wikipedia. :D Since I have a work contract with the Wikimedia Foundation, my name is public now. That said, I'm still happy with Moonriddengirl, too. I've been using that name for quite some time. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful, i`ll just wait your next e-mail. Zidane tribal (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
See [46] and [47]. I was in the proces of checking this new users unsourced additions, when another editor intervened to edit war the material into the article. As it turns out all of this new editor's material was a copyvio. Other editors have now added citations and done a lot of work but copyvio material remains. I'm of the view to revert back to the text before this edit but after having a bruising encounter with the guy edit warring to keep it, I expect there will be further trouble. Would you consider my proposed course of action, the right thing to do? Regards. Wee Curry Monstertalk 12:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I haven't looked at the content or checked to see who you're talking to because I'd like to remain neutral and uninvolved. :) Typically, I recommend when people encounter edit warring to reintroduce copyright problems blanking the content with {{copyvio}} and explaining the issue on the article's talk page. If the area is limited, the template can be also be limited to blank only the disputed section by adding to the end of it. Removing copyright violations is exempt from 3RR, but this action will protect you if it turns out that the material is public domain or compatibly licensed. The template is supposed to be removed only by an administrator, and it will allow time to discuss the matter, as administrators do not typically view these articles for a week or more after the template is added. If the template is removed out of process, I usually either restore it and protect the article or block the contributor who removes it, if the content is actually a problem under copyright policy. Sometimes the template is removed under a valid application of WP:IAR--for instance if the contributor removing it can prove that it is compatibly licensed. But this should never be done without evidence. Doing otherwise is disruptive. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Cheers, thats what I did. I found the OP had been busily ripping text from an WP:SPS website and cut'n'pasting. I've reverted their contributions and posting the template you suggested on the one article I had problems with.
In doing so, I came across this page. The {{copyvio}} template is being removed by WP:TAG edit warring. I really don't wish to get involved but it probably could do with admin oversight. I posted at WP:ANI. Regards, Wee Curry Monstertalk 20:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me about that, Survir. Unfortunately, we have a lot of problems with these kinds of articles. :/ I've removed the copied plot summaries and cautioned several contributors about it. I'll try to keep an eye on it to make sure that future plot summaries are written from scratch. If you notice that they are being copied again, please do let me know, in case I overlook it. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 10:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this PD?
Hello again. I'm reviewing the GA nomination of Fair dealing in United Kingdom law (a very interesting topic!), and I'm trying to determine the copyright status of the only image that article uses, File:Carlos de Gales (2011).jpg. It's tagged as PD based on the legal notice from the source here (here is the official English translation). That doesn't sound PD to me, but I thought I'd ask your opinion, since it could well apply to text or other images from that source. All the best, – Quadell(talk) 13:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't mention images. :/ I'm not sure about it, but I think it's doubtful. If the image were on Wikipedia, I'd say we should run it through a discussion at PUF. Since that image is on Commons, it might be worth bringing it up there in deletion debate or at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. I asked there. – Quadell(talk) 18:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Ack! List! (Moonnriddengirl flees in terror....) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, this one is going to be challenging. I can't access the book. :/ I'll see if somebody at WP:RX can get ahold of it. That has worked for me before, but not often. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Asked here. Now to try to make myself remember to follow up. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Moving Solar-Hydrogen energy cycle to my userspace
Please move back Solar–Hydrogen energy cycle back to my userspace so that I can work on the copyright concerns. Thanks. SurajT 04:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I've restored it where it was and left you a note at your talk page about how to work with it from now. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked him for 48 hours. He's been told many times, and he needs to start caring or he's likely to be blocked indefinitely. :/ Please let me know if you see persistent problems after his unblock. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Please can you inform me of the reason why the page of/about Phillip Coppens is removed/deleted?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
83.84.56.149 (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Yours sincerely
Gert-Jan Luis
Hi. Philip Coppens was deleted because the content was copied from another website. The creator of the article was advised at his talk page of the issue as well as how to repair it, and interested contributors were also notified by means of a template that replaced the article for a bit over a week before the article was deleted. Since the content was not rewritten in original language and no permission as verified, I'm afraid we had no choice but to delete it. Wikipedia:Copy-paste gives a little overview of Wikipedia's approach to previously published content. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio help
While working with some editors on the University of Pennsylvania, I have found a fairly substantial amount of close paraphrasing and copyrighted information. I was hoping you could help find which information is copyrighted so we could replace it more quickly.RyanVeseyReview me! 18:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh oh! I'm off to look at the talk page. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a problem, since that website is marked "all rights reserved". I'll look at the situation more closely and figure out what needs doing. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Taken care of. The images on Wikipedia (which did not assert he was the author) have been removed. After that, I realized some of the images were on Commons, where he suggests he is the author. I think we have a pretty good chance that this fellow will be able to verify license, either because he is the author or is associated with him. I've given him directions for doing so and also a friendly note about COI. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hope you're feeling okay
Some aspirin for you
I haven't seen you around much lately. I hope you're doing okay. Just in case you're dealing with a migraine, here are some pretend aspirin (which probably work about as well as real aspirin for migraines). Hope to see you around soon! – Quadell(talk) 02:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
That's so kind of you, Quadell! Thanks. :) Actually, it is a combination of work and being a bit under the weather that has kept me from doing volunteer stuff for the past couple of days. Some days I just don't have enough energy. Things'll change, though, after my contract expires, as I've discovered a whole new level in what it means to eat, drink, and breathe Wikip(m)edia! My goal is to at least take care of my talk page every day, but this week I obviously didn't make it. I'll catch up today, though! And knock down WP:CP. (If the hurricane doesn't take my power!) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
This is to say thank you for your patience ,time and attention payed to the issues that matter :) Werbena (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) I try. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted articles
Could you please provide me copies of the deleted articles Napier Mole Bridge and Native Jetty Bridge? I wish to recreate the articles. I hope you can respond to my request. Regards, Drspaz (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry, I can't userfy content that was deleted for copyright concerns, and those articles were created by a blocked serial copyright infringer. I can give you the categories and mark-up, if you'd like to start fresh articles. He did not use any references, so I'm afraid I can't help out there. :/ Just let me know. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 10:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your corrections
I was looking for someone who could advice and help me to write the article and give the notess to learn about copyright.
could you advice where i can learn
Learning to balance quotation and writing in your own words is a tricky proposition on Wikipedia, but it is an important one to master. We do have to make sure that our articles are fully compliant with US copyright law.
and information about copyright
I shall be thankful if you could advice and list out my articles where i need to work on copyright issues.regards--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I tried my best to write this article, if there is any thing you see copyright please advise me ( as you said ) how i can trickily rewrite it but please do not remove the data, its a very hardwork of my ( in this manner i can learn to rewrite). regards--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of: Royalist rising of 1651 to 1654, article
I cannot believe you completely deleted the article Royalist rising of 1651 to 1654 ! That was a very important article. Sure there were some copyright problems but that could easily have been amended with deletion of the article! QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. First, I'm sorry, but I deleted the article while logged in to the wrong account. I should have been logged in as User:Moonriddengirl. This was not an office action. I thought I had cleared the record on all of that, but I see I missed one or two. I'll take care of that now.
The article was blanked with a template warning that it would likely be deleted if not repaired within a week, and I'm afraid that nobody chose to easily amend the copyright problem. If you would like a chance to rewrite it, I'll be happy to bring it back and extend the copyright listing period. The importance of the article isn't the issue; the issue is that we could not retain the article we had, and no contributor fixed it although it was listed for over seven days. (I'm copying this over to my volunteer page, since I need to address this in that status.) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, yes I would like to re-write it. However it might take some time. IT would be useful if someone could tell me exactly where the copyright issues are within the article. Thanks. QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've restored it and will relist it for another week.
I'm afraid, though, that the problem seems to be pretty pervasive. The duplication detector report found 7665 match candidates after eliminating redundancies...I don't think I've ever seen that many matches before. This article was created as a massive text dump from that pdf, with very few changes. For example, in the lead when the article was created, we find this:
After the defeat of the Royalist army in Scotland, under James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose, Charles II signed a draft agreement of the Covenant on 1 May 1650. The new King was also forced to agree to a number of humiliating concessions both before and after his return to Scotland. He not only signed both Covenants but was forced into dismissing many members of his household but, against his own beliefs and conscience, renounced his Irish supporters and agreed to impose Presbyterianism throughout the three kingdoms.
The PDF says:
Despondent at the recent defeat of his supporters in Ireland and Montrose’s lack of success in Scotland, Charles II signed a draft agreement on 1 May 1650. The new King was forced to agree to a number of humiliating concessions both before and after his return to Scottish land. He not only signed both Covenants and was forced into dismissing many members of his household but, against his own beliefs and conscience, renounced his Irish supporters and agreed to impose Presbyterianism throughout the three kingdoms.
The article was full of that kind of stuff from the beginning. The only real solution here is likely to be a complete rewrite, as in the years since it was created all we have ever had is a derivative work. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, well I have got the text so I will re-write it. However I cannot say how long this will take. So if it gets deleted so be it. QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm... --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
But you're just so helpful!
wikimedia.org should be the place to send them, unless they've been moved to Commons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
nyam.org of Mary Sanders; she is executive assistant of their president. -- SchreyP (messages) 21:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
