User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 → Archive 50

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Possible sockpuppetry

I would like to launch an investigation of sockpuppetry for the user HereToSaveWiki; it seems to be a direct new account created by Seeta mayya. To clarify, you may remember her umpteen comments about "what is happening to Wikipedia?", hence the name. In addition, her style of talking is exactly similar to Seeta mayya's, with the exception of all the gasps and "Oohs". Check this for reference (and I have responded strongly to her statements):- Talk:Shahrukh Khan. I would like to know how and where to begin; if necessary, I can take this to WP:ANI. If this is Seeta mayya's account puppet, I will ensure that an IP ban is placed on her. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to launch a sock puppetry investigation, the place to go is WP:SPI. Opening the SPI is the easy part; you put the primary account's name into the box where it says "SOCKMASTER" here: Wikipedia:SPI#Submitting_an_SPI_case. It'll open a new edit window that is partially filled out for you. All you'll need to do is follow the directions in <!--hidden comments-->. One of the most important things here is having good evidence; bring links of similar behavior that will help you convince the administrators who work there that the two are the same. They probably won't investigate if you don't. And remember where it says "|admincomment=" not to edit the section at all. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For tireless work protecting Wikipedia from copyvios. Dweller (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Obviously, it's work I'm committed to. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Junior Achievement

This one cropped up on the 7-day old listings at WP:CP the other day and you said you'd take a look later. Well now someone claiming to be from the relevant organisation has posted on the talk page. I've posted quite a long reply as I thought it important they got a reply as soon as possible, but given my previous involvement in this I'd appreciate another set of eyes to make sure I've not missed anything, especially as I'm not that used to dealing people in situations like this. Of course if any talk page stalker fancies taking this on then they should also feel free - I'm sure Moonriddengirl wouldn't mind given how busy she is! Dpmuk (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And as a complete aside, congratulations on the permanent position which I've just noticed. Can I suggest you remove "at this point" from the top of your user page for this account, as it implies to me it's temporary. Dpmuk (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I haven't meant not to. :/ I haven't had time to get around to it! I planned to do it after work last night, but family illness cut into my online life. :P (Pesky real life.) I will go look this morning. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
(I don't know if it's any better, but I changed it to "currently". I want to avoid implying that I've always been an employee of the WMF. Hmm. Maybe I'll go back and just change it to "since May 2011". What do you think? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC))
I don't actually expect you to do anything you know (well certainly not when you're in your volunteer role) and I wouldn't normally have mentioned it except for the post to the talk page. Since Verno went you're the only OTRS copyright combined person I know so couldn't think of anyone else to ask to take another look. As for "currently" I think that works fine although "since May 2011" also works and avoids any doubt. Dpmuk (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks for the extra backwardscopy work you put in. I was happy with just the date given they'd have no reason to lie about that but given the concerns expressed I probably would've gone further. However given how things developed I thought a second opinion was needed so didn't look further myself. Your work there is much appreciated. Now off to go and look at the edits to that page by, I suspect, our WP:COI editor. Dpmuk (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The date would have done it for me, too, but since it's been challenged, I usually just add more, if I can. The evidence of natural evolution diminishes the likelihood that we copied from an official site, no longer available, from which the later source also copied. It makes a stronger case that it did originate here. I have no issues providing a second opinion, particularly knowing how often they've come in handy for me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hi,
you have mail, by the way. :)
Amalthea 11:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey dead-beat mom...

...please see User_talk:Amalthea#Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations.2FPumpkinSky. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL! It has been seen. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Info about the deletion of the page on Nakagami Fading (12 August 2009)

While working on a research paper involving Nakagami fading (as well as a few other fading models) I wanted to quickly double check the formulas, and I noticed that the wiki page was deleted several years ago for copyright violations. I was wondering if you remember specifically why you deleted the page, or if you could provide me with any more info regarding the page before I try to re-create it. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia beyond just making simple edits, so I apologize if this information is readily accessible in a place that I am unaware of. Thanks! Tiek00n (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There's absolutely no problem with asking for an explanation. I'm happy to help. :)
I deleted the article because it was listed at the copyright problems board, where copyright issues are evaluated, for a week; the copyright problems were substantiated (that is, the links given there showed copying); the creator of the article did not defend the material or explain the similarities in a way that would allow us to use the article; and nobody offered a rewrite of the article within the week. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 August 4. Unfortunately, after two and a half years, the links given there aren't very helpful, but a quick check shows this was one of two probable sources: [1].
It would be fabulous if you could create a new article on that subject; obviously, we are weak on coverage there. :) You should encounter no problems as long as the text explaining the model is written in your own words. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I need to borrow your eyes

Can you check the Expeditors International article? It appears that the intro was lifted almost in its entirety from here, and if that's the case then I worry about the rest of the article's content from a copyvio point of view. Thanks in advance, 70.245.127.3 (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for pointing this out; I've removed the duplicated content and will speak to the contributor, who may be in position to license it. Unless you find other evidence of copying, the rest of the article is probably okay; the problematic portion was introduced in July 2011 by somebody tacitly claiming authority. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
(And notified. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC))

List of Beverly Hills, 90210 episodes & below

Recently, I split up the above article per several long standing split tags. Immediately I did so and before I could start cleaning up the formatting, CorenBot flagged one of the new articles as a potential copyright violation. Eventually you (if I recall correctly) removed the tag with a comment to the effect that the other site had copied off Wikipedia and not the other way round. As a result, I completed reformating the articles. This week, the article (Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 8)) was deleted without discussion on the grounds that it is a copy of "http://www.tv.com/shows/beverly-hills-90210/season-8/?viewmode=expanded&sortmode=oldest". I restored the framework so that original summaries could be included and also to provide the titles for the parent article. This immediately got a warning (my interpretation of the post, possibly not the intention of the poster) for writing an article without content. I said that I would provide content as and when I could find time. However, since then I have discovered that at least 3 other pages have content in common with the site mentioned above i.e. Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 4), Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 5) and Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 7). If the implications are as I suspect then these articles will have to be deleted and that would be far to much for me to repair. On the other hand, if there is nothing wrong with these articles then presumably series 8 is ok and should be restored. Is there any chance that you could investigate this matter, or perhaps refer the matter to someone who can assist. Regards Op47 (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The possibility of reverse infringement certainly exists. TV articles are a pain to untangle. :) I may be able to look at it more later today; if not, I'll put it on my list of weekend work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The more I look into this, the less I think the content is likely to have been legitimately ours. The bulk of early plot synopses were copied from IMDb and removed later (as per talk page). Here is where Season 8 shows up, as duplicating the external site. More of season 8 shows up here and here; it is not the same as that source. It was almost certainly copied from the IMDb, though. 3 1/2 hours after it landed here, somebody cleans up typos which are present in the IMDb plot summaries: "Rolling Stones magazine"; "out of the Valerie's room"; "for most plastic surgery for herself". For that to have been legitimately ours, two different editors of IMDb would have had to have copied it in that small window.
And if we had had it first, I can't explain why the other page copied only part of our list - the ones added by that earlier editor - but none of the plot summaries copied from IMDb. That earlier editor added plot summaries up through 17, "The Elephant's Father". At this point, I think the earlier episodes in that page were copied from tv.com, while the later ones were copied from IMDB.com. :/
(Another editor added content earlier that did come from there: [2]; [3].) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This series of edits by an anon user seems to have been a real problem. I'm going to have to blank some of these other subarticles for further investigation. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
While I'm pretty sure that the 8th season was not backwards copy problem, I'll double check these. I've blanked them for investigation because it does look likely that we took from them. But maybe I'll be wrong. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You must have spent absolutely ages looking at that. Thankyou for the effort. Op47 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to look. I'm sorry I couldn't clear us, though. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I have restored the episode titles and table framework before anything is lost to us forever. I don't believe this is subject to copyright and the frames are quite troublesome to debug. I trust that this is ok, please let me know if there is a problem with what I have done. Regards Op47 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nanette Hassall

Well, you said if I ever need a second set of eyes, come by... I'm taking you up on that already. ;)

In my opinion, this revision of Nanette Hassall is pretty blatantly infringing on [4]. The structure and style is followed exactly, sentence for sentence, paragraph for paragraph. However, (for the second time in 24 hours; I'm starting to feel like a really bad judge of everything right now!) the contributor has strongly objected and some other admins I checked with say it looks pretty close but may be more ambiguous than I thought. Could you take a look when you have time? :)

Thanks! — madman 01:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Already taken care of; cleaned with a rewrite and looks great now. Cheers! — madman 18:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get to this this morning! I had some chores to run that took waaaay longer than I anticipated. I'm just passing through at the moment but will be back in probably an hour and will see if I can give some suggestions at least. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem! I definitely think it's clean now but you can still have a look if you'd like. :) Cheers, — madman 20:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. :) In case my own rule of thumb would be helpful to you, I tend to WP:CSD#G12 somewhat conservatively. If somebody has made an effort to paraphrase, even if I think they fall short, I will usually use {{copyvio}} just to give them a bit more time and allow me to talk to them more about how to do it. I use G12 mostly when the copying is pretty literal and when there's little chance it was placed by the copyright holder. If it looks like it might have been the copyright holder, even if they don't say so, I'll usually use the copyvio template. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I've slipped back into that standard procedure myself, I think, as you'll probably see from WP:CP today. I used to do this from July 2007 to shortly before I retired the first time, but after three years or so it's not at all like riding a bicycle! ;) Cheers! — madman 00:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The evaluation system needs work. 90% of what the Bot hit on is still there, and the part I took out is what I wrote myself. Pkeets (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. :) First, to clarify: the duplication detector is not the bot. It is a separate tool from Corensearchbot, linked from the Corensearchbot report only to highlight direct copying. The bot's report is not published; I've actually never seen one. The duplication detector is a lovely tool for picking up on copy-pasting (and really handy when sources are long), but not very good at working out close paraphrasing. When sources are not long, I don't usually bother looking at it. I haven't compared the earlier versions of the article with the current or looked for close paraphrasing in the history; I simply checked the current version for issues, and it looks fine to me. If you want to talk about the issues Madman may have seen, he may be able to go over it with you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
He complained about the structure (see above), which was chronological, and the current structure loses that information, only lists Hassall's accomplishments, which leaves it as a lower quality, "puff" type article. There's a disparity between what contributors are using to repair articles and what the evaluators seem to be looking at. When the bot hits on an article, the duplication report is all that contributors have to go on to repair the work. What it reported had nothing to do with Madman's evaluation--he said he didn't look at it, and you don't, either, which means I actually have no indication of what you'll be evaluating, and I have likely worked hard to eliminate something your'e not interested in, at all. For my article on Hassall, I had retained the chronological structure of an online bio and reworded the sentences that presented the information. The article was cited. His evaluation was made on the basis of the chronological structure, not the rewording, and he deleted the article without discussion. I'm a longtime contributor to Wikipedia, and I've been put off by this experience. When the article was deleted, my account was blocked. I want to request better tools to reduce the disparity in this process. Is there some forum where I should do that? Pkeets (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

First, let me say that I'm very sorry that you found the experience offputting. I can certainly understand it, but we're all motivated by a common goal of creating the best, free encyclopedia we can. I hope that you won't let it discourage you in a major way. I'm concerned that you say that your account was blocked; I don't see anything in your block log. :/ Can you explain what you encountered? Maybe you were caught in an autoblock of somebody else?

I was logged in for 30 days. When I brought up Wikipedia after the article was deleted, I was automatically logged out and was unable to log back in. I have a back-up account that I used to contact Madman. Once the article was reinstated, I could log in again. From reading other entries about copyright deletion, I gather this blocking is a standard result of having an article deleted for copyright violation. Pkeets (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In terms of indication of what we evaluate, I'm afraid there is no tool to do that, as this work necessarily involves human judgment. Everyone who examines copyright issues should do so by looking at the article and looking at its sources, to see if content follows too closely in language or structure. I'm not entirely sure what tools could be created to help with this, although I would certainly love some. :) Even the courts don't have many; they rely on human judgment to determine where substantial similarity exists. Human judgment is always going to be subjective, alas. We don't always agree on what is too close. :/

Discussion of the issues before deletion would help. Pkeets (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In terms of dealing with structure, I find that the absolute best technique to eliminate the problem is to draw on additional sources. Chronological structure has less creativity than some, but it can still be creative in that a source chooses what facts to emphasize. The more you rely on one source, the more likely you are to inadvertently mimic their creative selection and arrangement. While it's sometimes a challenge, I do my best to find other information that can be woven together to eliminate the concern. I don't have a lot of time, but I did a bit of searching on Hassall and found some more information so that the article needn't suffer for our efforts to reduce similarity to the single source. I was able to add information on her pre-dance career, the contest that helped send her to Julliard, and her meeting and marrying an American composer. There's quite likely more out there, but I kind of ran out of time. The more disparate sources we can incorporate, the less likely we are to draw too heavily on the structure of any one. :)

Thank you for making an effort after the fact. However, you've added very little that's not in the article I cited, and the chronological data in the resulting Wikipedia article is still jumbled. The review process has resulted in an inferior article. If I were looking for biographical data on her, I wouldn't use the current Wikipedia article. Pkeets (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, again, I'm sorry that this has been unpleasant. And I do hope that it won't discourage you too much. If nothing else, you've reminded Madman to be careful with speedy deletions of copyrighted content, and that's good. While we do want to keep Wikipedia copyright compliant, we absolutely don't want to run off people like you who are constructively contributing. If there are disagreements on what constitutes "rewriting from scratch" and what to do if content may not be, that's something we need to work out together. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not discouraged. I am pissed off. As I said above, discussion would have been helpful, but I had to initiate it after the deletion, and from a different account. The process has been arbitrary and disrespectful. I'll have to consider whether to contribute further. Pkeets (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
No, not at all! I don't know why you couldn't log in, but I've never heard of any kind of automatic block for deletion of articles for any reason. As an administrator, I have deleted 14,010 articles since 2007, most of them for copyright issues. I've blocked 783 editors, and every one of them was manual. There is nothing in your block log. When you are blocked, the system doesn't automatically log you out; it shows you this message. I can particularly see why you would be angry if you thought you had been blocked over this, but whatever may have happened to you, it wasn't that. Can you tell me what you may have read about articles deleted for copyright violations that lead you to this conclusion? That needs repairing!
I agree with you that discussion would have been helpful. Madman indicates above that he does not intend to use the speedy deletion criteria anymore when he thinks there are paraphrasing issues but will use other processes for copyright evaluation instead. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
See mention in Copyright block below. I think I did get a message, but I'm not sure. Pkeets (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, no. That was not an automatic block; in that case, I didn't even delete the article. I deleted a section of the article. He was blocked because he had done this before and had been warned he would be blocked if he didn't stop. This was by no means a paraphrase issue; this was direct copy-pasting. Had I know that he had simply copied from another article, I would have unblocked him, explained to him why that was wrong (Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia) and addressed the copyright problem with the other editor. Unfortunately, he didn't speak up until after his block had expired, so I couldn't undo it.
Your block log is completely clear ([5]; compare that with this one, which isn't clear). I think you must have encountered some kind of technical problem. The only other alternative I can think of is if you were using a shared IP (like a university or library or even just your home computer in some countries) and it had been blocked for some reason, but even then you should have been shown a message and given instructions for how to correct it. I'm afraid you may have just encountered a technical problem with very, very bad timing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
How odd, then, that it only affected the Pkeets account and not the alternate one. And how it cleared up when the article was reinstated. And I did get a message of some kind that I think said "blocked"--I just didn't read it carefully. Sorry, but I also take copyright issues seriously. I don't like being named as a violator.
I ran the disputed article through a plagiarism checker, BTW, and got a report that said 93% original, with the only hit on "She continued her studies at the Juilliard School in New York," which occurred in a number of unrelated articles. Pkeets (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have no explanation. :) But it certainly makes more sense that you encountered a technical error than that you were blocked somehow with no block log record and that your block logged you out automatically, which is not the way ordinary blocks work. (If you look at the talk pages of many blocked users, you'll see them editing there in their accounts.) Autoblocks on IPs shouldn't automatically log you out either, as there is an unblock process which account holders can use to declare that they've been caught in an autoblock, and it requires that they be logged in. Hopefully it'll never happen again, but if it does, please try to take a screen cap or something so we can figure out what's going on. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
If it were an IP block, it would have affected the alternate account. When I got the message, I immediately logged in under the alternate: same computer, no delay. Pkeets (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, that pretty well resolves, then, that it must have been a technical error, because your block log is empty and blocks don't log you out. :) They only prevent your editing pages other than your own talk page. (Although they might not be able to help you now, if you're curious, you can always ask at WP:VPT.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Billy Hathorn

MRG, Billy Hathorn is making an unblock request and I believe is misrepresenting the situation (based on my reading of their talkpage archives). Would you agree? Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid so. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Queen of Technique

  • Break out the party poppers! You have officially been designated "The Queen of Technique" of tactfully dealing with editors who are having copyvio problems. Your attention to the various comments on that thread, whenever you have spare time, would be sincerely appreciated. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Probable copyvio - one for your stalkers?

I am hoping that one of your stalkers might be able to assist with my note at Talk:Kangeyam bull#Copyvio. If I am very lucky then they will be a cattle specialist but a good knowledge of WP copyright procedures & a nose for spotting violations should suffice (& is more likely!) - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have found the source. See the talk page for my Agatha Christie-like reveal of how. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I didn't even do a phrase check because I was convinced that it came straight from the book & that is not available online. I have no idea if there was ever a CCI for the creator & the situation is extremely messy because of their numerous socks, but one day I will find the time to do some digging. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Even if the book isn't available online, I always check to make sure, because our contributors aren't the only people who violate copyright. :/ If I find text elsewhere on the web, and I can prove that it was there before we had it, the investigation is over. It doesn't matter whether we and the other site independently took it from a book. All that matters is that we didn't have it first. :) Thanks for keeping an eye on it. I don't think we've had a CCI for him. If you think we need one (ergh), we can always open one to let people work on it as there is time. (I so wish we could get some magic CCI bot that could at least find the obvious. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Charlie Patton

hello,

this Charlie Patton image was deleted as per the request of the copyright holder. Could you contact him and ask if we could use it on our article? Or if not, how much will one pay to upload it here? Thanks. (Dougweller is busy, so I ask you) --♫GoP♫TCN 09:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll look. It'll take a few minutes to search, as unfortunately Doug didn't think to link the OTRS ticket from the discussion. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
All right, I've found it. It's at ticket 2011122110016945. He does not want the image to be used here; that was the purpose of his contact, so I don't think writing him to ask him to change his mind would help. He asked for $500 for the use of the image, but that doesn't mean he understood that he would be paid to license the image for reuse by others, even commercially. If that were conveyed, he might charge considerably more. I can write him to ask him what he would charge to license the image compatibly for our site, if you like, and if he is willing can put you in touch with him. We can assume the cost would be at least $500. Is that a cost you might be interested in paying? I'd rather know that in advance. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I will think about it... =$--♫GoP♫TCN 14:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn CCI

I thought I would take a stab at the Billy Hathorn CCI . I started with Jean Boese.

I see that two, presumably complete poems are included. Not even referenced, so if they are pd, it isn't obvious. (Both were present in the article creation, though not formatted at that time.) It occurs to me that poetry of the US Poet Laureat may be od, simply as the work of a federal employee (although I wouldn't be surprised if there were an exception).

However, this is the work of a state poet laureate (note that without better referencing of the poems, I do not yet know for sure whether they were written while in office.) My understanding is that works of state employees is not automatically pd, but either can be so declared, or perhaps the laws vary by state. I'm not on solid ground, which is why I am here, but I am confident that works by a state employee cannot automatically be presumed to be pd.

I'm doing some searching to see if there are general resources talking about the copyright status of state poet laureate, but coming up empty so far, and looking for specific information about these two poems, with same result. I'll continue looking, but if you have some thoughts they would be appreciated.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I would very surprised if the works of poets laureate were copyrighted to the state, but even if they are, Louisiana retains copyright to state works. :) See. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that one of the poems was named the "official state Senate poem". The law enacting this is here. I think I've read that the text of a law cannot be subject to copyright, does this ring true? If so, one of the two will be resolved, after I add a proper reference.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
That's true. :) I bet they didn't consider that aspect. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Question on copyright

Is a book published in 1913 by Encyclopedia Press still under copyright? If so then this article needs clearing out, everything in the History and Functions section was copied word for word from The Catholic encyclopedia: an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline, and history of the Catholic Church, Volume 13 Darkness Shines (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you are referring to Catholic Encyclopedia then, yes, it's PD as anything published in the US before 1923 has now entered the public domain (see WP:PD#When does copyright expire?). It should of course still be properly attributed and indeed we have a special template for doing so - {{Catholic}}. As you don't mention what article you are referring to I can't see whether it's currently properly attributed. Dpmuk (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, the article is Thygeson Penn Joseph [6] In this revision everything is lifted directly from the book in question, I see no attribution to it. I had begun to edit the article and had assumed a lot of it was OR. I found the copying when I went looking for sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Attribution now done at Congregation of Ceremonies. I'm assuming Thygeson Penn Joseph get there by mistake. Doesn't appear to be anything more to do here... Dpmuk (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Darkness Shines and Dpmuk for finding the issue and taking care of things. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue

Hello. I'm writing to you because you seem level-headed, and you may be able to moderate an issue before it gets out of hand. I made an edit which another editor didn't like, reverted and left me a Nasty-Gram. I mentioned to this editor that I though his comments to me were overly aggressive, and threatening, and kind of rude, and asked him to be more polite, and I said that I'm always open to constructive criticism. He then threatened me with being blocked. Look, all I did was tell this person that he would bet better results if he was polite, and now he's going to have me banned. I really think this is out of line.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Your_Comments_To_Me

Again, is it really appropriate to respond to an edit you think is bad by automatically assuming vandalism and leaving very aggressive threatening messages. Is this really the way to achieve results? Is it "good" administration? Or, does it just piss people off? =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm afraid from your note that it seems like you may not understand which comment elicited the warning against personal attacks. You describe the incident as one in which you "mentioned to this editor that I though his comments to me were overly aggressive, and threatening, and kind of rude, and asked him to be more polite, and I said that I'm always open to constructive criticism." That would be, I presume, this comment. However, that was not the comment for which you were warned. As linked in the message to you, the comment that elicited the warning against personal attacks was this one:
More blather from Wikilawyers who have no other life but to WP:OWN anything they can. =//= Johnny Squeaky 02:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You say "Look, all I did was tell this person that he would bet better results if he was polite", but that is misunderstanding the warning you were given completely, because you said nothing like that to User:Tedder. I, too, perceive what you said to Tedder as a personal attack. While User:Tedder could have left you a message rather than the template, the template he left you is not an accusation of vandalism but a very proper reminder that you are supposed to use edit summaries when removing material. You have the right to remove notes that you do not like from your talk page. Your userpage note notwithstanding, you are bound by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA just like everybody else.
I'm also unsure, given your use of pronouns, if you realize that you are dealing with multiple people here. You write, "I made an edit which another editor didn't like, reverted and left me a Nasty-Gram. I mentioned to this editor that I though his comments to me were overly aggressive, and threatening, and kind of rude, and asked him to be more polite, and I said that I'm always open to constructive criticism. He then threatened me with being blocked. Look, all I did was tell this person that he would bet better results if he was polite, and now he's going to have me banned."
The editor who you asked to be more polite goes by the name User:Dl2000. You left that note here.
The editor who mention that you might be blocked ("then") goes by the name User:Drmies. He left that note here.
The actual sequence of events seems to have been this:
  • You removed content from the article Satyricon nightclub, marking your edits as minor (even though they were not; see Help:Minor edits) and offering no explanation in edit summary. User:Tedder put the content back and left you a note explaining what you're supposed to do when you remove content. You insulted him and undid him, without edit summary and again marking your edit as minor.
  • Dl2000 gave you a vandalism warning for describing this edit, in which you changed the header describing Garbo's "Honors, awards and nominations" to say "Trivia." He assumed, possibly incorrectly, that you were trying to be funny (see what he wrote in his edit summary). You asked him to be more polite to you.
  • Administrator User:Drmies became aware of your conversations with both editors and warned you that you could be blocked for personal attacks if you say things again like you did to User:Tedder.
There's nothing wrong with explaining to Dl2000 that you didn't think your edit was vandalism and nothing wrong with asking to be polite or assume good faith. There is quite a bit wrong with describing a neutral explanation of process as "More blather from Wikilawyers who have no other life but to WP:OWN anything they can." I daresay that's the kind of comment that "will just piss people off." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Amazon

Do we know if Amazon copies from wikipedia without attribution? Personally I seriously doubt it but just thought I'd check before removing text from Andrew Zimmern's Bizarre World. As an aside, I started a draft RfA but feel I've had too many CSD denials recently to make it "live" as we all know the requirement when it comes to things like that is higher for an RfA than is actually required afterwards! Dpmuk (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not know. :/ All I could do in that situation is check for signs of natural evolution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I've now removed it. I was pretty sure it was a copyvio but, given that it was inserted two years ago, wanted to make sure that Amazon wasn't well known for copying. You saying you don't know is enough proof for me that it probably doesn't happen. Given the problems we have with episode guides, the fact that the text was inserted in one go by an IP and that the source is not known for copying us I think I'm justified in removing it. Dpmuk (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuits for copyright infringement ("close paraphrase")

Hello, MoonRiddenGirl, I'm interested in the "close paraphrase" issue and it looks like you know something about it.

  1. Has the English Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation ever been sued for "close paraphrase" copyright infringement?
  2. If so, can you tell me the names of some of the cases? (I'd just like to read for myself what kind of "close paraphrase" violations cause legal trouble in the real world).

Thank you. (I've posted the same questions on the Reference Desk/Humanities page, and asked Elen of the Roads and may also ask SandyGeorgia and Almathea.) --Kenatipo speak! 17:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a quick reply, passing through. I'm afraid that, even if I'm an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, I don't have their legal history at hand. :) I can tell you that the English Wikipedia is not a legal entity and cannot be sued. The Wikimedia Foundation is, but as an online service provider is shielded by the DMCA, with which it is fully compliant. When a copyright holder complains, we remove the content.
Beyond that, I'm afraid that your question doesn't really reflect the way copyright cases work. Copyright cases hinge on whether or not taking of creative content is substantial, not on whether taking is directly pasted or closely paraphrased or even completely reworded, as with translations from other languages. Of course, direct copying is bound to be easier to determine. :) But to quote from 1992's "Copy Wrong: Plagiarism, Process, Property and the Law" by Laurie Stearns, "By being expansive in its definition of copying, or perhaps in its definition of expression, copyright law has sensibly avoided one of the strictures of the idea/expression dichotomy: it has eliminated paraphrasing as a defense to a charge of infringement. To qualify as a copyright infringement, the copying of expression need not be exact. Judge Hand addressed the question of paraphrasing, observing that copyright protection 'cannot be limited literally to the text, else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations.'" (You can see Judge Hand in context at [7].) What constitutes sufficient rewrite or substantial similarity can be difficult to determine. Unfortunately, there is no concrete test. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk)
Thank you, Moonriddengirl, for your informative and thoughtful response. Let me digest what you've told me! --Kenatipo speak! 01:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Any time. :) The section below might be of interest also. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible old Graham Bould copy problem?

Hello again Moonriddengirl. I came across the Hiatella arctica article and the prose is so smooth and knowledgeable that I was immediately suspicious that it had been copied from somewhere. The talk page says that this is not copied from Powell's book, but I did a google search for "the shell is highly irregular with no two specimens being alike" and got this entry on the MarLIN site:

http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesinformation.php?speciesID=3488

Unless MarLIN copied some text from us, it looks as if maybe GB copied it from them. I thought I would let you take a look. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's disheartening. :( I hope that there aren't others lingering out there; it seems that one was handled early, before we had reached the approach of removing everything that Graham wrote. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi Moonriddengirl. Would you take a look here? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like that one has resolved. :) Thanks for following through with it, and if I'm needed, please let me know! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Falcon and Magluta

i need 2 things addressed about a problem i have in writing an article for wiki: 1) you deleted my article entitled, 'Falcon and Magluta'. you mentioned that i copyrighted the article. so you suggest that i write my own version of it? 2) someone, an editor or user, kept editing or vandalizing my article. an example is when he changed one of the headings from 'Rise to Power' to 'Rise'. is there any way to block him from my article? his name is Ukexpat. why should such a harmless heading affect him this much that he had to stubbornly change it to 'Rise'? Bldonne (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Background to this can be found here and here. Voceditenore (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Replying at your talk page, User:Bldonne. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
This user is again making veiled accusations as to my motivations [8] and quite frankly I am getting sick of it. – ukexpat (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I can understand your frustration. :( I've spoken to the contributor some more. Hopefully he or she will get the point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about OTRS

I (finally) have had someone agree to donate an image for OTRS, although in part because the president of Wikimedia Indonesia indirectly introduced us. I've been in contact with Ucu Agustin, who complained that the current image made her look like "an orphan who had just received a government grant" and sent me an image to use instead. The only issue I have is that she uses a Gmail account. Assuming she holds the copyright to the the image donated, would I have to ask Siska (WM Indonesia head) to confirm it's her email address? Also, I'm not too sure about the process in submitting the image, especially since the permission a) does not follow a standard formula, and b) is not in English. Any ideas? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Having confirmation from Siska might work. I've never dealt with a permission from somebody who had no web presence, but I don't see a link to a site on her page. If she has anything official, we can usually find ways, even if just getting her to add a note temporarily to her website until it's been seen. A glance at meta:OTRS/personnel doesn't seem to show anybody who speaks Indonesian. That could be a bigger problem, but I bet I can find somebody who can help. I'll ask to the mailing list and get back with you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • She has Facebook (she added me there) but that runs into the same issues. Since Siska dealt with her during the Cipta Media Bersama grants (as noted in the article, Ucu received one... and that's kinda what got me to look into her when I did all that translation work for Siska, LOL) she has met Ucu personally and can verify that it is her email address. For the language issue, I'll see if Ucu's interested in following through with a templated English declaration. If not... well, it's hard to notarize emails and their translations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright, no need to spend too much time with the mailing list for me. She uploaded the image herself. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

UM James Wylie Shepherd Observatory Section

Moonriddengirl,

Thanks for the advice and clarification. I have put the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic License on my JWSO.org page, from which some of the tet of the UM entry comes. Is this sufficient? If so, I will repost the article.

Thanks.

Mfpatton (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK currently on mainpage

MRG, could you have a look here? What I most frequently find at DYK is that the structure of entire sources is copied, yet we see resistance in trying to explain that it's still a copyvio, even if duplication detector might not complain, since enough words are juggled. It's a recurring problem-- could you have a look before I take action? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Every DYK of that editor's I have checked seems to have copyvio. See Aboubakr Jamaï, and this source, example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, one despairs; years and years of this, but no change whatsoever at DYK. Unless Nikkimaria is watching (Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed), they keep acoming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy. I'm just passing through right now - family stuff going on today - but I wanted to let you know I've seen your note and will try to take a look before too long. I just can't right now; my family is waiting, and if this is not obvious to others, I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be a five minute look for me. :( As a general rule of thumb, I think structural concerns are greatest when there are few sources; the more sources that are utilized, the less likely we are to be appropriating somebody's creative selection and organization of facts. Sometimes issues can be dealt with simply through expanding an article. I hope to be back before too long! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl makes a very good point above, that structural concerns are greatest when there are few sources - using information from different sources very often ameliorates that concern. But the other thing to consider is that biographical articles and their sources often follow the same structure (chronological order). This is why copying of structure is not always copyvio or plagiarism. Just as simple factual information very often can't be copyrighted, but the way it is expressed can be, it is entirely possible for a standard approach to structure (e.g. chronological) to be copied but not be breaching copyright. At least I hope this is the case, because I pointed out a case of what I believed to be structural copying in a featured article candidate which was later promoted. I've since discussed this with someone else, and my view now is that though I was right to raise the concern, I was in fact mistaken, and where very few sources exist, or all existing sources use the same structure (chronological), then it is acceptable for Wikipedia to take the same approach and structure the information chronologically. Examples of articles where few sources exist are historical figures for whom not much is known, and borderline notable people for which not much has been published. Moonriddengirl, would you agree with that or not? And if copying of chronological structure (presenting the same information in the same order as presented by the sources) is a problem, how can Wikipedia or anyone write biographical articles where only a few sources exist and they all use that same approach to structure? Carcharoth (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
MRG, it sounds like a rewrite of one of the article is underway (I haven't kept up), so this is the version of concern, but ... I don't understand the continued insistence that "it's OK because it's chronological and there's no other way to tell the story". To me, when the article reads exactly as the source, with a few words juggled here and there, it's clear we're not reading our work, rather the source's work. Also, re the number of sources-- this is an old, repeat concern at DYK. Often, the structure of one obit (typically the New York Times) from one source is repeated in bios there, and that was the concern in this case as well (structure from one source). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry I didn't get back to look at the article later in the day. Alas, my family time went south when my son remembered that he had a major project due in school today. We spent right up until bedtime helping him build a pyramid and prepare a presentation on it. :/ I'm glad that it's being worked on.
In terms of chronology and no other way to tell the story, there may be room for disagreement as regards plagiarism, which is not my major focus, but copyright law doesn't care about the ethics of whose work it is. :) All it cares about is whether or not the content is creative enough to warrant protection. If everybody writing a biography would include the same facts in the same order, the presentation is not regarded as creative. If I read a biography that says, "He was born. He went to school. He worked. He died," I can use exactly that same structure in writing my own biography, because there would be little to no creative thought in it. They are what we would generally agree are the major points of outlining a life.
It's a very delicate balance, deciding when the organization becomes creative. The longer our source is and the more closely we follow it, the more likely we are to be running into problems. Did he hold 12 jobs and they list 6? That begins to show some subjective thought. For the same reason, it is not a copyright infringement to reproduce a complete "list of works" in a biography, but may be to reproduce a "selected works", if the selection criteria is creative. The core question you have to consider when thinking about copyright issues in terms of structure is "how much thought went into this?" The more creative the content, the stronger the copyright protection. If multiple sources use the same structure, the case that the structure is uncreative is actually strengthened. :) But I still try to mix it up a bit by adding in unusual facts I dig up from obscure sources, and if I can only find one source that discusses a subject in depth, I will take only the most important facts. Sometimes detail is lost. :/
What usually raises my concerns in close paraphrasing issues is a blend of copied expression and duplicated structure. The more similar the pieces would seem to an ordinary reviewer, the more likely it is to be an issue. In determining substantial similarity, courts will often ask for an entirely subjective review of whether or not the overall look and feel of a piece is the same. If it is substantially the same, and there is not some legal defense (such as fair use) successfully advanced, then infringement has occurred.
I have only just today found this essay, "WHEN IS A KNOCK OFF AN INFRINGEMENT", and at first blush it looks like a good one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks for the elaboration above; these are confusing issues, but that was a big help. I wonder if you'd still be willing to take a quick look at one or two of the articles labelled as entirely plagiarized: Aboubakr Jamai or Musa Muradov. Unfortunately, Sandy's already accused me on a Wikipedia project page and elsewhere of being a serial plagiarizer and copyright violator. As somebody who's always worked to be a good-faith editor, this has left me frankly reeling.

So far other editors have responded that I'm in a gray area or in the clear, but it seems that Sandy is waiting for your voice. Perhaps this is a bit academic now, as I'm leaving Wikipedia for a while regardless of the decision there. But if the problem is as serious as Sandy believes, I'd like it to be addressed so that I can apologize, take my lumps, and so that the other 100+ articles to which I've been the primary contributor can be checked and/or deleted; it seems like it would also be helpful to other contributors to learn from my public shaming. If the problem is not as serious as stated, I'd like to clear my good name of these charges, which are, after all, actual criminal offenses. I tried posting to AN/I Copyright Problems 24 hrs ago to get an expert opinion [9], but so far have received no response. Would you consider looking at one or both of these articles and weighing in on at WT:DYK as to whether, and to what degree, they are plagiarism and/or copyvio? (And if so, what revisions are required?) There's also a discussion of "best practices for dealing with close paraphrasing" that you may be interested in chiming in on. Thanks for your help, and enjoy the day, 184.59.31.77 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

If it's any help, a complete list of my articles can be found here.[10] 184.59.31.77 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I've left some thoughts on general practice at WT:CP and will look at the articles and conversation in question. Before I look, please let me reassure you that a "copyright violation" on Wikipedia is not necessarily the same thing as criminal infringement of copyright. It simply means that content does not conform to copyright policy. (I really believe that; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2010/Editorials.) I am so sorry that this situation has been upsetting to you. Certainly I can't blame you, but I really hope that you are not departing over this and that, if you are, you will reconsider. We need good faith editors, and especially prolific content builders like you. Even if I agree that there are copyright issues, I will still believe that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I've put some feedback at the DYK talk page and I've got to go. I'm late for work. (It's okay, though, I put in a lot of overtime, and I can make it up. :)) I really hope you will reconsider your departure, but wouldn't encourage you to do anything that would be unhealthy for you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, MRG--I'm very touched that you made my concerns that much of a priority. While I appreciate the invitation to stay, I've recently been diagnosed with severe myalgic encephalomyelitis, and my doctor has insisted that I avoid stresses on my system of any kind; tragically, he even made me give up my morning coffee because of its mild adrenaline spike. =) Anyway, from one former comp teacher to another, I appreciate your input, your clearing my work, but most all the cooling influence you brought to the discussion. All the best 184.59.31.77 (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy if I can help and certainly don't want to see anybody in distress over good faith efforts to help out. I have to say after looking into this that I owe both you and Sandy an apology for not going over. I assumed that if a rewrite was underway, the matter was settled, but I should have looked to confirm that. If I had, I could have tried to help out a bit sooner. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, I hope you won't mind my sticking my oar in here. I quite understand the seriousness of both copyright violation and plagiarism (and I am yet another former comp teacher, there should perhaps be a userbox), and I know you're busy, but reading what you have now added at the DYK discussion page, I see you substantially agreeing with me and with the original reviewer of the article that SandyGeorgia pulled off the Main Page as containing overly close paraphrasing, that it's not close enough to be concerning. (I've gone further - I cannot discern any echoing in Khazar's version and Orlady's seems to me equally valid, not better.) Since this is a matter that affects every one of us, and since having articles pulled and statements made that DYK is impermissably lax on the issue is severely impacting the DYK project, and since as you see Khazar has again left over the issue and needs the stress taking off him anyway, I'd like to ask you to post to that DYK discussion page a clear section laying out where the line goes. My suspicion from a careful reading of SandyGeorgia's and your statements is that there is some confusion happening between structure of a sentence and structure of a paragraph or article segment. To reiterate, I recognize the importance of not echoing overly closely someone else's writing, as well as of attributing sources. And yes, the method of working of importing text in order to then make changes is almost never safe (the instructive extreme example being those Wikipedia mirror sites that mechanically substitute synonyms). But in my best estimation, reading again and again, I truly do not think that Khazar's work as cited falls to the level of the standard of its seeming like a derived text to someone reading first the source, then the restatement of the material in Wikipedia. And I read you as saying something similar, although you obviously may still have several examples to peruse. So please, when you are ready and have time, could you make a guideline statement with reference to this case, to either alleviate our considerable anxiety at the project (and console Khazar somewhat) or assist DYK writers and reviewers in avoiding and spotting the problem? Thank you in advance, and I know it's a large and pushy request. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I really wish I could, but there isn't a clear line. It would make things so much easier if there were. :( :Context matters enormously, obviously, because "fair use" relies on so many contextual factors: how substantial the material is, for instance, or whether it's central to the original work; how transformative our use is. Close paraphrasing of a small section of a single source in a long article that uses many sources would be far more likely to be determined as fair use than close paraphrasing of a small section of a single source in a short article that uses only that source. :) From an earlier version of article on substantial similarity (which I remember because I wrote it :D): "While actionable infringement is more likely to be found where greater levels of similarity exist, Richard Stim noted in 2007's Patent, Copyright & Trademark that "[a]n infringement may be found based on several paraphrased passages of a few hundred words each, or just 20 words copied verbatim."(Stim, Richard (2007). Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference (9 ed.). Nolo. p. 220. ISBN 1413306462.)
It can help put the difficulty drawing the line, I think, to think of it like this: if you quote a stanza of a poem in a critical essay about the poem, you're almost certainly going to meet the standards of fair use. If you quote a stanza of a poem on a t-shirt or a coffee cup, you almost certainly won't. The same issues exist with close paraphrasing. Three key questions for me when I want to make fair use of anything anywhere are (1) How creative is it?, (2) am I using it transformatively? and (2) am I using too much? The answers are somewhat interconnected - the more transformative our use, the more I'm comfortable using; the more I'm using, the more transformative it needs to be. (And on Wikipedia, I am generally mindful of the three factors of WP:NFC: (1) would it be fair use and comply with WP:NFC? (2) Do I need it so much that I can't create something new? (3) Could I defend it if challenged? (since we don't actually create fair use rationales for text).
I've kind of taken a shot by pitching in at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, an essay started by User:Dcoetzee. I wonder if it would be helpful to expand the bit that says "Depending on the context and extent of the paraphrasing, limited close paraphrase may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use; close paraphrase of a single sentence is not as much of a concern as an entire section or article." My general experience says we have more of an issue with people trying to be too liberal than the other way around, so I am always careful about misleading the people who are already inclined to try to take the whole shebang. :) But being overly strict isn't a good standard, either.
I hope this makes sense! I was interrupted multiple times while writing it but really need to get a move on, so I'm saving and checking for other outstanding issues on the page. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A strange query

I thought of this while posting in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omnientheism. If text posted here is deleted, does it cease to be covered under CC and revert to being the plaything of its writer? The author of that article was saying someone had asked his permission to use it on E2. I pointed out that he couldn't have refused, but then wondered what happens when something is deleted. The answer is probably in a policy somewhere, but I can't remember seeing it. Not an urgent query, just a matter of curiosity. Peridon (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. :)
While I'm not a lawyer and can't give legal advice, when the author of the article placed it here, I feel pretty confident that anybody who copied the content from Wikipedia retains the right to release it under the license. Anyone who encounters the content at one of our reusers also has the right to carry it forward, since the license permits modification and reuse. However, if they find it on his own website under different license, they can't have it. See Wikipedia:C#Contributors' rights and obligations: "You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain so licensed until they enter the public domain when your copyright expires (currently some decades after an author's death)."
Whether or not in a court of law we could prove that the contributor explicitly agreed to an irrevocable release might depend on when the content was placed. Now and for some time the text beneath the "edit window" has said, "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Notwithstanding that lots of people ignore it, it would seem to constitute an explicit agreement. The moral being: read the small print. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I've also wondered where we stand when it comes to those legally unable to make such a decision. Not sure who that would apply to but I would imagine there's some (possibly minors?). Dpmuk (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Yuck! Would you look at that? ;)
Needless to stay, that's a bit of a sticky wicket for an online website that collects no information on contributors beyond what they choose to disclose. And even if we did, it would be really hard to verify that the information we are given is correct. I can't think of any way to fix it that wouldn't risk losing the baby. Maybe we should hope to avoid bridges. :/ (enough with the idioms) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Right, I'll go back to burying my head in the sand then. Dpmuk (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
LOL! Either that, I think, or head to village pump. This one is a doozy. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear - have I started something? 8-( Peridon (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: Overheard the other day on Salford Crescent railway station - two girls talking. One said, "So I went like, we should cross our bridges when they arrive"..... Peridon (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
LOL! That's fabulous. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
They were uni students.... She also said, "He's going to be away for six months. That's half a year. Australia, too. But even if it was bloody France, it'd be bad enough." (If you've ever wondered how writers make up some things, now you know. They sometimes don't make them up. They listen and paste...) Peridon (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What to do with copyvio at Articles for Creation?

Hi MRG! Quick question. An article previously at AfD was moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Origin and Science of Music. However virtually the entire article consists of various pages from the creator's blog published in June 2011 and only slightly modified. See, for example the DD Report on one them. Should it be blanked with {{copyvio}}, stubbed, or what? It's hopeless OR + a duplicate version Music science has already been deleted as "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Music and mathematics; also see WP:OR". It's so wildly inappropriate that hasn't got a hope in hell of making it into main space, even if an OTRS permission was obtained. It just doesn't seem worth stringing the editor along with the promise that they might be able to make it acceptable. Voceditenore (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone appears to have seen this and deleted it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Whoot! :D I would agree with you, for what it's worth, that there's no reason to string the editor along. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

Google translate

Comedystreet is pretty clearly a translation of de:Comedystreet. Indeed given the similarity of the Google translation I strongly suspect that was how it was done. Am I right in thinking that, as the work of a machine, google can claim no copyright on the translation and so as long as I attribute to the German wikipedia properly we're OK. If so I'll do the attribution and a little bit more tagging or tidying up. Dpmuk (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if Google could claim copyright on the translation, it would have to be licensed compatibly for our use for them to claim it (that is, since the license of Wikipedia DE requires that), but I think that you are right. I've only lightly glanced at the issue of copyright in computer generated works and after a rough night can't remember if I've read any recent decisions. :) I would have to check a reference book to see where things stand now. But there's this 2001 paper from Duke Law & Technology Review. Might as well be a thousand years ago, for law and technology. :) Then, at least, the matter was pretty open-ended. If we want to be purely safe, though, all we need to do is credit the German Wikipedia with a note that it was translated by Google. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that's a good point - I sometimes forget about what the SA bit means when people take stuff from wikipedia rather than the other way round. I thought I was missing something. I'm assuming that if google had terms of use that restricted what you could translate (to for example PD or stuff you own copyright in) then we might still have problems but as they don't appear to have any terms of use that isn't a problem. Right off to sort attribution and the like out. Dpmuk (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

AlphaGamma articles

Hi. I was just going through this and observed that you have deleted literally hundreds of articles. My question is, were all of these articles copyright violations? Also, many of these deleted articles appear to be notable topics. So would you mind if I recreate some of these pages? Waiting for ur reply.... Lyk4 (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I don't know if all of those articles were copyright violations. I know that some of them were, and all of them were created by the user - who is a serial infringer of our copyright policy and sockpuppetteer - in violation of a block. User:AlphaGamma1991 is also User:Siddiqui and User:Paknur. Policy permits the presumptive deletion of all additions by editors in such unusual circumstances. I'm happy that they are unusual. It's truly unfortunate that this individual would keep violating these policies, but whenever his socks are found (in all cases since I became involved, by finding his copyright problems first), his content must be cleaned up. :/ You would be most welcome to create new articles on any notable subjects that were deleted, although if you mean "recreate" as in using his text, I'm afraid that's not possible. :) So long as your articles comply with copyright policy (as briefly summarized in Wikipedia:Copy-paste), there should be no issue.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift response. So from what I understand, some of those articles were copyright violations but others were deleted because he was blocked? So just another question: what about the articles by AlphaGamma that weren't copyright violations? Is it part of policy to delete a blocked editor's articles, when they have no issues (i.e. copyright vio), but just on the basis that he created those articles while he was evading a block? Isn't that in a way counter-productive, because a lot of constructive and useful content would end up being deleted in the process (in this case, hundreds of articles)? I really hope you don't mind my question. Just trying to be blunt in order to understand the policy. Thanks again, Lyk4 (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
They were all deleted because he's a serial copyright violator with offenses stretching over years. As Wikipedia:Copyright violations: "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." That he is also violating a block is simply an additional rationale: WP:CSD#G5. He is not welcome to contribute here until and unless he negotiates an unblock. But it's worth noting here that his sock puppetry probably wouldn't have been discovered if he had not continued creating copyright problems under that username. He has been warned of copyright issues across multiple accounts, but seems unable or unwilling to comply with policies. As long as that remains true, his contributions are likely to be deleted on discovery. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for clarifying. Lyk4 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

ABC press releases and the copyright status of the text

Just to let you know, I posted an update on the process at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 January 24. Now that legal has it, I hope it's resolved sooner rather than later. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm actually really familiar with how the ticket is progressing. :D I'm also User:Mdennis (WMF), although my work at the copyright problems board is volunteer work and not related to my job. I went ahead and picked up the ticket when I saw that nobody was handling it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC closure

It looks as though the RfC on the FA leadership has slowed down. The notification in last week's Signpost appeared to bring in a few more commenters, but now there's not much happening. What's your feeling about closing it soon? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure! If you think it's winding down. I didn't expect it to finish quite so soon. Unless it's a great deal simpler than I'm expecting, I probably won't get to close it this morning, but I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, the closure looks pretty straightforward; the only question is if we should wait to see if more people will comment, just because it was so acrimonious going in -- I don't want people to think I asked you to look at it because I wanted it closed while one side is ahead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, how about this: I had budgeted time on Saturday to work on this. What about if I wait until then and see if the conversation is really dead? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that would be fine; but I honestly think you could close it in five minutes. There's a huge majority on one side. Either way is fine; if you decide to wait till Saturday I'll leave a note on the RfC talk page saying that's when you plan to do it, just in case anyone wants to wait longer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good. :) The Saturday time is more to deal with potential issues with people thinking you wanted it closed at a particular point. We can't predict the point it will be on Saturday. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've left a note about the planned closure, just in case anyone disagrees. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be left open for a while longer. I didn't even know about it until yesterday. I'm sure there are some other folks out there who have views on the subject but just haven't learned of the RfC yet. Everyking (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. If it's still active, I won't close it. But it has been listed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion and the RFC boards since the 20th. :) Hopefully most people are aware who care about such things. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

*POKE* - Just a reminder to please close the RFC today. There's no new voting going on, and minimal commentary. I'm waiting until after you do so that I can appoint new delegates. Raul654 (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I thought from the note above that it might still be going on. As soon as I get this CCI started and close out this one day on CP, I'll come get it going. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
After looking at the last couple of days, Raul, I'd like to wait until tomorrow and see what happens the rest of today. Everyking requested a little more time yesterday, and I see that he himself only voted then along with what at a glance seems to be 3 other people. I think the only way to avoid fresh drama here is to make sure that people have stopped responding to the polls first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Some numbers, FYI: I noted when The Signpost bot went out, with the RFC announced in News and Notes. That also corresponded with the timing of external sites (unfriendly to Raul :) announcing the RFC (that is, likely to bring in opposition to consensus leadership), and subsequently, the PumpkinSky/Rlevse socking brought more attention to the RFC. Before those three issues, consensus was dominating about seven to one. Since The Signpost publication and other wider publicity via the two other isses, that ratio has run about twelve to one. Additional "publicity" has turned the RFC more in the favor of keeping FAC free of external politicization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, I can't discuss an RFC I'm going to close with active participants of it until after its closed. :) I know you wouldn't intend to bias the outcome, but I don't want to create any doubt in the minds of any participants that I am coming in fresh and forming my own conclusions. I'll take a look at it at some point this morning, and I will try to close if it is completely stale. If conversation is ongoing, I may not be able to, but will determine that by the particulars. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It looks like a fair amount of new conversation there. I need to be careful that my closure doesn't seem to cut talk short. If it does, people will likely accuse me of bias however I read the consensus. :/ I'll keep an eye on it, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Catching this sort of discussion between new rant threads is a bit like trying to dodge rain drops. Good luck. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If it keeps going for a few more days but without much momentum, I might announce a closure date, although 30 days is the default length of time for an RFC. It's kind of important, though, that I not seem to close it at the prompting of somebody who might be advantaged by closure at that specific time. If conversation ceases, there shouldn't be any question that the outcome has been altered by an earlier closure. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read, double-read, and triple-read my informational post above which contained nothing but data, and for the life of me I can't see where I asked you to discuss the data, discuss the close, attempted to bias the outcome, or attempted to prompt a closing. You previously said you would close on Saturday, then Sunday, and I provided some data that might have been helpful for the close relative to publicity. I can't find anything in my wording above that encouraged you to close or attempted to bias the outcome: data is just data, so your reaction has me confused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I confused you, Sandy. :) As I said, I know you would not attempt to bias me, but I would prefer to read and assess the data myself so that nobody else should think that I have relied on yours. I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me, though. I didn't say I would close on Saturday; I said, "What about if I wait until then and see if the conversation is really dead?" The conversation wasn't dead on Saturday. I didn't say I would close it on Sunday; I said, "I'd like to wait until tomorrow and see what happens the rest of today." The conversation is still active. I prefer not to close an RFC while conversation is ongoing, generally, unless it has reached the 30 day default length of time for an RFC to be open. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see that now ... which means I made a misleading post at WT:FAC, indicating the RFC was to be closed on Feb 4-- I'll have to go figure out how to fix that now. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that, Sandy. :) I appreciate your clearing that up. I know that I won't make everybody happy with my closure of something, but I try very hard to make sure that they will think I'm being fair. That can save a lot of recurring drama down the road. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's now been a week since you said you were going to close it originally, and there's been no edits to the RFC in the last 22 hours. Are you planning to close it anytime soon? Raul654 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As I told Mike I would, I made a note in my calendar to check it each Saturday to see if it was still active. Last Saturday, it still was. Tomorrow, if it's not, I'll close it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Very good. Thank you. Raul654 (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Caracas 2000

I'm following your work, and confused. Francisco Herrera Luque. Why is it OK if it's translated from en.wiki, if it still has text taken from the original sources? Specifically, if es.wiki violated copyvio, how is it OK for us to translate it here? I'm unclear what step I'm missing here ... but you have more important things to be doing today, so let me know later if you need me to look at more of his articles, once I'm better educated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy. :) Ordinarily, it wouldn't be, but in this rare case, the source you flagged copied from the Spanish Wikipedia article as well. If you look at the paper, it cites the Spanish Wikipedia and is dated 2010. You can see the state of the article in 2009. There's no evidence that the Spanish Wikipedia violated copyright; it looks like improperly used Wikipedia content.
At the moment, I'm checking his article contribs to see the scope of problem we're dealing with here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, got your message-- once it's good to go, let me know if my Spanish language help is needed. I speak fluently, but I learned as an adult, so reading is Very Slow Going and not fun ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You are so diplomatic and so good at this! And I see you've been working for nine hours straight :) Before you finish up, one note. The problem first came to my attention via Ciudad Bolivar, because my children's ancestors are from there and I was looking for an example of a very old (back to 2007) problem at WP:GOCE-- that is, they copyedit without checking sources, which obscures copyvio. There seems to be some confusion over there, and if you could go over to WT:GOCE and emphasize to them how difficult it is to locate copyvio if someone has ce'd over it, that might help. They don't like me very much, but I raised this back in 2007 and nothing has changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure! I understand how people can focus on one task and not think about another issue. As I mentioned over there, I once almost missed a glaring BLP issue because I was satisfied it wasn't a copyvio...wasn't thinking about that aspect of things at all. :) I'm all about raiding copyright consciousness. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Raiding ?  :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
LOL! Another one for more userpage! (Well, almost. It's not quite as good as what I've already had.) Clearly, I need to spend a bit of time off the computer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW it appears that perhaps every Venezuelan presidential biography is a copyvio due to this user... I'm working my way through the CCI deleting them but it's pretty depressing. Also, User:Caracas1830 isn't the same user is he? Seems to have a better grasp of English so I don't think so but thought I'd call it to your attention. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Even more depressing, this user appears to have a previous (and previously-blocked) incarnation, also introducing direct-translation copyvios. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caracas 2000. Could you add this user to the contribution surveyor page for Caracas 2000? I think the SPI is a foregone conclusion, plus I found one text copyvio and there's at least one text copyvio notice on his page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to agree with you that the first guy is probably not the same guy. With respect to the second, looks pretty iffy. User:GJRFMorelligu was declined in his last unblock request on 8 August 2006. User:Caracas 2000 created his account on 9 August 2006. Caracas 2000 immediately started uploading images, some under fairly dubious claim of authorship. And some of the uploads are the same: File:Juan Bautista Plaza.jpg. I've restored the history for comparison: [11]. Exactly the same dimensions and resolution; I don't know how to see the metadata of the original. This is also true of File:Alberto Arvelo Torrealba.jpg. Uploaded by GJRF and deleted; later uploaded by Caracas 2000 in precisely the same dimensions. See also File:Mariano Picón Salas.jpg, File:The young Fredy Reyna.jpg. Notable here, both of them uploaded and subsequently had deleted the same image: File:People dancing merengue rucaneao.jpg. This was later uploaded on Commons as public domain (and perhaps it is) by commons:User:Guillermo Ramos Flamerich. The metadata and the dimensions seem the same. I'm going to add any of this you don't already have to your SPI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
That would help, because all of the evidence there now is dubious (at least to the extent I can see it without admin tools). Linking them via their image work or their prose would help. (I've known Caracas1830 for years, and his command of English is quite good, and I'm fairly certain that 2000 and 1830 even have opposite politics. Caracas1830 is not a chavista.) I'm a bit concerned, though, that articles are being cleared that still have issues (generally unsourced articles-- one has to go looking for the source of the copyvio when the source wasn't listed.) Considering the extent of this editor's blatant copying, I'm curious to know why the entirely unsourced articles aren't just blanked anyway? It seems I can't help, since I can't revdel. But in most cases I've checked, I've been able to figure out where he copied the text from, by spending time in Google, preferences in Spanish, knowing what keywords to look for. Of course, not my job, no longer my problem, since it seems my standards are too tight, and we now let even borderline cases through. Just sayin' there are plenty of copyvios on the Caracas 2000 list that are marked as clear, when they're not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I've found a little bit more, too, since I posted this. It's at the SPI. :) You don't have to be able to rev delete to help, Sandy. Anybody can remove or rewrite content in article at WP:CCI or blank them for the copyright problem board. The directions are at teh top: Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Caracas_2000#Text. Glancing at the CCI, though, what I'm seeing marked clear is primarily stuff that isn't creative: this, for instance, and this; [12]; [13]. I haven't looked at everything, but that could be what you're seeing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I left you a query at the SPI (important, pls check, I suspect a typo, working too fast?) No, I'm not talking about that (quite obviously) non-creative stuff: I'm talking about text exactly like the rest of his other copyvios, but without including the source. I think it should be obvious that-- and why-- I'm no longer interested in helping on copyvio issues :) The borderline cases should not be accepted; now they are, and I disagree. Strongly (since I don't even think they're borderline), but I know when I have to back down or be blocked. So be it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I snuck in to clarify; I did mean three, but not Caracas 1830. Can you give me a link to specify which article you mean? I'm really pinched on time, and I'm afraid I shouldn't be digging through to find which ones are creative but have been marked clear. :/ (And I don't think you should stop helping out with copyvio issues. You've raised important problems!) --User:Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help finish up this case, if for no other reasn than that Caracas1830 was unfairly accused (which really surprised me from an attorney, who should know something about evidence and how that feels).

As to whether a CCI should be opened on GJRF, here's a sample of his work which is the same as the issue I mention above (copyvios from Caracas 2000 marked as clear when sources aren't identified, but can be found via Google): [14] That is unsourced text. On the Caracas 2000 cases, I was able to figure out the source of unsourced text by spending time in Google, preferences set to Spanish-- takes a lot of time to get through all the Wiki mirrors. This case is probably similar-- since they always did cut-and-paste translations, it's just a matter of figuring out from where. I also found cases where I suspect the cut-and-paste is from hard print sources, that we can't check from here (I could get hold of them from friends in Caracas). So, one of my questions is-- in cases like this, do you just go ahead and delete the unsourced text as a likely copyvio, considering the editor history, and is it correct to be marking them as cleared on the CCI?

I didn't write down the ones I identified via Google, so can't point you to them; I was, frankly, too mad to care-- about the allegations at Caracas1830 and everything else going on at DYK. As I said, I'm not doing this anymore. I don't 'spose I'm allowed any more to state my concerns without threat of block, but here it is. The Moonriddengirl so much loved by the community was the *best* at copyright issues. MDennis is a WMF employee, hence on some level beholden to the WMF, and a community liasion as well, meaning her job is to consider editors and their concerns, in the way the WMF intends (which has been clearly laid out several times as quantity over quality). When the goals of the WMF coincide with the interests of individual editors for MDennis, I'm concerned that we're no longer seeing the Moonriddengirl who wrote the Dispatch, and could and would clearly call a case of copied structure, that could be varied. Or at least, indicate the danger in allowing a culture at DYK where the borderline cases are accepted, so the culture at DYK continues, because we don't want to offend a good-faith and hard-working editor. It has to be hard, when wearing two different hats with sometimes conflicting aims (defending quality over retaining editors and promoting quantity), and do the former work as well as you did before. I know when I was a FAC reviewer, I was tough, but when I became delegate, I was obligated to uphold reviewer consensus, which often meant overlooking things I wouldn't have overlooked as a reviewer.

So, after spending four years of my life promoting other people's work for the mainpage, no time for me and my own article interests and editing, it makes no sense for me to now spend more time defending and protecting and working for a WMF that wants quantity over quality and isn't concerned about the massive copyvio problem in here (the stand on SOPA was quite ironic, considering the extent of the problem). Promoting quantity over quality is not my gig, and the WMF missteps and insults to content are why I resigned from FAC. I sure don't want to waste my time on the significant problem that has gone unabated at DYK for at least five years now, where a cut-and-paste culture is furthered until individual editors have created thousands of copyvios, still "on the books", particularly since DYK now feels empowered to continue business as usual (which means, no checks for copyvio or close paraphrasing anyway, all the work falling to one editor, Nikkimaria). Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy. Checking back in because I wanted to answer this one under my own name. :) We will sometimes presumptively delete text when a contributor's history makes copying likely. AIR, the instructions for the CCI include a link to the template we use in that situation. I can look more closely later but am on limited time right now, as I'm taking a coffee break.
I can understand your concerns that being MDennis might have changed my approach, and I'm sure that my experiences with the WMF do go into shaping how I perceive things. Among other things, I have a much more global perspective now as my involvement in other language projects has certainly increased. I've got some very different experiences now. But I think my attitude towards copyright issues is pretty similar to what it was in 2007, 2008, etc. For instance, I have always tried to avoided labeling close paraphrasing as a copyright problem unless it seems to me a very close thing; my note to Frank here precedes my contract by almost two years, and my feeling then was the same. :) I used the same language in October 2008. A paraphrase may be close enough to require further revision without my labeling it or considering it a copyright problem. (I have always been concerned with editor retention. The very first "CCI" I did, when there was no process for it at all, was for a man who had been indefinitely blocked for copyright problems via close paraphrase and had even socked to continue the work after his indefinite block. I negotiated an unblock with the admin who had blocked him to begin with and mentored him for quite a while as he worked on improving his paraphrasing skills. I'm proud of the time and effort he put into it; he serves as a reminder to me years later that we should, when we can, try.) Personally, I still put many hours into cleaning up copyright problems on Wikipedia, even though I can only do it on weekends. FWIW, the WMF is also concerned about copyright issues; it was the community department and Erik Moeller who arranged for Corensearchbot to be able to continue its work (and I hope all is well with Coren, since it's currently not running :/), and the legal team is currently actively researching multiple questions for various communities, including ours, on copyright to help the projects form good practices and policies.
There is always going to be room for disagreement as to what constitutes a copyright problem. I have consulted others who work in the area on occasion myself; sometimes, they share my concerns and sometimes they don't. Since copyright evaluation is often largely subjective, this is to be expected. There is no bright line. If there were, things could get done a lot faster. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
No bright line, room for disagreement, borderline cases-- all good and fair. But that's not how they're reading it over at DYK, the line is drawn, and that logic won't get me uncrucified at ANI, or prevent me from being blocked by abusive admins if I continue to speak up with facts, sooo.... We've witnessed at DYK where the line is drawn on legitimate concern about copying structure. I'm demanded to apologize, and threatened with a block or topic ban if I continue to raise the concern. In summary, we now have a clear and chilling effect upon anyone attempting to educate with words you helped write and to resolve the rampant copyvio at DYK, or anywhere. Yes, I'm done. WMF can have its copyvio. This editor has been silenced, and the "bright line" is drawn in favor of not erring on the side of caution, and not educating better in the very forum where most copyvio first surfaces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Sandy. I didn't realize you were at ANI. I'm sorry. :( I don't understand why everything has to be such DRAMA on Wikipedia. I can understand, under the circumstances, why you would want to be done. Even if there's not a bright line, erring on the side of caution is policy. I'll go see how the DYK conversation has progressed and see if I can add some clarity there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio learning curve

Hello Moonriddengirl. Thanks for you very sensitively worded message about copyvio on the GOCE talk page. Things look better after your message and Dianna's reaction.

One thing: you probably get told all the time how opaque WP processes are and how difficult it is to learn the way into them. Well, copyvio issues are a case in point. As it happens, for various reasons I spent much of yesterday trying to figure out what I (as a copy editor, not a lawyer or a procedures maven) needed to know about copyvio. I spent several hours on it, but failed to discover Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101, and it would have made life a lot easier if I'd found it.

So why didn't I find it? Well, if someone wants to learn how to handle copyvio, perhaps they are most likely to type "WP:Copy" into a search box and see what the drop-down says, aren't they? If that doesn't help, one may then add some more, like "...right" or "...vio". And, for lack of redirects that would do it, none of these strategies will lead to the 101 page. Typing "Help:Copy" into a search box gives an even less useful drop-down. Pages which have {{Wikipedia copyright}} link to it, but with the obscure phrasing "Process page for text-related copyright problems", which is not exactly an invitation to a beginner like me. Lastly, pages like WP:COPYVIO do have see-also links to it, but they are displayed as the uninformative shortcut Cv101. In short, what I'm suggesting is that the learning curve could be made easier if thought were given to making key introductory pages like this more findable. This applies to other beginner-challenging areas of process too, like how to propose deletions and how and when to ask for admin assistance.

I hope this was useful, and thanks again. Best regards, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That is useful, Simon. It's a huge job, but an important one. I'll think about how we can manage it. If I can't find time to start it myself, maybe I'll ask for help at one of the village pumps. :) In the meantime, I'll fix those shortcut links! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! :) --Stfg (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec)It was useful although this is a tps not MRG, but it is a subject I've brought up, and will attempt to address. (More details at your talk page).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Replied there. Thanks again. --Stfg (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) The new phrasing used by {{Wikipedia copyright}} is much better. I hope you won't mind, but I've created two new redirects to the 101 page, Wikipedia:Copyvio101 and Wikipedia:Copyright101, to make it more likely that people will find it. --Stfg (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. :) Anything that makes the work easier! Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Leftover copyright tag: Vangsnes

Hello,

I was notified of a leftover copyright tag from June on Vangsnes, which seemed to be placed by you. I verified that the source is properly cited and covered by a very liberal license, so reverted the tagging. Hope this is OK with you! --Alvestrand (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC) (former copyvio worker bee)

Oh, no! We need to get our copyright bots back in place. Evidently, I forgot to list that one at the copyright problems board, and so it was never addressed. We used to have a bot that found those strays, but, alas, we are botless at CP. If not for User:MER-C, we wouldn't get anything done. :/ Certainly, if the license is liberal enough, there's no reason to keep the tag. :) While I can't read Norwegian, Ambivaline's translation of the license seems to suggest attribution is the only requirement. Thanks for mopping up after me. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
If you're interested in having a bot perform that function again, let me know, I'll take a look at what the earlier bot did, and then make a BRFA. Plus you can always request any additional clerking functions CP may need. I'm a bit busy for coding these days, but CP's worth it. :) — madman 14:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
See also my comment way below on this which is very related but which I started in a separate section to make sure it didn't get lost. Dpmuk (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Ooooh, if we could have bots! We used to have a bot that created a new page for CP each day. Bots transcluded a daily message to it, that included a link to SCV (there's a header for that somewhere; I'll have to dig it up). They moved the listings old enough for admin closure to the current list. And they trawled for articles tagged with {{copyvio}} or {{copypaste}} and put them at WP:CP so they didn't just languish forever. Now we have nothing. :/ I would love to have bots again; let me ask User:MER-C to weigh in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I have some untested code for this but I haven't had the free time to finish it, set up a bot account and a cron-job to run it somewhere. MER-C 03:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'm working on a bot (bases on MER-C's Wiki.java) and hope to have something up and running by the end of the weekend, although for the moment it will have to be manually run by me and I'll have to check it's edits until I get my tool server account re-activated and we got through the bot approval process respectively. Dpmuk (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Think I've got the code largely sorted. I've asked MER-C to hold off on doing his usual stuff today so that I can give it a run and see how it goes. Dpmuk (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow! Bot again? That would be so fantastic. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Well the test run seemed to have largely worked OK. There was a minor glitch where it tried to create a new page for yesterday rather than today but that did at least test the logic that ensures it won't add the header bits to a page if they're already there. A little bit of recoding and rerunning that section seems to have got it working right. I've had a look at the three edits made by User:DpmukBOT to make sure they look sensible, although I'd appreciate it if one or two others could check them as well.
Having this as a fully working bot is still a little way off. I need to get my toolserver account reactivated (which I'm in the process of) and then there's the WP:BRFA. I'll try and run it manually about midnight each day until it's authorised and can be automated. I'll try and work on the WP:BRFA in the next couple of days but I do have some real-world work to do as well. Dpmuk (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed, believe me, and let loose a squee that raised some family eyebrows. :) They look good to me, and I am so grateful for the time you've put into it. I hope that we can get things fully operational, and appreciate your taking us in that direction. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, just spotted something else minor. It missed the source at Royal Jewelry Museum. That's because that tagging (understandably) does not use the URL parameter. Will have to think about this one a bit. Dpmuk (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
On a different note, I've taken my RfA live. Can't imagine this will be seen as canvassing given that posting on one user talk page is no different to asking for a nomination and I thought you'd like to know. Honestly wouldn't be irritated if you opposed - I know I have a chequered history in places. Dpmuk (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I'm pleased you're considering it. As you've seen, I will not oppose. :) I think you would be very good in this capacity, and I wish you well with your RFA! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Archived RFC input request

Any word? Buffs (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, but it's not "it's ready", I'm afraid. :) I asked during a meeting yesterday how this was going and was told that it was still in the works. I gather that the Board meeting this weekend wound up throwing things off schedule for the legal department a little bit. At this point, I would hope for a response on Thursday or Friday. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Buffs (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Rolling into Saturday now...any word? Buffs (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
...and we're inching out of Sunday... Really just looking for an update. Buffs (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! I overlooked your earlier note. I'm afraid I don't have one. :/ The office is closed on the weekend, but I sent an inquiry in on Friday and have a phone call with the legal department on Monday. I will ask then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Buffs (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Based on your thoughts about paraphrasing, would you please advise me on some aspects, related to the PumpkinSky CCI. One reviewer found that in lists of people from Montana the lead quotes exactly from the article Montana. Is that a problem? I wouldn't think so. - I tried to fix what was regarded as a problem on DYK, but could't clearly see a problem (same link). Finally, what you said about "shock and shame" is all too true. I will look now at the nom which Khazar left unfinished. I reviewed one other of his, could you perhaps doublecheck? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am the reviewer in the first question. As I linked in my note, the relevant guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia. While missing attribution rarely requires deletion and can be fixed by dummy edits and {{Copied}}s – normal editing that does not require admin rights – using content without attribution is a violation of Wikipedia's licensing. If the procedure is too complicated (it gets complaints often), one may use {{Copying within Wikipedia}} to flag a page for attention. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Flatscan is dead to rights on the first one. :) With regards to the second, I did a tiny bit more tweaking. I think it's fine. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, both, I learned again. Can we say that a user who does not know this about copying within WP (as I did until now) doesn't commit copyvio if he fails to include a template or dummy edit? And can you, Flatscan, mark all four "wilderness" articles then? Grateful for every little bit of taming, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, those pages are at the top of my to-do list. I hope to have time in the next few days. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, legally it's still an infringement of copyright to copy content without respect for the license whatever we may call it. But I don't assign blame, certainly, for people who don't know. Just tell them, ask them to comply going forward and sometimes to go back and help fix. :) When working on a CCI, I usually just mark those as copy problems, identify why and what I've done. It's not meant to assign guilt, just to denote what issues were found and addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I have two more questions. You may know that I like to write on Bach's cantatas, one a week. Of course (so far) I copy from the last one, there are some standard sentences. As said above, I even think it's useful for a series of related articles. No I feel insecure about it. The other: please look at the template again, I tried to explain why I can't do what I am asked to do, there are limits, time for example, I feel I'm getting too involved here, trying to deliver content about Human rights. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
A quick point: the supplementary attribution isn't necessary if you're copying everything from yourself. I tend to do it for my edits anyway so that I can follow their history back. If you like, I can check some of your articles and provide feedback. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Pictish Mithraism & AfC

I've taken this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pictish Mithraism as OR and not notable (it's really an attempt to publicise someone's idea) but only after I did that did I discover that it is mainly copyvio - what bothers me is that is was reviewed at AfC. Do AfC reviewers get any briefing on spotting copyvio? Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's mentioned at their guidelines, but, alas, not everybody looks for it. :/ I've found a few copyright problems that have passed through AFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

:)

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.45.234 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Adaminte Makan Abu - page edited by Arfaz, DdraconiandevilL (sockpuppet of Arfaz)

Hi. I was following up on a request at the guild of copy-editors to copy-edit Adaminte Makan Abu. I discovered after doing so that the requesting user, DdraconiandevilL, had been suspended as a sockpuppet of Arfaz, who was in turn suspended due to repeated copyright violations. I am having distinct problems figuring out whether material on the page in question is in fact copyright-violating because (upon examining editing by these "users"):

  • A lot of it is in quotes; I'm not sure if so much of it is in quotes that that's a violation in and of itself.
  • At least some of it is cited as being from websites in languages (from India) that I don't read.
  • The rest is cited as being from multiple different websites, with nothing more than a sentence from each
  • Arfaz/DdraconiandevilL didn't do any wholesale, obvious cut-and-pasting (the only large chunks that show up all at once are references!)

Checking via various online free plagiarism detectors (Coren's bot is down) does not indicate problems - all of the sites found are copying wikipedia, not the other way around - but I'm concerned that they may not be doing an adequate job given the likely-broken-up nature of any copying; I am also concerned with the possible over-quoting. Could you take a look, or refer me to someone else who could do so (e.g., Dougweller, who blocked Arfaz in the first place), or otherwise advise? The same sort of problem may be present with another requests at the guild from DdraconiandevilL - Newspaper Boy (film) - although I haven't taken a close look at it. I'm currently placing a CCI request for DdraconiandevilL, partially to make it easier to look at the user's editing separately from that of others. Thanks very much! Allens (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Thanks for looking into this issue.
I've had a look at the article, and I think it probably does overuse quotes. If you're still working on it, would it be possible for you to reduce those, supplementing them where necessary with paraphrase? I've spot-checked surrounding text that he placed and I haven't found any issues with language there except, like you, in sites that clearly postdate ours. I think it's possible that the extensive quotations are the major issue here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Quite welcome, and thanks for your analysis. I'll take a look at reducing the quoting there and in the Newspaper Boy article, if that turns out to be a problem there. Allens (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've gone through and partially or entirely paraphrased the various quotes in Adaminte Makan Abu, if you'd like to take a brief look (or not, your choice). I'll now examine the Newspaper Boy (film) article.
Ah, thanks. :) I'll take a look if I can when I finish the RFC I'm working on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

List of pages that have a copyvio tag but aren't at WP:CP

Spurred on by comments above I've created a list of pages that are copyvio tagged but not listed at WP:CP here. I've not dumped them at WP:CP as there's 54 of them and I've not checked the list thoroughly to make sure I created it properly. This is from the work I started to do on a bot. It was close to being able to do this when I stopped working on it and I just got it to do this. Unfortunately at the moment it can't do much else helpful, like actually write it to a wikipedia page (I had to copy and paste it), but I could certainly run it every now and again from now on. I plan on working on it a bit more properly once I've cleared the {{copypaste}} backlog. Dpmuk (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. :) I'll try to take a look at it this weekend, if I can manage to get WP:CP caught up. I didn't quite make that last weekend, and I have guests coming in, but next weekend I know I won't be able to, so I'm going to do my best anyway. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
And if you're feeling brave, there's User:DpmukBOT/Backlog which I needed to create for the bot I'm writing so it doesn't dump all of the backlog on the WP:CP the first time I run it. It includes both copyvio and copypaste listings (although all the copyvio ones are first), and, on the positive side, also includes urls if they were provided on the article. Dpmuk (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll add a few of these each day to WP:CP until the list is exhausted. MER-C 06:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
If they're added to WP:CP they should be safe to remove from that list. I've readded the test cases one in a special section at the bottom while I think of a longer term solution. I could just hard-wire the bot to ignore it or we could add a "test" parameter to copyviocore which when "set" doesn't categorise the page in "Articles tagged for copyright problems" which would allow testcases and examples else where. What are people's thoughts?
On a different note I've applied to re-activate my toolserver account so I should have some where to run the bot once that is sorted. Dpmuk (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone take a look at this editor's work?

I'm finding loads of copyvio from Monaibra (talk · contribs), mainly from touregypt.net. I'm busy IRL, anyone have the time to look at it and chat to them? Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like User:Pharaoh of the Wizards has approached the user. :) Let me take a quick look at the contribs to see if I find outstanding issues and how widespread they may be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I've found and corrected a few more issues. I'm almost certain that what we've got here is a very subtle attempt to promote the website. All of the content this contributor has ever added has been sourced to this commercial website, and this certainly suggests a connection. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
You are brilliant. One of our experienced Egyptology editors is going to try to get rid of the Touregypt links (both ELs and sources) as he's found inaccuracies and probable copyvio in them. I shall help. Thanks again. Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Agh, another one. See [15] and I've just found (same editor) Babylon Fortress -- just a quick example before I go to bed, "The ancient Egyptians were conscious almost from the start that this region, on the borders of Upper and Lower Egypt and originally two independent kingdoms, was the most strategic site in all of Egypt. Of course, ancient Memphis, which was just south of modern Cairo, existed from at least the beginning of the unification of the two kingdoms, and was considered the "balance of the Two Lands". Though various rulers at different times moved the capital of Egypt to different locations in Egypt, it always seems to have returned to this strategic location." in the article, " However, the ancient Egyptians were conscious almost from the start that this region, on the borders of Upper and Lower Egypt and originally two independent kingdoms, was the most strategic site in all of Egypt. Of course, ancient Memphis, which was just south of modern Cairo, existed from at least the beginning of the unification of the two kingdoms, and was considered the "balance of the Two Lands". Though various rulers at different times moved the capital of Egypt to different locations in Egypt, it always seems to have returned to this strategic location" from [16]. This editor has created over 100 articles, hopefully not all full of copyvio! Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. :( I'll put it on my list to look into tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Monaibra has responded on my talk page. I don't think she is going to be happy with my reply. Dougweller (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Steps for cclean

I just rewrote a section that was copied from a person's official bio (link) and added a notice to the talk page that the content should not be restored. You recently helped me with a similar case at this article. I want to finish the cleanup, but I am not sure how to grey out the links to the article versions with the infringing content. Can you point me to the relevant help file? If it is easier, the copy was added here; I plan to go over the rest of that edit in the next day or so, but did not want to make clean up more difficult by proceeding too quickly. Please and thank you, FiveColourMap (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) That's a tool that only administrators can use at this point; it's called Wikipedia:Revision deletion. I've taken care of it. Thank you much for keeping an eye out for the issues! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I suppose that that is sensible. Thank you for cleaning that up and keep up the good work! FiveColourMap (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Advice for help!

Hi Maggie, I need your advice as an admin. Do you think a user who first removes* a large number of reliable and verficable sources from an article, and then adds citation needed tags needs some couselling (*and does that repeatedly)? And how could I remove the {{cn}} tags now? Thanks! Tinpisa (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I haven't looked at the situation yet, but if an editor is removing reliable and verifiable sources and then asking for sources, my guess would be that he does not know how to identify reliable & verifiable sources. :) I'll take a look at the specifics. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the first {{cn}} is to an assertion more or less supported by the source (although I think the language follows it a little bit too closely in terms of Wikipedia:Close paraphrase), and there is a subtle difference between "arguably" and "considered." With the former, the source is suggesting that "somebody could make a case that it is." With the latter, it's assumed that somebody already has. :)
I can't find that there was ever a source for the "mark of distinction" comment; if you add a reliable source that directly supports that statement, then, certainly you can remove the {{cn}} tag. A statement of that sort would need a direct citation and attribution in accordance with WP:NPOV. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your friendly advice and help! Regarding the second {{cn}} tag, to avoid close paraphrasing, I wrote "mark of distinction" to mean "list it as a premium achievement" as explained on the talk page. Maybe, the sentence could be tweaked a little. Thanks once again! :) Tinpisa (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Complicated case

Hello MRG. I was looking at Fiat totem in the English WP, which fails to mention that it is a translation of TOTEM (cogeneratore) in the Italian WP. I can rectify this, of course, but don't yet know whether I should, because Duplication Detector shows large phrases of the Italian article to be identical to those found in this and also in this. Please could you advise? --Stfg (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

My Italian is not good (seriously; I can converse with you all day about drinking dogs and whether or not the girl eats the apple, but I'm useless for much beyond that!), but I am wondering if both of those sites may have copied from the It Wikipedia. [17] is dated 21/03/2011, and their article seems to substantively predate. I don't know when [18] was created, but it isn't archived. I see that it was linked as of this edit. It would be worth checking to see if content that matches the source shows signs of natural evolution - did language evolve, and, if so, did it go towards or away from the external site? I can try to look at this more later, but I'm afraid I'm hampered by language issues and time right now. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I just copy edited this article. I don't speak (or read) Italian, and tried to leave the technical stuff and proper names alone. I was trying to transition this from what I would guess was a rote "translation" of a fairly technical article to something that looks like standard English, while leaving intact the sense of what was in the English translation. Of course, what this needs is someone fluent in Italian and English to do an English interpretation while reading the Italian originals in their original language. So you (or anyone) can undo this, if it seems appropriate. I'm going to put this on the article's talk page, too. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, thank you! I'll see if I can drum up a "fluent in Italian" editor to help out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
As a start, at least, I've requested aid at the bottom of Pages needing translation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
And I put this in as a source: Much of the text is credited to Totem cogenerator, Italian Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarify role of CCI (plus a suggested modification to instructions)

I'm not happy about the recent exchange involving CCI procedures. I'm just posting to get some confirmation: while any editor reviewing a CCI list is more than welcome to address any deficiencies found in an article being reviewed, the point of a CCI investigation is to look at the contributions of a particular editor, so the concept of "clearing" an article ,means that the edits of the editor in question have been reviewed, not that the entire article is cleared for any editorial issues, in particular, it does not mean that there are no other copyright issues in the article. I can fully understand the desire to have each and every sentence in each and every article reviewed to confirm it is on compliance with our copyright policies, but that is not the function of a CCI.

As an aside, I think the CCI instructions should continue to indicate whether the copyright issues are found, but the reviewer should not remove the links to the edits in question, as some reviewers have done. I did this at first, following the lead of others, but I now think it is not good practice. Do you disagree? If you agree, I'll look into where such a statement belongs, add it, and notify those volunteers who are removing the diffs.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the purpose of a CCI is to verify that the edits of the editor in question have been reviewed and that there is no reason to suspect said contributor introduced copyright issues which remain. It would be lovely to be able to verify each and every sentence in each and every article listed at CCI to confirm copyright compliance, but it is really not feasible for many reasons, including that, as Sandy Georgia recently noted here, content that has been modified by later editors may not be that easy to trace. By listing the diffs as they have been placed by a contributor, it's much easier for us to evaluate the content as it was placed, which can help identify and address derivative works.
When I first started with the whole CCI process, I didn't remove the diffs, but it seems to be the easiest way to acknowledge that an article has been checked. Expedience is what it's all about. :) Anybody can go back to the earliest version of a CCI and see it in all its unmarked glory. :) CCIs are courtesy blanked on completion anyway. Why do you think it not good practice? Is there another way to make it easily obvious that an article has been cleared? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm supportive of courtesy blanking of the CCI on completion. As for removing the diffs, it isn't a big deal either way, but I saw the stated concern that a review had concluded as "cleared", even though there were remaining issues, and I wanted to double-check for myself, partly because I am still feeling my way through the process, and wanted to see if there was a lesson to be learned. That was before I realized that the remaining problems were someone else's. Yes, I could look at an earlier version to see which diffs were identified, but it would be easier to see them, in this case, or in any case where a second review is warranted. Again, not a big deal one way or the other, but I see a small benefit in easily seeing the list of diffs in question, and no real benefit to removing them prior to the completion. I think the red x added to each cleared article is an adequate way to indicate that the article has been cleared, and in fact, leaving the diffs would make it clearer that the clearing isn't of the whole article, but only of the diffs in question. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
This CCI is a prime example of why diffs are removed when an article is cleared. :) The CCIs where an editor adds just one or two major diffs to an article, it doesn't matter much. But CCIs like that one, where a contributor adds dozens and dozens to one article, it can be very hard to see when an item is cleared. Maybe we could clarify the whole thing by noting at the top of CCI pages that the article content may be checked only as concerns the editor in question and clearance is not meant to indicate that the article has been generally reviewed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, good point. I'll check the prior version, if I need to see the diffs, plus I'll think about some wording to reflect the scope.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC FA closure thanks

I'm sure many editors would like to thank you for your efforts in reading the discussion and closing the RFC at Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership. I thank you for this and for all the work you do on Wikipedia. Geometry guy 03:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to Geometry guy's. Thank you very much :) Raul654 (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thirded; thanks for the closing. It's much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy if I could help. :) I appreciate the patience of participants. I realize that not everyone will be happy with the outcome of an RFC, but it is a priority of mine to make sure that as many people as reasonably possible feel that it was fair. I hope we will have achieved that. :) Mike, it was a well-framed RFC, in my opinion. It certainly made closure much easier that it was so nicely organized. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

Thanks for the help. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:CP

Hi! I noticed your message on WP:AN - I probably should help out more on the CCIs, but never seem to have the time I need. However, is there anything in particular that non-admins can do on WP:CP? Or would I be better off just focusing on the CCIs? (I havent spent much time on the general board, so I figured it was worth checking, but it does seem focused on admin assistance). - Bilby (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Boy, that's a tough one. I'm desperate for more help at WP:CP, but I would feel awful pulling you off of CCIs! We're desperate for more work there, too. :/ I'd say any time you can give to copyright cleanup is great, and anywhere you want to give it is fabulous. :) If you get tired of CCIs and want to help out at WP:CP, there's a lot non-admins can do. :) There's a page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks. Given my observations of your work over, lo, these many years, I'd feel completely comfortable bestowing on you the rank of "trainee clerk" immediately, for you to use when and if the mood takes you. I'd need to try to get some people to talk at the talk page for full clerkship, but would be happy to do that, too, if you think it's work you might be interested in undertaking.
While I am myself fairly burnt out on it, it's actually not always drudgery. I still get a thrill in discovering backwards copying in a tricky case where I get to save good content from being stolen from underneath us. :D And when I have time, I like to rewrite articles that I fear might be loss to us due to systemic bias. We have had some articles come to CP repeatedly because they've been G12ed multiple times and the contributors who are interested in reading about them may not have the English language skills to write about them without copying. It's a good feeling to save an article that way.
I'm gunning for more admin assistance because that is sorely lacking at CP, but while admins have tools that sometimes require them to take the last steps in handling a listing, non-admins can do almost everything else. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
In that case I'll have a look at the clerking thing, but I'll probably focus more on reducing the backlog a CCI - I felt like I made a bit of progress today, even if it was mostly the low hanging fruit, so that always feels nice. :) At the moment I have some time prior to the start of the new semester (at which point I'll be watching out for plagiarism from my students, rather than editors, and that ends up as somewhat more painful when you find it and have to react accordingly - the university's procedures for plagiarism aren't nice for the students or for those who have to take them through it), and it will be a few more days before I can get access to the sources I'm after for an article, so this seems like a helpful way to fill in some time. I've been back working on linkvio problems lately, but after many hours tracking down the actual articles in order to save or confirm references it gets a tad dull, and the topics aren't ones that are at all pleasant to work on. At least with CCI work you get to read more interesting stuff and learn something, and it isn't quite so arduous.
Thanks for the very helpful and somewhat response. Hopefully you'll get the admins you need. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Your work at CCI has been much appreciated. :) And I will keep my fingers crossed for more admin involvement! (But not so tightly that I can't type. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I just realised that I said "and somewhat response" which sounds insulting. My apologies - that was supposed to say "complimentary response" and I screwed up in trying to get the wording right. :) That was somewhat confusing. If I'm ever dumb enough to run for admin - which definitely won't be in the foreseeable future, as it isn't the direction I wanted to take here - and if by some miracle I pass, I'll be back to help out at CP. :) In the meantime, it looks like we can get a CCI off the books in the next couple of days, and that would be pleasant. - Bilby (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
It didn't sound insulting. :D I recognize a "dropped word" when I see one; I'm certainly capable of communication snafus. Adminship has pros and cons; I'm sure you'd be a good admin but can't entirely blame you for not wanting to dive into that. And you do good work. :) It is, indeed, very pleasant to get a CCI off the books! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problems

I saw your notice on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I'd love to help out on the copyright problems board. Would I need administrator tools or OTRS permission to do so ? If I remove a chunk of text from an article because it is copyrighted, do the revisions which it was in need to be deleted ? Sorry to bother you, but I don't feel like jumping in without checking how things work. Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, He to Hecuba. :) There are a ton of things you can do to help out on the copyright problems board that don't require admin tools or OTRS permission. There are certain tasks that are limited to admins and copyright clerks, but any contributor can facilitate in listings by looking for backwards copying or by proposing rewrites or by checking for compatible license. User:CorenSearchBot is currently not operational, but when it is, we get a dozen or so articles at WP:SCV every day, and any contributor is welcome to evaluate those. There's more information at Wikipedia:CP#Responding to articles listed for copyright investigation. If you're willing to help out, once you've done so for a while and we have something to point to in a discussion, you might want to consider becoming a clerk. The biggest difference there is that you would then be welcome to close listings, whereas at this point an admin still must make the final call. Doesn't mean, though, that your help there even now wouldn't be most welcome and quite useful. :) Feedback can streamline the process and make closing a day much simpler. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed response. I'll have a look at the guide you pointed out to me, and hopefully I'll be able to help ! --He to Hecuba (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File copyright forums and work

Hi there. I'd like to help you out with copyright/copyvio work. I'm a file specialist, and therefore I think I'd be most adept at handling issues related to file copyright. I have MCQ watchlisted, and I know that the Billy Hathorn, Kumarrajendran, Arab League, and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20100822 CCI cases have file components.

My questions are threefold:

  1. What else should I be watchlisting/watching?
  2. What can I do that would be most helpful to you/the project/the copyvio issues?
  3. What resources are available to help work on these (i.e. what are the best tools to use)?

Sven Manguard Wha? 18:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. If you're interested in talking more in depth about this stuff, I'll be on Mumble in about five hours. I'm largely gone from IRC nowdays, but if you leave me a talk page message, I'll hop on IRC if I'm at my computer. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sven. :) You're already doing a lot of the work with image copyright issues! :D There are not a lot of file issues that come up on En Wiki CCI cases, because most file uploads are done on Commons. Would you perhaps keep an eye on WP:CCI for new requests, as I'm sure you could offer good input there? Do you do much on Commons? Occasionally, we get CCI requests on En Wikipedia that cross over there, and we could really use people who are knowledgeable about images to follow up there as well. That's something you'd see coming up at CCI as well as new requests. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, an idea! Regarding "most file uploads are done on Commons", if only that were the case. We get about 50-100 freely licensed files uploaded locally a day, and efforts to remedy that have been largely ineffective. What is very much needed is a way of Google image searching every file uploaded, and having the ones with sufficiently strong matches flagged for closer review. However, chances are that this would cost money (even though doing the searches one by one is free). Maybe you could have someone in the office look into that? That would greatly stem the flow of copyvios (I estimate that about one or two uploads a day, at least, are non-free files improperly uploaded as free ones.) Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I don't work in Commons, and I don't really want to, either. My edits there are all from tasks that initiated here.
I can ask, but I have a feeling that this is something that they won't settle on soon because they are looking into changing the ways that funds are allocated. :) Sue has been recommending to the Board a funds disseminating committee of volunteers from the communities that would help determine where the money goes, with this kind of thing in mind. See meta:Fundraising_and_Funds_Dissemination/Recommendations#Recommendations:_Funds_Dissemination. And the Board has decided to do this:

The board wants to create a volunteer-driven body to make recommendations for funding for movement-wide initiatives (Working title: Funds Dissemination Committee, FDC). The Wikimedia Foundation has decision-making authority, because it has fiduciary responsibilities to donors which it legally cannot delegate. The new body will make recommendations for funds dissemination to the Wikimedia Foundation. We anticipate a process in which the Wikimedia Foundation will review and approve all but a small minority of recommendations from the FDC. In the event that the Wikimedia Foundation does not approve a recommendation from the FDC, and the FDC and the Wikimedia Foundation aren't subsequently able to reach agreement, then the FDC can ask the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to request the recommendation be reconsidered.

1. the FDC will be a diverse body of people from across our movement (which may include paid staff) with appropriate expertise for this purpose, whose primary purpose is to disseminate funds to advance the Wikimedia mission; the WMF staff will support and facilitate the work of the FDC
2. Proposals can range from one time smaller contributions for small projects from individuals to larger financing for operational costs of chapters or associations

3. The board intends to evaluate this process together with the FDC and see if it is working.

The Google search would certainly cost money; I know the WMF had to pay to get Corensearchbot up and running again. But maybe it's possible.
I'm pretty excited about this new committee. I hope that we'll get a volunteer body together that will be committed to making it work. And I very much hope that the English Wikipedia will be active in it, since I've had several people approach me with good ideas that require funding in the past few months. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing advice

I'm doing some content work on an article about paid editing on wikipedia. I'm trying harder this time than ever to steer clear of close paraphrasing. It's challenging! I was wondering if you, or maybe one of your talk page watchers (hello!) could let me know if I'm on the right track with this, or if it needs better. This particular example is the worst of the bunch, not the best, so keep that in mind. I'm aware that close paraphrasing is more than just 'mixing the words around' and picking synonyms, but some situations are harder than others to make substantive changes.

As written in the source:

  • Andrew Ressler, a Helium vice president, argues that Wikipedia's ban on perceived conflicts of interest shuts out lots of people with "valuable insights and knowledge," and tends to leave the site to a small clan of diehards. "Everybody is getting rewarded somehow," Mr. Ressler said. "Whether it's intangible or tangible, what's the difference?"

As paraphrased:

  • Helium.com vice president Andrew Ressler commented that Wikipedia's position on conflict of interests excludes those with "valuable insights and knowledge", tending to leave behind a small group of extremists to edit the site. "Everybody is getting rewarded somehow...Whether it's intangible or tangible, what's the difference?" he said.

Here's the full section for reference (it's just a draft): Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation/Paid_editing_on_Wikipedia#MyWikiBiz

What do you think, am I close? Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 19:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is challenging, yes. :) Here's what I might do with that:
Helium.com vice president Andrew Ressler states that potential Wikipedia editors with "valuable insights and knowledge" are excluded by Wikipedia's position on conflict of interests, while the small group remaining to edit are also, in one way or another, being rewarded; he asks, "Whether it's intangible or tangible, what's the difference?"
Sometimes I will try restructuring content completely. It's much easier to do with a larger passage; with just two sentences, it's a challenge. :/ If any of that is useful to you, you're welcome to it: no attribution necessary. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Consider it stolen. Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 02:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been mentioned

You were mentioned : )

The editor has mentioned copyrights as their main reason for requesting adminship. I would like to ask your thoughts on the editor, as you appear to have had some direct interaction with them in this venue. - jc37 01:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you've made my night. :) It's almost my bedtime, but I don't care. That he's running is cause for celebration for me; I trust Dpmuk in copyright work, and he is sorely needed. I find him diligent and capable. His desire not to get heavily involved in BLP work is okay with me; we have plenty of specialist areas for admins, and one of the mark of a wise admin si the ability to know his strengths. For instance, I would hardly myself mess with image deletions until I had been an admin for quite some time; I wrote the Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion because I didn't know what I was doing and couldn't find any page to explain it all. I had been an administrator for over a year at that time. :) I still stay out of contentious areas of WP:NFC image application. In any event, obviously, I am pro-Dpmuk. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I had let you know that I'd taken it live but I deliberately buried it in the bot discussion as I didn't want it to even remotely look like I was canvassing. I thought burying it there where one or two people might notice it was fine but given how well watched this page is I didn't feel it right to start a new section. Dpmuk (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I haven't gotten that far yet. :) I generally answer my talk page from the bottom up; kind of an idiosyncratic way to go about it, I know. Thanks for running. I'm crossing my fingers for you, metaphorically. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that. That's why if it's sufficiently important I'll start a new section even if it's quite linked to a previous discussion. :-) Dpmuk (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
See? Diligent and capable. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
And look what I've gone and done below. Mainly to draw attention of stalkers as I'm sure you'd have noticed it above and there's no huge rush. That and I'm starting to lose track of where I've posted what and a new section solves that problem! Dpmuk (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

one question

i have a question to ask...i have taken picture of salman khan at the set of Ek tha tiger during shooting in cuba....and of Katrina also..can i upload this photo and put it in the article of Ek tha tiger..Thanks Cute754 (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia's and Common's policies, you should be able to upload the images if you yourself took the pictures. :) There are two things to consider:
  • Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. If there are identifiable people in the picture, is the place public? Is the image legal in the country where the picture was taken, the country where you are uploading the picture, and the USA? If the answer to all of those questions is "yes", then you're in good shape. (I don't know the laws of Cuba, but if I had taken the picture, I think I wouldn't worry about it. Ultimately, you'd have to make that choice, though, since every one of us is responsible for what we do here. :))
  • Commons:Freedom of panorama. (a) If there are copyrighted elements in the picture, like artworks or sculptures, are the copyrighted elements a small part of the picture and not the major focus? (b) If the answer to that is "no", does the country in which the picture was taken allow you to take pictures of those things under a "freedom of panorama" allowance? If (a) is yes, then (b) doesn't matter. If (a) is no, then (b) is crucial. :)
You can add the image to any article where it is appropriate, but images, like any other content, are subject to consensus, so it will always come down to whether or not other editors think the image is a good one for the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this edit to Talk:The Exodus add too much copyright material?

[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Exodus&curid=2894228&diff=476797395&oldid=476791852 This] looks like quite a large chunk of explicitly copyright material but I don't want to deal with it as I'm too involved on the talk page (and may be wrong). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that you are wrong. I have truncated the content, explained, and revdeleted the extensive quotations, which at 1,000 words are almost certainly substantial and a risk under fair use. The material is easily accessible by following the link, and I have left the first and last words of each quote to facilitate finding the specific material wanted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this. I didn't want to be accused of censorship or whatever. Happy Valentine's Day! Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Bots

Could you please comment at User:DpmukBOT/tasks. The views of any talk page stalkers would also be most welcome. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 11 with both your hats on! Dpmuk (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Two questions that I would quite like your opinion on - 1) Should I add close paraphrasing listings and 2) Should I update {{adminbacklog}} once a day? If so what do we consider a backlog?
As for if I leave the plan would be to make the source code publicly available, and if MER-C agreed probably leave it in his google code repository. This means that if I did leave and the bot no longer run the minimum someone else would have to do is run the code themselves somewhere. I would imagine that there may be a pause why they set it up etc., possibly in the order of weeks if they're a new bot operator and have to sort out a server, but hopefully there wouldn't be the long pause that was, in this instance, caused, at least in part by there being no source code to work with and having to start from scratch. Dpmuk (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
And actually a third question, if I do do the close paraphrasing task should I list all cases or just those that aren't tagged free=yes. Dpmuk (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, off to give feedback there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Cheers. Have replied there. Dpmuk (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

William Hutchinson (privateer)

I wrote an article for this fellow, and then noticed that you have had some copyright vio-related dealings with this page. You might want to take a look and see if you like the new text. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Brianyoumans. That's not necessary. :) If you wrote the new article and you are comfortable that you are within copyright policy, I've got no need to double check you. I only investigate articles where problems are likely. :D Thanks for expanding the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, now I feel all empowered! Thanks! Brianyoumans (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
LOL! Good. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 4)

Is there any chance that you could blank the revision before my last revision? it is just the the same as the copyright text that was removed. Also, I know I ought not to be requesting this from you personally, where is the correct place to make this sort of request? Op47 (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You can tag the page with {{copyvio-revdel}}. I would have done it if I knew the correct url. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Flatscan is, as always, right. :) Although actually requesting it of me personally is not necessarily a bad thing; I noticed that this contributor is a repeat offender and have blocked him for two weeks. He is obviously the same person, and he does not come back often enough to make a shorter block effective. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Imports from CZ

Hey MRG-- You're the great guru of copyright and fair use procedure so I'm straight to you on this. I'm starting to actively recruit academics to become WP editors (using the H-Net lists to get to them). One of my first "class" is a former editor at Citizendium. I'm curious about what the correct procedure is for porting over his work from there. Do we copy-paste in and make a note of source on the Talk Page or is there some other way to do this? I'm not 100% positive he has stuff to port but don't want to look like an idiot when he asks me how so I thought I'd be prepared in the info department. A few words on my talk page would be helpful. Best, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Coming right up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
More complicated than I anticipated. Thank you for the information. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

RevDel request for copyvio

Do you mind removing this revision as a copyvio? Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. :) Thank you for addressing the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

Hi,

Saw your name here, and wondered if you'd be willing to take a look at this. Should be a quick matter. Best, Be——Critical 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Copyright protection varies to the degree of creativity in the content. What we're actually talking about here has a term in plagiarism; it's called an "apt phrase" (or sometimes "apt term") (See [19]) Generally, what I would do is check to see how distinctive the phrase is; is it unique to the author? A Google search suggests it is probably a common phrase for the subject: [20]. This can be a good way to determine the level of creativity. :) (That said, even if you get a lot of hits, it can still be a good idea to make sure that they aren't all crediting your source as the source; if other sources regard it as an "apt phrase" and treat it accordingly, so should we!)
Copyright and plagiarism concerns are more keen when (a) content is highly creative or (b) there's a lot of it (relative to the size and "heart" of the article or the source). It probably goes without saying that a + b is even more of an issue. :D While we do tend to be conservative on these issues, in this case, if this is the only lingering content, I think we're probably okay.
If it had been unique to the author, it would be a good opportunity for a brief direct quotation:
in a case of what Source describes as "foo"....
That kind of thing. :)
Thank you very much for your attention to the issue. Keeping Wikipedia free of copyright is a personal goal of mine, and I'm always happy to see people aware of the issue! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

The first two sentences in List of athletes from Montana exactly match the ones at Montana#Professional sports the latter appears to have been added first, is any attribution required for the prior? HF25 00:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, attribution is required for any copying, unless one user contributed it to both articles. Thanks for catching it. I'm working on WP:Copying within Wikipedia issues at that CCI, so I've added this to my to-do list. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Flatscan, for this and the one above. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem – I'm almost compelled to edit if I see anything within my vanishingly narrow area of experience. The good news is that the addition was attributed in the edit summary at insertion. The diff is a little messy, so I want to examine it a little before placing the {{Copied}}s. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

tried to list an item at WP:PUF, not sure what I did wrong

I've tried to list an item at WP:PUF however on both the image page and the user page only the substrings show up, not the actual templates. I thought I followed the directions on WP:PUF, but the results indicate otherwise. Can you tell me what I have done wrong? The image is The Genealogy of Bharata.png, and the user is ScrollsofAryavarta. Thanks very much. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that it may be because the file is actually at Commons and is transcluded (?) to en-WP. It might be that you have to make the necessary PUF edits on Commons. But don't take my word for it! - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, but I'm not sure how to do that. Is there some help page that makes this absolutely step by step for that situation? Because at the moment it's easy to understand why new users get really, really frustrated at WP and give up. JanetteDoe (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I gave up even trying to put stuff up at our own PUF - you have got further than I did! Suggest we wait for confirmation of the problem & then maybe I'll see if I can do the necessary at Commons if that is indeed the problem. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
That is possible. Unfortunately, I don't know the requirements for assignment of copyright in the various locations in which images can apparently be stored and I find the "help" pages misleadingly named. JanetteDoe (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Sitush has identified the core issue; if the image is on Commons, it has to be addressed there. That was confusing for me the first time I encountered it, too. :) It would be nice if we had some kind of standardized approach across various projects, but, alas, they all have their own ways of doing things. :/ Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion goes into it a very little bit, but not too extensively, in the first section after the lead.

I keep a couple of tags on my userpage at Commons to help me find what I need; Commons:Category:Problem tags is probably the one I use the most. This is an unusual situation, since the uploader claims own work but almost certainly means that the scan is his own work. I think I'll go tag it with commons:Template:No source since and explain the issue to the uploader. Alternatively, a deletion discussion might be needed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The coffee (?) stains are typical of my work but this is not one of those. ;) Sitush (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Is there anything I should do? Following the instructions, I placed notices on the image file, the uploader's page, and all of the pages that use that image, of which I think there were eight. I am concerned that I should go back through those and remove the notices I (apparently mistakenly) placed. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably best if you remove the notices from the articles. :) It may confuse people, since there's not actually a discussion point for them to attend. And LOL @Sitush. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Sugar Babies

Hi Moonriddengirl--can you do something with this? I'm inclined to delete the whole thing as a copyvio, but it may be more complicated than that. Thanks in advance. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done some rewriting of the article and removed some content; am I missing anything? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Me, I hope. Thanks! (I thought you'd be scraping the history clean.) Have a nice weekend, MRG! Drmies (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actual Art

Sorry did it wrong....what happened to Actual Art?...thank youPalofierros (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) A contributor detected that the article was created with content taken from this website. The creator of the article was notified of the issue and given several steps that could be taken to repair it, here. For over seven days, the article was held in a waiting period to give the creator time to do that or to allow any other contributor to rewrite the material, if the website would not grant license. When nothing was done, the article was deleted, as we are not able to reproduce content from most sources without verified license. (Copyright protection in the United States (which governs us) is granted automatically.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I find at the bottom of the Actual Art Foundation web site that it says,"This material is released into the public domain Palofierros (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You find this? It did not say that on the 10th, when I last looked at the website. :)
I'm going to assume based on this that you are involved with the Actual Art Foundation and encourage you to modify that statement, unless the Actual Art Foundation is actually in position to release images by artists such as Alexia Nikov, Tery Fugate-Wilcox, and Maria Ceppe into the public domain. The statement as it currently is does that. The article can be restored, but I would like to resolve this issue before doing so on the precedence of some recent claims by a Russian website to release content owned by the Beatles. We need to make sure that you aren't inadvertently granting more than you intend. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

thank you for your concern and quick responce.......i am not of the Actual Art Foundation, but i could ask the director/chairman to clarify the issue here if that would help.......Palofierros (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be great. :) But where the issue would need clarification is on the website itself, unless the Actual Art Foundation does own copyright to those artworks and intend to release those photographs of them for reuse, including commercial reuse and modification. Some artists are comfortable with such releases, but it's good to be sure of that in case they're not, before they find their artwork on a t-shirt somewhere with no recourse. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Roger Casement and the Black Diaries

Thank you for your message about this article. You indicated that no rewrite to avoid the copyrighted material had been proposed, and that therefore the whole article was being deleted. I am sorry that I have had no prior experience with cases of this kind. I had offered earlier on the Talk webpage to help rewrite the article and asked for information about which the problem sections were. I assumed -- due to lack of experience of the process -- that I would hear back from an admin on the request and the offer. I am sorry to hear now that it has been deleted -- there was a good deal of solid work in the article undertaken independently by other users that had nothing at all to do with Mr. Mannerings (or his co-author) and their article. To be more future-focused, can I ask if, even now, you are able to share with me and other users the identity of the specific text passages in the WP article about which Mr. Mannerings (or his co-author) have made their complaint and assertion of copyright? With this information and a few days notice, as I've suggested before, I for one would certainly be willing to take a close look at the challenge and see if a rewrite seemed feasible. My instinct is that the answer would probably be yes. Nandt1 (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry that the function of the copyright problems listing was not clear. :/ These articles are listed typically for a week to permit the community time to secure permission, which I gather wasn't possible, or to rewrite the article. If you look at the template (Template:Copyviocore), it cautions that, "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it may be deleted one week after the time of its listing" and it offers guidance on how and where to rewrite the article on its face. In that guidance, it notes that "if the original copyright violation cannot be cleanly removed or the article reverted to a prior version, it is best to write the article from scratch". I can see that "no rewrite proposed" would be confusing in this circumstance; I'm afraid it's the standard text that I use when I mean that nobody has rewritten the article in the temporary space provided so that I have nothing with which to replace the copyright problem.
The rewrite you want to do can still be done. I had left the talk page of the article rather than deleting it so that we could continue to discuss the situation, which is unusual in that the content is actually still in the history of the article from which it was split: Roger Casement. Sometimes I will leave articles up longer than the listing period in this situation to allow time for the rewrite, but since the material is still accessible at its original point and since we have an angry copyright holder demanding that the article be removed, it seemed prudent in this case not to keep it around while the article is rewritten. :)
The copyright holder claims content was copied from multiple works of his and demands that they be taken down. We don't know exactly how much was copied from him, but we do know that content was copied; it can be identified in the specific source he referenced. I'm afraid that even the lede you carefully constructed borrowed content from the earlier text on the page, so I cannot be sure what, if anything, was safe to use. While the older content can still be accessed in writing a new article, the new article should be substantially written from scratch because it is not possible to identify the exact passages that are a problem here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I am still learning here. As I understand the above, though: (i) the copyright holder was not obliged to identify (and did not in fact identify) the specific passages in the article where he maintains that his copyright was violated, and (ii) Wikipedia has no mechanism (?) for asking him to specify such passages. It would obviously be enormously helpful if in fact you could ask him to do so.
Even assuming you cannot, I am bound to say that it seems to me extreme to suppose that we have to throw out everything that was in the earlier article: there is, as I said before, a great deal there that is sourced independently and/or does not depend in any way on anything Mr. Mannerings has ever written. But I take it that your more general point is that one should err on the side of caution rather than the reverse.
Can I obtain access to the original complaint that was made? And any other supporting information from you own internal review? Nandt1 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the original letter is accessible only to OTRS volunteers. I've explained at my staff talk page how to apply for that, if you wish. I identified several passages that were copied from his websites using the duplication detector tool, which was linked from the template that blanked the article.
Aside from a few modifications, the material is still accessible in the history of the older article (I've linked to it above). If you want to try to use that content to create a new article, you would be very welcome to do so. However, while content might not seem dependent on anything Mr. Mannerings wrote, that does not mean it wasn't copied from Mr. Mannerings. Sometimes people copy content and sources are later added by somebody else; sometimes people copy content and use the sources they took from the original. I would encourage you to be very careful in reusing any of the content, as we are each legally liable for our actions on Wikipedia and as the copyright holder is extremely unhappy with the use of his content on Wikipedia. As WP:C says, "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." This is always good practice, but particularly so when infringement has occurred.
If you want to ask Mr. Mannerings to look at the content as it previously existed here and tell you what specifically he claims was his own, you certainly may, particularly as your note at the talk page suggests you have already been in contact with him. I have not; I am not the agent who addressed his letters and given the tone of his communication don't think we should. But it does not require administrator tools to coordinate with a copyright holder, and if you would rather try to salvage the material you certainly may. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've left a message to that effect at his Talk page. We'll see. Nandt1 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
What we are seeing, I'm afraid, is that he doesn't reply..... Nandt1 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but not really surprised. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

So I heard its Valentines...

and if there's one person I have to give something to, it's you. I see I'm the first as well...Have a great day, and thanks for all you do! (I tried writing a haiku, but you have no idea what a syllable buster "Moon-rid-den-girl" is ;). Happy Valentine's Day! Nolelover Talk·Contribs 13:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! And sorry for having a syllable-bustering username. You can always use the much shorter Maggie, but Moonriddengirl is much more mellifluous. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Late to the party,
mellifluous moonridden
lady of haiku:
translated to verse,
creative-comm valentine
and yummy cookies. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
LOL! That's lovely. :D Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Barnstars and a few questions

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
I'm sure you'll probably have piles of these, yet an extra one can never hurt.--&レア (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi Moonriddengirl! Aside from the barnstar, I wanted to come by and ask a few things.

In the Fashion in Milan article, I was quoting a book, and I wrote this - Producing fashion: commerce, culture, and consumers, Regina Lee Blaszcyzk [21] ECW University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008, p.47 (Chapter three: Elisabetta Merlo and Francesca Polese) [an example]. Is it right according to MoS to put that (Chapter three:...) part, because, if I am not wrong, the chapter I am quoting from does not seem to actually have been written by Regina Lee Blaszcyzk, but Elisabetta Merlo and Francesca Polese (though I'm not sure)?

Secondly, I added a photo of the Via Monte Napoleone street sign to the top of the Fashion in Milan page since I believe it summarises the essence of the article well. This is not a major concern, more of a curiosity, but regarding the freedom of panorama in Italy, is it alright to put street signs and things? (I'm pretty sure it's possible, yet if not I can replace it with another image). Could you also explain to me a bit about the whole story around FOP?

Thirdly and lastly, I think I have spotted a copyvio on the Music (Madonna album) page. In a part of the introduction it says "which further developed Madonna's move toward European dance music" and in the composition section "and retains a rocky, American edge". Though divided up, this is almost identical to a sentence in this website, where "which develops further Madonna's move towards European Dance but still retains a rocky, american edge" ([22]) is written. At first I thought it could have been copied from Wikipedia, as many websites do, but it seems from the timestamp that it was written in 2000/2001, which would probably mean that it might be the other way round. I have no idea of the article history - it could have been written by the person who put it on the very same website, or it could be allowed to feature on the article, yet, considering your experience, may you please have a look at it?

Thank you,

Best wishes

--&レア (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(Talk-page stalker responding to first question) If you use {{cite book}}, you should follow the model under "Citing a chapter in a book with different authors for different chapters and an editor", so the filled-in template would look something like {{cite book |last1=Merlo |first1=Elisabetta |last2=Polese |first2=Francesca |editor-first=Regina Lee |editor-last=Blaszczyk |title=Producing Fashion: Commerce, Culture, and Consumers |publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press |location=Philadelphia |date=2008 |page=47 |chapter=Accessorizing, Italian Style: Creating a Market for Milan's Fashion Merchandise |isbn=0-8122-4037-5}}, which would produce
Merlo, Elisabetta; Polese, Francesca (2008). "Accessorizing, Italian Style: Creating a Market for Milan's Fashion Merchandise". In Blaszczyk, Regina Lee (ed.). Producing Fashion: Commerce, Culture, and Consumers. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 47. ISBN 0-8122-4037-5.
—Deor (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, &レア. :) And thank you, Deor for explaining the {{cite book}} options.
In terms of your other questions, Italy doesn't have a "freedom of panorama" exception but I really am inclined to think that this sign should be okay. I do not think it is likely to be creative enough to warrant copyright protection. The name of the street is not protected; the typography is not protected; the only real protection could be in the arrangement of elements. If you want further opinion, though, you might ask at WP:MCQ.
With respect to the article, the content was added in 2005 here, and it's pretty obvious that what remains is derivative. I've taken it out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Capolinho

Off to bed, but we've found another editor with copyvio from TourEgypt, see User talk:Dougweller#User:Capolinho and Egyptian wedding. I'll try to work on this tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Capolinho. I've found issues in every article I've looked at to which he added substantive content. It's a short CCI, but I suspect will result in removal of all or most content he's added. Sometimes he cites his actual sources; sometimes he does not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Busy today (but managed to delete one copyvio article), maybe tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion as a 3rd set of eyes

I've been told you're great with WP:MILHIST articles; would you be interested in doing me the favor of taking a quick look at Lavrentiy Beria as well as the talk page? It technically falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Russian,_Soviet_and_CIS_military_history_task_force, but I don't want to bother the whole task force when all I'm really trying to do is get some actual discussion going so I'm not the only guy adding sources. Due to the low editorship I can't really get any kind of reasonable consensus, and the one other guy who edits it doesn't use the talk page and doesn't like my sources. I would value your opinion. Thanks! Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) It looks as though the editor with whom you disagree is talking to you at User talk:Greyhood#Removal of cited content from Lavrenti Beria. Probably the best thing to do here is to ask him to engage in discussion at the talk page of the article and, if the two of you can't agree, to invite either a WP:3O or to take the matter for neutral commentary at WP:DRN. The 3O process requests notes left without signatures so that whoever responds does not start off with an unconscious predisposition towards the person who made the request. I wouldn't want to risk seeming to be biased towards you, as I might, unless I happen to disagree with you. :)
I will note that the entire section relies very heavily on a single source. It may be a perfectly accurate source (I have no background in this subject), but it is always helpful to bring in other sources. There seem to be lots of them: [23], [24], [25], [26]. Adding several more sources would help. Book sources are fantastic, but aren't always easy to "verify" if people challenge content. Support from sources that can be accessed online will help settle disputes for those unfamiliar with the subject. Also, relying on multiple sources will help document that the material is not "undue" weight (the concern of only one or two biographers) but is also covered by others. All around, a good thing for contentious material. :)
Since I've never worked on the article and don't have time, I'm afraid, to do a proper job of adding more sourcing, I haven't changed anything there. I have changed the section header discussing the matter on the talk page from "User:Greyhood deleted the section again" to "Content deleted again". As I note there, according to the list of contributors, as of this writing Greyhood has edited the article only four times:
I'm afraid that the prior header is likely to prejudice people against him, as it suggests he is repeatedly removing this content without discussion. :/ It seems it may have prejudiced the only editor who has thus far responded, given his reference to Greyhood continuing to make a nuisance of himself. In general, it's really a good idea to focus on the content rather than the contributor when discussing issues and to be very careful when accusing others of misbehavior to be sure that misbehavior can be substantiated. I would encourage you to reread that section and to strike out anything that may move the focus of talk from the issue to the editor.
Hopefully Greyhood will join the conversation at the talk page and you will be able to resolve this without need of further dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Suspected copyvio at Somali Wild Ass

Hi, mrg, I'm back with another suspected copyvio. It looks to me as if the material added with this edit was taken, directly or indirectly, from here. I've not reverted the edit, assuming you would want the history to be revised also. Hope that is right. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Thank you for letting me know. It's generally going to be best to revert it, to avoid mirrors picking it up, and just let me or somebody else know that the edit needs deletion. I see User:Voceditenore has reverted it, and I've done the mopping up and left the IP a note (User talk:24.171.118.95). I appreciate you keeping an eye out for the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :You're speedy, MRG! :) I had was just about to list it at CP as cleaned but needing a rev del. Too bad he's copyright, or I'd make you a Speedy Gonzales barnstar. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy indeed! Thanks to both of you. OK, mrg, message received, ty! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
LOL! Not lately that speedy, but timing was right. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Email

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.— EyeSerenetalk 20:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


Harrison Ruffin Tyler

The article on this person was deleted in 2008 for not having notoriety for being a living grandson of president tyler. You stated in the talk section that if recent articles were found on this subject that he should be retained. Apparently the world figured this out two weeks ago and there were articles written in the Huffington post, Politoco, New York Times, etc and a CBS Presidents day interview. Is it possible to revive the old article? --weum2004 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC).

Hi. :) That's not exactly what I said; i said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harrison Ruffin Tyler that the article should be deleted "unless somebody produces evidence that this individual has substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources." It's not really about the sources being recent; it's about them being substantial. If you think that the sources are substantial enough to verify that he meets notability guidelines, then an article on him may well be appropriate.
In terms of restoring the old article, it is possible, but you would need to take the request to Wikipedia:Deletion review, which lists among its uses "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." You might consider speaking to the administrator who deleted the article first. He is not often active these days, but may still be able to return to assist you. You can find him at User talk:Mr.Z-man. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB)

An email granting copyright permission will be coming from the Founding Director of the MASB organization. Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenmharvey (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi MRG! I've taken the liberty of moving this to the bottom for visibility. Is there any indication that the necessary OTRS permission has been received? The article is still languishing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 February 4. Should I relist it on today's CP or just leave it there? Frankly, the website may grant permission for their stuff and the pdf, but I highly doubt the book (Marketing Metrics: The Definitive Guide to Measuring Marketing Performance) will be given a CC-BY-SA 3.0. It's copyright to Pearson Education (a big commercial publisher). The problem is, many articles edited/created by Karenmharvey now contain or consist almost entirely of lengthy quotes from this book, e.g. Annual growth %. All these probably need to be checked if the book permission isn't forthcoming.:/ Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow. We've got a backlog of 130 tickets in permissions on En! :( Let me look for the ticket. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not there yet. I found a rejected permission letter from July 2011 (2011071210016178), but it was rejected for what should have been easily reparable issues. I have no idea why they didn't repair them. :/ Let's relist it once, but you're probably right about the book. Can you just copy over some of your note here at the relisting? If I'm the admin who addresses the article, I'll check the others as well at that time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Done. Now listed with the note at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 February 17. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the MASB permissions, an email granting copyright permission (for both the website and the PDF) was sent to "[email protected]" on 11 February 2012. If you need me to forward a copy of this email to someone, please let me know. Regarding the Marketing Metrics book, the authors have granted their permission to use the work and Jeanne Glasser, an executive editor at Pearson, is currently working with me, the authors, and Pearson's lawyers to determine the best way to handle turning over the copyright. Again, if you need verification of this, please let me know. You may email me directly at [email protected]. Karenmharvey —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

Photos

Okay, I'm finally getting some headway with photos. For the article Millennium Park Bus Depot, I requested two sources to supply non-free copyrighted images to me so as to use in the article. I mailed them for permission. Guess what? Both of them sent me confirmations! Yay! Now please tell me how do I upload these photos, providing fair-use rationales and showing that permission has been provided? The two sources told me that the mails sent can be used as their confirmation for use, provided I cite them as source and state that the photos are from them. Please respond fast. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Great. :) If you have permission that conforms to our licensing requirements, you don't need fair use rationales. What you would do is upload the images to Wikimedia Commons, explain the origins, and place {{OTRS pending}}. Then go ahead and forward the permission letters you received to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, providing a clear link in each letter to the image as uploaded. Then watch your inbox, because if there are any issues, the OTRS agent should let you know. :) If you didn't receive a clear licensing statement (one that clearly identifies the license they permitted), you may need to first ask them to send you the release statement at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Sometimes copyright holders give us permission to use content "on Wikipedia" or otherwise aren't clear on license, and we have to go back to ask for more. --User:Moonriddengirl 14:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Nice. However, the two sources didn't say as to which license I should use exactly. One of the sources said this, and I quote: "I am confirming that, this photo is freely usable and allowed for public use but only if u are giving some reference link to my blog". The other source stated that "we have no objection in Wiki using the picture with due credit as suggested by you." I have both the mails stating this, and both said that the mails can be used as guarantee letters. Do I need to ask them again for a specific copyright license? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Btw, I had mailed Box Office India regarding copyright concerns of their figures (and I wrote a pretty long letter); unfortunately, they haven't responded despite it being 2 weeks since I sent them that. Has anybody from Wikipedia attempted to contact BOI regarding usage of its figures? I thought I could help, and I outlined several policies, but their lack of reply is rather unnerving. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid you do. :/ Here's what I've found the easiest approach to be: write them, say, "Wonderful! Now all we need is for you to send us the form letter. I'm going to paste this in at the bottom of my email. If you are willing to agree to our license, please reply to my email, keeping this form in place and putting your name and the date in the spaces provided for it below. The Wikimedia Foundation will retain this licensing statement for their records."
Extended content

I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [put the URL to the work here, Ankitbhatt] I agree to 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). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[NAME]
[DATE]

If correspondents don't seem to be getting it, I make it as simple as possible for them. :)
You can save yourself some time and trouble by asking them to carbon copy their reply to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. If they return the form and put their own name and date where you've asked them to (don't put that there for them! put the URL in, but not that), then they'll have given explicit consent to the license. The only issue you might really run into then is if their email address doesn't clearly connect them to the website where the image was originally published.
If I'm misunderstanding you and the images aren't currently online, I'll need to tweak that language a bit. Let me know. :)
And with regards to BOI, yes, they have been contacted. From what I understood, they were considering it, but then they stopped responding. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, actually. I just sent them a mail telling them that I'll release the photos under the

tag; I asked them to reply saying that they confirm allowing me to release under the given tag. They said yes. Simple. The photos are now available; i forwarded all the necessary mails to the e-mail ID you gave. Thanks a ton for your help, now I feel more confident when I want to upload photos :D. You can check up the photos in this article :).

Regarding BOI, I sent them a LONG letter asking them to release their figures under a license, telling them of the benefits both sides would get. They didn't respond back, and its been more than a month. Its unfortunate :(. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I help?

Dear MRG, I've been absent for a while and have only just caught up with recent CP developments. Since SCV is currently blank, can I help at CP? I did a couple today but realise that I probably should volunteer as a trainee clerk first to be able to help out properly at CP. Shall I just go ahead and volunteer myself at WP:CP/C?--CharlieDelta (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I missed all these yesterday when I was catching up. I can't believe it. I thought I'd answered everything. :/
Anyway, sorry for the delay. You certainly can help at CP; we need all the help we can get. :) If you'd like to volunteer as a trainee, go for it. Please just let me know, so that I can come and support you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyrght issues on Occupy Wall Street

I think it may be an overall problem of IP editors from the past, however I do believe there is one particular editor who may need to be warned and if they persist, perhaps some sanction or another. Depends on if all they are doing is baiting me or really just commiting plagerism.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, they're not intending to cause any issues and will be corrected as they see local conventions. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sherman Day Thacher

This article references a 1931 or 2(?) obituary. It reads as if it's been copied directly from it, but I haven't seen the original, and it doesn't state that it incorporates text directly. Advice? LadyofShalott 19:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You can look at the original here go to page 65--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
That's very helpful, Sphilbrick. :) Looking at the original, I believe this is an issue under our current guidelines on plagiarism, but not a copyright problem. I don't see a notice anywhere on that document, so I believe it should be public domain. I've tried to make it a little bit more readable and have added the attribution necessary to avoid plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both. I finally got back to this, and see that MRG has taken care of it. LadyofShalott 18:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot update

After a slight delay due to coding burn out (coding is a major part of my day job as well and it wasn't going well in the middle of the week) I think I have the pseudo-bot code sorted and a couple of minor problems ironed out - one of these was that it wasn't detecting the source parameter in close paraphrase as I'd coded it to look for a url parameter and as plenty of people had incorrectly used a url parameter it was returning sources for some pages so I didn't notice the problem at first. This means some of the backlog pages are listed without a source when they have one. This is now sorted.

I've just spent some time getting the bot to detect edit conflicts. I want to give the rewritten code a test run at the end of today and if it works I'll submit it at BRFA. Still trying to get my toolserver account reactivated so not sure when I can get it running in it's final form but I should, temporarily, be able to run it automatically form my laptop once I have permission to run in bot mode.

Finally, if you add a copyright=no parameter/value to a close paraphrase tag then the pseudo-bot should ignore it. This isn't fully tested so it would be great if you let me know the first time you used it. Dpmuk (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! I will, indeed, and, please, don't let yourself burn out on it. We've been without copyright bots for a long time, and it won't hurt us to have it on pseudomanual to keep you happy and engaged. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Well I spent all of Wednesday digging through work code only to decide it was odd data. That sort of put me off looking at code for a while. Am happy to look at it again now. I do plan on taking a bit of a break once it's been through BRFA as what with RfA, BRFA, coding bot, updating user pages, etc. etc. all in the last week or so I could do with a bit of a break. Want to see the bot running first however. Dpmuk (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
BRFA submitted. Dpmuk (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My new user page

On a different note, are you happy with my new user page. You'll notice that I both point people at your user page and quote from it so I thought I'd check you were OK with it. Dpmuk (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on passing your RFA! I was out of town or would have stopped by when it happened. I'm absolutely delighted to have you onboard and welcome your coming by at any point you want an opinion or a second set of eyes. I've always thought that one of the greatest strengths of Wikipedia is our collaborative nature; we don't have to work alone. There are plenty of editors who can attest that I'm never shy about asking for opinions or help when I need it. :)
I quite like your userpage, even though it makes me blush. If you want to copy any of my language, you are welcome to it. I'm glad to see you give instructions for talking about disagreements. Hopefully you won't run into too many issues, but if I can take the liberty of sharing some of my own thoughts on this...well, I can take the liberty of sharing some of my own thoughts. :D I'll just hope you don't mind.
I always try to treat people with compassion when they are shocked or angry that content has been removed for copyright reasons. I try to imagine how I would feel if I found out that I was doing something completely wrong or, just as bad, that an article I cared about and had worked on had been gutted because somebody else did something wrong. Usually, people calm down after a round or two. It helps to make your initial response very clear and to give examples of the problem, if they don't believe it's there. In my general experiences, those who don't calm down if you treat them with true civility and respect may have larger problems. It has become a red flag for me that I may be dealing with a serial copyright issue. It's not always the case, but it has been more often than not. It may be that these people become more defensive because they realize they have more to protect.
In terms of deleting copyright problems, I prefer to leave even a little stub if I can rather than deleting an article altogether. In this day of "rev deletion", this is so much easier. It was harder when I had to either rewrite the content completely from scratch or attribution specific contributors in edit summary. :) I am particularly like to try to save articles that I think may be challenged by Wikipedia:Systemic bias. In the years I've been working copyright problems, I've seen some articles that have been G12ed multiple times before ever landing at CP. It's not uncommonly the case that these articles are efforts by multiple people who don't speak English well to add something on a subject that is important to them and in their culture. Giving them one will sometimes put an end to that cycle.
Again, if you are ever in need of assistance, please don't hesitate to let me know. You are very welcome to any assistance I can offer, and in turn your assistance is much appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Well I was going to point at your page for the copyright side of things and when checking that out saw the admin bit and remembered how I thought, when I read it ages ago, what a good statement it was. Hence the copy! I agree with the second opinion stuff - hence the reason you got to deal with some stuff from me at WP:CP where I've wanted a second opinion. Can't imagine that will change just because I'm now an admin. The insight into people's reaction is interesting - I'll have to bear it in mind.
I have noticed that you're a bit more ready to stub rather than delete (or tag for deletion) than me and indeed I've taken that on board and do try to stub a bit more. The systematic bias one is something I do bear in mind, although, to date, I think I've come across it more in the context of older 'things' with unavailable sources than because of foreign languages. I think I'll be treading quite carefully while I work out how best to deal with the competing interests and the different way of dealing with things. Suspect I'll always be a bit more ready to suggest delete than you but I think we are, thankfully, both within the "discretion" area.
Oh, and I noticed when I was looking at my RfA stats that I've edited your talk page twice as often as I've edited my own. Not quite sure what to make of that! Dpmuk (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that there's room for variance in how we approach things. :) I saw that editing statistic, too. :D I have a feeling that now that you're an admin, that will change. But, hey, if it doesn't, it's good for me. I get to benefit from you as TPS and enjoy generally collaborating on copyright work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Just deleted my first two pages that were listed at WP:CP. Even bearing in mind what you said above I could see no way to save Mirai Suenaga. We don't have articles on the website or artists so couldn't find any where to redirect. Stubifying would have left an article with no links to anywhere apart from a couple of claimed "appearances" and I could find no sources myself so couldn't even find a way to make it a valid stub. Feel free to review anything I do while I'm learning the ropes and revert anything you disagree with - I'll definitely take it as a learning experience. Dpmuk (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I'll be happy to offer input. Appreciate your working at CP. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

Dear editor-who-I-happen-to-know-has-otrs-access,
earlier today I forwarded some ancient e-mail exchange to permissions-en, subject 'en:user:mstrsail' at around 12:27 UTC. I expected an automated reply with ticket ID, but haven't received anything yet. If you have a minute, could you check that it actually made it and let me know the ticket ID so that I can use it to mark the respective images? As I write there it's only for bookkeeping, no action needed. Not urgent.
Thanks, Amalthea 14:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. :) Let me do a few more minutes of mopping, if you don't mind, to a brand new CCI, and then I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay. :) It's 2012022010004673. We don't have automated replies, although that might not be a bad idea. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! :)
And I'm surprised you don't have automatic replies. I've always found them useful in a ticketing system, for both sides. For the ticket management side, the biggest benefit IMO is that people are less likely to create multiple tickets. If they get a response they are assured that it's tracked somewhere and won't send a "Answer me already!" mail 30 minutes later, and if they want to follow up with additional information they'll reply to the auto-response and it automatically ends up in the right ticket.
Cheers, Amalthea 16:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Sticking my nose in to support automated replies.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You make good points. :) I'll bring it up to the OTRS mailing list. Not sure if it's possible, but it's worth checking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
OTRS mailing list seems to think it's a good idea, basically, but I'm not sure what if anything will be done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in overseas markets

Moonriddengirl, in light of the notice you placed at Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in overseas markets, I've nominated that page for deletion, as it hasn't been used since October. Rather that G8ing it, I'm giving the courtesy of Misc for Deletion so anyone who needs to save it can do so. Discussion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in overseas markets D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issues with new user

Boing! said Zebedee and I have been struggling to explain copyright issues to a new user, User:CaptainKramer. He is under the belief that because the organization is registered in the US as a public organization (in this case, a political party), the content from their website can be reproduced on Wikipedia without it being a copyright violation. Boing! and I have tried to explain otherwise, and linked him to the appropriate policy pages, but this is either a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or just us not explaining it properly. He thinks we are preventing other editors or admins from assiting him, and has specifically requested an admin more familiar with copyright policies to assist him. Out of an abundance of good faith, I thought I would ask if you can assist CaptainKramer with his copyright questions. Singularity42 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have visited his talk page. I'm not sure that I will make him any happier, though. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Is userspace protected by CC-BY-SA licensing.

Are userspace contributions made by users protected by copyright.Many users leave the project with unfinished userspace contributions or userspace articles are not worked on for more than 6 months can another user use it without attribution.A user created an article in userspace Not edited since April 2011 Another user copy pasted it into mainspace in Sept/Oct 2011 and it was speedy deleted yesterday as copyright violation can it be restored if it attributed in the talk page.Is attribution necessary ? Russia–Yemen relations .Other editors appear to have contributed to it since then. A Senior Editor has left the Project with many unfinished articles now can others use his contributions as per this.If it is to an existing article it will be copy paste by another editor. The Rationale for deletion is here .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yes, userspace contributions are copyrighted. Every time we hit save, we agree to release our content under CC-By-SA and GFDL, and this is true for userspace, article space, talk pages, noticeboards, etc. Nobody can use that content without attribution, but another user can use the content with attribution.
For a new article, the best bet is to move the sandbox (although I'd make sure the editor is gone and not likely to object first). With an existing article, the easiest way is to give attribution in the edit summary. If all the changes to content were made by one author in the sandbox, you can do that like this: "All content created by [[User:Example]]"
If multiple people worked on the sandbox, this method does not work. In that case, you have to follow the steps for copying content from one article to another at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Making a prominent note on the sandbox of what you've done is a very good idea, if you do that, to avoid it being deleted. With the specific name credit, we do not need to retain the sandbox. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films

Hey :D. Since this list is in extract form, I was thinking: Why not expand the extract reach?

Look, when the list was in its complete form, the list went up to 30 films under the "highest-grossing films" list. Right now the extract stops at 10. I'd like to add the 15, 20, 25 and 30 ranks too. That way we can all be clearer as to what is the limit for a film to be in the list. I'm also planning to write some written material in the article (like in Bollywood films of 2011). I'd appreciate it if you could clarify whether I could go ahead with this. Thanks in advance :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Probably we should not expand the list. We are using exactly the recommendation of our lawyer. But written material would be fantastic. The more we "transform" the material (by adding new content), the more we can use of it. You could probably discuss each of the top five, for instance, as long as you included three or four sentences on each with facts chosen and sourced from different references. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Couldn't we consult the lawyer again and ask to expand the list? I'm keeping it in extract form after all, just going to add 4 more ranks. Regarding written material, my intention was to add to the article and keep the lists too. You'll understand when you see the list after I work on it; I'm gonna make it almost FL status :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
That would be great. :) Your best bet would be to add the written material first, because the more of that we have the better our claim to fair use. Then we can look at increasing the extracts. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on it right now. What I'm planning is to make the list a source of info about Bollywood as well, albeit in a much summarized form; an FL is always very informative, isn't it? :D. I finished one paragraph regarding a brief history of Bollywood, and I added photos too. Not much of it is my own work, I just looked at the Bollywood article and summarized some 6 paragraphs into one LOL. I'll continue working on this for some time. Take a look if you can, and give me your thoughts. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've finished for now; it needs a few references so I'll have to ask people to help me out. Take a look :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I like your lead. :) I did have to take a picture out; sorry! It's used under non-free guidelines, and you can't use it in another article unless you can add a "fair use rationale" to explain why it fits those criteria in your article, too. See WP:NFC. I would add a "fur", but I'm afraid I'm not sure we can make using it there fit that guideline.
Have you thought about turning it into an article instead of a list and just including the list excerpts in the article? Highest-grossing Bollywood films? Not being able to include the full list might be a problem for FL, but shouldn't be a problem at all for FA. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that file was unfree. Ah anyways, it doesn't really matter; I'll put up some other film's free file that doesn't need a fair-use (hopefully, though I really need a Sholay pic as it was something of a turning point in the film industry). I had actually thought about turning it into an article, and I am making my way to make it as article-like as possible, but at the end of the day I think a list is necessary as our viewers would rather see some tabulation (easy for the eyes) rather than read through lines of text. I'll again try contacting BOI regarding the release of figures, but if nothing comes out then... well, nothing can be done :(. Thanks, and regards :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Subject Alternative Name deletion

Could you please explain to me the basis of your deletion of the article on Subject Alternative Name? I am researching this type of secure certificate and information could potentially have been very helpful. Could the article not have been amended to remove any copyright-infringing material? 193.128.166.225 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The article was deleted because it copied content from a non-free source and, after a grace period of a week during which the creator could have verified permission or anyone could have rewritten the article, no action had been taken to correct the problem. (While it could not have been amended, it could have been rewritten from scratch.) In terms of research, you can still access the source from which it was copied: [27]. :) Good luck with your research. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarisms and copyright violations

Can you please take a look at History of the Germans in Poland's history page [28]? There was some sketchy looking unsourced sentences which also seemed strangely out of place so I tagged a few of them with 'citation needed' tags. When the editor who put them in added the sources, I checked them and sure enough, a whole bunch of them were verbatim copy-pastes from copyrighted sources (since they were not even attributed originally, they were not just copyvios but straight up plagiarism). I checked about five different sources so this isn't limited to just copying one. And of course the editor insists on restoring the copyvios.

Right now I don't have time to look through the editor's other contribution but if it's so blatant here I'm sure there's plenty more. Please also see the note I left on his/her talk page [29]. Thank you.VolunteerMarek 10:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

please attention it [30] and [31] Volunteerms 10:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Silar also edited as 46.174.24.10 and some similar IP addresses.VolunteerMarek 12:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Another CCI. :/ I see you removed some additional problems from that article; unfortunately, they were added by the founding editor. If you see any more, can you blank the article for copyright problems board? The whole article may be tainted, and I'm afraid I don't have time to look into it.
This is it for substantial edits of the IP you identify:
Fortunately, this seems to be clear.
Thanks for finding the issue. Pity it had to go this way. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Lech (Bohemian prince) also had some stuff copied directly from a source. I'll look over rest of the History of Germans in Poland article later and see if there's more.VolunteerMarek 13:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It occurs to me I should have linked to the CCI: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Silar. --User:Moonriddengirl 13:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

problems with close paraphrasing - my mentor says to ask you

Hello

I've been reviewing an article for GAN Douglas W. Owsley. I did a fair amount of copy editing to the article where the wording was strange or out of sync, so I was alerted to look at the sources. I discovered some close paraphrasing/plagiarism in the lede and brought it to the attention of the nominator User talk:Cindamuse who said she had fixed it. My review is here: Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1.

So I went back to reviewing the article, starting at the lede, this time starting with checking sources. Again I found multiple instances of what I consider close paraphrasing in the lede. I alerted Cindamuse, but she disagreed, quoting copyright laws and such to support her view.

My mentor User:Worm That Turned agrees that it is close paraphrasing and possibly plagiarism, but since Cindamuse does not agree he says I should consult you as you are an expert.

I haven't checked the sources beyond the lede, although I did some copy editing in the article before I was aware of the problem.

Your opinion would be much appreciated. I have listed the problems found so far at Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1.

Thank you,

MathewTownsend (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Mathew, as stated at User talk:Mdennis (WMF), she cannot address your concerns or can't take any part in evaluating the content, since first approached in her WMF capacity. I don't appreciate your inaccurate characterization of the facts here. The information that I provided to support content was from WP:CP, which I told you provides guidance for editors. You may also wish to review WP:Plagiarism. Please return to the review for comments there and at my conversation at Worm's talk page to address concerns raised. I have contacted Derrick, who will hopefully be able to provide some input. Thanks. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Please let me apologize for anything I've done wrong or against a policy.
User:Worm That Turned is my mentor and I first contacted him because of some odd wording I found in the article on February 18.[32] I've tried to follow his advice, though I may not have understood him correctly. He did agree that there was a problem with close paraphrasing in the Douglas W. Owsley article and possibly plagiarism.[33]
I notified you on your talk page on February 18 that there was a problem and suggested some write ups on Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches (Let's get serious about plagiarism) for you to read to understand what I perceived the problem to be.[34]
Worm pointed out his discomfort about your wording to you on Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1. For example:
The issues is not Wikipedia:Copyright problems as you seem to think in your words above, but rather plagiarism and close paraphrasing. As Worm pointed out, he doesn't feel WP:Plagiarism supports your view.
I understand, Cind.amuse, that you are upset, and I apologize deeply for any blunders I have made. It's just that I've seen lately what happens to editors that allow close paraphrasing and other such problems remain in an article. DYK has had terrible problems that way and a DYK editor was blocked for close paraphrasing. So I'm nervous.
Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the apology. Note that concerns raised by Worm were resolved. Your first question to me was an attempt to ascertain who wrote the article I presented. An assumption of bad faith was a poor start to this review. You appear to take offense that I pointed out content at WP:PARAPHRASE, since you have mentioned it in all your comments about the article, implying wrongdoing on my behalf in presenting the information. (While you have referred to the article as a copyvio, in presenting WP:CP, I meant to present WP:PARAPHRASE.) I have written professionally for over 20 years and have never had my work questioned in this manner and certainly not by a new editor on Wikipedia. I have never had my work characterized as a copyright violation or close paraphrasing, when I am very familiar with copyright law and know that it does not meet that definition. I enjoy collaboration and appreciate the copyedits that you have made in the article. I recognize your talent with editing. That said, the point of a review is to review and offer suggestions, rather than outright change the style to your preference. I have never had my work characterized as "odd" or "strange". The characterization was inappropriate. I have to be honest, I'm concerned with the manner of questions and accusations in this review. If you are not comfortable reviewing this article, please request an official second opinion. I will not respond here further, since this is the wrong place for conversation to take place on this issue. I can be reached through my talk page. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that you are interpreting my review of your article so negatively. Indeed it is difficult for all of us to accept criticism at times.
  • You say: "Your first question to me was an attempt to ascertain who wrote the article I presented. An assumption of bad faith was a poor start to this review." Again I'm sorry you interpreted my attempt to do my job of reviewing your GAN so negatively. If you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches (Let's get serious about plagiarism), you will see that some of the "red flags" to look for immediately are:
"Rapid maturation: Fully developed articles that appear in very few edits may signal plagiarism. While sometimes editors construct articles in sandboxes or off-wiki, sometimes a sudden maturity of text signals that material has quickly been added without careful attention to the issue of plagiarism."
Your article sprung into life on February 10 at 55,757 bytes - very long for a new article. So I was just doing my job to ask you if you had written it off wiki, since the article had no article history.
"Inconsistent language: If the tone of an article or passage is colloquial or does not feel "right"—for example if jargon or idioms are used incorrectly—a source may have been misused.
I pointed out this instance of odd language in the review: "The family lived financially conservative, yet never seemed to run out of money by the third week of the month, due to his mother's talent at stretching a meal." I asked what you meant by "lived financially conservative" combined with the "yet never seemed to run out of money" - the two clauses seem to clash, and "lived financially conservative" isn't really grammatical. I suggested alternatives and asked what you meant. You refused to change the wording and the odd language remains in the article.
Hi, guys. :)
User:MathewTownsend, I appreciate your keeping an eye out for close paraphrasing issue. It is important to do, and while some cases are clearer than others, it's also important to talk openly when there are disagreements about where that line is. :) I see that User:Cindamuse approached; User:Dcoetzee. I'm glad, Cindy, and I'm so glad he had time to weigh in. I think he has good judgment in this area, in terms of what the typical approach is on Wikipedia.
Cindy, I hope that you will not take this as too much of a criticism of your writing in general, even though I see he did think the content followed too closely. Wikipedia, as I'm sure you know, keeps on the conservative side of fair use for a number of reasons, including that our content may be reused commercially and may be reused in countries with stricter fair use or fair dealing laws than our own. :)
Mathew, you did nothing whatsoever wrong with dropping a note at my staff talk page. The situation you had kind of bridged the gap between my two roles, and it was entirely appropriate for you to ping me there. :) (I wish I could wear both hats on the same situation, but I have to be careful about that for legal reasons.) I'm sorry that my userpage misled you, though. If you don't mind doing me a favor, could you look at what the box says now and let me know if it's any better? I want to make sure that people wind up at the right place. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl! I'm glad to hear I didn't do anything heinous. As far as your box at the top of this page, it doesn't seem to explain that you actually have two different names (your other one which I can't remember now) and Moonriddengirl with two different roles, one of them for WMF (your staff page?) which prohibits you from responding to concerns about wikipedia, and that if your WMF name is contacted, then the other one must not be. Also, when you say you deal with copyright concerns, does that mean that you don't deal with a situation where it's not clear whether it's a copyvio or close paraphrasing?
On another note, would you be able to convince User:Cindamuse that it disrupts GAN if she continues to delete the GAN review Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1? It's necessary to the GAN process that every review be retained to aid the next reviewer, and that the article and its talk page belong to the community and not to her. I failed her nomination because it seemed clear to me that Cindamuse would not accept my review points. I've explained to her that there is no shame in a failed review and that she can nominate it again when ever she feels the article is ready. Thank you! MathewTownsend (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Matthew, I'm one of Moonriddengirl's talk page stalkers. Cindamuse didn't delete the GA review (Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1), she simply removed its transclusion into Talk:Douglas W. Owsley. That's what's normally done when a GA review is finished to free up space on the article's actual talk page. Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1 is now linked from the Article Milestones banner at the top of Talk:Douglas W. Owsley. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Vpceditenore. I was worried it would get "lost" as seems to happen in a fair number of cases. So thanks for the reassurance. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, I'm a little confused by your response. :) You said here that you contacted me at User talk:Mdennis (WMF) because Moonriddengirl's page sort of said to. Since there's nothing on this talk page mentioning Mdennis, I assume you read the note here. I've updated that note to help avoid confusion. If I've misunderstood you, and there was something else that directed you to my staff talk page, please let me know.

I deal with copyright concerns, but part of that necessarily entails determining when a close paraphrase crosses the line into a copyright problem under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am not prohibited from responding to concerns about Wikipedia as staff; it's what I'm there for. :) However, I'm a conduit between staff and volunteers and not, in that capacity, an editor. I'm not allowed in that capacity to make judgments about whether or not content is a copyright problem, for instance, because if staff starts making editorial decisions, we will no longer qualify as an online service provider and the current systems we have in place to protect the project when contributors violate copyright will be put at risk. If WMF is not an online service provider, but a publisher, WMF is legally liable for what we publish. This would be bad for everybody, since it would mean that we would probably no longer be able to edit freely, because WMF would have to pre-screen everything...which would break the encyclopedia altogether. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

apology
Well, I apologize that I have gotten confused and made a mess of things, which I have, and I admit that I space out and don't always read carefully all the message boxes etc. and follow all the links and read those carefully also that I should. Also, lots of the terms and names of other editors I'm not familiar with, so even if I read everything I don't necessarily understand. And I appreciate that you have limits as a WMF staff member over what you can address and I have no complaints at all about you. And your suggestions were great and the person you suggested did the right thing. And certainly WMF needs to be protected from accusations of copyright violations. My frustration was not over editors that are uninformed and inexperienced. No, my frustration is over this particular editor who STILL DOESN' GET IT, and has posted prominently on her user page:

I am an Online Ambassador, member of the Ambassador Selection Team, and member of the Ambassador Steering Committee. I have worked with university professors and students through the Public Policy Initiative over the past year and attended the Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit in July 2011, to assist with expanding the project to the global community. I am now part of the Wikipedia Education Program, with an emphasis on the United States and Canada.

Now, I watched from the sidelines the mess that was created by these on line educational courses in the past, and seems like there was criticism that on line ambassadors were unable to monitor copyright violation by students. And now, as I understand it, a new bunch of these on line courses is about to be unleashed on en:wp. Close paraphrasing/plagiarism is just as much a mess for en:wp to clean up - and its harder to detect - takes more work than copyright violations. Here we have an Online Ambassador, member of the Ambassador Selection Team and the Ambassador Steering Committee, who doesn't know that close paraphrasing/plagiarism in en:wp articles is a no no. And who still has not admitted that close paraphrasing/plagiarism is wrong, but rather has quoted a bunch of legal cases and copyright laws to justify her behavior. Discouraging, to say the least. This is why I think WMF isn't considering en:wp editors who WMF does expect to clean up the mess. However, I thank you for your help and appreciate greatly what you do and how you handle things. Respectfully, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


{{Copyviocore}}

I suspect you've probably noticed the changes I made to this yesterday on your watchlist. I comment on them at WT:CP. Thought I'd point you at the comments in case you missed me posting there as WT:CP has another pretty active thread at the moment. There are one or two things there would your input would be useful - although there's no rush whatsoever. Dpmuk (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to come by CP later today if I can. :) I'm not sure what the changes amount to, because markup confuses me. :D But I have confidence in you, so I'm sure it'll be fine, and we can fix any issues that may come up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
As I say no rush. I'm confident I've not broken anything important! Dpmuk (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Legolas2186

Per this AN thread and Legolas' disapparance, I think it might be time to open a CCI on him. It might involve dozens of recognized article dilistings and spread over over 100 pages, so yeah it's looking really bad. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sven. :) Just to clarify, is this needed to look for incorrect information, or is there a copyright dimension to this that I'm overlooking? We can use the CCI tool either way, but it wouldn't be hosted at CCI. I've gone ahead and run the tool; see [35]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
He's making up sources. That's the issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, then it wouldn't be at CCI. I'll put it in a subpage of his user space and let you know once it's there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There have been some issues found with close paraphrasing/copyvio (see, for example Talk:4 Minutes (Madonna song)#Partial source audit), but I agree with Sven that the majority of the problem seems to be falsifying sources and claiming that sources include information that they don't actually cover. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. :/ Well, the report is stowed at User:Legolas2186/Major contributions. Reverts and minor edits are excluded. I would imagine that the top 200 articles are going to be the biggest concern. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the report. That will be a great help in rooting out the various problems, including close paraphrasing, fabrication of sources, making up quotes from living people, etc. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Should a talk page edit where the IP editor has written 'copyright' be rev/del'd?

It's at Talk:SI prefix#Why Yotta is Y and why Yocto is y ? and the issue was raised on my talk page at User talk:Dougweller#Revision deletion due to copyright. I've no idea if anything should be done. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've replied at your talk page, but I think we've got no issues. The content is copyrighted; it's just licensed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't see a problem either, but you explained it much better than I could! Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

U1

Please delete User:Interchangeable/The Alpha Challenge. Interchangeable|talk to me 16:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I see this has already been handled. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

donations in process

Hi, if you have a moment could you take a look at advice for handling copyright donation in process? Essentially, a librarian at Cornell created some articles using text from the Cornell library website. I informed her that the material was appropriate for wikipedia but needed to be donated and she let me know that she is working to get it donated but would like us to not delete the articles while the process is underway. How do we handle donations that are in process? Thank you, GabrielF (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at replying. Dpmuk (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Good reply, thanks. I've added a recommendation to use {{OTRS pending}}. :) Thanks for helping her out, Gabriel! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actual Art

I hope this is not a headache...........the Actual Art Foundation says they have made the ownership statement on the website and released the material. Thank you for your help.Palofierros (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I have restored the article with the necessary notice on the article and at the top of the article's talk page and created a permanent archived copy of the release in case there are ever any disputes from any of the artists. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this copyvio?

OTRS ticket 2012022610001451 is complaining about the content of our Dachau concentration camp article, which I don't think I'll deal with, but the content they are complaining about was added here [36] and is copied from [37] which seems to be in copyright. Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unless we are given some reason to believe otherwise. I have removed the content and cautioned the contributor. However, in looking at other contributions, I am concerned that there are other issues with this contributor's content. I have found duplication in several other articles and am looking more deeply. A full CCI should not be needed, given the small number of articles that meet the evaluation criteria. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


Vandalism

Hi, compare this. I added like 11 sources and removed POV like "BEST diabetes hospital" and dead links to the Indian railway site and such and for some reason it takes 40 minutes and counting for anybody to spot it and revert him. I've reported it at ANI, he's been warned for removing AFD notices but nobody is seeing what he's done. Can you look into it? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted him, but its very disappointing nobody is ever around to support me on things like this. I waited nearly an hour for somebody to revert.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi. I see that it's at ANI and he's been warned for edit warring. I've warned him about personal attacks and battlefield mentality. I didn't mention WP:OWN, but it seems like that could be the core issue. :/ If I were in your position, what I would do is stop and engage him directly at the talk page of the article, leaving him a note at his talk page to let him know where to look. Give him time to respond, and, if he is editing elsewhere and doesn't or if sufficient time has passed, revert back pending an explanation of issues. If he reverts you, still without response, it makes it more immediately obvious to people what's going on (in other words, he has been told where and how to explain his issues and hasn't) and allows you to go to more easily go to WP:3O to get some dispute resolution. You may not get it immediately, but it generally won't be an emergency, even though it feels like it at the time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye on Gobichettipalayam for me? If you look at the sources and structure of it if he reverts again you'll spot the difference. I had intended continuing working on it and adding more aources but I have a feeling I'm going to be reverted again and nobody will revert it back. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I can try keep an eye on it for ownership issue and personal attacks, but I'm afraid I can't revert him unless he is clearly vandalizing. I'm also not on that much in this account and generally scrambling with copyright problems, as I am today, when I'm here. If you need somebody to help with the content issues, I'd recommend WP:3O, as I mentioned above. Or even the project talk page or WP:DRN. There are ways to raise attention from other editors to get assistance, though you may sometimes need to be patient. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, but I would consider the removal of references and reinsertion of blatant POV as disruption which shouldn't be tolerated by anybody. Its not as if is a dispute about content or accuracy or something. Thanks for your help anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it seems to be a copyvio from here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Great! If you don't think it's a backwards copy, please tag or remove any copied content and let the contributor know about the policies with one of the copyright templates. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be willing to go through it and remove the offending material but I will not do so if I keep being reverted and nobody supports what I'm doing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I understand completely how it feels to think nobody supports what you're doing. :) If you'll pardon my own weary complaint, I'm very happy that there are more contributors working copyright at the moment than there have been in some time - I'm particularly pleased by the increased participation of User:Dpmuk and User:Voceditenore. But I gave every spare minute of my day yesterday to cleaning up copyright, and I have been working for nearly three hours this morning on the issue immediately above yours. Realistically, I may have several hours still to go to finish with that, and probably a four day backlog at WP:CP that I'd like to catch up on while I can. I won't make it, but I'll do my best. :)
There are ways to get support, but it takes effort, I know. I've recommended an approach above that I think will help you - make notes on the talk page, invite the contributor to the talk page, reach out for backup at an appropriate fora if the contributor does not join in building consensus. If you think that the content is clearly an issue, you have the option of listing the contributor at WP:AIV, but, if it is not so clear, you do have to go through other processes, such as dispute resolution noticeboards and ANI.
While I would like to help you, and took time off the work I'm doing to at least try to address the behavioral issues, I feel that assessing the content weakens my ability to remain WP:UNINVOLVED in case I am called upon as an administrator, and I feel that I can't become involved as an editor due to both a lack of time and the fact that you have approached me at my talk page, which might seem to predispose me to agree with your point of view. This is why I recommend the dispute resolution fora to you. I believe it's the best approach for you to take. I hope it helps. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've now addressed most of the copyvios.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Mystichumwipe's talk page.
Message added 17:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Could someone else deal with this editor please?

I'm not sure I should be the one to do this, but Vjiced (talk · contribs) continues to add copyvio with no acknowledgement of the problem despite the warnings on his talk page. His latest is at a new BLP he created, Lee Chau Ping, much of which is from [38]. Sorry to be a pain. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thanks. I've already blocked one editor today for copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
And maybe I should have done what you did. I did an indef block and left the editor a note saying what to do to get unblocked. I view indefinite blocks as just that, a block that can often be easily lifted if an editor agrees to comply with policy. In the case of the editor I blocked earlier today, they seem to have never tried to communicate with anyone, unlike Vjiced. Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I gave him a finite block because it looks to me like he's trying. :) Effort goes a long way. If he continues the issue after this, we might have to question whether he will be able to succeed. And I do indefs sometimes when I'm not sure how long it will be before the editor comes back. If they're erratic in participation, we can't guarantee that a finite block will even be seen. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Actual Art

the board at the Actual Art Foundation thank you and believe you are doing a great service for Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palosfierros (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


the green box above does not show Palosfierros (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that we were able to work it out. :) Thank you for your patience with the process.
I'm not 100% sure what you mean about the green box not showing. Do you mean the one at the top of my talk page when you edit it? (If so, it seems to be showing now. :)) Or is there another green box in question? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Milhist copyright question

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#101_Battalion - would you mind taking a look when you get some minutes to spare? Cheers and best wishes for the new year, Buckshot06 (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much -- that was very quick. All best for your role with WMF; if I ever come through San Francisco it might be interesting to meet and chat. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
We'd have to time it correctly. :) I actually work remotely and am based on the East Coast. I am planning to attend Wikimania, however; if you get to DC this summer, maybe we can meet then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_43&oldid=1183275881"