User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 → Archive 50

Re:Palestinian costumes

Hello. Sorry for any confusion. There was a query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine about the article's blanking. So, I just created the temp page for those editors interested in working on it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement. I am sorry about editing the original - I am very bad at reading instructions. I am willing to do this stuff but don't know how to identify the problem areas...thanks for pointing out what you found. Padres Hana (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note to me

I need to run a CCI on User:99appleseed when the software is working again. And note to anybody waiting for anything from me: I'm trying to keep tunnel vision on CP at the moment to get as much of the backlog addressed as I can! I'll be back to regular schedule soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Have to run User:Kyuko, too. Tool says "The MySQL server is running with the --read-only option so it cannot execute this statement". I've left Derrick a message at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Lists at AfD

FYI, I've mentioned your "Copyright in lists" advisory article at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Michelin_two_starred_restaurants as possibly relevant. AllyD (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. :) I may drop by the deletion debate later, but may just let the essay stand on its own two legs. If I could ever resolve the one section, I'd move it into Wikipedia space! But I'm just not sure how to propose people proceed with using such material under our current legal guidance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Return of blocked user Kurfürst using an IP Address

Nearly 2 years ago [Kurfürst] was blocked for constant disruptive editing and warring. It would seem that he is back, attempting to edit articles under an IP Address [here]. Kurfürst is from Budapest, Hungary and, coincidentally so is [86.101.5.223]. I have reverted some of his edits, but this matter does need some investigation. Regards ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 08:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW His behaviour in the intervening time has not improved at all, if anything he is more arrogant and uncooperative than ever eg:IL2 forum ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. :) I'm afraid that I may not be able to help you right now. :/ After a year, I don't remember Kurfürst's edits well enough for it to be immediately obvious to me that this is the same person, although it certainly may be, and I probably will not have time until this weekend, if then, to look through to find evidence. I would recommend that you either report your concerns to WP:SPI or WP:ANI, but please be sure to provide explanation of how you know it's Kurfürst, other than that he's from the same place. Diffs are really useful here; if he's inserted some of the same material or edited in the same contentious point of view, for instance. If you really are looking for a second opinion, you might ask User:EyeSerene. I understand if he does not want to implement a block, but if he can help verify the identity of the IP, that should make taking action easier at any other forum. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I've now put in a WP:SPI report, with diffs etc her I'm a bit peeved because I have more important things to do than have to deal with this loser turning up again. Ah well, I'll leave it to others to deal with. Thanks ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 00:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I understand the frustration. :/ I know that feeling. I hope that it is swiftly addressed! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh! 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising

Hi MRG! Yet again with these articles related to the Bahraini uprising. I've had a look at 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising after seeing it listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 March 11. It currently has a close paraphrasing tag. As pointed out on the talk page there are at least three instances of substantial verbatim paste and close paraphrasing from three different sources and I've just found a fourth from another source. There may be more though. One editor had offered to fix it on March 11th [1] but has done nothing. It's a bit like the IEP mess where the article is put together with copied sentences from a multitude of sources making it very, very tedious to find and clean. I'm reluctant to slap {{copyvio}} on it—it wpuld probably languish for weeks. I simply can't face investigating it further myself. I could simply excise the 4 known chunks and alert the talk page. It would leave the article in need of copyediting for continuity and flow but at least it would be gone. What do you think? Voceditenore (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I know what the right thing is to do here; I just hate to do it.
Wikipedia:Copyright violations is clear: "If all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable, check the page history; if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version."
If:
  • problematic content was added by one contributor,
  • the problematic content is substantial and it is so intricately entwined with the article that it cannot be removed without crippling it, and
  • that contributor did not create the article...
I should revert to the last version before he edited it.
I hate doing that to good-faith contributors, whether they're the ones who created the copyright issues or not, but it's the right thing to do.
The first question I have (a) is do you think that there is enough substantial duplication of text that {{copyvio}} would be appropriate here? If so, I'd want to check to see (b) that the content before the specific contributor is clean? (This would seem to be the last before he edited it, although I'd have to double-check to make sure that I haven't missed something.) If the answer to (a) is a strong "yes" and the answer to (b) is a reasonable "yes", I'd propose that somebody (could be me) should place the {{copyvio}} on the article with strong and clear evidence of why (a) is so and let interested contributors know that unless a usable rewrite is proposed by the time the article comes current, the article will be reverted to the last presumed clean state, following which it can be rebuilt with content written from scratch. At the end of the week, somebody would need to check to see if the rewrite (I feel pretty sure we'd have one) is derivative or clean. If it's clean, it'll be easy from there; we implement. If it's not, we have problems, obviously, since we'd either have to coach them through a rewrite or delete it as unusable and follow through. I avoid deleting proposed rewrites that way, if I can. (I only do it when the rewrite is so far from usable as to be as bad as or nearly as bad as the original article.)
I believe that is the right thing to do, per policy.
Now, if the question to (a) is "no, there's not enough for {{copyvio}}", then I'd say, yes, if {{close paraphrasing}} has been up long enough for people to realize that there's a problem and nobody's done anything about it, it is a completely reasonable and policy-based response to remove the copyvio and let the chips fall where they may. I did this yesterday with a long languishing {{copy-paste}} at Derrick Bell.
If you don't have time or stomach to answer (a), maybe I can find a friendly talk page stalker or simply go stalk somebody myself to ask? As you probably noticed, I did as much churning as I could through WP:CP over the weekend, but I won't have substantial time to work on an article like this probably until next weekend - when I'd rather try again to knock out the CP backlog if I can. :/ CP always throws me curve balls - two potential new CCIs came out of this weekend's work. And I spent over an hour on one article alone trying to just figure out where the problem was and what was being done about it by whom. :) (And I also pushed out at least a start of an article related to this AFD and the prior, because I'll be darned if all that work goes to waste.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I've spent more time going through it. My gut feeling is that there may not be enough copyvio for {{copyvio}}, especially in proportion to such a lengthy article. But that may be wishful thinking. There are probably 10 lifted/closely paraphrased sentences in all—divided between 5 sources. The article has had one main contributor but certainly they're not the only one who added content. In any case, it was added incrementally, not in one fell swoop and is scattered all over like shotgun pellets. The article has well over 2000 edits making it a time-sink to find out when, where and by whom each of those sentences was added. :/ I don't think it's possible to revert to a clean version (if there ever was one, given the modus scrivendi of the main contributor). I'd be happy to excise the offending stuff and leave the diffs on the talk page, so other editors can easily access what needs to be re-written if they want to. What do you think? Voceditenore (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I think excising it with an explanation is a reasonable thing to do and supported by policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Okey Dokey, done. I left this note on the talk page and strongly suggested that the article's main contributors now go over it very carefully to ensure there isn't any copyvios that I've missed. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. You are an enormous help to me personally, because even though it's not my department I still feel responsible for it. :) And you are doing a tremendous service to your country wiki. :) Seriously, your work this weekend on one of those problematic GAs was like a shot of sunshine, and it's lovely to know that you've put due diligence into this one. Maybe this weekend (knock wood) I can catch up that backlog! I just need a spate of uncomplicated listings - no new CCIs! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hot Fives & Sevens

Thanks for creating Hot Fives & Sevens! On a related subject, please see my comments at Talk:Louis Armstrong Hot Five and Hot Seven Sessions. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it up some. :) I had time shortages and had to stop before I even ran out of source material, which irks a bit. I agree with your comments there and have explained why. I'll try to get by with some of that source material I saw in the near future, time willing. Meanwhile, I'm also hoping to write an article a week off the list, WP:CP willing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Great Soviet Encyclopedia

User:Inventcreat/Author’s Certificate is copied from [2]. A direct link to the encyclopedia and translated gives: Great Soviet Encyclopedia : The 30 t - M.: "Soviet Encyclopedia", 1969-1978. The full text of the Third edition of "Great Soviet Encyclopedia," published by "Soviet Encyclopedia" in 1969 - 1978 years in 30 volumes. TSB - one of the largest and most influential of the universal encyclopedia in the world. This is the most ambitious publishing project of the Soviet era. For fifty years, was released three editions. All fundamental decisions related to the work on BSE - from policy making to its content to the organization of printing performance, is always taken at the highest state and party level. The information collected in the TSB, the vast majority are still relevant today. Same as "obsolete" is a lasting historical interest. © Scientific Publishing "Great Russian Encyclopedia", 2001

But there's a discussion at User talk:Jac16888 that has me confused, especially the section "About the article". Ran into this from an ANI discussion about their shared account. Dougweller (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it wasn't published in 1926, as it includes information on something that happened in 1931. :) I've done some research into the author; he was actively writing on IP law in the 1960s. I have little doubt that this was published in that edition, but even if it had been published in 1926, it wouldn't necessarily be public domain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Page deleted

Hello! I'd like just ask why you deleted the page Laser interstitial thermal therapy.

Thank you --Manuela.consiglio (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, it had to be deleted for copyright concerns, as it duplicated substantial content at another publication from its foundation. It was blanked and listed for a week to allow any interested community members time to rewrite it or, if the wished, to attempt to seek permission. Sometimes we are able to prove during this listing period that the content was published on Wikipedia first and the other website took it from us, but in this case we could not. A new article on this subject would certainly be welcome, so long as it is in compliance with copyright policies (Wikipedia:Copy-paste gives a brief overview of these.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:BigzMMA/sandbox

Can you have a look at User:BigzMMA/sandbox, it looks like User:BigzMMA is keeping copies of articles nominated for deletion without the correct attribution. Mtking (edits) 21:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we hold off on taking action on this for 48ish hours. I'm going to be posting a big AN request for sanctions on BigzMMA. Hasteur (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The draft that I'm working on is User:Hasteur/BigzMMA Draft Hasteur (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I haven't read your draft, though, just so I can remain absolutely uninvolved and address the attribution issues. :) But how any larger issues are handled will influence the handling of this one, so delaying is a good idea. Could you please update me? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Permission to cite Marketing Metrics book

I have forwarded an email from the publisher to [email protected] regarding the entry for "Annual Growth %." I have cc'ed you on this email. Once I get your okay I will proceed with getting approval on the other deleted entries. I look forward to hearing from you - thanks for all your help! Karenmharvey (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Strange. I haven't received such a letter. :/ Once the permission team gets ahold of it, though, they should be able to process it. If you don't hear back within a few days, you may want to resend it, just in case the whole thing was swallowed by the internet. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I resent the email to Permissions and to you at '[email protected]'. Is this the correct email address for you? Karenmharvey (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see! [email protected] is a general email queue for the team of volunteers who handle emails for the Wikimedia Foundation; emails are not directed to a specific agent that way unless they use the same ticket number in the subject line that we previously used. :) I'll take a look just to see where it is, but it may wind up with a different volunteer agent. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Will someone on the Permissions team be in touch with me to let me know when I can repost the article? Also, once I am sure that you have the copyright permissions you need I will start working with the publisher on the other entries that have been deleted. Is there any process I should be using? Karenmharvey (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, the ticket # is 2012021110008071. I will send the email with that ticket number, as we would like to continue working with you if possible. Karenmharvey (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Another unclear copyvio problem

I happened on the article Eastern and Western Pagodas, where the "History" section matches this page. The creation of our article is time-stamped 21:18, 3 June 2008, whereas the external posting is dated 4 June 2008; but given likely time-zone differences, there's really no telling which has priority. Neither of the sources cited as references appear to contain the historical information about the pagodas, and the article's lead is a very close copy of a sentence in the first-cited source. Given that the creator of our article is indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet and that this seems to be his/her only non-redirect creation, it seems clear to me that our article is a copyvio; but since it's been around for a few years, I thought I'd ask your opinion before tagging it for WP:CP attention. What do you think? Deor (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)‎

I am mentally fried at the moment, but will look at this once my brain functions again. :D I hope that will be reasonably early tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I happened to be on and decided to do some digging. I couldn't do any better than Deor in researching the original article mentioned so I looked into the article's creator, although with no concrete results. They did create two other articles which contained decent amounts of prose: Ethnic Chinese in Mongolia which I've confirmed began as a near word-for-word copy of an uncited PD-USGov source (now appropriately attributed in the article), and Maanshan Iron & Steel, which doesn't appear to have been copied from anywhere. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Verno! Lovely to see you. :) That's a good avenue of search. Corensearchbot flagged China Banking Regulatory Commission from the sockmaster, where he defended the content under an erroneous understanding of Chinese copyright law. He also created Yoan Udagawa as a copyvio, which User:Madman cleaned up. I think we need to presume that the copying is on our end and remove it. I've done so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problems re-listing

Re this edit I've made myself a note to check that it has, although as I said before it won't copy any of the extra information across. This is on the list of things for me to do in my next bout of coding of the bot. Dpmuk (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It re-listed - Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 March 31. Dpmuk (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey! I've got notes all over the place. Why am I only now getting the "you've got messages" bar? April Fools joke, Mediawiki? :/
That's great to hear. :) Once in a while a listing gets overlooked, and it's a relief to know they'll come back. :D Plus, like that one, the extra time is sometimes helpful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Libelle of Englyshe Polycye

Would it be possible for you to take a look at Libelle of Englyshe Polycye? I listed it as copyvio on the 28th as there were some issues but I didn't realize that it was a very new article and the editor took immediate action to rectify the issue by creating a temporary article with the appropriate revisions. The editor has asked me to remove the copyvio tag, but I'm not an admin. Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, GabrielF. I'll be happy to, but I'm working like mad to try to get the CP backlog down while I can. :) Can you read through the temporary and tell me if you think the problem is fully addressed? I've seen your copyright work and trust your judgment there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Nicholson (basketball)

I suspect the bulk of Andrew Nicholson (basketball) is a copyright violation, although I think it's not all from one source. It seems that the creator / primary editor has used lots of different websites' write-ups about him and made it a multi-website copyvio. Can you see if that's the case? Also, looking at its history, User:RVDSouza reverted another editor's removal of what is probably a copyvio. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Good find! I've identified at least two sources copied entirely and reverted back to the last presumed clean, aside from the infobox and table. The editor already attempted to revert me, but hopefully will slow down and understand these policies so that he can continue to build the article in a way that we can use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your help with reuse. Anarchangel (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy to help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

andrew nicholson basketball

this is in reply to my andrew nicholson page u removed a lot of liable stuff could u please send me what was there before because you removed liable stuff such as rhe stats and rewards please please do send me the orginal the page is horrible now please — Preceding unsigned comment added by RVDSouza (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

they personal life is not something i copyrights its brief and i believe it is ok i put hte bonnies bio as the references i will re-add and edit and put into my own words the college and high school years. I am only having trouble on how to reference in the sense that how to link the endnote also i wanted a copy cause i had my own stuff in some of it
Replies at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

andrew nicholson basketball

Is there any way i cud get everything for me to view because i want to be able to salvage as much as i can but i cannnot remember much and i hve no access to what i put up.. I promise i wil nto re-publish it i just want to do a good job and need your help thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RVDSouza (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC) RVDSouza (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

andrew nicholson basketball

could you look at the page and see the career achievements parts i got several of the numbers from the same site how do i reference it correctly so i do not have to keep putting the same reference upRVDSouza (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

andrew nicholson basketball

i hope what i have done so far is ok..please advise me if it is done correctly. I wil continue to add more on later but i would like to know if it is done properly so far. Thanks! RVDSouza (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

andrew nicholson basketball

thank you for your guidance. One more thing, many basketball players have photos of themselves on the profile part of their wiki page how do i go about that because i know there are a load of copyright infringement policies in regards to that. How would i go about doin that in regards to Andrew Nicholson pictures. RVDSouza (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

andrew nicholson basketball

I would be able to contact andrew himself but if they picture was not taken by him but has him in it wud his permission be enough? and where can i find these sample letters? and also once i get permission where do i go about posting the image? RVDSouza (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

Article "Najee Mondalek"

Hello, please advise why some content have been removed from the article "Najee Mondalek." The content was taken from Najee Mondalek's own website www.ajyal.us and all other websites you are referring to are copying from that original website. Please let me know what can I do prevent deletion. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azizuccio (talk • contribs) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) As the talk page of the article explains, here, we need verification of license to use content copied from any other website. If the article's subject wants to authorize the material at his official sites, he would be welcome to do so; the procedure is described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. This does need to be a license; it is not enough for him to clear material for use on Wikipedia. It needs to be licensed for both modification and commercial reuse.
Matters become complicated when material is on other sites. We would have to be able to prove that Mr. Mondalek had published it first. For instance, the website here does not indicate whether they received Mr. Mondalek's words from him on commission, but they do claim copyright specifically, noting that material is "All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher." If Mr. Mondalek produced this for them, it is quite possible that they own copyright. If he did not, but they have copied it from somewhere else, we must locate his first point of publication to prove that their claim of copyright is fraudulent.
Similarly with content published here, we need to be able to prove that their claim of copyright is inaccurate. With product descriptions copied from Amazon or from promotional material, Mr. Mondalek would need to specify that he is licensing these descriptions. Again, this license must permit both modification and commercial reuse.
One additional consideration with reusing content authored by the subject: we need to make sure that it meets our neutrality policy. For instance, "These performances are an important piece of the fabric of Arab-American culture" may be true, but we need a reliable source that is not connected with the subject to say so. :)
If you need clarification on any of this, please let me know! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Free Culture (book)

I've taken a stab at sorting some of the problems with this. Could you take a look at my comment at WP:CP. On a slightly different note I've removed 23rd March as it appears done to me. If you'd deliberately left it for some reason, after you appear to have cleared the last listing, then feel free to revert. Dpmuk (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! With the 23rd, WP:SCV wasn't done. :) The first outstanding SCV situation I saw was the one tagged by Madman "This is going to be a really difficult one to fix". I was getting pretty tired by the time I got there, so I deferred it for when my brain was up for "difficult to fix" and tried to find some lower hanging fruit. Didn't actually work out that way, but that was my goal! Off to look at the CP note. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
My brain must have been playing tricks on me by the time I finished "Free Culture" - I thought that SCV listing was on a different day. Dpmuk (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, now done that one and there doesn't seem to be anything else lurking on the 23rd so removed again. Dpmuk (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Vienna Hyatt

Vienna Hyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I reported this article as copyright infringement of other websites on March 18, 2012. I bet this was ignored, and I don't see the log listed in the WP:CP anymore. I wonder if there is still time. --George Ho (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It got inadverantly left in the collapsed section of Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 March 18. I've moved it to the uncollapsed section. Voceditenore (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Voceditenore. I lost it. I put that one aside and overlooked returning to it. Certainly there's still time, although I won't get at it this morning. I put it aside to look at it later when I saw your edit summary of "plagiarism?", George, and saw that the Duplication Detector did not show any major red flags: [3]; [4]. I had meant to ask you about it. WP:CP does not process plagiarism, but only copyright concerns, and you do enough tagging that with non-obvious cases it would be great for you to provide more detail. Can you explain what it is that raises your concerns, offer some examples? There's a lot of work at CP, and if you've already invested the time to evaluate the article, sharing the basis of your concern would be a big help in streamlining it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I've compared the article's text to both of the cited sources and in my opinion, there is not sufficient similarity in the wording to constitute copyvio. I've removed the tag, unblanked the article, and recorded it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 March 18. The article is way too detailed and long and frankly unecyclopedic, but those are style issues and not our concern. Voceditenore (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you much. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Hidden page history due to copyright infringement.

Hi, there was a question at ANI about a page (E Ink) that you hid a good portion of the history for copyright infringement. I do not have OTRS permissions, so it would be nice if you could stop by at WP:ANI#Need review of page history block to address the editor's concerns. Thanks! -RunningOnBrains(talk) 08:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I've replied there, although User:Voceditenore did all the hard work. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

UN picture

Hi! I don't have too much knowledge about copyright rules, but I was hoping to find a photo for the article on Hugo Rogers. The United Nations multimedia gallery has one here that would be great. I've read Wikipedia:Public_domain#Works_of_the_United_Nations, but I'm still fairly confused about whether or not this image would be acceptable. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Their multimedia copyright page refers to their Terms of Use, saying that otherwise all "rights are reserved." (They say "News-related material can be used as long as the appropriate credit is given and the United Nations is advised", but this is not a compatible license, since it is an additional restriction we can't impose; our licenses don't leave room for requiring that our reusers advise the copyright owner). Their ToU allow personal, non-commercial use.
While they do release "public information material", their internal practices encourage labeling such files "Reproduction and redissemination is encouraged with proper attribution to the United Nations" (United Nations Internet publishing, section 5: Copyright policy and disclaimers). That doesn't mean all such material will be labeled that way, but it's best practice.
What I would recommend is asking feedback from WP:MCQ, linking them to the specific image. That's what I would do. If it's not free, I would consider whether or not it's use could be supported under WP:NFC, and I might ask feedback on that at MCQ as well, or at WT:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, ok, I'll ask over there. Thanks for the help!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Annual Growth %

Did you receive the email from the publisher regarding the "annual growth %" entry? Is this format acceptable for Wikipedia's needs? Please let me know, and what I will need to do to get the entry back up. Thank you! Karenmharvey (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Karen. I'll go look for it now; sorry, work has been wall to wall, and I have not looked at the volunteer email account. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Karen, for the bump. I've restored the article, put the note on the talk page and the attribution on the article's face. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The contribution surveyor is back up again

Don't you have a couple of users you want to look at? MER-C 11:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Oi! Indeed I do. I won't have time to do it today, but bringing them back from my archives so I don't forget. I need to look at User:99appleseed and User:Kyuko to assess if CCIs are needed. That's for letting me know it's back. And, woohoo! It's back! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi Moonriddengirl,

At Papal_Orders, I recently discovered what I believe to be an article that's substantively a copyvio. I've used the {{copyvio}} template on it, and listed it as instructed, but I was hoping you could check my work on this one. I'd love to think I'm wrong. Thanks! -Philippe (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, you are not wrong. The content was entered in one blow in August 2005 by an IP. Internet archives date that content back to 1997. That's as clear-cut an issue as it gets. :/ I've put some instructions at the talk page; we may have to roll that article back a few years, if nobody offers a rewrite. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your advice requested...

Hi Mrg :) I hate to impose on you again, but if you have a few minutes your advice (or that of one of your knowledgeable talk page watchers) would be appreciated here. Thanks very much! EyeSerenetalk 08:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Have replied there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much. EyeSerenetalk 21:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Australasian Hydrographic Society

Moonriddengirl, I rewrote the offending section on Australasian Hydrographic Society on temporary page a few days ago, hoping that that will remove any copyright or plagiarism issue. Could you please look at.Rupert Gerritsen (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Rupert Gerritsen

Hi! Thank you very much, and I will. I hope to be able to do it later today. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Off for Easter

Hi MRG! Just a note to say I'll be travelling over the next two weeks and (blissfully) almost computerless. Didn't want you to think I'd deserted CP. :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Oooh! Enjoy yourself! You'll be missed, but I'll take comfort in imagining you having fun. :D Your help there (and here) has been oh so appreciated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
So.many.edits... You're an inspiration to us all! :D Accedietalk to me 16:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
LOL! Thank you, Maryana. :D I keep plugging away as much as I can. Wanted to write an article this weekend, but, alas, had too much copyright cleanup to do! Maybe next weekend. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Responce

Hi sorry I don't find using Wikopiedia easy, and have struggled even to respond to you. I am the administrator for the Flickr Group with the majority of the photos taken by me as I work at Port Lympne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.154.189 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm sorry that you're having trouble responding to me. I appreciate your taking the trouble!
The question isn't about the images, but about the language. Did you write the text titled "About Port Lympne Mansion & Gardens commisioned by Sir Philip Sassoon"? If you did, all you would need to do is put a note on that Flickr page, under the text, saying:
The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
If you can put that there, then we should have no problems.
If you copied that description from somewhere, then we'll probably have to rewrite our text.
I'll put this on your talk page as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Moonriddengirl. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

826 Naval Air Squadron - copyvio reinstated

826 Naval Air Squadron was tagged as a copyvio of [5] on 24 March, but the tag was removed by an ip editor based on a talk page discussion with nothing done to resolve the problem. I think that further attention is needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And I've had no response to my e-mail request (31 March) to the copyright holder for permission to use their text.--CharlieDelta (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the page - hopefully people will concentrate on the temp page now (which may be ready to go live/Nigel Ish (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Happy to help. :) Any time this happens, Charlie, please feel free to run me down directly or perhaps to speak to Dpmuk or Madman or another copyright admin. That template should not be removed by anybody other than an admin or an OTRS agent. I'm completely unbothered where the tag is obviously removed for good reason, but where there is legitimate copyright concern it's never appropriate.
I should probably be getting to that day tomorrow at CP, unless somebody beats me to it first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Understood. I reported it at CP but was worrying that I should have done more. Will be more direct in future.--CharlieDelta (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a good idea. :) The CP pages aren't really monitored; I don't look at them myself, generally, until I arrive to close the listings for the day. They're a good place to add detail about a situation, but not to get quickly needed help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
822 Naval Air Squadron and 823 Naval Air Squadron, also created by the same editor recently, may also warrant a check - in particular, 822 Naval Air Squadron looks a bit too similar to [6] for me to be comfortable.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's close. I've tagged the article {{close paraphrasing}} and left a note for the contributor that specifically points out a few problem areas. Hopefully this will help him understand the issues that others are having with his articles and it may be rewritten in accordance with our policies. I haven't looked at 823 Naval Air Squadron, but could you similarly flag any issues you see at its talk page? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and congratulate you on finding the words to express them that don't offend or belittle the miscreants concerned, me in this case. I will rephrase the article willingly because you asked me nicely. Others take note.Plucas58 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Article now rephrased. Interestingly the number of words used to debate whether the article was in breach or not must have exceeded the article size by ten to onePlucas58 (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for working on the writing. I'm willing to use as many words as it may take to help editors learn to comply with our approach to non-free content, as it's far, far better than the alternatives. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference.com

Hi Moonriddengirl. One of our copy editors has spotted that our article Wonderlic Test has what he believes to be copypaste from reference.com pages, [7] (in the lede) and [8] (in this section. Both the reference.com pages mention Wikipedia, and I believe it is actually they who have copied our text, but to be completely sure, could you confirm this, please? Regards, --Stfg (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks valid to me. The version of the article in September 2008, contains the text, which the Reference.com site traces to October 2008. In addition, the text, in slightly different form was in Wikipedia much earlier, so it is highly likely that Reference.com copied from Wikipedia (as they claim to have done.) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, SPhilbrick. --Stfg (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. :) And concur! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Confirm

Will you please confirm my account

Reason:I want to edit semi-protected pages as Geet - Hui Sabse Parayi i want to add the section award in the page & Many other semi-protected pages are there which i can't edit e.g:Navya,Salman Khan & India etc User:Khan810 talk 14:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

100,000 edits

100,000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100,000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have accomplished. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work! – From: Northamerica1000(talk) 20:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Very impressive! Congratulations & Frohe Ostern! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. :) And may you also have a lovely Easter! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, singing Barber and Bach on Good Friday (see my user, now hidden), Barnby and Mozart (Mass K 194) for Easter, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report

A user whose edits led to a page that you recently protected is the subject of a report on a long time sockpuppet, [9]. Thought you'd like to know. Thank you, Coronerreport (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Mirror sites and supposed copyvio

Hi Moonriddengirl, a quick question. I've seen this happen more than once, that a page is tagged but in fact the "copyvio" is from a mirror site. In this case Wikipedia is actually cited as the source at the mirror site, yet someone tagged our page for speedy deletion. I'm only bringing this here, because I'm wondering how we bring this to people's attention. On a side note, ironically I was browsing through Amazon last night and linked there was a page to which I'd contributed! So apparently more and more sites are using Wikipedia's content, and I think the reverse copyvio tag should maybe be better advertised or something. Anyway, thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Glad you found that.
There are two things that I do: first, I use the {{backwardscopy}} on the talk page or otherwise leave a note (I don't often use that tag when it attributes; seems pointless!), and I make sure to kindly point it out to the tagger, who is after all trying to do the right thing. If they don't tag, I add it to WP:MIRRORS. Word of mouth is the best thing I know to do there. That said, I haven't really looked at Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101 for this - does it talk about backwards copying at all? If not, we might want to address that, and, even if it does, it may need to be more prominent! I don't have time to look right now myself as we've got a big backlog at CP and I'm working on an (unfortunately not backwards) issue that has already cost me many hours. :/ Massive copy-pasting in 2009 from an IP has tainted at least three articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, good advice as usual. I didn't know about WP:MIRRORS - that's useful because I've been finding quite a few of these. Also, when I have a moment I'll look through Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101 to see if anything needs to be added there. In the meantime, I've added the {{backwardscopy}} to the page. Congrats also on your edit count milestone! Truthkeeper (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI thread

Moonriddengirl, since you are also aware of the history involving this thread, [10], I thought it best notify you. It's time to put an end to this. Coronerreport (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm really not deeply familiar with it. My involvement has been minimal and only around protecting privacy. I have not been involved with substantive issues. I don't have any idea why this edit would be unproductive or indicative of sockpuppetry, but as you've opened the matter at ANI and SPI, I'm sure that administrators who work more in that area will be able to help you. I primarily focus my volunteer efforts on copyright cleanup and have quite a bit of that on my plate at the moment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. The credit doesn't exist, and the reference makes no indication of it. The edit is intended to harass Julie Dash and Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, as is the sockpuppet user name. Coronerreport (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that's likely true. I had given him a vandalism warning, since I don't usually work with sockpuppets, but I removed it after seeing that another administrator who does has blocked him based on the listing at SPI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Your assistance needed.

Here [11]. It is pretty self explanatory, but it boils down to a user inserting small tidbit facts about 'football fixtures' (scheduled soccer games listing) in an article, where it might be covered under UK law, but would clearly not be covered under US law as it is only facts and the presentation isn't being copied. I think you could clear this up pretty quick. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I know you replied once but I think your input could be helpful again. I wouldn't normally post here as I'd assume you'd be watching but given the traffic at ANI and how often I miss replies there I thought I'd let you know here as well. Dpmuk (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. This one falls into that lovely grey area. :/ I think the schedule may be clear of copyright concerns in the US (although the fact that it's speculative may make that less assured and I have to confess I don't quite understand how they generate it), but there may be other issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to deal with a fair amount of copyright issues in my job, but my only question was whether or not Wikipedia followed copyright laws from other countries. I would guess not, as it would require we be legal experts in too many laws for starters, and again, Wikipedia is in the US. We don't want to stomp on laws of other countries, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. In this case, I just don't see a problem and feel it could be argued that even if was, we are still in the US and the small amount of info being used would fall under Fair Use since it was properly attributed. But, that isn't my decision to make, obviously. I had thought about doing more work with copyright here at Wikipedia, but I'm not a lawyer, I just have to deal with the issues at work (lots of people ripping our stuff off, working with lawyers sometimes, figuring out what is fair use, etc.). Not sure I would have much to contribute. But thanks for taking a look at the issue. I agree with Finaly that a larger discussion is probably needed in the long run. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That's actually still kind of an open question; there's a "request for comment" at the copyrights policy talk page about whether or not we should respect the copyright of people from countries that have no agreement with the US, for instance. But at this point, policy only mandates US compliance. You don't have to be a lawyer to help out with copyright. I'm not a lawyer; most of us aren't. :D If you want to help, please, feel free! WP:SCV is a good place to get your feet wet. You can always pick up the obvious cases if you're unsure about some of the grey areas. I haven't weighed in a whole lot at that ANI discussion both because of limits of time and because I'm just not 100% sure, like Dpmuk. I've done my best to steer clear of list articles since I abandoned that now resurrected essay, since the attorney advice I received was more conservative than my own approach. This makes me hesitant to say, "Sure! That's okay!" with such articles since I don't want to create liability for anybody. The WMF is protected at this point by the DMCA, but our users and many of our reusers will not be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Draco Foundation (NZ) Charitable Trust

I'm not sure what I have done wrong, but I think it was unfair for this page to be deleted.

I had followed all the instructions for addressing the copyright concerns, including emailing the following to [email protected]:

"As an authorised trustee of the Draco Foundation (NZ) Charitable Trust I hereby explicitly permit use of copyright material of the Draco Foundation to be used by Wikipedia on the Draco_Foundation_(NZ)_Charitable_Trust page under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL."

Can you help me understand what I could have done differently? Many thanks.

Nzresilience (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think you've done anything wrong and I suspect the reason they were deleted is because no-one has yet dealt with the e-mail and deletion is the default action if the e-mail hasn't been processed when the copyright problem listing comes up for review. Although I am now a member of the team that deals with such e-mails I am still watching and learning and not actively dealing with any. Hopefully someone will deal with them soon. Moonriddengirl - ticket:2012031510003477 and ticket:2012031510009775 refer if you have the time. Dpmuk (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you, Dpmuk. That's exactly right. You didn't do anything wrong, Nzresilience, but evidently we've got quite a backlog at the permission queue. Either that or because of a slight issue with language in the release, people have shied away from it. :) I've taken the ticket and replied. I think we can clear this up very quickly and get the article back into publication. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Dpmuk and Moonriddengirl, this is such a learning curve for me and it's sometimes hard not to be defensive when everyone is just trying to make the site effective and robust. I appreciate your help. Nzresilience (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution and helping clear this up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
And yes it was the slight language issues that left me as newbie not wanting to deal with it myself. Dpmuk (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick attention section at WP:CP?

One of the things I've been pondering for a while, largely due to thinking about future tasks for the bot, is having a section at WP:CP for "quick attention". Seeing the comments at #826 Naval Air Squadron - copyvio reinstated has made me comment here. I would imagine this would be used for things like improper removal of copyvio tags where the editor reporting does not want to act on (probably because they're too involved) and for quick solutions to existing problems (e.g. where the source now has an appropriate license, the source is PD etc) where often editors don't want to remove due to the instructions limiting who can. This is no where near a fully fleshed out idea and I wasn't going to air it quite yet but given the problems raised above now seems a sensible time. Dpmuk (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Good stuff to think about. :) I'm a little worried that the "quick attention" section would be abused or inadvertently misused by people who simply don't understand copyright, but I would agree with you that quicker resolution is sometimes necessary. I'm also a little worried that a "quick attention" section on CP will not get any quicker attention than any other section on CP. :) Maybe we should add a note somewhere directing people to go to ANI if....? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
If I might make an observation on this suggestion, it seems to me that MRG's page currently has more eyes on it than either Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems or WP:CP. MRG, you kindly suggested that the next time I had a problem like 826 Naval Air Squadron and needed help that I should come here or ask one of the other admins directly. Potentially that means, for something urgent/important, one might end up posting in three or more places. It would be helpful to know that there is one place which everyone watches. The other thing I found surprising about that episode is that I had assumed, perhaps naively, that the removal of the CP tag by someone other than an admin or copyright clerk would be listed somewhere as a possible red flag. Finally, what does one do about queries which are possibly not urgent? Do we bring everything to this page? I have another paraphrase query posted at CP. Would it have been more appropriate to have posted that here? (Still learning the CP ropes, you see...)--CharlieDelta (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The removal of a copyright tag flags recent changes, but not all recent change patrollers pick up on that. If it's not urgent, copyright problems board is probably okay, as somebody will get to it eventually. :) I actually glanced at that page yesterday and saw your listing, but evaluating close paraphrasing can take me a fair amount of time. Bringing them here may get faster attention from me or a friendly talk page stalker (I <3 talk page stalkers), but there's also the chance it will shuffle off this mortal coil unanswered if I get distracted or busy. At least at CP, it remains visible. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking about getting my bot to re-add the tag when removed by someone other than those allowed but at the moment this is just a vague idea for when I have more time to devote to the bot. At the moment I haven't even started getting views on this and there's certainly several options: should I re-add, flag somewhere or re-add once then flag if removed again. Not really looking for feedback at the moment as I want to come up with a more organised proposal and discussion but given the relevance to this discussion I thought I'd mention that I'd been thinking about it.
The concerns Moonriddengirl raises are the same I have about a quick attention section and is part of the reason I said the idea isn't fleshed out as I'm not sure how we deal with those concerns.
I'm aware that this page probably has more watchers than CP but I don't think we should be coming up with a proper process that suggests you post on a single users talk page. The ANI idea is instead of CP. Not sure about ANI as I suspect such postings may end up being those postings that don't get replied to and that you may be more likely to attract an admin willing to deal with copyright issues at CP where it would be less likely to be lost in the noise. I suppose we could try the "point people at ANI" option and see what happens. Dpmuk (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Foundational copyvio

Hi Moonriddengirl! A quick question, as I might have got this wrong. If the first version of an article was a direct copy-and-paste, such that there is no non-infringing version of the article, is it correct that we can't rewrite the problem sections, but need to delete and start again? I ask, because that has been my working assumption, but I'm not sure if that assumption was correct. (An article I nominated for CSD has been reworded to remove the issues, but the first version was a direct copy of the copyrighted source, and all subsequent versions are modifications from there). btw, I'm very happy to be wrong with my assumptions here. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There's disagreement here. :) There are some who feel - and with validity, in my opinion - that rewriting these problem sections creates a derivative work and that our only option is to start from scratch. Others feel that as long as the current version is okay, it doesn't really matter. I don't know if they're unaware of the derivative work issue or if they simply feel that the risk of discovery and prosecution is low. We don't have a firm consensus. I have to say that I have taken both approaches; because of revision deletion, I'm more likely to rewrite now than I was before, but not when content is highly creative. Tagging such an article for WP:CSD#G12 is never the wrong approach; if an administrator decides to rewrite on the spot instead, of course, they may themselves be taking on secondary liability if the copyright holder should choose to come after them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of University House, Australian National University

The article University House, Australian National University has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable hostel. No independent refs. Tagged for notability for > 2 years

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I pulled that tag based on finding a lot of gbook hits where it is talked about. Not a guarantee of notability, but a discussion should take place if this particular article is to be deleted. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. :) One of many articles I produced to replace copyright problems; I have no association with it myself. But it says it's a "cultural heritage" site. I don't know if those are as common as sand or as rare as hen's teeth in Australia, but it would seem to be some kind of indication of notability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Photo doubts

Hey. long time :) I have more photo doubts for you to clarify :P Could you take a look at the photo here, as well as the second and fourth photo here, and please tell me what licensing I need, or what copyright/permissions I need, to use these images on Wikipedia? Since they are shots of filming, are they free/copyrighted? can you point out what copyright license I will require to use those photos in Ra.One (probably as a replacement for existing location photos)? Thanks a ton :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, for this photo, could you please tell me what would be the proper license to use? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. :) Under the U.S. laws that govern us, all photographs are copyrighted on creation unless they are ineligible for copyright, and there is nothing that would make these images ineligible in the U.S. You would either have to get the photographs/copyright holders to license them (Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permissions) or decide if you think they qualify for non-free content use. I don't really work that much in that area. I'd probably start by asking for feedback at WT:NFC if you have doubts. :)
With the last one, if you think it meets NFC, I would probably go with Template:Non-free promotional, since it's not actually a screenshot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Some editors are talking about NFCC#1; they say that the photo can be replaced by a free image, since its a filming picture. is that true? And many many thanks for pointing out WT:NFC; I'l take the matter up there too :D ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I have tagged the suits image with the template you suggested, and have also taken the matter of the other images up at NFC :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that whether or not its replaceable is generally a matter for consensus. I can't say. :/ The people at NFC may be able to help explain what current standards are. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
There are actually two consensus processes going on for the photos: one at WP:NFC and another at WT:INCINE. I hope both can converge at a single point, and work out a solution. The INCINE consensus has already thrown up a plausible solution, and if worked out i can release one photo under Creative Commons licensing. The other photo is the cause for concern. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

FOLDOC note

Hi MRG,

I'm cleaning up {{FOLDOC}} and articles containing it. I notice that you added a note regarding the Big Relicensing on Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from FOLDOC. I'm a little confused by it: it seems to suggest that so long as material from FOLDOC was added prior to the move to CC-BY-SA we are fine to use it as if it were under the new license, while material added after that date isn't. Did we receive some sort of one-off permission from FOLDOC to relicense their content at that time? If not, it would seem that all FOLDOC material is used under fair use regardless of when it was added. Can you clarify this? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) No, GFDL provided that permission. We were permitted to relicense our content, including that we had imported from other GFDL sites, but with respect to such content only if the content "(1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008." ([12]) Otherwise, I don't know that we could have made the transition without removing such material. FOLDOC's agreement is in their licensing under GFDL 1.1 and "later versions." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Aaaaah. I hadn't realised FSF had updated GFDL with a special provision for us to relicense. Awfully nice of them: I suppose that's the value of "...or later" style licenses. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
... following up from that, it's been long enough now that I assume nobody is doing actual imports from FOLDOC any more. I'm looking to turn {{FOLDOC}} into a normal attribution template rather than the odd bit of boilerplate it's been until now: I reckon the best way to go about this will be to add a note regarding the pre-11/2008 imports to it. After that it shouldn't be necessary to have that tracking category, right? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that was pretty friendly. :D Whatever works with the templates. At the time I added the notes, I had recently discovered that people were still using some of them, not understanding that they were historical. It took a long time for the licensing migration to catch up in some quarters, which is understandable; if you don't work copyright, you might not notice. :/ I have no particular attachment to the category (although it was handy at the transition time), just so long as we make sure that if it's still around it's clear that we can't important GFDL-only content now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange non-free to me

Hello

Hi, Moon Ridden. Sorry to disturb you, but I'm feeling rather bummed out tonight, and I could really use some WikiLove.Kitty53 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!♥ Kitty53 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Developments

Sorry for not continuing above, but I had to catch your attention for this. I told you about the photos from the blog right? Guess what, the blog owner has replied to me. She said that she had conducted an interview of Nicola Pecorini, director of photography of Ra.One, and that Pecorini had released certain personal photos for use along with the interview. Meaning, that the photos are owned by him. So I will take the big step : I am going to contact Pecorini himself. The blog owner gave me the e-mail link.

Before e-mailing Pecorini, I need to detail out all possible copyrights under which the photo can be released, so as to make my argument convincing. It seems Pecorini takes 4-5 weeks to respond, so I have to do everything thoroughly at one go. Can you please list out all possible copyrights for the photos? I'll attach a document along with the e-mail detailing about them, and I'll explain all about my intentions in the mail. RSVP; I really need your help now. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, there's a whole lot of those, Ankit; you might do better not to list them all. Most of them require the same things. The only restrictions allowable are proper attribution of the creator and the requirement that derivative works are similarly licensed. We usually recommend asking for the one that offers him the most protection: a dual license of CC-By-SA and GFDL. But see Commons:Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses, and Commons:Commons:Copyright tags, beginning down around GNU Licenses, for a list of other options.
I wouldn't suggest you go that route with him, though. I find people respond best when the situation is simple. If he gives permission and doesn't do it right, the agent who works with you/him will have to go back and ask for more. If he doesn't respond (either because we annoy him or he thinks it's not worth it), we won't wind up with anything at all.
There are some examples of letters people have used at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. The one for images is pretty good at setting out the recommended license, and explaining it, but also mentions the others. If you want to include a list of them, you can do that, but there really are a lot. :)
One thing I would recommend that the example letter does not do: I find it really helpful to include the text of Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries at the bottom of my e-mail and ask him, if he agrees, to return it, putting his name and date where it says NAME and DATE. I fill out everything else for him. That saves a lot of back-and-forth.
Good luck! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh. Well all this looks somewhat complicated, so I guess I've done a very simple thing. I mailed him with just an overview, no specifics involved. though I did detail out certain stuff. Here's the mail I sent :-
My mail to Nicola Pecorini

Respected Mr. Pecorini,

Firstly, let me congratulate you on your excellent work that you did as the Director of Cinematography on the film Ra.One. Your work has received a great deal of appreciation here.

Let me introduce myself: I am Ankit, an editor working on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Currently, I am working on the Wikipedia article of Ra.One. To back the content added, I require matching photographs as well.

A few days back, I came across an Italian blog News & Gossip, to which you had consented for an interview regarding your experience on the film sets. I had contacted the blog, and received a reply today from Ms. Diana Errani, who conducted your interview. As per her instructions, she said that you had consented to the interview and generously provided a few personal photos for use; however, those photos are copyrighted by you, under your website NicolaPecorini.com. As per Ms. Errani's instructions, she asked me to inquire you about any further matters.

The matter is this : I, as representative of Wikipedian editors, am very interested in three particular photos you had supplied to News & Gossip. The interview can be seen here :-

http://newscinehindi.blogspot.in/2012/03/nicola-pecorini-intervista-esclusiva.html

In this page, I am very interested in the first, second and fourth photographs. The first photograph will be used in your Wikipedia page here :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Pecorini, while the second and fourth photographs will be used in the article of Ra.One here :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra.One. Since the photographs are copyrighted, the matter is not very simple. Wikipedia has very strict rules regarding copyright of files, be it images, music or any other file. As per the proper way, I would like to discuss the copyright release terms of the photographs.

Since the images are copyrighted, our policy states that the file should be prominently attributed to the creator/owner of the file, unless the owner decided to release the files completely into the public domain. We have a number of copyright formats available with us, most of them having a place to attribute you, your website or both as the copyright holder of the images. If you are interested in releasing the photos, I request you to reply to me and I shall send another e-mail detailing copyright release licenses we have; you can choose the license as per your wish, since you are the copyright holder.

Additionally, if you agree, I inform you that this mail and any further mails will be forwarded to Wikipedia's Copyright Bench for explicit proof that copyright has been properly obtained. Hence, I request you to explicitly state whether you agree/disagree with the proposition.

I hope that we can have a discussion that can benefit both you and Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that is referred to by over 400 million people.

Thanking You, Yours Sincerely, Ankit

The only problem is that the mail is a bit long, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed. But the replies will be late in coming, so I'm not very hopeful. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a good initial email, and you can explain things more completely to him after he replies. :) As far as it being late in coming, remember that our aim here is for long term benefit. Even if we have to do without some images for a little while, if he supplies permission they'll be welcome later. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my plan :) Thanks, and yes I do remember that (though I was thinking for the FAC actually). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't believe what happened. Nicola Pecorini just responded to me! I was totally taken aback. He was really gracious; he said that he had been taken aback when he got the mail, as he had understood that releasing the photos to the blog meant he had released them into the public domain, he also said that he respects Wikipedia a lot, and uses it frequently too . He said that the Ra.One article has a number of inaccuracies, which I was half-expecting; I explained to him stuff about how we add content to our articles etc. Phew! That's one job done. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fabulous, AnkitBhatt! Congratulations on a successful image request. It's pretty exciting when they say yes. :D Did you forward his letter to OTRS? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have forwarded five e-mails regarding the copyright releases to OTRS; they should be responding soon. Thanks for the help :) Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Post block cleanup

Hi again, MRG! Looking into a request yesterday at wp:RSN I stumbled across some of the wreckage left by User:Ironboy11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) before your indef block. Looking through his contribs, it is apparent that he was very industriously editing many articles, especially those involving Pakistani nuclear and missile technology and scientists. Very rarely did those edits involve citations, so even if they weren't copyvios, they were wp:OR or at the very least were not readily wp:V. This is troubling on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start. I'm wondering if you have powertools available for dealing with cleanup, or at least notification of other editors on the respective article talkpages. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There also seems to be a remarkable commonality to User:71.49.196.155 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and edits to userpage User:Dr. Naveed IQBAL. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have no powertools at hand to help with that kind of thing. :/ Maybe you could find a bot operator to help flag articles? We've got a list of all of the articles he's edited, aside from minor edits and reversions, at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ironboy11. I'm afraid not a lot of progress has been made on that one since it was opened; we really, really either need to get more manpower on those or find some more efficient system of addressing them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Woohoo! You rock, Ocaasi via EdwardsBot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

William Bullock Ives

Hi, I was poking around WP:CCI trying to figure out where to start when I looked at this article. While most of it is indeed copy-pasted, the source was published around 1900. I was just wondering what would be done in this case, since the source is PD? Wouldn't an attribution tag such as Template:Source-attribution suffice? (New to this, sorry for asking stupid questions!) ClayClayClay 18:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a stupid question. :) Yes, you're absolutely right; an attribution template is perfectly acceptable in that case. I'll have to keep a careful eye out to make sure that we don't inadvertently delete any from those earlier editions! And, in fact, that we haven't already. I see that at least the one currently blanked is a later, copyrighted edition, but I did not realize that some of them were PD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm going to have to look into this further, unless you can explain something to me. :/ The link you offer is "signed" by Jean-Pierre Kesteman; according to fr:Jean-Pierre Kesteman, he was born in 1939 and so could not have published this in a volume printed around 1900. Dictionary of Canadian Biography says that the DCB has only been published since 1959. I'm thinking that those dates up top must relate to the dates of activity of the individual rather than an original publication date. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes! Reading the article further, it seems that's the way of it. The volumes with years refers to the year of death of the subjects. Frankly, that doesn't sound like the best arrangement of a biographical dictionary to me (what if you don't know what year he died?), but I guess the DCB can do as they please. :/ It seems like any copying from the DCB is likely to be a copyright problem that we have to eliminate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I see now, I almost want to file a "what were you thinking?" complaint with the DCB. Sorry for making you do extra work for my poor verification skills, and thanks for finding the answer! ClayClayClay 19:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for working on the CCI. :) They really don't make that obvious; if I had not gotten curious about some of the other ones we've already addressed, I'd have never noticed the birthdate of the author and figured it out myself. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Papal Orders of Chivalry

Hi. I offer you a rewrite: Talk:Papal Orders of Chivalry/Temp. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! :D I'm for the airport in less than an hour and won't have time (or technological ability) to process it today, but maybe a friendly talk page stalker can help out in the meantime. If not, I'll try to do it tomorrow, although my free time with computers will be a bit limited. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright re translation

Hi MRG, I have a question about WP policy regarding translations of material still under copyright, in this case a poem. Newspapers, journals and magazines (in the UK, at least) seem happy to publish 'unauthorised' translations of poems; that is, as works in their own right with full credit to the original author. Do you know what WP's position is on this? A translation of a poem was posted on a talk page for discussion purposes. Thoughts or links re this would be appreciated. Cheers. Span (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) The translation issue is addressed at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works. The translation doesn't lessen the protection of the original poem and, in fact, brings along its own copyright issue. :) Poems, like lyrics, can only be included in their entirety if they are public domain; there's not a specific reference to this in policy, per se, but there is Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry and WP:NOTLYRICS, which both reference copyright issues. Newspapers, journals and magazines may either have permission or may be relying on fair use or fair dealing in their reproduction of translations, but our policies on "fair use" at WP:NFC are fairly strict; while we can publish brief excerpts for transformative usage, we can't publish the whole thing. Hope that helps. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
That's very clear. I hunted for that Derivative Works link but couldn't dig it up. Thanks for taking the time. Best wishes Span (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Back again. :) We have a new user over on "What Must Be Said" who is upset, sincere and insistent that a (very long) poem/translation be fully published in its article. It is the poem by Gunter Grass that was published two weeks ago in many newspapers around the world, condemning Israel's nuclear position. The user is now saying that they wrote to both the Guardian newspaper and Grass and has now been granted specific permission to publish the poem. [13]. Would you mind swinging by to comment? Thanks and best wishes Span (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Life magazine renewals

User:We hope suggested I ask you about some renewal questions.See discussion--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've replied there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I`m so sorry

A full week late, i`m so sorry.

Happy Wikibirthday. Zidane tribal (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? There's absolutely no reason to be sorry! It's very, very kind of you to remember...and to remind me. :) Wow. Five years? Where does the time go? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
That`s a real nice thing for you to say. Here have this
Cookies!

Zidane tribal (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.


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

RfA

I'm contemplating a go at RfA. I won't hold it against you if opt out, but your input at User talk:Dennis Brown#Contemplating RfA - Requesting feedback is invited. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 11:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I would love to give feedback, but am traveling right now. :) It takes me considerable time to review for RFA, and I would want to give you fair feedback rather than just a high level, "Oh, sure! Go for it!" (This is, by the way, my gut response based on my familiarity with you. :)) Not sure what schedule you're thinking of, but if you're still thinking of it and haven't bitten the bullet when I get back and have time, I'll be happy to take a look. Please, please feel free to bump me and do not think if I don't follow up it's because I've changed my mind. Alas, there are generally 10 million things I want to do at any given minute. Sometimes I need reminding. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I got talked into jumping into the frying pan. You will likely not have enough time to participate properly but that is ok. Regardless of outcome, I'm likely to start working more with copyright in a few months as that is an area I can likely be helpful in time. I have to deal with copyright issues regularly at work, so I have a good general understanding of the concepts involved and have read Title 17 more than once in my life, but I will need to do some research and first learn the policies here before I jump in. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 16:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

An odd attribution issue

Hi, I've encountered a pretty odd issue with attribution. This arose from WP:AE#Winterbliss where we have two users each making hundreds of edits to an article to artificially boost their edit count (to game an editing restriction), with no intervening edits by other users. The question is, can I delete all but the most recent edit from history without violating the attribution requirements? My understanding is that retaining the most recent edit (since it contains all the content added and is attributed to the user at issue) should be enough for attribution purposes, but your expert advice would be greatly appreciated :) T. Canens (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, the attribution requirement is that we credit (meaningful & creative) participation, not individual edits. When we have eg. a copyvio introduced in an article followed by good edits, this rule allows us to do a revision deletion of all "tainted" edits containing the copyvio on the history without violating the attribution clause. You're good to go. MLauba (Talk) 08:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter

Unfortunately this is confusing people. Is it ever OK to move the old report page and archive to the new name? Valfontis (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In the general WP:IAR way of things, I think it's best to do whatever makes the most sense to the most people. :) That said, I don't do that much with SPI. I wasn't the one who moved the stuff to the other name; I went looking for the sock report and was puzzled when I couldn't find it. I put in the link once I did just so that if anybody else was in my boat, it might not be so puzzling. AIR, it was User:Spitfire who archived the listing at the older name. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha. I like your interpretation of IAR too. :) I'll not do anything while the current SPIs are running, but I'll ask the CU or maybe DeltaQuad who endorsed it if we can move it afterwards. I dunno, I'm pretty smart but the SPI process is confusing to me! Valfontis (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the template is already designed for this [14]. :) T. Canens (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
You rock. Valfontis (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, thanks, T. Canens. You do. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hello :) I guess the article Ra.One no longer needs semi-protection; after all, its well past the release date and activity as a whole has been pretty limited on the article. I have heard that placing semi-protection for too long is harmful, and this article has been on semi-protect for 7-8 months. In case there is need for semi-protection, I shall ask again (I have the article on my watchlist) but hopefully that situation won't come. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. It's been semi-protected long enough that it seems fair to try it out. :) I've lifted the semiprotection and you can, as you say, request it again if the problem persists. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply to message

Thank you for your message advising me how to use citations and what I should do to improve my editing on Wikipedia, however I am quite new to editing and I don't know how to add sources. I would be grateful if you could help me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.165.107 (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Hi again. Another revdel request for you, hope you don't mind! LOL (2012 film) from rev 487577163 to rev 488031886 (inclusive) contains primarily copyvio text (the Plot section), taken primarily from this MTV article. Cheers! Nikthestoned 10:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If you get a moment...

...could you look at Talk:Devious (band). I've got doubts about the band, but great uncertainty about the copyvio side. Peridon (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Have left a note there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Ta muchly. Peridon (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
Message added 01:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 01:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Doug Flag

The text about the colors (down to "our primary mountain range") is in several articles and can be found here.[15] and is probably written by the same person. I can't figure out which came first, can anyone help me? Looks like a big COI issue also.Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, whether it's COI or not, it's obviously copyvio [select text,delete]. Meanwhile, THIS Page looks like it dates to either Jan. or feb. of 2009, if that helps... mm OK not sure it's 2009, but found THIS.... ok now I'm walking away from the 2009 date, but it's copyvio no matter what, since Google has that page cached to 6 Apr 2012 00:32:39 GMT, and the Wikipedia version appeared twelve days later. 'Nuff said. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Ling.Nut3! :D Added to that, I found text matches to this April newsletter which Google search dates to April 1. (File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View Apr 1, 2012 – Our home is of continuous cascading wa- ters flowing from our sky & mountains back to the Pacific. For Cascadia is a “land of falling water” from ...) It seems like it should be removed pending verification of license...and, for that matter, it's not exactly an appropriate tone! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks both of you. Copyvio removed and editor blocked (by various people, I didn't do the block which was a username block). Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion?

Hi Moonriddengirl. I just deleted Paschal Robinson as a copyright violation after noticing most of it was a way-too-long-for-fair-use quote from a 1948 source. I was going to simply remove the long quote but it had been there from the first edit so there was nothing to revert to. Could you give this a quick sanity check? Was deleting it correct or should another approach have been used? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that quote was a problem. :) Why bother writing an article when you can just use somebody else's? :/ I'm sure it was added in good faith, but unless we can prove that the content is PD, we can't make non-transformative use of that much text. What I would probably have done, now that we are in the age of revision deletion, is remove the quote, leaving the lead, and rev delete the history. I think the lead probably asserts enough importance to survive A7 (it would to my eyes, anyway :D), and others might build on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the quick reply! One other wrinkle; the article was apparently created by a sock of a then-indeffed editor, so G5 would apply too, no? Given that, would it be better to just re-create it as a stub, or would you still recommend restoring and rev-deleting? 28bytes (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I can go either way with G5s...a lot depends on the particulars. But in this case, there's just not enough to make it worth the bother of saving. :) I can do better for His Excellency and am. I'll just whip it into slightly better shape.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I am impressed! That is indeed much better. Thank you again for going above and beyond. :) 28bytes (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It was fun! I don't get to write anywhere near as many articles as I'd like to. :) Maybe I'll nominate it for DYK. I found the bit about the German diplomat being fired really interesting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Errr...

Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 07:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Welcome!

Hello Moonriddengirl, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Catrope (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was just testing Twinkle there. The Welcome function works for me apparently. --Catrope (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Good. :) I haven't checked to see if it's functioning for me since this morning. I'll have to try that soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does! Awesome! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

iCarly copyright concerns

It's added two days ago but we had previously. Meanwhile, can you take under the semi-project season 6 page? Cause it's can change by anyone and oftenly adding unsourced articles or not reliable.

Bow-bb (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Australasian Hydrographic Society rewrite

Could you take a look at this rewrite? I think it's good, apart from formatting issues which I've mentioned to the contributor, but I want to make sure I haven't missed anything that you picked up when you investigated it. This is especially the case in this instance as there's been paraphrasing so I may have missed something with the searching I've done. Dpmuk (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure! I saw that you had said you were going to look at it further and didn't want to get in your way. :) I'll go take a look at it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me, too. Thanks for the assist. Sometimes a second set of eyes can really help in these situations. :) I've done the mop up, and I'll go ahead and mark the listings closed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Rupert Gerritsen (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Rupert Gerritsen

And my thanks too. You're much nicer than me as you did the tidying up as well. Oh well back to those Ocaasi listings when I next have time - currently about two thirds through the first which, thankfully, is one of the larger ones. Dpmuk (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

[email protected]

Victor Grigas (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Interesting idea... although I doubt you need to be told what the WMF is =) Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • LOL! Yeah. Reminds me a bit of when I sent out a bot-supported message to village pumps around the world; given that most village pumps are not in English, it started with language something like "Please excuse my writing you in English." This caused some amusement on the English projects. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Problems

Buddy Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BLPN discussion

I have removed two blatant copyright violations from the above article (as an exemption to 3RR - a battle was going on between another editor and me, and I bowed out because of 3RR). However, I cited another paragraph in the article at BLPN that I suspect is also a copyright violation, but I can't verify it because I believes it requires a subscription to access the complete source. I copied the paragraph at BLPN in the hope that someone who can make a determination will. Any help would be appreciated (I'm not asking you to look at the rest of the disputes). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't see it either, but what I've done here is what I do when this situation pops up at WP:CP: I start with WP:RX. :) See my request here.
Can you keep an eye on that section? I'll try to keep up with it, too, but I sometimes have trouble on weekdays. :D I would imagine that WSJ is popular enough that we may get a taker soon. Sometimes people do the text comparison; more frequently, they offer me temporary access to the source. Thanks for looking out for copyright issues in this article! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I had no idea that WP:RX existed. Thanks very much for the tip and the help. I will watch the request you made there. (Since I posted at BLPN, the paragraph at issue has changed (more added to it).)--Bbb23 (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, thanks! I've noted that. WP:RX is a fabulous resource. :) It can't always help, but it often can - and it saves me from having to do guess-work frequently. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see

[16]--Shrike (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on Shrike's kind assistance, I've verified that the majority of the section is a violation and removed the entire section from the article on that basis.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Great! Thank you both for working on it. :) WP:RX rocks. Hmm. Sounds like a radio station slogan. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

I have a lot of general reading to do first, but CP is definitely on my list of places to mop up at part-time, as there is a clear need and I have a good understanding of copyright in general. First, I need to get up to speed on the actual policies and the normal way you guys do things here, and everywhere else for that matter. Right now I'm a little paranoid because of all the shiny new buttons. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Understandable. AIR, I was pretty scared the first few times I used them. :) Technology is daunting to me in any event, and the fear of BREAKING SOMETHING was strong. Generally, though, there's not much you can do that can't be fixed. My typical rule of thumb: "When in doubt, do not delete and certainly do not block. Get a second opinion." (The two things that are hardest to fix: an improper block and an improper page merge. Blocks are heavily discouraging to editors and the block log can feel for many like an insurmountable black mark. I don't want to discourage people who may be dissuaded from disruption in other ways. And fixing page merges - if the pages are lengthy - is BEYOND a pain in the neck. You have to identify to which page each and every version belonged to. Enough to make you cry. Well, me. Almost. :))
I may not get by my talk page that often during the daytime, but you are absolutely welcome to come by any time you want feedback on any facet of adminship. If I can't help you, I generally know who can. :D My talk page is often a talking point for copyright questions as well, and I am fortunate that occasionally an extremely knowledgeable talk page stalker will chip in, so even if I'm not able to show up for a few hours, somebody else might help. :)
Congratulation again on your new toolbelt and good luck with it! If you do break something and you need help, feel free to stop by. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle off Endau - extensive quotes in references

Recent edits to the Battle off Endau article have added very extensive quotations to citations, which apparently [17] in a concern to ensure verifibility if the Google Books preview disappears in the future. I am concerned that this level of quoting approaches the point where copyvio may become an issue. Are my concerns justified? Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Before looking at the article so as to avoid any bias in my response: yes, as I matter of principle, I believe your concerns are justified. Unfree content is unfree content, and I have to say that this justification is precisely and explicitly not transformative. Picture this from a judge's perspective. "Can you explain why you needed to use so much of the content from this source?" "Well, your honor, it was in case our readers could no longer access the material for free, so that they could still read it." "In other words, you were attempting to supersede their reliance on the original?" "Um..."
To quote the very simple and straightforward definition from landmark case Folsom v. Marsh (1841): "if [someone] thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy." (We don't have an article on Folsom? Huh.)
One of the key defenses of fair use is that use is transformative. This is why our non-free content guidelines encourage people to use copyrighted text for good reasons, offering several common examples. We can't use copyrighted text just because we like the way they put it. And we're on very, very shaky ground if we use copyrighted text just because we don't want people to have to refer to the original in case they can't get it for free. At that point, in my opinion, we are explicitly and intentionally stepping on point 4 of Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107.: "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." It's going to be hard to argue that our usage does not effect the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work when that's kind of our stated purpose. (See more: Fair use)
There's always a degree of risk assessment in copyright work. There are so many factors in determining, first, if usage is substantial enough to constitute a concern (a difficult and subjective assessment of itself) and, then, if usage is fair. But our clear policy is to be conservative with use of copyrighted content. I think a few instances of this are probably not that big a deal - and that using the quote parameter when content is likely to be controversial is not a bad idea, so long as it is supported by transformative material in the article - but I think a widespread practice of this solely to bypass the need for the original is dangerous.
In all cases, per policy, quotations from non-free sources must not exceed "brief excerpts" - and that's per source, not per usage. Lengthy quotes from non-free sources should be abbreviated wherever possible or turned into a proper paraphrase, and I would myself address quotation from such sources if not being used transformatively if the matter were listed at CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I do this?

Hi Moonriddengirl. This is just an example: Until a bit more than 2 years ago, Castellani (wine) was an informative, neutral little article. Then an editor came along and added loads of blatantly promotional stuff consisting of a large volumes of direct copypaste from the Castellani Official website. My first instinct is simply to restore the pre-copypaste version and template the copypaste editor, but Cv101 only says to do such things if the copypaste was recent, and as the last good version dates from September 2009, I wondered if that would be overstepping the mark. I could probably avoid dumping some investigations on you if I knew it was OK to do something like that. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :)
The reason Cv101 says not to do that (I imagine) is that editors who have contributed subsequent to the copyvio article may have interest in salvaging other additions or rewriting content. When I come upon that situation, I look to see how active an article is. If it's not very active - if there have been no substantial textual contributions by others - then I would feel perfectly comfortable reverting and templating. I might do the same if the substantial contributions were separable and could be restored after the reversion - for instance, if it's a new section. And I will routinely do gnomish updates - categories, etc. :)
When you do this, it's a good idea to watch the article for a bit. Occasionally somebody will revert you - I have to assume it's a kind of a reflex and that they are not considering the matter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, little of substance there. :) If I were you, I would revert. I would recommend in a case like this instead of using one of the regular templates copying over the {{cclean}} tag after you add it to the talk. It requires a few minor tweaks to make it work for that. It's friendlier for situations where the content may have been placed by somebody with rights to the material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks, Moonriddengirl. I've done exactly that and appended a polite mention of WP:PROMOTION to the copy on the editor's talk page. Will watch as you suggested. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Help needed in an increasingly messy (and highly uncivil) AfD

Hi MRG! Could you suggest a couple of adminstrators I can contact who could keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire? There are increasingly highly uncivil personal attacks, edit-warring on the article itself, retaliatory behaviour wirh an editor nominating another article by his perceived "opponent" for deletion, and I suspect more than a whiff of sockpuppetry. I made a request for administrator "eyes" at ANI [18], but I suspect it's been lost amidst all the other drama there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorted now [19], at least for the time being. Geesh! What a saga. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get here sooner! I've spoken with one particularly egregious newcomer; I see at ANI that Dennis has spoken to a few others. If you think there's sockpuppetry, you might want to take it by SPI. I'm really not so good in that area. :/ Hopefully, when/if the discussion relaunches, people will conduct themselves appropriately. If not, it may be necessary to use tools to enforce that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Especially for the "word to the wise" on the egregious newcomer's page. I didn't bother with an SPI since there didn't seem to be any obvious attempts at double !voting. We'll see what happens if/when the AfD is relaunched. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Long time

Hi there ma'am. It's been a long time since we ran into each other while editing. I believe around three years since then. How's the editing coming along? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Has it been three years? Wow. Time does fly. :/ Editing goes well, thanks, although there's not enough time for it. How goes it with you? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I guessed so. Your job with the WMF is a tough one. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's challenging. :) I like it, though! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
All the best, and enjoy. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comment regarding Malcom Page entry

I wrote extensively about Malcolm Page as a sailing journalist. I also assisted Mat Belcher and Malcolm Page with the content on their website. Most of the 2009 and 2010 content on their website was written by me.

Don't EVER accuse me of plagiarism.

Honestly, how many sailing journalists are there! How much content has been written about sailings heroes on the Internet??? Much of the good stuff written during the lead up to the 2008 Olympics and Paralympics was written by me it would have appeared on all of the major sailing websites and on the websites of various sailing classes, yacht clubs, sailing federations, the world governing body of sailing website (ISAF), sailing magazines, even AARP's magazine and Scientific American. I publish www.WorldRegattas.com.

Once again, don't ever accuse me of plagiarism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelingfitz (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Assuming you are User:LynnFitzpatrick, who placed the content, a note was left at your talk page explaining our verification procedures. You can see it here. A similar note is placed at the article talk page, here. Because we have no means of verifying identity on account creation and because the website in question publishes content under full reservation ("All Rights Reserved"), I'm afraid we do need to follow these procedures. Again, they are described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you need assistance with them, please let me know. If you choose to send or have the website owners send a release rather than modifying the website itself, the material should be restored once an agent handling emails for the Wikimedia Foundation receives and processes that note. If the license is placed on the website, if you let me know, I will restore the content. Pending this, I'm afraid we cannot restore the material in accordance with our copyright policies. -Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Legal issues

Hi, there as a semi-legal notice here. What do you think? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, History2007. :) It's a bit legal, as you say, but not quite a legal threat. So far, it's just a request through an attorney. I think the advice you gave them is very good. :)
There's a few other things you might do. If you choose to restore the material you've commented out, you could contextualize it: "According to a Channel 5 documentary...." That'll make it all the easier to air her contrasting view if she can produce a reliable source showing that she has denied the veracity of their editing. Then all we have to do is add that reliable source, saying something like, "In 2012, Schwartz told XYZ that her conclusions had been taken out of context" (or whatever). (You don't, of course, have to put it back; if you think it's WP:UNDUE or something, you're welcome to leave it out. You can also trot it by WP:BLPN to get other opinions, if you'd like.)
If you don't want to try to discuss the matter further with her yourself, you might provide her the email address for the volunteer response team: info-en-q@wikimedia.org. Please ask her to include the URL of the article in her email and that the volunteers must work within policies; they do not have authority to remove content that is within policy against consensus. If you're comfortable talking to her further on the talk page, this may not be necessary, but sometimes the volunteer response team can help when drama arises -- for instance if people cluster around and things get unpleasant. Sometimes we can help people out; sometimes we can't. Either we, it's always best if we can leave them feeling like we are fair and reasonable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, referring her to the volunteer team is probably the best thing. I will suggest that, so I do not have to deal with it. I have not seen the program and do not really want to spend time on it, so I will leave in the hands of the Wikimedia team. Thanks for your advice. History2007 (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Gina Rinehart

Do you have time to look at the recent edit conflict on this article: Gina Rinehart. It is over what 'Occupation' should be defined as in the infobox. This person has attracted a lot of media attention recently in Australia. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Sure!
I see that the IP who keeps changing this has a redlinked talk page and I don't see any discussion about it at the talk page of the article itself. The thing to do here is to put a note on the talk page explaining the issue, defending your viewpoint, and to leave a note at the IP's talk page asking him or her to take part.
The main points that should be considered, I think, is that infoboxes are subject to WP:BLP policy. Whatever title goes into the infobox, we have to be able to source it to reliable, neutral sources. At a glance, I don't see any references to support calling Rinehart a socialite ([20]). However, she does seem to be routinely described as a "mining magnate" ([21]). Executive chairman seems to work also ([22]).
Because this is a BLP and the infobox is unsourced, I would remove socialite at this time until reliable sources are brought forward to verify that the term is widely used to describe her occupation. I would add a good source for "Executive chairman", which does seem to be accurate, and I would add in "mining magnate", assuming that's the term I felt best described her, with a good source.
Then I would open a section at the talk page. I would explain that WP:BLP requires sourcing for all assertions about living people and that it requires that our descriptions duly reflect what the preponderance of sources say, and supply sources to support the term you believe should be used. I'd then drop a cordial welcome to the IP editor, explain that dispute resolution requires conversation, and provide him or her a direct link to that conversation. Then I'd wait.
If the IP reverts you without discussion, the appropriate next step might be a brief page protection or block of the IP, to encourage conversation to happen. The term socialite does not appear with sources anywhere in the article, and it is a BLP issue if sources are not provided. Ideally, the IP will enter into the conversation, and the two of you can reach an agreement. If you don't reach an agreement, or if the IP puts socialite back in with a source and doesn't talk to you, you may need to bring in others to help decide what terminology should be used. WP:3O is a good first step, or WP:BLPN. (If you're not familiar with filing at those boards, I can help you. And, of course, if several editors of the article weigh in, you might not need anybody else; consensus can become clear without that.)
If the IP does not respond in any way and nobody else gets involved in the discussion, after a few days I would modify the infobox to the title I had defended on the talk page. But I would definitely leave the reference there. This is obviously contentious. :)
I'll try to keep an eye on the article in case admin intervention is necessary, but feel free to ping me if things aren't going well, and I'll try to help settle them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

About Port Lympne Mansion & Gardens commisioned by Sir Philip Sassoon"

These are my own words. Sorry I have not responded sooner but I have been opening a holiday cottage within Port Lympne Wild Animal Park so have not been checking emails or even getting home early enough to be social with any one. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatureSam (talk • contribs) 07:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

All sorts of Saathiyas

Hello! You might recall the discussion at Talk:Saathiya – Pyar ka Naya Ehsaas for article titles. Currently a article at Saathiya (TV series) exists; which is actually "Saath Nibhana Saathiya". Was that decided so? IMO no article should exist at "Saathiya (TV series)". §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the main problem here is that Saathiya (TV series) was an unattributed content fork of Saath Nibhaana Saathiya. Can't have that. :) If the article belongs at another title, we have to move it to the other title. Not copy and paste it and develop two articles in parallel.
I've merged the articles together and explained why at Talk:Saath Nibhaana Saathiya. I know the debate on whether or not an article should be at Saathiya (TV series) has been going on for some time and that it closed without consensus at Talk:Saathiya – Pyar ka Naya Ehsaas.
I would really recommend here that you try to get a conversation going about what article, if any, should be at the TV series title. The only way I can see to avoid back and forth on this is a strong community discussion. Maybe members of one of the Wikiprojects - television or India - could be invited to help out?
I've watchlisted the "TV series" redirect to help avoid another fork, but cannot take sides in what article belongs where to avoid losing my ability to mop up as an uninvolved admin. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I could try conversing with editors to decide what the article should be called. But me and other few regular (regular elsewhere) experienced editors feel that these Indian Soap Shows are highjacked by IPs and SPAs, which we suspect to probably be the production companies of these shows. Because we are seeing a lot of copy-violations, clear cut-pastes from official sites, promotional tone, new articles of TV show actors (which would surely fail WP:GNG if contested), forks like List of episodes, List of characters, Infobox format changes to match the colour scheme of the show, unreferenced claims of award wins, vandalisms by removal of references provided (That's weird! Don't understand why.), long huge plot summaries detailing to almost every episode, and WHAT NOT! This is seen on vast number of articles, especially the ones which are currently on-air. What do we do about these? Protection of these many pages is not a good way. Also it wont work for long time. Is there some project which can help us here? Or just some admin (like you) can run around with a cane and bring all in line? Am not gonna doubt your capabilities to clean these, but these editors are menace. We might need more than one admin here. (I can ask few more to help in here.) Just so you know, we have a dedicated project for these articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian television which alas is almost dead. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Alas, I'm afraid there isn't a group or admin that I know of that can help; you guys might need to get one together yourselves. :/ I wish I had time, but I'm working on a perpetual backlog in existing and flagged copyright issues. If it makes you feel any better (and I can't imagine that it'll help much), Indian tv shows are not alone in this issue. TV shows get these problems more than any other article type I know, except maybe school articles. Maybe. It's almost impossible to keep fans from pasting content.
I suspect that if there are articles which have a lot of issues, page protection may be the best option. It wouldn't stop the SPAs, but at least it would weed out the IPs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem! I got it from User:Spanglej that you are very busy. Will go and bother someone else for sure. We both have, as of now, at least decided to make a list of all such articles. That way we will be able to keep proper watch. Lets see. Thanks for the help. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair use

Hello Moonriddengirl--how are you? Staying out of trouble? I have a question for you--please see also my talk page, User_talk:Drmies#G.I._Joe_movie_characters. It is my understanding that the movie poster which was in the infobox, way down the page on General Joseph Colton (why we have such articles in the first place is unclear to me), is not acceptable, and I referred the editor to Wikipedia:Non-free content. Furthermore, I believe that the screenshot used in the infobox for Cobra Commander (again, way down the page) is also not allowed. Can you please set me straight if I'm wrong? If you answer on my talk, in that section, then the editor will know as well. Thank you so much! (PS: it's a boy! well, for now--we'll see when he comes out, in August. I expect you to be there and support me since I want to go natural.) Drmies (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are quite right, but I don't do that much with WP:NFC, aside from its relation to text, so I'm going to see if I can get an somebody who does to help you out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I've asked User:Masem, as I know he is very familiar with NFC. I hope he'll be able to help out.
Is this child the kind of event that will change your userbox on your talk page or is it more the kind of thing that could require expert assistance? If the former, congratulations! You should find the whole diapering experience a delightfully new and different adventure. :) Assuming that he chooses to remain a boy. If it's the latter, well, <solemn tone>I will continue to support you in every way I can.</solemn tone> Except, you know, financially or disputationally. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
That's cold, MRG, real cold. You won't even come and change a diaper or teach the kid how to pee standing up and change the oil in my Camry? (BTW, thanks for your help, your on-wiki help--off-wiki, you're a deadbeat mom.) Drmies (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Dol Dauber

Hello Moonriddengirl. I'm sorry for bothering you, but I think you are the right person to ask my question, hope you don't mind :) I created this article (see header) and I found this in the Internet Archive. Would it be possible to upload some of the songs also to Commons? Thanks for any hint/help. Best regards. --Vejvančický aka Beerriddenboy (talk | contribs) 06:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) The question of when copyright expires is complex, especially for Non-US works, I'm afraid. International copyright law is not my main area, but I'll explain the situation to the best of my knowledge. :)
To figure out if we can upload content to Commons, we need to know the copyright status in both the country where it was published and in the United States. (I'm assuming the songs here were not first published in the United States given the details in his bio; if I'm wrong about that, most of what I'm going to say in subsequent paragraphs will be irrelevant.) To figure out if we can upload it to Wikipedia, we only need to know the copyright status in the United States. (For your own personal liability, you might consider the situation in your own location. You can upload content to Wikipedia as long as it's legal to host it in the United States...but if it's not legal in your country, you can get in trouble for it personally. Wikipedia doesn't encourage you to break your local laws. :))
I think that this is not uploadable to Commons, although to be sure, we'd have to know where it was first published. Copyright expiration differs widely around the world. (See Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights.) If it was first published in either Germany or the UK (Homokord being based in Germany and Gramophone Company in the UK), copyright would last for 70 years after the author's death - or until 2020. Complicating things, they may be copyrighted in the United States even longer than that. If they were not published in the United States within 30 days of publication in their origin country, they may be copyrighted here for 95 years after their first publication. That would seem to be about 2023.
For upload to Wikipedia, since the files were not published before 1923, we'd have to figure out if the recordings were published in the United States within 30 days of their publication in their source country. If they were, whether or not they are uploadable here depends on what happened next. Copyright at that time had to be periodically renewed or it would expire. IF they renewed copyright, they would be under copyright for 95 years from the first date of publication. If they did not renew, copyrighted in the US will have expired, and the content can be uploaded here.
I'm afraid that researching copyright renewals and determining country of origin is really not my strong point. :/ I would suggest that you ask about the copyright status of these files at WP:MCQ, as those people are really good at helping figure out things like this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed answer. This looks really complicated. I don't know why but I thought that everything in the Internet Archive is in public domain :) I'll let it be. Thank you again. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Ideally, it should be, but just like us they can get content uploaded from people that isn't...either because the uploader didn't do due diligence, made a mistake, or didn't understand the requirements. I believe they have much better controls than, say, YouTube, but they're still an Online Service Provider. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Burgee of nyyc.svg

Are you familiar with copyright/Trademark applied to WP:LOGO or know an admin who is? I've asked some questions at deletion review. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I tried to look at the file, but we've never had a file of that name on English Wikipedia. So we can't help you here; there's nothing for us to undelete or deletion for us to review. You'll have to take it up on Commons, where they have their own policies.
I can see that on Commons the image has been deleted twice in accordance with OTRS tickets 2007041110012213 and 2007120410011436. I would bet that whoever uploaded the image did not give any information about its background. According to the second OTRS ticket, the uploader simply declared him or herself the copyright holder and indicated he was releasing copyright.
If I were you, I would head over to Commons and either upload it myself with proper tags indicating its age and evidence verifying its age (the correspondent in the second letter, oddly, agrees with your 1844 date but still seems to think its under copyright) or take it up with them. First, it's courteous to explain the situation and why you disagree with the deletion at User talk:Bastique. If Bastique does not agree with you and will not restore the file (he may be able to point to some policy on Commons, particularly at the time of deletion in 2007, which required that the image be deleted), you have the option of either (a) raising the matter at Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard, where others can view the ticket, note the date of the file and potentially restore it, correcting its tags if that was the case, or (b) following the steps at commons:C:DR#Appeal, to appeal the deletion to the community there.
All this said, if I'm overthinking this and you really just have questions about logo usage on Commons, you can visit Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. If you have questions about logo usage on WP, I'd recommend WP:MCQ. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'll contact User talk:Bastique as the next step. Another option someone mentioned would be to upload it here at en Wiki and tag it {{keeplocal}}. I noticed an editor criticizing Commons the other day and said he would no longer be uploading files there... Has something happened recently on that front and do you have any insight into reasons for such a stance? Thanks again for your assistance. Mojoworker (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Aevol

Hi Moonriddengirl, I've just added a copyleft notice onto the website www.aevol.fr. Could you please restore the Aevol article here? Thx. Parsons.eu (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


I just got your message, sorry for the delay. I have doubled the size of the notice. Thanks for your attention. Parsons.eu (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Badaga Hattis

There was a message left for you on the orphan talk page that I deleted concerning the deletion of Badaga Hattis. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll communicate with the guy about what to do next. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

\

andrew nicholson basketball

THank you for your help.. i hope to continue to follow wikipedia's guidelines for better success in the future. Would it be ok if contact you in the future for further inquires, you have been most helpful! RVDSouza (talk)

Linda Ronstadt

Thanks for your clerical updates and your input. Sadly, I'm afraid I had trouble deciphering some of your sentences on my talk page. They were really hard to understand as to what you actually did but I sort of picked of the gist of what you were trying to say. No worries. Thanks for taking the time and doing your part. Nonetheless, I think think, I get the sense from others I've communicated with that we are mistaking a 'judicious copyright rationale' for mere 'clerical enforcement.' Basically, clerically, the wording i.e, rationale - must be there (in the Images) in order to rationalize any non-fair use copyright under the related and relevant guidelines as set for by Wikipedia. It's not our fault, I think the Wikipedia guidelines are badly written and I think that creates a snowball effect of bad copyright enforcers and bad interpretation by all of us, because there is so much duplicated, loop-de-loop circular wording. I'm guilty of it. Sharkentile (talk) 7:34, Sharkentile 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Farey, contested deletion

Hullo, I've just posted something about this on the Joseph Farey Talk page. Apwoolrich (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Somebody from the Institution of Civil Engineers will be contacting you on the email address you quoted. Message headed Joseph Farey, contested deletion. Kind regards Apwoolrich (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh not again department

You might like to look at User talk:Michaelstoll. Then again, you mightn't (but I have been nice about you...). Peridon (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That's discouraging. It's hard to know what else to do! (Thanks for being nice. :D And for keeping an eye on him. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Copyright issues

No problem, I was shocked to see how backed-up the copyright problems board was, and I'll be sure to help whenever I get a chance/remember to check. It's pretty unforgivable that we let something so essential get so backlogged... "we" being us admins who HAVEN'T been helping out of course, not you heroic Defenders of the Wiki :D -RunningOnBrains(talk) 21:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

I have a big problem...I am unfortunately to stupid to contribute to Wikipedia - HELP !

I created an article, added some references I found on the www, but always gets blocked because of copyright issue. But I don t know why ???? You are probably extremely busy, and - sorry to ask you for help. I am a complete Wikipedia Dummy and just don t get it :(

This is the simple and short article an the page Stefan Pichlebelow, and I incuded references: <snip content, which violates our copyright policy>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelstoll (talk • contribs) 09:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Michael. I will reply at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

Hi! I have received a notification saying that we were using copyrighted material from the website www.trudeaufoundation.ca on our Wikipedia page (Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation) that is now blocked. Actually, we (the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation) are the creators of that website content, so we have full rights to use it or re-use it. I've read the notification and as suggested, I've sent an email to [email protected]. Can you unblock our Wikipedia page or let us know what we have to do exactly? Thanks for your help!

Mvincelli (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)User mvincelli for Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation

Please see OTRS 201205011001089, received about a half hour ago.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, SPhilbrick! I'll take it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I see that you are all over it, thanks. I saw that one come in, and wanted to look into it, but I see you are already there. Good Luck.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
They were smart to give you the keys. :D I knew you'd be a valuable asset to the force. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Third nostril.

"I need a third nostril like I need a hole in my head." I am a big marilyn manson fan and was reading about "the third nostril" and other things. For example 0,1,3,5 are numbers that he has used is some of the puzzles that he has put up on his website. They are also used in 1337 speak so I spelled two words that may be "clues" 1053 = lose and 5013 = sole . I punched those into my puter and came up with some sites. One was the "Ford Anglia 501e" it said that this model was used on a show called "the heartbeat" but when I tried to go to the link, it, has been deleted and then when I seen your name I wanted to follow the link here. Then I seen that you get migraines and the thumbnail on your page was one that I had tried to open in a different page just a few minutes before that. It was called "ART LAW" and said it was a pic of a disected womans head. I just wanted you to know this and give you Barnstars galore. I love wiki and use it often. 12.170.63.42 (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

  • That was refreshingly random. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Email redacted for privacy. Can someone give us a rev delete here? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • What an interesting coincidence that you had just encountered that picture! :) And thank you. I'm glad you love wiki; I hope it's helpful to you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you !

Dear Moonriddengirl,

thank you so much for your help and advice. Now, i have created a new article on "Stefan Pichler", with new sources - and so far I have not received any notification of copyright or other issues. I apologize again to have taken your time. Just wanted to thank you ! Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelstoll (talk • contribs) 09:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Help requested at Olivier Gruner

Hi Moodriddengirl. I was hoping you might find the time to take a quick look at File:Olivier Gruner.jpg. User:Ogruner, who appears to be the subject of the picture, has claimed on the File talkpage that photographer (I presume he means the Flickr uploader) does not have rights to the image - quite plausible, as it appears to be a promotional headshot, rather than a user-taken image. Would you mind reviewing the copyright status of the image (outside my area of expertise, I'm afraid) and deleting it under F11 if necessary? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, the image is on Commons, so I couldn't process it regardless, but I can certainly flag it for the attention of admins there. :) The Flickr uploader claims to be a professional photographer, and his photostream could bear that out. He has consistent metadata, I think. But honestly, if he did take this picture, it seems to be one of the worst he's ever taken. Everything else in his photostream is gorgeous. This picture is serviceable but lifeless. You could get this at any portrait studio staffed by college kids with cameras, in contrast to this and this.

I'd be happy to help him flag it for discussion or tell him what to do, but there's not enough evidence for me to want to flag it without talking to him first. He could be confused about what rights the photographer has. :) I'll have a word with the gentleman about what to do next. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for your help. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Polonsky

Hi Moonriddengirl, I created a short BLP on historian Antony Polonsky. An editor has tagged this article as "multiple issues" including COI and WP:Peacock. I’ve tried to discuss the issue with editor Poeticbent, and I would be interested to hear the opinion of other editors on the Polonsky Talk page. Thanks, Mick gold (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mick. I'm afraid I really have to agree with the "resume" (not COI) concerns with the article and have explained why at the article's talk page. :/ I do not see the "peacock" words to which he is referring, though. My main concern is that so much of the article seems to be copied from his official biography. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Moonriddengirl, I've tried to revise the material in the light of your comments. Mick gold (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you, Moonriddengirl, for running a bot through this entry. I tagged it originally as resembling a resume, because of how closely it followed the actual content of the subject's resume from his own place of work. I regret that my concerns raised at User talk:Poeticbent#Polonsky were not taken seriously enough. I suggest that involved editors consult Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Close relationships for further guidance and declare their interests on the article's talk page. I don't think I need to spell out; quotations from the subject addressing his readership, or the "Albert Abramson" Professor presumably better than Professor per its own definition, are just two of numerous overstatements, all the way through to the end. Poeticbent talk 16:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Patroller

Can anybody become a new page patroller, or is it only limited to administrators? If the former, can you point out how to become a new page patroller? Should I get Autopatrolled rights? Thanks! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(tps) New page patrollers do not have to be admins. You do not need autopatrolled rights. Check out Wikipedia:New pages patrol for more information. Good luck.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Sphilbrick. :) Good luck with that AnkitBhatt! I'm sure you'd be a great help in that department. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, both of you :). Anyways I can't get autopatrolled rights because I don't satisfy the minimum criteria of 50 new articles (I have 27 right now). I'll try my luck in NPP. Cheers. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
What's this about '50 new articles'? I have never heard of that as requirement for a new page patroller. --Greenmaven (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Autopatrolled is noting to do with working on NPP, except that it's a way of cutting down the load. Someone with autopatrolled rights has their new articles marked as patrolled by the software, and they are not highlighted as unpatrolled in the lists. The 50 articles bit is for getting autopatrolled. "A suggested standard is the prior creation of 50 valid articles, not including redirects." WP:AUTOPAT. Nothing whatever to do with NPP. Anyone can patrol - the only qualification I can see is not being blocked or site banned. I would recommend anyone doing it to read WP:NPP and follow its advice. including the bit about keeping a copy of the CSD criteria open for quick checking. Peridon (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright in lists discussion at ANI

Thought you might be interested in this. Dpmuk (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually could you comment there? As I state there I was only just getting started in copyright when the lists discussions were taking place so don't feel able to comment on the history as much as I'd like. Dpmuk (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I've dropped a tiny note; I'll come by in the morning with more. Sorry! I'm up late already and I'm really wiped out. I'm afraid I'm not likely to make much sense. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski (FYI only, no action required) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at it later. :) I'm not sure I'll have any feedback, though, as my interaction with him was brief and very specific. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Eyes-on request

Hi Moonriddengirl! If you or any of your friendly TPS posse has the chance to look in from time to time on the contributions of new account Tylerjet (talk · contribs) I'd appreciate it.

His first significant string of edits to an article were 90% copy-paste copyvio, and then he went off to a different one, and began a string of edits that also were. At 7:58, 3 May 2012, I posted to his talk saying he couldn't do that. He would have seen the "you have new messages" orange bar when he saved to that second article, at 8:23, but he continued to add copy-pasted copyvio to that new article, in four more edits spanning around 80 minutes. He did include (incorrectly) formatted refs for each passage, though, but I'd explained to him previously that he needed to write in his own words.

He also didn't respond on his talk to my post, which seemed a little unusual, as did his blanket addition of "(Retrieved 2012-4-20)" to all his just-added refs, on 3 May 2012.

Bottom line is that this is either a new user who doesn't read his talk page, or ... well, I'm beginning to wonder if this could possibly be one of our old friends, returning. I'm probably being too quick by half to consider that, but more experienced eyes on couldn't hurt, either. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That's strange, all right. :/ I don't recognize the person, though, by list of articles or area of interest. Good to keep an eye on him in case he doesn't stop. I've rev deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation in an article

  • Could you check this? I guess that I found a little more copy-paste section. Greets.--Reality006 (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You certainly did! Thank you so much for finding it and bringing it to my attention. I have removed that content as well. The list of course is okay - it is a "factual" list so we can keep that. But the other text we could not. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerns over copyvio regarding File:Olympic mascots.jpg

Hi Moonriddengirl,

I've noticed a while ago via ANI your name mentioned in regards to a user who has expertise in the copyright field. I have a keen interest in the London 2012 Olympics, especially as I'll be a volunteer at the games this summer. Due to this, I've got related articles on my watchlist, and I noticed this image uploaded by another user became nominated for deletion over doubts of copyvio and who owns the licence for the image. A full discussion is taking place at commons, to which I have participated in. Now I'm not sure if you're fully aware, but London 2012 (better known as LOCOG) and the Olympic Movement are one of the strictest organisations in the world when it comes to reuse of their images, logos etc. And in good faith I provided links to London 2012 websites which hold guidelines to terms of use of their images etc. But the person who uploaded the image knocked me back a little when he said he doesn't see how anything that I've said or the links I've provided have any relevance to the discussion. Therefore, I thought I best bring this to your attention, and seek your opinion on whether the image is in breach of WMF copyvio or not. I look forward to your response in due course - regards Wesley☀Mouse 20:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I really wish I could help you, but I'm afraid that I may not be able to give you much assistance. :/ Wikimedia Commons is a separate project from Wikipedia, and I am not an administrator there. Their policies are different than ours, and even here images are not my major area of work. Never mind the license of the photo, though, I'm a little confused about the copyright status of the costumed characters inside of it. If they are copyrighted, I don't see how even if the photograph were released under a free license, it could be used on Commons - because the characters are so central that they don't seem like they could possible be de minimis. I'd be very curious how Commons:Commons:Image casebook#Costumes and cosplay impact this photograph. I don't honestly know where Commons currently stands on that, but I would probably ask about that - it might be worth asking at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for replying back to me on this matter. In response to the costumed characters, that may or may not be an easy on to answer, but I'll try my best. The mascots are under licence of London 2012 and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG). Upon looking at the photo, the costumed characters are inside the London Olympic Stadium, and would appear to be either a promotional shoot to announce the mascots, or to promote the completion of construction work of the stadium itself. Seeing as the mascots where announced before the stadium was complete, then I'd say the latter reason would be more plausible. But the mascots are most certainly protected under copyright and are also trade marked too (if that helps). A list of terms of use for anything London 2012 related (including the unique font type) can be found viewed here. Wesley☀Mouse 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm afraid it's not really me you need to discuss it with. :/ As I said, this is on Wikimedia Commons. I am not an admin there. I would recommend that you might bring that up at the deletion debate on Commons, as I'm not sure if the contributors there are considering that element. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, it is very much appreciated. I shall make the contributors at Commons aware of the trade mark issues, and also the London website. Once again, thanks! Wesley☀Mouse 23:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

West Midland Safari Park

Please take a look at the diff here and the article that it's from here. I reverted the editor User:Rburnett12 once as copyvio when the page was a literal copy. He has come back with what you see, which I still think is copyvio (it's pretty much a copy with a few interjections). I figured I should get a second opinion before reverting again though. Thank you. Don Lammers (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, Don Lammers. You are quite correct -- this was blatant copy pasting. In fact, the user's prior additions to the page were also copied from various other websites ([23], [24], etc.). Unfortunately, this meant I needed to roll the entire article back. I also dropped a final warning on the editor's talk page. Let's hope they get the message -- if not, please let me know and I'll issue a block. Thanks for keeping on top it. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Don Lammers and CactusWriter. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

possible list copyvio input needed

As the resident non-legal expert on creative lists and copyright, your opinion on whether the wholesale list of monsters included in a Dungeons and Dragons manual is a copyright violation or not would be helpful. There's other factors at play that may be the crux of a deletion argument, but I believe the potential copyvio should be addressed with some dismissing it as a non-argument. The AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Argh! I hate list copyright questions. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I have addressed the matter there. I think the concerns are substantial for the reasons I've explained. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

F. C. D. Wyneken Page

Hi! I just dropped by the Wyneken page and noticed that you deleted much of the material there that is related to my essay on his life and work. I will likely restore it, since I give permission to anyone who wishes to use my work. I would donate it all to the public domain, were it not that my lawyer friends tell me an author really can't do that. I'll post my permission on the talk page as well. Is there anything else I need to do to be sure everyone knows it is OK? It has been years since I have been able to edit and write for Wikipedia. --CTSWyneken(talk)

Thank you, but I'm afraid that the permission process is a little more formal than that. :) We need external verification, since we have no means of verifying identity on account creation, but this may be a little complex in this situation. According to the website, copyright is "©1999 Tentatio Press". As Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials explains, authors who sign license with publishers may surrender their right to subsequently rerelease their content. We have in the past accepted content donated by authors only to find out that the publisher did not approve this donation. Ordinarily, a letter from Tentatio Press permitting reuse would suffice, but I have not been able to find an internet presence for Tentatio Press to ask, which can make matters more difficult.
Can you by any chance give me any information on Tentatio Press? I see that they are (or were) located in Huntington, California, but I haven't been able to find out much more about them than that. Alternatively, you may be able to verify release of the material yourself if you contact the Wikimedia Foundation by email associated with your work, but you should not only include the license release at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, but also confirm that you know that you have not abrogated your rights to reproduce this material. If it turns out that you have assigned your rights to the publisher, and they protest, it would be a matter to be resolved between you.
I'm happy to try to help you with this, or explain further, if needed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah! Tentatio Press was just a name under which a Festschrift committee operated. None of the authors signed away their rights. The editor for the volume, Dr. Daniel Harmelink, may be reached via email at: [email protected]. He is pastor at Redeemer Lutheran Church, 16351 SPRINGDALE ST, HUNTINGTN BCH, CA 92649-2773. Let me know if you need further help with contact. -CTSWyneken(talk)
Very good. I'll file it. By the way, is their still a rule against an expert using his or her own rule in Wikipedia entries? -CTSWyneken(talk)

Webpage problem

Hey. I just don't know what I did, but my WP webpage has a light blue color all across it. Its looking really weird. Could you help me out? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I can try. :) But which one? Your userpage looks normal to me. It might be a setting or a browser-specific issue? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I might be able to assist with this one, as I've come across the issue many times before. If an editor is using Google Chrome as their browser, and has accidentally zoomed in/zoomed out, it changes the background of WP to a light blue colour. Simply click on the wrench icon (top-right of browser) and reset the screen size to 100%, that should fix the issue. Hope that helps. Wesley☀Mouse 15:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you!!! The problem was rectified :D. Gosh do you guys have amazing skills :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
No worries, always happy to help. Although I have noticed a plethora of editors asking for help on this same issue over the last few weeks, and wonder if it would be an idea to have this as a "General FAQ" so future cases!? Wesley☀Mouse 16:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
That would be a good idea. Why don't you take it up? It would save a lot of sudden anguish one gets when we see a weird new format :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

USACK

Hi Moonriddengirl; over 3 1/2 years ago you cited this article for copyright violations. The same problem persists, perhaps more so, with most of the content lifted from several websites. The issues are complicated slightly by the involvement of COI accounts, and some IP users who are rather demonstrative in their views that the article be left as is. I've suggested that the entire piece by cut to the bone. Your thoughts would be very welcome. Thanks and cheers, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Issues do seem substantial. Problematic content I saw has been blanked with a more complete explanation of how to eliminate copyright concerns at the article's talk page. If permission is not provided or the content rewritten, the article will probably be restored to the last point before the influx of copied text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Very best, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright question

Hey Moonriddengirl, I am working on an article for the company peace coffee with another editor and I would like to reference the company's bio-diesel van. If I found a free image (or took one myself) of this van, can I use it or is it still copyrighted because of the design on the van? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan. :) I think you might have to use it under non-free criteria, if at all, given that design, but I would really recommend you get feedback at WP:MCQ. They're more familiar with image work than I am. I wonder if Peace Coffee would be willing to license a picture? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll be sure to ask but I have one more question for you then. If it is decided that I would need to use a non-free criteria anyways, does that mean any image on the internet is available or are there degrees of non-free images i.e. it is non-free no matter what, but it is possible to find the truck and take a picture so I must use that. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
There would be two levels of non-free if you used a picture on the internet - there's the copyright of the mural/logo designer and the copyright of the photographer. You'd need to be able to justify both the use of the mural/logo and the use of the photo. The latter would be pretty hard, so you might find it easier to take your own photo and work with that, if the use of the design meets NFC. On the other hand, if Peace Company would be willing to license a picture to you, you'd cover all grounds at once. I'd really think about writing them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sending them an email now. Thanks for the advice. I haven't dealt with a licensed picture, does that still use a fair-use rationale or does it become free? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Any compatibly licensed picture is free for our purposes; there's some example requests for permission linked at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Peter Noever

MRG, I'm still new to OTRS, and almost everything I've handled (on the permissions side) is image related. In fact, 2012041810005691 may be my first text related issue. Don't hesitate to double-check, but I think it looks straightforward. I think Peter Noever is fine.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good. :) The tag you used, though, is the one used for images. It doesn't work for text because it doesn't name the license. The one for text is {{ConfirmationOTRS}}, and it has a couple of parameters, including the url and the license. Once you place the tag, you remove the template blanking the article and make a note at the copyright problems listing (which is, of course, generally easy to find by filtering "what links here" to Wikipedia space). {{CPC|t}} is very easy. If the content isn't being placed by the copyright owner, you also have to use an attribution template in the reference section, like {{dual}}. I'll be happy to do it if you want, but will wait in case you'd like to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s yourself. :) Just let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad about many things today:
  1. That my OTRS has been mostly images - I've now done two text-related, and will scurry off after this to fix the other one
  2. That I was smart enough to contact MRG, even though I thought I processed it correctly
  3. That MRG is such a tireless contributor
Yes, I want to process it myself, I think I have. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You are very kind. :) It takes time to learn all the intricacies here. Certainly, I needed help along the way and still do--but with your third point, I have to cry "pot". :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jtrainor (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Rightfully moving towards a speedy keep. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I must admit, that could be it. As you pointed out, not very effective though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Guðmundur Steinn Gunnarsson

While patrolling, I stumbled across Guðmundur, a diaambiguation article with a red link to Guðmundur Steinn Gunnarsson. Further investigation reveals that you deleted this article for violation of copyright on 15 February 2010. I was wondering if you could give me access to the deleted article. I may be able to resolve the copyright issues; it seems that this individual may satisfy notability criteria. Thanks in advance for your help. Truthanado (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. We don't generally userfy copyright violations, although sometimes I'll bring them back with the {{copyvio}} template on them, but in a case like this where we have a straightforward copy-paste, we don't need to. :) The full text of the article is still visible at http://www.lily-pad.net/archives/2008/05/, beginning with the words "Gudmunder Steinn Gunnarsson was born in Reykjavik, Iceland in 1982" and ending with "He has also been active as an improviser and has performed in that context with musicians such as Steve Hubback, Fred Frith, Andrew D'Angelo, Ad Peijnenburg, Hilmar Jensson and Skúli Sverrisson." There was one additional sentence appended, which asserted that Gunnarsson had recorded with Smekkleysa (Reykjavik) and Edgetone (San Francisco).
The only other thing on the page were the categories: {{DEFAULTSORT:Gunnarsson, Gudmundur Steinn}} [[Category:Icelandic musicians]] [[Category:21st-century classical composers]] [[Category:Living people]]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. That is the page I had already found, not too many others; at least, that are reliable and specific. If I can't find anything else about this Icelandic musician, I guess the article will have to stay dead. Truthanado (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Hebrides created a new article Guðmundur Steinn Gunnarsson that claims to not be a copyright violation. I took a quick look and it does have several references, and I did not find (using Google search) any obvious direct copying of text from a reference. What do you think? Truthanado (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it's awesome that User:Hebrides did that, and I'm really impressed that he was able to find so many sources! :D I'm confident in Hebrides writing skills, so I don't feel like I need to check for copying. Generally, I don't worry about new articles on subjects that have been deleted for copying unless (a) they're created by the same person (in which case, I double check to be sure they're understanding policy now) or (b) they're in an area where copyvios happen repeatedly, like school articles or television episode summaries. Thanks for letting me know; it always makes me happy when people rise to replace content we've lose for copyvio reasons only. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
To construct an article is satisfying. To bring happiness at the same time is delightful :) — Hebrides (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
And I thank you for it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Paschal Robinson

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Thanks

Thanks for your intervention at USACK. The harassment by IP editors on my talk page has stopped as a result. Perhaps those individuals have wised up and realized they can't post material at will in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. --Drm310 (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I had not seen your talk page and didn't realize how nasty the tone had gotten there. :/ I'm happy to help. We'll see what happens when the listing period closes, if they do not verify permission. I really appreciate your continuing to pursue the problem in the face of that kind of unpleasantness. Please let me know if it continues, and I'll do what I can to help head off the harassment and get these people talking civilly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Nabulsi soap

Did you want to conduct a community or individual reassement on Nabulsi soap? AIRcorn (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I believe it is nicely written, but since it is not the same article that passed the GA assessment the first time, it seems like it should go through whatever process is appropriate to make sure that the article we have now qualifies on its own merit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
In an individual re-assessments the final decision is yours and it can be closed after a couple of days. In a community one different editors will comment and someone else will close it. In reality I will probably be the only one to make a comment and Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) will close it a month later. There is also a {{GA request}} template it can be tagged with, but I have never seen it used in my time at WP:GAR. If you want I can conduct an individual one for you, you do more than enought work with copyrights. Speaking of which, if you get a chance can you cast your expert eye over Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians and Romania in the Early Middle Ages. They are both GAs that have been tagged with close paraphrasing templates by the same editor. I am tempted to delist the literary one due to the excessive use of quotes, but the middle ages one doesn't seem so bad. AIRcorn (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't feel comfortable assessing this one myself, since it was very kindly rewritten by a copyright clerk. :) It would be fabulous of you can help with that! And I will certainly take a look at the two GAs that concern you. I can't right now because of work, but I'll try to do it later today. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow. You weren't kidding about the copying in Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians. First thing I did was start checking the quotations. Modern translations can have their own copyright, but these all seem to be either original to the article or taken from public domain old translations (like this one from 1908). In terms of "good article", though, I'm really uneasy with the sourcing there. Take a look at footnote 6, for instance. Shouldn't there be pagination? (I've tacked on a tag asking for it, but I'm asking more in terms of GA standards. :) The GA standards applied to the last article I requested it for, Body piercing, seemed impressively exacting.) In terms of the close paraphrasing, this seems to have been introduced by User:Borsoka, which is kind of bad news because Borsoka created the article. That said, I did a pretty thorough spot-check of the first version of the article - one of the best ways to find close paraphrasing is to check the edit added by the contributor suspected of the problem, before it is modified by others- and I could not find anything. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say, and the well-documented issues discussed at User:Daizus/Investigation/Plagiarisms are to books I cannot access. :/ This was enough evidence for a CCI clerk to open Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Borsoka, so I think the concerns are likely to be substantial. If I were to find this via the CCI, I would put it aside as I try to find articles with more easily accessed reference for comparison. Let me take a look at the other one and see if it will be an easier nut to crack. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The standard you are subjected to at GA depends a lot on the reviewer. Most are very good and in general the stricter ones cause less drama further down the line when it comes to re-assessments or other concerns. I am not sure what criteria excessive quotation falls under (possible prose and focus). Either way I will initiate a reassessment of that one no matter the result of your check. For lack of a better way to describe it, it just doesn't look like a Good article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the technique is more successful in Romania in the Early Middle Ages. :/ This is a huge edit by the contributor in question. I did not refer to the original list, so I duplicated effort, but I wanted to see for myself:

Source Article Pages
The Romans had never succeeded in closing down the “funnel of peoples” between the rivers Danube and Tisa in the west or in safeguarding in the east the “wet border” along the Prut river... There had always been problems in this area with peoples of all kinds, who appeared for the most part as free Daci or Carpi... We also hear of Costoboci and Rhoxolani. Finally, for centuries the Bastarnic element had been part of the ethnic mosaic of that area. The Romans had never succeeded in closing down the “funnel of peoples” between the rivers Danube and Tisa in the west or in safeguarding the “wet border” along the river Prut.[7] There had always been problems in this area with peoples of all kind, who appeared for the most part as free Dacians or Dacian-speaking[8] Carpians.[7] We also hear of Costoboci and Rhoxolani, and for centuries the Bastarnic element had been part of the ethnic mosaic of that area.[7] Wolfram et al. History of the Goths pages 43-44
The "western" Goths were fully occupied taking possession of the northern Danubian region on both sides of the Carpathians, dividing it with the Taifali, and keeping control of it. In the process their former allies, the Dacian Carpi, the Bastarnean Peukini, and the Vandal groups, became their rivals. The Bastarni had to give way: in 280 Probus admitted what was probably the greater part of that tribe into the Roman empire and settled them in Thrace in 280; in 295 the rest followed.... Following the Roman withdrawal, the Goths were fully occupied taking possession of the northern Danubian region on both sides of the Carpathian Mountains, dividing it with the Taifali, and keeping control of it.[7] In the process their former allies, the Carpians, the Bastarnæ, and the Vandals, became their rivals.[7] The latter had to give way: probably the greater part of the Bastarnæ settled in Thrace in 280, and in 295 the rest followed Wolfram et al, p. 56
In the summer of 328, Constantine opened the stone bridge across the Danube between Oescus-Gigen and Sucidava. At the same time the fortress Daphne-Spantov near Oltenita was erected downstream and linked by means of a large ferry with Transmarisca-Tutrakan.... The construction of the bridge was considered a first-rate military event: Constantine was celebrated as the renewer of Trajan's Dacia. While the bridge at Oescus linked the empire with Oltenia-Little Walachia, which was intended as a buffer zone.... In the summer of 328, Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) opened the stone bridge across the Danube between Œscus (in present-day Bulgaria) and Sucidava (now in Romania) linking the empire with Oltenia which was intended as a buffer zone.[7] At the same time, the fortress of Daphne (in present-day Romania) was erected and linked by means of a large ferry with Transmarisca (now in Bulgaria).[7] The construction of the bridge was considered a first-rate military event: the emperor was celebrated as renewer of province “Dacia Trajana” Wolfram et al, p. 61
Justinian built or renewed more than 600 forts in the Balkans.... Along the Danube and in the immediate hinterland, relatively small forts were built Justinian I also built or renewed more than 600 forts in the Balkans; but along the Danube and in the immediate hinterland, relatively small forts were built. Curta, p. 45.
Each settlement is no larger than about 5 acres, with a limited number of houses per habitation phase, ranging from ten to fifteen. This seems to indicate that most, if not all, sites had been occupied only for brief periods, than abandoned and new settlements established nearby.... What caused this shifting of hamlets must have been the itinerant form of agriculture practiced by their inhabitants and requiring that lands under cultivation be left fallow after a number of years of cultivation without manuring. Settlement sites excavated so far in Romania are no larger than about 0,02 km2 (5 acres), with a limited number of houses per habitation phase, ranging from 10 to 15.[19] This seems to indicate that most, if not all, sites had been occupied only for brief periods, than abandoned and new settlements established nearby.[19] What caused this shifting of hamlets must have been the itinerant form of agriculture practiced by their inhabitants and requiring that lands under cultivation be left fallow after a number of years of cultivation without manuring. Curta, pp. 56-57.
Much like the "Huns", the "Sclavenes" appear in sixth-century sources as an umbrella term for a multitude of groups living north of the Danube frontier, which could not be classified as either “Huns” or “Gepids”. On the other hand, the Sclavenes appear in 6th-century sources as an umbrella term for a multitude of groups living north of the Danube, which could not be classified as either “Huns” or “Gepids”. Curta, p. 59.
Early Avar society was based on procuring prestige goods from the Byzantine Empire and food supplies from small economic units, in the form of either direct production from family lands or tribute from subjugated population groups.... More often than not, the Avars chose to move the entire population of a conquered city or territory in the middle of the qaganate. Early Avar society was based on procuring prestige goods from the Byzantine Empire and food supplies from small economic units, in the form of either direct production from family lands or tribute from subjugated population groups.[19] More often than not, the Avars chose to move the entire population of a conquered city or territory in the middle of the Khaganate.[19] Curta, p. 65.

I've bolded stuff that is precisely duplicated, although it may remove material from the source or rearrange it. There's enough there to really worry me about the copyright status of the current article. I don't have enough time right now to do a more complete evaluation, but I strongly suspect that portions of this article are out of line with Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Non-free content, which I would imagine would eliminate it from GA status...and may even require rewriting. I'll look more into later. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Expanded today. I've found multiple duplication from another book, and I've seen enough. This needs to be blanked and listed at WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Come back to this, me. The copyright in lists discussions kind of derailed me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
No rush, come back to it when you can. I would suggest that any "Good" article found to contain copyright violations when promoted could simply be delisted without the need to go through a re-assessment. It should be part of the quickfail criteria anyway (I will bring it up at WP:GAN). Thanks for your help so far. AIRcorn (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Had a look at the Nabulsi article. My main concern was Broadness due to its small size, but a google search didn't turn up much other information so I am happy at this stage to pass that. When you reviewed the article for copyright issues did that include the pictures? One File:Camel factory Nablus December 2008.JPG was uploaded by Tiamut (talk · contribs) so might need closer checking. The others seem fine, although I can't access the website source at File:Nablus 1898.jpg. If these are fine then I will pass it. AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for bumping this! I got busy with the copyright problems backlog and it slipped my mind. :/ I didn't check the picture. It has a red flag for me in its size - it's a pretty tiny picture for a user generated image - but I think it is in its factor that the metadata is dated to the date of upload. If that wasn't manipulated (and most people don't), that means that if it was taken from online, it would have been a very narrow window. :) I can't decide if it's worrisome or not that the image was misidentified at first - but I did a Tineye search of the image and didn't find a match. I also did a visual flip through Google image search using various keywords and came up with nothing. I think it's probably okay.
I've committed to banging out a few more copyright problems listings this morning (fate willing), but am making a note in my calendar to get back on this. I won't forget again! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
And done. This is awful. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I have blanked the article for the copyright problems board. It still contains substantial content that can be proven to violate our copyright policies and also includes a ton of material that we must assume violates our copyright policies, as it was added by the same contributor from books which are not accessible. (It would be ridiculous for us to assume that he transcribed only content from those books which we can see but all other content is just fine.) Would you mind doing whatever you do for delisting? It's not a process I'm very comfortable with. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Delisted. AIRcorn (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Time 100

Have at it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What's the best way to work around the copyright issue? I understand that the list itself is copyrighted, fine, but I don't see how discussing individual people that are in it in a prose format is a copyvio. That would mean anything else we discuss on Wikipedia is also a copyvio, because we're discussing it at all. SilverserenC 20:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl? SilverserenC 22:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't ignoring you. :) I start at the bottom of my page and work my way up. I'll jump ahead and then go back.
I'm afraid that this question isn't easy to answer. You can discuss some of the individual people that are included in the list, but if you discuss all of them, then you're very likely going to be creating a derivative work. A derivative work is an expansion, an abridgment, any way that you can recast copyrighted content. The thing is to make transformative use of the work. You can talk about the list all you want - cite sources that talk about the list - but reproducing all of the elements from the list is almost certainly not going to happen. Just talking about the people is going to be odd unless you have sources that talk about the people being on the list.
See Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century; The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. These are two examples of articles about lists that talk about them without reproducing them. We used to feel reasonably comfortable reproducing, say, the top 5 or 10 of such lists, but the attorney's feedback suggests that this is not a good idea. She said that the top numbers are generally the most economically attractive and the most likely to supersede the original, shy of reproducing the entire list. That's how we wind up with List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. It reproduces a few numbers, but does not focus on the top of the list. It's much better to avoid the list altogether, in my opinion, than go there. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Alright, i'll see what can be done. But i'm fairly confident that something can be done for all of the yearly lists. There are a heck of a lot of sources that cover the list every year. I'm thinking, for the 2012 one, we could start simply with sources discussing the Gala and what happened there and mention some awardess that way. SilverserenC 04:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A good point is made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Time 100. Can you go and respond there to explain if that's correct or not? SilverserenC 05:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There. I answered you first. :D You can certainly write articles about these lists, if you think they are individually notable, or build on the master article at Time 100 if not. You just need to think of this like any other creative work - maybe like a poem or a song, since it's briefer than a novel. You can discuss critical reception, publication details, public response. You can talk a little bit about the content. You just can't reproduce too much of it. It's important to remember that one of the factors of fair use is "Effect upon work's value". Time has a commercial market for these. The more an article supersedes the desire of our readers to refer to the original, the more likely we are to violate fair use. That's not the only factor, of course; another big consideration is the "purpose and character" of the work. The more transformative our use, the more likely we are to be considered "fair." If you found critical sources arguing against the inclusion of some of the members of the list, reproducing specifically those members is very likely to be transformative, which would weigh in favor of fair use. Fair use is always going to be a careful balancing act, and the problem is that the only way you know for sure that your use is fair is if a court says it's fair. :) I think Wikipedia has very good reasons to be conservative with fair use (as per WP:NFC); you don't want to push the boundaries there, for your sake, for our sake, for the sake of the copyright holders and for the sake of the reusers. I can go on my soapbox about why I worry about any or all of these, but it's early yet and kind of outside the point. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, last question. How does this copyright of lists thing work in regards to all of the news articles that are reprinting the list in full? Are they violating TIME's copyright? SilverserenC 23:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You can ask as many questions as you want. :) I'm happy to answer what I know, try to find out what I don't. There are three possibilities: (a) they are violating TIME's copyright; (b) they have license; (c) they are depending on "fair use". It is possible for them to rely on fair use - even successfully - where we cannot. Fair use depends on many factors. For instance, we probably get away with a lot more "fair use" content if we rested on our "non-commercial" laurels, but because our content is licensed for commercial reuse as well, we don't rely on this. (Of course, we'd also be open to a lot more content in general, since we could accept non-commercial licenses.) (And I'm up past my bedtime again; hope this makes sense!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

On the complexity of copyright

I'm actually coming back to soapbox a little, now that it's morning. This is particularly important, I think, because you've indicated that you might want to help out with some copyright issues. I don't want you to get discouraged. I cringe when list articles cross the desk, because list articles can be some of the most complex copyright problems we face. Copyright problems range from the really simple (an article built entirely by copy-pasting from a website that isn't compatibly licensed? Straightforward) to the really complex (article built substantially by copying snippets from incompatibly licensed works, intermingled with what seems to be original material). But one thing all text based copyright issues share is that they are all reparable. That doesn't mean that articles are never deleted. While I've rewritten hundreds and hundreds of articles myself, I don't have time to rewrite every copyvio articles that comes our way. I'm more likely to rewrite stuff that (a) we would lose altogether - no clean content in history - that is too important to lose (like Battle of the Centaurs (Michelangelo)) or that (b) looks to me as if due to systemic bias we might not have coverage if we wait for somebody else to write it...especially but not exclusively if the audience most likely to know about it is not natively English and may be more likely to repeatedly recreate it through copying (Philippine Export-Import Credit Agency; Maligawila; Pheidole purpurea). (Sometimes this works out to be a lot of fun, by the way. I was delighted to find some gorgeous and compatibly licensed images of P. purporea, even though I couldn't find a lot of sourced content about the bug itself). Again, it doesn't mean that articles are never deleted. But it means that it is possible to write clean content that does not infringe.

Then you have list articles. List articles get a curve all to themselves, because there are multiple layers you have to look at in assessing creativity. You have to assess: (1) whether the list is opinion or fact, which is not always as straightforward as it seems; (2) whether, if fact, the selection of fact is creative (for instance, one court case found a directory of businesses creative because of its specific criteria for inclusion - so even though the list was fact, it was creatively selected fact and copying it was found to be infringement); (3) whether, if fact and uncreatively selected, the organization of facts are creative (to put this on a perhaps more easily comprehensible comparison, you can make a collage based entirely on public domain pictures - and your collage, even though every element in it is public domain, would be copyrighted). So, you've got multiple facets of creativity to determine, for every list. "Select bibliography"? Fine under (1), but fails (2) unless the selection is glaringly obvious and standard (eg. "Works published in 2012"). "Prettiest girls in my high school?" Fails (1). "Chart of interrelation between 'People Who Attended the World's Fair' and 'People Who Attended Burl Ives Concerts'"? Most likely fails (2) and (3).

Beyond the complexity of determining the issue, there is complexity in determining the solution. If a list (or chart or list-like entity) is likely to be a copyright problem, what you can do about it depends in major part on how "core" the copyright issue is. If it fails (3) only, you can still have a list. You just have to arrange it differently. If it fails (2), you can still have a list - you just need to use different selection criteria. (For rewriting articles, this can have fatal consequence. We can list all Nobel Prize Winners, but there's no way that we can include a comprehensive list in "People's Prettiest Nobel Prize Winners" without either infringing on their selection criteria or violating our own policies or both. But we can easily incorporate the works on a "Select bibliography" into our own "Select bibliography" as long as ours is more inclusive than theirs and our inclusion criteria are sensible and obvious. We do have to be careful not to make up convoluted excuses to keep their content; although we don't write "fair use rationales" with text, the way we do with images, we ought to have in mind that rationales should exist and should be sensible. I ask myself, "What would a judge say?" :)) If it fails (1), we have a much more substantial issue. At that point, we should shift our focus from discussing the elements of the list to discussing the impact of the list as a whole. We can discuss individual elements, but need to be careful not to create a derivative work.

I also try to keep an eye on these lists, because there are plenty of people who will come in, in good faith, and try to add in the list itself. This is not good for us for a couple of reasons.

From an altruistic/ethical standpoint, it's not good for us because it's not good for the copyright holder. Copyright laws protect the interests of human beings - their ability to market their work.

From a self-interested standpoint, it's not good for us because (a) it can hurt our reputation with the public and with reusers, who may come to consider us an unsafe proposition if we develop a reputation for carelessness with copyright or if they themselves are prosecuted for using content they believed from its presence on our websites to be licensed for reuse - this undermines our mission; and (b) it can cost us major volunteer time when and if we receive official takedown notices and must then delete the article, including all work put in by every volunteer who polished and contributed to it. These volunteer hours take a huge toll, as they could have been put into works that we could keep, and it also undermines motivation to contribute. I've seen articles that were copyright problems from their base where others have put dozens of hours into developing them. It makes me sick for those people; I can all too easily imagine how I would feel if something I had worked on like that had to be pulled as derivative. :( Doing our best to get this right from the start is in our best interest.

Anyway, sorry for the soapbox, but since I had the time I wanted to be sure that I was giving you context on this and not just kind of superficially responding to your question. And also letting you know that all copyright issues are not this difficult. List articles are their own kind of nightmare. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. It just gets really frustrating sometimes. What I was thinking of doing was to contact Time and see if they would allow us to use the list, since it really goes one of two ways, either we're allowed or they have to start going after the newspapers that have been reprinting the list. Could they just allow us OTRS access to it or do they need to put it completely in the public domain? Would putting it in the public domain hurt them at all? Because I don't think the list itself is making them money. I'm sure the coverage of the list is though. SilverserenC 19:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not like that. :) They don't have to allow us to do anything they don't want us to, no matter if they've let newspapers reprint the list or not. But it's fine to ask them to license the list - although you have to do it correctly. They have to put it under an explicit allowable license--if they wrote you back and said, "Sure, Wikipedia can use it," for instance, that would be no good to us. Because our content is liberally licensed for reuse and modification, their content would have to be licensed that way, too. You can find some recommended language for asking for license at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. They need to either explicitly license all of the Time 100 lists or explicitly license the lists for each year.
Some list owners have granted license. I could dig and find an example or two. Some have refused. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to both Moonriddengirl and SilverSeren for this lovely discussion. I enjoyed reading it because it clarified a lot of confusion I did not even realize that I had. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
LOL! Thanks, Bluerasberry. :D I'm impressed you bothered with the wall of text and pleased if it helped! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Query about template:cclean

Since you seem to be the face of WP:CV, I have a question. Is it considered necessary to add {{cclean}} to the talk page of an article whenever an alleged copyright violation is removed? Should it always be restored, if removed from the talk page? I know you routinely do add it, but what is the real benefit? New editors routinely add excerpts from press releases to articles, and they don't look at the talk page first, nor would this template be evident to them anyway. If anything has any benefit, I think edit notices such as the BLP one are more effective. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! :) I think the value of {{cclean}} varies. I created it years ago before we had "revision deletion" as a way to try to help encourage people not to restore the content once removed. It isn't always the person who originally placed the content who restores it; sometimes somebody else comes along, says "Hey, there used to be something here about this" and pulls it out. I don't know if they don't notice the copyright flag in the edit history. So I use a one-two punch of edit summary "copyright problem removed PLEASE DO NOT RESTORE see talk" (shouting and all) and {{cclean}}. I still rely on that where I don't use revision deletion.
I think {{cclean}} also has a potential value for those who might not restore it but might just want to know what happened to it and look to the talk page to see. For this reason, I am more likely to use it nowadays even when I revdelete if I think the article is likely to have curious eyes on it later, or if it seems likely to continue to draw the kind of people who will violate this policy--like schools in countries with relaxed attitudes towards copyright.
Finally, I think people who are affiliated with companies are more likely to see it. As I'm sure you've noticed, these people sometimes make throwaway accounts, so leaving notes on their original talk pages doesn't always help them. Too, there may be a new PR person for the company since John Smith first pasted the content. :) It's my effort to proactively explain.
I wouldn't restore a {{cclean}} if it was archived along with other content. If it was removed from the page otherwise, I would restore it just as I restore other content blanked from talk pages. If it was embarrassing a good faith contributor who had put the content in, I probably wouldn't argue about its removal. It's to educate, not shame. :)
That said, a template like the BLP one could be much more effective, since at least it would be at the top of the page. When I remove copyrighted content from articles about tv shows, movies, etc., I don't usually use {{cclean}}; I usually use {{Plot2}}. We'd need to try to make it eye-catching, though, if we try something like that. :) In my work capacity, I had a phone call with an attorney for an article subject just a few days ago who had been trying to do everything by the book, including engaging in the talk page many times, but he had never noticed the box at the top that directs "If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page." (Banner blindness may or may not be real, but I do wonder if we should bold part of that or something.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Your second-to-last paragraph is pretty much the issue. I think in some cases template is being used not to educate, not even to address the editor who put the text in, but rather as a scarlet letter, to demoralize the editors of the article, and to discourage content editing. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there a way that you can see to improve the language to avoid that? It's written to address the issues that I see over and over again - for instance, it is very common for editors to both restore content and to restore it with only a few words changed. It's also written to include information on how to verify license (for copyright owner and other). Language on blocking is meant to be cautionary, not quelling. But, of course, presentation can be improved. :) Alternatively, do you have suggestions for a top-of-page template? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User problem

I don't know how to handle this, so I'm approaching you. A user named Ghajinidetails stated this in an edit summary for the List of highest-grossing Bollywood films :-

"Ankitbhatt,u r from Kolkata na? why u r not able to see the reference which i have given.i have contributed more than u in wikipedia.give men ur mobile no. i will talk to u .dont create vandalism"

You can see the edit history here. I am not very happy with this development, as I have seen this behavior before and it has led to hacking in certain cases. Could you help me out? I'd be much obliged. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. :/ Well, first and foremost, don't give your cell number and consider carefully before responding to anybody's efforts to email you through the system. We assume good faith, but also remain security conscience. Don't give out any personal information that makes you uncomfortable, to anybody.
First, I'd open a section on the talk page to explain your issue with the content and invite him to take part there. I would tell him that you prefer to discuss issues on article talk pages in accordance with Wikipedia:Consensus, which both forms a record and permits others to take part. If you two can't agree at the talk page, you bring in others - I'll be happy to help you find a good forum to resolve your dispute, but I often start with WP:3O. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice :). Alright, I'll start a discussion, though the editor's past history of editing does not suggest that he will either participate or follow the consensus. I'll give it a shot. What intrigued me more was the user's ploy of using regional aspects to get his way, so to speak. Isn't that equivalent to WP:CANVAS? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 03:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I would think it's less an issue of canvassing and more an issue of potential harassment, but it depends on how he means it. He might just be trying to be friendly and establish "human" contact. If I were you, I'd start with assuming good faith (but, again, that doesn't require that you give out any information that makes you feel unsafe!) and try talking to him about the issues...publicly...turning to others if the two of you can't settle it. Hopefully, he will both participate and follow consensus. Any editor who does not is liable for sanctions under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. But never, ever start a conversation by mentioning that. :) It's one of the fastest ways I can think of to turn a possibly friendly and constructive encounter into a battle! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
LOL you're eight ;). I'll see what I can do. Thanks and cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Louis Head, Nova Scotia

Could you take a look at this for me? I largely blanked the article as the text showed all the signs of being copied from somewhere. The user that added the text has now got in touch with me (on my talk page) and said they developed the text in Word and copy and pasted from there. I'd be inclined to believe this except for the fact that when I copy and paste from Word I don't get the truncated lines you see when you edit their text. I'm leaning towards AGF on this but would appreciate a second opinion. Dpmuk (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's strange all right. Unfortunately, there are some issues. The content was added in 2010. The first change to the text came about six weeks later. I checked the original text and found a match at [25]. While Wayback is being wonky, this content seems to have been present since 2008 ([26]). That's the only content match I've found. (That said, please double-check to make sure that this isn't a coincidental text match. I'm shy on time at the moment. :)) But here the user seems to claim that it's a transcribed speech. I'd ask for clarification of those two elements, if I were you. (Or, if you'd rather, I will, but I'll wait to see if you'd prefer to continue the conversation yourself. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Cheers for that. I never managed to find that potential source when I search months ago but given that it's quite a small proportion of the whole I suspect I just didn't pick a term from that paragraph. Good spot on the speech, I hadn't spotted that. I've left the user a note outlining our concerns and suggesting that the easiest way to deal with it may be just to re-write a summarised version of it given that the current text is probably too detailed for an encyclopaedia article. Hopefully they're check their talk page and reply again quicker than last time so that it's fresher in my mind! Dpmuk (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I used my "is this a backwards copyvio?" trick. :) If I think there's a chance of that, I do a "next diff" check of the point of origin of the content. If we're lucky, there'll be a substantive change within a relatively small time period. I do a search of the unchanged text. That can eliminate a whole lot of backwards copying and zero in on potential actual sources. (You probably know that, but TPSers might not. :D) That's also why I noticed the speech attribution; it was a change added shortly after the copy-paste. That wall of text is hard to process otherwise. :/ A good reason for a summarized version anyway! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hope you will get a smile from this...

Hope you will get a smile from this 2012050810004842

(You don't need to open the attachment I copied the text to a note)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Awww! That's awesome. Thanks for sharing that! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

S. A. Ashokan

Ok miss moon ridden girl, pls remove the protection layer from S. A. Ashokan article. I promise to re-write it differently somehow. If i am unsuccessful, i'll shave off my eyebrows. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Per your request, I've removed the protection from the article in closing out the listing. For future reference, you do not need to be able to edit the article itself to rewrite a copyright problem. As was explained at your talk page:
Otherwise, so that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, this article should be rewritten; there is a link to a temporary space for that purpose in the instructions which now appear in place of the article.
The template that blanked the article included the following note: Otherwise, you may write a new article without copyright-infringing material. Click "Show" to read where and how. Once you click show, there is a link to the temporary page.
However, now that the article is unprotected and the content removed, you are welcome to write on the article directly. Please be careful to follow copyright policies and not to copy language from your source except as described at Wikipedia:Copy-paste and in the various policies it links to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Email

Just sent you an email! AnOpenMedium (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Jim Chou

This article seems to have re-appeared after an AfD process, after which it was decided that it should be merged elsewhere. It seems to be a very insubstantial article about a non notable person. Should this article therefore be deleted as a housekeeping matter, or must the whole AfD process be restarted? (Thanks for your long discussion of Gina Rinehart. I am letting some time go by before doing any more with it) --Greenmaven (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) It was a non-admin closure a day after it opened based on the input of two individuals. While that's a fine outcome if nobody objects, I'm afraid that it doesn't really constitute the kind of consensus that would warrant housekeeping deletion, since the AfD did not run its course.
I see a couple of possibilities here, two of which I could recommend. First, you could merge it again with a note of explanation on the talk page. (I'd recommend leaving a note for the IP also explaining why and asking him to engage in discussion at the talk page, with a link. It's pretty obvious that this is a stable IP and that he is affiliated with Shutterstock given his contrib history. I'd make the talk page note straightforward and cordial, written for a bright newbie. :)) Second, you could first put the note on the talk page explaining why it should be merged, let the IP know and wait a few days. If the IP doesn't respond, or agrees, I'd go ahead and merge. Of course, it's also possible that other edits may chime in and agree, so you may establish a good consensus on the talk page even if the IP doesn't agree.
(The other possibility I see is to relaunch the deletion debate without delay, but this may be just as effective, less dramatic and less upsetting to the individual in question, who is very probably working in good faith and - based on his edit summary - just assumes that lack of sourcing was the problem.)
If the IP works within process, great. Once consensus is nailed down, you can move forward happy in the knowledge that you have put a good face on Wikipedia for a Shutterstock employee who may then head off to edit football articles. :) If he doesn't, feel free to stop by if you'd like additional advice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I suggest using the WP:Merging process, including notifying the IP editor. It's basically Option #2 plus formal {{Merge to}}/{{Merge from}} tags. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_45&oldid=1147949239"