User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 → Archive 55

Email

Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SassyLilNugget (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Conk 9

(thread revived from archive) Do you remember Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Conk 9? Well, a sock puppet of User talk:Conk 9 has returned as User talk:GoUrban.

  1. His IP is the same. An autoblock caught him, but it was lifted.
  2. He's tried other sock at User talk:Jcon9.
  3. Both have same editing areas of buildings and sights around Hampton Roads, Virginia and Pittsburgh. See especially GoUrban's re-creation of Norfolk Southern Tower and Bank of America Center (Norfolk), both of which had been previously created by Conk 9.
  4. Both have uploaded strikingly similar images File:BankofAmericaCenterNorfolk.JPG versus File:DowntownNorfolk1.JPG. It's even the same camera style seen in the CCI.
  5. Both had no userpage.

I spent a long time cleaning up this guy's copyvios, and I'd hate to see him introduce more and more copyvios. Would you agree that we have a WP:DUCK here?--GrapedApe (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Well, first, SPI is not at all my thing. There are a couple of sock puppeteers I watch out for, but mostly I list them myself at WP:SPI because I like an admin with more experience there to evaluate before blocking. In this case, I think you present a really strong case. The question is how best to handle it. Conk 9's copyright issues were related to images. I see only one image uploaded by GoUrban. If he's staying away from the problem area, maybe the best way to handle it would be to erase the subterfuge, openly connect the contributors and seek an image upload ban (or impose a "pre-screen" via an experienced editor)? Are you aware of any other problems with Conk 9's work? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, GoUrban has uploaded images at commons. File:NorfolkMontage2011.jpg is particularly suspicious.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that's a whole different kettle of fish. :/ Commons doesn't recognize our sanctions anyway, although of course as we have shared goals they do sometimes impose sanctions of their own on contributors sanctioned here. Some of those images have consistent metadata, and some of them have no metadata at all (Commons:File:Olde Towne Portsmouth VA.jpg). It's possible that they don't have metadata because he snagged them from his Facebook? I don't know. Images are not really my area. But the one you flag as particularly suspicious is a concern.
I see a couple of possibilities here. First, I can go to Commons and ask him to identify the individual images that make up that montage. If he cannot, I will nominate it for deletion. Alternatively, on the basis of his history, I can nominate the image for deletion straightaway. Or, I can go to the Administrator's Noticeboard there and alert Common's admins to the issues (prior history of copyvios; indef block on Wikipedia) and ask them to look into it. (I'm not an admin on Commons.)
You did great work at that CCI, in terms of meticulously evaluating the data and cleaning up after him, and I certainly understand your wish not to see it happen again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the advice. If you're willing to block GoUrban here on en.wiki, based on the evidence above, I'll start sifting through the images on Commons for copyvios. Thanks.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks for bumping this. I had overlooked it. I think you offer strong enough evidence to warrant the block. I've gone ahead and followed through. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • See Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Conk 9 and socks.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Botanical descriptions

Hi MRG! Sorry to make your orange bar flash yet again. :) In my perigrinations at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 August 5, found a situation that needs clarifying re botantical descriptions. Could you possibly weigh in at Talk:Dipterocarpus costatus? For now, I've reverted the contentious material. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been here before (not that article, but that question). I need to find the discussion. :/ Looking for it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Argh. Can't find it. :/
However, reproducing some of my earlier research, it seems like descriptions are copyrighted. See, for instance, [1] where only those ant species whose taxonomies are not copyrighted were reproduced by the Smithsonian. This 2009 book says that myrmecologist Donat Agosti was known for championing liberating taxonomies from copyright protection, which would suggest he had a reason to. :D Andrew Polaszek (15 June 2009). Systema Naturae 250 - The Linnaean Ark. Taylor & Francis. p. 11. ISBN 978-1-4200-9501-2. Retrieved 18 October 2012. Likewise, this book indicates that current copyright laws prevent including original descriptions as a mandatory part of registering new taxa because of copyright laws. Quentin D. Wheeler (9 April 2008). The New Taxonomy. Taylor & Francis. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-8493-9088-3. Retrieved 18 October 2012. I think, given WP:C's prohibition that we proceed cautious with copyright, that we must presume that taxonomies are copyrighted until and unless we have a clear court decision that says they aren't. If taxonomies are copyrightable (as it seems likely they are), I think we cannot assume that we can copy botanical descriptors.
I'll go see what I can put of this at that talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Advice or other help needed

Hi again MRG, there's an issue that's come up here that seems rather serious. Could you have a look please? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm running out of time, but I will! I'll try to look later today or first thing in the morning. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, "rather serious" is enough to keep me around. :D I tracked down the entry of that content to October 2005; [2]. This material was modified by another editor a mnth later: [3]. If the quote given at the discussion you link is used in that book, I think there's little doubt that we had it first. It's unlikely that two different editors over two months would incrementally copy the book. Unfortunately, Google books won't let me see that page. :/ I can check for more if I'm given a few passages that are duplicated precisely. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It's beginning to look like the (rather prolific) wp editor is the same person as the chapter author in the book. DocJames has contacted the chapter author. It may just come down to needing a "Portions of this chapter were previously published on Wikipedia" sort of note in the next printing, but we'll need to know where else she's done this to avoid circular referencing. Other high risk articles to check are Cystic fibrosis and Prostate cancer, neither are on gbooks preview. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Donald Nicholson (biochemist)

Dear Moonriddengirl,

Thank you for your comment on my article. I have had another go at it. I am still struggling with: "In the 1950s Nicholson was teaching bacterial metabolism" as this seems to me to be bare fact presented in the only logical way. However I have cut out a lot of unnecessary fact bearing in mind that the original article is readily accessible and I have rephrased a lot.

So I hope this will do. Budhen (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Addressed further at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Well that's really excellent. Thank you very much for your help. I really do think this man is interesting and should have the profile that Wikipedia gives and your final version is very much better than mine. So I shall probably refer back to it as an example. I shall get on to Julia Pirie when I can. Thanks again. Budhen (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

OTRS and admin help

Hi MRG. I was looking at OTRS ticket 2012101810006348. It involves the deleted article International conference on Computer Simulation of Radiation Effects in Solids. As I am only an admin on Commons, I cannot look into the deleted material here on en wiki. The OTRS ticket apparently releases the involved text. Can you look into this? I can either unlock the ticket for you to process or you can let me know the proper course of action on OTRS on this. Thanks.PumpkinSky talk 14:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. :) I've restored it and put the tags on the talk. Feel free to close out with your correspondent. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thank you, closing otrs in a moment.PumpkinSky talk 23:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The Story of Miss Moppet

Hi Moonriddengirl, are you familiar with the case of The Story of Miss Moppet? A user nominated it at WP:TFAR and someone suggested that you be appraised of it. Do you know if the copyright issues have been resolved? Truthkeeper said she thinks "there's nothing wrong with it", but that she'd like us to get your input, as well. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, MRG. Just to jog your memory this is an ILT page that passed FAC. I scrubbed it with Ruhrfisch's help. In my view it would not be useful to run this on the main page for all of the obvious reasons. Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Adding, in the least all the links would have to be checked. I think I only cleaned about four or five of these pages and found serious problems. If this runs on the main page we'd most likely be putting up material that links to problematic pages in particular the Beatrix Potter page. I did scrub that but our friend has been back since and honestly I've taken most of these off my watch so haven't been scrubbing and rescrubbing. The history for Beatrix Potter is very problematic. If you'd like I can make a list of all the links in the Miss Moppet page that I'd consider problematic, but can't get to it immediately. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. :) I'm afraid that I don't have any first hand knowledge of the copyright status of the article. I'd trust Truthkeeper on that, since she did the heavy lifting there. The history (not edit history; but actual history) is pretty problematic, since we're talking about an entrenched copyright infringer who has socked extensively. If the user in question has been back, I would consider copyright concerns very likely substantial. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)::
Hi MRG, thanks for the response. When things calm down in a few day I'll be back (with a new thread) because I think we should brainstorm about what to do with the ILT CCI that's been open for almost two years, with very little work done to it. The problem, as I see it, is that most of those pages are of quite high quality, a number of them are GA, and they continue to have contaminated histories. I don't know who makes a determination whether or not we want pages with copyright violations on the main page (somewhere there's a discussion to put GAs on the main page), but my sense is that it's not a great idea, although maybe I'm worrying needlessly. That said, I haven't a clue how to deal with this situation as it stands, so maybe it needs some thought. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
So does that mean that the FA is irretrievably polluted and can't ever appear on the main page, although it has been "cleaned" of pollution? Should it have it's FA star removed and kicked out of the FA page? MathewTownsend (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response, I appreciate it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
What is the difference between the "actual history" and the "edit history"? Where is the "actual history" accessible to us newbies, or is that sekret info? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Actual history is not a technical page; it's memory of those people who have experienced it. :) This contributor has a long history of copying content from print and online sources, sometimes with very little alteration. I don't have any input on the FA process. I've never been involved in it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
ahhh! very interesting. so in other words, subjective memories (grudges and such) are more "reliable" than the actual page history. Effectively keeps out newbies, which seems to be the point. And wikipedia wonders why it can't retain new editors? Really? So why is the discussion about Miss Moffitt taking place on many diverse pages, none of them on FAR? Why is it the purview of a specific editor? Why did it pass FAC if all was s terrible? And the apparent fact that it's been "cleaned up" means nothing? Not very professional, but I guess wikipedia is run by a few "old crew" that bounces out newbies. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be interested in picking a fight here. I'm not, so I'll bid you good day. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Given your persistent confusion about this, I'll try to clarify in spite of your tone. If you want to discuss it further, please remember that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are policies. Like many, I respond best to polite conversation.
I distinguished above between actual history and edit history because I did not want anyone to be confused in thinking that I was using 'history' in the specialized term that we use here - that is, page history. I do not have a clue what copyright issues may or may not be found in the edit history of that article - I've never touched it. When I say the history is problematic, that's not what I'm talking about. The history to which I refer is my prior work on the CCI for the user in question - an entrenched sock-puppeting serial copyright infringer. My response is entirely to the context of the discussion here; I have no idea what discussions there may be going on about it in how many other places. The only ones I've seen have been at my talk page...until I followed you after your note here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Just a notification that I sent Miss Moppet to FAR (that sound like she's done something bad!). Link here: [4]. It's probably a good place for the discussion to occur and for the community to decide what to do. I added a bit of the history and can fill in as we go along. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Julia Pirie

Dear Moonriddengirl ,

I've had a further go at this one and hope it meets with your approval. I couldn't find another source that was independent. Budhen (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've done some cleanup, and also removed a link to the book that discusses the cases in which Ms. Pirie may have been involved; we can't use it as a source unless it has been consulted independently. Otherwise, we have to give credit to The Telegraph for their information.
I would wonder if there are no more sources (and I couldn't find any either) if Ms. Pirie--as interesting as she is--meets the requirements for WP:BIO or WP:N. As the latter explains, "Multiple sources are generally expected", in terms of satisfying notability requirements. :/ She certainly received good coverage in that single obituary, but not finding anything else is a bit of a challenge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 August 14

You have mail. MER-C 12:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Wikimedia-copyrightwarning

You seem like a person to poke about this, so any input you may have with regards to this editrequest would be appreciated, in whatever role you see fit. -— Isarra ༆ 20:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Isarra. I see that Philippe has been approached about this, but I have gone ahead and written to the attorneys about it. We'll see how they feel about the proposed change. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. -— Isarra ༆ 19:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Need your input at ANI (sigh)

Hi MRG. If you have time, could you weigh in at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright and legal threats on the copyright issue. The editor in question has filled the discussion with lengthy screeds. So, to make it a little easier to follow, a brief summary:

  1. He created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Johnson journalist. It was deleted as copyvio from his bio at Amazon cached version and later also found to duplicate his bio at Bangkok Books.
  2. In the current version at Amazon, he has now added the following:

    The author has asserted his right to allow free and unrestricted usage of this material, in whole or in part, on all websites worldwide, including Wikipedia, Bangkok Books, Myspace, Reverbnation, Facebook and others. No other party has the right to censor, prohibit or block use of this material for any reason.

  3. I've explained that this is not sufficient as it must be explicitly released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License to be reused here (even some admins seem unsure about this). I've also explained that even if it is eventually released under CC-BY-SA 3.0, it will in all probability be re-written by others beyond all recognition and unverifiable claims will be removed.
  4. However, he seems to think that his article should be restored immediately on the basis of the Amazon statement. He of course rejects any criticism of the promotional nature of the text and the lack of reliable sources, which in a way makes the copyright issue moot, but continues to make not so thinly veiled legal threats that failure to restore the article and/or any criticism of his preferred text or its sources constitute libel and Wikipedia editors and/or Wikipedia could find themselves in court.

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just noting that the amazon bio now mentions and links directly to our article on cc-by-sa, which would be good to go, except that the last sentence, No other party has the right to censor, prohibit or block use of this material for any reason. is still there, and that constitutes, I think, a verbal limitation akin to Creative Common's No Derivatives. In other words, if the bio gets edited later, the author could come back and claim censorship. Let him retract that sentence, cut down the wall of text, then restore the article and prune it down to WP:V content, at least that's how I see it. MLauba (Talk) 08:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, yes. He's gone ahead recreated it already, possibly reworked somewhat but still very promotional and unencyclopedic in many places, and I have a feeling that many of his "new references" may not actually verify what they claim to be verifying at all. I also have a feeling that if this article ever gets into main space, it's going to be an ongoing source of trouble. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the rush to get the article on Wikipedia coincides with the publication date of his second (self-published) novel—October 18th. I intend to steer well clear of him, although I will keep an eye on a couple of articles which he has expressed a desire to edit and which are about journalists whom he has accused of defamation. Not a good plan on his part, but there you have it. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I got the same vibes. It feels like a promise of endless wikilawyering. He's got one point though. Provided at least some of the sources check out (which I didn't verify), the subject is notable and passes the inclusion bar. I just hope this doesn't turn into another saga like the one about the gentlemen who ran around the world. MLauba (Talk) 10:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I share your concerns and have posted there. In addition to the derivative restriction MLauba mentions, there are problems with his specifying a narrow range under which CC-By-SA is permitted (webpages) and using the single license, when he seems to be the sole author of the content there and here. Our Terms of Use require dual licensing in such situations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Shows how rusty I am, I completely forgot about the dual license requirement for sole authors. The discrepancy between single authors and multiple authors is a bit of a pain though, and I wonder if the time isn't ripe that the WMF amended the terms of use. That requirement made sense when we switched the license back in 2009 for a various number of reasons, among others to avoid put our legacy reusers into an untenable situation. However, 3 years later, I'm highly skeptical that any GFDL-only reusers pay attention to articles with content licensed under CC-BY-SA only and skip importing them. At the same time, the requirement places an additional burden on single authors wishing to donate content as opposed to multiple authors. It may be time to rethink that approach. Not for WP to say alone but certainly a WMF-wide issue to consider. MLauba (Talk) 11:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
The last update to the Terms of Use followed several months of community discussion and required a resolution by the Board of Trustees. I think there would have to be a pretty strong consensus in the community for the legal team to consider it, but the place to bring it up (even if only for consideration in future iterations) would be m:Talk:Terms of use. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Never heard of the "gentlemen who ran around the world" saga. I imagine I'm glad to have missed it.:) But this one is quite reminiscent of the early stages of the "Robert Shaw (theatre director)" saga. The editor in question drove everyone bananas at the talk page of the biography he had written for himself with claims of harassment, bullying, endless wikilawyering, etc. until he made the fatal error of taking his grievance to Jimbo's talk page. Whereupon Jimbo went straight to the article and decimated it. Alas, after continuing to drive people bananas on related pages, AfDs etc., it all ended rather badly. Voceditenore (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio from editor with 700 edits

I discovered Mariepr (talk · contribs) from a post someone left about copyvio at SS Santa Paula (1916) at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#SS Santa Paula 1916. I looked into more of her edits and much is copyrighted, but it is difficult to spot. Phrases like "dividing fashion into seasons and for deciding to sell paper patterns of his creations to the international market, preferring to sell his own ideas himself, rather than falling victim to inevitable imitations" have been copied from here to here. Another phrase, "his aggressive self-promotion earned him the titles "father of haute couture" and "the first couturier." was copied from here in the same edit. It is the fact that she's copying from multiple sources at once that makes it difficult to spot. What should we do about this? CCI? Ryan Vesey 14:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we traditionally do. :/ My general approach is to spot check an editor's contrib history and see if I find five articles with clear issues. I don't know if you've ever taken the dupdet tool for a test drive, but it is a sweet way of organizing this work and making it manageable.
For instance, this contributor really only has about 30 articles to be concerned about; that's a whole lot more doable than 700 edits. :) (This link will expire). I grabbed one at random (SS Santa Paula (1932) and confirmed that there's some close following on one of its sources. I didn't find it by checking the sources; I found it by grabbing a sentence at random and performing a google search. But my experience suggests that in this kind of situation you have an entirely good faith misunderstanding of how much rewriting is expected. I would be surprised to find any duplication to a source that is not cited, based just on that one article. I think there is no intent to violate either WP:Copyrights or WP:Plagiarism.
In this kind of case, if the contributor is amenable, it can be a good idea to point out diplomatically that the issue may exist in additional articles and to ask her (presuming from name) to check and revise where necessary. (I would not do this if my spot-check found issues substantial enough that I felt I had to blank the articles, but only where the {{close paraphrasing}} tag seems sufficient to me - generally, when I think that the content is not substantially similar to a given source.) There is sometimes some initial dismay; I find it really helpful to point out from the start that our local policy simply requires that all information taken from non-free sources, aside from explicitly marked quotations, must be put into your own words. Since you've already established a connection, you might want to give it a go, but - if you can - could you please spot-check a few more articles in case there are more extensive issues than we realize? After a holiday weekend, I'm expecting a pretty busy day today. :D If you want assistance with this - poking about or talking - please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk)
What do you think of this duplication I found at Stephen Payne (designer)[5] [6]. There's an obvious attempt at rewriting it, but it seems way too close. Ryan Vesey 23:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
While many of the matches flagged by dupdet are incidental, I think there are a couple of phrases that need rewriting or quoting. I would flag that with {{close paraphrasing}} or mention it to her. It's the kind of thing that I might under some circumstances simply rewrite myself - when there is no pattern of issue, anybody can have an off day - but where there is pattern, the most important thing is helping the editor learn local best practices so that she can continue adding content without encountering further or worse problems. Win-win. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know, this is where we are at right now. I've checked articles through March 10. Ryan Vesey 15:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mariepr here. I found this page during my checks of the SS Santa Rosa (1932) page for duplications. I know that I am intruding into a private dialogue but may I be permitted to personally address some of the issues raised here and at User_talk:Mariepr#Copyvio and at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#House_of_Worth_Copyvio. Most importantly, may I outline what I am doing to correct any close paraphrasing problems.

  • Sources: I can unilaterally say that none of my edits contain any source material what was not cited in References sections. (Where other editors obtained their source material is something only they can know.) In the interest of verifiability only source text available on the internet is used and not any from "dead tree" sources. In one way it's a shame because a book edited by a major publisher would tend to have the facts right and therefore be far more reliable regarding content. But if the source material is online other editors can check it for relevant content - or duplication. Giving as a source a printed book on say, Ships of the Grace Line, another editor would have to be an expert in the subject to have it on his/her shelf or would have to make a time consuming trip to a reference library. (Or, spend the money to buy the eBook as is increasingly possible.)
  • House of Worth: I had no role in the press releases that had been incorporated into it over the past two years but my attempts to write a neutral POV and add inline citations confused the attributions to the point where it become difficult to identify which editors were responsible. A "clean" subpage has been drafted and I am working with User talk:Voceditenore to resolve the matter. One thing that I have learned from this is that press releases are copyrighted material! This was astonishing to me because a press release is written specifically to promote a product or service in the hopes that its contents will be indeed be copied and disseminated as news.
  • Close Paraphrasing: My usual approach to drafting an article is to do so in my own userspace sandbox. This gives me full functionality for inserting inline citations, wikilinks, etc. I prefer to do this as the article is developed rather than pick through it and insert the citations later. I'm aware that uploading an article with copy/paste directly from sources is a copyright violation so I don't (intentionally) do it. What I have done is to paste into the sandbox source text, re-write it, then delete the source text. What appears to be the problem is that too much remained as verbatim source text. I had not until this week known that Toolhaus Duplication Detector existed! While I was aware of the CorenSearchBot I thought that duplication detectors were Administrator tools. What I would have done differently was to run the Duplication Detector on each of the cited references and change any significant matches found.
  • New Article Review: Several of the articles which I authored regard cargo and passenger ships. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships (where I am not a member) does patrol for new articles which might fall within their scope. They review and grade articles according to their own project standards. After uploading an article and having it reviewed by at least two other editors, I hope you can understand my astonishment that months later there might copyright compliance problems after that review. My initial trials with Duplication Detector have turned up matches for vessel technical information (US government agency public domain material) and a lot of technical but generic ship vocabulary. (How many ways can it be said that a vessel "was scrapped in 1985"?) One example of an article passing project review was Typaldos Lines and, since it mentioned a lawsuit, included in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law - a group which should be very aware of copyright and other legal issues. What I would do differently is outlined above. And if the same "generic phrases" come too close together it can be construed as duplication.
  • Past edits: I have begun to use Duplication Detector against the articles which I had authored. Those edited with the past two days are Type_C6_ship, Horizon Lines, Ted Alan Worth, SS Santa Rosa (1932), and Typaldos Lines. I will continue checking the articles which I had authored and will next move to those where I added substantial content. If it has been a while since the article was last visited inline citations may have been lost by subsequent editors.
  • Lessons Learned: Any material, electronic or printed, is copyright protected unless specifically in the public domain or formally released for use. In some of my past hobbies group newsletters often didn't mind if their material was re-used so long as they were given credit for it. But those were non-profit groups and there was no commercial interest to copyright.
  • Going forward: My interest right now is to help clear any copyright problems that may be associated with my contibutions. I'm aware it was brought up from the very beginning that this normally has to head down the CCI path, if for no other reason to protect Wikipedia. That is indeed regretful and most importantly it exhausts volunteer time that would otherwise have been spent on the development of content. However should that nonetheless be necessary I want to cooperate and help "clean up any messes". NightSt✷r (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You're welcome here. :) I appreciate your working to assist with this and certainly do understand your astonishment. People do not always look for paraphrasing issues when reviewing articles, so sometimes articles that have undergone peer review do turn out to have issues that were missed. Fortunately, these can be cleaned up later. :)
If I may speak to some of your specific points:
  • Offline references are okay, although online sources do have the advantages you mention. You just need to be careful to provide full citation information and, of course, to put the information in your own words, unless you are explicitly quoting.
  • Yes, until and unless some court definitively declares otherwise, press releases can be copyrighted material. The people who put them out may have choices about who publishes them, where and in what context, and they certainly may object to modifications of the material.
  • The Duplication Detector is a great tool for helping to pinpoint problems but does have some limitations in that it searches for text strings only. To try to make why this is a problem more clear - if you translate from Chinese into English, you are replacing every word, but you are still infringing the copyright of the original (see Derivative work). Rewriting to avoid taking creative content from your sources goes beyond word substitution, into the the structure of the piece as well. I can talk about this more, if you'd like. :)
Again, I do appreciate your work here. I hope that it will not prove to be too difficult. If you have any questions or need assistance, please feel free to come by. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Duplication Detector does have its limits especially when it returns a long string of closely matching text. An editor with some background in ships wouldn't get alarmed at a match for ...converted into a crane ship by Dillingham Ship Repair, Portland, Oregon in 1986, renamed Grand Canyon State T-AC-3.. Not exactly flowing and creative narration. Somebody unfamiliar with the genre however would see such a length of character match as a huge red flag. Ironically the blanked Type C6 ship article is one with the fewest problem areas. The flagged text mainly consisted of vessel technical details which are US government agency public domain data. Just to update you where my close phrasing check stands, I have checked and tweaked where needed: SS Santa Rosa (1916), SS Santa Rosa (1932), The Emerald (design and oil tanker collision sections, as those were the only two which I edited), SS Santa Paula (1932), SS Santa Paula (1916) and Stephen Payne (designer). There may be some duplication within RMS Pendennis Castle as it was one of my first articles, so I'll run through that next. NightSt✷r (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps Moonriddengirl would think differently, but I've written a number of articles on ships including 3 DYK's and a GA and I found that to be a problem. How is that difficult to rewrite? Ryan Vesey 03:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Y'know, we get so caught up sometimes with people who purposely paraphrase to get themselves more accolades that we forget many people do it completely on accident. Thanks so much for working with MRG and Ryan to address this. I, for one, am impressed by your attitude here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I think probably they frequently are accidental. People often struggle between meeting the close adherence to sources required by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and the need for complete rewriting. :) I don't know enough about ships to know what is formulaic, but I do know that English is a very word-rich language. It's a real benefit when it comes to rewriting! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to give you an update, I've checked RMS Pendennis Castle and made some text rewrites. Nothing was too bad. Also checked was Port of Southampton regarding earlier edits on the cruise terminals and planned expansion sections. No paraphrasing there but some links had rotted and they were fixed. Also checked was United States Lines but I had been building a list of their vessels and had only minor edits in the narrative sections. Tomorrow I'll look at another article. NightSt✷r (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

MS American Leader has now been run through Duplication Detector, although I may have to give a couple of references another pass in 24 hours. The fate of the crew section relies mainly on a sole source - that of a still surviving crew member/POW. NightSt✷r (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Further progress: Finished phrase checking MS American Leader, SS Aleutian, and Scents of Time. NightSt✷r (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Duplication Detector is being run on USAHS Marigold and USAHS Acadia. Two external sites were not loading at all and will have to be checked later. In both of these articles the sources are a mix of US government public domain material as well as copyrighted material e.g., veteran personal recollections published on private sites as opposed to official reports from their function as members of the US military. NightSt✷r (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Finished check of hospital ships. Also checked articles where I didn't have substantial contributions Heather Whitestone - cited reference long since deleted by subsequent editors. Also articles where I may have added one citation: Curtis Organ, Virgil Fox, Tillamook Rock Light, SS United States, William H. Miller (writer), American Queen, Laoise Murray, RMS Queen Mary 2, Norwegian Epic, Cunard Line, Sagafjord, Harland and Wolff, Atlantic Star (cruise ship), SS Nomadic, and Royal Mail Ship. Wyndcliffe is a stub article but the description was taken from the Library of Congress and therefore PD; bare URLs fixed. I've put a copyright notice on the talk pages of articles where a substantial amount of material was taken from US government sources.
House of Worth now has the "clean" version in the main space. Type C6 ship is still blanked (where I disagree that this was necessary but it was done) is awaiting approval of the "clean" version.
Thank you for your patience. This incident started when another editor had wanted to welcome me back from an absence and nominated the SS Santa Paula (1916) for a DIY. (It would serve no purpose to tell the man what happened from his intended good deed as he would be horrified - and perhaps openly admonished for not vetting a DIY nomination more thoroughly.) I don't fault anyone for identifying possible copyright problems in my contributions. And the situation was discussed before anyone took unilateral action. If I find my "feelings hurt" over the comments that implied deliberate copying and infringement on my part I have only to check the Wikipedia policy:..."If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations..." NightSt✷r (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for my delay in response; I don't always look high enough in my page to see what's going on (bad me) and I had kind of formed the impression that you were using this thread to organize clean up efforts, which is absolutely fine. Always happy to lend space to a good cause. :D
That clause in policy was created some years ago to deal with rare and serious situations. Specifically, it was in response to a contributor who had been found to have been copying from one or two reference books for years, into thousands of articles. We had no way to verify each of these articles against the reference books. After verifying that a large number were directly duplicated, we presumptively removed all of the content he added...itself a pretty major undertaking. Since then, we've only have to evoke that clause en masse a couple of times. I've applied it to a few individual articles in CCIs where a source can't be found but content reflects the pattern of copying, but we try to check even there rather than removing indiscriminately.
The attribution of public domain sources does not belong on the talk page, but on the article itself; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism. This way, our readers know that content is taken in substantial part from somewhere else. If you can, please, correct the attribution on those, I'll go take a look at House of Worth and Type C6 ship. If the articles are not too complex for me to review properly right now, I'll see if I can process those listings. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Another admin has already done House of Worth. I've reviewed Type C6 ship. I believe it's all right. It can be hard to assess articles in highly technical fields with which you're unfamiliar, but I reviewed the sources in question and didn't see anything. If there are additional issues pointed out, I'll see what I can do to help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Wyndcliffe is the only article where an attribution was made to a public domain source on the talk page, and that is now fixed in the main article. I've went over USAHS Marigold and USAHS Acadia and inserted the names of the surviving veterans whose quotes were used - in addition to the inline citations that were already there. The talk page was also needed for Type C6 ship as that was the only place where the justification for the close phrasing (ship technical details) could be made. The "clean" version that you now placed into the main space should be OK.
I've asked another admin for a volunatry block for a month which he didn't do. The accusation of deliberate copyvio by Ryan Vesey and Spinning Spark totally blindsided me and in trying to clean this up I've added plagerism :-( The longer this drags on the worse it gets. I regret that I was unable to make useful contributions that complied with copyright law and proper attribution. At this point I only want to finish the clean up and get out before doing further damage. NightSt✷r (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the issue. :) I don't know what administrator you asked for a block, but I have to say I can't really see the value in it. You made a mistake. We all make mistakes of some kind or another; I make them regularly enough to keep me humble. The plagiarism mistake is a particularly easy one to make, as it relies upon knowing and meeting local standards. There's not exactly a universal definition. What's important is if we contribute in good faith, if we accept correction, and if we can move forward without repeating the same mistakes. Your rewrites suggest you can. If you want to leave, of course, you have the absolute right to do that - a block is certainly not necessary - but it's obvious that you've got a lot to contribute. I hope you'll reconsider. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat related to our previous conversation

I've just expanded OPG v. Diebold. Apparently it's OK to sometimes republish a lot of material (15,000 emails in this case) and it can still be considered fair use. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I don't remember our previous conversation. :) If it's important, I'll look for it, but without context I'll assume it's not important, since this is somewhat related. Fair use is highly context dependent, as our article notes. This is one of the reasons that we don't rely on it here, but instead use our own non-free content policy which deliberately utilizes more narrow criteria. IMO, it was a good judgment - clearly Diebold was attempting to misuse copyright to quash valid criticism. Thanks for working on the article! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I was alluding to User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_48#This_might_be_tricky. Apparently fair use is interpreted broadly when it comes to politics-related material deemed of public interest. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

CCI update

Every little bit helps. Now if only another pops up that I can get a group of editors interested in, feels like the well's temporarily dry again. --Wizardman 04:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, while I have this up, do you know if Banglapedia is mirrored anywhere? Went to do that after this and they have a 509 bandwidth limit. I'm fine waiting until November but that's finally nearing completion, so I don't want to be stuck where I am. Wizardman 04:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Yay! :D That's awesome. I swear, you need a statue somewhere.
Re: Banglapedia, that's considerably less pleasing. :/ I've poked around a bit. I found this adware-happy website: [7]. I don't know if it's a complete mirror, but the few articles I poked in on looked like the real deal. :) For downloading, I found this. Is that free? Legal? Would they load up a computer with evil programs? I cannot answer any of those questions. :/ Otherwise, I might recommend using wayback if you know the link to the Banglapedia article.
By the way, in case my appreciation seems too effusive to be real, it's not. :) I have an intense admiration for your dedication to this work. It's both humbling and inspirational. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) The mirror works, so I'll be able to continue doing that. Hopefully I can at least keep the copyright number plateaued, but that's easier said than done. Wizardman 18:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Greenwich School of Management

A stub on this institution was created today, popping up on my watchlist because I apparently took an earlier article on the topic to CP back in 2010, which you deleted after seven days. I have no memory of what the old article looked like, but the new one is a very close paraphrase of the sole source cited in it. What do you think? Deor (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's very different from the old one. :) It could possibly use some further revision, but the old one was a much more extensive and closely copied version of its source. I think given the uncreative content that is closely paraphrased here that this is probably okay. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that other editors have made it look somewhat less like the original source. Deor (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Caves of Balankanche

This article is exactly copies Chichen Itza*Site description*Architectural groups*Other structures*Caves of Balankanche: <snip> Strannik27 (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm checking to see whether the content needs to be removed from the article or of the spin-off article may be restored, with proper attribution. --User:Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks good for us. While there is considerable duplication to the suspected source and it carries a copyright notice dated 2007, we have evidence of natural evolution. That section was heavily revised in August 2007, but the subsequent section on Archaeological Investigation was already in the article.
That section had entered the article two months before. Unfortunately, it was added by the same contributor...unfortunate, since I consider that two different contributors copying content from the same source is considerably less likely than one doing it incrementally. Even if I myself have little doubt (and I have little doubt), for proof of reverse copying, multiple authors is really helpful.
But then we just have to look at the progress of the content. First change altered "cenote" to "well". Odds of his copying it incorrectly and then changing it back are pretty much nil. Even the section header was changed.
I'll mark it a backwards copy at the talk page of Chicken Itza and then go see what needs to be done about the other article. --User:Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I restored the other article to attribute it, but then deleted it again under WP:CSD#A10. There was nothing in it except the copy from the main article, and the references were unusable in that format because "Andrews 1970" doesn't give us any insight whatsoever into who Andrews is. If somebody wants to spin it off, that would be perfectly appropriate if it is sufficiently notable to stand alone. More likely, a redirect would serve if people who want to find the topic won't find it in the main article.
I'll explain to the contributor about the requirements of attribution. If by chance you are that contributor, using a different account, please see User_talk:Странник27#Copyright_problem:_Caves_of_Balankanche for an explanation of what you must do when you copy content from Wikipedia into another article. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Kerry Bog Pony

When starting work on Kerry Bog Pony, I discovered that a significant portion of the article was copyvio/close paraphrasing, mostly from various pages of this breed association website. Looking into the history, I discovered that the problem stretched back to the creation diff of this article, with the majority of the content from this page. I have a completely rewritten version of the article in a sandbox (User:Dana boomer/Sandbox3), but I'm not sure what the proper procedure is regarding an article that has been a copyvio since its inception, over 5 years ago!!!! Any help would be appreciated, Dana boomer (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Happens frequently. :/ Please go ahead and replace the article with your rewrite. We can try just using the {{cclean}} at the article's talk page and rev-deleting the earlier text only if somebody tries to restore it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the reply. I've now replaced the text and added cclean to the talk page, so we'll see what happens next! Dana boomer (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio for citations 2.0

This is with respect to the discussion we had couple of months back. I got reply from Directorate of Film Festivals today saying "The copyright over citations in the catalogue published by us is ours as per the Indian Copyright Act. However, we have no objection for the use of the citations in the article on Wikipedia on 59th National Film Awards provided the citations are used without any modifications." Now, I am not sure whether the email from DFF would suffice or not. If not, can you guide for the further steps to be taken. - Vivvt • (Talk) 10:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid not. :( As I mentioned them, one of the biggest disappointments we get is when a rights-holder grants permission "for Wikipedia", because we can't use that. They would have to license the content compatibly with WP:CC-By-SA for us to use the material. This license permits both modification and reuse by others, including commercially. If I were you, I would ask them respectfully if they would consider licensing the material as described at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. This is not asking them to relinquish their copyright, but merely to permit others liberal permission to use it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion on Trenton, New Jersey

Normally I'd be calling this one a backwards copy without a second thought but as the potential copier appears to be the official website of Trenton I'd prefer a second opinion from you or a talk page stalker. The copyvio tag was removed by a new editor as their only edit but the section in question is the second paragraph starting "Trenton dates back to...". There are two reasons I think this is a backwards copy. First when the text was first introduced here it was missing the "at least" which which introduced here and is on the other website. Second waybackmachine has the page archived from 7 Oct 07, i.e. after we have the text, and the page then does not include the text in question. The copright notices on the page also suggest it may have been overhauled in 2010 which is when I suspect the text was introduced. Thanks. Dpmuk (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The folks in Trenton are just a little busy today with Hurricane Sandy. Under the circumstances, waiting a few days seems fair if you need any input from the city's webmaster. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Good point, LeadSongDog, but I don't think we'd need any help. A change made two years later is reflected in the source, which patently did not publish the text in 2007. I think that's strong enough evidence for a {{backwardscopy}}. It's not surprising that other websites (even governmental ones) sometimes think our content is entirely free for reuse; our own editors get confused on that, when copying material from one article to another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Cheers for the second look. Obvious case but wanted to dot my is and cross my ts on this one. Dpmuk (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Swarup Ranjan Mishra

Hi Moonriddengirl. Thought to bring this user to your attention who again has started adding copyrighted content to articles. --SMS Talk 15:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :/ Indefinitely blocked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

Authorship of a Wikipedia article

One of our articles has just undergone peer review Dengue fever and will soon be published ( in a couple of months ) in a pubmed indexed journal. The project is described here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaborative_publication#Licensing. I hear that you have a great deal of expertise on authorship requirements for CC BY SA and wondering if you would be willing to join this teleconference with the journal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, a hearty congratulations to the editors who have worked on this. :) That's really exciting. :D
I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of teleconferencing under any assertion of expertise. While I am familiar with the work here, I am not an attorney, and as WP:REUSE notes, none of us is able to offer legal advice. Speaking with my lay understanding, I believe that the page you link is quite right about the issues - there are serious challenges in releasing content under a more liberal license than the authors permit. The chart by Creative Commons, of course, confirms that CC-By-SA cannot be converted to CC-By. Of course, the original authors are free to license the content differently for publication elsewhere. I'm happy to discuss my understanding of this further, but for the reasons I've already expressed don't I'd best take part in a teleconference with the journal. :/ If they want to talk to an expert, it might be better to ask somebody with Creative Commons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Gauri Ma

Can you do a copyvio check in this page: Gauri Ma? Related discussion. I have searched in Google and some positive results, but not fully sure! --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I mean at least few are surely mirrors of WP. But, still some expert opinion needed! --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much; your concerns are well founded. I have reversed the article to an earlier state, with an explanation on the talk page. Some of the content removed may be clear of copyright concerns, but I'm afraid it is not going to be easy to verify this, given the breadth of copying. :/ I hope the semi-protection on the article will help. I have had a word with the registered contributor who seems to have had some confusion about our copyright practices. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio being restored

Hi. The copyvio at Union, Ubay that you cleared out has been restored by the original violator, User:Olivarries, who also tried to remove an AfD notice from Loon, Bohol Elected Barangay Officials (2010-2013) today. Can anything be done, please? --Stfg (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Blocked for 72 hours and message left. Their recent contributions need checking. The three larger contributions I checked all seemed to introduce material from the same website as before but I don't have time to check more now. Dpmuk (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, we needed that breathing space. The website you mentioned in the block notice is the only one I'm aware of that he's done copyvio from. (There's a CCI, by the way). His recent contributions have included copying images of barangay official seals from there to the articles' infoboxes. His other activity is to create massive pages of local election results, all for Bohol. I understand these are not copyvio, but they are massively high-volume WP:IINFO in my view. If the Loon AfD goes to deletion, I'll be doing a block nom of 47 more. Today he has created two new electoral results pages on a slightly different pattern. It's hard to see where this is heading. --Stfg (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Stfg for finding that it's ongoing. :/ And thank you, Dpmuk, for not only putting a temporary halt to it but for explaining the issue to him so succinctly and clearly. :) If he continues after this, without providing any evidence of permission, I think we'll have no choice but to indef. I've completed the check of all of his contributions since the CCI listing and cleaned up a few more copy-paste issues. It's all documented at the bottom of the existing CCI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

protection

I request you to pls protect this article: Mankatha for at least a month. bcoz the film's actor has such insane fans, they keep altering the content in the article and their edits are never noticed. so pls protect it. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As a first step, I have created an edit notice for the page. It may help. Let's give it a shot before protecting. I'll try to keep an eye on the article to see if it helps; please let me know if you notice that it does not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Flickr

I have now added 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). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatureSam (talk • contribs) 08:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the "template" on the talk page of the article to log your permission. That will allow you to incorporate the text, making sure that it otherwise meets policies and guidelines. Please be sure you keep that notice displayed on the Flickr page. While we use webcitation to log such permissions in case the releases are removed, Flickr doesn't seem to work with the webcitation archival process. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Change of the title: Port Lympne

Hi

Ive been asked by work (The Aspinall Foundation who own the house) would it be possible to change the title from Port Lympne, to Port Lympne House so as not to confuse the visitors to the wild animal park? If so is this something only you can do? I'm very excited in that on the 15th September 2013 I'm going to open up the house to the public as part of the Heritage today Open weekend.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatureSam (talk • contribs) 08:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not something only I can do, but I did it anyway. :) I moved it to Port Lympne Mansion, since that's the name used in the article itself, and fixed the links elsewhere. If you need to move it again at any point, you can follow the procedure at Help:Move. And congratulations on the pending opening! I'll go take care of the note you've left me above. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright question for you

See WP:ELN#Link to a BBC History article hosted in an academic site. A copy of an article from BBC History magazine, is hosted on an academic server as course information. There is no information on the copyright status but the original author is a historian at the university. Would I be correct in my presumption that without a clear cut indication of copyright status we shouldn't be linking to it? Would you agree? I'd be grateful if you could take a moment to comment at WP:ELN. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Opined there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Recently released Bengali films

Please help here if you can. The things which have been tried 1) warning users 2) Indic noticeboard reporting 3) ANI reporting 4) multiple page protections. The ANI thread is here. These editors are increasing in numbers (both registered and anonymous). They are making more number of edits in more articles now. Most of the other vandal fighters have given up. It is difficult to monitor 13-14 accounts and similar number of articles. It'll be disappointing for me if someone gives me edit warring or 3RR warning. For a long time now, I have been going to every possible places for suggestions! Any suggestion? --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

[This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paglu&curid=31958798&diff=520929015&oldid=520866802] is the most recent edit (unreverted still). --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Didn't notice it was an archive. I've put my solution there. :) I've semi protected the ones that seem to have ongoing issues for two weeks. I recommend escalating templated warnings for any registered users who persist in the behavior, followed by blocking as necessary if they will not stop. The protection can be extended if needed, but I would also suggest considering an edit notice, such as the one I just created here for Mankatha. I believe these are a bit helpful, although I am all too aware that they are not guarantees. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Though there were multiple articles, I have created draft notice for two articles here: Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Paglu 2, Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Khokababu --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
They are continuing similar edits in those (and now few more) articles! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
That's okay. That's part of the recommended escalating warnings and blocks I mentioned above. :) That's how they learn that they can't do it. But I'm afraid that you put the edit notices at the wrong page - sorry; I didn't notice that earlier. I'm moving them to the correct space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I am personally very happy at this moment. An editor has been blocked. But only for 48 hours. I have some special messages in my talk pages where I have set criteria "Do not archive till November 20012" (yes twenty thousand twelve). People should think like this, bigger.. bigger... just kidding.. ignore.. please..
Only admins can create editnotices, non sysops can suggest in talk page. So, I posted that there!
The best thing might be: do a blind sockpuppet test. Check all suspected editors of those affected articles and block all sockpuppets if there are any. But, Wikipedia does not allow such investigation. I am still trying to understand who might be whose sock (so many accounts and all edits are similar).
Most probably you noticed all of reverts were re-reverted..
Frankly Moonriddengirl, I know I have been in an edit warring and most probably have been trapped in 3RR too. Some admin may warn me for that too. But the thing they will miss most probably, I am almost begging for suggestions and help in almost everywhere (noticeboard, ANI, admin's talk page)!
Breaking News: If you know Dr Blofeld, he has retired for some reason.--Tito Dutta (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC) typo correction arn → warn signed: Tito Dutta (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear about Dr Blofeld. :(
Reverting vandalism is exempted from 3RR, and vandalism includes "[[WP:SNEAKY|adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes)." I think probably you'll be okay. Removing inflated box office grosses is different than edit warring over a POV or something like that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

CCI update

Finally, one of the big old ones is down. Exhausting, but am almost able to keep pace with how fast they're being added nowadays. --Wizardman 04:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Congratulations and thank you. Do you have any ideas how we might be able to get more people involved in this work? My various appeals to AN haven't had long-term success, although they've brought a few folk in for little bits of time. I'm pretty sure that Village Pump doesn't get enough readership to make a difference. Do you think if Signpost would run a story for us that it would help? If so, we could perhaps put together a simple "How to" for CCI, based on the existing instructions, WP:CV101 and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for clerks. By which I mean, I'd be willing to write something up, if you think it would be useful, but would be very grateful for sensible overview, since writing "simple" is sometimes a challenge for me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
So funny story: I happen to be the editor of the Signpost and a talk page stalker. In the dark ages, we had a "Tutorial" section, and more recently we had the "Dispatches" (see here). I'd be happy to run something similar, or if you would want to go further, we could run versions of your 2010 Bugle op-eds and make it a multi-part series. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that would be awesome! I think the main thing here is to encourage editors to participate in the cleanup, so a more targeted approach in Signpost might be better. But I would love to hear what talk page stalkers think about the best way to do that, if any happen to be hanging about? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'll bite on that. The instructions in Cv101 and on the CCI page are mostly very clear, but I needed reassurance that I would be OK to tick things off after making ordinary best efforts (source spotchecks and google searches), or whether there are mysteries that ordinary mortals don't know about. MER-C has clarified that for me now, and I'll be doing some, but it will be on the edge of many people's comfort zones, I think. IOW, it may need a "here's what you need to be able to to do" kind of thing. --Stfg (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
For getting people interested, the best way may be to do targeting based on interests. For example, if I asked on the Baseball Wikiproject for copyright help on Epeefleche, I would likely get some help there. If I were to ask there for general help or Singingdaisies, I most likely won't hear anything back. It would be tough to do, but possible. Wizardman 17:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
That might help, Wizardman. I've left a few CCI "please help" templates for Wikiprojects and haven't gotten much response, but it might depend on which project. Stfg, that's a good idea. Should that be added to the CCI instructions directly, do you think? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
That could be a good idea. One thing it might help to clarify is any difference (if there is one) between ccleans done presumptively at CCI and ccleans of general suspected copyvio, where there may be backwards copy or permission an editor might overlook. Fear of mis-stepping on issues like that is what keeps me from doing more; perhaps other editors too? --Stfg (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
... although, on reflection, better not discourage that fear too much ;) --Stfg (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That's always the difficult balance. :D We don't want people scared to take action, but I've seen CCIs where people have restored copyvio content without evidently doing even a cursory check. :/ Anyway, what do you think of this? Does it help? Should it go further? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's great and it certainly helps. It probably says enough, imo. Thank you! --Stfg (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

CCI

Hi. I just thought that after two years and no apparent indication in many months of any cases of infringement located, that the matter was resolved. I didn't mean to come off as arrogant and I guess, in retrospect, that I should have left you a note here but I didn't know if you were still involved. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't take you as arrogant and didn't mean to sound like I had in response. I wish that these matters could close out more quickly, but as is being discussed in the section immediately above there just aren't enough people working on them. Yours is not even the oldest unresolved CCI we have. That dates back to October 2009. I can understand that it would be frustrating to have it not concluded, but there is no easy answer to this. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Got it. The reason I thought it was basically over is that there are sections that have clearly been completed but not updated as such. Also the last section has been worked on, so if whoever is/are doing this is/are going in consecutive order then logically that would mean the previous ones had been looked over as well. Could you or whoever, at your convenience, at least update the sections that have been completed? Thanks. Quis separabit? 20:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
These are not done consecutively. The ones that are complete will have notes. I'll see if there are any completed sections that haven't been closed and take care of that, if so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see any completed sections, other than the first, which is already closed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Help

Hi! Moonriddengirl I have been editing Bade Achhe Lagte Hain since long, but recently other users have been vandalizing the article by deleting info and references. They also fill more than half of the article with plot while I add a sumarrized one as Wikipedia says to write a plot by cutting away whatever is not the plot of that particular soap opera. I beg you to protect the article for at least some 10 or 15 days. Please reply on my talk page. Thank you! --Tamravidhir (Jiva Is Shiva!) 07:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you --Tamravidhir (Jiva is Shiva!) 13:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User pages#New policy/guideline proposal

I was a random recipient of one of those 'please comment here' posts and discovered that this was about using non-free images in userspace. I know that images aren't really your thing, but I thought you might like to comment or bring it to the attention of others who know more about this than I do. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. It looks like there's a pretty clear consensus developing over there; there really isn't a legal reason to limit the publication of this content in user space on English Wikipedia - if it's legal in the US, it's good for us. OTOH, I often wonder if users really understand that they may be liable for their own actions under different jurisdiction. :/ Our TOU say so, but I know I don't always read TOU. In fact, hardly ever do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File:FSU Seminoles.svg

Can you have a look at this image, according to the file page it was in use pre 1978, however the source page shows this version as being used from 1990 on. Clearly a FUR can be made for it on some of the pages if it is a copyrighted image but just want you advice on which way to go. Mtking (edits) 10:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) I personally would FUR it just to be safe. I don't like the idea of "free" logos which actually have unclear copyright status. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like good advice to me. You might also follow up at WP:MCQ in case anybody can substantiate the date of usage. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:IOWN question

I just came across a note in a google books review (the 2nd one) saying that content had been copied from the book into an article here. I checked and indeed it had been, but unlike in most cases, I noticed that it was added by an author of the book - Hlambers (talk · contribs). I've removed it for now, but wondered whether you know if in a case like this the author has the right to republish something that they wrote? If they do then I'll get in touch and get their permission to replace it. If you don't know then no problem, but I thought you'd be most likely to know! Cheers SmartSE (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(tps)Speaking in general, one has to be careful. I once had to get permission to use some words I wrote, because when I submitted a paper to a journal, I turned over my copyright to them. I don't know what the situation is in this instance, but one has to consider the possibility that the publisher owns the copyright. That said, it is highly likely that the publisher would be fine with the exposure, and we know the author is, so one solution is for the author to check with the publisher to see who owns the copyright, then have the copyright holder send in a permission statement to OTRS.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
(TPS comment & EC) The copyright page for that book says that the copyright is held by Springer Science + Business Media, so even the authors themselves may not have the right to copy text from it into a WP article. Deor (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks stalkers ;) that's broadly what I thought but I wasn't certain. I'll fire off an email and see what comes back. SmartSE (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, stalkers. :D We once had a very painful copyright situation with a writer of Scottish history who didn't have permission from his publishers. :/ It all depends on his arrangement with his publishers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Permission question

Hello Moonriddengirl! It's always nice to visit your page. Today, someone (Shellnut) who is relatively new in the gastropod project asked me this question. I wanted to see if you would answer his question, as I still don't know much about this kind of thing:

"I found some really neat images of Juliidae on the internet and contacted the author/photographer via e-mail. He is not interested in joining Wikipedia as an editor (too much time involved he thinks), but I have asked him whether he would be willing to sign a Creative Commons copyright release. Where can I get one if he agrees? Do you need one for each image, or would a blanked one for a website be sufficient? His images of these fascinating gastropods are incredible (see site at http://seaslugsofhawaii.com/ ). Please let me know what you think. Shellnut (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)"

Many thanks for any input you can give Shellnut, and best wishes to you always, Invertzoo (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Invertzoo. :) WP:Declaration of consent is the form that's needed. He can use the same form for as many images as he wants, but the more specific his language is the better. If he is willing to license all content published as of this date, for instance, he should say so. If he is willing to release all content on certain subpages, etc. This protects him and us! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit count reversal?

Hi Moonriddengirl. For some reason my edit count has just been been reduced by about 40 or 50 to where it is now at [27,004]. We just got over a back-log problem with X's edit counter so I'm wondering if this has anything to do with it. My main concern is that this may happen again if not looked into. If you are not the one to consult then could you please direct me to someone who handles these problems? Any and all help greatly appreciated. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:TParis maintains the tool so you'd probably be best off asking him. SmartSE (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, SmartSE. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I asked TParis about the problem, and I was informed, once again, that he was not the person to ask. I have been referred to several people now and am not having much luck. If you know of anyone else to possibly consult please let me know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is well outside of my area. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Listening for copyvio

Hi MRG! I stumbled across Bellevue University today. The style indicated that it was almost surely copied from somewhere. It turns out that it is made up of verbatim chunks from their history page. While some of the copied material is presented as text on that page, the bulk of it is in the video. You have to listen/watch it to "see" most of the coyvio. There is also considerable overlap with a company magazine article (DD report) which was obviously based on the material used in the video. The material was added in a series of edits by one user in November/December 2007 which appears to be shortly after the video was made. The last segment on the video is 2006/2007. Should I just go ahead and blank it with {{Copyvio}}? Voceditenore (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. :/ Seems so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Instead of the blanking rigamarole, I've just taken my handy-dandy red pencil to it. :) I'm now about to leave a stern note to the miscreants on the talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You are awesome that way. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The "new" edit window copyright notice

Well it's not so new for a start but I've only just properly read it and I think it may be misleading. At the moment it reads "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will." While this is, possibly, technically correct I think the phrase "at will" without any mention of attribution requirements could be misleading people and that they may not realise they have to attribute. Do you have any thoughts? Dpmuk (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a really good question. Off to ask the attorneys. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a pretty good idea. Seems like just eliminating "at will" and putting in those four words could do it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The legal team agrees, Dpmuk, that mentioning licensing requirements would be more accurate, although they are not greatly concerned from a legal standpoint due to other text on the page. It may be worth implementing Crisco's suggestion? Brevity is important here, but we wouldn't necessarily want to sacrifice accuracy. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A link may be considered due diligence under law (as in we've told them that it may be used relatively freely, so it could provide legal protection). Perhaps something like "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed subject to certain terms and conditions" (note that I dropped "other persons" as it implies you can't change your own work). But what do I know? IANAL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You want to run it up at the talk page? I'll happily follow you there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Replied there. Dpmuk (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your advice please: Linda Ronstadt

I undertook a massive cleanup of the citations in the above bio, and came across some unorthodox but extensive use of a fan site. Your views would be appreciated here. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 07:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

My Edits on articles

G'day Moonriddengirl,

I just wanted to ask your opinion of whether you thought the intro I have modified for Ruslan Kogan is of a good standard. I've just started editing as you may have noticed, so am looking for any constructive feedback (and figured this was a relative place to seek it)

Cheers in advance :) --Vogez (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Vogez, and welcome. :) Thanks for helping clean up that article; it's been contentious for a pretty long time, it seems. I would say that your changes to the lead are very good - it is much more neutral and encyclopedic in tone. You've narrowed down some of the more trivial detail to get to the meat of the matter, which is the way things should be done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi! I have created a page that seems similar to one which you deleted back in 2010. The page is stub-class and I do not believe there are any copyright issues with the re-created version. The page is John Kennedy, 6th Earl of Cassilis if you would like to take a glance at it. Just wanted to give you a heads-up, thanks for all you do! Niado (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it shouldn't be at all necessary for me to look at. If you haven't copied or closely paraphrased your sources, you should be just fine. :) I don't routinely monitor new articles, even if replacing articles that were problematic in the past. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Winentrance mirroring Wikipedia?

Hello Moonriddengirl! I remember reading somewhere that you are the one stop editor for copyright violation issues. Winentrance.com is a copyright asserted website. Yet I see many of its articles being complete 'copy-paste's of wikipedia articles, such as this (win & Jockin Arputham), this (win & M. S. Subbulakshmi) and this (win & R. K. Laxman). What would be your response to this? Shouldn't this site be listed here? morelMWilliam 19:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely! I'd be happy to create a listing for them, if you'd like, although any editor can do it. Thanks for noticing the problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl. Check my listing. Does that look fine? I am not sure if I should list it at Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance or Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance. morelMWilliam 08:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Great job. :) I've never used either of the latter pages, to tell you the truth, but if you want to list it at one, you'd go with Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance. Their website suggests they started in 2010. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Will do it then. morelMWilliam 16:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Continued distortion of Michael Crow page

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Can we have some help with the edits of the page on Michael Crow? One or more people (possibly in the employ of ASU and Michael Crow) keep logging in to remove all mention of criticism of his administration of ASU.

This is not reasonable, as he is a very controversial figure in the community at ASU and the broader community. It is well documented that he has denied tenure to faculty, requiring settlements of lawsuits with taxpayer money, and that he judges grievance cases in an arbitrary manner, etc. You can check extensive documentation available at cfraa.org if needed.

An objective page on him should reflect these facts, rather than the self-promoting whitewash he would like to see there.

thanks, Editors at cfraa.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asusparky (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Asusparky, I have completely stubbed this article, primarily for copyright violation, but also for violations of our policy on biographies of living persons. At least one part of your recent addition was not in accordance with that policy. I've left a lengthy note to all the editors involved in this article at Talk:Michael M. Crow. Please read it. Voceditenore (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Voceditenore. Asusparky, I've read Voceditenore's note there, and it is extremely good advice. Once a neutral version of the article is reached, if people keep logging in to whitewash it, the approach I'd recommend is to, first, give them cordial notes at their talk pages of the problem and invite them to discuss at the talk page. If they do not join you, restore the content. If they do, see if you can reach consensus, utilizing dispute resolution processes such as WP:3O as necessary. If people will not talk but keep removing content, you may want to consider reaching out for assistance at WP:NPOVN or even requesting page protection. This will at least ensure that only somewhat experienced editors can change the page. This can assist with the problem, since it is time-consuming for drive-by editors to meet the hurdle of contribution only to be blocked if they make disruptive edits.
All of this, however, follows on reaching a version of the article that is scrupulously within the biographies of living persons policy and copyrights. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This article is going to need more eyes. An IP that traces back to Arizona State University, just restored all the copyvio. :/ I've reverted and left a warning at User_talk:149.169.162.116, but I suspect the range is a large one, and they may not even see the message when/if they return and I'm pretty sure they will be back for more of the same. Voceditenore (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Duly noted, thanks. :/ I've watchlisted it. If it happens again, I'll semiprotect it. (Oh! If i miss it, please poke me.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • To help stave off further shenanigans, I've re-written the biography myself. A stub article like that was just too tempting for the previously involved editors. Thanks for keeping it on watch. I'll be "away from my desk" for the next week or so and will only be able to check in occasionally. In the meantime have a very Happy Thanksgiving, MRG! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for saving it. I'll keep an eye on it. And a very Happy Thanksgiving to you as well. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Policy Brief

This is not even a legislative proposal, but it does indicate a sea change in thinking about copyright, so may influence copyright legislation. In short, in proposes drastically reduced copyright protection, and expansion of fair use law.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That's really interesting! A trend to keep an eye on. :) I don't think I approve of all of the changes - my particular concern is that copyright registration requirements privilege the monied - but I certainly approve of more reasonable terms. And even making fair use more obvious would be a big advantage. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Surya_Sen#Copyvio_issues.21

1) Can you help in this article's copyvio issues? 2) It might be a common problem that in Bangladesh related article content copied from Banglapedia (the country's official encyclopedia). See notice here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bangladesh#One_big_task. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Sadly, it is quite a common problem. Let me take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Replied there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am so lonely...

Hi Moonriddengirl! How's tricks? Please help me. At the stage of completing 11 months on Wikipedia, I have nothing much to do on Wikipedia. Please suggest anything. Anything suitable for me. As you know, my interests are Indian history, Indian soap opera and a bit of mythology. Thank you. --Tamravidhir (Jiva is Shiva!) 13:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Try User:SuggestBot. DeCausa (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay! --Tamravidhir (Jiva is Shiva!) 15:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

"The Game"

Upon receiving notification regarding conflict of interest, I fully agree with your decision to nominate "The Game (2013 film)" for deletion. My only contributions to the article involved the removal of an actor's name after it was confirmed through a reputable source (the actor's manager) that the actor had absolutely no involvement with the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataMiner9901 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Re Château de Hohenbourg

To save time, go ahead and delete Château de Hohenbourg - I have supplied a replacement at Château de Hohenbourg/Temp based on the equivalent French Wikipedia article. Emeraude (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

Is it a copyright issue to re-create charts like this using clade templates or creating a new image in PPT? Corporate 16:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oi. Okay, charts can be copyrightable when (a) the material they contain is creative or (b) the way they are presented is creative. Creativity can be present in selection of even non-copyrightable material - for instance, a "select bibliography" may reflect individual choice in a non-obvious way (at its most extreme, "my favorite books by Author X"). You have to ask yourself - is the information in the chart strictly factual? If yes, is it comprehensive or otherwise uncreative in selection? If both of those are "yes", then the information should be fine for reuse. In terms of creativity of display, I have no idea what the line connections between particularly the second and third column of boxes on the bottom even means. I can't really judge its creativity for that reason. But I might be inclined to take the information and display it differently, given that, because if I'm saying, "Wait, Credit Suisse AG [Bank] is directly related to CSi in two branches - why?" others are likely to be wondering that as well. The footnote makes it seem like one line should come from the bank and perhaps the other from Credit Suisse Group AG. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing, possibly

This is a discussion that's probably worth your keeping a quiet eye on. I haven't looked myself to see whether the assertions are correct. Uncle G (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm a bit late for the ANI discussion (courtesy of wonky internet access at my thanksgiving retreat and ten billion emails awaiting me at work), but I'm taking a quiet look now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Haiti Railroad

Dear Moonriddengirl, I was looking at the internet for information regarding the railroad in Haiti. I was surprised at how little info was available. I was involved with the sale of the railroad track, to United Fruit Co in Costa Rica. I was the agent for a Mr. Lou Gladstein of Bridgeport Connecticut who was awarded the entire railroad around 1967. I spent many days, in Haiti living at Castle Haita and in the rented home of Dr. Fritz Cineas in Fairmont. The rail was lifted all the way from St Marc,and hauled to the concrete dock at Cement Haiti, where it was shipped to United Fruit. Mr Gladstein and I visited the Japanese embassy in Haiti to start negotiations to scrap the iron located at the switching yard outside of Saint Marc. After the sale of the track, I left the project,but I understand that much of the scrap steel from the switching yard was shipped to Asia from Cement Haiti. Much of the railroad story can be found in a short story I wrote you can see "Howard Yasgar Stories". It was written from memory.

Hi. :) I found your story via google, and it's very interesting. :) I'm glad you've documented it. Unfortunately, it's not something that we can really use here at Wikipedia because of the way we're set up. Since we are open for editing by anyone and since otherwise our readers will not know how trustworthy our articles are, we have a pretty strict policy against using "original research". The only way that we would be able to incorporate information from your memoirs would be if you first have them published by a reliable source - like a magazine or a newspaper. It seems to me like one of those might be interested in stories such as you have to share, as they certainly are 'human interest'! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be the president of a religious organization...

... has posted concerns here. Can you have a look? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) It looks like they were given good advice there on how to proceed. If you think they're right, of course, and sources agree, you can go ahead and make the changes yourself. We do that often through the email response team. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I am so happy. I want share it. You know why am I so happy? Because I have been provided with the rollback feature!! Tamravidhir (Jiva is Shiva!) 14:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations. :) I hope you will find it helpful in your work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but I am sad because we can only use it to remove vandalism. --Tamravidhir (Jiva is Shiva!) 15:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Why else would you want to use it? Rolling back somebody else's work if it's not vandalism really isn't very polite. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. If it is so then it's okay. --Tamravidhir (Jiva is Shiva!) 16:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice re: CCI

Hi Moonriddengirl, just wanted to get your input before doing something drastic at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Caracas 2000. This is a user who--as far as I can tell from review of dozens of articles--only did direct translations from Spanish into English. I'd say 95% were copyright violations, and 5% are unattributed translations from es.wiki. I don't believe I have found any non-copied (translated) text that he has contributed, apart from tables/charts and minor additions. This CCI has been very labor-intensive because of the difficulty in googling for the source of the translation. But (for better or for worse) I've been able--eventually--to find the source of basically every article I've looked into. The problem is severe because of the number of affected articles (hundreds, often key articles--for example, most Venezuelan presidential biographies) and the difficulty of the CCI (you basically need someone with very good Spanish skills to google Spanish words they believe would be the source of the article, find what was or wasn't published as of 2006 when most of these copyvios were inserted, and then assess whether the English Wikipedia article and the Spanish source article are substantively the same). So..... my proposal is to begin doing presumptive deletion of all of Caracas's contributions, except those that I can easily verify came from es.wiki. The big downside is collateral damage to others' work in the event that he could have occasionally added non-copyvio content, because many are long-standing articles. The big upside is finally getting rid of this garbage, which is really bad to have in high-profile articles (e.g. Venezuelan presidents). Let me know your thoughts. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the high number of likely and found copyvios, the poor language, and the requirement of having to translate sources, this is one of those rare cases where a flat presumptive deletion of what's left is our best bet. The odds of getting rid of good content are small enough that it has to be done, especially given that some of the articles are high-profile. Wizardman 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Wizardman. This is unfortunate but sometimes necessary, and it's certainly within policy. WP:CV says, "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." That line was made policy years ago after just such a situation. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Desmond Morris

Hello again. I have just upgraded the referencing style on this article, fairly minor stuff, but I have my suspicions that large chunks of the text may have been 'appropriated from elsewhere'. Could you have a look when you have the time. Thanks and best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Derek! Nice to see you. :) Thanks, and I will! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
It follows kind of lock-step on [8], but I don't think it rises to the point of a copyright issue or even a close paraphrasing tag (fine if others feel differently). Looks like a student assignment for the University of Guelph-Humber. I'm not 100% sure it's an improvement on what we used to have. :/ It was no great article, but it was at least readable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
OK - thanks for your thoughts. It is not my specialist subject by any means, so I think I will leave it to others to decide the best step forward. Cheers again,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Temporary page for Surya Sen

Hi! The temporary article on Surya Sen is probably ready for re-insertion in the main space. Can you pleae have a look, and re-establish it? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sports entertainment tagged incorrectly

Hello, I tagged this article as a potential copyright concern because the text matched a book word-for-word. The contributor has since pointed out that the article was written three years before the book (as proved with diffs on the article talk page), so I clearly messed up. The tag makes it clear that an administrator needs to remove it, so I was wondering if you (or someone else) could please help out. It's also listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 November 18, and I don't know how to close that listing. Any help (or pointing me in the right direction, if I should be asking elsewhere) would be appreciated. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It happens. :) Self-removal in a situation like this is, I think, always a good application of WP:IAR. (I would certainly fight for you!) But I also understand not wanting to ignore that clear direction. So, all cleaned up, and thank you very much for investigating and following through! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Appeal for intervention of an admin with interest in copyright

Hi MRg, I realise that you are busy & so hope that you don't mind me making an appeal here. I could do with an admin who has an interest in copyright issues to take a look at User talk:Sitush#Mughal Army. The thread relates to material that appears to have been deleted as copyvio and the article was subject to an AfD discussion closed by Mark Arsten, who is currently unavailable. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sitush. :) I will look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not the same. However, could you please advise the contributor that he needs to properly attribute in the way described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism? It isn't enough to cite his source; if he's copying content from a public domain work, he needs to say so. If you'd rather I do it, I can, but not at the moment. I need to run. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
We've just crossed posts - I left a note on my talk page saying that you would probably respond and warning that it wouldn't happen yesterday. It might be best if you do that when you have a minute: they do not appear to be one of the many awkward contributors who operate in that subject area but having input from someone else could be useful. Thanks for checking it out. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Responded. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Question on obtaining permission to use articles

Hi,

I am a member of the Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle specialist group and over the last few years they have been producing web available pdf's which are accounts on every species of turtle. Its a long term project they have now done about half of them.as an example of one of these please see one I am an author on Chelodina burrungandjii. I have been thinking that writing accounts for each species on wikipedia is a bit of reinventing the wheel. I may be able to get permission to use these pdf's on here as major resources. If I was to get this permission from the editorial board of Chelonian Conservation and Biology, which would include images and distribution maps etc, what would I need from them so it would not be considered plagiarism. Faendalimas talk 16:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A release of the info into the public domain seems the most certain way to achieve this, although the source should still be attributed. I notice that the link you give is to an Australian educational establishment. I've no idea of the law in Australia but I think that in some countries anything produced by government-funded educational research is automatically PD. Tell me I'm wrong, MRG - I often am! If I'm correct ,and if it applies to Oz, then the PDFs could probably be uploaded to Commons or transcribed to WikiSource. Otherwise, you are likely to need to seek permission to reproduced using the OTRS system. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The one I linked is from the University I am affiliated with and I linked their archive. The papers are actually produced in the USA by Chelonian Conservation and Biology, which is a Journal. Sorry if that confused anyone, I used my own one because as an author I have the right to distribute it I have not asked about others which have other authorship. So I would be asking permission from the Journal which produces them. Thanks for your response though. Cheers Faendalimas talk 02:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Faendalimas, that would be wonderful. :) Sitush is certainly correct that a public domain release is acceptable; we find sometimes people are more willing to license content with the more restrictive Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license, which is the default option at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Your best bet probably is to use the OTRS system. If you write to the Journal, please ask them to be specific about what they are releasing - specific pdfs? all of them, existing now or in the future? - and to explicitly identify the license under which they're releasing them. If you can get them to fill out and send in that "Declaration of consent for all enquiries" that's probably best. It has all the information we need. :) If they send it "attn:Maggie Dennis", I'll be happy to help process it, but even if they don't it should be handled without too much delay. There's been a pretty good rate of response at OTRS lately (for some things - I wouldn't want to be a BLP subject trying to get fast help! :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the information I have passed it on to the Editor of CCB and provided him with the necessary links. I will keep you informed on what he has to say about it. Cheers Faendalimas talk 16:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Uploads of copyvio text on Commons?

We have an editor adding upload links from Commons, see [9] which added [10]. Editor added others, eg at [11], [12]. I and others have reverted, but I'm not sure what needs to be done at Commons. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged it for permission. If he's the copyright holder, he can verify; otherwise, it should be deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm being stupid I'm sure, but where do I find it? [13] simply downloads it. I know this isn't hers, she is I think Eve Nessenius. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Because you may encounter this in the future (I certainly run into it often enough!): what I usually do is take the name of the file and put it in the search bar at Commons. There may be an easier way, but if there is, I don't know it. :D It's at File:Georeactor.pdf. (You can also follow my contribs on Commons in this case - I don't do a lot there, so it's easy to track me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll remember that, should have tried it. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated File:Evolution and Geological Planet Formation - Book.pdf for deletion on Commons as a copyvio. It's also self-published, so therefore mot eligible to be cited as an RS here. As a self-published book I believe it's beyond the scope of Commons, which is being discussed at its nomination page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I have made a comment on this nomination Faendalimas talk 22:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Finnegas CCI

Hi MRG - I've been toddling along on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Finnegas, and have it down to the last few articles. I've run through the remainder a couple of times, and can't find any obvious copyvio, but am still a little suspicious, especially on Leader - Follower. Would you (or one of your copyright-expert TPSers) mind double checking the last few? I think after that the CCI can be closed. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Unfortunately, there's just no way to be sure, and it meets his pattern. I would have rewritten it myself, but it's not exactly an easy target for a do-over. :/ I've blanked it presumptively and listed it. It will probably be deleted in due course if it isn't rewritten. Thank you very much for helping to close this one out so quickly and for persisting with this much-needed work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you be so kind...

... as to protect or delete pages that you previously blanked and protected, with links posted to my [14] talk page? Anonymous proxies are repeatedly reverting your changes. Thank you very much. I hope this message finds you well. Sincerely, WhateverML (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't protect user talk pages, because they may be necessary to discuss issues with future users. I've archived one page to User talk:24.126.173.124/archive and protected it. i've cleaned up a few other points. Should the content make its way back, I can pursue a deletion debate, but this would draw a lot of attention which may be counterproductive. The last time this content was restored to your talk page, I see it was removed immediately by the person who placed it. That was some months ago. I can protect your talk page, if necessary. If you see the content popping up elsewhere, please let me know here, and I'll see what I can do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I appreciate your prompt assistance and attention. Happy Holidays! Sincerely, WhateverML (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Babur's First Indian Expedition

This article is substantially copied from the Memoirs of Zehir-ed-Din Muhammed Baber, Emperor of Hindustan published by Longman in 1826 and available as a Google free eBook at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=89dCAAAAcAAJ. I presume that the age of the book means there are no copyright problems, or have Google acquired any rights by digitising it? There are other issues, of course, like whether an extended quote is a proper article or should be in Wikisource, but I would like to be sure of the copyright status first. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, John. If it was published in 1826, it is fine under our policies. :) In accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism, though, it needs an attribution template, unless the content is properly cited and contained within quotation marks (or blockquote). I'm just about to have lunch, but will check when I get back to see if it needs one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Quote marks wouldn't be appropriate,as it's not absolutely straight copy, the text has been slightly reworked; but for pretty well every sentence I checked I could find the obvious source in the book. As an exercise for the student, I have added an attribution template in the "References" section, but you might check I've done it right. I see the book has been republished: ISBN 9781432651190 (Lightning Source Incorporated, 2007), but I guess the template linking to the Longman and Google eBook versions is enough. JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Good call. And that looks absolutely right. Thank you very much for both noticing the issue and taking care of it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked user, page threatened with deletion

Hi, could you perhaps reconsider your decision to block User:Msshss for such a long period, two weeks? From what little I've seen, this page is socially very important, and it is being considered for deletion with negligible input from the community. As a new page, it has hardly been noticed yet, and the only user that the proposer alerted was Msshss, the original creator. This situation is a recipe for frustration and disillusionment. I don't actually expect that there is anyone to be found who has the knowledge to salvage the page, because there is very little contribution to the English wikipedia from anyone with knowledge of the Bengali language, but at least Msshss wouldn't be in a catch-22 situation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I watchlist the pages of people I block. Should Msshss request unblocking, with reason to believe that he will follow our copyright policies from now on, I will be happy to lift his block early. Considering his history of contributions - from 10 August to 19 September to 27 November - it is quite possible he will not return in time to engage in the AFD regardless, but his history of copyright issues makes it really important that we stop this behavior if we can before we wind up mass-deleting his content through WP:CCI. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you an email. Please let me know if/when you receive it. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Awatpishdad CCI

I'm back :) I've been working on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Awatpishdad and have it down to the last half dozen or so. Most of the articles left are ones he created, but that I can't find any obvious source for. Should these all be blanked and listed at the copyright problems board? That would just leave Jaff tribe, which he didn't create, but to which he did add large chunks of text. Should this be presumptively stubbed? I can do all of the work, I just wanted to make sure my plan of action was actually somewhat related to policy :) Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Look at you go. :D After poking at it for a while, you probably have a pretty good idea of where his issues lie, which can be really helpful in making those determinations. If the content has red flags, then presumptive blanking is probably the best approach. :/ And you certainly can remove the content he added from Jaff tribe. With a CCI, you can even rewrite the ones he created on the spot, if you're willing and if there are no regular editors of the articles who might help out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! With a little help from Wizardman, I think the Awatpishdad CCI is now ready to be closed!! Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Awesome! Thank you! I will close it first thing in the morning. It's been a loooong day. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I saw you were active on copyvio issues and wanted to ask your opinion about this section in an article, which seems to be mostly copied from the text accompanying the graphics here. What do you think? Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The content seems to be reserved for subscribers. :/ Is it closely paraphrased or copied? One can follow a bit more closely with intext attribution such as is given in the article, but in any case (close paraphrasing or copying) it's best to make sure that we aren't taking more than we need to, and our use needs to be "transformative" - doing something more than simply appropriating the information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather have a 3rd party comment on whether it's closely paraphrased or copied. You can register for free at the site if you'd like. I don't think a whole section that pretty much reconstructs a poll from bits and pieces picked up from the article and graphics is "transformative", but I don't know enough about this sort of stuff to be sure. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio for citations 3.0

Hi. With respect to our earlier discussion, I've asked the copyright owner for the valid copyright permissions but unfortunately the whole process and the communication takes lot of time. In order to go ahead with the respective FLC, I have decided to cut-short the citations as only valid solution now. With this, I have made some changes to the article. Will it be possible for you to glance over and see if its still violates the copyrights or not? I would appreciate your response. - Vivvt • (Talk) 17:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(From a talk-page stalker) I haven't given any thought to the copyright issue, but I thought it was important to note that the quotations are now inaccurate, because you paraphrased the words of the sources yet left them in quotation marks. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately, that's a pretty major issues. :/ Policy forbids changing the words of people we are quoting in this manner; we must quote them accurately. I've fixed quotation issues to the best of my ability and done a little paraphrasing. I can't tell you that this eliminates all potential copyright issues. There's still quite a lot taken from the source. But I think it's probably quite a bit better than it was. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits and sorry that you had to jump in for the article edition ultimately. I will make couple of more changes following yours. Actually there are 42 awards so even if we take one line for and from each citation, it would 42 lines anyway. CE issues are haunting me like anything. :O - Vivvt • (Talk) 15:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
No problem. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
With the recent changes done to the article regarding citations, would it be appropriate to push the article for FLC? Earlier FLC failed over couple of issues and we fixed them all. One of the concerns raised was citations with their copyrights and you were referred for the advice. - Vivvt • (Talk) 02:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, I'm afraid that I don't think the use of non-free content there really accords with our policies. :/ It's better than it was, but there's still not much transformative being done with it and some of the citations still seem unnecessarily long and detailed. This is why, the first time we spoke, I noted that I generally recommend in such situations rewriting the descriptions in new language. My contribution was to correct the rather urgent problem of misquoting the sources, although I did seek to improve the extent of taking in a few citations while there. It doesn't mean I think that the usage of the content is all okay with our policies. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for the trouble and not understanding the gist of the copyright. I would rather take out the citations than re-writing it as it would spoil the poetic language used by the juries. In the earlier FLC for this particular article, I was referred to Polar Music Prize where the citations are used and cropped in its respective FLC process. Thanks for your help. - Vivvt • (Talk) 16:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for re-iterating on the same thing again, but would it be alright if we use one line each from each of the citations to have it crisp and limited, in order to avoid copyright concerns?
I wish I could tell you yes, but I honestly can't. :/ Only a court can determine if content is "fair use" or not. If I were working on the article, I would be more inclined to mix paraphrase and limited quotation - stuff like this:
The film was singled out for its "exciting, moving and beautifully accurate" portrayal of its themes.
This is what I've seen done in some other kinds of awards lists, and it makes sense to me. (As I said in the beginning, this is the only thing I can in good conscience recommend. That doesn't mean that it's the only thing you can do, though.) The difficulty of determining if you can use one line is partially related to how much content there is in the original (some of those citations are one line), whether the line you're taking is "central" to the original and whether the rest of the article is considered transformative enough to support it. Whether or not it would pass peer review will depend entirely on who is reviewing it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the citations till I hear anything very concrete from the copyright holder. - Vivvt • (Talk) 15:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

Message

Hi Moonriddengirl! :) I moved your message here and I gave a short answer. I also fixed the incoming link form our "bar". Bye! --Lucas (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio question on Basti district

While cleaning up a big mess in the article Basti district, I created a content fork with History of Basti district. I copy-pasted the large history section of Basti district to the newly created fork, and then went on to summarize the history section of the mother article.

Meanwhile, I received a message from the bot that History of Basti district is copy-pasted from this website. Now, I saw that the text in this website and the previous history section of Basti district are same. Not only history section, geography section, flora and fauna etc are also same.

Now, I wonder who copied who? I see a good expansion of the history section in Basti district was done back in 2007. Is there any way to verify whether that was copy-paste from some website?

Not that I am very concerned about this copy-vio! The article is in a mess, and am just trying to salvage it to some extent. Thanks for help, regards, --Dwaipayan (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That can be tough to tell. With NIC, copying can go either way. :) I'll look at the history of the article and see what I can figure out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this time, it was theirs first. :( The very first change to the text after the content was added was to change the words "Kannauje" to "Kannauj" and "chieftanships" to "chieftan ships". The words "Kannauje" and "chieftanships" are in the original. This change was made five minutes after the content was added. If they had copied from us, they would have had five minutes to do it. :/ The contributor continued cleaning up the content, and every change took the material further away from the source. The content will have to be deleted. I'll see if anything can be salvaged or if the whole article will need to go. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Olivarries CCI

So, I'm on a roll... Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Olivarries should be done and OK to close now. Dana boomer (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for going on a roll. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

6 year old copyvio?

I know I don't have time to deal with it this week, but (after my copyvio sensor went off while reading Tiburcio Carías Andino, I found this introduction of text from 2006. The source for that just says "U.S. Library of Congress /P'285" which clearly isn't enough information. I found the text here. This version is from 2013, but the first edition was from 2003 [15]. I also found a very similar spanish version here. If you click regresar on the bottom, you'll see that the Google books link and the Spanish version have very similar tables of contents. That begs the question, is the Spanish link, the Google book, and Wikipedia all copying the same PD source or are the Spanish link and Wikipedia both copying the Google book? Ryan Vesey 18:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It appears to be verbatim from here, a country study done by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. That is a PD-USGov work, but still should have been correctly cited. Incidentally, International Business Publications is a high-volume print-on-demand company that has been discounted in [previous discussions] on wp:RSN. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, LeadSongDog! I've added an attribution template. I would have used {{Country study}}, but the link doesn't seem to work. :/ I used {{Loc}} instead. Interesting anecdote: the WMF received a takedown notice once from a book publisher claiming we had copied their content into an article. I was asked to investigate the background and found that our content predated the book by some time. Wondering if it was a backwards copy, I poked a bit more and found that we both had copied the Country Study and failed to properly attribute. Attribution saves lives! (Or, at least, text.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

CCI update

--MER-C 02:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Text licensing question

One area of weakness for me is the interaction between the CC license and the GFDL. I think I could figure it out if I look the time to read carefully, but it hasn't risen to a need. I see that the distinction is key in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cut_and_paste_copyvio_fix.

I think that discussion has wound down, so I'm not looking for you to help them out, but I would be interested in a couple of factual issues:

  • Keristrasza alleges that while our POLICY may require attribution for both licenses, the law requires it for CC but not GFDL. I am aware that our policy differs form the law in some cases—fair use versus non-free use of images—and our more stringent application of fair use when it comes to verbatim copying of text, but I hadn't thought about the distinction between what GFDL may require as a matter of license, and what Wikipedia may require as a matter of policy.
  • Wdchk takes exception, arguing that, effectively the GFDL does require attribution, as you either have to copy the entire license, which is onerous when adding material to an article, or, if copying less, then you have to comply with the modification section which requires attribution.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay. My household has been quite unwell. :P My brain is not fully back up to speed, but as I read the discussion User:Keri is quite wrong under multiple points. First, in stating "Auric does not own the 'copyright'" because of the licensing, s/he is betraying a basic misunderstanding of what a license is - it isn't a release of copyright, but a permission for use. What User:Wdchk is pointing out, as I read it, is that by omitting the "history" section, User:Wikien2009 did not copy the Document verbatim, but modified it. I agree. The "history" is part of the Document, specifically defined as a "subunit of the document" in the Applicability and Definitions. As a subunit, severance creates a modified version, which requires attribution. It's not so much that we would have to copy the entire license in to comply with GFDL, but that without the history (or a list of major authors), we've violated it from the get-go. :) If I'm unclear on my opinion here, please let me know! Brain still foggy, although I'm very secure that I'm right. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Timmy43 and Druidhills CCIs

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Timmy43 is now done and should be good to go. :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, I've been working on WP:Contributor copyright investigations/Druidhills. It's down to the last couple, which I'm not sure what to do with. I can't find specifically where the copyvio came from, and I'm nervous about presumptively removing major sections on fairly major articles. Dana boomer (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Closed. [16] is copied from US Patent 7462159, which is probably public domain. [17] is copied from US Patent 5758168. MER-C 12:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both! I'll put Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Druidhills on my list for the weekend. My family is just getting over a lovely bout of gastroenteritis. :/ I did some part time work on the past couple of days but am definitely not yet on all cylinders. Maybe we can get it closed out, too. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for dealing with copyvio issues in Basti district and its history section. Dwaipayan (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Goldberg Variations (copyright issue)

Hi MRG! We'd appreciate your input at this discussion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The files are on Commons. I've notified the contributor how to nominate them for deletion debate if s/he feels the license is incorrect and where to get assistance there if unsure or unsure how to proceed. I've restored the files to the article, as removing them without consensus so long as the files are there and unchallenged seems disruptive. I see you've already dropped a WP:3RR notice. It seems like if the user removes the files again, that following up there may be helpful. Otherwise, we'll probably wind up at ANI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Milena Apostolaki article semi-protected

I need your assistance. This article of former politician, Milena Apostolaki, needs updating. How do I go about it and how do I go about editing semi-protected articles? Thanks. This is the text I wish to add: " She married businesman Polichronis Sygelidis and they had a son. They divorced in 2004, however a court settlement has not been reached. Mr Sygelidis initiated criminal procedures against his wife on the grounds of violating the terms of access to their child. On the back of this the Greek Vouli (parliament) refused to lift the parliamentary immunity enjoyed by Apostolakis. The case wen to the European Court of Human Rights which found in favour of Mr Sygelidis and found against the Hellenic Republic fining Greece € 19,000 in favour of Sygelidis." Politis (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Politis. You should be able to edit semi-protected articles. :/ As WP:SEMI notes, it should only stop edits from accounts that are less than four days old and have less than ten edits. Can you try to edit it and let me know if you're encountering a problem? (Sorry for my delay! I've been ill.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The edit went through. I think it's the traditional season to be ill for a few days and then get back to normal :-) Politis (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My CCI

Hi. User:Wizardman, at my imploring, has done some yeoman work in moving the CCI along, and appears to have finished reviewing/cleaning up Articles 21-40. Just updating. Thanks, Quis separabit? 20:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. :) User:Wizardman is well-named when it comes to CCIs...he is both a wizard and the man. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

This, for a change, doesn't require you to do something, merely read and enjoy Drmies' latest barnstar. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hi, I'd like the old revisions of these files File:Nayagan-1.jpg, File:Billa2early.jpg, File:First look Thuppakki.jpg and File:Vishwaroopam poster.jpg deleted. Also image size reduced if possible. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's quite a mess. :/ I have cleaned up to the best of my ability but given ongoing edit-warring cannot guarantee that the versions salvaged were the ones you wanted. This back-and-forth with images that are blatantly too large to remain really should stop. It's best to seek consensus at the talk page before replacing images and launching edit wars. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank u very much for deleting the needles images. the user uploading the various unwanted images has also been blocked for now, so there's no more trouble i guess. sorry for giving u too much work. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you're knowledgeable on copyright

I noticed a paragraph that appears word for word on two different wiki pages and was placed on third.

The paragraph in question is:

Guice's cover for Doctor Strange #15 (March 1990) generated legal action against Marvel Comics by singer Amy Grant. A US District Court sealed an out-of-court settlement between Grant and Marvel in early 1991, with a consent decree that Marvel did not admit to any liability or wrongdoing.[7][8][9]


It shows up on Jackson_Guice also | here in Recalled Comics # Doctor_Strange and it was placed, briefly on Doctor_Strange. Attribution was given to the source (not wikipedia in this case ) and the text is not word-for-word from that source, however, I'm not sure that a paragraph can be copied word-for-word from one entry in wikipedia and placed into another. Would that be considered a copyright violation of some sort, since attribution was given to the main source, but not to the wikipedia article where is was copied from (and yes, the Guice article had the text in it long before the doctor strange article did ) ;)  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  01:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, when content is copied from one article to another, it needs to be attributed to comply with license in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia...unless the person who placed it there was the person who added it in the first place. In that case, he still owns copyright and can do with it whatever he pleases. I'll take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the content first entered in Jackson Guice; it was added by the same contributor to Recalled comics. I've been poking with some confusion at Doctor Strange trying to figure out what's going on there, but I've finally decided that this edit summary lies - he didn't "undo" you in the traditional sense. He replaced your content. I'd have changed that edit summary, since I found it pretty confusing. :) But there's no copyright problem with the importation of that content - the source is attributed in the edit summary. That's what's required when copying from one Wikipedia article to another. Wikipedia's writers receive attribution in the history, and they agree by hitting save that a hyperlink to the source article is sufficient attribution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for checking. I've self-reverted and his text is back in.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Too long a quotation?

This entire section of the Brucella article is a quotation. It's attributed, but it's quite long, and I thought it might violate policy. I just don't understand the policies well enough to feel comfortable taking any action. Would you take a look? Thanks! Susfele (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you. Yes, extensive quotation is forbidden by policy. We generally should take only what we need to remain safely within fair use. Quotations should also be used transformatively - that is, we shouldn't use the text just because we want to share the information, but because there is some reason to transmit it verbatim rather than putting it into our own language. I've summarized it, although I have to say I wonder if it is WP:UNDUE. That's an awful lot of attention for one paper's perspective on what pathogen might have been involved (among several others) for a historical plague. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and for sorting out the mess! Susfele (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Peter Lamborn Wilson

I know you are very active in WikiProject Copyright, so I decided to bring this matter to you. Can you take a look at Eduen's recent edits to the Peter Lamborn Wilson article, please? He greatly expanded the article some time back, with very long quotations from a number of this author's works, but with very little, in some cases, no contextual information at all. I reverted, saying such long quotes are a violation of WP policy and are not encyclopedic. He added some context, but there were still many problems. This evening, he reverted my most recent deletions, saying I had not provided "much explanation". This is not, strictly speaking, a copyright issue, though, because Wilson does not copyright his books (you can check the copyright page of any of them and see that this is so), but I still believe it violates the spirit of what we are doing here. And, since all of Wilson's works are available online, there is no reason we need to reproduce very long quotations here. As I said, that is not what an encyclopedia is for. At this point, Eduen is simply not going to listen to me. If you would not mind adding your tuppence worth, it might help. Cheers! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) If the works were public domain, I'd be inclined to suggest you point him to WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:PRIMARY, but I'm confused by the assertion that they are not copyrighted. I'm looking at the copyright page for Sacred Drift. It says, "Copyright (c) 1993 by Peter Lamborn Wilson. All rights reserved." Pirate Utopias is also copyrighted; it is licensed for reuse but requires notice of the author at his designated address and reserves "actual booty" (e.g. "commercial reuse"). Immediatism requests but does not require notice. In light of the contradictory statements, I don't think we can assume that copyright is not an issue with quotes from him, unless we can verify that the specific book has been released into public domain. :/ If they have, the primary problem is that we are a tertiary source - we exist to summarize what secondary sources say about notable subjects. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You are correct on all counts. I was misremembering the copyright issue, thinking of another book of his that has no copyright, and thinking it applied to all of them. My mistake. But, the larger issue, as you say, is that we do not exist merely as a source for quotations, especially long quotations with no context. This is exactly what I have tried, and failed, to get Eduen to understand. Thank you for your response. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, he may have understood. He hasn't edited the page since the 8th. :) What I would suggest you do is put a note on the talk page of the article explaining your concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Maharana Pratap

I think that we may have a problem at Maharana Pratap and that it has existed since at least 2006. The article is far too polished for my liking and it has practically no sources, yet I can see what appear to be copy/pastes from Shashi, Shyam Singh (1996). Encyclopaedia Indica: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Vol. 100. Anmol Publications. ISBN 9788170418597.. For example, we say (and it has been there for years) "Living a life on the run, the dream of reconquering Chittor (and thus reclaiming the glory of Mewar) was greatly cherished by Pratap" and GBooks snippet view appears to show the exact same words on page 72.

But there is the rub: I only have snippet view. My suspicion is that pretty much the entire article has been lifted, whether from this one source or by compilation, but without access to Encyclopaedic Indica etc can we really make such an "accusation" and blank content that has existed for many years? Obviously, the same lack of access prevents me from recasting the thing. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, we really can. We deal with copyright problems whenever we find them--no matter how long they've gone undetected. What I usually do is look for enough such snippets to make a pattern of copying clear. I'm poking at the article to see what I can come up with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You're probably looking for this edit which seems to match the Encyclopaedia Indica sentence for sentence. Uncle G (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. :) This one is really messy! The exact text of that sentence enters here. The subject line claims this is a revert, but it isn't. Compare to the version it would have been reverted to. So, here's what I find weird: our article used to say, "Living a life on the run, the dream of retaking Chittor (and thus reclaiming the glory of Mewar) was much cherished by Pratap, and his future efforts were bent towards this end", which was then changed to "Living a life on the run, the dream of reconquering Chittor (and thus reclaiming the glory of Mewar) was greatly cherished by Pratap, and his future efforts were bent towards this goal." I'm trying to work out what happened there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
      • It sounds as if you two have a greater view of EI than I do - that's one of the banes of GBooks. From top to toe, the article just reads plain wrong. It is difficult to explain because there is gut feeling involved: I've got a good feel for how most people from India etc write here, most of the significant contributors seem reasonably likely to be from that country, and the style is far, far too glossy/professional. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, and I know that my analysis sounds terribly offensive but it has to be said that this phrasing etc is highly suspect in these circumstances. Plus, there are some definite instances of copyvio. - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I've blanked the substance and put more snippets on the talk page of the article. I cannot account for the odd alteration of text I link above, but there are enough text matches that we can't retain the content unless we can verify somehow that we have a right to it. And there's nothing offensive about looking for red flags; we recommend it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
      • It seems that under the guise of "copyediting" and "expansion", ImpuMozhi (talk · contribs) simply ganked the whole of the Encyclopaedia Indica article and put it into Wikipedia. When the revert war started, xe simply did it again rather than actually reverting, and forgot that the first time xe had changed "goal" to "end" alongside all of these changes all of which seem to be going back to the Encyclopaedia Indica original. More importantly to the issue at hand, perhaps, is whether this revision from 2006-05-28 is free content. If it is, at least we have something to revert to.

        Here is the foundational copyright violation at Battle of Haldighati, by the way.

        Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

        • I've commented about the 2006 version on the article talk page. It is unacceptable. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, unless somebody rewrites the article, the 2006 version may be what we get by default. :/ Reverting to the last clean is standard procedure in copyright cleanup. Of course, anybody can stub or change the content if it's unreliable. Good sleuthing, Uncle G. :) Blanked the second article, and I think that must be what happened. How odd. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Bhoja

By the way, whilst tracking through the likely candidates for further copyright violations in that article's history, I came across this 2007 edit copied wholesale from this 2005 web log into Bhoja. It is very clear that the editor was not capable of such coherent prose. All yours, Sitush. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

Courtesy

I mentioned you here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. :) I don't agree, of course, on your perspective that I have softened my stance on copyright...while I have considerably burned out on the endless tedious hours of trying to keep up with the work I've been doing for years, I think my basic attitudes have not changed much since I started. I've alway deemphasized blame, emphasizing cleanup and salvaging contributors. It's possible that my taking work at the WMF may have hastened my stepping down a lot of the CP duties I've been self-imposing for so long, but it's equally possible that I would have shifted to the stuff I actually enjoy doing on Wikipedia anyway (I was, at the time they approached me, turning a lot of attention to OTRS). As it is, I still feel enough obligation to CP that I'm doing that rather than chipping away at the long list of jazz album articles that I really want to create, now that list of missing album encyclopedia articles has been repopulated. Alas, not enough time. :/ Anyway, running out the door, but I'll take a look at your earlier note later! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright NZ Electoral System

Hi Moonriddengirl, I appreciate the polite and respectful tone of your messages. However I have reverted your edits on the NZ Electoral system and made comments on the Talk Page. Like yourself, I am not a lawyer. But I do not accept your perspective that US copyright law applies to NZ website entities. If NZ entities allow anyone to reproduce material from their websites, then US law has no relevance. Wikipedia may have policies that I am not familiar on this issue, but even Wikipedia cannot impose US law on NZ.

There is also the point that wholesale deletions are more destructive than the problem you are trying to solve. If you have concerns about a particular piece I have written that you think breaches copyright policy, please give me a chance to address it before deleting entire sections of useful information.

Sorry but I don't know how to fix my signature. I went to the link you suggested but could not make any sense of it. If you have a more specific suggestion that would be welcome. Offender9000 06:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And I've just reverted your re-introduction of this material for the reasons I explain more fully on the article's talk page (short answer - we can't accept "non-commercial material"). Dpmuk (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Dpmuk. As the content was again reintroduced by the contributor after your reversion, I have applied revision deletion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Copy vio - University of Dhaka

At least the History section of this article University of Dhaka, is a straight up copy-paste of the official and copyrighted University webpage [18], assuming that there isn't any back-copying of Wikipedia going on.

DD report.VolunteerMarek 03:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Blatant and not backwards copyvio. It was introduced with this edit. I've removed the entire section and left a notice on the talk page. Am off to leave a notice on the miscreant's talk page. Looking around at all the related articles for this University, it looks like several of them are potentially blatant copyvio. I'm going to check them all. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Update: I decided to check first the contributions of the editor who introduced the copyvio above and have now stubbed three more articles for blatant copyvio: Aeronautical College of Bangladesh, College of Aviation & Technology, and Bir Shreshtha Noor Mohammad Public College. I think I've now got rid of all the copyvio from this editor. Now off to investigate the sub-articles of University of Dhaka. I'd like to deal with these straight off to avoid adding to an even bigger backlog at CP and CCI. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
You rock. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup, thanks, Voceditenore.VolunteerMarek 17:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status of works made by Palestinians

Hi Moonriddengirl, I'd like to ask you for input at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. What seems to be a pretty clear-cut case to me and other editors may be more complicated after all. The question is: are works created by Palestinians protected in the US? If you can shed some light on this, please leave a message at the noticeboard. Thanks in advance, De728631 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess to me the real question is whether we should be using it even if it is not. Wikipedia:C#Governing_copyright_law has for years now said, "Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States". Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights says, "it is longstanding Wikipedia policy to respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States. What this means in practice is determined case by case, bearing in mind the goal of being able to freely distribute Wikipedia in the country an incorporated work originates from". Palestine is not a nation, but I'm not sure that they should be handled differently in this regard myself. I'm afraid beyond that I have nothing to offer there but speculation. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you anyway. The statement from "Governing copyright law" could be a guidance for the time being, and I'm going to refer to it in the discussion. De728631 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons upload barriers

In light of the fact that you specifically requested I upload PD images to the Commons, as opposed to En/WP, does a warning notice for images like this one serve that purpose? BTW, since there has been no more discussion at the CCI for 8 months, do you foresee any finalization? In case you appreciate my PD images, note that with at least three editors shadowing my every edit and quickly tagging images, often with ridiculous rationales, my desire to find more is minimal. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't my idea; this is the way the projects are set up. :) I have to say, though, I find it a bit odd that even knowing this y ou'd upload it here and then object when a Commons editor doesn't want you to put it there. Surely if you wanted it there, you'd have put it there to begin with? :/ That particular notice is a new one on me; it's kind of hard for me to argue about it, though, given that unfortunately there have been problematic uploads of images since the CCI was opened.
CCIs are finalized when every upload is checked. Some of them have been opened, unfortunately, for several years. It is time consuming and tedious work and relies on volunteers being willing to give of their own time. Finding public domain images is a valuable service for Wikipedia and all of the users of Commons, but there is some diligence required to ensure that they are public domain images. How do you know that picture was published before 1978? How do you know that it was ever published before the book from which you scanned it, which was published in 1997? It seems like guessing, which is never a good practice when it comes to copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Pritilata Waddedar

Do you want a clean start in this article too Pritilata Waddedar? She was a freedom fighter and committed suicide to avoid being arrested by British, at that time she was 21 years old. Brave girl. --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sad. :( If the content isn't salvageable and there isn't a clean version to revert to, then a fresh start on the problem sections would be awesome. We have quite a backlog at WP:CP, but if you have time to do the rewrite and let me know when it's done, I would be delighted to go ahead and process it. The quicker we can get this stuff back into circulation the better. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow

Wow that was a fast response, I had not even had time to fix my typo :-)

-- PBS (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's an odd situation

I'm checking out Conewago Recreation Trail, which doesn't look like the purported source now. I check though history, and see that many early versions have some wording identical to the source. But that appears to be because this new editor grabbed another article as a model. After a few days, the copied material is edited out, and I think it looks fine now. In theory I should revdel some of the early versions, but that would hide the history of the first 50 or so edits (roughly between creation and 23 October), so one question is what's the best way to proceed? Revdel 50 or so versions, or let is go?

The larger question is why the article used as the model Cumberland Valley Rail Trail, which has some wording identical to this source isn't on our list.

Is there a way to see if an article has ever been in the list? In other words, is there an archive for CP, or some other way to tell? I note the article doesn't have a talk page. I sometimes, but not always, add a note to the talk page when I've done a review (usually not in the case deletion is warranted) so if others follow that practice, this one may not have been reviewed. I thought the bots would look at all new articles- this was created in October 2011, so it isn't a case of being from pre-bot days.

If the answer is simply that some things get missed, no big deal, but I'm surprised this didn't get caught. (Although the source site doesn't have a copyright notice, it doesn't have a public domain license, and I don't believe it is any of the auto qualifiers for pd.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Not from pre-bot days but quite probably from bot broken days. There's no SCV listings from around October 2011 and I think that was when we were having licensing issues with search providers and so the bots weren't running. So not really surprising some things got missed around then. Dpmuk (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds very likely that Dpmuk has hit the nail on the head. We were without bots for some time. :/ The way I check that, Sphilbrick, is to use the "what links here" tool and limit it to Wikipedia space. Most articles have only a few links in project space, which makes it easy to see pretty quickly whether it was ever listed and where. For older articles, this doesn't work. While listings at CP have always been retained, the ones at SCV used to be removed before we switched to an annotation system.
The call on whether or not to rev delete is case-by-case, I think. I am myself inclined to do it if the use of the source is extensive and egregious and if there seems to be a high chance of intentional or inadvertent restoration of the content. (I myself once accidentally restored a copyvio to an article while cleaning up a copyvio - Copyvio A was introduced; Some time later, Copyvio B was introduced; Copyvio A was detected and cleaned up; Copyvio B was detected, and I reverted to just prior to its introduction, which restored Copyvio A.) It isn't required; it's precautionary. That said, retaining the 50 or so edits isn't necessary, either - for attribution purposes, we simply need the list of contributors. But it's really nice to be able to look back easily to see who added what. In the case above, if Copyvio A had been rev-deleted, investigating Copyvio B would have been a bit more challenging...although any admin can restore the content for the check. But the rev deletion would have prevented the inadvertent restoration. Does that make sense? I feel like I'm rambling. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dpmuk, thanks for reminding me about the bot holiday, I now remember that, but had forgotten. MRG, thanks for the reminder about what links here, I can check that. OK, I did, which is interesting, but hasn't resolved it. I see a couple entries at SCV, as others have used the article as a template (curiously, three different editors):

Stony Valley has been revd-deled. I just rev-deled Lebanon Valley. I've rev-deled Conewago Recreation Trail versions until the problematic material was removed.

I left notes at the three editor's pages, thanking them for contributions, but letting them know that using another article as a template in article space creates problems.

I know I should work on addressing Cumberland Valley Rail Trail, but I have to run to an appointment, so I listed it in CP, as I didn't see any sign it has been previously listed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Lee Wells

Hi Moonridddengirl,

I am writing in response to your deletion of my addition to the Lee Wells article for copyright infringement.

I was adding content to Lee Wells page based on his career, with his permission. I used language from his biography also provided on his website, because it described his work accurately. He approved this usage.

If there is a copyright problem, I am sorry. There are many other contemporary artists working in this circle with updated Wikipedia entries and I regret I didn't do it properly. I hope there is a chance someone else will.

Kind regards,

Katie

190.167.199.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. :) Replied at your talk page to explain what we can do about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Pritilata Waddedar/Temp

is ready... --Tito Dutta (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Done, but you're still building on it. :D Once the new content gets moved over to the article, I'll delete the temp page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
And done! Awesome. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The European club of Pahartali had a signboard that read "Dogs and Indians are not allowed" which was very insulting. Pritilata (then 21 years old) lead a group of 15 men and attacked the club, got injured by bullet of police. That's okay. But then confusion comes, all the sources (including few leading newspapers) I have added say, she got trapped and to avoid arrest she swallowed cyanide. But, in Bengali Wikipedia article they are saying with an offline source, the suicide was pre-planned and post mortem showed the bullet injury was not serious and cyanide was reason of her death. I have requested resource, but, I don't think anyone can help there. Should I stay with the current information which are very well sourced (I can add more sources too)? --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I think we have to stick with what we can verify. :/ You might put a note on the talk page about the discrepancy in case somebody else can find a source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My copyvio senses are tingling

Can you, or a tps, take a look at 2003 West Virginia sniper. It screams copyvio, but I haven't found it. Ryan Vesey 05:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The long stretches of unwikified text do look suspicious, but from looking at the history, this article grew fairly organically from 2003 (!) when it was first started. Interestingly, the only large chunk was added on April 1, 2011 [19]. This is an adaptation of this blog source. But note that both the blog owner and editor who added it have the same name and the blog entry was posted the same day. It looks like they posted virtually simultaneously to the blog and WP, although I suspect the blog came first by a few hours. The only really problematic chunk they have in common (a stretch of 39 words) and which should be rephrased can be seen at the beginning of this DD report, but the article isn't an instance of pervasive and serious copyvio in my view. It is, of course, pretty dreadful, poorly referenced, and out of date. But that's another issue. Voceditenore (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Update: I re-wrote the the 39 word chunk, updated the outcome of the conviction and added some references for it. I also tagged the entire "Background" section as unreferenced. The section probably also needs copyediting to remove some of the more intricate (and possibly out of date) material. But I'll leave that to someone else. Crimes are not my "thing". Voceditenore (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) Long day - from wake up until now - and it's delightful to find stuff being expertly managed when I pop by. :D ---Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks from me too! I might try to fix up the article if I get a chance. Ryan Vesey 22:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

UK Copyright/contract law ?

I've posed a question at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Wikishire licensing which I think could use input from someone more familiar with UK law than I am. I have no idea off the top of my head who that might be, so I'm posting this bump here for you and your bevy of knowledgeable talk page stalkers. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Need a little template help

Resolved

After noticing copyvio templates on Excavation (archaeology), I investigated and found that the supposed source page was copying our article without attributing us. I ended up leaving a custom-worded message at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 October 23 and a custom-worded message at the article's talk page because there wasn't any template that was applicable — the closest was "Backwardscopy. Tag and explanation placed at talk page." I don't know what this template is; could you point me to it? Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking about a template for the article's talk page, there's {{Backwardscopy}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
That's what I wanted; thanks, VW. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Verno. That's one of my favorite templates. :) While proving those cases sometimes takes a while (I try to be meticulous in documenting how I know, because I have had people come in and remove the content anyway), it always feels like a win for our team when the copying is not ours. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Mukti Bahini status?

Can you tell me the status of Mukti Bahini? It is a very sensitive and important article! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Please reply here: Talk:Mukti_Bahini#Copyright_violation_investigation_status.21 --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have replied at that articles' talk page. If it is indicated that "rewrite" is needed, I can start work there! --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

EU official website query

Hi MRG! Need some advice from you (or your talk page stalkers) on using text from the official European Union site. (The question was asked at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Nikiforos Diamandouros article—EU license.) The site's terms of use state:

"Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use."

Mighty close to CC-BY-SA, although not as explicit. The web page in question has no notice of special or additional restrictions on use. Voceditenore (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Responded. I am concerned about the lack of release of modifications. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

CP help

MRG, I successfully recruited an editor who is going to try to help out at CP (An editor with 22k edits and 9 years experience), but the editor noticed that "listings should only be 'closed' (including removing any {{copyvio}} tag from the article) by actual CP 'clerks' -- as I am not officially anyone anything, should I just be noting my investigation under each listing?"

What is the right procedure? (I took a look at the three articles reviewed, and commented on editor's talk page)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yay! If you and he are confident, I think the right procedure is to make him a CP clerk. :D If more overview seems like a good idea in a "clerk trainee" period, noting his investigation under each listing is a tremendous help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the page "Congress of North American Bosniaks"

To the Administrator,

My name is Hamdija Custovic, and I am the Vice President of the Congress of North American Bosniaks. Our page was deleted from Wikipedia and we do not understand why? If there were copyright violations, we would like to get them resolved. Please contact us at our official email address <redacted> to help us understand how we can restore the deleted page.

Thanks,

Hamdija Custovic VP of CNAB Board of Directors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.121.13 (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not Moonriddengirl, but I'll see if I can help.
First, it is not the normal practice to communicate via email. This does occur for inquiries sent in via email, but even that option is less desirable than discussing it here. (I'll leave a note at your email with options)
The article was deleted first in 2007, with a notation that the material was copied from this source. That link does not work, but I believe it is likely to be the same as this page
There is no question that the opening sentences of the article were exact copies of the opening sentences of the source.
Two possibilities occur to me:
  1. It is not uncommon for the author of the words on a website to assume that they have the right to use those same words in a Wikipedia article. This is understandable, but generally not true. If the copyright holder of the Congress of North American Bosniaks wants to license the material for use in Wikipedia, we can talk about how to make that happen (see below).
  2. Some editors believe that it is OK to use material from an online site, if it is properly attributed. The author did provide attribution, however, except for very small snippets, this is also not permitted by Wikipedia.
If the copyright holder wants to license the text at the site, the provisions are outlined:
here
I'm sorry the article was deleted, but we take copyright very seriously, and do not want to infringe the rights of the copyright holder. Because you are associated with the site, it is likely this can be easily resolved.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Following up on a point that is not obvious, but important - Wikipedia has no way of knowing the true identify of someone registering as an editor. Some could register the name John Doe, and they might be John Doe or someone else wishing to use that name. If John Doe the editor, wants to use some material under the copyright of the real John Doe, we cannot simply assume that the editor is that person. We do have a process, which includes sending an email to our OTRS system. That is outlined in the link.
A second issue also causes some confusion—a writer will work on the text of an organization's website, then wish to use the same words in a Wikipedia article about the organization. However, in most cases, the text was written as a work-for-hire and the copyright to the text is help, not by the author, but by the organization. In these cases, we need permission from the organization, even when the editor is the original author and when the organization has requested that the author work on a Wikipedia page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Sphilbrick. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

CCI on students

Hi -- you mentioned here that there's an open CCI on some student work right now; can you point me at that? I had a look at WP:CCI to see if I could spot it but was unable to -- sorry if it's obvious. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Indian Education Program. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
OK -- thanks. I knew about that (and tried to help); I thought she might be referring to a CCI on the part of the US education program. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Jen. That's exactly the one I meant. Mike, I've seen occasional singleton issues come through on US and Canadian students, but no CCIs. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jatindra Mohan Sengupta/Temp

This rewrite is ready from my side! --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Processed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism in Education program

Following on days of discussion at WP:ENB (good reading, by the way, the entire page is helpful and staff is finally understanding the extent of the problem) of the problems on Wikipedia with student editing, I have put up one case as a sample involving plagiarism so we can decide how different components of the community plan to deal with the massive problem, and how the board should be used. Your guidiance here would be nice: [20] There are other examples on the page under discussion. I have never encountered a student-edited article on my watchlist that did not have plagiarism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy. I've put a note there. Sorry for the delay. I should have come here first, but I have a probably not great habit of reading and responding to my talk page from the bottom up. I ran out of time with your second note. :/ Christmas season; school age kid. A really bittersweet combination, as many parents who have sat through an interminable school program would agree. (The sane ones, I would argue.) My kid is in high school now, so there's more talent and skill in the pool, but honestly I wouldn't have given my night over to that performance if had been done by professionals. :P
Anyway, I think your handling was great. When in doubt, {{copyvio}} is the way to go. Policy supports immediate reversion, but doesn't mandate it, and using the copyvio template sometimes cushions shock for bystanders. Of course, immediate reversion is also fine, and even better when multiple editors agree there are substantial problems and go that way.
I've started reading through ENB and will continue. But Jbmurray's note at the bottom of the page kind of drives home my own issue - plagiarism isn't just rampant from students, it's everywhere. One of the reasons I began experiencing burnout on the work in the first place is that after years and years of focusing on cleanup and education, I saw no sign of improvement, either in the practices of editors in general or the attitude of the community at large. It was really disheartening that multiple appeals to the admin community failed to bring significant change. If not for the small group of dedicated volunteers who pitch in regularly at various points in copyright cleanup (for whom I am truly grateful), I think there's a good chance I would have finally just thrown my hands up. It's because of them that I try to keep going with it, even though I cringe to open WP:CP and see the backlog we have there. It's not that I've stopped caring; I remain a huge believer in the concept of a free content encyclopedia, and I care about quality. But it's a truly Sisyphean task. It is - if not back-breaking - morale breaking. :/
P.S. To talk page stalkers who do this work. I'm not kidding. You guys keep me going. I don't want to do a call-out, because inevitably I'll forget somebody crucial and wind up hurting the feelings of somebody I honestly want to thank, but to those of you who persist at pitching in on this stuff: I you. ---Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I've helped out at CP, although less so in the lest couple months, for which I feel a little guilty. If I wasn't using my time to add some content, I'd feel really guilty). One of the challenges of CP work is that, well, I hinted already, it feels like work. I honestly don't know how MRG has stayed with it so long. Thankfully, there are people like MRG who are thankful, because there are the more tangible feedback of a completed article or a GA entry. It feels like moving a beach with a teaspoon, and it looks like the CP backlog is growing, not even staying stable.
I know that RfA is viewed as onerous, so I have mixed emotions about contributing in a way that might be perceived as making it worse, but I am sorely tempted to start asking a standard question: Have you reviewed 100 items at CP, and if not, how on earth would anyone know if you understand the copyright rules? Sensitive treatment of BLPs is well scrutinized, and important, but copyright is also very important, and doesn't get a lot of discussion at RfA. If we strongly suggested that every candidate should have reviewed at least 100 items, it would serve a couple goals—helping to ensure that !voters have some information about the candidate's knowledge of copyright, better understanding of copyright issues by candidates, and maybe a chunk taken out of the backlog. I'm not in favor of mandating such a rule, but I wouldn't be unhappy if the community made it a de facto requirement.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but how can non-admins review the items at CP, when the articles themselves, having been replaced by copyright-investigation templates or redirects, are invisible to ordinary editors? Or by “reviewing” do you mean hunting for violations to be listed there?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Oydssueus1479. :) There's plenty of work for non-admins to do at CP, including verifying issues and offering rewrites of problematic content. The template that blanks the article does not prevent review by experienced editors, who can view the content either by hitting "edit" or, as I often do, by looking in the history at the last version prior to the placement of the template. (It's important not to accidentally "save" that version, though, as it'll remove the template. :)) Redirects are not used in copyright investigation. In addition, a heavy percentage of articles listed at CP are not blanked, but flagged as "copy-pastes" or "close paraphrasing". Frequently, these require checking against sources to confirm if there's an issue and, if there is, deciding whether the issue is one that can be resolved through (a) reverting, (b) rewriting, or (c) escalating (through blanking and potential deletion).
Thanks. A couple of the links I clicked at random from near the top of the list were redirects, but I guess that was for other reasons. If you’re working on an article that has the investigation template, how do you preview it? Cut or comment out the template code, and then restore it immediately before saving?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Weird. :/ Were they inside the collapse? Maybe somebody has turned some of the SCV (suspected copyright violation) days into redirects. I've never really bothered with preview. If I want to see the markup, I hit edit. If I want to see what it looked like before the tag was placed, I just look in the history - like so. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, made me go back and look … under 2 October 2012, of the five articles listed below the collapsed bot-identified part, two are redirects, one has a tag about image copyrights, and two are unmarked WRT copyright. The ones where I saw only the investigation template (not thinking to look at the history) were from the next day—I see you’ve already deleted some of those. Anyway, thanks for the info, and sorry about the interruptions.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, you have some interesting ideas there, and - yes, the backlog at CP is growing. I tried to buffer a bit against that yesterday by putting maybe 10 hours into it. All that did was knock out a couple of weeks. But I was handling articles yesterday that have been blanked for a quarter of a year. There's always been satisfaction for me in keeping on top of CP, but obviously I lost that some time ago. :/ And it never did compare to the rewards of finishing an article. :D
I wonder how many truly active admins we have. Not that such a system would ever work, but I have to wonder what would happen if we could create some schedule where each admin takes a day. According to Wikipedia:List of administrators (which I don't believe) there are 665 of us active. It seems to me that one day every two years or so wouldn't be too much of a burden. I wouldn't imagine four days a year would be too much of a burden. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It is my impression that quite a lot of administrators are active but not administratively active. This seems particularly to be the case among those who were given the bit several years ago when (to me) it seems to have been more of a rite of passage. I'm not going to name names! - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Ever interested in looking for the positives in what seems like a negative, I wonder how prevalent the belief is by
Odysseus1479. There may literally be thousands of editors who have the ability to help out, but are under the impression that it is an admin only task. Obviously, we do have quite a few non-admins helping, so some know, but if there is a large group that presume incorrectly, we ought to think how to reach them. One possibility is to look at some of the guide written with advice on how to become an admin, and add something there, but that won't get to any significant portion.
I'd also like some version of MRG's suggestion. What if we created some sort of schedule, where volunteers "pledge" to review n items a week or month, and we have a simple table with a checkbox for each to fill in if they meet their goal. Sort of like groups do when they agree to an exercise schedule, or some other goal.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors has backlog-reduction drives every other month, with assorted barnstars and ‘most/biggest/best’ awards by way of incentive. Is there a corresponding project for copyright issues that could organize something similar?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
We've never really run a backlog drive, although I suppose we could. There are a few of us around. :) We'd have to figure out the best way to do that to avoid encouraging superficial responses, though - a single article can take me an hour for a thorough assessment. :/ Sphilbrick, that's an interesting idea. I wonder if we'd get any takers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The GOCE designates a few editors to spot-check the work being done during drives, to ensure quality isn’t being sacrificed to speed or volume (or barnstars).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I participated in one of those GOCE drives, good idea to steal their ideas. On the schedule idea, my guess is that we will get participation from the usual suspects, but it may be worth a try to see if new people show up. I've started mocking up a crude version.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Even a few people can make a difference. :) Obviously, more is better. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Proceeding with CCI cleanup

Hi MRG!

Have had a look at most of the photos in this CCI. While many seem to be his own work, there are an awful lot of images described as being taken from various GM brochures before 1978. Don't think we can search at copyright.gov for copyrights as we don't know the names of them and searching GM copyrights would be next to impossible online. We also don't have a way to see copies of the many brochures they were taken from, so we could examine them for no notices.

Would it be best to make a list of these files that are here and at Commons so we can see how many there are for going through FFD & DR? If so, where's the best place to start this kind of list?

Thanks! We hope (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 14:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for working on that CCI. :) I've done a few massive deletion requests at Commons over stuff like this. You might want to gather them together in one section on the CCI page - just organize it however facilitates cleanup. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
All-righty, the list is here on the CCI talk page. We hope (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Is there any sensible way to subdivide those into smaller groupings? I suspect that a mass deletion request of over 100 images is likely to lead to a certain degree of shock...which may cause people to react differently than they otherwise would. (When key articles are blanked for copyright concerns, I have sometimes encountered this reaction, although people generally calm down after you begin to talk to them and they take time to review the evidence. Their first response is sometimes denial.) What I might recommend is asking at Commons' VPC is a mass discussion is preferable to individual discussions in a case like this, with a link to the subpage. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

OK-I asked at Commons. Asclepias was kind enough to point me in the direction of a very good resource. Spent most of the day checking there; found some which are now marked and at PUF here but only three that were OK-no copyright on the brochures. As I tried finding matches, I saw that most of the material distributed by the auto makers was copyrighted--even in the mid to late 1950s. (They didn't get so big by not protecting their interests. :)) What's on the project talk page was uploaded as either crops from brochures which aren't at the website or described by the uploader as publicity photos from the various auto makers. Not sure if they copyrighted those also or not. Where shall we go from here? We hope (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like time for a deletion discussion. :/ I'm not sure if a mass discussion or individual or batch discussions are best. What do you think? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
My thought would be that discussing them in batches would be the way to go. I just located the match to File:Duntov & the Sting Ray.jpg at a NYT article, and they credit GM News Archive. No idea re: copyright, but this file can be turned into a non-free one to support the article on Duntov. Batch PUFs give those who work with the automotive pages a chance to either provide PD proof if someone can or to write rationales for needed files as non free ones. Some of the photos listed are probably necessary to respective articles so they can "beat" deletion by being turned into non-free files. We hope (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Have now sorted the list into orphaned files and those in use here and at Commons. If non-bulk discussions are done, we may be able to hold those only for files in use on both projects. We hope (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Never having done this before, am guessing that you decide how and when to deal with the questionable files. We hope (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late! I overlooked your earlier note and have just now scanned this far up the page to find it. No, not so much me. Images are not my area. I'm not an admin on Commons and only pop in there occasionally to deal with permissions matters or copyright issues (and very occasionally to upload a free image). Even here, I only work on them when needs must. I'm pretty much the reason they're no longer listed at WP:CP. :) I'm not entirely sure the best way to proceed - maybe those who work in the area can be invited to come to the list at the CCI and proactively salvage what can meet non-free content criteria and what remains should be nominated? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
How about a post re: the images and a link to the CCI page at the Auto project talk page ? We hope (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like a good approach. Maybe there will be some takers. :) I'm not sure how active they are. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me make a post there with a link to the list. There'll be a "second call", of course, when the images go to PUF and are tagged on their respective pages. I'll also write something up to turn Duntov into a non-free file, but I don't work on the auto pages, so am not much help with this part of it. We hope (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Proudbolsahye

Hello VernoWhitney, if you are watching. ☺ I've just been reading the second source cited in the article, ironically to check out notability. It is of course "Copyright Massis Weekly". At least two sentences in the source match the article exactly, word for word. I have a worrying feeling that if I check out Sourp Prgich Armenian Hospital I'll find the same thing. An opinion on whether there's protected expression in this fairly bland recitation of historical facts would be good. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • What? Me, watch the talk page of my de facto copyright cleanup mentor? Never. I think there's plenty enough creativity to qualify for copyright protection (it's a low bar to meet). While the individual sentences are bland, there's a whole paragraph (two in the source) which follows almost verbatim. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Would you like to do the honours? Uncle G (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
      •  Done And another copyvio warning left for Proudbolsahye. I think I'll look into their other contributions now. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • LOL! :D These are the kinds of talk page threads I like to come home to! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Does it dampen your enthusiasm at all if I filed a CCI request as a result of looking into their other contributions? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Well.... If it weren't Christmas season, maybe a little more. I <3 Christmas. It's fun when there's a kid in the house. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

CCI update

--MER-C 10:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yay! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Wait, wasn't this two yesterday? :O <checking> It was! Wow, Wizardman. :D Going to town! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Banglapedia copyvio!

This is a known issue, please see this. I have not seen any other notice like this. Can you appoint a bot for Banglapedia copyvio findings? There might be more articles. And that is the problem of rewriting Bangladesh related articles, you'll rewrite and then an over-enthusiastic IP will again add from Banglapedia to try to help! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have bots to appoint. :( I'm not a bot writer nor do I have any authority over those who are. There is a WP:CCI on Banglapedia at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Banglapedia (source), but I don't think any of us doubt that more content has crept in since. It would be wonderful if we had bots around that could check for fresh copying from Banglapedia and other common sources, but we just don't. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL! I hope you also enjoy your ______. Wæs þu hæl, non-denominationally! And may I say how happy I am that we've survived? (Or maybe we've just seamlessly passed into a new era so similar to the last that I can't tell.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work in 2012

Best wishes
for the holidays and 2013 from a warmer place than where you are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! And to you as well, except for the part about it being warmer here. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Trafalgar Square 1948
 Happy Holidays, MRG!

And a big thank you from me for all your work here and the unfailing grace and courtesy with which you carry it out. Have a wonderful Christmas and a very happy new year.

Voceditenore (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Awww. :) Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

About Fashion Design Council of India (FDCI) (apologies for bothering you, doubtless you have much more important things to deal with)

Hello again Moony.
I've fixed the WP:COPYVIOs in the article following COPYVIO-101. I'm quite frankly a babe in the woods when it comes to copyright law. Have I done the right thing? Should the copy-vios in the article and my repeating them on the users' talk-page be WP:REVDEL'd.? And should someone with 30 000 plus edits still be asking beginner questions?
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Absolutely. It makes me feel better about all the stuff I need help with. :D Taking a look now.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. :) I found another sentence copied, but I think the rest is good. I did a bit of cleanup on the template on the talk page, which makes its own header and signature because I tried to streamline it as much as possible. I wouldn't go with rev deletion on something like that - I usually save that for extensive or egregious issues or for articles where reversion (inadvertent or intentional) seems likely. And because the content is limited, your note at his talk page should be quite fine. One thing, I would recommend pointing him to Wikipedia:Copy-paste, which is much easier for contributors to understand than the Terms of Use. I have been making a lot of use lately of {{uw-copyright-new}}, which isn't even mentioned at CV101, I think. (Because it's still kind of new. :)) It doesn't discuss the possibility of permission - which I think is kind of not ideal - but it's really useful for cases like this where permission is not at stake. This person just needs to understand that we can't build articles out of sentences from our sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
(tps) Frankly, I'm happy to see a 30K editor asking beginner questions. While I think my copyright shoes are broken in, if I had to visit SPI, I'd sound like a rank beginner. There's a lot a waterfront here, and I doubt no one is skilled in all areas. I remember hearing, years ago, that no one person knows how to build a space shuttle. A few seconds thought and it is obvious, yet it still feels like an astounding fact. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 👍 Like Definitely agree with you there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. The user has now added {{User wikipedia/Administrator maybe}} to his userpage. Quoting Blake is all very fine, but I do wonder if that little lamb is ready for the bloodshed involved in an RfA.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK Pritilata Waddedar

Hello! Your submission of Pritilata Waddedar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Mason Henry Gang re write

Rewrote the sections of the Mason Henry Gang. Ran across original newspaper sources for the same challenged sections and quoted them. Much better. see Talk:Mason Henry Gang/TempAsiaticus (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll try to take a look at it later today if I can, although it may be difficult. I'm traveling for the holidays and working from the road. :) If I can't do it today, it will probably be after Christmas, unless some kindly talk page stalker can help out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've mentioned you...

...and suggested that you know the likely methodology to provide attribution history for deleted articles at this AN discussion as I think you had done it in the past with a mirror site that was discussed on one of the pumps about a year ago. —SpacemanSpiff 15:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied. :) Thank you! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas
Hey MRG, hope you like the Christmas gift we sent you (whatever the foundation decided was an apt replacement for a shirt, I guess...) Keep safe over the holidays, and hopefully I can see you at the next Wikimania! Merry Christmas for you and yours! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I am in expectation of a gift? :) (If so, my receipt may be delayed by travels!) Merry Christmas to you, too, and that would be wonderful. Are you going to the upcoming? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, that's what this says at least. I may (probably will) apply for travel grant as I have to leave the country around that time to renew my visa. If not, I'll probably end up in Singapore. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Wishing you a Happy and a Merry and a very fine 2013! We hope (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

'Tis that season again...

Happy Holidays!
Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, MRG! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

..


Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Moonriddengirl! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


Kitty53 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas, Moonridden!Kitty53 (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Copypasting within wiki articles

Is that a copyvio? I had thought if an editor copypastes from one to another it has to be attributed. How wrong am I? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

For more about the context of this question, please see here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Attribution does need to be provided, otherwise the copyright license is violated. If this isn't done in the initial edit, it is good to create dummy edits with the information. We also have {{copied}} to leave a talk page note for the purpose (but only the history note is required, which I think should be changed because the template is much more useful). Ryan Vesey 18:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, guys! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandal alert

Hello! its been a long time :). How is WikiLife holding up?

Coming to the issue, User:Hx96772 has received four warnings against her vandalism on a number of Indian film-based articles. I believe there is a rule which calls for a block, though I'm doubtful because the vandalism has taken place over a period of several months. Could you look into this? Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) The warnings don't necessarily mean that vandalism happened, because anyone can leave a warning. This is why it's usually a good idea to include the name of the article when leaving a vandalism warning - it makes it a whole lot easier to see the problem. I can look at a few of the situations, but it's hard to see a persistent pattern of vandalism. I see a lot of good faith work. What kind of behavior are you seeing that's problematic? Can you try talking to her about it in a friendly way, to perhaps encourage her to contribute in policy? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll give it a try. Thanks :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved Admin, could you please close this AfD Debate?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. George M. Weir Elementary School was clearly a snowball's issue, which is why I took the liberty of redirecting the Article myself.

However, the fact I posted in the debate itself makes me ineligible for Non-Admin Closure in this case, so could you close the AfD section? After all, you're an Admin and you did not post in the AfD Debate in question. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Now, it's a moot point. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Glad it's been resolved. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand Top 50

Hi, this discussion appears to have..died down? Nobody has really commented on the substance of the issue. Would it be acceptable to take the Afd to deletion review? Till 02:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's acceptable, but generally the community does seem to follow the input of legal counsel on these matters. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_49&oldid=1142523656"