User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 → Archive 60

RAF Merryfield & possible copyvio

I went to the RAF Merryfield article to try to add some references and found much of the text is very similar to this site. It was added to wp in 2007 (diff) but I have no idea whether wp or the other site had the text first - should I add a copyvio label?— Rod talk 21:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) A quick search suggests that website is rather new ([1]), but that's not definitive, because it could have come from somewhere else (meaning the website - they do sometimes move. :D). Their "About Us" page suggests that may be the case, as they claim to have been around since 2001. Given that, I want to take a look at the evolution of the content to see if I can tell which came first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, typo at insertion point ("to he built") suggests it was either transcribed from a book or developed here naturally. That error is not on the external site. Excellent sign minutes later with small changes such as camp->airfield and August 24->24 August. The external site uses both of them. The "Ahhot" typo is a little concerning, though, as that kind of thing usually indicates a poorly digitized source - the scanner misreads the lower line of the "b". Also note "2$" for 26 and "September &" for "September 6". Here's more of that: "Ramshury" instead of "Ramsbury". But again a change is made ("with Merryfield" becomes "with the station"). I think the source you spotted copied from us, but if I could get inside of it, I'd be looking at UK Airfields of the Ninth, the source, for matches. :/ I don't suppose you have a copy of that book, do you? I'd love to eliminate that concern. Unfortunately, the contributor who added the article does have an early history of issues (see 1 and 2, for instance. There are other CSB notices, but I'm not checking those, having verified these two). I need to make sure that the content was not copied and that, if it was, the content is PD and properly attributed per current plagiarism guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I don't have the UK Airfields of the Ninth book but did get the Berryman one out of the library - which prompted my interest in the article. Your expertise and tenaciousness in these queries is brilliant.— Rod talk 13:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've had a lot of practice. :D I guess I'll start with WP:REX. They can sometimes help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Check back at REX, me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey there. I saw this discussion as I've still got Skinny's page watchlisted. I have got Airfields of the Ninth, and I'm afraid to say that when I was using it for work purposes a few months ago, I noticed that of the ones I looked at, almost every article on airfields that are in that book, contains copyvios of varying sizes (RAF Thruxton and RAF Stoney Cross are memorable, plus a dozen others). The book is at work, but I'll check it tomorrow and give you some examples. Sorry, I only just remembered this issue - it's quite big, but was of low priority when I was reading the book as the work came first! Seeing this thread has just reminded me... Ranger Steve Talk 13:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ranger. When you have a chance, could you make a list of the articles that need looking at? Also, Pinging MRG, Pinging MRG, cleanup on Aisle 3. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Will do. Be warned though that there's dozens of airfields in the book. I'll probably do it on a county basis, as the book does, and it may take a while. Ranger Steve Talk 14:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh dear... thanks for taking up that herculean task. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. If anyone else has a copy of the book, it might be handy. By the way, something weird with your sig datestamps above (March 2014?). Ranger Steve Talk 14:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That's deliberate, to make sure it doesn't archive too early :) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. :) I was hoping not to forget this one. Thanks, Crisco, for pointing out the activity - as focused on the little copyright investigation as I've been, I think I would have missed it altogether. One thing I might suggest, @Ranger Steve:, if you don't mind - can you check to see if there's a pattern in who added the problematic content? If so, we can do this as a regular WP:CCI. If it's been copied by multiple people (the way Banglapedia has been), it's a far different problem. If it's one person and there's at least five problematic articles, I would open a CCI for him. If you would prefer, if you can just list for me maybe 5-10 articles that are clearly copied from that source, I'll be happy to do the investigation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Will do. I'll shove it all in a sandbox and then you can decide where best to put it. Looking above, I think you've already identified the main source of the problem, but I'll confirm this more definitively tomorrow. Ranger Steve Talk 16:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi both. I've started a summary of one article at User:Ranger Steve/Sandbox3, to give a flavour of the issues. There are 62 articles in Airfields of the Ninth; I've randomly looked at a few and made some comments. I'm afraid that's all I've got time for today. I fear it may take some time to ascertain how deep this issue goes; it might be worth contacting the editor in question directly and seeing if he'll take on the work... Ranger Steve Talk 07:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ranger Steve. I've done so, leaving him a note in the existing section for copyright concerns on his talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ranger Steve. I note you indicate that the editor in question has a concerning propensity for unattributed cross-article copying. Not good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to give scope here, I have gone ahead and run the CCI: User:Moonriddengirl/CCI sandbox. I randomly spot-checked the first article on the top of the fourth page. It was an article on a song, and it was copied from a website but cleaned long ago. I popped in on an article midway down page 7, Jamie Colby, and find the following passage added to the article (among others):

While waiting to take the Bar Examination, she was asked to fill in at a television station for an anchor who was on maternity leave. She enjoyed it so much that she decided to seek a future in Journalism, although she did later take and pass the bar....

Since the passage cites IMDB, I checked IMBD, where i find:

While waiting to take the Bar (to become a lawyer), she was asked to fill in at a television station for an anchor who was on maternity leave. She enjoyed it so much that she decided to seek a future in Journalism, although she did later take and pass the bar.

This was added in December 2011. I haven't checked the other sources for copying. That's about all I have time for right now. @Wizardman:, I already pinged you on his talk page, but your thoughts here would be welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Ugh. And. Uuuuggh. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Ouch. I was going to list all the airfields in my sandbox and start summarising the extent of copyvio in each, but I suspect it might not be necessary? Anyway, I've taken a random airfield again; RAF Balderton. Again, whilst its not a direct copy and paste, a lot of content is very very similar. A summary will appear in my sandbox shortly. Also, I have a concern about the black and white images used in most of these airfield articles. The photos themselves, most of which were taken by the RAF between 1942 and 1946, are presumably out of copyright. However, notice the runway numbers and north arrow? They're exactly as they appear in the book and are most likely modern annotations. Would they therefore be copyright of the author/publisher? Milhist would hate to lose these images, but I thought I'd better mention it. Ranger Steve Talk 14:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Ooh, images. This is where I prove a little more useful than just pinging people. Based on my look, it's probable that the numbers at File:Balderton-18apr44.jpg, for instance, would not pass the threshhold of originality needed to claim a new copyright (although I note that the UK does have a lower threshhold than the US, so at worse this would have to be hosted on Wikipedia). Doubt the directional arrow would be PD, though, unless it was in the original. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
        • In my experience of them, RAF aerial images do not have a north arrow (an north is rarely at the top!). Sandbox has been updated. Ranger Steve Talk 14:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Which means a lot of cropping in the future ... :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
            • If the CCI has that many issues we're finding already, we probably don't have a choice other than to open it, although the sheer number means it will probably never be resolved :/ Wizardman 16:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've opened it at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819. He's been actively working on cleanup, I'm happy to say, and I'm going to go in and annotate which articles he's cleaned, but, @Ranger Steve:, it would be really helpful if you could first take a look at a couple of them to see if the cleanup has addressed the problem. Maybe [2], [3], [4] and [5]? If those four are okay, then I think I can generalize that the cleanup is going well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Can do tomorrow (been out of the office today). Ranger Steve Talk 16:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry, been hectic for a few days and I won't be around for another ten days. Looking at those 4, they seem to be fine now. I haven't read all 4 in minute detail, but I can't see any evidence of block passages. I have noted that the cleanup has been quite blunt on some other articles, basically hacking almost all of the content out, which might include other, non-copyvio, contributions. I'll have to check later. Ranger Steve Talk 11:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you, and no worries. We all have real lives. :) (Hopefully!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sami Yusuf edit

Hello,

Thanks for notifying me. I just have a small concern. When I worked on updating the Awakening Records page with the dispute (putting what's on Sami Yusuf's page and adding the press release from Awakening Records, the change was reverted because (quoting the editor): "It is an internal dispute and it is self-sources".

In Sami Yusuf's page the whole paragraph depends on what he describes of the dispute, which is biased and it does not include reliable sources, so I think if I should not edit it myself (being affiliated with Awakening Records and fearing the conflict of interests) then at least the article should be edited still because if not then Wikipedia will be allowing to expose only the Information quoted from Sami Yusuf's point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmats2al (talk • contribs) 10:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

ConfirmationOTRS

You mentioned that you were going to look at the {{ConfirmationOTRS}} template, because it wasn't properly handling the gfdl only option. I now have a number in this category, but if you do open it up, I just tried "pd", "public domain" and "cc0" as parameters, all of which produce a CC3.0 message.

My example is Talk:Cinematic theatre.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

PD is supposed to work. :/ I did receive clarification on the GFDL statement; I'm off to IRC to see if anybody can fix the display issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it's working, User:Sphilbrick! I tested in User:Moonriddengirl/sandbox. :) An OTRS agent in IRC said it was functioning for him yesterday. Maybe it's spacing specific? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I see what I did wrong. Fixed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Two minor notes - I see some agents use license=c as a parameter. I don't believe a single c is an acceptable parameter, but if the parameter is not allowed, it defaults to a CC license. On the one hand, not much harm done, one the other hand, it isn't right. When I found my error, I realized I make some others, so I am using AWB to cleanup, while doing my cleanup, I am changing license=c to license=cc. I also noticed that several tickets I reviewed explicitly mention gfdl, but not CC and are after 2008. I used license=gfdl as a parameter, which renders as both. This doesn't sound like anything worth addressing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Sphilbrick, Any tickets for text that are on or after November 1 2008 that mention GFDL but not CC are unacceptable. :( We need to revisit those. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. There are a number. I'll make a list.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Good news. While I found a few, several were from 2008, and before November, so OK. I found one that started with a gfdl license, but later in the email string, the CC license was mentioned.
The only one that looks like an issue is Talk:Chilled_food--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Assistance/advice request

I'm faced with a copyright problem and I'm not sure how to proceed.

An editor added material to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which I had my doubts about in terms of content. When I checked the sources, I noticed that the wording was a mixture of close paraphrase and verbatim copying (see here). I removed the material and warned the editor; their responses made it clear that they were familiar with the idea of copyvios, but that they stood by their edit and mentioned their "legal rights as an author". Since then, they have inserted the same material into another article with only the most minor changes, retaining the structure of the original and some of the wording.

This isn't the first interactions I've had with the editor; none of them have been pleasant. I think I'm correct in my assessment of the copyright problems here, but I'm also aware that I'm not neither an expert nor am I unbiased. I'm not going to do any good talking to them. That opportunity has passed. I would appreciate your insight on the issue, and advice on how (or even whether) to proceed. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Guettarda. :)
Not reading German, I'm afraid I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in assessing the degree of paraphrase overall. :/ As a general principle, you can paraphrase a little more closely if you attribute the content within the text; however, you still cannot use substantial verbatim strings from the original without quotation marks. (per convention, this is helpful; for policy, WP:NFC: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method." Brief verbatim textual excerpts must be marked for what they are by quotation marks. This is important to us particularly because our content is free for reuse around the world, and marking non-free content enables reusers to determine how the material fits within the laws of their own cultures. Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content cautions reusers that our articles may use quotations under the fair use doctrine, but otherwise indicates that content is available under CC-By-SA. Close paraphrasing of non-free sources should remain minimal; it cannot substitute for the use of policy-mandated quotation.
My general recommendation when people truly believe a passage constitutes a copyright problem and the contributor disagrees is to mark it with {{copyvio}}, use the automatically generated notice to advise the contributor and the other automatically generated notice to list it at WP:CP. If you explain why you are concerned, an administrator or copyright clerk will look at the situation, consider any other viewpoints expressed, and help resolve the matter. That's the practice set out at Wikipedia:CP#Instructions_for_listing_text-based_copyright_concerns for where "the removal of the copyright problem is contested." At that point, you really don't need to worry about it anymore. You've had a good faith concern and put it out there for others to look at. You pass the baton. :)
An alternative, if you think the issue is borderline, is to apply {{Non-free}} to the page itself and put a note explaining your concern on the talk page. This is potentially useful where a large number of people have interest in the article and may help resolve the matter swiftly. In my experience, it is less useful in articles with low traffic.
I hope that you find this helpful and do appreciate your being mindful of the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

2 wrestling articles

Hello and thank you for the feedback on CMLL Torneo Nacional de Parejas Increibles (2014) and CMLL 81st Anniversary Show articles. I took the structure etc. from previous articles CMLL Torneo Nacional de Parejas Increibles (2013) and CMLL 80th Anniversary Show, articles I originated as well. I will make sure to give proper link/credit when using structures etc. from a previous Wikipedia article.  MPJ -US  02:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please Keep an Eye on This Page To Prevent "Family Promotion": 29 August 2014

Please keep an eye on this page => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja_Krishnachandra ; I am a DMOZ Meta. Please see the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raja_Krishnachandra&action=history and my brief in talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raja_Krishnachandra . I do not think there is any validity of their claim. May be that Editor is paid by some to promote. Obviously, a King will have lot of citations, references from books, scans, photos. There is something wrong. This can be legally important. They submitted a website at DMOZ too. No need to answer me, use your own logic. Have a nice day 115.253.32.174 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not familiar with DMOZ, but I appreciate your sharing your concerns about this article. That Banglapedia is offline is not an issue to our using them as a source. However, I discovered that copyright problems had been reintroduced to the article, and I have removed those again. I have also substantially expanded the article with citations taken from books. There are many, many more, it seems, if you would like to add more. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

Salted page

Hello, I am trying to create a page for Mesut Kurtis but it seems that this page was deleted and protected by administrators. Mesut Kurtis is a notable singer who has a wikipedia in Turkish: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesut_Kurtis Thought of asking if you can help. Salmats2al (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Salma

Hello, Salmats2al . :) When an article is deleted and recreated over and over, sometimes an administrator will protect the page against creation. We call this "salting the earth", or "salting." It can be undone as easily as it is done. My only concern here is that any article you create must demonstrate that Kurtis meets the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines or WP:GNG - the article was previously deleted at deletion debate because editors did not believe he met those guidelines at the time. If that's changed, then there's no reason you can't make an article on this guy (unless he is one of your clients on your record label). Do you have reliable sources that are not connected to the subject? The only source in the Turkish article is the official site, which would not be enough for English Wikipedia. If you say you do, I will be happy to unprotect the page so you can create the article there. If he is on your record label, you would do far better to work on something through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Be very, very careful to be neutral and to only use high quality references.
By the way, I have realized from [6] that there is an aspect of our terms of use with which you may not be familiar. Please note specifically wmf:Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities. As an employee of Awakening Records, you must note your paid affiliation in at least one of the following ways:
  • a statement on your user page,
  • a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
  • a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.
Please be sure to do this. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for being a great help! I'll make sure to post it, but I may deactivate my account soon. The one more question that I can ask is how can I make a request for the page to be created like the code you previously taught me to add? I have plenty of sources that can prove he's a notable person and can provide it for the editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmats2al (talk • contribs) 13:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that code like that isn't really used to creating new articles, Salmats2al. The closest we come, if you don't want to write a drift yourself, is Wikipedia:Requested articles, which is a very uncertain process - basically, people may browse those lists at any time and decide to create an article. Articles could be created within days of request, or not for many years. If you want to go that route, the specific list for performers is at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters. You can also try putting at a note at a relevant WikiProject talk page - like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey - but that also depends on people reading and feeling like helping out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi MRG. Thanks for your help with Roundel (fortification). So I think what you're saying is that the copyvio was my translating from German Wikipedia without attributing that on the talk page - that I understand!. Whereas CorenBot was suggesting I had copied it from some third party website, which I hadn't - it just happened to be a copy of the German Wiki article (and hopefully not vice versa). I always add an attribution when I translate articles from de.wiki. I just don't always do it immediately; in future I will aim to do it at the same time as translating the article. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If I'd had the brains to read this earlier, Bermicourt, I'd have replied here instead of posting at Talk:Zwinger (Münster). I'm pretty sure that it is your use of hidden German-language text that is triggering the bot, and I suggest that the best solution would be to modify your way of working slightly so as to eliminate that use. I'm going to ask Gerda Arendt to read this too, as she has had the same problem recently, and for the same reason. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's in my talk archive, I changed. Could the bot change? In both cases, it wasn't the German Wikipedia what the bot found but a different mirror site. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe it's possible to have the bot change to omit occasional mirrors - while it omits known mirrors, there are just too many random websites that copy Wikipedia. :/ But as I mentioned to Bermicourt, having the bot flag these is not all that bad a thing. While it wastes a bit of time, it does help identify people who need to adjust their practices in translation or copying from one page to another. When I see a mirror, all I do is check the edit summary and the talk page to see if all the attribution is as it should be and, if it is, I mark it off WP:SCV and move on. If not, I correct it myself (if I can) and tell the contributor how to do it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, looks like Zwinger (Münster) needs attribution in the edit summary still, Bermicourt. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a useful discussion and I think I need to tighten up the translation process that I use. I often translate articles by transferring the whole German article to English Wiki and translating it in chunks. That's fine, I guess, unless I take a break or stop for the night, in which case large amounts of German text could be left (albeit hidden) for a while that CorenBot could pick up. Also I tend to do the attributions in batches after a creating several articles. So although I'm pretty fastidious about attributing the translations to German Wiki, there is often a delay. My plan is to minimize the amount of untranslated text by e.g. translating it in MS Word and transferring it to the article in stages and to do the attributions as I go. Bear with me - right now, I have some catching up to do! Bermicourt (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixing incorrect OTRS tags

After I sent the note to the OTRS admin list it occurred to me that I wasn't sure that you were an OTRS admin, so might not see it. I meant to follow up directly, but did not.

On the one hand, I get that if someone provided text under a GFDL only license after 1 November 2008, then the right response (at that time) is that it is not an acceptable license and they need to provide an acceptable permission statement. However, many were accepted at the time.

It is not my goal to track these down and figure out what to do, in general. However, in some cases, the agent not only accepted the permission, but used an image permission tag. That is now generating an error, and I am trying to cure those errors. In many cases, I can simply switch to the right tag, but the text tag requires information about the source and the license. I am trying to determine what should be placed in the license parameter field.

I get that the right answer is that there is no valid choice.

However, unless we decide that the best thing to do is leave the incorrect tag in place (which seemed like a bad choice, but may be the best option), I need to figure out how to add a text permission tag.

I toyed with writing a custom message, with a discussion of the change in rules, and a link to the OTRS ticket, but nothing seemed satisfactory. If you think some sort of custom message would be a good idea, I'll take a stab at some wording. I don't see any great options, I'm trying to pick the best of the bad options.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Sphilbrick. :) This one's pretty tricky. The reason why is because we didn't do the transition on 1 November 2008 - we did the transition at some point in the middle of 2009. So there was a span of some months when we were GFDL licensed but knew there was a chance we would no longer be within a few months. A lot of OTRS agents at that time asked for co-licensing in anticipation of the change, but not everybody did, especially around the beginning, before word had spread far and wide about the challenge.
Basically, if an OTRS agent accepts something under a faulty premise and we find it out later, that content needs to be removed. The OTRS agent who accepts such content is speaking for himself, and implies no obligation on the part of the rest of us. Instead, we have an obligation under our Terms of Use and Copyright Policy to ensure that content is properly licensed.
In this case, it wasn't a faulty premise - it was just an awkward time, due to our unprecedented transition. As I recall, GFDL actually wrote the provision in specifically to our benefit that allowed us to do the relicensing. They simply put some restrictions on what we would have to do if we wished to make that transition, and one of those was a requirement that we not publish content taken from GFDL-only sources (except our own) on or after 1 November 2008. That is the reason that Wikipedia:Licensing update says "Any text copied from a non-Wikimedia GFDL-only resource and added to Wikipedia on or after Nov. 1, 2008 should be removed as a copyright violation." While the resolution was not adopted until mid-2009, the condition change was unavoidably retroactive.
Based on a close reading of [7], I think in my non-lawyer assessment that there is a possibility that we can retain some of this content, but it would depend on the conditions on which it was first published.
The specific clause is as follows:
An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008.
If the content was first published somewhere else, and we know that somewhere else did not publish it under GFDL, I think we should be able to retain it without causing issue. (And in that case it would be like all the other GFDL content we published before the transition, now dually licensed.) Otherwise, I think we either need to seek relicensing from the OTRS correspondent, or delete the content, because of our transition. We did a lot of cleanup of interim GFDL-only content at the time of transition, but it's inevitable that some stuff would be overlooked, especially where the wrong tag was used so we would not know the license asserted. :/
Creating a new tag is an option, but I would suggest that it should be carefully worded to invite review, rather than asserting that the license is acceptable. It may be, and if it is the content should now be dually licensed along with everything else that transitioned in mid 2009. If it was not, the content is not acceptable, no matter what the OTRS tag has said all these years. :/
If you'd like me to put on my work hat and seek feedback from one of our lawyers to see if a lawyer also thinks we can retain content that was previously published but not under GFDL, please let me know. If they say that we can't retain it regardless of the copyright status of the content at the original point of publication, we may not have a choice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You made a good point that I missed. I assumed that many agents missed some of these issues around the transition time. This is obviously true, because I see some. However, I assumed there must be a number, maybe even a large number of similar problems but with the text tag. Twas unaware that you had affirmatively gone on a cleanup campaign - it certainly seems plausible that the cleanup campaign wouldn't have looked at image tags.
Before you put your work hat on, and equally unappealing, ask lawyers to do real work on unimportant issues, let me propose an alternative. It isn't like there are hundreds of these things, maybe a dozen or two. (I can count them, I just haven't yet.)
Why don't I mock up a possible email, which would explain the situation, and the options. In almost all cases, I think they will simply agree to a cc license. If they do, I can use the dual option. If they don't, and I'll bet there won't be many, we can decide whether to remove the material, or some other step. I thinking you do not have to check with a lawyer if we can get the copyright holder to provide the correct license., and the only reason we might need to get them involved is if we end up with some situations that we cannot resolve easily.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a good solution to me, User:Sphilbrick, if it works for you. :) It would eliminate all ambiguity. But I do not mind poking at lawyers, so I'm certainly willing to go that route and save you some writing, if you prefer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Too late :) I just sent an email with draft wording--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

Library 2.0

Hey Moonriddengirl, I wonder if I could get some help with copyright issues in this article. I've already removed an instance of obvious copyvio, and I've also noted two sources that copy from us (a 2011 book and 2008 article). However, there are also a number of different sources dating to the 2006–2008 era that have overlapping content with this article, the bulk of which was written in that era, and I'm struggling to track down who had what first. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course! Happy to help out, Nikkimaria. :) Is it possible for you to point out an area or two of particular concern so I can zero in? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Not much - I've found hits on content in the Overview, OPAC, and Debate sections, which together cover most of the article's readable prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, then, Nikkimaria, so instead of focusing in sections, what I did was go back through the history step by step looking for significant changes. I didn't find any sign of copying in the first edit, so it was easy enough to look for later contribs.
  • This hits that, but that includes older text as well.
  • This bit seems to hit to content that postdates (like this 2008 work). This paper by Agnes Ehrich also came up, but while Google wanted to give it a date of 9/30/2005, it cites two sources from 2006 (one 9/2006). So it postdates.
  • This also hits the bit by Ehrich.
  • This modification of the text immediately above (after a tiny revert war) is even closer to the work by Ehrich. That post-dating business still applies. :)
  • And these two put the coffin nails on Ehrich, as they show copy-editing that makes its way into that paper.
  • After tons of tiny incremental changes (and quickly reverted stuff), we come to this one. All hits I've found postdate (like this)
Can't guarantee I haven't missed anything, but I did a pretty thorough spot-check through history and didn't find anything. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks very much for your quick and thorough work! Nikkimaria (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Image deletion

Can you kindly have these two badly licensed images — [8] and [9] — deleted ASAP? Because I have now uploaded better versions of them on commons with better licences. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It doesn't look like to me that they meet WP:CSD criteria, but I see you have nominated them for FFD and am sure they will be reasonably handled in due course. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright policy when translating

Hi MRG, sorry to trouble you again, but having thought I had brought my attributions up to date after our recent discussion, I'm now being told by User:Chianti90 that we have to import the entire German Wiki edit history. I've never seen that before and never been advised to do that, but he is quoting WP:IMP. He's raised the issues on 5 articles, but see Wildsee (Seefeld) for an example. What's the correct procedure? And, if we have to import the de.wiki edit history every time, how do we do that? Bermicourt (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: As far as I know, the use of the import tool is optional. However, I think it is a good practice because it preserves the edit history most effectively. As to Chianti90's specific concerns, the German Wikipedia has the following notice before you save an edit -- Mit dem Speichern dieser Seite versicherst du, dass du den Beitrag selbst verfasst hast bzw. dass er keine fremden Rechte verletzt, und willigst ein, ihn unter der Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Lizenz 3.0 und der GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation zu veröffentlichen. Falls du den Text nicht selbst verfasst hast, muss er unter den Nutzungsbedingungen verfügbar sein und du stimmst zu, notwendigen Lizenzanforderungen zu folgen. Du stimmst einer Autorennennung mindestens durch URL oder Verweis auf den Artikel zu. Wenn du nicht möchtest, dass dein Text weiterbearbeitet und weiterverbreitet wird, dann speichere ihn nicht.. I'm not a German speaker but as far as I can tell, it includes a provision akin to the English Wikipedia one that you agree "that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." So clearly that would mean that not importing is not a CC-BY-SA violation. Anyways if you would like to import in the future, because it's generally a good idea to do so, go to WP:IMP and press the "New Request" button. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Calliopejen1. The German notice means "If you save this page, you are certifying that you have written the article yourself or that you are not violating any third party rights, and you are agreeing to publish it under the Creative Commons Attribution / Share-Alike Licence 3.0 and the GNU Free Documentation Licence. If you did not write the text yourself, it must be made available under its terms and conditions of use and you are agreeing to follow the necessary licensing requirements. You are also agreeing to naming the author(s) at least by means of a URL or reference to the article. If you do not want your text to be reworked and republished, then do not save it." So it looks like German Wikipedia copyright rules are no different and that whilst User:Chianti90 can reasonably ask for the original history to be imported, he cannot insist on "importation or deletion" which is where it went. And a change of tone in his language wouldn't be amiss either! Thanks again for your help. Bermicourt (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 3

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 3

Dear Sir/madam,

FYI, please find below note sent on this dispute.

Fight for this page is sent to all India Against Corruption member to explain you nicely. The copy text is copy from the email date 6/April/2011 08:27 AM of Veersh bhai's intervue of Arvind Kejriwal on 5/April/2011 from jantar mantar Dehli. The email was originally also publish in members section of IAC website http://indiaagainstcorruption.org (WHOIS register to PCRF on 17/Nov/2010) on 6/April/2011. Most of Veershbhai email is published again in page 93 of Veershbhai's 2014 e-book "IAC Chronicles : An Ear to the ground".

"blog" link in copyright notice is for issueing the DMCA / OCCILLA notice to other OSP, it dos not have to be original link where it was first published, but only to contain enough of such content to identify the work being copied from. IAC related editor has already disclosed [89].

IAC person telling everything to these editor but they are keep deleting our helps. So if you not take action politely will send OCILLA / India CRA86 notice for takedown to OSP and also Mark Monitor. Since Veershbhai's idea/concept/intellecual property/artistic and creatiove rigts and all other IP is involved undr INDIA COPYRIGHT LAW also please note that just paraphrase the text will not resolve the issue.

You must note that since WIKIPEDEA has given wrong COPYRIGHT status as "Creative Commons" to Veershbhai's text, now WIKPEDIA / all involved editors must also ensure for immediate remove the copy content from "mirror sites" of Wikipedia, Facebook and many blogs which have copied / modify it under wrong perception of free from copyright status.

  • As a special case, India Against Corruption, being owners / beneficiary of the domain name/website "INDIAAGAINSTCORRUPTION.NET" since 2010, would consider to release the extract from page 93 para 2 of its founding member's chronicles of the movement under a GFDL or similar licence, subject to the abovementioned link being always acknowledged as the source. This tentative proposal is made without prejudice and the timebound offer is valid for 72 hours Dkgpatel (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Dear Dkgpatel: as IAC has corresponded with me in my professional capacity, I will not be involving myself in this matter as a volunteer. If you believe you have cause to issue a DMCA takedown under OCILLA and wish to do so, please see WMF:DMCA takedowns. Alternatively, another administrator will have to resolve the matter at the copyright problems board. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Highly confused!

Moonriddengirl! Moonriddengirl! You know what!? When I joined Wikipedia on Christmas Eve, 2011 I was really apprehensive about my user page. I frequently modified it. I tried to copy the codes from the userpages of various users. But I didn't like any! Then, boom! I came across this masterpiece. I just loved your userpage and copied it to modify my userpage. I even told you about it and you had said that it was okay! Since, then I have tried to use many features of your userpage and the subpages for mine. Your userpages and subpages became by model! :P :D Even today, after two and a half years, my userpage looks a lot like yours. The notices, the colours....blah blah blah! But now I am planning to take up the work to make Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces a GA so I have become a bit active compared to the last few months, I have not yet done much, but I will try to finish and nominate the article by the end of October 2014. I would also need your help for that...but now my concern is not that as that is for October. Now I want to revamp my user page (that doesn't mean that userpage is boring now...bot you know just for a change). Modify it and like you know you revamp a brand, I want to revamp my userpage and subpages. But that doesn't mean that I want to change my name. I had already done that it early 2012. Remember you had given me suggestions. But anyway I am really confused that how I should revamp my user page. I know it's a very silly reason to ask for help, and you have many important works to do. But I just want some suggestions or some very awesome userpages (like yours :D) to be used as models. It's a very petty reason to ask for help but could you help me!? Pleeeeeeeejjjjjjjj!!!!! Request.... --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Tamravidhir. It is not a silly reason to ask for help, but unfortunately I am not personally able to assist. :) However, I think I know where you can go to get ideas and assistance: Wikipedia:User page design center. Good luck finding a new style! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Favor regarding Northwest Passage (song)

Hi Ms. M. At some point I reduced the lyrics in this song article. They were later restored in full. I worry that it's too much taking. You can see that they're copyrighted in this children's book based on the song [10]. If you agree, could you maybe post something on its talk page about that, and also maybe insert a comment in the article (like "please do not restore entire lyrics, see talk page for why"?) The article has < 30 watchers, so I don't know how much those things would help, but they might. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly:) Novickas (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I was going to come and tell you I had done it, Novickas, but something came up. :) Thank you for noticing and pursuing! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

Questions re EB1911 templates

Hi, I could use your help dealing with an issue which may need defusing. An editor with quite of few years of experience is copied material from another article without attribution. That issue I believe I've responded to. However while looking at the editor's talk page I see two other articles in SCV. The first of the two includes close paraphrasing of a site which itself is a copy of the 1911 EB.

I see {{Cite EB1911}} and {{EB1911}}. I am unclear on at least two points. First, I do not quite see the differences between the two. I think it may be as simple as the second one being a shorter version which then calls the first. My second question is whether this template should be used when the matched sources is not the Encyclopedia itself, but a site which copied from it, although perhpas that is always the case, as I assume the original encyclopedia is paper, and any online versions are someone's copy. I am also not sure whether this is the right template when it is paraphased, as opposed to copied.

Before I urge the editor to add the attribution, I want to make sure I have my ducks in a row, as the initial response to the review was a bit pointed. See here for the first article identified, and here for the present issue. I also see South Hsenwi which will probably also be an attribution within Wikipedia issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Sphilbrick. :) {{Cite EB1911}} is for use when you take information from the source, while {{Cite EB1911}} is used when you take information and language from the source. It's suited to address Wikipedia:Plagiarism and is also appropriate where paraphrasing is very close. When content is copied or very closely paraphrased from a public domain or compatibly licensed source, acknowledgement of that close taking must be given to avoid plagiarism. If none of the content were literally copied it probably wouldn't have triggered the bot. :)
If the site copies from the EB without alteration, it is fine to use that template, whether the source is "official" or not. Of course, if the site significantly alters the EB, their alteration would attract new copyright as a derivative work, and the derivative content must be properly licensed for us to copy it. In that case, we would need to attribute the derivative site as well, most likely, as the EB. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I think I get it. Looking closer, I see the difference in the wording. The first, {{Cite EB1911}} would be used if I were writing something in my own words, and wanted to explain where I got the basic facts, in other words, just like a normal citation. The second {{EB1911}} is when some of the language is literally copied, or closely paraphrased. I predict there will be some back-and-forth, because per DD the idnetical phrases are six to ten words, which are close enough to trigger a close paraphrase issue, but some editors may believe they have rewritten it sufficiently. (Curiously, the first phrase in the list is 13 words but I don't find it in the source, so the ones I can verifiy are shorter. Still too long, but it is clear that the editor didn't simply copy.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for cleaning up Aubert Y. Coran! —gdfusion (talk|contrib) 15:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

Unclear summary

When you removed the copyvio notice from DigitalEurope, your summary seemed to suggest it was just because I had already removed the copyvio material (which should always be the case on placing the tag if one follows directions). You should indicate that it has been verified and settled, so people like me don't revert you. Dicklyon (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dicklyon. No one has ever reverted me before; it's a new experience. :) Ordinarily, I leave a note at the talk page explaining that copyrighted content has been removed, so that may make it easier for people to see that it's an official admin response, but in this case you had already done so. In those situations, it's probably not as confusing for others. Still, no harm done! Thanks to notifications, I knew the tag had been put back so I could remove it again, since with the listing closed nobody would have visited that article again. Thanks for finding the issue and addressing it so thoroughly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Media of Germany

Hi Moonriddengirl, it's a pity that Media of Germany got deleted. I don't know and don't see what the "copyright" issue was there, as it was largely a summary of other media-related articles on Germany. Is there a chance it can be restored and corrected? I'm worried no one else will take the effort to rehabilitate it otherwise. Thank you and all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Horst-schlaemma . It is, indeed, a pity, but unfortunately the person who added the content has created many articles that have had to be stubbed or deleted, as he has a long history of copying from his sources. :/ That particular article was flagged as including content copied from a print source, European Media Governance: National and Regional Dimensions. For just one example, the source contains the sentence, "The post-war media system was based on the principle of press freedom as stipulated in the Basic Law (constitution) of 1949." The article said, "The post-war media system was based on the principle of press freedom as stipulated in the Constitution of Germany adopted in 1949. " This was the pattern exhibited by the user - taking sentences with little alteration from sources, which he frequently (but not always) cited.
The article was blanked for seven days to allow any interested editors to rewrite it, but as is not uncommon no one did. I'm afraid that the correction it needs is rewriting from scratch, since none of the content this contributor added can be trusted, particularly where duplication has been confirmed. Generally, we see a combination of close paraphrasing and direct copying or word-for-word translation.
I will sometimes (though very rarely) restore such articles under the blanking of the copyright template to allow contributors to mine useful material, such as references and non-creative content. I do this rarely because in that case it creates a potential for personal liability. So I ask, when you ask if it "can be restored and corrected", are you offering? :) I think so, but just want to be sure. If so, I will gladly restore it with the copyright tag in place for another week so you can do the necessary rewrite. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

List question

I know how much you love list questions :)

This article List of Cameroonian writers was clearly derived from this source.

(From Wikipedia:Suspected_copyright_violations/2014-09-03#2014-09-03_.28Suspected_copyright_violations.29)

While the list of names itself seems fine, I am mildly concerned about the descriptions. To pick on the second example if someone is a chemist and a novelist there are only so many ways to make that point and it may be unreasonable for us to insist that it be rewritten. On the other hand is there a "sweat of the brow" issue?

I am inclined to accept it as a false positive, but would like another opinion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The descriptions would worry me, User:Sphilbrick, but I'm so happy to say that we have dodged this bullet and need not worry about it. The blog is dated 18 February 2012. This is where it came from - the article List of African writers by country as it appeared in January 2012. It's properly attributed, so it's not an issue at all - it's a backwards copyvio. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah thanks, bullet dodging is always good. Should gave caught that myself, as I have worked with a few "attribution missing " editors recently, so that should have been something I had checked.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Q

Hi MRG--this claims to have content reproduced from Nouvel Observateur. Can this be linked to? I have grave doubts. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Drmies! Only if there's reason to conclude the content is appropriately licensed or authorized for reprinting. Otherwise, it's a WP:LINKVIO. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
That's what I thought, MRG. And may I add just how lovely it is to hear your voice again. Your son misses it too: do you know he can already say "Roll Tide"? Drmies (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
LOL! He owes it all to you. I have been horribly remiss, I know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Since the original source no longer exists, wouldn't this be a backup/cache of the original? What differentiates this from any link from any link fed into the WayBack Machine? Zambelo; talk 11:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Zambelo. :) The highest level answer here is that WP:C explicitly permits linking to internet archives and forbids linking to sites that we know or reasonably suspect are hosting content without permission from the copyright holder. So, what differentiates them for our purposes is that one is permitted by policy, and the other - by policy - is not. I don't know exactly when this became policy, but it's been so for at least the seven years I've been working on copyright on Wikipedia. Into the question of principle, the legality of internet archives is still nor firmly established, as the copyright policy notes, and there's a possibility that at some point they will stop being unestablished and policy will require that we stop linking to them. Wayback Machine is owned by a non-profit organization that positions itself as a digital library. It essentially photographs a website as it exists at different points in its career and allows people to access those snapshots if they search for the page itself. The pages are presented in full context as hosted by the original, with all publication details. They collect websites agnostic to their state of current publication (their intention is not to perpetuate publication of content that the copyright owner has chosen to withdraw) and agnostic to the putative importance of the material. You cannot (at least currently) find the content on a Wayback archive by searching for the content itself, but must search for the specific url. Its intention is arguably not to supersede the original.
There is not even a veneer of that argument with a website that takes content from elsewhere and simply hosts it. That the publication is out of print is not a defense - copyright persists and the copyright holders retain the right to use the content as they like, including, for instance, publishing it in different forms down the road. Even after a company closes, the rights may be legally transferred with other company assets to another entity, and in the case of magazines the original authors may wholly or jointly own copyright in their individual contributions. If a website says, "This material is out of print, but I think you should have access to it", its purpose is, arguably, exactly to supersede the value of the original, which is a big issue under fair use.
Again, though - the principles are my own thoughts. The major differentiation here is currently one of policy. Internet archives are accepted, but unlicensed reposts by other websites are not, with few exceptions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Potential clerk

User:Crow has been helping out at SCV recently. Following the directions which say only clerks and admins should close items, Crow has been reviewing and letting others close. How wonderful when people actually followed the desired process! I just reviewed Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks, which is understandably vague on how many cases should be done successfully before being named a clerk. I think Crow is ready, but want your input, and will understand if you think a few more days are warranted. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. :) SCV actually has different requirements - you don't have to be a copyright clerk to close out listings there. I, too, had noticed User:Crow working in that area and been delighted. I would love to see him at WP:CP as a clerk at some point, and would suggest that he get comfortable with fully closing out listings at SCV. This is not because I have any doubts whatsoever about his ability to act as a copyright clerk (although I've only reviewed a few of his actions, they've all been correct that I've seen), but because I think he will transition with less stress that way. As you know, closing out listings at WP:CP can be a little more complex than SCV usually is, including inviting challenges from bystanders, and the last thing I would want is for him to be demotivated. (Crow, I'm hoping to get you aboard for the long-term! :D And I'd love to talk to you about the work at any time.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do my best! CrowCaw 19:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Question re "publisher's summary"

Does a section that specifically lists a "publisher's summary", such as the one I deleted here, constitute a copyright violation that requires history deletion? It is a cited quote of sorts. LadyofShalott 00:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:LadyofShalott. :) The question of when a history deletion is required is not really settled. Technically, content in an article's history is still published; a report at m:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Wikipedia Page Histories opines that while content in history may fail fair use and hence constitute copyright infringement, those of us who remove the material from visibility without rev deleting it are unlikely to be found guilty of contributory infringement. My own general rule of thumb is that I will rev delete if the content is either (a) substantial or (b) recent - in the first case, rev deletion helps prevent inadvertent restoration (I myself inadvertently restored a removed copyvio to publication once by reverting to an older version) and minimizes any risk of infringement. In the latter case, rev deletion has no downside. I am also more likely to rev delete where content has been removed and then restored to prevent its easily happening again. In the specific instance you refer to, I probably wouldn't rev delete myself. I didn't in the related instance here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! (Yes, I did have both in mind, even though I only mentioned one, when asking that question.) One of the things I was thinking about is that the point of our policies is to protect the copyright owner, and in these situations, the copyright owner would probably like having those published. There are other reasons for removing that material! LadyofShalott 14:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
This is true. :) Although another important point of our policy is to protect our reusers, who may be hit for infringement as well if they take content from us. For me, content in history is generally not that urgent an issue, but I typically will rev delete if it's substantial enough to be a serious problem. Its inadvertent restoration does nobody any favors. The situation where I myself restored a copyvio to publication went like this: Editor A pasted content in; Editor B pasted content in; Editor C noticed A's content and removed it; Editor D flagged B's copyvio; I reverted the article to before the edit of Editor B. Editor C had made a note in edit summary of what he or she had done, but I didn't see it. Rev deletion is hard to miss. My general rule of thumb is that if I would have used selective deletion (deleting the history of the article to the point where the copyvio was introduced) before rev deletion was introduced, I'll use rev deletion now. It just saves me the time of doing what we used to do - which is citing every author who had contributed any substantial content added to the article thereafter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A non-urgent query

This isn't applying to anything on Wikipedia at the moment that I'm dealing with. I'm just curious to know if the performance of a play in front of an audience counts as publication. The script exists as a typescript from which the players learn their lines, but it isn't released online or sold in book form. (This is in connection with a couple of little throw-away things of mine, designed for one performance only at the time, but which I might want to revive later. I am the author, but if a copy of the script turns up elsewhere can I claim copyright on it?) Non-urgent, as I say. Peridon (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Peridon. Disclaimers: IANAL, and I couldn't give you legal advice even if I were. This is based on my understanding of U.S. copyright law. Things may differ elsewhere. So...performance is kind of a murky area. The issue with performance is when it is improvised - copyright protects fixed content, and improvisation is not fixed. (c.f. [11]) So if I'm talking to you aloud, not reading a script, my words aren't protected by copyright. If I write you an email, they are. What happens if I'm talking to you and you record it? Say, if you're interviewing me? Who owns the copyright in those words? You didn't create them - you just "fixed" them in permanent form. And I didn't fix them in permanent form, I improvised them. Murky. :) (c.f. [12]).
But what isn't murky is the script - whether it's released online or sold in book form or not, the minute you commit it to solid form (paper, soap carving, whatever) it's copyrighted under current US law. Performance and publication of the script therefore requires your authorization. Now, you can run into practical issues if you cannot prove your original authorship of the content. (That said, the performers of your play can probably help!) People work around this in a number of ways, from copyright registration to self-mailing copies both of which are discussed here. Slate offers a good article on the latter practice, here. See also this older article on Plagiarism Today: [13]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm in the UK, but it probably isn't much different. It was just something that occurred to me while I was explaining to someone that he couldn't use his copyright text here. (Typing that doesn't require much thought nowadays, and I think in spirals anyway...) It's very unlikely that any copies other than mine have survived - the actors were between eight and ten and will have completely forgotten their Christmas play by now. Not something 'for profit' - I keep a careful watch on that stuff... Peridon (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I wouldn't depend on your performers as witnesses or to produce their scripts. :) Based on my understanding, the situation should be the same in the UK in terms of copyright of the script. Fixation is all it takes. Note that not only is Poor Man's Copyright a "thing" there as well, but the IPO actually tepidly recommends it.[14] Snopes talked about the status in 2009. Just in case you ever do need to defend that school play. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Disappearing diffs

WP:Articles for deletion/South Shore League (2nd nomination) states that there was a merge and delete after the first AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/South Shore League, which closed 23 November 2012.  There is no record of a merge from "South Shore League" in the edit history for "Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association", link, but relevant content was added more than a year later, 25 October 2013.  The edit history for "South Shore League", link, begins 27 October 2013.

The deletion logs, for both South Shore League and South shore league], show no previous deletion.  So where is either the deletion log or the diffs for the article that was discussed at the first AfD?  A related question is, has there been an improper merge and delete?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Unscintillating. :) Underneath that G6 were several hundred edits which were turned into a redirect. Content added in October 2013 was taken word for word from the deleted version, so we did indeed have an improperly attributed and documented merge. The delete seems to have been an accident - it was G6ed, so I imagine that User:Good Olfactory just didn't realize there was history that needed retention. Because we require it legally for attribution, I have restored it. I'm in the process of cleaning up the required attribution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
All done. Explained the issue to the contributor who did the unattributed merge. Thank you for finding that issue, Unscintillating! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

OTRS

The current statement of DR policy at Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team seems to be very different from the much more cautious and modest advice you have always given me about our limited role. I've made a comment on the talk page there. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. I'll keep an eye on the conversation and its evolution. I think keeping in mind that OTRS agents are also acting as Wikipedia editors in any interaction is important. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Notifying about edit war(s)

I don't know what user TheRedPenOfDoom is up to but he/she has recently been engaged in edit wars. You may be knowing that we had differences of opinions about Bade Achhe Lagte Hain. He/she had been deleting all sentences with the citation needed tag, and sometimes even referenced information saying that they are against Wiki's policies, even though they were not so. I didn't go for a 3O as we had discussed on our talk pages, and not the article talk page. And he/she had told me many things which really hurt me. I had gone to the administrator's helpdesk, but there all supported him/her. Just by saying that he is a good user and that we can learn a lot from him/her. But that really seemed biased. Since then I have tried to talk to him/her nicely, accept his/her views and even thank him/her for his/her edits. Once again we had a mild difference of opinion regarding the same page. But this time I accepted his/her views, added required references and created a synthesis. And this time I started the discussed on the article's talk page, though inspite of me notifying him/her, he/she never turned up there. And now as far as my perception is concerned I think the matter has been sorted out. I have added the required tags and references. But I would request you to go through the recent edits I made to Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, and see if I did something wrong.

And now I would come to the main point, I was just beating 'bout the bush. It seems that he/she got himself/herself involved in an edit war here and here and here. He/she was even nearly going to get engaged in an edit war on Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, not with me but with an IP address user (here, here and here). I would just request you to go through these. It's not that I have a grudge against him/her. But I feel that he/she tries to impose his/her views on other instead of calmly discussing with others on the concerned article's talk page. I think that this demotivates other users (as it had demotivated me long back), who may have their own opinions. Well, that's what I feel. I would not like to generalise it. And if I do so that would be too wrong and unfair on my part. --Tamravidhir (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you are using the article talk page to discuss concerns. If editors don't respond to article talk page notes, it may mean that they have decided they agree with you or have lost interest or even didn't notice they were there (when people don't notify them, as you did). In any case, if somebody continues editing an article in pursuit of a particular point and ignores feedback on an article talk page, it is evidence that you are trying to resolve the dispute and they are not. It can help you avoid edit warring and reach out to others. It's not really my place to tell you if your edits are okay - that's a content question, and it will be determined (if there are disputes) by consensus. I have no special expertise in the area of television show articles and really very little experience with them outside of copyright work. If you have doubts, you might want to check with a related Wikiproject to see how things are done.
user TheRedPenOfDoom passed WP:3RR on Yoshukai Karate. It was raised at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Edit_War_at_Yoshukai_Karate and there is discussion from an admin on his talk page. Hopefully he will start to engage, as such behavior may result in an immediate block. It's combative and not allowed, even when a person is right, except in very explicitly identified circumstances necessary to protect Wikipedia or article subjects from immediate harm. But reports of edit warring belong at [[WP:#3RRN]]. In general, if your concerns about a user persist and the problems are not overwhelming enough that an WP:ANI report will solve it, you should consider some of the approaches recommended at WP:DR. User conduct disputes are some of the most difficult. If you try in good faith to talk civilly to a user about your concerns and fail, you might want to consider a request for comment. You would want to look at a person's talk page and see if others have tried to talk to them about the same issue, as at least two people must certify that they have failed to solve a problem before an RFCU is opened. An RFCU is a discussion like article content discussion, where a user's behavior is examined in light of policies. Users are not generally blocked as an outcome of an RFCU. What it does is establish consensus that behavior is a problem, which gives the editor an opportunity to change the behavior. If they do not, then follow-up at WP:ANI can demonstrate through the consensus at the RFC that there is an ongoing problem. But as with everything, all of this starts with trying to talk to the person politely about your areas of concern.
I have been involved in few requests for comment about user conduct, but here is one of (I think) two that I have initiated: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak. Unfortunately, the user was not open to comment, and we wound up at AN anyway. But unless a person is so blatantly disruptive that the need to block is clear without conversation, we try to give people chances.
I hope this helps. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to block him/her but just to have a look, because I perceived it was wrong, and regarding these areas am really incompetent and a novice. So for that reason I came to you! Nothing else. And seriously I just go on bothering you, I should go to the concerned users. Actually I have developed so much of trust and faith in you, over all these months, that the first name which comes in my mind is "Moonriddengirl". :P Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I know you didn't ask me to block him; I'm just explaining the general approach. :) And I'm glad you find me useful! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
^_^ --Tamravidhir (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Further help

I have a list of questions (:P) which I have listed here under:

  • Okay, so my first question is that....remember I had changed my username from Jagadhatri to Tamravidhir in early 2012. But in Wikicommons, my username is still User Jagadhatri, basically there are two separate usernames, I can either sign in with the old one or the new one, and they have not been merged, if I upload using Jagadhatri then that will not be shown in the contribution list of Tamravidhir. So how can I fix this problem?
  • Should a disambiguation page, consist names of non-existent wiki articles, such as here and here?
  • What's an awesome Wikipedian?
  • How to make a list of television shows broadcast by a television channel more reliable and encyclopaedic?

No more! List over. :P :) ^_^ --Tamravidhir (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Okay, so, unfortunately you didn't actually change your name, which is a specific technical term for when an account is renamed by a bureaucrat or steward and your edit history goes with the new name. The old edits are still separate ([15]). What you did is abandon that account, which is fine. Merging accounts is not possible. It is possible to change the name on an account. I don't know if you can change your Jagadhatri account to Tamravidhir on Commons without changing it everywhere, although I kind of doubt it. You could ask at meta:Talk:Steward requests/Username changes.
  • The answer you seek is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. :) We call these "red links" (since the links are red :D). There is a special section on them on that page that talks about when they are appropriate and when they are not.
Thank you so much Moonriddengirl! But I am afraid I didn't understand your reply to my first query. What Ii actually meant was that all the edits I made when I had the username Jagadhatri are now in the history of this username. I mean suppose I had edited article "X" in Jan'12 when I was Jagadhatri and in May'12 I became Tamravidhir, so when I go back to the history of the article "X" there my name is no more Jagadhatri there, but Tamravidhir-exactly what I want-but suppose I have uploaded a non-free image here there my name maybe Jagadhatri but it redirects to my new userpage and talk page. But when I am logged in to Wikipedia and via a link on any page I go to Commons while I am logged in here, there my name is Tamravidhir and my history shows that I haven't uploaded anything but when I log out and log in there using Jagadhatri I can see everything there. So as far as my perception is concerned i think that my name has been just in Wikipedia and not in all the Wiki sites where I have an account, or where I have made any edits/uploaded anything/adone any related activity.
And thank you so much for replying to the rest of my doubts, but I was thinking about an adoption, and I saw that User:Yunshui is currently adopting, so I requested him. He however, didn't adopt me saying that it may not be required for me and that I may need help only in certain specific areas and also said that he was ready to help me unofficially, but as I insisted he asked me to give him a list of the areas I feel I struggle with. And since then-it is so kind of him, to take the pain-he has been helping me here. Thank you so much Moonriddengirl, even you have been helping me since the time I came across you. Thank you so much! --Tamravidhir (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
You asked me to seek for help here. So I have requested User:Steward to help me in this here. Thank you so much Moonriddengirl! --Tamravidhir (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The stewards are probably the best to help you figure it out. :) When I saw that User:Jagadhatri on English Wikipedia was an active account, I assumed it had been yours - when a user is renamed, there *is* no account for that name and no editing history. Looking more closely, I see somebody else took the account after your rename - they were active in November of last year. I've undone the redirects since they may have need of their own talk and user pages again now. :) I'm very happy to hear that User:Yunshui is helping you and hope that the stewards can resolve the issue with your username on Commons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's really really confusing but all those edits under the name of Jagadhatri (here) are actually mine! Even this edit's mine : here. I took that pic and I added it there in Nov'12. It's really scaring me and an afraid! Really really! --Tamravidhir (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please redirect all those pages of Jagadhatri back to mine.That's actually me and not anyone else...Please... --Tamravidhir (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I remember that at that time (in Nov'12) I was not in my hometown! And when I actually joined Wiki I was at the same place (where I was in Nov'12)! I also had the same laptop, and in that laptop whenever I log in I don't need to give my username for logging in Wiki/any social networking site. Maybe that was the case. I mean in Dec'11 I had logged in as Jagadhatri, so that was saved there. And later I came back to my city, where my username was changed in May'12. And that was saved in my laptop (the one I used in my hometown), and later when I went back to that holiday destination in Nov'12, Jagadhatri was already saved there and not Tamravidhir, so I might have just overlooked it and logged in and edited....is that possible? Won't those edits be under Tamravidhir??? Are there still 2 user accounts of mine...O God! I will never again change my name in Wiki.... ;( --Tamravidhir (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Just see this. That user subpage is mine...not of any other user...this creates so much of problem...--Tamravidhir (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You see, all these - [16] and even this - [17] are mine...;( --Tamravidhir (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't all these (even my edits under Jagadhatri) be moved to Tamravidhir? I can bet one thing till this thing is solved I will not do any major edits except rv vandalism/good-faith edits which may not be required. I am even postponing my plan to make that article on Taj a GA now...later but not now...please I beg of you! Help me! --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Things I request you to do

Moonriddengirl (I have another message for you below) I just called up and checked that there my the username saved in the laptop at that holiday place is Tamravidhir, not Jagadhatri, that means that when I last visited that place, I had logged in Wikipedia as Tamravidhir. And that's what it should be as I have edits in the contribution history of Tamravidhir (here) made on the same day and just after a few minutes. I mean that the first edit which is now in the contribution history of Jagadatri (here) was made on 19 Nov'12 at 14:56 and the last on the same day at 15:34. While the contribution history of Tamravidhir shows that on the same day the first edit I made at 14:51 and the last on that day at 16:01. It's highly suspicious and highly confusing. I know that it's not possible to merge account in Wikipedia. But I request you to do the things I have listed down. I will be grateful to you for my entire Wiki life:

  • Please delete all the user subpages and user talk subpages of Jagadhatri which redirect to the respective subpages of Tamravidhir
  • Please move all the contribution history (not just in Wikipedia, I mean the global user contributions) which is under Jagadhatri - here and the global account info of Jagadhatri - here to that of Tamravidhir - global contributions of Tamravidhir and global account info of Tamravidhir

I want nothing else! Thank you so so much... --Tamravidhir (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Moonriddengirl, do you feel that that ad in your talk page which is actually saved in your header template should be centered? I had the same problem but I fixed it...I was just asking...I hope you didn't mind.... :/ --Tamravidhir (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course, I don't mind, User:Tamravidhir. :) I hadn't noticed it wasn't centered anymore. I'll take a look at it. I cannot help you with your contribution history - this is why I directed you to the stewards. English Wikipedia administrators do not have the technical ability to do this, not even on English Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia, bureaucrats do this. Across projects, stewards do. They'll have to assist you however they can, and I don't know what they can do. :/
I can, however, delete any other subpages I see - I deleted the ones I found when I thought that Jagadhatri was a new editor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Moonriddengirl. Please, could you also delete the user talk subpages of Jagadhatri. I have also redirected the userpage and user talk page of Jagadhatri to those of Tamravidhir as when I was Jagadhatri my signature had a link to User:Jagadhatri and User talk:Jagadhatri. And if they aren't redirected again then it may cause a problem. As far as transferring the contribution history is concerned I have requested User:Maxim to help me. Thank you so much Moonriddengirl! --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If you provide a link to them, I am happy to. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I didn't get you... :/ --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If there are pages that are not deleted and you would like them deleted, provide a link, and I will delete them. I'm afraid I don't have time to look for them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I had got you and was just going to reply...but there was an edit concflict...The pages are as follows:

I can find only these...I am not sure if there are any more. --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding User:सुनील मलेठिया

For your convenience I would like to inform you (I have another message for you above, God! How much do I bother you...) that this user users the Devanagari script for his username. If to write it in English/the Roman script then it will be - Sunil Malethia. So I want to report an issue regarding this user to you. I don't want to get engaged in an edit war, but this user (this user's userpage is blank but you can visit his talk page) is constantly de-italicising the television show names in Template:Star Plus Shows and Template:Life OK Programmes. However as per WP:ITAL we must "Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, named exhibitions, computer and video games (but not other software), music albums, and paintings". He is also removing the space between two consecutive names in the list, making the source cumbersome while editing. He is also classifying half of the show name as per format (such as reality) and half of them as per genre (such as drama). While I had classified them as soap opera, anthology series and reality show. I had the notified the user in his talk page and even started a discussion in the respective talk page (here and here). The user is not responding but simply undoing my edits. I am refraining from using rollback, as I am afraid that it may lead to an edit war. But the user is too stubborn to discuss and simply reverting my edits. This was the last edit I made to Template:Life OK Programmes - here and this is his last edit (current revision) to the same template - here. This was my last edit to Template:Star Plus Shows - here and this is his (current revision) - here. Please I request you to look into the matter. Thank you... ^_^ --Tamravidhir (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Tamravidhir. I cannot help you directly with content disputes, I'm afraid, beyond advising you what to do. The thing to do is reach out for help from editors who work in the area - for instance, neutrally asking people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television to comment and leaving a note at the talk pages for Template talk:Star Plus Shows and Template:Life OK Programmes what you have done. Once consensus is established, anyone who continues to edit in opposition to it is behaving disruptively. If, for instance, the project agreed that the italics need to be place but that the order he prefers is the proper way and he continued removing italics, you might note that the italics are again removed in the discussion. This would allow others to help you implement consensus and avoid your being in an edit war because others are sharing the work of correcting content. If he continues reverting clear consensus, the place to go - with a link to the consensus and note of his continued violation of it - would either be WP:3RRN or WP:ANI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Moonriddengirl I will do as you said. --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Could please tell me that how can I approach other users at WP:Television "neutrally". I mean how should I frame it? Highly confused! --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that it's no longer needed as I have already started a discussion here. :) --Tamravidhir (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay. :) Usually, I would just say, "There is disagreement over the formatting of several infoboxes" and explain what the disagreement is. If you don't explain your side and don't make it sound like one side is preferred, you're likely to be neutral. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much Moonriddengirl! The issue has been resolved. Thank you so much! :D ^_^ --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A couple of copyright situation questions

Hi Moonriddengirl! A couple of questions on specific situations I've come across on SCV, if I may run them by you:

  1. When an internet source is CC-BY-SA and content is used here but not attributed. What's the preferred way to provide that attribution after the fact? We have templates for Britannica, internal copies, and so on, but what to do for a random CC source?
  2. When a writer uses a long quote in lieu of providing actual content. I see this in video game articles a lot, and usually take the form: "The game publisher describes the plot as this: 'very long direct quote providing content that realistically could have been paraphrased by the writer'. " With no additional content in that section. That seems to me to be mis-using the source to provide content instead of providing context for the content.

Your thoughts are most welcomed, and thanks! CrowCaw 15:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, user:Crow. :)
  1. {{CCBYSASource}} is a good template to use in that situation. :)
  2. Yes, I agree. Usages such as that flag a bit in terms of transformation. This is why WP:NFC notes that text should be used for reason, such as to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. That should be removed and replaced with a proper paraphrase. Typically, I will flag articles of such pages with {{Plot2}}.
--Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

question

Is it a copyright vio to move content from one article to another? Specifically, when an article gets too big, and subpages can be created, moving content from the old article to the new page is/is not a copy vio? SW3 5DL (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, SW3 5DL. It is not a copyvio if it is done correctly. :) Content on Wikipedia is liberally licensed so that it can be used elsewhere in any context, as long as the terms of the license are met. The process for doing it correctly is explained at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Appreciate it. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl

Hello,

we are a group of students from Cornell University editing the page 'Economy of Asia' for a class assignment. We noticed that many information is out of date and we thought it would be helpful to add more recent changes in regional policies. We are eager to hear some feedbacks from you :) Yz567 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Yz567. The article certainly can use some work. :)
As general feedback, please remember that all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable to reliable sources and should be neutral in presentation - we need not only to accurately reflect the perspectives of our sources, but to select those perspectives in "due weight" to what the preponderance of reliable sources say. Unless sources are public domain or compatibly licensed with Wikipedia, all information based on them should be written in your own words, with proper paraphrase, except for brief and clearly marked quotations used for good reason. (See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and WP:MOSQUOTE.) If the source is public domain or compatibly licensed, content may be copied from the source with or without quotation marks but must be handled in compliance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If you haven't already, I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Student assignments to make sure that your class and your content work are compliant. Good luck to you! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Suspected Copyvios

Hello,

I noticed that entire sections of Turkish cities are copyvio's. Please see my recent contributions of deletions I did. My edit-summary explains it all. I know that there's more. For example, at the Cuisine section at Malatya, much of the information appears to be copied and pasted from here. Another example is the Climate section of the Rize article which appears to be from this website. What's the best way to go about handling this? Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Étienne Dolet. :) It is a sad fact that articles related to some areas are prone to more copyright issues, and Turkey is one of those. I suspect it's a combination of a lack of cultural focus on intellectual property and a desire to contribute with perhaps limitations in English. But while our articles are prone to copying more from sites related to Turkey, sites related to Turkey are prone to copying from us as well. I have even found content on governmental sites that on investigation were unquestionably derived from Wikipedia. So the headache in working in these areas is always going to be in figuring out who had it first. :/
The first thing to do is generally to look and see when the content entered and who added it. Comparing the two, we see this sentence in both pages: "About 50% of the fresh apricot production and 95% of the dried apricot production in Turkey, the world's leading apricot producer, is provided by Malatya and the name of the fruit is synonymous with the city." I took the phrase "world's leading apricot producer" and put it into the revision history search to find it entered in 2007. Looking at that, I'm instantly thinking we have a backwards copy here. The material as entered was not complete - it ended with the words "provided from Malatya." The rest of the sentence was already in the article, in the overview section: "In Turkey, the apricot is synonymous with Malatya." It also incorporated a sentence ("This region of Malatya is best known for its apricot orchards.") from the older version that appears modified in the external site. Looking further, it seems that the editor's next action was to blend existing content into his new addition here. He added some new content in that edit (the "delicious and sophisticated" section) and pulled some more material in from elsewhere in the article ("nourished from the alluvial soil"). Looking back at the oldest edit in June 2007, here, we find that "nourished from the alluvial soil" language. We can also trace how the original content "Malatya apricots are often dried in the sun by traditional family-run orchards, collected and shipped throughout the world" is modified in that later edit to read "Malatya apricots are often sun-dried by family-run orchards following traditional methods, and collected and shipped throughout the world." The source uses the latter text. I know that at some point "This region of Malatya" was tightened to "The Malatya region" and next look to see when that happened. It happened here, in a general copy-edit almost two years later by a different user. Other changes that user made - he turned "50% of fresh apricot" into "50% of the fresh apricot" - the external site uses the article. He did the same to dried apricot. The external site reflects that, too. He changed "from Malatya" to "by Malatya." The external site says "by Malatya." He changed "belong to Malatya" to "comes out of Malatya." The external site uses that language. He changed "following traditional methods, and collected and shipped throughout the world" to "using traditional methods, before they are collected and shipped throughout the world." The external site reflects that modification, too.
I cannot explain why this document is dated May 2007, but I do not believe that our editors copied content from that document. They would have had to have done so incrementally over years, first getting it wrong and then gradually bringing it back towards the source. It is far more likely that, date notwithstanding, they copied from us. What I would do there (and will do) is apply {{backwardscopy}} to the article talk page, because we should require more evidence before removing that content.
Looking at Rize, I am a little more suspicious of backwards copying from the outset, because I often find them in travel sites, regardless of the country being discussed. I don't see any evidence of huge chunks of text popping in, so I'll look for "snowfall is quite common". It was added in January 2010 by somebody in Adana, Turkey. There looks to have been a lot of work going on around climate at the time. I note that in the external site and in the present article, the "snowfall is quite common" bit appears in the second sentence, right before the sentence that begins "Rize and the eastern part of the Black Sea coast...." In January 2010, it was the 4th sentence. The sentence that follows it now was first. I also see that the sentence beginning "The water temperature like in the whole Turkish..." was already in the article, and it also appears in the source. Looking back, that sentence had been added as a single piece five days earlier, by someone in Manchester - who had quite an interest in climate. Again, far more likely that they copied from us once the content evolved than that multiple people copied piecemeal and broken from them and then slowly reassembled it. :) I will apply {{backwardscopy}} to that article's talk page as well.
Basically, this highlights my approach to articles from Turkey that seem to be copyright problems. I try to approach it with a completely open mind and look, case by case, to see who is copying whom. In my experience, it can easily go either way, even when your sources are printed by a reputable publisher. If you find what looks like copied content and you have time, you do a great service to Wikipedia to establish which way the copying goes so we can either avoid removal of what we need to lose or remove what we do. Importantly, we need to inform users who place this content of our policies. I believe that few of them mean any harm, and many of them will correct their behavior going forward once they understand that they cannot copy or closely paraphrase from copyrighted sources. I occasionally encounter from all over the world the mistaken belief that "public information" is "public domain" - this ranges from certainty that all material on any governmental website anywhere in the world is not copyrighted to the belief that anything printed in public on the web is free for taking. If we see a pattern of prior taking from one user, we need to evaluate to see if a WP:CCI is necessary. Sometimes, we do an immediate block until we're sure the contributor understands and will comply, especially if they have been notified of copyright policies before. Sometimes we keep an eye on them to see if problems persist.
This is a difficult area, and I really appreciate your being conscious of the issue. I keep an eye out especially for large chunks of either (a) especially fluid prose or (b) unevent prose (such as you get when you Frankenstein together content from multiple sources). I wish that there was an easier way to find and address these issues. :/ Our best bet is when we get them fresh, before external sites have a chance to copy them, because then we usually* know which came first.
Usually opens the whole big can of unattributed copying from other Wikipedia articles, which have been mirrored. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't address what to do if you don't have time. Listing at WP:CP is also a valid approach. Please in that case blank the appropriate section with a link to the source using the template {{copyvio}}. :)
FWIW, I found copying from two other sources in the apricot page - information included on the talk page template. I now suspect that whatever date they used that brochure did not exist before 2012. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your very informative response. What baffles me is the UNDUE weight on the Düzyurt article over the climate. I find it strange. Also, some of the website I have provided are official government websites. I would suspect that government websites do not copy and paste from Wikipedia. But hey, you'll never know. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hard as it may be to believe, Étienne Dolet, they do. :) I have found Wikipedia's content mirrored in national level publications in several countries. So far, not the US, although I have found content mirrored in local level government. I suspect that a lot of people just think Wikipedia is public domain. Alas, I don't keep lists of the backwardscopies I find, but there is at least one recently publicized case of an individual US politician taking content from us. :) In terms of the undue focus, that's what happens, I guess, when we get a specialist in a topic area. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it copyvio, or was Wikipedia content copied?

Re: User_talk:Piotrus#Inglehart.E2.80.93Welzel_Cultural_Map_2. Is it our fault, or was our text copied? It's not in the old version of their page at [18], through perhaps I was not looking in the right place? I'd appreciate an opinion so I know whether I have to just reference or totally rewrite the new stub I started (content picked up by bot was copied directly from World Values Survey). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Piotrus. :) Will reply at your talk page as per your request. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A firni for you!

Zaayka-e-Hindustan
Thanks a ton for helping me all these days and thank you so much for deleting all those pages...now I'm just waiting for Maxim's reply. Sending this yummy firni for you. Firni (for more info just click on this link) is a South Asian sweet...kind of a rice pudding...I hope you love it! :D (Note: Zaayka-e-Hindustan literally means the taste of Hindustan) ^_^ Tamravidhir (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure Moonriddengirl! ^_^ --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeking guidance

I still cannot figure out if I am way off, or right on. Will you please tell me what your opinion is regarding this example:

  • Source: "We often recorded at night after everyone at the office had left."
Article: "They usually recorded at night when XL's staff had left".

From my standpoint, the structure is unchanged, and the swapping of "We often" for "They usually" and "everyone at the office" for "XL's staff" fails as an attempt at fair paraphrasing. I think this is plagiarism, but what do you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Rationalobserver. I know you'd really like a clear answer, but I'm afraid I can't give you one - not with a label. :/ I honestly do not involve myself a whole lot in plagiarism, especially not after finding out how much variance there is what people define as plagiarism in our context. We went back and forth over that years ago in getting the guideline promoted, and I don't even know if the current definition is one I'd agree with. Does it still talk about "inadvertent" plagiarism? Even though sources openly discuss it (like this), that was a hot point of contention. Anyway, since plagiarism is a social construct and not a legal code, I'm afraid I'm not comfortable declaring something that's kind of boderline as plagiarism or not plagiarism. It's not a word I often use now that I'm out of academia myself. I focus on copyright. I will say that I think those two sentences are too close in structure. I agree that simple word and phrase substitutions are a pitfall from the paraphrasing standpoint. And if there were a whole bunch of it from a non-free source, I would consider it a problem of close paraphrasing and remove or revise it for fear that we would be appropriating the total concept and feel. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl! You are a wonderful editor and a wealth of knowledge. I hope you don't mind if I ask you questions from time to time! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have responded. I don't plan to hang out at that conversation, though. As I mentioned, there are a lot of other things calling to me when I'm on Wiki. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but per a recent dispute with Dan56, "Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks" does not apply to close paraphrasing. Is it your position that the note does apply to close paraphrasing? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Why wouldn't it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That's what I think, but because it is not under the close paraphrasing example it does not explicitly apply, or so says Dan56. All I'm trying to do here is affirm that it does apply, but nobody will address the problem. It's an oversight, I'm sure, but my efforts are being framed like I am changing the guideline, which I don't believe I am. Flyer22 seems to agree with Dan56. If you think the note applies to close paraphrasing then why do you oppose repeating it under the CP example? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
FTR, Dan56's argument that in-text attribution remediates the need for quotation marks enclosing distinctive language can be seen in all its glory here. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
But so far as I can see you're not talking about repeating it (which I wouldn't support) or clarifying what it applies to (which I might) - you're talking about a new statement, one that is aimed specifically at non-free text and which is stronger in its wording. :) The current statement is not limited to non-free sources, and it says "may". (Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#When_is_close_paraphrase_permitted.3F talks about the use of non-free sources in more detail, and is explicitly linked from the plagiarism guideline section on close paraphrasing.) If this all stems from that one article, though, wouldn't it be better to follow WP:DR regarding it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know anything about DR except that most people think it's a waste of time, and I don't plan to ever cross paths with that editor again, but I am concerned that, if left open-ended in this regard, the policy might encourage him and others to rely on close paraphrasing. If you might support clarifying the guideline, then may I respectfully suggest that you be bold and do so? You are respected, and they'll trust and listen to you. All I'm asking for is less ambiguity. Nobody can seem to explain how the last two examples under avoiding plagiarism are different. Can you? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they are different. It looks to me like two examples of close paraphrasing with in-text attribution. That example is a relatively recent innovation - it was added in this edit, along with some sweeping changes in the days that followed. Prior to that, there were only two: [19]. It seems to me that if nobody can identify how they differ, then that may be the heart of this problem. I am willing to ask people if they see the point in the third example. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You would do well not to state that "Flyer22 seems to agree with [anyone]" unless it is very clear. First, to you, I don't agree with Dan56, and now, to you, I do agree with Dan56. Or you're just stating that to make a point. Better yet, just don't mention me, whether you link my username or not. And before you make claims about me following you, you might want to check the number of times I've visited Moonriddengirl's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you trying to intimidate me, because you're wasting your time. I'll mention you wherever and as often as I want, and I don't care how many times you warn me that I "dare not" do something, as your threats are empty and embarrassing. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

question about quoting articles

Hi MG, I know there's a limit on quoting from books, but is there a limit on quoting newspapers? Specifically, using a person's quote from say the New York Times, and then later, quoting someone else from the same article? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, SW3 5DL . There's limits on quoting everything, but unfortunately there is no specific word count or percentage that it is safe to use. :/ As a general rule of thumb, I'd recommend trying to use paraphrase where possible and limiting the amount of quotations you take from any one source. However, if I were going to take multiple quotes from a NYT article, quoting what they've quoted somebody else as saying is probably a safer bet than quoting the content of the article itself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes I see the difference. So the quotes from somebody they're interviewing are okay, but paraphrase all the rest. Thanks much. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, more okay, in my opinion, SW3 5DL. :) The question of who owns the words of a person being interviewed had not been settled in copyright law last time I looked into it, but I would feel more comfortable using that a little more liberally than content original to the journalist. In any event, it shouldn't be extensive to accord with policy. Just more wriggle room, I think. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Help needed (I am using the same headline too often)

Hi Moonriddengirl! I'm going to take a Wikibreak from 4 Sep'14 to 10 Sep'14. But I am really sceptical about vandalism in certain articles which are in my watchlist. If you have no problem then, could you please please add the following articles in your watchlist? The articles are:

  • Bade Achhe Lagte Hain (My concern - IP address users have a tendency to regularly add double names of characters inspite of hidden notices making the cast section confusing. For instance, the character Ayesha was married twice in this soap opera (but in the same family) and many (many many) Indian women have their husband's name as their middle name. So some add her name as Ayesha Siddhant Kapoor while some add her name as Ayesha Ram Kapoor. So I have written her name as Ayesha Kapoor. Similarly some add double names of various other characters. And I'm just sick and tired of undoing and reverting such edits - I don't know if this could be termed as vandalism...but still could you please watchlist this article)
  • Template:Life OK Programmes (as per the consensus achieved the show names should be italicised and the tenplate should be classified on the basis of format, but I fear that User:सुनील मलेठिया may undo all the edits)
  • Template:STAR Plus shows (सुनील मलेठिया is continuing to undo the edits and removing the redirect to the above mentioned template)

Please, could you add these to your watchlist? --Tamravidhir (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Tamravidhir. I'm sorry, but I really think you're better asking somebody with more time on Wikipedia. I'm way behind on copyright work, and I have a hard time keeping up with my watchlist as it is! When I have time on Wikipedia, I've got a lot I need to do. I hope you enjoy your break. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Moonridengirl! Could you please suggest anyone who can help me? :) --Tamravidhir (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I would just approach somebody who works in the area. This could, for instance, be a good opportunity for you to collaborate well with that one editor with whom you often disagree. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Uh huh! You mean TheRedPenOfDoom! Correct you are right...let me give it a try...I hope he helps me...(fingers crossed) --Tamravidhir (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For this help with close paraphrasing. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

Info about deleted article

I was looking through some old pages and found one that I made some edits on that had been deleted. The article was: Los Angeles Mounted Rifles. I'm not asking that it be undeleted, but I am curious about reading any archives that give specifics about why it was deleted. Any help would be appreciated. Sf46 (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Sf46: From what I can see in the deleted edits, the copyright holder of this Web page sent WP a complaint (OTRS ticket 2012101210000775) that the article violated the copyright of that page. (In a quick glance I can see some definite copyvio in the deleted article, but I haven't looked carefully to determine the totality of it.) MRG therefore blanked the article and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 October 12 (open the collapsed list to see). After about two and a half months with no improvement to the article, and having noted the response you can see on the copyright-problems page, she finally deleted it. (MRG, if I've misrepresented the situation, please apply a wet trout on my talk page.) Deor (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Deor. :) That's it in a nutshell. Unfortunately, the copyvios could not be just reverted as it was a foundational issue or easily excised, and nobody worked on the article in the time it was listed for salvage. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism dispatch

Hi MRG, given recent discussions, I'd like to re-run your old "Let's get serious about plagiarism" dispatch from 2009. Would you have any objections? If needed, I'd love for you to make any pertinent updates or changes. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ed! Absolutely no objections from me. :) I feel like I was more a support person there, though. But I'm delighted to see it run again and will be happy to give it a once-over to see if processes have changed anywhere. Is there a deadline? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd ideally like to publish in the next 24-36 hours, although I've frequently set publishing goals and missed them. ;-) I've copied the text to here, and I'd love any updates, corrections, or tweaks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Ahh! I'm too late! I'm sorry, Ed. I didn't realize that this was that imminent. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
No worries! If you see anything pressing, please feel free to make the change! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Question, can you release Wikipedia contributions into CCO instead of CC BY-SA 3.0

I would prefer the former, but I always thought by clicking that save edit button I was agreeing to "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". I recently saw this multi-license template and became confused, especially since PD isn't a license and is incompatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. As an aside, am I to understand that since that notice appears on all edits that all edits to talk pages and userpages are released under CC BY-SA 3.0? Apologies for burdening you with these questions, and thank you for any response.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, AioftheStorm. No apologies necessary. :) Yes, everything you put on your talk page or user page is licensed. (That's the easy one; I'm starting there. :D) There are no exceptions for any space to the Terms of Use, and §7.a. is very specific as to license. Multi-licensing is certainly possible; it's the principle that allows you to release your content simultaneously under CC By SA and GFDL. People may choose which license to select for reuse, so theoretically anyone who wishes to release their content on Wikipedia under other licenses may do so, so long as it is also available under CC By SA and GFDL. However, I don't know if there is problem in multilicensing with CC0. I have put on my work hat and written to the legal team to ask if feedback can be provided for this question. I have also updated Wikipedia:Multi-licensing, which was so far out of date that it indicated that dual licensing was not requested or required on Wikipedia. (wince) It may need to be updated further based on the legal team's response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the response and for looking into this. If it is the case that I can release contributions under both then I will do that. In the meantime take care and good luck with keeping the copyright policies up to date.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing from PD source

Hi MRG, I wonder if you could look at something for me please. It relates to some close paraphrasing on the list List of ant subfamilies. uestions have been raised at the FLC by one other editor and myself (in my capacity as FLC delegate). The information - and close paraphrasing - comes from:

  • Ward, Philip S. (2007). "Phylogeny, classification, and species-level taxonomy of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)" (PDF). Zootaxa. 1668: 549–563.

Could you advise as to whether you think that this close phrasing fits within our remit, as I am a little uncomfortble with it as it stands. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, SchroCat. :) Well, the licensing statement certainly isn't easy to find on that source. :/ But an important distinction here is that while it is compatibly licensed, it isn't PD. Compatibly licensed material can legally be merged into our own works as long as the terms of the license are met. This is usually given through a notice on the page itself, and I see there is such a notice in the "references" section. However, while the note is a good faith attempt to comply with licensing, it doesn't quite fit the bill - to reuse content under CCBy, you must provide a link to the license. It's not adequate to refer people to a document that contains no information on the license. This is one of the terms mandatory for use of content under that license. This seems to be a problem with the template, but it needs to be repaired, either through the addition of an explicit link to the license where it is used or through reworking the template. Until it is repaired, that content is not compliant.
In terms of close paraphrasing, while I am seeing more people voicing discomfort with it lately, our current guideline at Wikipedia:Plagiarism is satisfied with that general attribution without further notation of copying when the content is public domain or compatibly licensed. I don't know if featured criteria have a stricter stance, but could well imagine they might. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I've opened the question of the template at Template talk:OA-attribution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MRG, I'll highlight the need for the link directly to the licence, as that is certainly needed here. Slightly surprisingly the criteria do not have a stricter stance on paraphrasing, although I wish they did: I am not entirely comfortable in signing off something as featured when it is 95% taken from another source, and as closely paraphrased as it is here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for KMG Ethiopia

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Before I block this editor, can you please check

that [20] is copyvio from [21] (that is, that the source is copyright. It's clearly copied). He's ignored warnings or claimed fair use, and I've created a CCI. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dougweller. The Encyclopedia was first printed in the 1970s. It claims in the front of the book itself to be copyrighted with all rights reserved, and I see no reason at all to doubt it. So,
Thanks. I'll go ahead and revert and block. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry

I'm sure no one noticed [22]. NE Ent 02:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL. :) --10:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Coaching

Namaste

Sister OR Fellow Wikipedian OR Moonriddengirl (whichever you like)
I want you to resume User:Moonriddengirl/Coaching whenever you'll get time, as one more user has asked me for it. I need to clean up and revise everything. I attended 3—6 th October's India Wikimedia Conference, I am adding an image so that you can see "exactly who" you are talking to --Tito☸Dutta 12:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Responded there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thanks for exuding a calm presence when things got heated at WP:PLAGIARISM. Thanks also for having the patience to hear me through even though I am obviously not very versed in Wikispeak or skilled at Wiki-diplomacy. I'm truly sorry I was rude and condescending. I hope I can learn more from you in the future! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. :) I truly appreciate that. One of our greatest strengths and greatest challenges on Wikipedia is that most of us care passionately. This is why we get stuff done, but it's also why conversations can become quite (and quickly) heated. I think our civility policies are really essential to keeping us functional in spite of this. I know you disagreed quite strongly with a number of people in this discussion; for what it's worth, I've had strong disagreements with a number of Wikipedians, many of whom I get along with quite well now and whom I greatly respect. I hope you'll be able to put those behind you and will find yourself in similar position. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS check

Can you check out the OTRS tag listed in this edit. It's related to the Víctor J. Montilla page and I don't think Adrignola is an OTRS member (but I'm not sure when that userright was established so I can't tell). Thanks. Protonk (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Protonk. Adrignola at least was an OTRS agent at that time. What we have there, though, is a permission letter from the subject with no indication of why he owns the copyright. I've followed up at https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2011092010013983#. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I feel a little bad as I peer reviewed the article like 3 years ago (or more, maybe) and didn't notice the copyvio problems (and it's been on my watchlist ever since). Protonk (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
It happens, Protonk. :) We can't all catch everything every time. That's why the many eyes model works. :D In this case, what prompted the investigation was cleanup of the OTRS tag errors, which flagged that he had used a tag for a ticket that related to something else. :/ I wonder how often that happens? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure thing, user:Crow. What a beautifully musical name that is. :D Okay, Ticket:7759626#9229026 looks to be in order, but they didn't specify what article was involved. It was handled by User:TLSuda, who responded that he had marked the article to note the permission. He processes a ton of permissions, so I'm not sure which article he marked. It may have referred to more than one article. In any event, since the release clearly applies, I've gone ahead and placed the template. So glad you followed up on that one, as it looks like the permission process might have been overlooked in that case! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

YGM

YGM on your mdennis account. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

Copyright violation

After repeated warnings Vinyl94 is engaging in copyright violation on the article Dudhsagar Falls. What to do next? Please help! Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What you did was a fine thing to do, User:Tamravidhir. :) It is possible that he did not understand the new message notification immediately and so may not have reviewed your first warning when he persisted. If he persists again, he will undoubtedly be blocked, as you warned him. You can point him out to me in that case, if you like, or you can take it up at WP:ANI. With a clear cut case like this, you can probably also report it at WP:AIV, but sometimes admins aren't comfortable handling copyright there. If you encounter that, you just take it then to ANI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much Moonriddengirl! Till now the user hasn't repeated it but if the user does I will do as you said. Thank you! ^_^ --Tamravidhir (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl could you please tell me what is thia - User:Tamravidhir/EditCounterOptIn.js? --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be a page you created in 2011, User:Tamravidhir. :) [23]. You seem to have been attempting to opt in to the Wikipedia:Edit counter, but I don't know if you did so successfully. That's really not my area of expertise. I'd suggest asking at WP:VPT if you have questions; it's what I would do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
But it says that it may compromise my account...I feel that let it be like that then...it has not cause a problem. I just saw that even Titodutta has such a page. By the way Moonriddengirl, my user page today underwent a complete restructuring could you just view it and say how's it? (if you don't mind) Please!!!! --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I still have to add a few more things. --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm no userpage expert. :) But at a glance it looks fine to me. If you want feedback on that, though, you're better off looking for more visual people. I think I pointed you to the userpage design center before? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

CC-BY 4.0

Hi MRG, just wondering if CC-BY 4.0 International is a compatible license for us? I checked WP:COMPLIC but it doesn't show there. Someone on the talk page there also inquired without answer. Thanks! CrowCaw 22:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(TPS) From the looks of it it's identical to CC-BY 3.0, which is acceptable licensing for us. As such, I don't see why 4.0 wouldn't be. Wizardman 22:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
There's something up with it, but I haven't looked into what. There's a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Declaration of consent for all enquiries#Change from CC-BY-SA 3.0 to 4.0. They don't indicate it's incompatible, just best not yet the default. I'm with User:Wizardman in that they look identical in all critical elements to me. Not all CC licenses are backwards compatible, but this one seems to be. On the other hand, the language "The Adapter’s License You apply must be a Creative Commons license with the same License Elements, this version or later, or a BY-SA Compatible License" does make me a bit nervous. :/ (It could mean "it must have the same elements of this version or later", which could be fine.) I'll run it by somebody at legal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I am told that, no, it is not backwards compatible. That would be A Problem. :( --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Can I ask you to update the table at WP:COMPLIC accordingly? I'm sure to be reverted as "who are you" if I try, I expect. CrowCaw 22:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a big one. Done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet another copyright question

Greetings, MRG. I ran across the article L. D. Giddens and Son Jewelry Store, the entirety of which consists of a copy of the "Description" and "Significance" sections of the National Register of Historic Places nomination form for the building. Now, according to the form itself (section 11, near the end), those sections were prepared by "Barbara Hammond, Consultant, Goldsboro, for Archeology and Historic Preservation Section, Survey and Planning Branch" at the "Division of Archives and History" in the state capital. Now, I have no idea whether works written by North Carolina government employees in the course of their duties are public domain (as they are for federal employees), or whether Ms. Hammond (who may have been a "consultant" for the town or the state or who knows what) was even a government employee in the first place, or whether this would perhaps be a work-for-hire case, with the copyright—if there is one—being held by the State of North Carolina. I was all ready to tag the article for a G12 speedy, especially since it's deficient in many respects as an encyclopedia article; but having been overcome by doubt, I decided to ask you for an opinion on the copyright situation first. The article in its current form is probably a WP:TNT case, but I dont know whether it should be speedied, taken to CP, or taken to AfD. Deor (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Deor. :) I've G12ed. We know that the National Register of Historic Places has declared that copyright in these forms is not waived on submission. We can't be sure of Hammond's employee status (evidence here suggests she worked for the city, not the state, if she worked for either: http://books.google.com/books/about/An_Architectural_Inventory_of_Goldsboro.html?id=PAKeGwAACAAJ) and even if she is an employee I haven't been able to find anything to verify that NC government works are public domain. They very well may be. They are legally identified as public records, but the legal code (while clearly permitting access for free or low cost) is mum on the question of reproduction. I see that the North Carolina Division of Archives and History at least thinks they can claim copyright ("© 2014 North Carolina Office of Archives & History. All rights reserved."), but I've run into state claims of copyright that contradict court findings before. That said, we've got a clear claim of copyright from the agency, no evidence that the claim is fraudulent, no reason to presume that Hammond is an employee of the state except a consultant, and so no reason to presume the content is public domain. I've left a note for the editor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into the matter with your usual thoroughness. Deor (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

Copyright problem: Kuhn & Komor

Hi Moonriddengirl, Thank you for your message. I will try to come up with the text some other way. Gryffindor (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, thank you for creating the page, it will help to track any issues. Do you know of anyone else who could help with it? Concerning the Crown of Bahadur Shah II article, I don't remember it being a WP:CWW case. Please feel free to just delete the history and text that is not in order, I will attempt a re-write at some later point but it is just not possible at the moment. Thank you for your help, it is much appreciated. Gryffindor (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

5th Republic (TV series)

Hi Moonriddengirl. Regarding 5th Republic (TV series), is it possible to at least restore the cast list? I understand that you removed content because of copyright violations, but the previous version had the characters' names properly linked to real-life historical figures and the names (both actors and characters) were formatted in WP:NCKO. 203.215.116.202 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. It's an easy enough fix. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks :) 203.215.116.182 (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Michelle Rhee#Test erasures

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Michelle Rhee#Test erasures. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, RightCowLeftCoast. :) It's been an awful long time since that article was listed at WP:CP. While I'm scarcely familiar with this woman, it looks to me like balance issues may still be there, but my involvement as an admin was primarily to address copyright problems. I don't think the recent changes are an issue under copyright - although closely paraphrased in parts, I think that they are far better than what used to be there. That said, I wonder if this should go to WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN to discuss weighting of sources? --20:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Typo editor

I have less patience than you I guess. Just too many major changes with misleading edit summary, so blocked as 'not here'. I've no objection to the editor being unblocked if they come up with a damn good explanation, but I doubt that they will. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Dougweller. :) Meant to address this when I first saw it but got distracted. I think your response is entirely reasonable. Those misleading edit summaries are bad news, since they may prevent people looking to see what they've actually been doing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Deliberately misleading edit summaries are evidence of someone definitely not here to build the encyclopedia. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright check tool

Am I misremembering or didn't there used to be a bot running a few years ago that checked new text additions for copyright violations? --NeilN talk to me 04:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:NeilN. :) The only automated bot we've ever had in article space is CorenSearchBot (and MadmanBot, which backed it up), which scans new articles. We've never been able to get one with the capacity to check all new text additions - there are a couple of challenges with that, including isolating new text so that you avoid false positives, managing the server load, and actually getting permission to do the search. (These kinds of searches usually violate the TOU of search engines, and we had to get license for CSB to do it.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Since WMF has money to spend (ahem), what do you think of the following?
  1. Only check contributions from editors with less than a thousand edits.
  2. Only check diffs greater than fifty characters.
  3. Have an exception list of known Wikipedia mirrors to reduce false positives when old text is re-added to the article.
  4. If a potential copyright violation is found, add a note and category to the article's talk page.
  5. Editors can check the violation, and if need be, add to the mirror list.
  6. Pay the search engine a fraction of a cent per search.
--NeilN talk to me 13:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Switching my hat for this one, User:NeilN. :) First, I wouldn't propose a fraction of a cent per search unless we had to. I don't know how many edits we get of >50 characters with <1000 words even on English Wikipedia, but I'd be really concerned that this could run into some massively big bucks. If we could get by with a general use fee, we might be better off - depending on their ask. In any event, I think that under the way things are currently done, this would be a Grants matter. If somebody with perhaps the skills to create the bot wanted funding to work on it and may it functional, that seems like the place to go. If that's not workable, though, it might be that the work going on with Wikipedia:Turnitin will help. User:EranBot is currently running a trial on medical articles - not new text additions, but existing articles - so they can see if the output is workable. See User:EranBot/Copyright. There's great work being done there by User:Jmh649 and User:LeadSongDog. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers. I'll have a look. --NeilN talk to me 14:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Neil We are basically doing many of the things you mention.

  1. New edits to any medical article over a certain size are checked
  2. We do not exclude anyone (and do not want to). I found someone who managed to make 30,000 edits of copy and pasting without getting caught
  3. We have a page of mirrors which are excluded and that can be added to
  4. We list concerns here [24]
  5. We are getting 2-8 edits edits per day that are a concern and require human follow up on 30,000 articles
  6. False positive too true positive are about 50/50 which we are happy with
Meeting with the WMF next weekend about improving the text parser and expanding this more widely. Turnitin is giving us free use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Signpost Op-Ed here [25]
The primary thing we need before we expand to other topic areas is groups of people interested in following up on the issues found. This is the reason why we are only checking medical articles right now. The exciting thing is we are picking up a lot of concerns that would have been otherwise missed and have had the opportunity to educate a lot of new users. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks Doc. Any plans to expand the scope? I find articles that attract editors who don't have English as their first language are a little more prone to having copyright violations. Just today I came across text which had been copied from the Google translation output of a Portuguese article. --NeilN talk to me 20:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Victor M. Richel - Wikipedia Article

Good evening Moonriddengirl,

Would you be able to help me out with revising an entry you flagged about a year ago, for Victor M. Richel at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victor_M._Richel?

I saw that some comments were exchanged between you and the original writer of the article, Samej82. At the end, your comment to Samej82 was "Thank you for correcting the issues." But the article is still flagged for inappropriate content.

I would like to help clean up Mr. Richel's entry so that it no longer shows up as flagged. To my knowledge, it is no longer an orphan - as the Union County College entry now links here. It seems like there are several citations in place, so I'm not sure what else would need to be cited. And based on your conversation with Samej82, it seems like the issue with tone was corrected.

Can you please help me determine what else on his page should be revised or fixed? Thank you in advance!

Sincerely,

Erik Slagle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikrslagle (talk • contribs) 00:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I will reply at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Mad Heads albums

Category:Mad Heads albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

Backwards copyvio

I found and listed one at Talk:Stanisław_Lem#Backwards_copyvio. I forget what template is applicable here, but I am sure you or one of your friendly talk page stalkers can add it to our article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, but for the template you need to explain how you know. :) We don't just say it, we prove it. That can be as simple as providing a link to what the article looked like before the publication of the newspaper piece or as complex as pointing out how content was created by the efforts of multiple people over time, making copying extremely unlikely. If you want to explain how you know, I'm happy to put it into {{backwardscopy}} for you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I've updated the post with an explanation: our article from October 2011 had the same content as the Mirror article published a month later. See links on article talk page. Is this satisfactory? Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. :) I'll go ahead and apply the tag for you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

How to attribute this?

Hi MRG! Here's one that's popped up a couple of times, and so far they've been CSD'd, but in case one is not I'm wondering how to handle the attribution required:

  • An article is created and contributed to by several/many people. It is mirrored out to one of the many WP mirrors. The article is deleted, by Prod or AfD. Subsequently, a different user than the original creator re-creates the article in Draft space with the intent on improving it based on AfD feedback. The article's content is very close/identical to the WP mirror.

So there's a couple of possibilities: the user could have grabbed the WP mirror and pasted it into the new Draft, or they could have saved a copy from when it was at AfD and have pasted that text back in. In either case, the text in question was contributed to by many people, but in its current state there is no attribution history. What do you do? What DO you do? :-) CrowCaw 21:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You do one of two things, user:Crow. :) You restore the deleted article and do a history merge, or you grab the full list of contributors for the talk page. Generally, easier to restore the deleted article! Then you tell the contributor why he can't do that and how to request restoration of articles in the future. You have a history needs restoring? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Potentially... Stefan Siegel was deleted with a very weak consensus (1 commenter weakly supporting delete). Draft:Stefan Siegel has popped up as a SCV from a different author than the original (I checked with deleting admin), which is sourced to a WP mirror, so is probably the content of the deleted article. The draft has been submitted for AFC review with very minor changes from the mirror, so it may be a weak case for a G4 in this state, or it may just need a decline for more work as the subject seems marginally notable by himself, and his company more so. CrowCaw 21:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, it seems that the wheels of Wikipedia have resolved this one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween greetings!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Moonriddengirl:
Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Have a fun Halloween!
    – SW3 5DL (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Thank you! and Happy Halloween to you, User:SW3 5DL. :) You inspired me to dust off my old "Happy Halloween" notice from my talk page header, although User:Northamerica1000's design is considerably more sophisticated than mine. :D I love Halloween. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I like your Halloween message atop your page herein. Happy Halloween! NorthAmerica1000 11:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

What's our policy on linking (in "External links") to material that is in the public domain in some places (Canada, for instance) but is protected by copyright in the U.S.? Deor (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have enough information to give you a straightforward answer, Deor. :) But even if I did, there might not be a straightforward answer. WP:LINKVIO and WP:ELNEVER are both clear that it's okay to link to copyrighted works being displayed elsewhere as long as the website has licensed the work or are using it under fair use (and we don't circumvent that fair use by bypassing the content and deep-linking the work, for instance). It doesn't mention at all cases where copyright doesn't apply to the content in one place but does another, although we do know that we are bound by U.S. law (as WP:C makes clear), and technically publication of content that is copyrighted under U.S. law without license or outside the provisions of fair use is a violation of copyright in U.S. law and hence verboten. I think our application of that is going to require some solid good sense. The US doesn't have a copyright agreement with Iraq, for instance, so as far as Iraq is concerned, all US content is PD. But I would strongly oppose linking to, say, American blockbuster films being hosted on an Iraqi website. There's a cause I would fight. :) I would personally be far less motivated to complain if a work by a Canadian author PD in Canada but protected by URAA in the U.S. is linked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess I should have been more explicit about what prompted my question (though it's somthing I've wondered about previously). Here, someone linked to a Canadian site that has complete texts of C. S. Lewis books online—as I understand it, Canadian copyright is for life+50, so they are, I assume, PD there. I guess anyone who wants to read the works can find them simply by Googling, so it probably doesn't matter much if we link to them; but as I said, it's something I've wondered about. Deor (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yeah. While I wouldn't bother too much about a URAA case, Deor, Lewis is a different kettle of fish. Lewis's works were actively registered and renewed in the U.S. They aren't copyrighted out of courtesy. See, for instance, [26]. The Lewis estate has a reputation for, um, vigilance with respect to copyright. Understandable, perhaps, as those properties are still cash cows. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm smelling a sock

DocOfSoc (talk · contribs) reminds me of ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs) - remember how that user created dozens of personas, many with tragic, sympathy-inspiring back stories? And a penchant for mass copy and paste writing? I don't want to trash someone if I'm wrong, but the tone really strikes me as eerily familiar, see my further comments and links at the CCI. Montanabw(talk) 07:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a fucking chance. I've known DocOfSoc for years, and she is not ItsLassieTime. At all. Doc talk 08:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal familiarity with the user is helpful. :) I don't know either of them very well. I'm not really all that familiar with sock puppetry investigations and have been surprised more than once before, but that said I would still be really surprised to find any connection here. DocOfSoc's areas of interest and behavior with content feels very different to me (it's less mass copy and paste writing, I think, and more occasional but still regular lapses). Still, just to fully alleviate (I hope) your concerns, User:Montanabw, I checked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive. She'd have probably been picked up in a sock drawer CU check if she were. They had coinciding activity patterns at least in early 2010, and her IP addresses would have been in the system then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
If you guys are reassured, then no worries. I just spotted the copy and paste behavior combined with highly dramatic tragic personal story and it sounded familiar (ILT's socks included a disabled old man, an abused teenager, etc... all to distract attention and avoid detection.) But if this person is legit, then mea culpa for thinking they were a sock, but it was a good faith concern, FWIW. I just spotted it in passing and went "hmmm?" Y'all take care now. Montanabw(talk) 19:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it's fine to ask, User:Montanabw. I've been in positions in the past where I've wondered about somebody and not said anything for fear of being wrong only to later find out (because somebody else did say something) that I was right. You saw what looked like a pattern to you and did a gut-check, without a lot of fuss or drama. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes - and sorry for the coarse language. There was clearly no intention of bad faith in your part, and if I wasn't so familiar with this user I would have been far less "harsh" concerning your legit inquiry. DocOfSoc has had, and continues to have, some very serious RL health setbacks. One of our mutual Wikifriends, (Crohnie (talk · contribs)), died recently; and these two were very close on and off-wiki. The copyright issues are left to those best suited to deal with them (and MRG is the best around). I will say that I absolutely do believe her when she says she did not maliciously intend to violate copyright policy. Doc talk 02:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hello Moonriddengirl,

I have a enquiry regarding copyrights, which I would like to ask you as I believe you're the person with excellent copyright knowledge. A few song title articles connected to WikiProject Eurovision have recently had word-for-word copy of song lyrics added to them (see this example). Upon reading WP:NOTLYRICS I am under the impression that lyrics are copyright protected and should not be added to an article, is this correct? Also some articles have had a description of music videos and/or information on the upload of a music video along with its running time, with citation to the artists's YouTube video, those videos either published via the European Broadcasting Union's page, or via Vevo. Again would this be violating copyrights? Thank you in advance.   Wes Mouse | chat  17:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Wesley Mouse. :) Word for word lyrics are almost always a problem, except where the content is free licensed or public domain. I can't think of any lyrics that are freely licensed off the top of my head, but all songs are public domain once they get old enough. :) Sadly, that's unlikely to apply to modern popular music. Those should be removed. In terms of videos, linking to the video where it is officially hosted (or hosted with permission) is okay. But we can't link to it where it's hosted illegally (per WP:LINKVIO and WP:ELNEVER). Descriptions of music videos should be okay, but, weird as it sounds, should remain relatively high level. From what I understand, descriptions that are overly detailed may run a risk of turning into a derivative work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, Moonriddengirl, I thought lyrics may be a problem, and thankfully I did remove the one I exampled above. As for music videos, Det är dit vi ska uses one as a reference, just to give an example of what I mean. Wes Mouse | T@lk 08:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Wesley Mouse. :) In that case, it should be okay, as the YouTube channel is the official one of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. If it were uploaded by some random fan, we could not use it. In such cases, the video can be cited as a source without linking to it, however. We don't require that sources be accessible online, although it's always nice when they are! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Article Copyright posting at Talk:Philip_B._Gordon

Greetings, Even though I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia I have updated about a dozen biography articles. Tonight I saw the notice at Talk:Philip_B._Gordon page.

I did copy & paste all of previous Revision history into a file on my computer. Question: would it be OK if I attempt, first to restucture entire article into a better biography format?

After that, I could attempt to summarize the content text. Not sure what text may be copyright, so a shorter article may be OK.

Final questions - I did see the notice about creating a temporary sub-page to place the article rewrite. Is that what I should do? Or post a first draft here? Or on the article's talk page? Whatever you could recommend would be better than me guessing. Thanks.

Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JoeHebda. :) You would be most welcome to help fix this problem by rewriting the article! Rewrites for copyright problems must be from scratch - you cannot use the text from the original unless you are sure that it isn't a problem, and since this user has a history of copying content from inaccessible books that can't be relied on. :/ It is definitely possible to create a shorter version of an article flagged for copyright that should be okay - what you would want to do is use different structure and language entirely. (By structure, I mean in terms of the arrangement of sentences, not the article itself - you are welcome to restructure that article as part of your rewrite as suits you.) Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing has some good suggestions for how to do this work; with content that has already been flagged as a copyright problem, we are typically careful to avoid reintroducing content that may still infringe. It's a little harder to defend contributing to a copyright problem that you should have already known was there, so rewriting from scratch protects everyone.
You certainly do not need to post your draft here. The article is supposed to go at Talk:Philip B. Gordon/Temp, but technically that article is past due for handling. It could be stubbed or deleted at any time. If it is, working on it in your "sandbox" space for development (for you later to move into article space), you can find or create your own user sandbox here. Sandboxes are a good place to work in leisure. But by no means required. :) Alternatively, you can work on the article space once that article is processed and the problem content removed.
Please be sure not to paste any of the content that had been in the article on Wikipedia in working on your draft. If you want to store it somewhere for review, in case the old history is deleted, please do so outside of Wikipedia. Whenever you place content anywhere on Wikipedia, you are verifying that it meets our license requirements. Even in sandbox space, content must conform. :)
Thanks for your interest, and I appreciate your desire to salvage the article! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl, In taking a fresh look this morning, making a completely new article is beyond my capabilities at this point. I also checked at wikimedia commons & it looks like all the image files might also be copyright (from the book source?). While I do enjoy reading about early Wisconsin history and our pioneers, and communities, etc. this is not really my area of expertise. Most biography articles can be sectioned off into two or three basic sub-sections & I see this one has many more.
If this article becomes stub or deleted, I will still keep what I have from last night offline. If no one else jumps in to work on the article, I might be able to help over the upcoming winter months. :-)
Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the images are also a real concern. This user seems to have uploaded content without much evidence as to publication to allow us to determine copyright status. :/ They are all listed for review, although it may take some time to complete. And with regards to rebuilding content, there is no rush. Whenever you want to help restore it to some semblance of completion, JoeHebda, you would be very welcome! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

License vio in fork site?

Hi MRG, what do you make of This Mirror/Fork site. They say they contain exact copies of AfD-listed WP articles, and their license is PD. Are they allowed to downgrade the license, even on deleted content. Which assumes also that only deleted content is there, which may not always be the case if an article is copied there and subsequently survives AfD. CrowCaw 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they aren't, user:Crow. And they know it. I helped them with attribution issues in July 2011, and others pitched in as well. I have no idea what they're doing with the site now. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
{{SadCrow}}. Ok, thanks! I'm going to ping you from SCV for a specific incident related to this, just because I've already started a comment thread going there, and not to bore your watchers! CrowCaw 23:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you help here?

Trying to explain our policies and guidelines to a new user here: User_talk:Montanabw#Ulysses_S._Grant_NHS and here: Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant_National_Historic_Site#Recent edits. Could use some help, they don't get it. Montanabw(talk) 02:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC) I was looking at the guidelines on plagiarism and came across this: Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying_material_from_free_sources, but I'm still not comfortable with the massive copy and paste this editor is trying to insert. I don't think a template at the bottom gives the whole piece a giant "King's X". (Though if it does, then bless it and say so publicly; you are the goddess of this stuff!) Montanabw(talk) 04:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Montanabw. :) I'm happy to explain our policies and practices to him; he does seem confused about whether public display and public domain are the same thing.
In terms of the template at the bottom, that's not a copyright issue but entirely a cultural choice. If the content is public domain, people can legally use it however they want. There is no requirement to even acknowledge the source. That is the situation legally. Culturally, we are concerned with the ethics, but what constitutes ethical attribution is entirely up to the community to decide. In the years I've watched Wikipedia:Plagiarism, I've seen people who share your concern and think that content should be taken from our sources only if used in properly attributed quotes or closely paraphrased content with intext attribution. I've also seen people who feel entirely differently, that there is no expectation of original authorship on Wikipedia so the template is more than is required, as (to them) a citation would be enough. Because there's no legal basis for that argument, I tend to stay out of it (unless I feel like the guideline is becoming inconsistent or unclear) and just follow whatever consensus say. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I have been editing on the John Walsh (U.S. politician) article recently, where, as you may know, this US Senator was stripped of his Master's degree for basically doing a copy and paste of about 2/3 of a 14- page term paper back in 2007. We had quite a heated discussion there about the plagiarism issue (mostly over WP:UNDUUE weight issues, not so much content) and both I and the person who I was arguing with did agree that if a college kid did a copy and paste and passed it off as their own work, there would be problems. I'm an adjunct instructor at a college right now and if a student did copy and paste from a public domain source without attribution, they'd be having a long, serious discussion with me and the Dean. So, I guess my view is that WP:RS and WP:V require attribution. I'm not sure the format that is ideal, but if I were doing a GA review, I'd want to see at least a footnote for eery paragraph, linked to the precise web page. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 00:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a valid desire. :) And you're not alone in it. It's entirely possible for GA and FA to set their own standards even if there is no consensus community wide to change the general attribution requirement for PD and compatibly licensed sources. To be completely frank, I think it would be quite a battle achieving community consensus to change the standards project-wide, as there's a ton of content created by pasting in PD & CompLic sources with the general attribution at the bottom, and teasing out where in the individual articles they use that content would be a metric ton of work. There are editors I know who would support such a proposal and those I know would oppose it. I myself would stay at the sidelines and just go with whatever the outcome was because you really have to choose your battles. Unless the plagiarism guideline seems to me in danger of weakening WP:C and WP:NFC, I'd really rather not put too much time into it. My contribs to that article's talk page will show how easy it is to fail in that. When disagreements happen, they can be massive time sucks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

3O

Could you give me an urgent 3O? Tamravidhir (talk!) 12:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Tamravidhir, I'm afraid I can't give you a WP:3O. The idea of 3O is that you are not reaching out to specific editors that you know and neither is the other party; you are reaching out for somebody random to assist. That you asked me would make my involvement suspect. Odds are good that whatever is happening is not so urgent that you can't post it at WP:3O or some other noticeboard and walk away for a while. If it is the kind of thing that would be exempt from WP:3RR and it truly is urgent (see the list at WP:3RRNO), then please be specific and I will either see if I can help or direct you to somewhere that can. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Project Rebirth

I Moonriddengirl, sorry to bother you again, but I wacked a paragraph from the article Project Rebirth because a Google search suggested it was lifted in its entirety from a facebook page. From a glance at the talk page I can see you've had a flyby on this article before over copyright concerns, and given what I found today I think it may be in Wikipedia's best interest to have you or someone else versed in copyright take another pass at the article to make sure its still all copyright free. Hopefully, I'm just being paranoid again, but it never hurts to get a second opinion. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Quick drive-by from a silly bird: The "mission" section is way too close to [27]. "Programs" and sub-sections are very close to [28]. "Testimonials" is very close to [29]. And that's just a superficial dig. I appreciate your intent, but I fear a copyright blanking is imminent for this article. CrowCaw 23:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Crow: On the strength of that look through and assessment I have gone ahead and revert to the last Moonriddengirl edited version dated 27 January 2011, and exercised my admin privileges to protect the page until you guys sort out if any of this is salvageable or not. Hopefully something will turn up that we can advance to, but given your assessment I'm not holding out much hope. In either case, thanks for the check. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Concur with User:Crow that, alas, TomStar81, you are not being paranoid. What we've got here is yet another effort by this organization to control their Wikipedia presence. That happens a lot with companies who have no clue what we're really about, and these people were very transparent about it. This girl identified her conflict on her user page. The IP openly proclaimed herself here. I've contacted both the intern and the director with explanations of the problems, so there may be more activity, but I think probably we can unprotect and keep an eye on it. I'll add it to my watchlist in case there's future movement, but there's usually a dismayed realization that this doesn't work the way they think it does at this point. Only very rarely do people get defiant about this and, if they do, we can take additional measures then. Thanks so much for finding this and looking into it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, all. I got suspicious when I spotted a question mark in the article body the other day without a quote, which unto my experience is a huge red flag in an article because that usually indicates a copy/paste from somewhere else on the web. I have removed the protection for the time being, but if copyright material comes back into the article I suppose we will have to reinstate it. Alternatively, we could try pending changes, but I've never much been a fan of that form of protection and I'm a little unsure how to set it up on an article page. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The Working Woman's Barnstar
I realize that I probably don't say this enough here on Wikipedia, but thanks for the help on these tricky issues. If the copyright concern page was a little more user-friendly, I would probably pester them with my concerns instead of always coming to you for help. I know its gotta be hard work to handle this kind of stuff, but it is noticed and appreciated by all. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, TomStar81. :) You are always welcome. I appreciate your awareness of and attention to the issue, and I'm extremely grateful for the kindness of people like Crow who pitch in. All about getting the work done, wherever it happens. :)
Re: protection, what I'd probably go for is blocking the individual editor(s) first and, if it persists, semi-protection. People in this situation usually stop once they get it. If they don't, they don't generally have the patience to get themselves confirmed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

Victor M. Richel - Wikipedia Article (revisited)

Hi again Moonriddengirl :-) In our previous conversation, you mentioned there was no link from the Union County College page to the page for Victor M. Richel, but I've confirmed that link is in fact there. Would you mind looking into this and seeing if the "orphan" status of Mr. Richel's can be cleared? Thank you! - Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikrslagle (talk • contribs) 04:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Erikrslagle. The link was not there on 21 October when you contacted me, but is now - we can see when it was added. [30]. The name was even in the article when you contacted me, except in one of the references: [31]. It is possible to see what links to any article by going to the "Tools" section on the right and clicking "what links here". I see it had been in there, but was removed when a series of edits by an employee of the school had been reverted. I've removed the orphan tag from the article. I have also advised the employee about our conflict of interest guidelines and flagged the Union County College article accordingly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Merger of articles

A debate has broken out concerning a note that you left at a user's talk page concerning the way articles should be merged. There seems to be two camps of thought as to the interpretation of your note. It might be helpful to the discussion if you could have a look at the debate so far and settle the matter with what you intended. The debate can be found here. Thanking you in advance for your assistance. –LiveRail < Talk > 12:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:LiveRail, I have replied there. :) Thanks, and sorry for the delay! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Owner deletes internet page

Hi MRG, what is the copyright situation of this scenario: Page is created as copyvio of internet source, G12'ed. Author re-creates same page, and when CSB tags it, responds by deleting the internet source page? They're obviously related to the subject because of this, and probably should take another approach (WP:DCM) but in this particular case is it still a G12? Thanks! CrowCaw 17:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Crow. Are you talking about Draft:Yusuf Olanrewaju (Lanre) Ope? The blanked web page is still available vis Google's cache [32] and that page is clearly marked © 2014 Lanre Ope. All Rights Reserved. If the draft is a substantial copy of it, I'd say it's still copyvio because there's proof that it has clearly been previously published under copyright. Don't know what MRG thinks. Voceditenore (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Voceditenore! Yes that is the one that spurred my question this time, though it is the 3rd time a similar situation has cropped up. So far the other 2 had other problems that led to their deletion, and I've also seen CSD tags removed from articles with explanations like "Source no longer matches article", so my question is as much philosophical as practical. I suspect that a copyright is still a copyright, whether we can see the evidence or not. CrowCaw 18:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, user:Crow. And thanks, Voceditenore. I agree. If something being out of print abnegated copyright, every out of print book would be up for grabs. Copyright expiration is unaffected by the current status of publication; it expires when it expires. I see this occasionally, and I usually just leave a note for the contributor telling them that pulling it from publication doesn't help and actually can make the situation worse. The way to address the situation is to publish the license release on the site, as you say. So sorry for my delay! Family stuff over the weekend kept me offline. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Personal expertise

In light of this post from you I think you should read Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Indo-Canadian_versus_South_Asian_Canadian_versus_East_Indian_Canadian. There are still references being made to personal expertise/standing. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. :(
There are many good reasons that debates should focus on the content instead of the contributor, including pragmatically that where tone gets personal as in this discussion all bystanders see is the tone. I have no opinion about this content question. You could be right, WhisperToMe; he could be. I don't know. But as an outsider who has only positive associations for both of you (that I recall; I tend to forget conflict over time - not so good at carrying grudges, me :)), it just looks like the opposition is personal. Your age and educational level are immaterial. What matters is whether you are citing reliable sources in due weight without synthesis. Somebody who thinks your sources are being misinterpreted or inappropriately weighted or that they are unreliable is more likely to persuade me (and other bystanders) by succinctly explaining why. If that isn't working, WP:DR is the only real way forward to avoid a situation where either two prolific users bludgeon each other with words until one of them gives up or somebody(ies) get blocked. I see that he indicates he has withdrawn from the conversation (with reference to his blood pressure). In light of that, I'd recommend that you focus on the content with others and if he returns try to reboot the discussion with a succinct explanation of why you think you are right, avoiding reference to the personal aspects of the debate. If it spins back up, I'm not sure what the solution is. I would imagine it starts with direct, friendly conversation, though. And I'll hope that will help settle things down. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I wanted to bring in a third opinion and to have that third opinion discussed. I wanted the discussion to focus on the third opinion but maybe I should have just ignored the first person (no responding to his messages) when he attempted to interject into the conversation. I guess I hoped that he would "see the light" and understand why I am asking for sources to document things, and I felt it was very difficult to ignore the messages. I agree that the best thing for me at this point is to just focus on the content and not say anything about the personal aspects. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I certainly understand that such things are difficult to ignore, WhisperToMe. I have a very hard time with it myself. :) Based on what I've seen, you seem to be focused on the issues (caveat: no way I've read all those conversations. I've skimmed the most recent stuff), which is good. When I get into such discussions, I try very hard to get more and more business-oriented as it goes, but there comes a time when directly addressing the personal conflict is necessary. Please do feel free to let me know if it spins back up again. I have no great gifts at mediation, but will try to help de-escalate and focus the discussion on the content if I can. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I'll let you know if the debate restarts. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Block copying from public domain source

Good morning! I'm not sure where to ask this but I hope you can provide some insight. I know you work pretty actively in copyright enforcement here. This IP edit introduced two paragraphs worth of text into an article directly from an FBI press release (here) which is in the public domain via the Department of Justice copyright notice (here). The text is inadequately sourced but I can fix that. My question is whether we normally allow such bulk copying from a source at all, even if it is in the public domain? Thanks for your input. Ivanvector (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) The original version of that doc is from here, but yes is still public domain, so there is no copyright concern with using it. However, using it and claiming it is your own work is still plagiarism... a subtle distinction that wars have been fought over... so to avoid that, adding Template:US government sources to the bottom of the page would be appropriate. Personally, I would also ensure the article text says something like "according to the US attorney's office" or similar, depending on how it is presented. Lastly, I believe there may be primary sourcing issues with using that as a source, but I've got less experience with those subtleties. CrowCaw 23:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you both! In this case I'm not too concerned about primary sourcing, there are better secondary sources in the article already. My concern was about it being plagiarism, and it's good to know that it isn't outright delete-on-sight plagiarism, but I'll think about what to do to improve it. Ivanvector (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Roman888

Guess who's back again. Feel like blocking a couple socks? He turned up today at User:Roman914 where he's already dared us to block him. He also outed himself as using a second account rather quietly on a couple Malaysian articles until an edit war in the last 48 hours or so: User:NasiKK. He's going to keep coming back, no matter what we do, I suppose; at least Mkativerata has an eye on NasiKK. But I'm hoping you can nip this one in the bud. --Drmargi (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The inimitable User:Drmies precedes me at User:Roman914. As to User:NasiKK, blocked. I wasn't entirely sure at first how he had outed himself (and I'm not sure I'm picking up what you are), but his gravitating towards Roman's familiar haunts and his labeling of Mkativerata a serial vandal (enmity courtesy of Mkativerata's excellent work on his CCI) seem pretty strong evidence to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
As soon as he saw Mkativerata and me discussing him, he registered for a new account and immediately started in the old garbage about me you've seen on the Gordon Ramsay articles, then left a taunting message on the account's user page. Same old, same old. He never seems to see his patterns are what gives him away. --Drmargi (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doreen_Valiente_Foundation

Hi, Please forgive us for not knowing the full ettiquette of Wikipedia. The page that was deleted on 24th May about the Doreen Valiente Foundation is listed as being an infringement of copyright. For what we've read it appears to be an infringement of our (The Doreen Valiente Foundation's) copyright. We have issued all the information on our website (www.doreenvaliente.org or www.doreenvaliente.com) as being under a creative commons licence and we are perfectly happy indeed for the page to utilise anything from our own website. Alternatively we'd be happy to write an article briefly describing the Foundation and it's status as custodians of Doreen's legacy. Please let us know what we need to do to get an entry about us published.

Regards

Ashley Mortimer Trustee, Doreen Valiente FOundation 82.27.245.251 (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ashley Mortimer. I'll leave a not on your IP talk page as well. Can you please point to the licensing release? Currently, the website says, "Copyright © 2014 Doreen Valiente Foundation. All Rights Reserved."
That said, what we used to have at The_Doreen_Valiente_Foundation was a redirect to the article Doreen Valiente. Deleting that was my error, and I've restored it. The copyright concern was with the draft article deleted by a different administrator, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Doreen Valiente Foundation.
If the content is properly licensed, it can be used to help build a page on the Foundation, but it's worth noting here that Wikipedia's purpose is not to duplicate what notable subjects say about themselves - we are here primarily to neutrally summarize what other sources say about you. The bulk of our articles are meant to be based on reliable sources that are not connected to the subjects of the articles themselves. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


Hello - thanks for re-instating the redirect . . . since the page about the Foundation is written by the Foundation itself then the redirect probably makes the most sense in light of what you've said above . . . the creative commons licence for the website is here: http://www.doreenvaliente.org/doreen-valiente-creative_commons-28.php and this would allow someone to re-write or edit the main wikipedia page about Doreen using material from the Foundation's website. Thanks again and best regards Ashley 82.27.245.251 (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, but I'm afraid that this is not a compatible license. Wikipedia is licensed under CC-By-SA 3.0, which permits both derivative works and commercial reuse. Your license forbids both. Please see our list of compatible licenses for what we are able to accept. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Note

Respected Madam,
I am sorry for my "explosions" yesterday. Regards. --Tito☸Dutta 16:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Our Bangalore conference related works are going very well, though I can not participate because f my physical illness. Hope you understand. --Tito☸Dutta 16:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm glad to hear things are going well and hope that you feel better soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ghost of a past article

I see that you happened to have edited a page for copyright that I am now certain may be caught up in wider copyright scheme perpetrated by a sockpuppets. You can get caught up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EtonHouse International Education Group and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Etonhousesingapore, then let me know what you think about this. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, TomStar81! I've cleaned up the two I think we should probably keep and explained as much at the AFD. The others, I think, can go in one form or another. Not sure if this is a sock farm or simply multiple people working for the same organization. That happens more than we think, I imagine. A lot of people have no clue how to work with Wikipedia, as I can attest after years of receiving emails from people asking me how much we charge to publish an article on a company. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You welcome. Thanks for the reply. Its funny: at the rate I'm going I'm gonna be a certified Wikipedia copyright checker by years end, and that's not something I had intended to happen, its all just based on my editorial gut instinct! :) Anyhow, if you've had a once over and the others have fixed these articles up then I'll leave it at that. I still smell a sock though, so for the sake of covering the bases I'd wait to see if the SPI turns up anything before rendering an opinion on a group of editors or one editor with multiple accounts creating and editing the articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
On a lighter note, I don't know if you are fan of futurama, but I thought I'd leave this soundbyte here as a lol summary of how these things seem to play out. I hope you enjoy it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
LOL, TomStar81. :) I think leaving the SPI open is a fine idea for those who assess such things; I don't have much experience in that area. Whether they're socks or meatpuppets, they're clearly connected. However, I do see that you've requested CheckUser - I'm afraid that won't be possible. :( CheckUser data is only stored for three months, and all of those accounts are stale. It'll have to be investigated based on behavioral evidence. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Indo-Canadian dispute

Skookum renamed "Sikhism in Greater Vancouver" to "Sikhism in the Lower Mainland" even though the sources I used explicitly say "Sikhism in Vancouver" as the focus. It may be true that Sikhism is important to other areas in the Lower Mainland, but shouldn't the article scope be primarily decided by the focus of the sources themselves? I would be on-board if the sources used the entire Lower Mainland as a scope and/or if some published source explicitly said "You can't limit it to Vancouver, please use Lower Mainland as a scope" - If such sources were provided I would be more in favor of such a thing.

He is exhibiting a belief that limiting an article to a metropolitan area is "artificial" - I don't think I can get any results by speaking to the user directly. Maybe it could help to get a third opinion.

Last revision before article move WhisperToMe (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless the behavioral issues you've discussed above have returned, WhisperToMe, it's probably better that I don't get involved. :/ I think my getting involved in the content debate would make me useless in helping to mediate personal conflict as it would likely seem to bias me.
That said, a page on "X in Region Y" would seem to work even if sources are discussing "Region Y(a)" as long as it is balanced with material on "Region Y(b)", as it were. I'm not familiar with the Lower Mainland, but is it possible for you to find sources that discuss "X" (or, in this case, Sikhism) in other areas of the Lower Mainland? If so, a good compromise might well be to populate the article with information on that region as well and do a split if the content grows too large. If you think the new title doesn't work altogether, then I think there are two options here. Either you could take it up at WP:RM/CM or restore the status quo until consensus is established for the change. (The latter is supported at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Undiscussed_moves.) If you restore the status quo you might consider courtesy listing it at WP:RM/CM with a succinct explanation of the opposing views. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find secondary source information about Sikhism in Abbotsford and Victoria - these are two major cities in the "Lower Mainland" that are not a part of Greater Vancouver and/or perhaps a source titled "Sikhism in the Lower Mainland" where that is the focus. If I fail to find these, WP:RM/CM may be the best avenue. Thank you so much for the advice :) WhisperToMe (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting licences

This one should be easier, maybe one of the watchers can answer it? What do we do when there are conflicting licences on a page? Query Abstraction Layer (listed here) is substantially copied from this page, which carries both a Creative Commons 1.0 licence and a copyright notice. Who do we believe? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

License notice, Justlettersandnumbers. :) As a general rule of thumb, license and copyright notice are not incompatible (although "all rights reserved" is uneasy making) - the license just offers the parameters under which permission is provided to use the content. A CC0 license is an uncomfortable fit with a copyright notice, since CC0 is a waiver of all copyright. HOWEVER, it is entirely possible to have a site that is copyrighted and a page that is CC0, and in this case the CC0 specifically refers to the text anyway, so copyright in the elements of design is retained. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Another whopper

Yeah, I always come to you with the nasties. Would a film like His Girl Friday (1940), which is PD, be free to upload if the play on which it is based is not PD? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Fun! :) IANAL, Crisco 1492, but I'm coming down on the side of no. :) (And I am an excited copyright geek at the moment, because this is one I knew. :D) As our article on derivative work quotes, copyright in such works "is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material." William Patry addresses the issue specifically in his blog, including quoting some extremely relevant case law: "although the derivative work may enter the public domain, the matter contained therein which derives from a work still covered by statutory copyright is not dedicated to the public. The established doctrine prevents unauthorized copying or other infringing use of the underlying work or any part of that work contained in the derivative product so long as the underlying work itself remains copyrighted. Therefore, since exhibition of the film Pygmalion necessarily involved exhibition of parts of Shaw's play, which is still copyrighted, plaintiffs here may prevent defendants from renting the film for exhibition without their authorization." (Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir.1979)) Unless something has changed recently (not impossible), the courts have examined this specific situation and determined that display of a PD film based on a published play that is still in copyright is limited by the rights holder of the play. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Thanks for the feedback! Then, of course, there's the question of stills... but I'd expect those to be fine, as there are no narrative elements. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Stills seem to be fine, as they are completely from the movie production. It's a Wonderful Life has a whole section on commons (including one from me!) due to this distinction, for example. CrowCaw 00:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations

You may have noticed an intent to massmail AfC volunteers to help them spot copyvio. I came across this guidance, but it needs updating. Among other things, it doesn't mention using the Wayback Machine or Google's search by customised time, both of which I often use to make sure that the version I found on the web is earlier than the version in the article (which I date by using Wikiblame). Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Updated. I don't know actually how to search by customized time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Moonriddengirl. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


Help

hello I was wondering if you could please provide me a copy of the deleted article "list of the most extreme episodes" i dont remember the exact artice name but it was something along those lines, i assure you i seek it solely for my own personal use, thank you Irishfrisian (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Irishfrisian. :) List of The Most Extreme Episodes was deleted in 2007 as a duplicate of content then at The Most Extreme. It has some different language in the descriptions, but looks very little different from the content currently in that article. It did not include the complete list animal countdowns as was in The Most Extreme article itself prior to September 2011. Is it that list you're looking for? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
yes Irishfrisian (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Irishfrisian, you don't seem to be email enabled. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Crow Award!

Crow Award
Crow has given you The (Inaugural!) Official Crow Award! Thanks for being an all around good egg! CrowCaw 18:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation on 7digital

Hi there, I removed all of the copyright violation from 7digital. Please can you remove the comment from the talk page and the flags at the top of the page, as I think the article is free from such violations. Thanks Llamalady28 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I will respond at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Issue

My son was murdered October 29. Google Shaun Diamond. I am decimated. Do whatever you have to do. I trust you completely and me not at all. Sorry for the issue. At this point I am jsut trying to survive. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_56&oldid=1190053001"