User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Proof of copyright allegations

I am writing articles with my hand and every time you menction it copiright violating,I hope next time you will show you proof where it has copied from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.11.91 (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you by any chance read the response I left you above? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, anon 114.130. MoonRG is a professional in this area. I do believe we should be taking a lot of notice when she points out possible issues. Tony (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I edited this article, Moonriddengirl. If you get articles in the area of middle to late middle ages and early classical Indian subcontinent history, particularly eastern India and Bangladesh, pop me a line and I'll edit out the copyvios and leave a healthy stub with good wikilinks. Good catch, very few editors edit anything in these areas and most of the articles are really bad. I anglicize and wikilink what I can, and try to add a source or two. --KP Botany (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with that. :) I'm afraid that I can't take credit for finding the issue, though. That one was located by User:Whpq. I'll keep you in mind as a resource. While I see quite a few Indian articles with issues, they're very seldom medieval or early classical; usually, they're related to modern pop culture. But it will be great to know where to go next time one turns up! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I can probably do Bollywood and Pakistani soaps and musicals, and actors, too, but, I try to edit those as an IP only. Shhh. --KP Botany (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Information and Communication Technology Agency of Sri Lanka

Weldone! Your new article is a nice start. Keep up the good work!--Chanaka L (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Watch

Keep an eye on IP 93.97.43.168. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Now there's a fellow who wants some attention. :) I've put his talk page on my watchlist, but I suspect if he's a stable user he won't be sneaking under any radars. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Horia Creangă

Thanks a lot for your new Horia Creangă article! I was not happy to discover the copyvio of the original article, but I'm very happy with the outcome: not a mere deletion, but a far better article instead.Fransvannes (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for finding the problem. :) I'm glad to take the time to research & write something on an important subject, and even more happy that we aren't hosting an article we can't legally display. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

Regarding Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame members' articles, I have written you an email. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

Thank you very much for your assistance. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Copyright infringement

Thanks for the timely warning. I left a copy of your message on the coordinators talk page, and informed each MILHISt coordinator individually so they will see the alert whenever it is that they get back on. With luck, we may be spared the worst of the infringement, but infringement is infringement, and it needs to be dealt with. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for following up! I'm not sure how many articles he will prove to have infringed in that area. :/ While we have a list of articles he originated, we need to get a list of articles to which he has substantially contributed. There may be more problems there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright sources

When I was scanning some of the images I found some of them listed unverifiable sources (for example, in this image Google), should I tag it as {{di-no source}} since the source could be ANY website? NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 23:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've been seeing you all over CP. Good work. :D With that one, the copyright holder is not actually whichever google site hosted it, but the producers of the game. The source would be the game itself. Whoever took the screen cap has no stake in the copyright (unless it's the copyright holder him or herself). That fair use rationale is a bit skimpy, tho. :/ I think if I were you I'd ask for feedback on that one at WP:MCQ. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Like how I'm giving you the barnstar you helped originate? I wanted to thank you for your wonderful efforts to develop and clarify the plagiarism dispatch, but, more importantly, for your unceasing efforts at the copyright cleanup project. Such a job is distasteful and rarely appreciated. You should be showered with accolades for all of your hard work. Consider this one of the many accolades owed you. Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :D I'm quite fond of the barnstar and am very happy to receive it. I enjoyed collaborating with you on the Dispatch; as I said to Sandy above, it is a really different way of working on Wikipedia than I'm used to. You have a good way of phrasing things, I think, to make them easily digestible and entertaining. I'm afraid that (outside of informal fora like this one) I tend to be a bit too formal sometimes. But good collaboration is all about that. :) I'm very happy that the copyright cleanup project is taking off so well. It launched just in time to address the massive infringement at the gastropod articles; I think any one editor, facing that task, would have given up Wikipedia altogether. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Thank you so much for all the copyright work you do for Wikipedia. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

D W Knaggs

I need help or to clarify what i think. I am not surew how Reliable the Sources are for this article and the isbn number listed in the article cannot be found on google books. I searched the website and the books listed are also not found on google books or any other search engine.Copyright issue
The author,User talk:HauntedKid, says he owns the pictures to the uploaded ones , but was deleted by User:Spacebirdy because of copyright issues. This user seems to have a problem with that stating that he owns the company.Purplebananasandelephants (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Odd. I'll go take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The book in question is self-published; it's under imprint Lulu (company). Copyright-wise, the uploader can verify ownership of the images by following the process at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, but I'm rather concerned about article in general. I'm going to open a section at the conflict of interest noticeboard about this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, was not sure how to handle problem.Purplebananasandelephants (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's a big project with a lot of specialized places to handle different concerns. :) The COIN report is at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#D_W_Knaggs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Soundvisions1

Hi. I was about to ask Soundvisions1 if he would also make a contribution to the Heart1973_BC.png deletion discussion when I noticed your edit. And then "the penny dropped" that no, I hadn't seen him around for a while. [It's disturbing when someone on the other side of the planet that you expect to be there just suddenly disappears - you feel you want to help, (well, I do), but you don't even know how to communicate with them, much less help.]

Anyway, I don't think Soundvisions1 would want that picture deleted, so I'm trying to save it. (The fact that I don't want it deleted either may also be motivating me.) May I bother you to have a look there and tie up any loose ends that I have missed? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned. For a highly motivated editor like that to just stop doesn't seem like a good thing. (Of course, it might happen all the time, of course, but I've never seen it to.) There's a conversation at the music notability guideline where I used to primarily encounter him, and his absence there was kind of glaring. I sent him an e-mail as well, and I'll let you know if I get a response. I've looked at the FfD, and it looks good, I think. I don't believe that the deletion rationale is a compelling one, though if he chooses to press the point of WP:NFC it could be more difficult. Perhaps changing the caption of the photo would help to strengthen its need? "Heart promotional photo (1973)" doesn't quite nail the significance of it, I think, if it is the birth of the modern band. It might also be helpful to add a sentence or so to the text establishing more about the band after its official formation, before Nancy joined. What did they do in those four years? Tour locally? Nationally? Globally? Radio play? Releases? Such material, helping to illustrate that the band was a stable entity for a substantial period of time, might be helpful in establishing the need for the image. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Of course, it might happen all the time ... " - Yes, I suppose it might, but until February this year I hadn't seen it. Then in mid-Feb a charming lady from Seattle "disappeared" (also disappeared from myspace and facebook) and now Soundvisions1. I'm uncomfortable about it ...

Thanks for the advice on the picture; I don't know the answers to many of those questions, but it shouldn't be too hard to find out. As usual, you are very helpful and a pleasure to talk to. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Gastropod etc cleanup

Some of the articles in the current round are already okay, just a species list or essentially already a stub. Is it okay to just move on when encountering these articles, or should they be marked in some way to indicate they have been checked? --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) It's absolutely fine. If you've taken the letters in a category and mark it complete, that's indication enough. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice please on transcripts of audio

Hi, a series of articles based on Oyster Bay History Walk have been created in the last few days with substantial content being a transcript of the audio provided on a "wand" for those who wish to do the walk. My question is where these should be listed for attention?

My instincts say that there is a potential copyvio, but I'm not sure on the US legalities on transcripts - under New Zealand it is a copyvio (as I understand it). However, there are other problems with some of the articles as they seem to be content-forks that I would like to either merge or list at AFD as appropriate.

The article that started me looking at them is currently called Captain Kidd in Oyster Bay - it got renamed after I PRODed it. Obviously we already have an article on William Kidd and I'd prefer to merge any referenced content. However, I don't want to take the first step in what could become an edit war without seeking consensus in the appropriate forum. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Transcripts are derivative works under US law, which are copyright infringement. If these articles are based heavily on transcripts, they should be tagged with something like {{copyvio|url=transcript of blahblah}} and listed at the copyright problems board. If you think that AfD is appropriate, you can do that also--just note in AfD that there are problems beyond the copyvio that would make the article inappropriate in your opinion even if they were rewritten. Merging is a bit trickier. If the articles contain substantial copyvios, we don't want to keep them around for attribution history. We want to delete them. If we merge material, we can't...unless we meticulously note sourcing. I usually do this edit by edit, pasting content from one contributor at a time and noting in edit summary "Content contributed by User:Example on date." Doing it one at a time like that satisfies the need to note authors of individual variations.

If I can clarify any of this, please let me know. :) (Oh, and P.S. please be sure to let the contributor know precisely what the copyright concern is. Feel free to direct him or her here if you like.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here, but I came across these articles while looking into something else. I've changed Captain Kidd in Oyster Bay and Typhoid Mary in Oyster Bay to be redirects, as I couldn't see that there was sufficient non-copyvio non-promotional sourced content in either to be worth merging. That leaves only 27 more articles to clean up as linked at Oyster Bay History Walk... Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both. I've listed 26 of them at copyvio problems and tagged the transcripts in the articles only. My partner is making going to bed noises, so I'd better be obedient and leave AfD for another time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

26. Eeps. We go from one massive copyright infringement to another. :) At least it isn't thousands..... Thanks for stepping in, Dori, and for noting the problem, Beeswaxcandle. Unless another admin gets to them first, I'll handle them at CP when they come "ripe" for admin closure, in 7 days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Substantial similarity

On April 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Substantial similarity, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

more DYK ... well done Victuallers (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

delusional history at Haida again

Hi; here is my just-now reversion of an even LONGER re-addition of the copyvio AND a whole LOT of "delusional history" (blaming the Americans for introducing the slave trade to the Northwest Coast would almost by LMAO material if it weren't such a sick denial of the aboriginal slave trade in the region, which had a brutality completely beyond the US version). Anyway the latest info-warrior is an IP user, not sure if I've seen that IP address before....Skookum1 (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. You're right that this IP is a new one; these are its first edits. It's registered to the University of Alaska. If it were registered to an individual, I could give it a short block as it is obviously a repeat offender, but since it's a shared IP I've given a warning first. I've got the article on my watchlist, but my watchlist is large and there's always a chance I'll miss something. :) If it comes back, please let me know. The contributor will need to be blocked if he or she is from any kind of stable IP or the article will be semi-protected. That's obviously not the best choice, since that prevents legitimate good-faith IP contributors from helping out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hans Alfred Nieper

Well done. Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Once I had gotten into it, I must admit, I started to cringe at the thought of the article's future. A figure that controversial is bound to attract NPOV-vios. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have a moment...

Would you mind weighing in at the DYK discussion regarding the John F. Henning article? The article falls into a gray area regarding plagiarism. If you don't want to get involved, I totally understand. Awadewit (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy if I can help. :) Heading right over. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help on the article and in the discussion. Awadewit (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oyster Bay History Walk

I am a staff member of the Oyster Bay Main Street Association who produced the Oyster Bay History Walk. For several months we have had the contents of the audio track on YouTube and available through our website as well. Our objective is to get this information as broad exposure as possible. At the same time I recognize the need of respecting copyright rules. The page on "Requesting Copyright permission" premises the need to ask the creators of the content. Given we are the creators, please advise how I may go about rectifying this so our content from the OBHW continues to be available within Wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inoysterbay (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please confirm this email text is sufficient, or accordingly revise. Thanks again.

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the sound recording and text of the Oyster Bay History Walk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inoysterbay and all sections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_April_13 I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE {{PD-US-record}}.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

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

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

I went with the second of two options you provided. The message has been sent. Thank you again for your assistance with this.

Isaac Inoysterbay (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Do we not have a problem with WP:NPOV and spam here as Inoysterbay actually states above :- Our objective is to get this information as broad exposure as possible. and he is stating he is the author?--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 21:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe. In his release, the author acknowledges that "the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project". Its appropriateness for use is subject to ordinary consensus building. I myself have not reviewed the material for neutrality, but only examined the issue of legal usability. Except in extreme cases of clear policy violation (such as BLP), I typically do not mix copyright concerns with other matters. I believe this is an important distinction because I am acting as an uninvolved administrator, and when doing so I traditionally remove my "editor" hat. I have on occasion listed matters for evaluation at WP:COIN, but when there are active editors already interested in the article, don't see a need. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'd say so. WP:NOT makes it clear that Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, and this editor does not seem to understand that. It's difficult to see what encyclopedic purpose is met by having a verbatim, and unsourced, version of the text of these audios here; in fact, since the GFDL allows copying of Wikipedia for any use, including commercial, I would have though that putting that text here would be commercially counter-productive, and the phrase "shooting oneself in the foot" comes to mind. This leaves aside an argument that the text itself is unsourced as far as we are concerned, and is a self-published source by this organisation and evidence only of what their tapes contain. For our purposes, then, of very little encyclopedic value and removable as original research. The verbatim versions of the tapes should be deleted from here for these two reasons. I reserve my position on whether this account is a role account or being used for promotional purposes until I've looked into the edits;' this is in addition to comments already made to User:Paste on my talk page. Rodhullandemu 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Thanks for your swift reply.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 21:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He's evidently okay with the commercial release. The editor who originally brought this matter to my attention had mentioned the possibility of AfDing some of this, merging others. I don't know if he intends to pursue that plan or not. The copyright matters are resolved, but that doesn't say a thing about the appropriateness of the material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And some copyvio illustrations

File:VF LGSF Butterfly01.jpg

File:VF LGSF BarredOwl01.jpg

File:VF LGSF Gator01.jpg

File:VF LGSF WildTurkeys01.jpg

File:FL DOF LakeGeorgeForest Map.gif

File:SJRWMD TigerBay Map.gif

While working on replacement stubs for Tiger Bay State Forest and Lake George State Forest I noticed that all the illustrations (above) seem to be taken from State of Florida sources following the same "public domain" logic. They're all in Wikimedia Commons. Do you extend yourself that far? If so, I hope you'll take whatever seem to be the most appropriate actions.:-) Tim Ross (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not an admin at commons, but I know people. :D I'll alert User:Dcoetzee. Thanks for finding those! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged them all (I think) for speedy deletion and located the template there whereby this contributor formed the impression that Florida's governmental works are PD. This may be a big issue for Commons. I'll definitely fill Dcoetzee in. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice of AfD on one of the Oyster Bay articles

Hi, I have taken the article Fleet's Hall to AfD. I think some of the articles are worth keeping, some need merging as they are content forks and a few need deleting. I think it best to proceed slowly with this series as we don't want to turn off an enthusiastic contributor, so my thinking is to work through the series, one article at a time.

P.S. I've left this message on RodHull's & Paste's talk pages too. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That looks like a good starting point, since that doesn't seem like a notable building. Ideally, the contributor can be brought to understand our policies & guidelines and will willingly help mold the material to meet them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Perambur (SC) (State Assembly Constituency)

Hi. User:JDelanoy said you might be able to help with a question; I was new page patrolling, and tagged Theagaraya Nagar (State Assembly Constituency) CSD A7 as I felt that it probably met that criteria; I then noticed that the creator had made several very similar articles; I wanted to check whether CSD was the right approach for all of them. Please tb me or someth as I don't watchlist. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Somehow I overlooked this one this morning. I'll take a look and see. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, given DGG's decline, it seems speedy is not the solution. :) I wouldn't recommend speedying them, either. I myself would be careful about speedily deleting articles on legal bodies from countries with which I am not greatly familiar, since it can be very hard to determine notability. If I were you, I might question whether a merge would be appropriate. For example, could Tiruppur (State Assembly Constituency) be merged into Tiruppur? I'm not sure if the answer would be yes, since the article says that it "includes the city" and I don't know what other cities or land divisions might be included in it. You might want to ask for feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject India. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the input. I try to be very cautious with speedys, but it's hard to balance that with the volume of unreferenced articles. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Notifying users of a deleted copyvio... template?

Hi, follow-up to your reminder about notifying users when you delete their articles as G12 (presuming they haven't been warned about it before. Is there a template for it? The nearest I found is {{uw-copyvio}}, which just talks about removing content the user added, so it doesn't really cut it. I whipped a variation up here (I find myself looking back nostalgically of the days when there was always work to be done at SCV... I seem to have time to mess around with templates now), but it'd be good to know if there's an already-existing one. Best, – Toon^(talk) 19:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So far as I know, the only other one around is mine. :) The only difference between ours is that mine could save you some headaches on those occasions when the contributor is the copyright holder and comes to ask you how to get the material on Wikipedia. That may not happen often. By the way, I have a few custom templates at User:Moonriddengirl/frequently used templates (including a general CSD one by User:J.delanoy). You're welcome to use any of them if you like. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that looks like a very useful list of templates! Thanks, – Toon^(talk) 19:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Florida

Please conduct full AfD discussions for any Florida deletions. Please add discussion notices for any Florida Template deletions at the WikiProject Florida Talk Page. Other contributors will likely be interested in participating. Thank you. Gamweb (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The matter is properly listed at WP:CP, where it will be processed in seven days. This isn't a deletion debate. The articles in question existed prior to content placed by you and will continue regardless of determination regarding content placed from copyrighted sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, with respect to the TfD, I'll be happy to bring it up at the Florida wikiproject. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Adding Copyright notices to a website is S.O.P., however, this does not demonstrate that the Copyright claim is accurate or enforceable. In Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Findlaw) (Copy), The Second District, Court of Appeal, State of Florida, the Court appears to rule that the copyright claim is invalid. Gamweb (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this note at the TfD. As I indicated there, I suspect this legal question goes beyond our interpretation here and hence will require input from the Foundation's attorney. I will request it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not an attorney, but the PDF I noted seems to validate the PD argument. I will comply with whatever the result is, of course. There may be other photos I need to hunt down if the result is a "negative." Gamweb (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it might well validate the PD argument to me, too. I found evidence that the case was appealed to the supreme court (I think I linked it at the template page), but I don't know whether the supreme court accepted the appeal, if its pending or what. I think we (as editors) need to be careful with it, though, since we'd be taking a pretty strong stance in ignoring Florida's posted disclaimers, and we could run into trouble if we post material that forms an exception. Mike usually responds to e-mails within a few days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you took the time to read Microdecisions. I read it a while back and found that the supreme court decided not to accept the appeal, and recall that I documented that somewhere on wikipedia but can't find it ATM. Word from Mike will be valuable. FYI, if you jump on this, feel free to undo this edit if there's been no response and it seems appropriate.--Elvey (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I wrote Mike again yesterday because, unfortunately, the template at commons was nominated for deletion under my rationale. I would have preferred not to open that debate until Mike responded. If Mike says we're good it's a non-starter. But, oh, well. I put a note at that deletion debate explaining that I had requested feedback. I'm not on admin at commons, so I can't really do anything about the deletion requests there. (Looks like commons needs more admins!) It also looks like some kind of official response on this Florida mess would be a good thing, since people don't seem to know how to handle it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Project Barnstar

Hi.

On account of we not having an Barnstar of our own, i decided to take the mmatter on my hands, which was short-lived given my poor skilsin image editing but i asked a member of the Awards Wikiproject for help on the design and elaboration of the star having the initial idea of maybe an LP or the cover of SGT. Pepper. Anyway, he created an initial design and suggested that before taking the matter to the project page i invited a fellow member for his (or in tjis case her) opinion, so if you could, the image is in my talk page, could you teke a look?.

Thanks as always. Zidane tribal (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Is great you like it, i`ll submit it to the project talk page for sugestions and/or aproval, i hope everyone else like it. Zidane tribal (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I hear you on the quiet group thing, so shall we just make the award template and begin delivering so the ball star rolling? Zidane tribal (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point, you now have explicit approval, so I'd say well done; roll it out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Album Wikiproject Barnstar
		I Zidane tribal give this project barnstar to Moonriddengirl for being such a nice persona and a magnificent member of this project

There you go, this is as official as it gets. Zidane tribal (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks. That's the fabulous. And what a time to get a "you've got a message" template. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Zidane tribal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you Maen. K. A. (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for liking the Barnstar Maen. K. A. (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for taking so much time to thoughtfully respond to everyone on the dispatch talk page. I'm afraid that I don't have that much time with teaching, dissertation-writing, regular wiki-duties, and the like. That is one reason I've never tried to change a major policy. :) One has to be at the ready 24-7. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the controversy on that subject is only just beginning. Now I know why my suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism that we run an RfC was met with general quiet. Clearer eyes than mine saw what would follow. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE RESTORE SCOTTISH JAMAICAN

Why oh why did you delete Scottish Jamaican? Firstly, the copyright problems were only with ONE section - which could be easily removed NOT the WHOLE ARTICLE!!! And secondly, some people have done a lot of work recently rewriting the thing, and ADDING new material. Stuff like this makes wikipedia feel like banging one's head off a brick wall.

Why can't editors look at the whole, instead of looking at tags? I'm also sick to death of people sticking "unreferenced" tags on articles which have one or two references on them.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of addressing an OTRS matter and will respond as soon as that is finished. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect to there being only one section, the entire article consisted of only four sections, only one of which had substantial text. Besides a one sentence lead, the rest of the article consisted of a list of "notables" and a "see also." Of the single section that included creative text, all five paragraphs were pasted. Extensive infringement extended all the way back to the creation of the article. I do not see any evidence of rewriting. Contributors to the article evidently did not choose to create a clean version in temporary space during the 7+ days that the article was blanked to allow this, if permission could not be produced. The only clean material I see is in the lists and the template, aside from that single sentence lead. I'll be happy to create a new stub with that, but the rest of the article is an infringement and cannot be restored. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've recreated the non-GFDL infringing elements that were not copyright violations or inextricably twined with copyright infringing elements. I have not restored the single-sentence lead, as this should be easily written clean by interested contributors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this. It was just a bit frustrating. The original article was marked as unreferenced, so I wrote some new material, but was not aware that the original stuff was copyright violation until recently. The copyrighted material didn't deal with contemporary stuff like the Marley family. --MacRusgail (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for dealing with vandalism

thankyou for reverting edits made by 67.165.71.214. Purplebananasandelephants (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Just part of the whole Wiki experience. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done!

For your work on the plagiarism piece in the Signpost! I'm disappearing tomorrow morning for 3 weeks. All the best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I hope your trip is very refreshing. Once I finish today's batch of copyright problems, I'll be peaking in to see how things are going at the Gastropod cleanup. That's quite something, what you assembled there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another case of extensive quotation

Hi again,

As you know already, I have had problems with user Wikifan, one of which is that he quoted copyrighted material extensively in a article he and I edited. I have not looked through his contributions to other articles so I didn't know whether this is just his style. Today I found that an article that he wrote is up for deletion because the subject is not notable. I checked the article, I find that the article consists mostly of quoted material, the second section is mostly from a single source (Fixing UNRWA report). However, I am not sure if the material is copyrighted. Could you please determine if it is? Here is the source [1]. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be happy to take a look in just a minute. :) (Busy day in the copyright world!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems you have many requests today. This case here is non-urgent, so you can take care of the most urgent ones first and then deal with this one when you are free. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've updated DYK (whole new ground for me!), you're next. :) I'll try to get this done within the next half hour. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

All right. The answer to your question is that the material does appear to be copyrighted. It was originally published here, and it bears a notice that " © 2009 All rights reserved" Quotes from the report might be okay within WP:NFC, since it is a very long report (84 pages), but though the article says, "Quoting the report," I don't find that line in the report. Hence, it's quoting that one page intro, which is extensive use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! So everything is probably fine except this quote "Over the course of its long history, UNRWA has rarely been the subject of comprehensive external evaluation..." Got it. If the article is kept, one should change the sources to Washington Institute since forum postings can not be used as references. Anywho, thanks again for your help! :) --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't necessary mean everything else is okay. It seems like there's a lot of quotes from that intro, which would need to be abbreviated in keeping with WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick check, I found that quote is the only material taken from the intro page which is not part of the report and perhaps not even written by James G. Lindsay. That line can be removed. I think, but I did not check, that the other quotes are from the report. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK update

DYK is due for an update, and none of the regular DYK admins are around. Could you do an update? Should be from queue 6. Let me know if you need instructions (the ones at the bottom of the queue are pretty thorough). I can do credits and archiving. Shubinator (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeeps. I'm sorry! I was working on an answer on a copyright question and when I got the "new message" bar only looked at the last. I missed this. :/ I'll go look and try to figure out if this still needs doing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no one else has done the update. Shubinator (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading the directions. I'm seldom comfortable with new processes, but I'll give it a go. :) It seems I need to upload the picture on English Wikipedia so I can protect it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you need to do a temporary upload, otherwise the image can be vandalized at Commons. That's probably the most time-consuming part. You'll do fine ;) Shubinator (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I like your confidence. :D Okay, File:Tomb of Sofia Afentaki.JPG is up. You want to take a look and make sure it's all okay as I move on to the next steps? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty good. I copied the license and summary info from the Commons image description. Shubinator (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the front page look all right? Have I not killed anything? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. :) Shubinator (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

←Good. It's going okay so far. :) Is 7 the next queue? I'm not sure how many queues we've got. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, there are 6, so the next would be 1. Shubinator (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I've updated the next queue, and you've said you can do archiving & notification? If so, I'm done. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. It would be good if you could clear queue 6 with {{User:DYKadminBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}}. Thank you for your help! Shubinator (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If by "clear" it, you mean, literally, replace the entire contents of the page with that, then we're good. :) I'm glad I could help, and I'm glad you were here to walk me through it. I don't want (←these words do not fully convey the strength of my emotion) to break the front page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, exactly. I'm always happy to help. Wikipedia is a collaborative project after all.

One last request; the cascading protection is a bit buggy now, so could you manually protect File:Tomb_of_Sofia_Afentaki.JPG? Shubinator (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll leave you in peace now :) Shubinator (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Good going, MoonG. I did something new today too, (User talk:Coppertwig#request), but it sounds as if it wasn't as complicated as DYK! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

You have helped me a lot, and it seems that you are very welcoming so that is why I come to you. Here is a token of my appreciation.

	The Working Woman's Barnstar
	I award you this barnstar for working tirelessly including handling difficult undertakings with ease while being thorough and swift. Thank you for all your help! Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) I'm happy if I can help. This day has been a bit busier than most, but I hope you'll always feel welcome. :D (Plus, it's a two-way street. I saw that you had cleaned the vandalism from my page. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Oh no, cleaning the vandalism is the least I can do. Your work is hard work and you deserve the recognition. :) -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Buntingford

Could you change the Buntingford Line hook as it basically seems to say that hikers were encoragesd to go on the line by offering other people tickets where as Subbrit actually says they were offered the tickets themselves.

• ... that walkers were encouraged to use the Buntingford Branch Line on Sundays by offering cheap tickets?

should become

• ... that walkers were encouraged to use the Buntingford Branch Line on Sundays by being offered cheap tickets?

Please change it quick.

Simply south (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. "Last change" did me in here. :/ I was composing a note on my own talk page when this came in, posted here, and when I got the "you have messages" banner on another page hit "last change" and saw my own note. I thought the system was being wonky as it sometimes has been in the past. I hope somebody else fixed it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Image license concern

Hi M, I stumbled across this image today, which has some... interesting licensing details. It turns out that an editor was in contact with the actress herself, and she agreed to release the publicity photograph under the GFDL, but the condition that certain information be removed from her Wikipedia article. Clearly this is inappropriate, and I assume that the supposed GFDL release is invalid, having extra conditions imposed? I'm not familiar with image deletion policy, so I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks! – Toon^(talk) 18:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that's doable. But I'm bumping that one to User:Stifle. He's my go-to image admin, poor guy. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. – Toon^(talk) 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI this is now up for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:NadineVelazquez1.jpg. Dcoetzee 21:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; that's good to know. Stifle had suggested that I talk to the uploader, but I believe I'll leave that to the deletion debate to sort out. I'm still not caught up on yesterday's CP. And now I'm obsessing about King Kong, of all things. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright

Hi, I've raised the issue of potential CC-BY incompatibility (and referenced you) here, and would appreciate your input. Cheers, – Toon^(talk) 18:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You caught me at a good time; I'm right between articles at CP. I'll be right over. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Deletion

Hello MoonriddenGirl,

I work for the LSU AgCenter, in October'08 you deleted LSU AgCenter Wiki page due to Copyright Violations. We just recently discovered it's removal and request it's content be restored.

The log is vague but seems to reference the 'about us' page of our site so I'm assuming plagiarism is under suspicion. Can the content we submitted be restored in order for us to go through the validation process.. or perhaps can it be "Usified" to my account?

Thank you.

--Sam Srazi1 (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

---

I sent the e-mail from "web at agcenter.lsu.edu" with the subject "LSU AgCenter Wiki - Copyright Permission". Thank you for your prompt response.

-Srazi1 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Moonriddengirl/Archive 13's Day!

User:Moonriddengirl/Archive 13 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Moonriddengirl/Archive 13's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Moonriddengirl/Archive 13! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A day! All for me. Thank you! I will most certainly add it to my userbox page, because I'm sure I'll smile whenever I see it. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Article recreated

JFYI - Sylvain Charlebois has been recreated. GHITS appears (somewhat) notable, but definitely looks like autobio to me.     JCutter  ^{{ talk to me }}     03:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) It certainly looks like one. I see you've notified the contributor about COI and tagged the article. If it were extremely promotional, I'd probably run it to WP:COIN to get other eyes on it. It doesn't duplicate the other source. There are some runs of language similar to other PR for Charlebois, but enough original text that we should be clear from a copyvio standpoint. It does make you wonder why, since he seems to be affiliated, he didn't go through the verification procedure in the first place and clear the earlier articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Article size

I (think) you got the answer you were looking for with Dr pda's word counter? In any case, I left a hopelessly general response at my talk page, since I'm not sure exactly what input would be helpful. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Signpost dispatch on plagiarism

Hello, there. I must admit this one is disturbing me. I'm just an average editor and a non-native English speaker, and I often found that there seldom are a dozen ways to say things. I have read the dispatch and the discussions in the Signpost and it seems to me that the line between plagiarism and original text is really thin and I often fail to see it. (So I hope you'll put plenty of examples in the new guideline.) Thing is, I probably unintentionally committed plagiarism before, which bothers me. What now ? Should I check all my GA and FLs for plagiarism ? What if I fail to recognize plagiarism in doing so, or in the contrary I deem something perfectly OK plagiarism ? What if I make things worse by trying to correct them ? What if there is no other way to say things ? I guess I don't know how to recognize plagiarism properly, and this paralyzes me. I honestly try to do a good job, and I would appreciate some help in this regard. Best, Rosenknospe (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm very sorry that the dispatch has been disturbing to you! The point was to reassure by helping people understand plagiarism, not to paralyze well-intentioned contributors. Unfortunately, it's just really very hard to clarify where the line goes in rewriting text. (Sometimes I wonder if I've done enough myself.) If you investigate the many guidelines out there, like this one at Purdue, you'll see that there's not a clear "do this; don't do that" kind of approach. It's more a matter of developing a "feel" for where that line is, and, complicating things further, the line differs by discipline. There may be fewer ways to express something originally in a science article, for instance, than in a biography. There's no reason to panic, though, and to worry about making things worse. If you have some passages that concern you in hindsight, perhaps you'd like to get another opinion on them. I'd be happy to share my thoughts, if you'd like. I just need a link to the precise text in the source. If you'd just like to read some other views on paraphrasing, we do have a user essay at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing that might be helpful. What I would hate to see come of any approach to plagiarism on Wikipedia is discouragement of good faith contributors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, please forgive this belated answer due to real life commitments. Thank you very much for your kind words and understanding. I had enough time to calm down and think. I re-read the threads and realized that as I always cite my sources, half of the problem has gone. So my main problem would be the wording, and I'd like to take your offer to review some of my work, if it still stands. I have selected various items with their references for your scrutiny:

• From Highlander: The Series (season 2):
  • Text : (Production section, end of first paragraph) Creatively, the second season was intended to be more action-oriented than the first, but lead actor Adrian Paul refused to do "another kung fu series," insisting that more romance and history be brought in the scripts.(ref)
  • Reference : Variety quotes Adrian Paul as saying: "It has been very difficult to not be seen as an action show, and they started taking the show that direction in the second season," said Paul. "I said I wouldn't do that. I didn't want to be in just another kung fu series. I want to do something that had romance, history. Otherwise we're just another syndicated show everyone sneers at." [2]

• From Alan North:
  • Text : North was born in the Bronx, New York and joined the United States Navy during the Second World War. After the war, he became a stage manager and made his Broadway debut in 1955 in Plain and Fancy.(ref)
  • Reference : "On the stage, Mr. North shuttled between musical comedies and straight plays, making his Broadway debut in the 1955 musical Plain and Fancy. (...) Mr. North, who was born in the Bronx, served in the United States Navy during World War II before venturing into the theater, initially as a stage manager." source

• From Tessa Noël:
  • Text : (Characteristics section, first paragraph) Paul explained that MacLeod spent twelve years with Tessa without wanting to go with any other woman and that she was a very important part of his life.(ref)
  • Reference : "The difference is that Tessa was in Duncan's life, and she was a very important part of his life. He was with her for 12 years constantly. He was in love with Tessa, and didn't want to be with any other woman." source
  • Text : (Characteristics section, third paragraph) Gracen explained that she played her character in such a way that Amanda would have an ambiguous attitude and be flirting with Tessa.
  • Reference : "Amanda had a rather ambiguous attitude toward Duncan's mortal love Tessa (played by Alexandra Vandernoot). "That scene on the barge, I say, 'I knew Rodin,' " Gracen recollects. "I was flirting with her a little bit." " source

I don't have access to the news database I'm using as I'm not at work, so I couldn't submit some of the things I wanted. I hope this is enough to get a feel. Usually getting a feel means some mistakes along the way. I might have read more panicky than I really was, but I won't quit, I promise :D Thanks for youe help, and have a nice day! Rosenknospe (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely it still stands. :) I've got a couple of pending copyright questions (always more urgent, since they're a matter of law) but will read and give my opinion hopefully by the end of today; tomorrow at the latest. And I'm very happy that you aren't on the brink of departure. I'd feel horrible. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would feel completely comfortable with the first paraphrase. I think that's very well done. I should think you'd be clear in the 2nd. Although it does contain some similarity in language, the language is uncreative enough and the differences sufficient that I don't think you have any issue there with close paraphrasing. "made his Broadway debut" is almost a stock phrase. You've attributed the next chunk, quoting Paul, which is good, but since you are using a fair chunk of words, I would put "she was a very important part of his life" in quotes. Some people use a "three word" rule, which is a little arbitrary, but can help. They would say if you duplicate more than three words without quotation marks, you've done too much. :) This is a little misleading though, because sometimes fewer words can be a problem (if there is a very striking phrase, for instance) and sometimes a few more will not be (if you're dealing with a familiar figure of speech, for instance). The important thing to remember—and I bet you know that, because your first example is a good one—is that if you decide to revise rather than quote, you can't just switch out words. You need to restructure the sentence, since sentence structure is creative expression, too. With the last example, I'd probably separate ambiguous attitude, just to be on the safe side. That seems a striking phrase. You can't put it in quotation marks, because that would suggest it was a direct quote. I would consider something like: Gracen explained that she had played Tessa's interaction with Amanda, towards whom Tessa had ambiguous feelings, a little flirtatiously. Again, the fact that you're attributing here allows you more leeway. You can't use the exact language, since its copyrighted, but you can get a bit closer than if you were stripping attribution. You'd have to do more revision, for instance, if you just wanted to say, MacLeod spent twelve years with Tessa without wanting to go with any other woman. At that point, you're following too close on phrases like want to be with any other woman. Does that make sense? Does it help? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it definitely helps. Paraphrasing is something that I intuitively developped over the time, but it's not foolproof yet. I actually under the impression that the first bit was too far from the source, but your kind words convinced me that it's okay, so I think now I know what the distance should be. Would you say that paraphrasing is actually writing about or around the source ? because that's the impression I get. Also a problem of being a non-native speaker is that I don't always recognize stock phrases or sayings, etc.

Can I steal a little more of your time and submit two more examples from non-online news sources ?

• From Highlander: The Series (season 1):
  • Text: (Production, end of first paragraph) ...the production of the second segment started in December 1992 in Paris and used the studios of French state production agency Société Française de Production (SFP) at Bry-sur-Marne near Paris.(ref)
  • Source: "Shooting takes place on location in Paris and Canada and in the studios of French state production agency SFP at Bry-sur-Marne outside Paris." Source : Farrell, Pia (22 December 1992). "'Highlander' series flys [sic] to TV". Hollywood Reporter (BPI Communications L.P.): p. 16. ISSN 0018-3660
  • Text: This was the first time a French company had an active creative part in a product-driven deal with an American partner.(ref)
  • Source: "Another similar joint venture is in the works at Gaumont Television, the producer of the 'Highlander' series, actually the first product-driven deal inked with a U.S. partner (Rysher Entertainment) where the French played an active creative role." Source : Farrell, Pia (21 April 1993). "French share co-prod'n 'credit' CBS: To jtly dev, produce & distribute telefilms w/ TF1, France". Hollywood Reporter (BPI Communications L.P.): p. 7. ISSN 0018-3660

I think I did the last one badly, what do you think ? (Have to learn from my mistakes ;) Thank you again for your help. Have a nice day. Rosenknospe (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to my time. :) I can't imagine the challenge of trying to paraphrase in a second language to avoid copyright concerns. (The languages I've studied are all "dead" and copyright is no longer a concern. :)) I think possibly a lot of close paraphrasing arises from people's desire to avoid original research. Most of the time, if material is not contentious, this isn't likely to be a problem. As long as you understand the source and can rewrite it, you should be fine. When it is a problem, I either incorporate a quotation into the article itself or add a quotation to the footnote. We can't do that too much either if it puts us in jeopardy of overusing quoted material, but for me at least it hasn't been much of an issue.

I believe that paraphrase as writing "about" or "around" a source is probably a good way of viewing it. It certainly can be a language challenge even for native speakers, since we have to find new forms of expression that convey the same meaning. And it requires us to recognize when language isn't creative and can be safely used as is.

I would consider your first example above, for that reason, as fine even though it follows very closely on a pretty long stretch of words: "the studios of French state production agency SFP at Bry-sur-Marne outside Paris." There are a few changes in the text but there are only so many ways you can rephrase "a place located here." As long as the material around it doesn't follow too closely on the source, you should be safe with such minimal alterations when there is practically no creativity of expression in the original.

The second one wasn't done badly, but may follow a little too closely. It's an example of a tricky passage to rephrase. :) I usually try to turn sentences like that upside down when rewriting. The structure of the source is "the first time with US where French did this." The structure of your text is "the first time French did this with US." That's not bad, but you might find it easier if you alter more. You could try "the French and US did this for the first time." An example of that might be: "Prior to this instance, the French and the Americans had never collaborated on a product-driven deal where the French had acted as creators." Or you could try: "While the French had collaborated with Americans previously on product-driven deals, they had never done so before this from the position of active creators." (I would really like to rewrite "product-driven deal", but I'm not sure what that means. :)) You could also say, "The Highlander series stands out among product-driven deals between the French and Americans, as it was the first such deal "where the French played an active creative role."<ref>. You could probably also minimally alter what you have: "This was the first time a French company collaborating with an American company to produce a product had taken an active creative part.(ref)" (I'm guessing here that they mean producing the product; it might mean distributing or staging or any number of other things. Perhaps you'll know. If you don't, there's no way around the confusing "product-driven deal".)

If these are examples of your major concerns, then I don't think you have anything like major concerns. Your second example is by no means "bad." Unless you have long stretches of text that similarly cut a little too closely, I don't think anybody would regard that as a serious problem. If you do have long stretches of text that you fear might cut a little too closely, then I'll jump to my other major technique: don't paraphrase sentence by sentence. Instead, read an entire passage and paraphrase it as a chunk. That's a big help, since line-by-line paraphrasing is actually harder to separate from the source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually English is my third language, but I've got absolutely no merit in this since I come from a border area and it's not uncommon for people around here to speak two or three languages, all the more that we host the European Parliament. My problem is not the language, it's rather the lack of experience, but I should have mastered this in twenty years or so, no problem :D

"Product-driven deal" is a business scheme and is opposed to "market-driven deal". In a market-driven economy you determine the needs of the market and fulfill them. People want light entertainment ? Let's make a blockbuster or a reality TV show. In a product-driven economy on the other hand, you try to make the best product you can according to your ideas, and then you sell it hoping other people will like it too. In this case the producer, Bill Panzer, went for financial bakers saying, "Okay, I've got this concept here, Immortals battling through time, I already made two movies of it and now I want to make a series of it and no I won't remove the beheadings just because they make you feel sick."

I really like your various ways of rewriting sentences, I think I will make notes of them, they're really clever and just lighted lit a bulb in my head :D I'm glad I talked with you, it made me re-read the sources and realize they were not as close as I thought to the articles I wrote after all. I shouldn't have panicked like that, and I should have trusted my intuition more. Again, thank you so much for reassuring me and for your invaluable help and insightful comments. They will help me a lot in the future. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You are a Ray of Sunshine!

Here ! Have a ray of sunshine to brighten your day ! Rosenknospe (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Please feel free to stop by any time that you think I might have something to offer, whether that's commenting on a paraphrase or something else. Those who've run into me often on Wikipedia know I'm a big believer in collaboration, as I do not hesitate to ask for a second opinion or assistance when I need it. :) And you've taught me something about economics I didn't know, and I always like learning new things. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

New image WikiProject

Greetings! Looking through your edits and interests, I thought you might like to know about a new Wikiproject being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. It's all about images and other media used on Wikipedia, including migration to Commons, copyright tags, etc. The bare outline is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media; hopefully it will soon blossom into something worth joining. Your experience and energy would be a welcome addition! All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'd love to learn more than I know and will be happy to come take a look. Thanks for your note. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

Hi, thanks for the message on my board. Guess I did miss out on the fine lines in the copyvio policy. Apologies on the same. Will be more careful in the future, Thank you for bringing it to my notice. Cheers! Belmond (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Belmond

Dynamy

I've got another article for your perusal. It's at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 2 and it's not long, controversial or BLP. Thank you. Mgreason (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-controversial: just the way I like them. :) I've finished CP early today, so I can come see it now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Signpost dispatch

In re-reading my early responses on the plagiarism issue, I want to apologize for my tone. I wish I had presented my dissent in a calmer manner, and better emphasized how much I agreed with the majority of the dispatch that I did not specifically comment on. I also wanted to thank you for being so patient with me. A few weeks ago an AN/I I knew I disagreed with this position. I knew in my gut something within that position didn't add up. But it is mainly due your willingness to discuss the topic with me, even when my approach must have made the discussion unappealing, that I have been able to refine my thinking enough to understand exactly why and on what basis I disagree. I hope you understand that I respect your point of view, even where I disagree with it. And I hope you can forgive the unpleasantness. --BirgitteSB 01:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for the gracious olive branch; it is very much appreciated. :) Not that we have had a battle of epic bloodshed or anything, but I did feel like things got tense at a few points in the beginning. I'm sorry I didn't anticipate that, which is one of the reasons it happened. Somehow or the other, I completely failed to imagine that this dispatch could be controversial, much less emotional. Obviously, the editors at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism knew better, which is why when I several times cheerily suggested an RfC there in January they must have chuckled sadly to themselves and moved on. Frankly, not realizing that this could be controversial is the smaller of the points I regret: I can't imagine why it didn't occur to me to suggest that we invite review of the proposal there (my only defense: I was invited in late to help out with the dispatch and felt like a guest, rather than a host). I would imagine those editors would have immediately recognized the problem and could have helped us better address it, at least by explaining current practice and recognizing the debate. I also respect your point of view. I believe I'm coming to share it, and I really like the idea of a link to the original dump in the PD template. Again, I appreciate the collegial gesture, and I'm sorry that the Dispatch caused you such distress. Pax. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have no hard feelings over it. In hindsight can't really fault the authors of the dispatch for having a strong confidence in their own beliefs, because I too often find myself in that position. I think as the debate matures we will have continual difficulty with those who do not have a deep understanding of copyright. Superficially the issues seem to be about the same thing, whether we may use the text. But even the morals rights issues is a rather different concern than plagiarism. At least I believe so at this point. We may have to explore the history a bit more. Especially the 19th century in France, when the whole moral rights issue gained traction. I do hope plagiarism will turn out to be more binary than copyright. Because I do not think those without experience in copyright will be able to grasp a more nuanced truth. The other concern I have is the general inadequacy of our attribution system. The main redeeming factor is that all edits are recorded, so whenever we do migrate to a better system we will have the ability to recreate historical authorship information from the history of contributions. So even accepting a sub-optimal solution today, leaves the hope that it may be rectified in the future.--BirgitteSB 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have strong feelings about plagiarism (deep shame culture roots, if a generation or two removed), but am still somewhat ambiguous about the handling of PD text. I encountered another article today that was flushed by the influx of PD text all at once. I can see the problems with using quotation marks in situations such as that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I could be completely wrong, but I think the objections on this issue would largely disappear if there were an adequate attribution system to credit authorship. I feel strongly about plagiarism as well, but I don't think it can apply until one begins re-writing the text. I think the current emphasis on PD, may become stumbling block if dual licensing happens.--BirgitteSB 18:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's obvious that we share a concern about plagiarism. I need to come see what's going on at the dispatch talk. I had to back off of that for a while because it was consuming too much of my energies. I've got a self-imposed duty to keep up with copyright problems around here. That can be a full time job in itself (especially with the massive clean-up effort on gastropod articles. I haven't been able to get in the trenches with that as much as I'd like lately, and I'm still not finished with a stack of Canadian aviators.) When I find myself working on Wikipedia in my sleep, I take it as a sign from my subconscious that I'm overdoing. :D (I wonder if anyone's collected any data on that phenomenon.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Moonriddengirl! Please pardon my delay in checking back in with you; I've been extremely busy offline. I'm sorry you and Awadewit ended up shouldering most of the talk page burden on the Dispatch; for one reason or another, many of the other involved editors were busy offline. I hope you aren't too disappointed in the way the discussions evolved; overall, the work done there, and the discussion that resulted, seemed to be productive, civil and concluded well with better understanding all around. The conduct of most of those involved, and the issues raised, will hopefully help move things forward, and seems to have gotten the discussion off on solid footing! Your participation and cheerful attitude was most helpful ! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've heard of this "busy offline" business. It seems to me that I was there not too long ago myself, but I find that the memories of such trauma do fade. ;) I'm a bit out of the loop in the current state of the conversation, but I'm pleased that there is forward progress on the issue, and I'll be very happy if the Plagiarism guideline goes somewhere as a result. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Shirk

Living in Jacksonville is never dull. I have a new article about the Public Defender in User:Mgreason/Sandbox. I think it has a NPOV, but I'm curious to see what you think. Cheers! Mgreason (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I was thinking I might be due to hear from you soon. :) I'll come take a look I hope within the next few hours. I've got a heavy load at CP today and an embattled (for some reason) article on an ancient village in Iraq. I'm always surprised where controversy lands. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope you had a nice weekend. I've got another article ready: AT&T Tower, which is at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 1. Mgreason (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Eeps! I've just started reading the last one. I'm falling behind! (I should have the first one done for you within an hour. Sometimes I go slowly. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Halfway through. This one is a bit denser, as I'm also looking at non-copyright elements. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review of the article. I really appreciate your opinions and the time you devote to Wiki. Mgreason (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm happy to help if I can. I'm glad that you suggested I look at it for NPOV issues, since I tend to get tunnel-vision when looking at copyright matters and might not have thought about it in context of a BLP. I'll try to get to your next article today so I can catch up. I haven't looked at today's listing at WP:CP yet, so I'm not sure how busy that's going to keep me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Mgreason's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mgreason (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: New image project

Thanks for your message. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

:-)

Moonriddengirl, J.delanoy has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I see you all over the place, awesome work. I don't know how you can stand doing all those copyvios, but I'm glad you do. ("Don't know how you can stand...", said the kettle to the pot...)

Also, thanks again for helping me with CSD all that time ago :-)

Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks. You have certainly paid for the help with CSDs all that time ago. :D Most of the time copyvio work is tedious, but low-stress. I have a high tolerance for ritual. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You can do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects]]
[[Category:Hypothetical second category]]

I've added at least one parent to the category. I invite you to check my work for accuracy and completeness.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'll be sure to do that next time I make a category. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling with new problems

Sorry to pester you again, Moonriddengirl, but you're still the only editor I know who's really knowledgeable about copyvios.

I was just patrolling the new pages, and ran across one, Revision history of NWA Charlotte Cruiserweight Championship, that read like a wrestling fanzine of some sort. A quick search turned up the source, and I placed a db-copyvio tag on it. It occurred to me, though, that there might be problems with some of the editor's previous work. The editor is User:Ldeffinbaugh, and he seems to restrict himself to the topic of professional wrestling. I checked one of his articles, more or less at random, NWA Charlotte, and found the same sort of lengthy copyvios in it, also from here. I think someone with more expertise/horsepower should really take a look at his work. Can you handle it or pass it on to a more experienced editor? I promise to pay careful attention to what is done, and perhaps I can handle this sort of thing on my own in the future. :) Thanks! Tim Ross (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I can help with that, though I have limited time tonight (in fact, I shouldn't be here :D). I've tagged the one you've already found. I'll ask for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup in case somebody else has an opportunity to get started on his contrib history. If not, I'll look into it tomorrow. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm already learning a bit! From now on I'll try posting to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and maybe even dive into the fray myself (gingerly). Tim Ross (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I wound up not posting it there. Once I realized that his contribution history was not that long, I grabbed my laptop and examined it last night. :) But either there or here is fine, and getting into the fray yourself is great, too. My general rule of thumb: I only give one templated advisory. If I find more articles, I leave an individual note. And if I see evidence of what's going on, I'll try to explain. In this case, I believe that the contributor is misunderstanding the situation to believe that citation allows verbatim reuse, since he cited everything. Sometimes, I've seen people use press releases, thinking they're free for reuse, or material under Crown copyright, thinking Wikipedia can use non-commercial material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Something for you

		The WikiChevrons
		With many thanks from a grateful WikiProject for identifying copy violation issues in twenty or so articles within our scope, I am delighted to award you the Military History WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 08:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I am thrilled to receive it, but must credit User:Sadalmelik, who noted the problem at the Gastropod copyright cleanup subpage. (In fact, I think I'll take the liberty of bestowing one of these on him myself. Very striking barnstar you have!) I very much appreciate that your project was willing to help out with cleanup. Copyright can be lonely work sometimes, but I have been impressed with the collaboration that has gone into addressing this problem. Wikipedia at its best. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plagiarism

A request for comment has opened about promoting the proposal to guideline. As an author of the Signpost article cited in the discussion, you may wish to comment. Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism#RfC Durova^Charge! 18:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Frank Cerveny

A new BLP is at User:Mgreason/Sandbox, but I know of nothing controversial about it. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Coming right over. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrase and notability guidance

Sorry to drop this on you, but I've come across 27 new pages (created by Kelsievans) which are paraphrases from a web site – there is a good chance they were created in order to promote the web site. I found this issue from a spam discussion.

Apart from any copyvio and spam issues, I'm concerned about the notability of the artists on the 27 BLP pages. I don't see any assertion of notability, and speedy deletes may be in order? I hope you don't mind, but I'm listing the new pages below in the hope of receiving guidance (I'll look here for any reply). The pages are undoubtedly in a good cause (culture and promotion of a .edu site), but it still looks like spam and copyvio (see reference on each page) to me. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrea Callard • April Palmieri • Bob Witz • Dorothy Dean • Fashion Moda • Godzilla Asian American Arts Network • Guerrilla TV • High Risk Books • Ira Silverberg • Jaime Davidovich • Jay Blotcher • John Watts (composer) • Lester Afflick • Marita Sturken • Mark Hall Amitin • Peter Allen (author) • Peter Lewis Allen (author) • REPOhistory • Redtape Magazine • Robert Alexander (photographer) • Sensitive Skin Magazine • Sparrow (American poet) • Stuart Sherman (artist) • Tony Martin (artist) • Ubu Repertory Theater • Wendy Perron • World of Culture

Oh, dear. :( Thanks for the heads up. I'll look into them today. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for bringing this up. I've gone through. Some of the articles are closer paraphrases than others, but a good many of them are close enough that I feel they represent copyright concerns. I've revised a few myself in the going, but listed the majority of them at today's copyright problems listing. I've left a note for the contributor explaining the concern. I see that you've already got a discussion going on the spam question, so I'll restrict myself to the copyright concern. I've tagged a few articles for additional sources and PRODded one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ouch – you've done a lot of work! You mentioned lack of notability being a problem for one article on the user's talk page. I infer that you did a Google search and a Google book search for each name and decided that there is only the one notability problem. I suppose that in a case like this (where it's clearly not just noise) such effort is warranted. Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. My primary focus was on the copyvio. :) I did tag a few for notability concerns, but that was the only one that was on the face of it so questionable in notability that I thought it merited a PROD. Barring the production of other sources, there are several others that may not meet notability guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about copying OTRS tickets to related article

Hi, Oyster Bay History Walk is in the process of being expanded to take in the content of the series of articles which you kindly sorted out the OTRS tickets for. Our question is: if we are moving the text into the main article can we copy the OTRS ticket across as well? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yet you can. The OTRS ticket will cover it wherever it goes. If you'd prefer that I do, just let me know, and I'll be happy to. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Pamela Vitale

Hi. Could I ask you to review these related articles as you redirected one in the past (ok, it was June 2008, but it still counts !). Pamela Vitale redirects to Daniel Horowitz, but there is also an article Murder of Pamela Vitale about the murder and trial. I'm a little confused as to which article should redirect where if anywhere - I'd have expected Pamela Vitale to redirect to the murder article - unless that article isn't even notable...aarrggh ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll go take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's bizarre. Finding that the text of that murder article was archived on another website in January 2008, I tried to figure out how this could be...given that the article was only created here in March 2009. The whole thing is a GFDL infringement, pasted without credit. There seems to have been no consensus for such a move or discussion of it. I have repaired the attribution split by merging the articles back together at the original name. I think the thing to do may be to leave Pamela Vitale pointing where she is, so long as there is a link to her murderer's name in the article. If not, I'll point it to the article on her killer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There's not very much about her death in her husband's article, so I've redirected it to her killer's article at Scott Dyleski (which is now back in one piece, as it should be.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.....nice to know someone isn't so easily confused :-) CultureDrone (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agriculture in Saudi Arabia

Hi can you kindly explain to the speedy tagger Library of Congress Country Studies material is public domain. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you've already done so. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Joel Kroeker

Hello, again, Moonriddengirl. I need a bit of help with the subject article, which seems ready for correction. I've checked the temporary article, Talk:Joel Kroeker/Temp, written by User:Werldwayd as a replacement for the flawed article, fairly thoroughly, and believe that it is copyvio clean. Would you mind giving it an administrative okay, so the replacement can be accomplished? Thanks. Tim Ross (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. :) Accordingly moved into place. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your efforts werldwayd (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Recognition

		Civility Award
		For your exemplary service as Images and Media Project Merge Ambassador, I award you this barnstar with a cup of coffee, tea, or the delicious beverage of your choice. – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Fab! I'm off to get a Diet coke! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding fixing the reference in Baqofah

Thank you very much for fixing the reference, I have a copy of the book, if you need more details, let me know.

--Chaldean2 ^(talk)

Leicester Penguins Swimming Club

I've have done what you asked to verify that are no copyright infringements by publishing material from the Leicester Penguins Swimming Club website. We have sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Can we have our article back now please. Thank you. Orangewiseman (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The article will be restored as soon as the letter is processed. I'll go see if it's still in the queue or if an agent is already involved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to the letter-writer. We needed a little clarification before the release is complete. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Which email address did you respond to at leicester-penguins.co.uk ? Orangewiseman (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid for privacy reasons I can't answer that. Members of the OTRS team are not allowed to disclose identifying information from e-mails sent to the Foundation. But I can tell you that I replied to the e-mail that was sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org at 04/23/2009 15:01:00. If you have reason to believe that my response was not delivered (for example, if you were the original sender of that e-mail), I can resend it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Our webmaster for www.leicester-penguins.co.uk cannot locate you reply in any of our mail boxes, could you try again. Many thanks. Orangewiseman (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your email regarding more clarification. Orangewiseman (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll go take a look for it in just a minute. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Recreate

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polygamy_in_Indonesia&action=edit&redlink=1 I got this on my bot that watches new indonesian arts and your moniker was on the talk page as a deleter of the earlier copyvio page as i was about to place the project tag - it doesnt look like a copyvio this time - but thought id mention it anyways - cheers SatuSuro 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. As long as it's not a copyvio concern, it's all good with me. :) It's not definitive, but it passes through the plagiarism checker I sometimes use just fine. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your expert advice would be appreciated

Hi MRG. Am I barking up the wrong tree here? Please comment if you wish. FLC needs support and encouragement to maintain its high standards. Tony (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll go take a look and see what input I may be able to offer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the welcome, Moonriddengirl, I have been doing my best to follow all the protocols (don't think I have so far forgotten to sign my name on the talk pages), and I will check up on tha articles you have suggested. If you see me making any mistakes, I will be grateful to be told what I have done wrong. It is only the talk pages one signs, right? If I do an edit, it is automatically listed as my editing as far as I can gather. Seascapeza (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome; it seems to have been much overdue. :) The links are for your convenience and not meant to suggest that you are or have been doing anything incorrectly. I know when I was welcomed, I found the overall collection of them very useful and referred back to it for some time.

Yes, it is only the talk pages (and notice boards) that you sign, not articles. Your history most definitely tracks what edits are yours. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am hoping to be logging in a lot more regularly, but occasionally the outer world gets in the way. And yes, I can see your references will be very useful indeed -- I still have to get used to the coding for the wiki and they look liek they will provide me with numerous shortcuts. So tally ho and away we go. Excellent! regards Seascapeza (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul Strauss related

Hi, I saw you're an admin so I want to ask for some advice. Shadow congressperson has had coyprighted material added to it. I removed it but it is repeatedly readded. I wrote on the talk page to detail the copyright problem and its source, but I'm not answered. I don't think the copyright violation is worthy a discussion on WP:CP, it's pretty clear. The same user changes Paul Strauss with content not supported by the sources and removes reliably and independently sourced stuff about him. I didn't want to revert a third time on both articles, what can I do? Hekerui (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just really getting started with my Wikiday and will be over in a few minutes to take a look and help out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Just to let you know: 3RR does not apply to core policy issues like WP:BLP and WP:C. That said, I can understand your uncertainty. I would generally recommend that if you run into this problem again, you blank the page with the {{copyvio}} template and list it at CP just to stop the republication of the text. You don't have to wait the full 7 days. Make a note at the CP list why you've put it there instead of just blanking and tap a copyvio admin on the shoulder to notify them of the problem. I'm always open to that. :) If the copyvio template is removed, then you should seek an admin immediately, since the individual may be blocked. But when you remove copyrighted text, please put a note on the user's talk page explaining why. A lot of contributors don't even know about article talk pages or how to read edit summaries. I have no idea if that's the case with this individual, since I haven't checked his overall history yet, but if you put the notice on his talk page, then there is no reason he should be unclear about why the material was removed and what can happen if it is restored. (The template in question is {{uw-copyvio}}.)

As far as the problems at Paul Strauss, this would seem to be something you might like to list at WP:BLPN or WP:COIN depending on the nature of the problem. I'm assuming that this isn't straightforward vandalism, but some kind of POV matter. Unless the material he is adding is libelous, you don't want to go over 3RR with that, but should neutrally ask other contributors at one of those boards to weigh in. I'd be happy to list it at one of those for you if you'd like. I don't have much time to evaluate the overall issues myself today, since I have a pretty full copyright problem plate. :) I am watching for further copyright concerns at Shadow congressperson, though. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism debate

The debate on the potential plagiarism guidelines seems to be moving in treacle. A little while back, I had this exchange (starts part way down). In this particular case, all was well that ends well. However, it raises the question of how plagiarism should be dealt with in practice. I utterly oppose the lazy expedience, that some editors seem keen on, of starting with the position of laying all the responsibility at the feet of the editor who perpetrated the "crime". This is an area where Wikipedia needs lucid, clear cut guidelines, backed with sensible resources and supports for those editors who want to get this right. And to vent a little spleen, this is not helped by some academic editors working in this area, cosseted with their moneyed recompenses, and buoyed with institutional supports and guidelines. It is astonishing the way excessive privilege seems to exclude the ability to empathise with how the process might be for those without the privilege. Anyway, I want to float the possibility that when an editor has committed a copy violation (or plagiarism – does the difference really matter – and for those who think it does matter, why are they unable to spell out the difference in plain English?), it would be good if the text in question could be temporarily moved to a page in that editors work space, where another editor could work with them on the text, and help them learn how to clean it up. The idea that it is not Wikipedia's job to educate users in this way seem to me ridiculous. Why could each Wikipedia editor not be entitled to a user page, accessible to other registered users in Wikipedia, but not published on the web? When copy violations occur, they could then be removed to this page where they could be worked on, in peace, with another editor assisting if necessary. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Those links I gave above are not positioning themselves correctly (seems to be a bug in a "permanent link" ref that refers to a section). Anyway, all the links refer to a section on Ed Ricketts. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be a lovely idea if it could be done in such a way that we were not in violation of copyright in the meanwhile. (I have no idea how and why some pages on Wikipedia are mirrored and others are not. Totally out of my realm! But I can clearly spell out the difference between copyright violation & plagiarism: one of them is against the law and the other is not. :D Really, "copyright" is a legally codified method of addressing "plagiarism". Plagiarism is more inclusive than copyright, which governs relatively recent material and does not protect information, no matter how "uncommon". Both derive from the same basic idea that we own our thoughts and creativity, but plagiarism is a matter of social concern while copyright is prosecutable and has been kept deliberately narrow to prevent a kind of intellectual monopoly.)

I do completely support teaching well-intentioned editors how to properly use material and have happily mentored those editors who've been open to my assistance in this area. One of the problems we have, though, is shortage of manpower. :/ WP:COPYCLEAN is still very new and has only a few regular contributors. Maybe if plagiarism is adopted as a guideline, COPYCLEAN can eventually be expanded to include it (or a taskforce can be formed) and we'll be able to get just such a mentorship program going. Whether problem articles are put into user space or not, there are plenty of avenues for coaching that could be taken.

Really, we have an opportunity already to do that with copyvios. As you know, the copyright problem tag blanks the article and generates a link to a temporary subpage. If we had the manpower, a taskforce could easily follow up on copyvio problem tags to coach the contributors of material on how to proceed in that temporary space.

The snail's pace progress of the plagiarism guideline is disheartening. :/ In some ways, I suppose, it is a sign of how important the issue is. Most of us agree that plagiarism is a problem; we just can't all agree on how to handle it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stacey Castor

If you have a moment, could you help me try and explain how a source's structure can be plagiarized? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I will head over there this morning and see if I'm still needed. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Design page copyright infringement

Hello Moonriddengirl

I am the author of the New Zealand Design page which is currently the subject of a copyright infringement. I agree that the text in the Maori Design section of the article was used without the copyright holder's permission or knowledge and I have apologised to the author. I am happy for the text to be replaced. I have written a new section which is currently on a sub-page while the issue is being resolved. Please let me know if there is anything further that I need to do. Squadraport (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

m:OTRS/personnel

You should consider adding yourself here. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. :) I'll do it. Next, I have to figure out how to get into the permissions IRC. I've gotten permission to go to the permissions IRC, but I haven't worked out that next step yet. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I only got access to the mailing lists yesterday. So there's plenty of time for you (-: Stifle (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for working on the copyvio - I've long been an admirer of your work.

I'm generally unhappy with the slapdash cut and pasting of other sites' property, even if a footnote gives some attribution. Perhaps I'm too fussy. See History_of_the_Jews_in_Brenham,_Texas#B.27nai_Abraham_Synagogue and how it's been done in that section - some of it doesn't even make sense, because it's not accompanied by the picture, which is what drew my attention in the first place. Cheers --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's kind. I was just saying the truth. Some usernames stick out - yours piques my curiosity - which has helped me develop an opinion of your editing that a username like Smith324 or whatever would not. And it's an overwhelmingly positive impression you leave. More power to your elbow. --Dweller (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The WikiProject Albums Barnstar
		For improvments to the style guide's section on track listings, including the addition of examples. A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad we've reached consensus for how to include it--until, of course, somebody reverts it because we didn't. :D I appreciate your helping out with the conversation and keeping it going; it's been frustrating to see it raised and dropped over and over again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we??

Hi I want to ask you if we can use such as these images on wikipedia?? and I created these .svgs

File:LUmbo.svg File:Lumbo2.svg File:Lumbo4.svg

Maen. K. A. (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get the base image? Did you construct it all by yourself? (I know nothing about car design. If I had one of those in my garage, I wouldn't know it. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

no The design already exists, put I made the picture, can I do that?? Maen. K. A. (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. :) The ins-and-outs of derivative works as relates to three dimensional objects is beyond me. I'll go ask an admin who does more image work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Madhero88. Derivative works of three dimensional designs can be complicated - in the United States, you're only allowed to produce images of copyrighted three-dimensional designs if it's a building and it's outside in a public place (see Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama). You're also allowed to e.g. include cars incidentally in a photo as a minor element, as long as they're not the central focus, see Commons:Commons:De minimis. Unfortunately, in this case both the .svg and the source photo are problematic because they reproduce a copyrighted car design. These cases can be complicated so I'm going to nominate the photo of the car for deletion on Commons. Nevertheless they're beautiful SVGs and you should consider contacting the manufacturer or something, maybe they'll buy them. :-) Dcoetzee 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you allot Dcoetzee fore your replay, and of course for apreciating my work, and all the thanks goes to Moonriddengirl for recruiting Dcoetzee, and for being so helpful, and letting us use this talk page :-), about the pictures you can nominate them for deletion, I don't mind, Thank you both. Maen. K. A. (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that this images may be kept, if they are considered utilitarian objects (I find this an unconvincing argument, but the consensus may go the other way). It's a difficult case. The deletion discussion for the photo is at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lamborghini_Gallardo_LP560-4_Spyder.jpg, and the SVGs have not been nominated yet. Dcoetzee 21:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again, Please If there is any discussion will be going about these SVGs or if the current discussion you told me about reached a point notify me on my talk page :-) thank you again Maen. K. A. (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving advice wanted

Hi - any chance you can give me some advice on this? Mine are a bit of a mess and not automated, and I like the way you both hide yours and have a search box. I gather I have to start by moving my pages to change their names, but how do I set mine up so they work like yours? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

First thing you have to know: I barely have a clue what I'm doing. :) I see something like from someplace, and I take it, and if I run into problems I go ask somebody what I've done wrong. So, this is very much a "buyer's beware" situation.

I've got MiszaBot pulling the weight on archiving my talk page. Directions for using MiszaBot are here. My settings look like this:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atn}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 13
|algo = old(6d)
|archive = User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive %(counter)d
}}

You'd want to personalize that, obviously, by setting how large you want your archive (I want mine large to cut down on their number and ease manual searching). You'd need to reset your counter to whatever number it should be, and pardon my mentioning the obvious but I forgot to do that at WP:COPYCLEAN recently. :) Naturally, you don't want it archiving to my archives, so you'd put your username where mine is. ;)

The search engine is really easy, since it's built into {{archive banner}}. Put it on your talk page, and Bob's your uncle. :) It lists all your archives and gives you that nice little search box. I don't know if the archive banner can handle the format of your archives, but it works with "User talk:Dougweller/Archive 1" quite nicely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agh, I started to thank you yesterday, but I must have been hit by an edit conflict and didn't notice it, a peril of having a lot of tabs open. I've done it now and it seems to work, the only question will be to see if Mizabot works. I set the counter as 1 digit higher than my highest archive, was that correct? Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should work. If you set it at the number of your highest archive, it would add there and turn over when it hits its limits, creating a new page. If it doesn't do it's thing tonight, let me know, and I'll go find one of those people to ask that I ask when things don't work. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact it kicked in this afternoon, seems to be working fine. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Hi! I'm the IP who objected on the RfC and who probrably derailed what looked loke a snowball. I hope you understand that I did that with the best of intentions as I simply coulnd't bring myself to support the proposed version, knowing that it would be much harder to modify it afterwards if it had been aproved. I notice you made some changes to the page and it's certanly improved as a result. I still think it needs work though (needs better focus for instance), and I intend to help out starting tomorrow. Finally, I'd like to say that I do appreciate your efforts on issues related to both plagiarism and copyright and that I recognise the importance of having a plagiasrism guideline to provide official backing and validation to these same efforts. Thus making your job atlest a tad easier :) 189.105.99.210 (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I see no reason to doubt that you were operating in good faith. And, besides, you raised good points. :D Until you noted that "the whole section debating the merits of public domain sources should be removed for instance" I had not myself realized how very off-topic it had gone. Since I focus a whole lot more on the use of non-free text, I had not paid close attention to that section. I look forward to seeing where you go with it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations by Footage

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Block feedback requested

How do you want to deal with these? Do you want a bulk nomination at Wikipedia:Copyright problems? Or would you rather just pick them off the Administrators' Noticeboard? Uncle G (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh. Thank you for looking more into the background there! I'd put in a request for assistance with that book here at resource exchange on April 21, but had no takers. I had been thinking that I might need to remove them on the chance, but I really prefer verification. :) I think what I'll do is open a section at WP:COPYCLEAN with a pointer to his contribution list. I'll also have a glance at his contribs to see if he's done extensive work in other articles that aren't listed. If so, I'll ask User:Dcoetzee to run a scan. (He does great stuff with that, like his list of remaining problems for GrahamBould at the Gastropod cleanup.) It goes on and on. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

?!?

Hi. You left two messages on my talk page about things which make no sense to me. First of all, you say the article I made about Eric Rasmussen (professor) is a copyright violation or something; I got the information off a book called Wiliam Shakespeare: Complete Works which I bought last week. And secondly, you say I added copyrighted material to some article called Vidlin. I most certainly did not edit on that article so I don't know why you've givin me that message. Check my contributions page for proof. This is obviously some mistake that I would like sorted. I just thought I'd better point these things out; feel free to sign my guestbook! Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 14:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied at user talk, including link. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Future albums

Hi.

I started rating the articles for upcoming albums and the "Future" rating came up in the template for the EMO wikiproject, as far as i know we don`t use it but should`t we? or we DO use it and i`m just rambling here?

Thanks as alwasy. Zidane tribal (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen it used. You might ask at the project page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

IllaZilla responded, he said that it could be easily implemented, It looks like a good idea to me, i`ll wait for response for the other members, but just as last time if there is no response we`ll proceed. Zidane tribal (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! I've gotten used to low response there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, now we now have new tags (perhaps even more than we actually need), i`m sure they will be useful.Zidane tribal (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The future one should be very useful. In the days when I was rating album articles, I was often frustrated by articles on albums that had not yet come out, since they sometimes couldn't meet our criteria. Great idea. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this need action?

See [3] [4]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I should add that I've got to go out, but when I get back I'll warn the editor about another edit [5] where he removes well cited text in what I think is a clearly POV edit of a fringe subject (the Dogon & Sirius I mean). Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi.:) The first case is the new scourge of Wikipedia copyright investigation: Icon Publishing. The "WP" at the end of their entry on Timbuktu indicates that they took the material from us. They are actually doing it properly; it's credited in the preface and the GFDL is reproduced in the book, but their inline indicators are not clear enough, as a result of which a good many of these have popped up at WP:CP. (Their credit is here.) (I used them as a reference in an article once before somebody pointed this out to me. I'm glad they did, because otherwise I would not have known what was happening when these guys first started appearing at CP and probably would have deleted some articles I should not have.) He may be POV-warring (not familiar with the subject, but that text seemed to have been neutral to me?), but from a copyright stance he's okay. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I see, I should have guessed that was what the WP meant. I've got no problems with that edit then. The Dogon deletion of cited text is a problem though - I've replaced it and will warn him, but that's not your problem - I'm just glad I didn't report my copyvio concerns to WP:CP as that would have muddied the waters. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

GrahamBould--blocked or banned?

Maybe one of us can explain to Cyris that given the magnitude of the problem GrahamBould has caused, no admin will unblock him unless he or she wants to lose his or her bit. I'm willing to make the first approach ... Blueboy96 19:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You are my heroine

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For your patient explanations and thoughtful suggestions at Talk:Stacey Castor, I award you this barnstar. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It takes me back to the classroom. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio article up for AfD

Dominique d'Orange is copyvio from her website [6] but is up for AfD, so I shouldn't blank the page, but it's copyvio so I should add the template which blanks the page. So, what is the correct process? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Place the template under the AfD. Contributors can still read the content in history, but that way we no longer "publish" it. :) This is SOP in the ones I've seen double listed, and it seems sensible. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've not come across this before, so I wasn't sure. Done. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ad

Doing it now. :) — neuro^(talk) 12:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, something came up, and the original design didn't come together as I'd hoped. I'll get it to you by tomorrow morning. — neuro^(talk) 16:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, there really was a delay. I had my router fail and had to format the whole network :| — neuro^(talk) 20:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not-so-close paraphrasing

Hi, would you mind taking a look at Twilight Anesthesia? There are still some issues, and although originally taken from this copyrighted source, the changes made are huge, so I'm unsure if blanking is appropriate. Cheers, – Toon^(talk) 22:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Phew. That's a tough one! I'd be half tempted to tag it {{close paraphrase}} and tell the creator where the problems persist, but it's really a little more than close in some points. "It is used for a variety of surgical procedures and for various reasons. Just like regular anesthesia, twilight anesthesia is designed to help a patient feel more comfortable, and to minimize pain associated with the procedure being performed." is a very close paraphrase of the source's: "It is used for a variety of surgical procedures, and for an assortment of reasons. Just like regular anesthesia, twilight anesthesia is designed to make a patient feel more comfortable, and to minimize pain associated with the procedure being performed." Phrases like "As with any anesthesia, twilight anesthesia should always be performed by a certified anesthesiologist, who will interview the patient before the procedure, and monitor the patient's health while he or she is under anesthesia." are copied verbatim. Given that, I think we probably ought to blank the section. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:The Truth (painting).jpg

Hi - I don't understand the templates. The editor (loads of problems there, but pov rather than copyvio mainly I think) has taken the picture from a blog, which I suspect took it from somewhere else. Can it be used? And I've bodged the subject line, here's the urul [7] - not sure how I should have or could have formatted it so you could click on it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You fix the file url with a : [[:File:The Truth (painting).jpg]] yields File:The Truth (painting).jpg. I'm not sure whether that fits NFC or not. It probably would if there's a lot of articles like this one. I'm not as clear on fair use for images as I am for text. I'd probably ask that one at WP:MCQ. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just darn to swell!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For all you do this ones for you!Mrpotatohead 2 (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You need another too! Mrpotatohead 2 (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nayer Nagui Article

You know, I really like the changes you did for the "Nayer Nagui" page. Thank you very much. I'll try adding some more information to it...Thanks a million Rafik Halim (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Florida Highway Patrol

I have found that the majority of this article is copied from the agency's website. History is from [8] and Special functions is from [9]. There are no inline citations. Should I do a rewrite? Mgreason (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Florida government is messy. I recently found out that although their websites claim that they reserve copyright, they may not be able to do so under judgment of their own courts. You can read the background on that conversation here. When Mike Godwin (our attorney) wrote me back, he basically said that Wikipedia has no official stance on this. The short story is that if it's from a Florida "gov" domain, it's probably okay from a legal standpoint. If the state of Florida ever requests that we remove it, we will. Meanwhile, quite a few people at the proposed guideline on Wikipedia:Plagiarism would say it's a problem from that standpoint if it isn't clearly marked. Personally, I would only rewrite it if you have extra time and want to head off future potential problems.

And by the way, I'm thinking it's about time I speak to Garion. I don't know that you need further review, although it's always yours for the asking. :) I think at this point you've clearly got a handle on it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Anaïs Nin

Hi, you deleted an entry from a list of works on the Anaïs Nin page because the article (apparently) was deleted. I've restored the entry and just removed the link as it looks like the work does exist. If I am missing something, please feel free to correct! Thanks. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have any problem with the redlink if it is a redlink with possibilities. I decided to remove it from the list because it is simply a specific edition of a book that is already listed and exists: Winter of Artifice. It seemed quite likely to me that The Winter of Artifice - Original 1939 Paris Edition would likely exist only as a redirect to that main entry. But I do not work in articles related to Anaïs Nin, so you may have more insight into that than I. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't that careful about my review and didn't see the other edition. You did the right thing and I will revert my change. I would expect any discussion of a different edition would be on the existing article. Thanks. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I should have been more thorough in my edit summary, since I didn't even indicate there that the reason I removed rather than delinking was redundancy. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Regarding the copyright issues concerning: Polygonia satyrus, Polygonia progne, Polygonia faunus, Speyeria atlantis, Celastrina neglecta, Glaucopsyche lygdamus, Celastrina ladon, Greenish Blue, Glaucopsyche piasus and Oreas Comma. I have reproduced below the statement concerning copyright from their website at:

http://www.cbif.gc.ca/copyright_e.php#copyright

"Non-commercial reproduction Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from CBIF. We ask only that:

• Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
• CBIF be identified as the source department; and,
• The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of CBIF."

I assume that Wikipedia falls under the category of "non-commercial reproduction". Am I correct? If so, you should remove the Copyright Infringement notices. I did reference the CBIF website in each instance. I will try to remove other instances of copyright infringement.

All of the pictures that I have posted on websites are my own.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dger (talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Stealing this one - because Wikipedia content is intended to be reused in many contexts, including commercial ones, we strictly forbid any type of noncommercial license for either text or media. In order for us to use the content of an external website it must (at present) be available under a GFDL-compatible license, as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online. The CBIF's conditions are insufficient. Hope this helps. :-) Dcoetzee 11:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Guitar versus guitar

Hi Moonriddengirl, I've brought this here so as not to go off at a tangent to this discussion, But if you have MS Word you could always copy and paste to it first, then highlight the text to change then select Format|Change Case and voila. Alternately you could use the text editor of your choice and find and replace - a bit more long winded though depending how many instruments there are. --JD554 (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a brilliant idea, and it's never occurred to me! Thank you very much! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, those "never occurred to me" moments happen to all of us. Unfortunately I've found that the older I get, the more often they happen. C'est la vie. --JD554 (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been not thinking of things for all my life. :D But I happily accept the wisdom of others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS request

Hi M. A user has requested that I look into the copyright issue at Isles Internationale Université (European Union), for which he has sent a permission email. Would you be able to take a look at OTRS ticket 2009050610018874 and see if things are in order, if you have a few minutes spare? – Toon^(talk) 12:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm on it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I suspect that the hang-up here is that there is nothing but this contributor's word that I can see to verify that he has authority to release this information. OTRS letters need to be clearly connected to the original point of publication. If he is not listed (including his e-mail address) at the contact page of the website, then his release isn't likely to work. OTRS is going to need a release from an identifiably connected e-mail address. Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll let you convey that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, P.S. I see no reason to doubt his assertion. I think it's just a technicality issue. But it's one on which the Wikimedia Foundation seems to hold firm. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand the issue, thanks for taking a look. I assume that someone from OTRS has/will communicate this to him in an email, as well? – Toon^(talk) 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He has an assigned "agent" who wrote him the standard form letter after his first notice. He hasn't yet received a response to his second letter. I presume that the agent will at some point explain the issue, but I don't know when. If I were his "agent" (I feel very James Bond writing that), I'd recommend that he have someone with an e-mail address at that organization write a permission letter and include the OTRS ticket # from his original correspondence. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, gotcha. Thanks for serving on her Majesty's secret service. – Toon^(talk) 13:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Florida 2

Apropos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_13#Florida, what are your current views? What do you think of my interpretation of your reporting of what Mike said on my talk page? Just read your comment on Florida Highway Patrol, above. I've opened a DRV. As your stance has changed somewhat, and you spoke with God[win], I think your input would be particularly valuable there. :-) --Elvey (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be right over to give my opinion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Alpine Cowboys

Regarding the alleged copyright violation [10] -- my father, who played for the Alpine Cowboys, created the website at www.alpinecowboysbaseballassociation.org and he wrote the text based on his personal recollections. The Wikipedia page, on the other hand, was created by me as a gift to my 75 year old father. Since I have a limited knowledge of Alpine baseball in the the 1940s and 50s, I asked my dad to contribute to the text portion of the Wikipedia article. He certainly does not consider the use of this material to be a violation of copyright since he wrote this material and sent it to me to insert into the article. I do think he will be upset when he discovers that the Alpine Cowboys Wikipedia page has been deleted! The other alleged copyright violation of [11] was corrected by eliminating the text. The first sentence of the original article was taken from Kerry Laird's article and was fully cited. Nevertheless, I removed this sentence from the article in my first attempt to resurrect this page. There are no other sentences in this article taken from Laird's article. Leaflet ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC).

Replied at your talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Therapeutic hypothermia

Hey there. So two things: first, I asked around about the issue between that article and the other site I found, and I got an answer on the talk page. As far as I know right now, they ripped off Wikipedia, not the other way around. I was wondering, though, if you could stop by the article and lend a quick hand. The anon IP who keeps editing that article insists on reinserting text into the Arctic Sun section. I initially removed/reworded it because it's duplicate text on the Arctic Sun article. Basically it's all the text added in this edit. If you could help me out a bit, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have weighed in at that talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks muchly! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Personnel lists on compilations

I'm sure you'll notice before too long, that I've posted in the albums talk page about personnel lists on compilations. I wasn't sure if I should have mentioned you and Zidane by name, because of your great effort on these articles, or if it would have sounded like I was complaining about your work. I appreciate that you've done a huge amount of work for album articles, and I enjoy crossing paths with you and most of the other people involved with the project. -Freekee (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Either or would be fine with me; I've added them to conform to guidelines, and if guideline changes I have no problem with that. :) I've enjoyed working with you and others on the album project also. I'm only sorry I don't quite have as much time as I used to! It looks like the missing encyclopedia articles list is going to be finished very soon (if I didn't while I was out of town). Very exciting! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Duff

Hello Moonriddengirl It's Patrick Duff here hello I hope your well I want to change my photo on wikipedia to my profile picture on myspace but they won't let me do it will you do it it would be cool for me if you would I look a bit too much like Jesus when he was in big trouble in the one that's up there whereas in the other one I look like him POST RESURECTION LOVE PATRICK X Vessel123 (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is very holy looking. :) I presume it's one of these pictures you'd like to use? As long as you are willing to verify permission, either by placing a note on the Myspace page or by e-mailing the Wikimedia Foundation, we should be able to help you out. Which one did you want to use, and are you willing to release it at the Myspace page or would you prefer e-mail? (Another option, since sometimes Myspace pages are not legitimate, might be to host whichever you prefer at [12] and note the release there. However, since that site already links Myspace, it's not necessary.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dan Branch page... hope you can help!

Dear Moonriddengirl,

I have been working on updating the Dan Branch page, but my photos have been taken down due to copyright issues. I am new to the process, and am trying to make good faith efforts to cite all my sources. Would you mind looking through my page and letting me know what you think?

Thanks!

Trimble15Trimble15 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'd be happy to take a look at the Dan Branch page and see if I can offer any input on sourcing. I'll try to give you a response within a few hours. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you've got a good start on it, but several of the sections have no inline citations at all. Particularly with biographies of living persons (which have special policy on Wikipedia: see WP:BLP), you should consider using footnotes so that our readers can check each and every fact. Facts in BLPs that don't have footnotes might be removed at any point. That said, I'm not seeing the kind of information that would be wiped out on sight by most editors, so I think you have leisure to footnote and add sources.

One thing I note that isn't related to sourcing: your article lacks a lead. You might want to consider revising it to incorporate one. There are suggestions for structure at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you're having some problems with images, too. Take a look at File:Branch 0162 02 01 06.JPG. Compare it to the image in the section immediately above this one: File:Patrick Duff-pd2.jpeg. You see it has "licensing" information. You need to pick an Image copyright tag (there are a number at the page I just linked) and apply it to the image. For example, if you are the photographer and are releasing into public domain, apply the tag {{PD-self}} to it. That will turn into a statement saying as much. When you do that, you can remove the tag that says "What is the copyright license for this image?" (It will look like this in the edit window: {{no copyright information|month=May|day=8|year=2009}}. Just remove the whole thing, after you put in the image tag. Please also put your OTRS ticket # there to verify permission.) You also need to provide an "image summary." You can use the sections below, replacing the material in brackets with your own information.

Description: [The subject of the image]

Source: [The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from]

Date: [Date the image was created. The more exact, the better]

Location: [Where the image was created. The more exact the better]

Author: [The image creator, especially if different from the copyright holder]

Permission: [Who or what law or policy gives permission to post on Wikipedia with the selected image copyright tag]

If you use the PD-self tag, you probably don't need permission. If you use another license, you might. This would be a good place to list your ticket #. Once you put in that information, you can remove the other tag that says {{no copyright holder|month=May|day=8|year=2009}}.

You should do this for every file you upload on Wikipedia to prevent it being deleted. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Posola

I had this article on my watchlist, but I don't remember what it was and it's now deleted. Can you clue me in? Just wondering if it's something worth recreating with content that isn't copyrighted. Gracias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that only happened to me. :D Posola is evidently an Assamese dish made out of banana shoots and masala. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay cool. I wasn't totally lazy, I did actually do a quick search but it came back with pozole/posole. So I appreciate your cluing me in on what was there. I didn't know if it was a subject worth keeping or if there was anything useful in it. But if it was all just copied from elsewhere, then I guess it's best to start fresh. I'll see what I can find on posola. It shounds like something I'd like to eat, so I think it's worth including on WIkipedia. :) Thanks for your response. Be good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Article about T.C. Beriker

Dear Moonriddengirl,

you deleted the article about T.C. Beriker, that I placed at wikipedia.org some weeks ago. Please let me know why ou deleted it. It's the same information that's published at http://www.crediteurope.de/fb/sites/de/en/about/corporate/Managing_Board_new/Managing_Board_CVs/index.html.

Kind regards, cebank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.152.10.25 (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

that is probably why.  rdunnPLIB  14:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be exactly why. :) There's information on the talk page User talk:Cebank on how to donate this material to Wikipedia. Lacking verification of permission, we are unable to use this text, as it is plainly reserved: "Copyright © 2009 Credit Europe Bank N.V." Given your username, I would suggest you might also want to read over our conflict of interest guidelines to be sure that you work within those, since I'm afraid that your username may lead some contributors to challenge the material you add on individual employed by Credit Europe Bank. Your best bet is likely to be to verify that the individual in questions meet our inclusion guidelines for biographies by citing reliable sources that are not connected to the individual or his employer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright, Fales

Hi, Fales gave its permission for multi-licensing, but you have tagged the pages as not permitted. Please update the pages. Also, I am trying to create new pages with material that was granted permission in the email under the phrase, all future pages created by user Kelsievans are also permitted use. The note also said, I permit use and re-use under the GFDL of the material from the Fales Library findign aids. I put the OTRS pending tag on all the pages, but people are still deleting them and tagging them as copyright infringment. what can I do?Kelsievans (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Kelsievans

Hi. I see that you did; it was sent to my attention, but it didn't have the ticket number, so I'm afraid that it took a few days to show up in my inbox. I'll address that in just a few moments. If you're putting OTRS pending on the pages, people should not be deleting them. I'm sorry about that; I guess somebody didn't look at the talk page. Let me take a look at the permissions letter; a general OTRS release might serve. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

All right. I believe I have tagged them all. If I missed any, please feel free to add the tag yourself. I have merged your letters together and put a note on your userpage indicating the terms of your release. I've also placed a code there that you can put on new article talk pages that indicates the ticket # and also provides a link to my note on userpage. This should help prevent future problems. If your articles should be tagged in the future for speedy deletion as copyright problems, please excuse the zeal of some of our new page patrollers who should look at article talk pages but do not always. It is very unlikely that the administrator reviewing the speedy tag will make the same mistake. There's no need to put {{OTRS pending}} when using the tag I've put on your userpage. {{OTRS pending}} will only serve if you send a new notice to OTRS, since we don't really have a process in place to follow up on contributors to see if they add future materials. It would be very nice if we could automate such a system, but probably not possible since many of our releases are not general enough. It's unusual that we have as open a release as we've received for your contributions. I'm sorry for the complication and confusion; we do appreciate your donation. Our processes are sometimes difficult, but unfortunately have been created because quite often we are told we have permission for material that it turns out we do not. I appreciate your persistence in spite of these challenges. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ports & Harbour of India :- links

I have seen th list of details. I found the details of Ports & Harbours of India are missing. I would like to request to help us place our details in the list. Regarding editing of our original work, the work on Ports of Navlakhi done is the real thing that I intended, for other Ports of Gujarat. You are requested to send few clues to enable us to compose as it required. Thanks [moti 14:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC) shiptradenews/ V N Jhaveri, Shipping & trade NewsLetter, Jamnagar, Gujarat, India] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiptradenews (talk • contribs)

I have replied at your talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Proper editing attire

To be honest, I can understand why Giano would complain about my uniform. I was trying to go for "bold and avant-garde editor," but maybe it's more relating "fool that can sit and talk all day." I much prefer fools that run around silently, myself. Also, thank you for the support. :D FlyingToaster 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:BestofEarthWind&Fire.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:BestofEarthWind&Fire.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Norwich School (educational institution)

Thanks for your previous help here. We now have an anon vandal - and it is becoming rather hard to control his edits (which include slander). Any chance that we can get a lock on anon edits on this article? DiverScout (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll come take a look and see what you're dealing with. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've semi'-ed for three days to give them a chance to get bored and wander off to do something else. If the vandalism returns after the protection expires, please let me know. Meanwhile, when you clean even anonymous vandalism, please take a minute to leave a warning at the talk page of the vandal. This is a necessary step towards blocking them from contributing if they should prove to be pattern editors. (Harder when they're not on a stable IP, but still possible.) Given how long you've been here, you may already be familiar with the vandalism policy & the user warnings, but I'd hate not to tell you where to find them if you aren't. :) There's a list linked at Wikipedia:Vandalism. I usually start with level 2 if ill-intent is obvious, level 1 if there's any chance that the contributor meant well. In this case, I've handed out level 2s all around. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

History of Jews

No problem; I'll try to address the issues pointed out on talk soon - I hope there will be no objection to removing the template once this is done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In the past he was amenable to rewrite copyvios; we just have to stress it to him that he cannot add copyvio content in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Consindering how you are doing all the really hard work now, that sounds like a deal :) I've dropped him a note here, feel free to add to it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I think that a lot of the material I may have inserted when I was new to Wikipiedia, I'm almost sure that many of it is mine. I would like to help fixing it. Can you guys contact me if you need help or tell me how can I help? --Jacurek (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look carefully through the article again once is back on. I don't remember much now since it was so long ago I have to look at it. Thank you again for all your hard work and for fixing my mistake. I'm so sorry I made you spent all this time... I feel bad now. I was really unaware of the rule then. Please ask if you need anything.--Jacurek (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think the other articles I contributed to have the same problem because I was editing them later, but I will keep my eye open and try to find it if there is any. I will keep you posted on that.--Jacurek (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and invitation Moonriddengirl. I will take some time in the next couple of days to identify any problems in other articles if I find them. This will be my priority for a while. I will let you know about it. Now when I know how much mess and additional work I have created....wow..you may be sure that there will be no more problems like this created by me anymore.--Jacurek (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Example of recent edit and question

Hi Moonriddengirl, This is one of my recent edits as an example from a couple of days ago on Jedwabne Pogrom.

Here is the original text from the source of Holocaust scholar Israel Gutman: Knowledge of the mass murder committed in Jedwabne is an enormous, astonishing shock to Poles, and a shock that clashes with the national myth about the war years.

Here is what I inserted referring to this source: The new details about Jedwabne mass murder was a shock to many Poles because it clashes with the popular knowledge of the war years, anti-Semitism and Polish-Jewish relations during the WW2.

Is this acceptable like this or it is still to close to the original? Thank you and sorry to bother you now, I know you are busy. I just would like to know how far or how close I'm on this one so I could later compare it to my other edits--Jacurek (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. No problem at all. :) I'm back for the now. Whether or not that's too close might depend on if you are giving credit to the source in the text itself. For example, if you said, "According to Gutman, the new details about Jedwabne mass murder were a shock to many Poles because it clashes with the popular knowledge of the war years, anti-Semitism and Polish-Jewish relations during the WW2." That allows you to stick a little closer to the source. Otherwise, you've got a very good start on revision and certainly what you have is nothing in the order of copyright infringement, as long as you don't have a whole lot of it. But I would try to change a few more key words, maybe like:

"Many Poles were badly shaken by details about the Jadwabne mass murder, which challenged national beliefs about the war years." (Nothing wrong with myth, I just preferred beliefs. :))

One of my favorite tricks for revision is flipping a sentence around. Instead of making the details the subject, I make the Poles the subject. I could also flip it by saying, "National beliefs about the war years were challenged when the Poles learned the shocking details about the Jedwabne mass murder." In that case, obviously, I've put the beliefs up front. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OMG you are so good in this! This is so helpful. I will copy this to my talk page so I can refer to it in the future. Thanks Moonriddengirl.--Jacurek (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to drop by any time. I spend a good bit of my time thinking up new ways to say things. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Moonriddengirl.--Jacurek (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Questionability about Brooke Babineau

I must admit to your reasons for invalidating my suggestion on including Brooke Babineau in Wikipedia. What I stated was an honest opinion of a new author's work. I was deeply moved by his excellence of imagery, use of English, and insight into the human condition.

I am a reader, and since there are so few new works that exemplify the highest ideals of that art, when one comes along I feel compelled to comment.

Given your comments on what it takes for someone to be "notable" it sounds as if an author must also set a land-speed record, garner a Nobel prize, or scale Mt. Everest in a bathing suit to qualify.

Simply, the man is an author whose work moves its readers; what else must he do to gain your approval?

LFFinnerblatz (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the note I left at your userpage did not adequately explain the notability guidelines for authors. These guidelines have been derived by consensus of the Wikipedia community. If you'd like to try again, you may wish to consider requesting feedback, with your sources, at Wikipedia:Drawing board. With respect to your honest opinion, I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for that. Again, you may wish to view Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:NPOV. If you wish to review the individual, doubtless there are many forums that would be happy to publish your thoughts. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

MIT License

Hi. This article is taken from this source, where it is licensed under the MIT license, which states that:

"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.", referring to the license, which provides:

"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction..."'

Now although both this and the GFDL are "free licenses", does the MIT provide the same rights to the contributors (i.e. attribution) as our license, and would people adding to that article be forced to relinquish those rights? Basically, is it compatible with the GFDL and can we accept it? Your insight is appreciated. – Toon^(talk) 15:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Argh. :) Why does this all have to be so complicated?

Okay. I don't believe it is compatible because it requires that we append that particular notice, while GFDL does not. We aren't in position to put specially restrictive licenses on that content. This is my opinion. I will seek others. I think I'll go to the OTRS mailing list for that. Meanwhile, I'll blank the article and talk to the contributor about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

PK2 block

Am I blocked yet.

Posted by PK2.

Replied at user talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

Thank you for being willing to get involved in the discussion accusing me of issuing legal threats. Please have another look at what I added after your last comment. thank you. Debresser (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dermatits Herpetiformis

Could you send me the earlier version of the page on Dermatitis Herpetiformis before its copyright problems. It was key to my diagnosis a few years ago, and I would like to have a go at rewriting it. Occultations (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that this is what it looked like before the infringement was added. :/ Are you e-mailed enabled? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

When I read it during August 2006 it was several screenfuls long. It went on about gluten-free beer (I wouldn't want to replace that), but among other things it said "Dermatitis herpetiformis is usually extremely itchy. The vesicles or papules usually appear on the elbows, knees, back, and buttocks. In most cases, it is highly symmetric. Symptoms of dermatitis herpetiformis tend to be sporadic.", and that's what led me to my diagnosis, as I mentioned at [[13]]. There's a big gap in the history between Feb 2005 and August 2008, are any of those versions available? I don't want to put my address on a public web page, but you can see it near the bottom of [14]. Occultations (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Every version of the article after February 2005 infringed the copyright of health.allrefer.com (which, by the way, is probably the source of the text you cited above: see [15]). At the time it was pasted in, it even included formatting words from the subject website. I'm not really supposed to make copyright infringements available, but since the source material is online anyway, I'm willing to e-mail you the last version before I deleted so that you can see what can be salvaged. You will have to reword everything, though. Even if the material you use is not currently present in the suspected source site, it will need to be in original language because the copyright belongs to previous contributors. (The reason I say suspect source: the website predates the appearance of the text in our article, and it does bear a copyright notice ("Copyright 2003 A.D.A.M., Inc."). But there's always the possibility that the IP editor who pasted it here took it from another source with the same text. The only thing we can be sure of is that it wasn't authored here, but was previously published elsewhere, and we have no proof that it's free for use.)

When you enable your e-mail address on Wikipedia, it doesn't publish your address. It unlocks the "toolbox" on your userpage that says "E-mail this user." Even when people click on it, they don't see your e-mail address. They only learn that if you choose to reply. If you don't want to enable your own e-mail, how about e-mailing me at the "E-mail this user" link, and I'll reply? (I'm glad that you want to improve this article; I wasn't at all happy to find how far back the infringement went. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that I'll have to put everything into my own words (although there are only so many ways of saying certain things!). I've set up my user page and unlocked my email. Occultations (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Father

Ah, so either you trust random link pages of the internet as to real people? Got it. Jelousy, got it.

None the less, I leave it to you to decide. Have a good funfilled life on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpdr (talk • contribs) 12:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ad

Sorry about that. I have GCSEs coming up, and this completely slipped my mind. I'll do a quick job now, and if you want more work done to it I'll do it later. Sorry! :) — neuro^(talk) 13:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I needed to get back to work, so this is a reasonably quick attempt.

Wikipedia ads	file info – #178

Is that alright? — neuro^(talk) 14:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is installed into the template, yes. :) — neuro^(talk) 16:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpdr (talk • contribs) 14:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

plagiarism query

Hi MRG, There's a query on my talk page I can't answer, and would be insterested in your opinion on it. Tony (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be happy to see what opinion I might be able to offer. I'll be right over, but if it's complex, I might wait until my first morning caffeine takes effect before weighing in. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Copyright.2C_plagiarism_and_list-selection_criteria. Thanks heaps! Tony (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

FishBase info

Hi, there's a discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes#Fish_familiy_format about adopting new tables for the species listings. I've voiced my concerns about taking information in the "environment" column directly from the "environment"/"climate" entry at the corresponding FishBase species page (e.g. "marine, tropical, reef-associated" [16]), but I'm not actually sure whether this does constitute a license violation because they're not phrases, just single words. Since you seem to know about such things could you take a look and comment? Thanks. -- Yzx (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

List of New York State Historic Markers

Hello,

I've been developing List of New York State Historic Markers for the past few weeks. Some questions were raised about copyright status. I've managed to successfully reach out and talk with the State of New York. They are willing to do an OTRS release so these materials may be used in Wikipedia. I've copied a draft of what I propose for that release below. Please confirm this is acceptable as is or with revisions and I'll ask the person I am working with at New York State to send an email to the wikimedia permissions email address I used before.

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the text of the New York State Historical Markers and all transcripted sections at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_State_Historic_Markers I agree to publish that work under the free license GFDL v 1.2 or later and CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Inoysterbay (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous! Eliminate all questions. :) That should work, except that the employee of the State of New York may not feel comfortable declaring him or herself to be the sole owner. It should also be acceptable to say "I hereby assert that the State of New York [or whichever particular agency] is the creator and/or sole owner of the" and "As a designated agent of the State of New York authorized to do so, I agree to publish...." You should try to keep the doors of communication open in case further clarification is required and, of course, this agent will need to have an e-mail address that clearly identifies him or her with the State of New York or said particular agency. Again, thank you for being willing to work with the red tape. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Something interesting

Note: this is completely trivial, so don't even bother reading it if you're busy
...but I stumbled across this otherwise irrelevant news article, in which a paragraph struck me as quite relevant to what we've been seeing recently. Second and third paragraphs under Greater assertiveness. It's not just us, then. :) – Toon^(talk) 17:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally up for something interesting. :) The eye-clawing boredom of evaluating text for copyright concerns is about to drive me batty today. :D I'll go check it out! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely! Just today I witnessed another case that I think was a legitimate misunderstanding of copyright violations. The contributor was sourcing the copied text, and seemed honestly confused that this was not sufficient from a copyright perspective. One problem we face, I think, is that these contributors (like the one I had recently who thought we could use non-commercial text), don't have any reason to read our policies because they don't have any reason to question their assumptions. *sigh* --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rankings of importance

Greetings, Moonriddengirl. You've struck me as an editor who has a broad base of knowledge, a calm demeanor, and lots of love for the Wiki. That's just the kind of person I'm looking for! Over at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3, Drilnoth and I are attempting the nigh-unto-impossible task of deciding on the 1000 most-important articles on Wikipedia. We already have the vital 100 solidified, but it's an interesting task to choose among all Wikipedia articles to decide which are most vital. Is Rembrandt or Andy Warhol more vital? Tuba or Folk music? Would you be willing to offer your input on these and other burning questions? If so, the discussion is mostly ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, though I'm almost out of time for the moment. :) I'm working on the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, gutted by copyright infringement earlier. I'll wander by and take a look as soon as I can. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh, and by the way, I thought you might enjoy today's "Get Fuzzy" comic. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Classic! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A CopyVio article (not from GB)

Hi Moonriddengirl. I just now was reading the article Nocturnal myoclonus and it appears to be pretty much an exact verbatim copy of this webpage [17]. What do we do? Do we nominate it for speedy deletion? Thanks and best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would just point out that at the bottom of that page is the nice, bold text which says: Compliments of Wikipedia.org. No copyvio here! (Hooray) :) – Toon^(talk) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm very glad to be able to agree with Toon05. :) Those of us who have addressed a lot of these on Wikipedia have learned to watch for the signs of Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Don't feel bad for missing this one; I'm just glad you thought to follow up. :) Some of them are really very subtle. There is a book publisher (Icon Publishing Group) that reproduces Wikipedia text quite frequently, and the only sign that most of us would see (unless we read the introduction) is the parenthetical (WP) at the end of the passage. And, of course, some of them don't give us credit at all. :/ In those cases, I'll have to search for context clues, like comparing the archive date on the earliest publication of the text or looking to see if the language naturally evolved here. It can be complicated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh great, thanks, that's a relief. I will learn to look more carefully. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Letting people know in a personal way

Hi again Moonriddengirl. Wanted to run this by you to see what you thought. As I go along I sometimes find fairly new contributors creating whole series of gastropod articles or other natural history articles. When the articles are extremely complete and technical-seeming right from the start, and there are quite some number of them, (all of which can give me an uneasy feeling) I have started saying something like this in my message to the person, after a hello and some praise:

"I also wanted to say one more thing, and please do forgive me if this is not relevant, but I don't have access to the (print) references you are using, so I can't check for myself. I just wanted to say that all prose, including the technical descriptions of the animals, has to be re-written in your own words from scratch, not used directly or almost directly from the sources. Sometimes this is quite hard to do, and a lot of us do make the mistake of copying stuff verbatim or almost verbatim when we are first starting out on Wikipedia, not understanding that that is unacceptable. So, as I said, please forgive me if you already know this, but I guess it doesn't hurt to make that policy really clear up front. All my very best wishes to you,"

Best to you too of course, Invertzoo (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a friendly notice. I'd give it a go, and if you get negative feedback adjust accordingly. :) You might want to include a link to perhaps WP:C. And if you aren't already doing so, I sometimes close by noting the help desk in case they need assistance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks M., I deliberately didn't include the WP:C link right off the bat, because I thought it might make the note seem sort of unpleasantly officious, but if I get a reply that seems a bit dubious, or if I don't get a reply but things continue as before, I will definitely give it that link out. I think the help desk link is a good idea too, thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Creating a table on my User page - recieved error on attempt to save.

Hi there! Can you help me or send me on to someone that can help? I was working to create a table of drugs candidates being developed by various pharmaceutical companies. I was at it for several hours, doing a "save page" essentially for every line. But on the last line I was entering I was thwarted by this message:

Database error From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "Revision::insertOn". MySQL returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; Try restarting transaction (10.0.6.22)". Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnfravolda"

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I desperately hope you still have that edit window open. :/ When that happens to me, I hit backs on my browser. The material is still all there in my edit screen. Sometimes I copy it and back it up. Sometimes I just back up and try again. I think we had a system wide glitch recently, as I also ran into problems saving. If you don't still have the window open, I may not be able to help you, but I'll see if I can find somebody who can (or can definitely answer that nobody can.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's no big deal. I only lost the last bit I was typing in, since I had been saving incessantly along the way. I was afraid I had surpassed a limit on the number of saves I can make. --Johnfravolda (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm glad. :) No, I think it was just a standard Wikipedia glitch. Some days we're buggy; some days we're not. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Armond Budish

Hello,

My name is Todd Budish and I use the name of Budeone as a logon. I am trying to add a page for my cousin Armond Budish. I must be doing something wrong. I tried a few weeks ago and it was deleted.

I went back and looked and I saw the problem, it was copied and pasted from other sites. So this time I printed all the information and had the receptionist take all the information and write it down mixing and matching different things from different articles.

I printed what I think is either a note from you or a standard response. I am not quite sure if I am actually typing to someone or not. I will give this information to girl I had type this last one out to and have her try it again.

Thanks Todd

Budeone (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I have replied at your talk page with a little more information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

I think I have a much better understanding of what you are asking for. I am not sure the young lady I had do this last night is going to be able to do this, I think I need to find someone computer literate to add these links. I have printed many pages of instructions and I think that will help quite a bit.

Honestly I did not think this was going to turn into a project..lol I do understand why it is necessary and will try to make the next one conform to the rules of this site.

Thanks Todd

Budeone (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Stacey Castor's expression as verdict is read.jpg

Since you helped me write parts of the Stacey Castor article, would you mind commenting here on how valid you feel this image is within the article? I am also asking you because I know how experienced you are with copyrighted material subjects, and you did not object to my use of the image within the article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that copyright image issues are not my major thing. :/ I was asking a question just about images of living people in article just a few days ago at WT:NFC (and didn't get much of an answer). There is an image admin, though, who routinely contributes to the WP:COPYCLEAN project, and I'll neutrally ask him to weigh in. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you!

For all your hard work!radek (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) It's a big job! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Periodical payments

There was a permissionOTRS tag on the talk page of this page, which you deleted as a copyvio. I'm not going to change things around in case there was a better reason for this, but if not, you might revert it. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason it was deleted was that the OTRS was incomplete, which is SOP so far as I know. :) On May 20th, you'd received no follow-up to Ticket:2009051210037216. Have you received a further response? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Some review please?

Hey MRG, lord knows where this will have gotten to by the time you read this, but could you at your earliest convenience review this and my responses at the user talk page and at the article in question? To shorten the story, I basically eviscerated an article that looked pretty copy-pasty.

I think the editor in question was just misinterpreting the external site conditions for copying. My own interpretation was that it constituted a copyvio and these should be immediately removed, so I did that. I may have been a little bitey in my comments at NBeale's talk page, but I would hope to better explain when they respond. OTOH I could be completely wrong and need to apologize!

To a further dimension, this case is instructive to the plagio guideline we've sweated blood on: even if the origin site had provided a free release of their content, would it be acceptable to make a direct copy (releasing it "into the wild" as it were) with just a citation? To my thinking, that would need a PD-attribution template or at least a permanent note on the talk page - but that's just my thinking. I'd put all this on the plagio talk page where it started, but I don't want to make an example of anyone.

Thanks for your help, which I know (well, I hope anyway) is always just a click away! :) Franamax (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I had already read and liked what you'd said. :) (My "you've got mail" banner delayed light up this morning for some reason, but I had seen the question at the plagiarism guideline and followed it.) It didn't read as bitey to me, but to the point and informative. The "silly anon" comment was just calling out bad behavior and not in a particularly heavy-handed way. I've left a note at the talk page of the article itself, where the contributor had also asserted fair use (and proper handling). Sometimes, the scope of copyright and plagiarism work is daunting. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for the endorsement. A lot of copy/plagio is actually pretty easy, since a lot of it is done by people sitting on the couch, using a series of tubes to get their copies. I don't get into the real heavy lifting like you, where you have to track down copies of old books and such. The daunting part, I find, is doing the education, explaining to people how to research and read the fine print, and telling them it's not the end of the world, but they do need to recognize that they're wrong. That applies as much to real-world legal situations as to wiki-life. The tricky bit will be when the editor in question responds - we want to keep the editor, but not the behaviour. Thanks for your attention! Franamax (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

For me, the real heavy lifting is in reviewing contributor history (well, that and stuff like History of Jews in Poland. Took many hours to comb through that article.) When we have a contributor who has been here a while (as opposed to the common drive-by infringer), it's necessary to check to see if there are other problems in other articles. But I can spend hours checking a single contributor. Some days, I can't keep on top...much less get ahead. Nobody else seems to have any ideas for how better to do this, either, judging by the response (or lack) here. I think this need is urgent. A lot of the nastiness that recently exploded around User:FlyingToaster would have been avoided handily if earlier problems had been found and cleaned before she stood for RfA. (Being me, I've decided to feel personally guilty for that.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and p.s., I agree about the trickiness of education. I'm usually pretty good about being patient with people about it. I find it goes one of three ways: (1) immediate acceptance. Sometimes these people have to be talked off the ledge. (2) initial resistance, followed by gradual acceptance. (3) full-blown denial/defiance. I'm generally most tense while waiting to find out if I have a 2 or a 3. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Choice Records

Dear Moonriddengirl: thank you for your advice. I have passed the info and the changes have been made. (check out: http://www.ycr.diehl.ws/news.html#4) I hope everything is ok like that. Love, Party diktator (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be fine. I have cleared the article and noted the licensing terms at the talk. If you place that material in other articles, please provide attribution as I did at the bottom of the tagged article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!! Love, Party diktator (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Moonriddengirl: this RadioFan guy (RadioFan, talk) is trying to fuck me up! Could you please help me out here? I am not able to handle this/him, as I am not to used to deal with all the Wiki rules and regulations, I just tried to set up something beautiful... It was a lot of work to me to edit all the info regarding Your Choice Records. A few pages have been uploaded back in 2005 (Your Choice Live Series Vol.10, Your Choice Live Series Vol.12, It's Your Choice - compilation). This inspired me to continue as I am a fan. Now this guy is trying to ruin it all... He seems to have a lot of energy doing this... I am in a desperate state... Would be so happy if you could help me out... Love, Party diktator (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And talking about this so called "sockpuppetry" thing: User:Grapes-taste is actually a funny and very kind girl friend of mine. Is it illegal if she voices her opinion / reacts on my comments? If so, I will tell her to stop... Should be no problem... Love, Party diktator (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I as well have concerns about this sockpuppetry accusation. Accusations such as this assume bad faith and can be perceived as uncivil towards new users (see wp:bite) I am just an interested third-party riffic (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am a bit confused by all of this. Let me take a look and see if I can figure out what's going on. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. It seems that you and your friend have unfortunately fallen afoul of our WP:SOCK policy. Even if you are separate people, you may still run afoul of that policy if the two of you are tandem editing. (See Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets.) By this point, evidently, you have been blocked for 31 hours and your friend has been blocked indefinitely. If your friend wishes to contribute to Wikipedia, she should probably request unblocking, announce her relationship to you on the talk page, indicate that she understands now that the two of you should not work on articles or in discussions in a way that causes a problem with our "sock" policy. Likewise, you might consider requesting unblocking, explaining the circumstances and indicating your understanding of policy. There is no guarantee that your request will result in your block being lifted early. This will depend on the administrator who responds to your request.

As far as the Wikipedia rules and regulations are concerned, I'm sorry if your articles run into problem. Even if they are deleted, you do have the option to retrieve the code and use it elsewhere. For example, Wikia may allow you to use it. (I'm not sure what their policies are.) I'm afraid that I personally do not have any influence on the outcome of an AfD. (I would not, at this point, be comfortable participating in it, because we have rules about discussing these things.) Your best bet would be to expand the articles with reliable sources to verify notability. Newspaper articles, magazine stories, even coverage on reputable industry websites would do it.

You should still be able to edit your talk page. Since you are currently blocked, I'll place this on your talk page and watchlist it in case you have any questions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Moonriddengirl! Thank you very much for your advices, but I am sorry to say that I dont have the time and nerve to do all this fixing. I guess I have to leave this to others and hope that the pages somehow will survive. I can´t speak for Grapes-taste, but I will tell her about this. But: That riffic guy - for example - found some sources and left them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Choice Records, not knowing what exactly to do with them. Neither do I. Maybe someone else can / will take care of it. I´ll just have to leave it like that. And to be honest. I completely lost interest in continuing, as this seems to becoming a pest. I don´t want to continually fight for an article that I edited, just because some smart asses have nothing better to do to flag and violate them. I already hate the police in the real world (and avoid the contact), don´t need to deal with some self made police men in the virtual world that seem to be bored with their real lives. All in all, it´s just not important enough to me... Or maybe I am simply not strong enough... Love, Party diktator (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it didn't work out that well for you, then. :/ Wikipedia has its rules and procedures, and it does require patience while you learn your way around it, but it's the only process we've got. Some things we don't like can be changed within Wikipedia, but the rules and procedures were created for the most part after quite a lot of community discussion, and it sometimes takes time and effort to convince people that they should change. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Color, infobox

hi...i need some help to add colour to the header of inforbox university which i used to create an article on bhim rao ambedkar college..i am new to wikipedia editing so have no clue.can u please tell me how to create my own infobox,or to add colour or the concerned person i can talk to.. ill really appreciate your act..thanxxx Amitverma86 (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)amitverma86

Hi. :) Since it's a university/college article, the place to go is probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. If they can't answer you, I'd ask at the help desk. I'd ask the project first, though, since there may be some rules about colors in infoboxes for colleges. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanxx a lot for replying.i have messaged the template people and hope i get the reply soon. thanx again Amitverma86 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)amitverma86

SA's Optics article

Hiya, MoonG. You might want to comment at Talk:Optics#Request to port article from Wikisource about how to copy/port ScienceApologist's Optics article from Wikisource while respecting GFDL. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) There doesn't seem to be much for me to add. Transwiki is probably your best option. Not sure if you need a wikipedia or wikisource admin to help with it, but you would definitely need somebody who can transwiki. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, MoonG. As far as copyright is concerned, I would appreciate it if you would comment further (e.g. at Talk:Optics) in light of this comment by ScienceApologist, that some material in his version of the Optics article is copied from other Wikipedia pages. By the way, at the Copyright Cleanup page (which I didn't recognize!! I thought at first I might be at the wrong page! :-) I think it would be a good idea to have a section on instructions how to do ordinary things like move pages, merge pages, split pages; or at least a list of links to such instructions; so that those things are done in ways compatible with copyright policy. E.g. a link to WP:SPLITTING. I had been thinking of writing such a section; or did I and it was deleted? Or do I not know what to put there? I can't remember. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Everything got moved around. As far as I remember, what you had written about merging, splitting and etc. was incorporated under "Tasks and tips" in "Help keep an eye" and "Help spread the word." The links are a good idea; I've added them to the "resources" section. Anyway, GFDL violations. :/ I'll go see what I may able to add. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked. I was presuming you wanted me to comment on an existing conversation, but the issue doesn't seem to have been brought up? Has the matter been broached on Wikipedia? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. No, I only broached it here. Well, related issues have been discussed at Talk:Optics (you were part of that discussion) but I don't think anyone but me (and now you) has noticed SA's comment yet. Well, you could just comment here if you prefer. Or I could raise the issue at Talk:Optics. What SA was saying didn't sound quite right to me: but that's why I was looking for those instructions at the Copyright Cleanup page: if it said this is how you're supposed to do copying, then I could point that out to SA. At the moment, it has some links and stuff, but doesn't really have a link to anything that says what you can or can't or are advised to do when copying material from one article to another (e.g. when writing a summary style article, a case perhaps not covered by WP:SPLITTING; not exactly covered by WP:MERGE either). I think maybe I had been intending to write another whole section with stuff like that and didn't get around to it. I don't remember. But anyway maybe it would require getting consensus on additional new guidelines. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I don't think the project page would be the place to add it. Our project guidelines should mirror Wikipedia's official guidelines and policies, I think. I would just point to merge, to split, and to WP:C: "Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement)." There's absolutely nothing there that says, "Of course, when copying within Wikipedia, credit isn't required anymore. Also of note, from WP:C, "The English text of the GFDL is the only legally binding restriction between authors and users of Wikipedia content." There's nothing in the text of the GFDL that suggests that Wikipedians have the right to circumvent attribution requirements for their own in-project purposes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as broaching goes, I just modified my vote at Talk:Optics#OK to transwiki to this project? and put a link to SA's comment.

Well, perhaps "a link back to the article" is open to interpretation. If it says "{{main article|Example}}", does that satisfy the requirement? Or does it have to state or imply that the link provides attribution information, as well as merely providing the link? I would think it ought to say something like "material is from link", rather than just having a link somewhere which looks as if it could be there for some other purpose. Maybe the guideline needs to be reworded? E.g. "A brief statement including a link back to the article is generally considered ..." What if a website put up Wikipedia articles, and had links to the Wikipedia pages linked from images somewhere on the pages? That would be a link, but wouldn't explicitly state attribution. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you haven't really answered my question. Does SA's method constitute "a link back to the article" and therefore satisfy the requirement? (I would think not, but I'm asking.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry if I missed something. I'm afraid that you only have part of my attention tonight. I'm a bit frazzled with "real life" obligations. I don't believe that it does. I believe that a link back to the article needs to be in the edit summary and possibly also at the talk page and to explicitly acknowledge authorship. (Material split from...etc.) As WP:C says, the indicator here is in the GFDL text. 4(I) says that to modify material, we must, "Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence." The link in the edit summary adds attribution to the "History" section, incorporating the "History" of the article by reference. However, I see that since you wrote me, Durova has contacted you about this at her talk page. Perhaps you should discuss these misgivings with her? GFDL infringements are generally easy to repair just by noting the date that material was incorporated in a null edit summary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

... And, thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry if I'm distracted. :) I'm trying to get the CP batch cleared so I don't fall behind. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

I would have been very disappointed by any other outcome. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi, could you take a look at some of the created articles of User:Contributor777 for me? See [18] Since I already stalk his edits because he keeps adding flags against the MoS :), he also doesn't respond to me. Therefore I might not be the right person to handle this. But I just checked Romani people in Brazil against [19] which looks like a clear cut copyvio to me. I already deleted some articles as copyvio's but this might mean there are many more. Garion96 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look at his or her contrib history. I'm working on a deadline for tomorrow (which is interfering badly with my wiki schedule!), but will take a look as soon as I can. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, no hurry of course. Garion96 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for prompting me so nicely. :) I completely forgot! I've just finished the History of Jews in Poland review and will look into this today. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Really wasn't meant like that though. :) I just forgot to put your talk on my watchlist so only read your first response a few minutes ago. Garion96 (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Well, it all worked out to the best, then. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I see that he hasn't responded to you either, but he is still editing. Oh well..at least if he stops adding copvio's, it's ok. Garion96 (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I will never stop bothering you :)

So as not to sidetrack anything at WP:Plagiarism, I will bring this here instead. In this thread you say "Plus, copyright infringement at this point is meant to be resolved by an administrator." and this is backed up by the wording in the big black box that comes with the {{copyviocore}} template. Why is that?

Can you help me to understand what special skills are awarded with the block button? Why should I sit on my butt if I already know what the problem is? Considering only the narrow case where I can find the text on a website, I can find the website's copyright/reserved-rights page, I can examine the article history and use my nifty software tool to be sure it's not a mirror site, so that I'm convinced it's a copyvio - why shouldn't I just do what I always do: nuke the lot; leave a note on the article talk page showing my removal diff, the copyvio source and the rights statement link; remove the big black box and get the (often drastically shortened) article back into sight of the viewing public; make a note to the violating editor; and have a scan through the rest of their contributions?

I already know how to fix this stuff, using a systematic approach to cover all the bases. Why is that limited to admins? Granted that I may not be as methodical as you are, but then a lot of admins just aren't in the same class as you. I've never really understood that big black box... Franamax (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) You're always welcome to stop by. Always nice to chat with you. Plus, you've given me an opportunity to break into the chorus of one of my favorite songs: Tradition! :) In point of fact, I don't know. It was like that when I came to it, which is why I tossed in the "at this point" qualifier. I gather that CSD tags used to be removable only by admins, and I wonder if it's simply never been challenged. I can see that it might be a good idea for the project, though. It helps prove to anybody who comes along later and accuses us of not taking copyright seriously that, "Oh, yes, we do! See, we require that admins investigate every case! We know admins are reliable!" (er, theoretically. ;)) I see plenty of those tags that are removed out of process. Probably about 70% of those removals are wrong, restoring copyrighted text to publication. Often, these are done by IP editors. Sometimes by copyvio contributors. The rest of the time, I view it as a good use of WP:IAR.

Another possible reason is that the CP tag is frequently misused (according to policy). The instructions at Wikipedia:COPYVIO (paraphrased) are: If you find a copyvio, remove the copyvio text and say what you've done at the article's talk page. If the whole page infringes, revert to a clean. If there is no clean, you may be able to rewrite the page or get permission. Failing that, it should be deleted under WP:CSD#G12 or tagged {{subst:copyvio}}. The idea being, I suppose, is that cases with the copyvio template are egregious, and if nothing else history deletion is necessary. Admin tools are needed for that, so it could well be that the process was designed with the thought that when all those other steps don't work, there is no good reason for a non-admin to remove the tag.

About process misuse: I often misuse process myself. For example, that big project I've had going at History of the Jews in Poland. I could have reverted to clean, but that would have had me reverting back several years. I could not easily remove the copyvio text--it took me multiple days just to identify it. I blanked the article with the copyvio text to keep us from publishing it while it's being rewritten. Some of the people who are helping out there have been comfortable removing the copyvio template from cleaned sections. Some haven't.

If there were a debate about explicitly allowing any contributor to remove the tag, I think I'd probably take some time to make up my mind. Not because I think admins are inherently endowed with special powers in discerning copyvios, but because I think we need some kind of accountability. Many of the copyvios I encounter come from people who think they know Wikipedia's policies on the subject, but don't. For instance, like our recent case of non-com licensing. I see that often enough to call it routine. There's also one listed at the board right now where a contributor thought government publications from any country were pd because US government publications are. He removed the tag from multiple articles in good faith, but obviously shouldn't have. How we'd figure out who knows policies, I don't know. Written test? Essay questions? Vulcan mind meld? :D

I think there's probably a lot of room for improvement in our handling of copyright on Wikipedia. But until we get a small army of editors onboard, I'm not sure we've got any practical ability to implement it. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't thought of deleting history versions, that's a "special power". I read somewhere that copyvio is "presenting for public display", which history versions are not - but maybe I haven't thought it through. (Because I could then in theory write out the lyrics to all of my favourite songs and keep them in the history of lyrics)

I do agree that the tag shouldn't be removed willy-nilly and it's probably best to have the big black warning to wait for an admin. A then-newish editor who I mentor/berate occasionally asked me once about that tag on something he'd written. After the usual lecture and sufficient rewriting, I'm pretty sure I did the IAR thingy and took the tag off. I guess it all comes down to judgement and accountability, I was just wondering how hard-and-fast the rule was.

Looks like I might be spending the afternoon searching for copyvios anyway, our recent acquaintance may need a little checking (seeing as how the first article I checked was a copy-paste and all :( ). Franamax (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to sit somewhere between the belief that they should be deleted and just not published. I myself am more likely to delete when it's either particular egregious or it seems likely that it might be hauled out of history and republished (I've seen that happen quite a bit; I always watch an article for a while after I clear a copyvio from it.) Some people seem to treat the rule like it's sacred. I haven't seen any admins get bothered about it, though, as long as the removal of the tag is constructive. :) I did not at first, by the way, recognize our recent acquaintance in his or her appearance at the plagiarism page. Objections made more sense after that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, though, the issue is that the copyrighted material simply remains and remains on en.wiki like it's not the least issue. This is what happened with the great sea life plagiarism, keeping it on en.wiki was deemed far more important than anything else. Now, I was willing to rewrite some of these articles that deal with an area and languages that I could do some quick research. However, maintaining the copyvios seems to be, yet again, more important. Would you at least delete the Straits of Corfu article and replace it with my usable stub for now? --KP Botany (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Personally, I prefer to delete them from history. I do so as often as I can with articles listed at WP:CP, even if it takes much longer (on this one, for example, I spent over an hour and a half adding in material that had been contributed after the copyright infringement so I could delete the copyvio). The problem is that we don't really have the manpower to do that across the board. :/ With 10-12 articles popping up at CP most days (my unscientific impression; could be way off) and especially with problems on an unprecedented scale like Graham Bould, we sometimes pretty much have to leave them in the article history. (Clean up on Graham Bould, by the way, is still ongoing. That was a swathe of damage such as I hope never, ever to encounter again.) I had not looked at Straits of Corfu yet. Copyright problems don't come "due" for admin investigation until 7 days after listing. (That's to give the contributors time to verify permission or to give other editors time to rewrite the article.) Under the circumstances, though, there doesn't seem much reason to wait for it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the addition about Lake Butrint--Saranda is mentioned without detail, and this covers Butrint without having to detail its relationship to the larger channel. One of the problems with copy-vio pastes is they are often done without any context. The lake is a lagoon with a complex relationship with the channel rather than a direct relationship. Maybe you know more about the geology and geography of this area than I do, but I think that it is correct that the channel is considered a shipping lane to the port proper, but the lagoon itself is linked via a smaller channel to the main channel. I don't think the original editor understood this at all with the article, but, rather copied and pasted from three different sources that described various aspects of the channel. And, I believe the History Channel website is incorrect, although I left the source in. --KP Botany (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your taking care of it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Graham Fuller

Hello Moonriddengirl! I came across this article and thought you did an excellent job so far. I added a handful of citations and thought it would be great for DYK. As of right now, its sitting in this section. Hope you don't mind. :) Syn 23:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok it might be moved when you see this, as it was verified. Syn 00:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. :D Thank you very much. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouraging words on my talk page. I always feel a bit pressed to just nom a hook that someone else spent time to create. I make it habit to at least copyedit and add either cited info where I can, or double cite the info already there. :) Thanks again. Syn 12:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Question(s)

Hi Moonriddengirl. Hope you're doing well. Since you're the "go-to" gal when it comes to copyright, I thought I stop by and ask a question or few. If an image is licensed on commons as GFDL, or Share-Alike - are we allowed to use that image to do other things? Can we manipulate the image, and then upload as a new image? OK, I know that isn't much to go on, and in hopes of avoiding a little of the "it depends" reply, I'll offer an example. If I took the image here, and cut it out, placed it over a hand drawn star - then saved it; could I then upload that image to use for a barnstar? Thanks ;) — Ched :  ?  12:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the example. :) Images are not my major thing, but I feel confident answering that one. Since that's released under GFDL, you are absolutely fine to modify it and reuse it however you like, so long as you give credit. When you upload your modified version, be sure to credit the original source, with a direct link to it. Sorry I'm so long in getting back to you! I saw your note, got distracted, and didn't remember it until I got another. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, if I don't get it right on the upload, then I'll make sure to edit and fix. Thank you. Sorry? ... for what? ... hey, given the global aspect of WP, and the fact that we're all volunteers, when someone responds within a day or two - I feel honored! I know how busy you are with copyvio issues, and I know how important they are .. I appreciate you taking the time out to respond to "lil-'ole-me" ;) — Ched :  ?  16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from. I often leave notes asking for help from people. :) Still, I try to prioritize my talk page, and if I had been on my game, I'd have gotten back to you hours ago! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Another copyright question

I'd appreciate your opinion on this. Shubinator (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Shubinator (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Opined. :) I've watched the page in case further clarification or discussion is necessary. Please let me know if I miss something, since it's not on my usual watchlist rotation and I've got heavy out of Wikipedia responsibilities competing for my attention at the moment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review it. Shubinator (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy to. By the way, if there are more extensive issues in that article that you noticed, please let me know. I didn't have time to review the whole thing, so I only addressed the visible issue. If the entire article is like that, it may need urgent care. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ta very much

[20] ...and the righteous shall inherit the earth :P Cheers! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Defensiveness. :/ That said, "KoshVorlon's signature" probably would have been a better section title. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rerversion on Admin notice page

Moon Ridden Girl,
I see you reverted my archival of a resolved message, you marked it WP:NPA. Interesting, since I reverted a title which was itself NPA. I marked the archival as I saw it to be, Treasury Tag's hounding. If it's reverted, you'll note that TreasuryTag's NPA title comes back, which is also NPA. Change the tile on the archive if you think I'm violating NPA, but please don't revert. It's been resolved (by Xeno) and the title that's on it from Treasury Tag violates NPA. Thanks _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 18:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just FTR, I've gone for middle ground, keeping the new (neutral) header, but leaving out the unnecessary hat tags. –xeno^talk 19:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing incivility is fine, but you need to do so in a way that doesn't add fresh incivility. You can't claim the moral high ground if you're taking the low road in the very same action. I think xeno's solution is a good one. Had I noticed that you had also changed the title, I probably would have done the same. If you feel attacked in the future, please address it by the methods set out at WP:Civility, and don't fuel the fire further yourself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the title Absurd signature ("TreasuryTag's NPA title comes back, which is also NPA") cannot possibly be a personal attack, as the adjective absurd describes the noun signature, which is not a person. A personal attack would have to be directed at a person, hence the phrase.

I don't really think that it's an attack, either. Several people, including admins, agreed with me that the signature was absurd in terms of wikitext-length, prominence and size. I didn't mean that it was a bad signature artistically speaking, I meant that its lack of congruence with our signature policy was absurd. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 11:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that "absurd signature" was a personal attack, unlike "hounding" which is accusing you of bad faith, but I can see why he mightn't have liked it. :) I think changing the header is reasonable. As I said, though, doing it at the same time as attacking you is not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Yeah, absolutely. Section title fine now, let's move on ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 11:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Budish

Hi, Its Todd Budish.

I was chatting with you a few days ago and I think we have what you are looking for. She put links to where it all came from and eliminated the opinion and kept the facts.

Thanks for your help!!

Budeone (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll come take a look and see what I can do. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Graham Fuller

On May 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Graham Fuller, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 20:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoot. Thanks. Good for Graham Fuller. :) (Well, or maybe not, in fact, thinking of the DYK quote in question. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Text-Based Copyright Policy

Nothing new, but maybe useful? Some of the things that I read recently makes me feel something like this is needed. I'm certainly not sure yet another policy page is needed for this, but maybe it would be. What do you think? CopoCop (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sure you can find it, but to be polite I will link to it. I put it here Wikipedia:Copyrights/Text, don't ask me why ... CopoCop (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Have left comments there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Florida public records copyright

I believe your discussion posts on Talk:Copyright status of work by the Florida government are misguided. Please read my posts on the topic, I would like to get your opinion on them. If you would like to help, you could maybe help me expand Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, a key decision on the subject of Florida copyright on public records. Int21h (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied at that talk page. Thanks for joining in. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Blanking my "scratchpad"

Please don't do that. First, that's for an article that's in progress. While I understand your reason, bear in mind that I use two different computers, (one at work, one at home) therefore, for ease of writing, I have the raw text that I'm using as a primary source on the scratchpad. I will not revert it for now, as I'm not interested in drama. Please leave it as it is during the writing of this article. Thanks !
_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 11:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied at user talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, the text is blanked. Kindly leave it be. I AM actually using it to build an article.

Like I said. I'm not going to revert the text (it's currently blanked), nor do I want to start drama. At the same time, I ask that you refrain from further bothering the text on the scratchpad. BTW - I am not able to access googledocs at work. (I did see your suggestion !) :)
_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 12:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
< br />

Moonriddengirl, the rules you directed me to apply to articles only, I belive. However, I did just file a db-self to delete the scratchpad itself. Like I said, I'm not looking for drama here. :)
_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 14:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please apply common sense in your copyright crusades

Hi Moonriddengirl. As an author I am of course keen on copyright, and I applaud your concern for this, but please apply some common sense in your copyright crusades. You have objected to my copying text from www.starcourse.org/emd/ into the article on E.M. Delafield. I am the author of the website starcourse.org/emd - I can jolly well copy my own text wherever I want. This is getting ridicuous!! Best wishes. NBeale (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I hope it's OK with both of you if I reply here. This sort of situation frequently arises. When people just type stuff onto Wikipedia pages, there's no problem: It's assumed that it's new material. But when something was previously published or appeared on a web page, then we require verification from the copyright holder. Anybody could claim to be the author. Wikipedia usernames aren't linked to real-life identities. So you need to follow one of the procedures, e.g. post a statement on your web page releasing the content under GFDL etc. Sorry for the inconvenience! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Coppertwig. We do need to apply common sense. In general I agree that usernames are not linked to real people (this is one of the problems with the new Plagarism guideline) but in my case this is not so - as a quick google would confirm. We do need some common sense in all this! NBeale (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have replied at the user's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the email that has been sent. I hope it is OK with you:

From: Nicholas Beale Sent: 24 May 2009 17:26 To: 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' Subject: permisison to use www.starcourse.org/EMD,

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK www.starcourse.org/EMD,

I agree to publish that work under the free license GDFL and CC-BY-SA 

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Nicholas Beale 24 May 2009

This fixes the copyright issues, but there is no credit given to Nicholas Beale in the article body. Is this normal when copyright issues are resolved behind the scene? Shouldn't the article mention that something from starcourse.org has been incorporated? CopoCop (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It would if the material hadn't been placed here by the copyright owner. When we incorporate material from other sites under GFDL or CC-BY-SA, we do have to give credit. But when the site owner himself places the text here, credit is given in the article's history, just as it is when you or I place text here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

But of course, didn't think about that; he owns the copyright, so he can indeed "jolly well copy [his] own text wherever [he] want[s]". You just needed to make sure it was him. It still feels awkward that a source is missing for that much text, but that's really a different concern, especially since starcourse.org probably does not qualify as a fact-checking source. CopoCop (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are other concerns with the text, including that it isn't neutral ("Her moving account of the experience"). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is more that we would rather prefer to see an attirbution template or footnote stating "this article incorporates text copied with permission from the website xxx.org/yyy", and this would ideally include the OTRS # in which the release was granted. This has nothing to do with the author's definite right to use and release his text as he sees fit, just as a record for future readers who may be confused seeing text duplicated between Wikipedia and another site. Franamax (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We do use the attribution template in the article (at least,I do) when there is a different author and permission is supplied to him. But there's an OTRS permission template on the article's talk page indicating permission. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Garhh - of course that satisfies the requirements! I'd say that I didn't check the talk page before commenting, but now I have a suspicion that I did check it and just gapped over that big orange notice right at the top of the page. D'ohh. :) Franamax (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not the only one. :) (Maybe with that particular article.) On occasion, I've seen articles with "permission slips" show up at WP:CP. Frankly, I think that permission slip is a little dangerous. Not to lay out a nice plate of beans, but how are general contributors to know what has been permitted? It ought to include some information about the source. (So far as I can see, {{PermissionOTRS}} doesn't. Hmm. Maybe it does, though, and it's just not in the instructions. I should look into that.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the template does not and I've commented there. 'Tis true that there may be up to 9 parameters, but I see nothing in the template code that will produce a diff link. Maybe the freeform parameter can be used though, we shall see if anyone answers me at the talk page. Franamax (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)