User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

More templating goodness

I figure it's been most of a day since my last plea for help, so I've got a couple of questions for you:

1. {{CCI-notice}} currently directs people to WP:CCI#Investigation, shouldn't it redirect them to WP:CCI/Investigation so they get to the actual page and not just their name on a list where they have to click further?
2. In rereading WP:CV after you changed fixed it, I noticed that it instructs you to replace the contents of the page with the {{copyvio}} whereas the instructions at WP:CP just say to place the template on the page. Which is correct?

VernoWhitney (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Okay, point 1. Some change there sounds like a good idea. When the board was started, I had envisioned more actual conversation than we've tended to receive. :) I'm not sure, though, that we should direct to the subpage, because sometimes we do get feedback prior to opening of the subpage. Maybe it would do best to just point to WP:CCI? Point 2: that is an artifact of the way we used to do business before the template was revised to automatically delete content. Fresh eyes help catch stuff like that. :) One thing, though, evidently there may have been good reason for the way we used to do business. I was told some time back that the content under those templates, though blanked here, may still be mirrored by downstream users and archived by google. If that's the case, then setting up the automatic hiding of that text was a mistake in the first place. Somebody was looking into that, can't remember off the top of my head who, but disappeared. I'm afraid it's out of my neighborhood. I'm pretty sure google works through magic. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, all I've really seen happen at CCI is the activity on the subpages, but then as I'm sure you've noticed I spend most of my time at WP:SCV. I suppose I'll pay more attention to the whole process now that I've submitted a case and then maybe I'll have a different point of view. As far as the second one goes, just looking at two examples: here's a search for a page that was both created and blanked this morning, which turns up nothing. And here's one that's been around for a while but I just blanked yesterday - in both cases it appears to be keeping the information out of the user-accessible cache at least. The second example does have a link to a presumed mirror site which mirrors the blanking, but the cache of the mirror still displays the content, so while Google reacts pretty quickly (as I imagine do most mirror sites), Google doesn't react quickly to the mirror sites (the date from the cache being Jan 25, 2010). I'm not sure if that answers your concern one way or another about whether the auto-blanking is sufficient or not. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The subpage is generally where it takes place. There have only been a couple of conversations at the listing that I recall, and I can't remember which ones were particularly chatty. :D So, your second one suggests that maybe the </div> is as good as blanking? Either way, I suppose I ought to bring Wikipedia:Copyright violations in line with the template. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I can tell the automatic hiding works just as well as actually deleting all of the text would (I appear to be having trouble with answering questions directly today <shrug>) VernoWhitney (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL. You may have answered me directly enough. I have a wee smidgen of technophobia, I suspect, so I always make sure I'm following conversations about magic technology. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

TheSimpsonsRocks

In February you blocked TheSimpsonsRocks (talk · contribs) for copyright violations. He has since come back with several sock puppets. He seems like a good faith user who just needs to learn the rules better, so I wanted to make him an offer that if he sits out the rest of the month, I'll have his original account unblocked, and I'll help coach him. I just wanted to clear this with you first, since you were the original blocking admin. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no objections, as I trust you'll keep an eye on copyright issues whilst mentoring. :) If he stops copyright violating, I'm happy. Don't know if the socking will have burned his community bridges, but the only problem I ever saw was copyvio. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Special Beanie Babies

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Special Beanie Babies. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Beanie Babies. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at RP459's talk page.
Message added 13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Terminations - Wikipedia Proprieties

I read, with considerable interest, your recent AN/I comment...

Edit warring (which this clearly is, whether it crosses 3RR or not) over archiving an active conversation is just bizarre. If participants don't feel the conversation is complete, leave it alone. If you don't want to talk about it anymore, you don't have to. Even if consensus exists for the move, the conversation can keep going if necessary.

--Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Turian

...on what appears to be a reiteration of a similar (if not identical) issue about which I recently sought your input in RS/N "Talk"...

Resolved and closed tags do allow tickets to be closed early when they are no longer needed, for instance when the original questioner is satisfied or consensus is obvious or, as with the one currently on the board, when it is the wrong forum.

--Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#Inappropriate Application of "Resolved" Tag - Revert

While I anticipated that the issue of unilateral impositions of "discussion terminated" edits would probably best be addressed and resolved in some fashion...,

Leaving aside further consideration of the Wikipedia propriety of the tag's use in this case (though I believe resolution of the question would be worthwhile)...

--JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#Inappropriate Application of "Resolved" Tag - Revert

...I hadn't expected the issue to rear its head within AN/I in such a remarkably short period of time.

My efforts in the RS/N in question (along with an associated matter) resulted in the imposition of a 48 hr "Block" on my editing privileges. During that "Block" period, conversations related to the issues in RS/N "Talk" were "manually" archived as well.

In my "Talk Page" response to the denial of my block appeal, I posted...

An archival header offering a "summation" of an RS/N is hardly the bailiwick for the unilateral imposition of a SINGLE editor's PERSONAL synopsis of content. Nor is the Wikipedia propriety of even PRESUMING to unilaterally and manually "close" an ongoing RS/N settled, to say NOTHING of incorporating and imposing a single editor's PERSONAL synopsis within that "archival summary" as "gospel".

JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from User talk:JakeInJoisey#WND discussions & "Block" Imposition

While I'm unprepared, at this time, to suggest a problematic trend, the premature manual termination of ongoing discussions within either notice board or article "Talk" discussions is troubling, as is the lack of apparant Wikipedia guidance in the composition of the "summary content" of "archival" or "Consensus" headers.

It is my intent to bring this issue to the Wikipedia community in pursuit of some form of resolution, though I'm unsure right now in which venue to pursue it. Any observations you might have in this regard would be welcome. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite likely, if consensus exists that this is a problematic pattern, the place to clarify it and document good practice is at Wikipedia:Consensus, at some place under Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building. That being a policy, you might launch a discussion on the talk page and publicize it at WP:VPP. I think this would be better than Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, since your situation itself demonstrates that talk pages may not be the sole point of concern. You've been an editor for a while and probably don't need this advice, but it's well-meant and based on my own tendency to be wordy: if you do propose clarifying, keep it brief and to the point and avoid making it seem as though you are revisiting old grievances. I think there may be legitimate concern that conversations not be archived or marked resolved prematurely to avoid ongoing debate, and it would be a shame to see the question skipped because people were distracted or simply didn't feel like wading through it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there may be legitimate concern that conversations not be archived or marked resolved prematurely to avoid ongoing debate...

I appreciate your consideration and advice and will look forward to your future participation and contribution within an appropriate Wikipedia venue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if I'm aware of it. :) The degree of my participation may vary with the amount of time I have to give it, though. Some days are more frantic than others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

2014...

...is the reason that thread didn't get archived. See the very last timestamp [1]. –xeno^talk 17:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. I was staring at it perplexed and totally missed the future timestamp! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And I found where it changed to 2014 but I can't explain why: [2]. –xeno^talk 17:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That truly is bizarre. :O --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Licensing

If that website (LTL) is yours, then Wikipedia is not required to link to the website to acknowledge material that you have imported yourself. You are the copyright holder, and by placing the content on Wikipedia you have licensed it to us under the same terms as every other contributor: "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Only other contributors who import text from that website would be required to acknowledge it, and only if the release on the website were rewritten. As it stands right now, it is not compatible with our Terms of Use. We need an explicit statement of license for individuals who do not own copyright to import that text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, MRG. I hope you don't mind me copying your above message to this page (for easy reference) but I don't want to clutter SomeGuy's page with another discussion. Can we please discuss this here on your page?

I'm very interested in what you say and I agree that the content I've provided is licensed to WP. No problem with that. But I must ask you about verification and providing inline citations. Are you saying that if I provide material from my site, given that it is sometimes the only place where I can currently find the necessary information, I should not cite it?

Can I just explain that I have only occasionally cited my own site inline. I usually just add it to the external links as "additional reading", which I do for the benefit of the readers. The point is that my site consolidates material from several research books that are not easily obtained and is the only place, apart from Wikipedia, where the non-specialist reader will ever see that information. The only times I have cited it have been when I have something to say about the subject which would cause a gap or lose of context if unsaid; and there is no other verification to hand. Should I in fact leave a statement of that kind uncited with perhaps a cn tag appended?

What is a statement of license and is it something I can provide or can you point me to a suitable wording for my own rights section? I'm afraid I'm a bit lost with licensing.

Given the problems I've been having, I would like to get this right so that I can point to a final ruling as such and say that I have fully abided by it, even if it means traipsing through 300 articles to sort it.

I'm delighted to hear from you again as you definitely have the most evocative username on the site (unlike my pathetic effort which is a childhood nickname!). ----Jack | ^{talk page} 13:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to discuss it here. :) I don't know if your site meets "reliable sources" or not. I don't know anything about the field, so I do not know if you are an established expert with publications elsewhere as set out at WP:V#SELF. If you are, then linking to your site may be appropriate. In terms of verifiability, I guess the question would be how you knew it to put it on your site to begin with. :) It doesn't matter if the source is readily available; if it's a reliable source, you can site it. You do need to be careful though, with material where you have had something to say that is otherwise unverifiable. Again, I don't know your credentials, but if these original observations of yours have not been published in a reliable source (by which I mean simply "not self-published"; I don't mean to impugn your site) then WP:SELFCITING may apply. Anyway, all that is secondary to the copyright issue, which is where I come in.

Your licensing statement at your website, if you wish to allow other contributors to import it, should specifically permit not only reuse but also modification. The release recommended at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials says:

The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

Only CC-By-SA (the first license) is essential. While you are required as sole copyright holder to release your text under both WP:CC-By-SA and WP:GFDL, you can simply permit it under CC-By-SA for others who may import it. Both CC-By-SA and GFDL require attribution, so anyone who imports your text in compliance will have to note you as the source.

To verify your own imports, though, we do need to connect you to your website. Is your nickname referenced anywhere there? If not, would you be willing to send an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation from that domain verifying your connection? If so, I would be happy to intercept that letter and place an OTRS ticket number in your userspace so that you can easily verify to anyone who may ask that the website is your own.

And thanks for the compliments on my username, but yours is quite nice, too. Very euphonious. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. Euphonious would be a good username for someone. :-)

Thanks very much for your kind advice which I'm going to think about. I'll get back to you soon although I will be very busy after today because of a new role at work. Best wishes. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with your new position, but, in terms of the licensing, please do get back to us soon. We do need to verify the connection between your account and your website to accord with our copyright policies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, MRG. A very quick visit to say I have expanded the copyright message on the home page of my site and on the introductory page of the cricket section. Per the suggestion by Blueboar at the recent website discussion, which was agreed by all involved, I will be happy to contribute to a discussion about usage of the site at WT:CRIC. If no one else raises the discussion by the end of next week, I will do it myself time permitting. Thanks very much for your help with this matter. Best wishes. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Man, I've got to make it a habit to look further up my talk page! Thanks. I'll generate an OTRS ticket # so that you can take that down. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's great. I've seen it and responded to you over there too. Best wishes. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Picture 3.png

Hi Moonriddengirl, could you look at File:Picture 3.png? All the files after the first are unlicensed nonsense and need deletion, the file is obviously a playground because of its name. I came across this because the user who uploaded the last version has uploaded a large number of images taken primarily from the portrayed subjects' website, The Times of India Group, etc. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's already taken care of, lol Hekerui (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens! Yes, it was deleted in the very moment you arrived, but what a mess that was. I guess the name is generic enough that it gets used often, but files under the name have been deleted 13 times! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Admins, busy with generic names since 2001" :) Hekerui (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Clinical Trials Unit

Hi. I understand why this article was restored (OTRS), but now it reads like an advertisement for this company. Do you see anything salvageable there? I don't, but another set of eyes is appreciated. Thanks! TNXMan 17:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I generally try not to mix my OTRS hats with my other work (though there have been a very few articles that were so blatantly unsuitable that I refused to restore them), but I can't deny I saw problems coming with this one. I cautioned her that she might want to keep an eye on the article as it could be tagged for further issues. :/(Obviously, there's a lot of COI at OTRS. I mean, that's almost all we get! That said, many of them are well-meaning.) In addition to suggesting that she watch the article, I sent her a link to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia with its many links to policies and whatnot. Anyway, yes, it's pretty G11ish. If you can stomach it, though, could you tag it for the issues and give the creator a day or so to try to bring it in line? As far as OTRS correspondents go, that one was particularly reasonable. :)

One point, if you find a G12 combined with other stuff, it's a bit easier to refuse to restore an article that's been deleted for multiple reasons. I turned down Augusto Alcalde for that reason today. =--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've cut the article down a lot and watchlisted it. If there aren't any significant improvements, I'll PROD it in a few days. Thanks for taking a glance! TNXMan 17:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for giving her a bit of extra time. :) If she can bring it in line, great. If not, well, she had the opportunity. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

• Sanger allegations: Larry Sanger accuses Wikimedia of hosting illegal images

• News and notes: Studying German flagged revisions, French library agreement, German court case

• In the news: SCOTUS hopeful edited bio, criticism from article subject

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Motorcycling

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

East Indian people

Could you take a look at this and wave your magic wand? I know that this is a copyvio (I've blocked multiple socks of this editor for copyvios), but I can't find the source for this one (it's possible that it's an en.wiki copy from multiple articles too). Came across this through this discussion at WT:INB. If it turns out not to be a copyvio, I think it'd merit an AfD in its current form. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll come see what I can find. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

So far, in its first edit the "culture" section takes from [3]. Article: "The Bindi is the part of Indian women's traditional make-up. The Bindi was worn only by the married Hindu women but now, it has become part of Indian fashion" / source:: "Bindi is the part of women’s make-up. Traditionally, the red bindi was worn only by the married Hindu women, but now it has become a part of women’s fashion." That's all I found from the foundational layer. Update to follow. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is in large part taken from somewhere, either from Culture in India or from an external source from which that page has also copied (see [4]). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's it; all I could find. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, muchas gracias. I'll strip it out later today and see if there's any article left. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kline Airfoil Copyright

Hey there. I notice you handled an OTRS ticket on the image [5]. I also notice you state in your edit text the permission is based on the understanding of no prior publication of this material.

I just wanted to check on this one, as I'm unsure. Does it having been published (with permission) on a blog previously count? [6]. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I had asked the copyright holder about prior publication, and he indicated there had not been any. Perhaps he thought I meant professional. When it's been previously published, unless copyright is explicitly disclaimed or assigned to Mr. Kline, we need the prior publishers to acknowledge that they do not claim copyright over it, particularly since the blog notes "Copyright © 2009 rcFoamFighters.com/blog/. All Rights Reserved." They do credit Mr. Kline, which is an implied release, but I'll contact them about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, he, too, had contacted me to explain this. I've written about that one, and I'm checking into one other that he mentioned. Should be cleared up quickly enough, I would imagine. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, I'm just a little concerned over the push to have this info on Wikipedia. It all seems notable enough, it's just there are some copyright issues lurking around it that I'd like to get sorted so we can whip the article into shape. A notable topic judging from the press and person, but needs to be handled properly and not everyone is aware of how things are done here. Thanks for this. Canterbury Tail talk 13:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

Please unblock me- Ramesh vyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.8.182 (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. If you wish to request unblocking, you need to do so at your userpage and provide some very plausible explanation for how you can be trusted to work within our copyright policies. Your explanation should probably also include some indication that you understand sock puppetry policies, since you have created two accounts since your blocking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Completed CCIs?

Suddenly noticed that these are now courtesy blanked. I definitely like that since I was advocating something similar from the get-go :) You may wish to update the instructions though, since last time it was actually discussed to my awareness resulted in the opposite consensus and I removed that part from the instructions accordingly? :) MLauba ^(Talk) 11:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been courtesy blanking them (at least, trying to :D), except the ones that were still needed open for a related Commons investigation, since at least December 5, after our conversation at the CCI talk page from November. It seemed like the best balance between transparency and privacy. It was only revision deletion that concerned me. Sure, I'll add that note. And woohoo! If I can steer clear of other time sinks, maybe I can make some real headway at CCI! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(off-topic) The pair of you just made my day. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You handled that so very well. :) Truly, I'm impressed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had interactions with that customer in the past, and faced similar replies. My sympathies. MLauba ^(Talk) 00:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(And I made no headway at CCI. :/ But I knocked 'em out of the park at OTRS! I see you've been doing some of that, too, MLauba! Always great to have you around. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it's a bit better these days :) MLauba ^(Talk) 00:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you focused on things other than CCI yesterday, and I focused there instead of SCV, so I'm sure it all works out somehow. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. :) I've spent most of my wikiwork so far today in some very tedious maintenance work on attribution templates. In a little while, I'll do some very tedious work at CCI. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bci2 is down to only 10 articles and 2 images, in case you're interested in marking something off the list. :) VernoWhitney (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind getting that one over, so, sure. On my list. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Permission Question

Can you look at R.T.V. Bowman and the page it was copied from and corresponding discussion on the author's talk page and give your input as to if he can give permission to the text since he didn't actually write all of it, and how he could do that (editing the clemson page maybe)? It's been too long of a day for me to think of a clear answer for him. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I am on the scene. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I'm second guessing myself, I'll first spell out my thoughts here. ClemsonWiki says nothing about its copyright, so we cannot of course import text directly from it. It also says nothing about contributors relinquishing their copyrights, as a result of which lack of specific assignment copyright to any text provided by Mark Sublette there belongs to him. Hence, we should be able to allow him to import his text only so long as he verifies that he is the same individual who placed it there. This is generally most easily done by having him log in at ClemsonWiki and explicitly acknowledge the connection on his userpage there. Any talkstalkers see anything I'm missing? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment regarding ClemsonWiki and copyright. However, I do think you are missing one point: this short stub could easily be rewritten! It is a classic mix of facts and expression (and much of the expression is quite long-winded). It needs a bit of copy-editing anyway, and a rewrite would be less work that a full WP:CP process. Physchim62 (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) As for just rewriting it, that can work, too. I'll let him know how to confirm the connection, and if somebody else wants to rewrite it in the meantime that's fine with me. The template says it shouldn't be removed except by an administrator or OTRS agent, but the only time I've ever seen people get sticky about that was when the removal didn't fix the problem (especially when done by the copyright violator). In my opinion, somebody who removes the tag to replace it with a complete rewrite is validly invoking WP:IAR. When I see that at WP:CP, I just mark it with a "cleaned" note and move on. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You shouldn't have asked. :) You know I lean towards a strict interpretation of what constitutes a derivative work, and looking at the Clemsonwiki article history, I see organic growth of the text rather than rip & replace. I'd be uncomfortable if the text were imported without 3toes' consent (the creator over at Clem). And technically, since there's no licensing at all on Clemsonwiki, every edit there is also an unauthorized derivative. It sucks but hey, we weren't the guys running a wiki without ANY licensing policy.

The alternative view is that absent specific indications, the wiki is under the same rules as it's parent site, clemsontalk.com, and that one is all rights reserved. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ofc rewrite from scratch is the ideal solution anyway. :-D MLauba ^(Talk) 12:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "rewrite from scratch" for a biographical article, or any article for that matter! Under the strictest interpretation of derivative works, I couldn't write and article on basic chemistry from scratch (even without reference to textbooks) as I would be infringing the copyright of the various people who've taught me chemistry over the years! It's a reductio ad absurdam, but (IMHO) it serves to illustrate that the original premise is fallacious.

Instead, I start from two axioms:

1. You can't copyright facts.
2. You can't copyright any expression of a fact that is so basic that its protection by copyright would be tantamount to copyrighting the fact itself.

Hence "Randolph T. V. Bowman (August 1, 1875 – April 14, 1899)" is not copyrightable, nor is "Bowman passed away in April 1899 at his home in Charlottesville, Virginia". A simple test is to see if you can count the possible ways of rephrasing something: if you can count the possibilities, the phrase is probably not copyrightable. Physchim62 (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course you could go through an entire article and note that none of the phrases are copyrightable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the article as a whole isn't. Regardless, thanks for the rewrite - it doesn't look like a close paraphrase of the original anymore. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What Verno said, on both counts. :) As you know, you can violate copyright without copying any of the plaintiff's words at all, if your structure is too similar. Likewise, if the plaintiff has strung together a series of uncopyrightable phrases in an original fashion (as in a creative fact arrangement), you can't duplicate him. So, guardedly, yes, except I don't follow you all the way to "if you can count the possibilities, the phrase is probably not copyrightable." If the phrase is striking (by which I mean "creative"), it's copyrightable even if there are very limited ways to say it otherwise. The US courts have deliberately set the threshold of originality very low and yadayada. :) Anyway, I think MLauba is right that we have copyright concerns with natural evolution. Whether they'd ever be prosecuted, I don't know, but when an article evolves gradually from a copyvio base, we certainly make the plaintiff's job of proving derivation easier, as he can demonstrate both access and copying. I also don't know what if anything Wikipedia can or should do about the rampant examples of this that could be found on the project. I'm inclined to choose my battles, and I focus on the more urgent need of cleaning up copyvios where they're currently published.

In the case of 3toes contributions here, I think we're okay as long as we exclude his text or text clearly derived from it, because of course he does not gain copyright to the new elements created by others, even if the whole is a derivative work. 17 U.S.C. § 103(b) is clear that derivatives are copyrightable even if they have unlawfully incorporated material, though that material is not protected under the copyright of the new work but remains under its own. There's almost certainly no concern of his having unlawfully incorporated material at ClemsonWiki, of course. My point is just that he can own copyright if his new material is extensive and creative (as it is) and thus should be in position to license it to us, absent the work that he cannot authorize. But I did caution him generally about derivative works at the talk page and would welcome reinforcement of that, if I wasn't clear enough. It's a tricky concept to explain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) And as a pedantic aside, as my work on WikiSource's DNB article has shown me, there are quite a few ways to indicate that someone has died at a specific place on a specific date, even within the bounds of a reference work that is supposed to have at least some form of editorial uniformity behind it :) Oh, and if you would really go completely off-topic, check out this DNB entry and go figure how such an article would fare here :D. Just for levity ofc. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got to dash to deal with RL domestic issues (especially a nice meal in a sea front restaurent tonight, nothing too serious!) I'll be off wiki for about 24 hours, but I'm taking printouts of your comments (and the judgment in Feist v. Rural) to read on the train! Physchim62 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy. :D (But remember that Feist v. Rural excludes "sweat of the brow" when compilation is so obvious that anyone might be expected to follow a similar construction.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How do I fix this?

I just deleted an article as blatant copyvio, then went back and restored the version just before the copyvio, but that lost all the history. What do I do to fix it? See [7]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fixed it for you. What you need to do to perform a proper revision deletion (or history purge):

1. Revert the article to the last known good version with a relevant edit summary
2. Move the article to Article_name/Deleted revisions (over redirect or not - MRG leaves a redirect, I don't). This is done to separate the deleted copyvio history from the rest, to prevent a scenario like "purged article gets deleted at AfD, but DRV reverses, and when article is restored with full history copyvio comes back too"
3. Delete the article
4. Enter the undeletion screen
5. Tick the last non-clean revision - the one immediately below your revert
6. Shift-click to tick the first copyvio version - the one immediately above the revision you reverted to
7. Click the 'Invert seletion' Button, add the undeletion reason, restore
8. Move back to mainspace, without redirect.

On a side note, I really think we need a copyvio handling 101 page like the French do. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Could you give a link to the French page? Physchim62 (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's at fr:wp:COPYNUL. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In the tradition of WP:SOFIXIT, draft up for review, commenting, editing and improving now at User:MLauba/Cv101. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Once I'm fully awake and have made it through at least my talk page, I'll come look at it. :)

MLauba, the reason I leave the redirect is to make it obvious where the content is, in case it is needed later, as if we have belated OTRS permission or if an investigation of the contributor's copyright issues needs verifying how extensive the problem was. It's recommended that in most cases we do use the redirects at Wikipedia:R#SUPPRESS, and I've run into this a couple of times myself and know that it can be pretty helpful. :) Having the name of the new location in the article's history very much shortens the search time for me at least. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as the move operations remain in the article's history, I think the redirects are redundant, you still see where the article went and where its infringing content has been parked. Just look at Dougweller's example above :) Or am I missing something? MLauba ^(Talk) 11:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I am. Even though I read your note to him, I thought you were talking about moving an article to replace it with the temp, which proves that I should not yet be undetertaking tricky tasks before more coffee. :) In this case, I leave the redirect only to prevent user/reader consternation if the article is gone with no trace. Probably completely unnecessary most of the time, except perhaps on those rare occasions that it winds up taking me longer than I expect to tease out the clean content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm now being questioned on my talk page as to whether it was copyvio. It was a table, the format was more or less identical to the format in the book, the text was in many cases identical, in other cases close paraphrase. The tricky bit is I could only view it on Amazon and only a limited number of pages - easily sufficient to check, but not easily repeatable unless there's a time lapse after which I can check again. Or maybe another country, I've used both .com and .co.uk. I don't know if anyone else is willing to spend the time double-checking me?

Thanks for the help with the history, yes, copyvio 101 is great - and much more complicated than I realised, or maybe I just need to keep reading it until it sinks in. :-) Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually if anyone can respond to the editor asking questions on my talk page, he's agreed that there was copyvio and is asking for advice as to how to restore a table that isn't copyvio. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I just finished up the CCI list I was working on and will be right over to see if I can help. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

University of Alberta

Sorry to bother you again, today Johnparcely (talk · contribs) has added a number of images to University of Alberta

The images are hosted on commons, where the uploader makes the assertion that they are the owner of the images, I suspect that is due to a mis-understanding with the rules about copyright.

For example File:Centre for Interdisciplinary Science.jpg which is from here.

I have looked on the commons for a place to post about this type of issue but cant find anything ? - can you help or point me in the right direction.

Thanks

Codf1977 (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Good morning. I kind of went ahead and tagged them all myself. :) There are a couple of options in a situation like this. You can tag the issue (there's a collection of tags at Commons:Category:Problem tags) or you could take it to Commons:Commons:Administrator's noticeboard/User problems, explain your concerns as an inexperienced Commons user and ask for help. Likely, an administrator there will pitch in. In general, it's a much lower drama environment than Wikipedia. :)

When you can, though, it is of course best if you can do it without going there. The more you work on Wikipedia, the more you're likely to notice problems with Commons images, and it'll save you some trouble down the line if you can just drop a template to deal with it. :) The problem tag names are not all user friendly, but fortunately many of them correspond to our own, which are compiled at Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion. Sometimes you can find the tag you need for there by looking at the one you'd use for here. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers Codf1977 (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Partition (1987 film)

The article Partition (1987 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficient reliable secondary sources which describe the 1987 (NOT 2007) film directly and in detail.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Public domain

Hi Moonriddengirl. I was wondering, can freely copy, edit and distribute public domain information of any type (books, images, media, sources) on wikipedia, provided that it's properly attributed? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: first, you need to make sure it's really public domain. I've seen more than one contributor stumble into trouble from uploading he thought was...that wasn't. Then, for text, you'd want to be sure that your attribution is formatted to meet current guideline and that the content meets other policies & guidelines, like WP:V and WP:NPOV. Depending on what you mean to do with PD text, you may run into community resistance, not because it's not free but because some people regard it as low quality. (A thought which outrages one of my Wikifriends.) I've seen conversations among GA and FA reviewers, for instance, where they don't speak very highly of such copied content. But I myself have used plenty of PD text. I wrote an article on some fire station a while back that was almost entirely copied from public domain sources...properly attributed. And then I decorated it with a PD image I uploaded. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's because, for example, the page Italian Renaissance arts and culture was proposed to be deleted, 'cause apparently the source was just a copy of wikisource. Well, it's public domain (you can go to wikisource and clearly see that), and since it is, I see no harm in copying it (I did, of course, attribute it). Reply--Theologiae (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, there's no copyright or plagiarism reason not to include it. Other arguments may apply, but that's down to consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

About Diary of a Wimpy Kid and Laine McNeil

Hey everybody from diary of a wimpy kid has a wikipedia so let Laine McNeil have hers back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.220.181 (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that we've ever had an article on Laine McNeil. Are you sure you're spelling that right? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It looks like Laine MacNeil is probably the one they're asking about. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, context clues. Very clever. :)

74.138.220.181, that article was tagged by a contributor who did not feel that Laine McNeil currently meets our inclusion guidelines for entertainers. Ideally, any article on an actress should verify that she meets those criteria with multiple reliable sources that are disconnected to her. If McNeil does not currently meet those guidelines, she shouldn't have an article yet; one should be created when she does.

I am unfamiliar with the Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film) or its actors, so I don't know if the other actors in that film have more experience or press coverage, but basically when it comes to deletion the existence of their articles does not mean she should have one.

There are three basic ways that articles are deleted on Wikipedia (not including for legal problems like copyright or libel): speedy deletion, proposed deletion and deletion debate. Articles are speedily deleted if they blatantly don't meet policies and guidelines. Articles are proposed for deletion where the tagger, as in this case, feels they do not and feels that others who are familiar with those policies and guidelines will agree. Articles are proposed for deletion debate where there is disagreement.

Because this article was a "proposed deletion", it can be restored on request from anybody, but you should consider carefully before making such a request. If she does not currently meet the guidelines, her article will almost certainly be deleted at deletion debate, and it can be a lot harder to create a new article on a subject then. If she does not yet meet guidelines, it would probably be better to wait until she does and then create a new article or ask for the old one back and build on it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Username policy

Isn't this a violation of the username policy? User:Coleman's Hypnotherapy Clinic -- Brangifer (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I'll handle it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

CCI/Attilios

So I started working on the easy cases for this CCI since I don't have the heart to delve back into Rcpaterson yet this weekend and just noticed that the generated report covers up to "timestamp 2005-11-18 22:10:42 UTC". Maybe I wasn't clear when I answered regarding when the copyright issues likely stopped, but I noticed that it is missing at least the one article I found from November 19th that has some confirmed copied text. Would there be any problems if I tried out the Contribution Surveyor and generated a report for the next few days and amended it to the end of the current page? Or should this be handled some other way? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Attilios is still in the system, so you can pull up his report at [8]. And we count our blessings there, because it took hours to run him. But you were clear about the end date, and I used the 19th as the final date. I didn't realize it wasn't inclusive of the end date. Sorry about that! This is the first time I've ever done a dated run on the Contribution Surveyor; it's one of the latest new functions. I've altered the specifications for 11/20, and it's available at [9]. I'll go ahead and modify the page with the new results, which will take a few minutes, so I don't lose the work you've done already. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. From the links you provided I checked up through the end of the month and didn't see anything, so that should be all of it now. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bureaucracy#Plagiarism

Just going afk, but I thought I should bring this to your attention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go see if he means "plagiarism" plagiarism or "copyright violation" plagiarism. :) Usually, they mean the latter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you may have been ripped off. I can't see the whole book so can't guarantee that they didn't give you credit, but they've copied nearly the whole article as well as much of the article Constitutionalism. Who knows how many other articles they've infringed that may wind up being tagged as copyvios? That's what really bugs me about this: that we might lose content that our own contributors wrote because somebody else took their words without giving them credit. At least this one was obvious. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a growing problem. A very interesting template - thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Copying within wikipedia

Hi Moonriddengirl. Can I ask you a question? I was wondering, most copyright issues are legal, yet is copying within wikipedia a legal issue? Since, even though it still regards copyright, there is no notice on Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia saying it is a legal issue, unlike Wikipedia:Copyright. Can I also ask another question? I have, unfortunately and against my will, been involved in three minor copyright issues: one was because I copied from a wikipedia article, which, without my knowledge, was already copied somewhere else, and thus, without any intent, it came up that I had violated it (but, later, user:iBen recognized this). Second was something I still regard as unfair; wikipedia says that facts are not copyrighted. Well, I got one of my pages deleted twice because I mentioned the same statistics as in my source; but that's not a copyright violation! Second was copying from an old revision of a page, which, along time, happened to have been copied in yahoo! answers and like with the first example, was not my fault at all. I was just wondering, even though I still do not think I violated any copyrights (except copying within wikipedia), are there usually any out-of-wikipedia repercussions of having, even accidentally, been accused of a copyright matter? I do not think that it applies for my case, yet just as a matter of general wondering (I already entered a discussion of this with user:Ironholds, yet I'd like a more complete answer, since can't seem to find it on the copyright FAQ, on wikipedia pages, question desks or even on the internet! Reply--Theologiae (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's only because very recently a contributor decided to start organizing policy pages under "type". :) And I mean that "very recently" literally; that policy existed for years with no such tag until December 2009. It's true that it's a policy with legal considerations, so I have no reason to object to it, but it doesn't mean that there are no legal considerations to the various guidelines that support copyright policy.

Yes, copying within Wikipedia is a legal issue. You own the material you author on Wikipedia, though you have licensed it for others to use. The license you've granted requires that they attribute. If they don't attribute, they've violated your copyright. (And you've learned another reason it's a good idea to attribute, beyond the legal. If the person you've copied has done something wrong, you won't get blamed for it. :))

That said, issues caused by copying within Wikipedia are in my opinion a very different type of concern from issues caused by copying from elsewhere. These are usually cleared up just by explaining the issue, and they can be fixed by attributing. I would hazard a guess that 99.99% of the violations of this license are well-intentioned. If somebody was told about this aspect of copyright law and kept doing it, I could see there being some repercussions, but I'd be really shocked to see repercussions from somebody having done it, learned better, and not done it again.

With respect to #2, I'd have to say that the biggest question you might face is, when the article was once deleted as a copyvio, whether you spoke to anyone about why they perceived it as a copyright problem and what you could do to alleviate that concern on recreation. You may be right that the content was not a copyvio, but even if so when an article has been tagged for speedy deletion and deleted under that criteria, you should be very careful before putting it back in place. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not fully get what you answered, and also on MLauba's talk page. Could you please sum it up in a very short nutshell, so I get the general idea. Thank you--Theologiae (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not fully get what you answered, and also on MLauba's talk page. Could you please sum it up in a very short nutshell, so I get the general idea. Thank you--Theologiae (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

All right. I've tried to be more clear at MLauba's page. Let's see what I can do here.

Yes, it's illegal to copy from other Wikipedia users without giving them credit. A lot of people don't know that, though. I think if you stop doing it when you're told to stop, you should be okay.

If an article is deleted as a copyright violation, you should find out way before making another article using the same material. You might be right that it wasn't a problem or you might be wrong, but when it comes to copyright we don't take chances.

The only kind of repercussions you'd probably have to worry for either case about is (a) if you do it again, or (b) you decide you want to be an admin. It probably wouldn't stop you from being an admin, but you might have to explain why it happened.

Better? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It'll be hard to leave my favourite place, yet I feel that I need to.

Moonriddengirl, I'm officially going to tell you that today (April 17) I will be leaving Wikipedia. It has been a great experience, but I have to move on. Editing has been great fun (with the occasional exception). Yet, since I have been accused of several things, and am a bit worried about making serious mistakes, I feel it is time for me to move on. It will be hard; I have got to know this encyclopedia very well, and have become very fond of it, yet there are some things that slightly worry me. I am a child, and Wikipedia maybe is not the best environment for children (I love the environment, yet it is not suited for me).

I will contact a few editors, make my last edits, and after today I will leave.

But thank you for having made this a joy. I will always remember your help.

I hope the best for you.

(PS: If you want to reply, please do so today. I will not be checking my messages afterwords. If someone can oversight or usurp my account, that would be fine)

Goodbye--Theologiae (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply to this on your talk page in a few minutes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Just one thing. Once you've retired, are you ever allowed to make edits (it's unlikely I will, yet you never know!). Yes, I left wikipedia because I feel that as a child, all this copyright stuff has got me really worried. I have made a very few infringing copyright edits, most of which misunderstandings, but I made a lot of copying within wikipedia edits without attribution, and I have only started to attribute recently. I'm just not sure about whether this will have any implications. If you can clarify things, maybe I'll re-think about leaving...--Theologiae (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I answered part of your question at your talk page. I can't guarantee anything, but you aren't very likely to get into any kind of legal trouble at all for copying from other Wikipedians inside Wikipedia, since we can fix it just by giving them credit. I'd say more, but I have to run now! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi (I know it's the 18th, but a might make a few last edits today :-]). I was wondering one thing. Since I'm a child, and don't know much about this stuff, usually, for copyvios, are there any legal repercussions? Does it apply differently for minors? Please reply--Theologiae (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is my observation. This is not legal advice, which I can't give you. And even if I could, I wouldn't give you legal advice about the UK, as I'm in America and things might be different in the U.K. :) Usually, legal repercussions for copyvios happen if what you've copied is in some way damaging to the other person--like if you deprive them of income. (For example, if they're selling something and you copy it and give it away or sell it yourself, they are more likely to take you to court.) It's also more likely if you've done a lot of it. In the U.S., when a minor is involved, the guardian of the child is held responsible. Also, in the U.S., copyright cases are about money, not jail, unless the copyright infringement is a special kind called "criminal infringement". "Criminal infringement" might be if you put a bootlegged copy of a movie on the internet or did file sharing with copyrighted songs. (See [10] and [11].)

Unless you've been up to something you haven't told me about, I can't really imagine that you'd be facing legal problems. You've mentioned copying other Wikipedians — you can and should fix this, but you probably won't ever see anybody go to court over it. You've mentioned one article that was deleted twice as a copyright problem. I don't think you'll face legal problems for that, either. If I understand your note above, the Yahoo! answers thing turned out not to have been a copyright problem by you at all, since you just took information from earlier in the article's history. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that's it, that's all my "copyright related problems" - copying within wikipedia, the page deleted twice, and only two cases of articles which had wikipedia content which before I copied it from wikipedia, were copied onto some other source (both of which are no longer considered copyright issues). I think that if I decide to edit wikipedia, I should definitely not copy within wikipedia, even if I attribute, because many times, wikipedia info is copied onto question pages and websites, and without you even realising, it technically turns out that you've violated copyright, even if you haven't at all. Thank you for the answers. As for me, I think I'm more semi-retired than actually retired. I was reflecting all over this last night, and I still don't have a definitive answer. Today, I'll make a few edits, and then, at least in the next month, I might watch pages, check messages and do minor edits, yet nothing big (major edits, creating articles etc.). Thank you Moonriddengirl. I've found your help highly informative and helpful. :-)--Theologiae (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

my change to the best selling artists

It was my mistake. My father manages Brooks and Dunn and they have sold 30 million WORLDWIDE, not in the US alone. My mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.51.86 (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Dead link to a copyright violation

Hi, as you are involved in copyright issues I would like to alert you to an issue at the Richard Tylman article. There is a link to youtube video that has been removed as a copyright violation (You can see the link in this revision). Obiouvsly I removed it. A dead link is not helpful. Normally we would keep a dead link as one day it might reappear or might help editors finding a working link. But here the link lead to a copyright violation, so clearly per our copyright policies I removed it. Now it appears that an admin, User:Malik Shabazz is edit-warring over the inclusion of the link, multiple times reverting three different editors although being told that the issue is a copyright violation. Could you weight in or clarify our copyright policy on the talk page, so that the edit-warring will stop? Pantherskin (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I will, yes, but I am a little confused. It seems that the linkvio is being removed at the same time as this content:

|quote=List of selected print media: [[Time (magazine)|''Time'']], November 24, 1986, Vol. 128. No. 21, pp. 62-63 / December 8, 1986, Vol. 128 No. 23, pp. 8-9; [[Chatelaine (magazine)|''Chatelaine'']], September 1986, Vol. 59 No. 9, p. 165; ''Business in Vancouver'' Magazine, June 18–24, 1991, p. 7; ''The Official Guide to Expo 86'' published by [[British Columbia Magazine|''Beautiful British Columbia Magazine'']] with [[Expo 86]] Corporation, Victoria BC, 1986, p. 5}}

is this an unrelated issue that is being swept up with the linkvio concern? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is not related to the copyvio. The issue here is that at least two editors could not verify these references when checking them. So it is a separate issue. I am not sure whether any of the other editors reverting is aware of that the list of magazines; according to their edit summaries the issue seems to be the youtube video. To clarify: This list is unrelated to the Youtube video inasmuch as the youtube video does not mention these magazines. Pantherskin (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll come to the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:BLP/Noticeboard/Richard_Tylman for more background info. There's a fair amount of arm twisting going on here, involving often liberal interpretation of WP:BLP policies including old statements by anons and inactive editors. -- Poeticbent talk 14:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Things are hardly ever simple around here. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying our policy on external links to copyright violations on the talk page. Pantherskin (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know Moonriddengirl, that with this edit you actually reverted the work of User:Off2riorob who put it there as his own final answer of the above mentioned WP:BLP/N debate. It would probably be nice if you let him know about your move, if you really intended to delete what he did. -- Poeticbent talk 17:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete what he did; I temporarily put it back. This is explained at the talk page. I have nothing whatsoever to do with the article beyond the copyright question and don't intend for that to change. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand. You deleted (-474) of text in your last edit with the summary "Removing the quote for consensus. See talk." What consensus? The info you removed was placed in the article by Off2riorob three months ago after a very long debate. Please follow the link to BLP/Noticeboard to see how Off2riorob resolved that argument in his Revision as of 20:49, 23 January 2010. You removed half of his paragraph invariably taking a side in an old edit war. -- Poeticbent talk 22:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the edit history of article. It was gone when I arrived. I added it back in this edit and then restored the article to the condition in which I found it in the following. As I explained at the article's talk page, I did this so that the content would not be bundled with the linkvio issue, but could be removed or restored independently. I consider myself completely an uninvolved admin here, weighing in only on the possible issue of a linkvio. I have made no content decisions about the article, and deciding to restore it would be as much an act of involvement as deciding to delete it would be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. You restored Pantherskin's edit to remain 'uninvolved', but his edit was not only biased and inflammatory, but also, against a decision reached after a prolonged BLP debate. Maybe, it would have been better to let him do it than, or use a different edit summary? I don't know. -- Poeticbent talk 23:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I could not, since I had put it back in the article. Putting it back in the article would have meant I had taken a position on the content, and that would mean I am not uninvolved. My edit summaries were meant to work in tandem with one another and, as I mentioned, with the talk page to explain what I was doing. In case anyone else misunderstood, I have clarified there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

New section

HI there, I have been editing the Plagiarism pages but when I edit those pages they always get reverted back to the original text, why is that? I thought anyone could edit the pages and I always leave a summary of the change in the text page so why is it not remaining changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.175.239 (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Help

Hi Moon. I've run into a copyright issue that's a little over my head. From what I've seen, you seem to be rather knowlidgable on the subject and I thought you might be able to help.

Here's the history on the situation. I ran across the article Donna J. Stone and found that it shared text with the website Wielder of Words. I tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyvio then removed the copyvio text and the speedy tag as I wanted the SD tag to be in the history and wanted the author to be notified by template. I left a message on the talkpage to describe my actions to the author and anyone else. Today I received a message from the author which is also [Talk:Donna_J._Stone#Re:_Donna_J._Stone|on the talk page]. The author explains that they are in contact with the website owner who is a relative of the subject of the article. The author shows that they wrote the text before the website was created but gave the Wielder of Words owner permission to use the text. To my knowledge, the Wikipedia editor cannot give such permission but admittedly, this has past my knowledge of Wikipedia's copyright policies. Could you please advise the editor and I as to how we should proceed? Thanks for your time. OlYeller^Talktome 14:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, I'd be happy to help. :) I'm in the middle of closing an RfC (I've put at least two hours into it already); I'd like to get a little further, and I'll come by and see what's going on. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi replied on my talk. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your time and effort in closing the RfC at WT:ACTOR. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I'm sure it won't be universally popular, and I appreciate that my first comment is a positive one. It was hard going! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than adding a new thank you message, I'll comment here. I would also like to thank you for the time and thought that you brought to your closing of that discussion. There was a lot to wade through, and I have to admire anyone who was willing to take on such a task. You say above that you think it won't be universally popular, but I think you gave about the fairest summary of opinions that could be given and reading through your sandbox was also helpful in seeing how you thought it through. I very much appreciate what you did. Rossrs (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I really do appreciate that. :) I did my best to fairly weigh consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		To Moonriddengirl, for putting so much time and effort into the filmographies RfC at WT:ACTOR. On behalf of Wikipedia, I feel obliged to present you this for your trouble. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I appreciate it. I reviewed it for about an hour before deciding I could probably close it. I had no idea how long it was going to take. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the discussion was massive. Having read through it all as it progressed, I don't envy you, but I'm sure everyone appreciates your efforts and the superbly thorough rationale you provided, regardless of their opinion on the end result. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. Your close seems to touch all the bases, and appropriately reflects the degree of unanimity of the participants. Do you think the header of that RfC section might be changed from 'Filmography' to 'Filmography RfC', to simplify finding it and referring to it in the future? Admins ought to be diligent in closing RfCs when it is requested, but you were the one who actually went forward and did the work. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, okay. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My thanks, too. I'm going to start an implementation discussion and seek technical input on the template implementation and have just dropped Xeno a note about a bot-pass. As to the closed RFC itself, I'm thinking that moving it to a subpage would be the best place for it to live. Prolly not yet, though; there are a lot of inbound links. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I missed your note here with everything else going on on my page today! Must have slipped in under somebody else's. Probably a subpage would be good; it's pretty long. And I agree, give it a few days to let everybody read through it and begin to figure out where to go. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lots of Orange Bars, today? I'm thinking the implementation discussion will run a few days and then the bot work might take a while. WHL said some time ago that there were 32,000 articles involved but that may just be a count of category members. I do know that a whole lot of actor bios use bulleted lists and that the conversion to tables has largely focused on the high profile celebrities. Xeno may be able to offer some stats on what was actually found. Once all that's done and dusted would be the time to file everything to a subpage.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank heavens for bots! And, yes, quite a few moments of "you've got mail." :) And to think, I was at ANI and thought, "Oh, this looks like something I could do before starting the copyright work...." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll be running a bot one of these days, I've just not had the time to get up to speed on it. I've just stepped through your sandbox. While I don't really get what some of the steps were about, I assume it worked for you. I loved the bit about putting a hat on it. I do appreciate the time you took to read that 164kb. I expect about half of what's in there are my posts. I'm a developer; that's probably obvious. I've also a ton of "user interface" design experience. And I've done professional lighting design, which has a large 'color' aspect to it. I'll be following up on the wider question of color from a site-wide perspective, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I edited your user page and talk editnotice ;)

I'd be really interested to know specifically what bot tasks are under consideration, since Jack has been going about instituting his vision of what he thinks the tables should look like and he also inquired about removing tables from the bot owner. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. :) I'm sure they were a mess. Wildhartlivie, I think there's conversation about this kind of thing at the project talk page. Maybe the answer will be there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Moonriddengirl. Just two questions.

1) I was wondering, when you go on the commons, you see some images which are said to be not in the public doman, like this [12]. Apparently, since there is the freedom of panorama in the US, they are fine for uploading in the US, yet I was wondering, would they be fine for the UK?

2) Regarding that page that got deleted twice, I totally still disagree with it. As a matter of fact, there's a page which is exact in format to that one and cites the same source, which is this. According to wikipedia, you cannot copyright facts. Well, all I did was I gave the statistics for each region which were the same to that source, which is obvious. Yet, it was said that, you can only copyright expressions. Looking at that page, it does not seem a copyright problem because it only has the same figures, not expressions or formats. Thus, it should not be a copyvio.

Oh, by the way, when you asked me about all my copyright problems, this may not be one, but I had one case of accidentally including a non-free image onto user sandbox space, which was later deleted. Please reply--Theologiae (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the "bump". As soon as I finish the note I'm writing, I'll get back with you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Freedom of Panorama laws vary by country, and they can become very complicated. See the explanation at Commons. I am not allowed to give you legal advice, which means I'm probably not going to tell you that you can use an image under "Freedom of Panorama" in the UK, because that would be irresponsible of me. If I'm wrong, you'd be the one getting in trouble.

In general, based on the way I understand it, the UK's "Freedom of Panorama" laws are more liberal than the US laws; they let you do more. In the United States, you can't take a picture in public of a copyright statue and release the picture under "Freedom of Panorama", but I think that in the UK you can. You can't release pictures of copyrighted paintings or posters or signs or wall murals.

(2) Sometimes pages are deleted as copyright problems under a mistaken understanding of copyright. I haven't looked at that page, but if you think the admin who deleted it (either of them) made a mistake, you can ask them to reconsider it. Explain politely why you think they are wrong. If they disagree, you can ask for additional review at deletion review. I will not review it myself, because I think that would be wrong for me to do after our past conversations. You'd have to take it through the proper procedures at this point.

Please let me know if any of this is hard to follow. I remember that you are a child. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's all fine. Just one q. I was wondering, I've read the commons story, but it's awfully confusing. Can a public domain work of art be uploaded (I don't mean actually uploading it onto the commons or wikipedia, I mean just using it on an article, like when one adds pictures). So, does that mean that works of art cannot be added as pics? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If a work of art is public domain and you took the photograph, you can use it. Otherwise, the photograph has to be public domain, too. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I need your help please....

Hi,

My name is Jan Irwin, and I am in the employ of John L. Notter. We recently had our PR company add Mr. Notter on to Wikipedia. His page was recently deleted due to the same information that he has on the Hilton Website being an infringement.

I personally wrote his bio for him to be posted on both, as he is on the Board of Directors of Hilton, and they wanted his bio posted on their website as well. I give my authorization to please reinstate his page on Wikipedia using the same bio.

I would have responded sooner, but I thought our PR company was handling this matter.

Please call me directly at <redacted> and let me know when this has been done.

Thanking you in advance for your help.

Regards, 207.212.166.226 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry, but I do not conduct Wikipedia business over the telephone. If you wish to reinstate the bio, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure. Before doing so, though, I do recommend that you read over our guideline on conflict of interest editing. Once the content is licensed, it will be reviewed by other contributors to ensure that it meets the policies and guidelines discussed in that article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please move my article into my sandbox space

Hello!

I am here in reference to my article that is currently been relisted. You too have commented on it. I wanted to know if I can work on the article in my stub area and what happens if the article gets deleted? If my article gets deleted, can I never attempt to rewrite the article again.

I am a technical person and have just started writing. I have worked hard on the content. I am confident of the content from technical point of view. I had read the rules thoroughly. This is my first wiki article and thus my ride is very bumpy.

Please help me by moving my article into my sandbox space. I would be happy to work on it again. PCJain (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your note, and I'm sorry for the bumpy ride you've been having. Wikipedia has a learning curve, and starting right off by creating new articles can be difficult. I can't move it to your sandbox right now, because it's under consideration for deletion. If the article is deleted, you can attempt to create a new version, but you will need to make doubly sure that the content is neutral and that there are enough reliable sources cited to verify that the content is notable. Actually, you can probably save it by doing the same thing right now. You may have noticed that the template message now on the article's face links to a temporary subpage ([13]). You do not have to wait until the AfD closes to work on rewriting the article. You can start right now. First, be very careful to eliminate all copyright concerns. You can see a listing of what these are at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 April 11. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is the four sentence run that seems to be copied from [14], but even the single sentence copied from [15] is a problem under our copyright policy. We request that you use your own, original language when adding content to Wikipedia, although you may use limited, clearly marked quotations. I know from your note that you were under the impression that the whitepage in question was public domain. This seems to have been a misunderstanding. For guidance on what actually is public domain under U.S. copyright laws, we have Wikipedia:Public domain. Other policies and guidelines of use here include Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Non-free content, Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and Wikipedia:Plagiarism.

Since I am handling the copyright concerns, I have not joined in the argument of the article's merits. I am remaining neutral on the merits of content, but looking at the history of the article it seems that the nominator feels you used quite a few self-published sources as well as many that don't actually mention the subject by name. You would do well at this point to look for more sources that specifically discuss "Mobility-as-a-Service" by name that are not produced by Fiberlink Communications. These will help to satisfy verifiability and notability.

Once that is done, you may consider further neutralizing the language. Sentences such as "It is the hybrid combination of infrastructure elements, operations tools, security applications and other components that can work together to deploy, manage and monitor mobile devices, data and users", "Companies today are strategically connecting to partners, suppliers and customers around the world to optimize efficiency and reduce business costs" and "The MaaS platform provides IT administrators a simple and user friendly administration of a global connectivity infrastructure" sound more in keeping for a brochure than a Wikipedia article. We are here to neutrally summarize what reliable sources have said about notable subjects. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Donna J. Stone

Hi. As you recommended, here's a copy of the response and follow-up question I posted on my page earlier today. I can't imagine how difficult it must be, keeping an eye on so many pages! If my idea wouldn't provide sufficient protection of the article from future deletion, then I should take you up on your offer to help navigate the Wikimedia Foundation email system, and ask Dr. Stone to send an email from his website. As I noted below, since most of the text on his site did not come from my article or Wikipedia, I can't see asking him to attribute his whole site to me. Perhaps as a contributor to the information, though. But please let me know if you think that adding a second link, on the front page of his site, to the Wikipedia article would suffice. (As I mentioned, he already linked his mother's name to the Wiki article at the top of the biography page.) I'll stop typing now, hopefully giving you a tiny bit less to read.... My original response is copied below from my talk page. Thanks again for your expertise here! There's so much to learn! --Mah Jong (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help! Most of the text on Dr. Stone's site was not based on my article, only part of it -- mainly the summary on the first page. So I'm not sure about asking him to list me as the origin of the material. He does link Ms. Stone's name to the Wikipedia article at the beginning of the main biography page, which I took as acknowledgment. Do you think it would be enough if I asked him to link to the article on the first page, as well? This would link the summary I mentioned above directly to the Wikipedia article. --Mah Jong (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Answering at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

• News and notes: Berlin WikiConference, Brooklyn Museum & Google.org collaborations, review backlog removed, 1 billion edits

• In the news: Study of featured article quality, Facebook's integration of Wikipedia, and more!

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Environment

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Gajski

I noticed you just cleaned this article and had a question. The creator mentioned that they were emailing OTRS. Does that just mean that the content can be restored if/when you get usable permission, or is there something else going on that I'm unaware of? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. :) I searched OTRS to see if there was a mail in the system about it and did not find one. (I didn't expect to. We recently caught up the En-wiki permission list. Yay! Commons, on the other hand, yikes.... But sometimes e-mails are sent to the wrong address.) If he had forgotten to send it but does so now, it can be restored after. I didn't leave him {{cup}} because the article wasn't deleted, just the one limited passage. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guessed it might be something like that, but I just wanted to double check since I had been talking to him. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, it's come in now. The OTRS agent who handled it is evidently new (? or at least maybe new to it on Enwiki), as he didn't restore the text, but he did reassign the ticket to me, so I've handled it now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, and thanks for the follow up. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Filmographies

I'm a little confused by one of the findings. That was for bulleted lists vs. tables. I do not see that the use of bulleted lists was widely supported, in fact, the only editors I could find who did support it was Jack Merridew, MichaelQSchmidt and Josette. Could you please clarify it further for me? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, and fwiw, you can see all of the notes I made on this at my sandbox, User:Moonriddengirl/sandbox, between 11:35, 19 April 2010 and 16:10, 19 April 2010. Mind you, any notes I've made there are preliminary. :) But in addition to the ones you note, bulleted lists are supported by User:Pablo X ("Michael Q Schmidt makes a valid point about the use of text rather than tables, perhaps it would be best to simplify."), Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 ("Jack makes a good argument for forgoing tables altogether in favor of lists for filmographies"), and User:Erik (as part of his either/or), referenced in the closure. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for taking this on. Another administrator started to take it on and then didn't. I guess I don't see that it's that clear on the list vs. table and I find it interesting that the majority of editors who weren't supportive of tables also don't work with filmographies. The only regular actor editor was MQS, who has a fairly unique POV on the issue vs. the others, who do. And I was fairly sure Pinkadelica was squarely in favor of them, since so much of her work has been in developing them and she said "Agree with HJ Mitchell. I can't believe this is still an issue. It's a filmography chart people." I'm certain User:HJ Mitchell was in favor since he favored the lightsteelblue header. It would seem that GentlemanGhost was in favor of tables since he favored the template and later said to Jack Merridew: "I understand your preference for bulleted lists, although that is not my preference." . I'm sorry to be such a schmudge, I just want to be clear. Thanks so much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll just wait until you let me know you're finished to reply. I've edit conflicted with you several times. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And I'm really sorry about that e/c. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, but I thought I'd let you know because otherwise I might not answer when you are finished, at least not as quickly as I should. I realize you may need time to gather your thoughts, so just let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm about dead on my daybed and I think I covered the points, I'm done. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

All right. Give me a minute, and I'll reply. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first, you are welcome to discuss your concerns with me, no apology needed. think your passion is admirable, and while I know that might sound condescending I don’t mean it that way. There are certain things on Wikipedia to which I’ve shackled myself, so I can imagine being in your position. I understand and completely respect that this is important to you, and if I were in your position, I would want my concerns to be heard.

(Just as an aside, I don't blame the other administrator for not taking it on. By hour two I was questioning my own sanity, but I had committed by then. :))

As far as my notes are concerned, there are several factors here. First, some people explained themselves and some did not; second, some people clearly weighed in on one issue, but did not weigh in clearly on others. With regards to that, I think you have to be careful not to overread people’s responses in a conversation this sprawling. If anything, I think I skirted a bit close in counting Himilayan Explorer under "color" and "table", since arguably his response related only to font size. (I felt like his "if they look like this" was explicit enough for me to presume both color and style of presentation met with his approval, as well as the larger size.) With one response I couldn't peg (an explanation was offered, but I couldn't understand it), I tracked the contributor down to ask for clarification (here), but otherwise if opinion was not clear, I didn’t list it under that header.

Too, as you know, consensus is not formed merely by "head count", but by the strength and nature of arguments (which is why my notes are not just a list of editors who feel one way or another). It matters why a person supports or doesn’t support something, although a "per JohnSmith" counts (as it incorporates his arguments by reference). My lists reflect the reasons given; they aren’t formulated with # for that reason: to help me remember that it isn’t about numbers. By my reading of the debate, "lists" received substantial, reasoned support (as did "tables"), and even if Pinkadelica had explicitly said she supported tables over lists, it probably wouldn’t have made a difference to my closure. (Now, if she had a strong policy-based argument, that could be a different matter.)

What I'm really not empowered to do, I think, is evaluate the contributors who are weighing in. I mean, obviously, I can discount socks or clearly unqualified contributors (please don't ask me to define that; it'll take me another hour to find the right words!), but I can't base my reading on who actually works in the area. I can see why that might matter to you; you probably feel like the people who work in the area are more experienced there and better able to judge the needs of the articles. But until we establish more official departments of some kind, my "uninvolved admin" thing means weighing all good faith contributors in good standing equally and focusing only on the strength of their arguments.

You say, "I guess I don't see that it's that clear on the list vs. table": I didn't see it as that clear, either; in fact, it still looks like a very muddy issue. As I see it, discontinuing the tables is obviously not supported even though several would prefer it, but neither is the rejection of all bulleted lists. This is why I suggest that your project might want to figure out some guidelines for when each is to be preferred. A conversation focusing more specifically on such circumstances might be productive.

Anyway, I understand that you are likely to be unhappy with my conclusion, and I am sorry. Generally, I prefer it when nobody has to be unhappy, but RfCs don't often work out that way. :/ I do hope that seeing my reasoning is helpful. I think I have judged the consensus in the conversation correctly; certainly, I did try.

And I hope you didn't take that "Give me a minute" literally, because my abilities to assess how long it will take me to do something are obviously sadly lacking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Moonriddengirl, thanks for all your work closing this RfC. While I agree with your conclusions on the tables versus lists issue in the context of this recent RfC, I'd like to point out to everyone that we already have an official MOS guideline for filmograpies (something I should have pointed out during the RfC) that prefers the use of bulleted lists. It's at

• WP:Filmographies/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Filmographies

It does contain a link to the WikiProject for actors page, but that was added by Wildhartlivie after the page achieved guideline status and without any discussion on the talk page. Thanks again for your efforts. - Josette (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's good to know; if there's going to be conversation going forward about the use of tables vs. lists and how and when, a note at that talk page would probably be a good idea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And I see no huge issue with adding a link to what was described as an example of a style used. There was nothing said that mandated or suggested it as a preferred style. That it's been there without question for 14 months doesn't seem to indicate that anyone had issue with listing an example. I'd note the same page has a link to a failed style guideline for discographies. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, you might not see the issue but others might have - especially if they had realized your intentions were to replace every bulleted list in thousands of actor bios with a table.

Moonriddengirl, this is an ongoing issue on WT:ACTOR and your input would be helpful there. - Josette (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've read through it, and if I need to come clarify my reading of consensus I will. I'm not sure at this point if it's necessary. For the record, here, I'll just restate that as I read it, there is support in the RfC for both tables (if prepared with templates) and lists. Given that there is consensus to exclude neither, it seems that conversation at this point should be on what guidance if any is appropriate for when to use which. With this new information, it would be a good idea per Wikipedia:Consensus to notify at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works) as well. Use of both is not out of keeping with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Tables, which may offer some assistance in the decision of when to use which. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Are US originating texts for wikipedia?

Hello Moonriddengirl, I understand, that images with licenses http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-no_notice or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-not_renewed can be used on wikipedia. Can be also used such texts on wikipedia also? If yes, are there any limitations (for example author's death)? If yes, are there some examples of using such texts in wikipedia? If no, when there will be such texts possible to use in wikipedia? I have read Wikipedia:Public domain#When does copyright expire? and its later section, but I can not decide.

• Example 1: published in 1926 in the USA by an author (died 1957 = at least 50 years ago) without copyright notice.
• Example 2: published in 1953 in the USA by an author (died 1957 = at least 50 years ago) with copyright notice, but not renewed.
• Example 3: published in 1976 in the USA by an author (still living) without copyright notice.
• Example 4: published in 1976 in the USA by an author (still living) with copyright notice, but not renewed.

Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Can they be? Yes. Are they a pain in the neck? Yes. It can be hard to prove a negative, and verifying that copyright was not renewed is difficult for that reason. If we can't be sure, this material is usually replaced in accordance with the WP:C admonition to "If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." I'm afraid that I can't link to any specific examples, though I remember a few conversations--and I mean, a very few. I've been through this less than a handful of times in my nearly two years of full time copyright work here. Usually, we can't be sure, so it doesn't stick around (as per WP:PD: "the necessary conditions are hard to verify").

With respect to your specific examples:

• Example 1: Yes, because no notice.
• Example 2: Yes, because not renewed.
• Example 3: Yes, because no notice.
• Example 4: No; copyrighted for 95 years after first publication. Renewal is not required for works published in 1976.

There are also a couple of exceptions to the "no notice" exclusion that may make a work copyrighted even if published without notice. If the copyright holder licensed the material for publication to a publisher and the publisher failed to provide proper copyright notice, the work may still be under copyright. The case to consider here is Fantastic Fakes v. Pickwick International Strauss v. Penn Printing & Publishing Co. found that copyright was not surrendered if by mechanical failure copyright notice was left off of a limited run of a work.

Proving PD can be a challenge. I myself would not attempt it unless a reliable source says that the copyright has expired. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So I have taken a challenge and I have "written" (copied and adapted for wikipedia) article Strobilopsidae as an example without copyright notice. --Snek01 (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you know it was published without copyright notice? Your link to [16] is not helpful, I'm afraid, as it is not to the proper volume. Your link is to Volume 1, which is published in 1881. This volume was published 1927-1935, and [17] does not mention copyright status.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm asking how you know. The absence of the copyright notice in the scanned version of the book is not sufficient, as the law is clear that the absence of the copyright notice doesn't count if it was removed from the book. If the page is missing, it might well have been tagged.

This is what makes it challenging to incorporate text under these conditions and why WP:PD cautions that "the necessary conditions are hard to verify". Proving a negative is always hard. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case, OCLC 176806699 shows two physical copies of that issue extant in German university libraries at Frankfurt and at Gottingen. Help might be available through local wikipedians if a request was made politely and clearly. The copy at the University of Frankfurt is shown as available for loan, but also as "reading room only". Good luck, User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oi. Thanks very much, User:LeadSongDog. I hate old stuff, and this is exactly why. :/ A lot of it is public domain, but proving it is a major hassle. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(Volume link is fine, there is only one external link in the article). Hmmm... this is the most easy case as possible. The book is available scanned on the internet so people can see, that the material really comes from this book. The scanned book is provided by quite renowned organizations such as Internet Archive/Biodiversity Heritage Library. This certain scan comes from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. I do not know if somebody removed copyright notice from that book, but I presume, that no. I even do not believe, that information provided in the "Possible copyright status:" by these service are reliable, because I know, that there are always some errors (I use these services for a long time for images). But I believe that books are scanned in the whole extent.

The more difficult cases will come: books with copyright notice but not renewed; books that are unavailable to wikipedians to verify what is inside them, and so on. There is no power in this world to provide information about every book. What will happen if somebody will provide some text, that we will not be able to verify? What institutions we will trust in and what in not? What wikipedians we will trust in and what in not? Can we trust to wikipedians that will loan the book from University of Frankfurt or can we trust directly to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution?

Because there is no example of incorporation similar text into wikipedia, I have written this article, so this can became an (negative or positive) example for the guideline. --Snek01 (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect it'll get incorporated into the guideline at all; I imagine it will be simply another of the handful of cases the details of which I forget. :)

I'm glad it doesn't come up very often, because, again it's a pain in the neck. There was one case that was tagged at CP by a bureaucrat shortly after I first arrived; since I could not positively verify that the copyright was expired and could not bring myself to delete it if it was not, I wound up rewriting the article myself. This is already policy: "If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." This is why I would not incorporate PD expired text unless I could point to something authoritative to show that it is expired. Policy says, "You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain." And this is hard. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the public portal on the WorldCat server for the WHOI Marine Biological Library does not show the specific volume, though it has some other works by that author. It is not an entirely accessible library, though I'm sure with some hunting it would be possible to find a Wikipedian who has access to the full catalog there. There is no assurance that they retained their physical copy after scanning it. It may even have been destroyed in the process of scanning. The Library of Congress Authorities File shows the author's birth but not his death. The LOC catalog does not show the volume. Still, it seems like a reasonable, good-faith assumption that the dates of origin shown at page (ii) of the scanned image are correct unless there is evidence to the contrary. It seems extremely unlikely that the WHOI MBL librarians or the scanning operator would have cause to falsify the image. Hence, for Parts 109 to 112 the respective dates shown are Nov 1927, Apr 1931, Jun 14 1934 and Nov 1935.

The archive.org page also has a "due diligence" link which leads indirectly to The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. In their library catalog is this entry for the work. Note on line 500 of the MARC display that they claim explicitly that vol 28 was published by the Conchological Department of their academy. Is that conclusive enough? User:LeadSongDog come howl 20:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, I have knew all this your informations and I do not understand how they can be useful. We can expect, that we will find no information that the book is public domain and if so, anybody can challenge every source as unreliable. --Snek01 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, are you in doubts? Because I am not in doubts. Do you really have intentions to rewrite this article by yourself? Because if you will rewrite it, it did not fulfilled its purpose. Feel free to mark the article with {{copyvio}} If I will see that it is the case to deletion, I can delete if myself and wait for verification if necessary. My purpose is not to bring more difficulties neither to wikipedians nor to wikipedia. Alternatively move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. I will bring more cases to get more precise answers to my questions. We should be suspicious to unreliable informations but not to go inside paranoia. --Snek01 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want to rewrite it. I suspect that it is public domain for precisely the reason you set forth. I just don't know if I would be able to verify that, and being able to verify it is generally required as per WP:C policy. When stuff like this comes up at WP:CP, I usually curse my bad luck and track down a Wikisource admin, unless I can find proof of PD all on my own. If no Wikipedia Sources admin can verify PD, then I have to rewrite it. Unless somebody else does...and they usually don't.

Snek01, if you're planning on uploading content that is probably (but not provably) PD to see what WP:PD allows, we could wind up with a fairly tangled mess, I'm afraid. Again, I personally wouldn't upload material under this provision unless I could verify that it is PD, as per WP:C. I don't think this is paranoia, but prudence; usually, it's no great hardship to rewrite content so that no possible copyright problem exists, and it eliminates the risk of error. If you are interested in testing the limits of WP:PD, I think it better to do so at a more public fora than this--probably not the copyright cleanup project, but perhaps WP:VPP or WT:C. Older material is by no means my specialty, which is why I'm not on Wikisource.:)

User:LeadSongDog, thanks for the sleuthing. Certainly, everything suggests this is PD. I'm not feeling a need to pursue this one; I just hope it doesn't cross WP:CP on my watch. :) At that point, if I'm handling admin, somebody is saying, "You: personally stand behind this material or don't." If I can't prove it's public domain, I'm not removing the {{copyvio}} tag, because at that point I personally could become liable for contributory infringement if I'm wrong. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please advise as to the protocol for banning a user

Hello,

A user, killgoret, has added numerous false, inaccurate, inflammatory and just vulgar statements to the ACE Adventure Resort page, on which you at one time commented. I'm just looking for some guidance as to whom I should contact about this trespass.

Thanks.

WELDwiki (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Vandalism. (Part of his actions were straightforward copyright violation, in that he copied [18] into the article.) The thing to do when somebody vandalizes an article is to revert them and to provide an appropriate level warning. Occasionally, vandalism is severe enough to warrant immediate blocking, but most administrators turn away listings at the vandalism noticeboard unless there are clear warnings to the contributor and unless the behavior is likely to continue. A registered account that has vandalized multiple times is more likely to be blocked than an IP if the behavior is not actively occurring, because IPs rotate. But even with registered accounts, there generally must be a proper warning.

I'm sorry to say that this kind of thing happens quite regularly. While there are quite a few contributors who log many hours on vandalism patrol, not everything is swiftly detected and cleaned.

I will caution him about this edit. If he returns, escalation of warnings and WP:AIV would be the proper route. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was just looking into this. His edit was partially sheer vandalism, and although some of the material he added about the deaths I could source to a newspaper article, some of the other, including the negative commentary, I could only source to two blogs. I've added the article to my watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Roman888 CCI

Hi there - thanks for looking after my userpage overnight! I'm just dropping you a note to say that Roman888's CCI is done. It was all fairly straightforward except perhaps for the first two items on the list:

• International reaction to the 2008 Chinese milk scandal. For reasons explained at the CCI, I just redirected this article rather than cleaned it of copyvios. If no-one objects to the redirect discussed here I suggest it could be protected.
• Najib Tun Razak. This is a heavily edited article and Roman888 had 140 edits to it. Rather than trawl through the 140 edits - nearly all of which were been superseded by other edits - I instead went through the article itself to look for Roman888 copyvios. I hope this approach is ok. There were a few other articles with 100+ Roman888 edits and I went through those diffs individually.

I won't be at all put out if you or anyone else wants to check any of the work I've done on the CCI. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Shortest day ever?

1 entry on CP + CSB failure: did we ever get so little? :) MLauba ^(Talk) 12:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I know! I even checked the history to see if the page had been vandalized. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

My 3000th edit

For you. :) Silverseren^C 22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) And congratulations! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Malaysian Ceylonese Congress

I don’t really understand the possible incorrectnesses of removing a copyvio template if results a lot of content taken without permission (applying CSD-G12), obvious promotion or spam (CSD-G11) or lack of relevance or importance (CSD-G7); thus offering practical solutions and easing maintenance tasks for admins. If the user shows intentions to spread useful copyrighted information from his/her website and doesn’t how to donating it to our CC license, copyvio template’s purpose would be correct.

With regard to Malaysian Ceylonese Congress article, I was only removing those sections when copyright infringements are found, leaving an stub article, but without kind of copyright issues. Neo Yee Pan‎, Italian America Magazine‎, Little Sisters of the Holy Family‎ and Muar State Railway‎ are articles which are only paraphrasing content roughly identical to its original source despite of complying article’s structure standards.

By the way, I’ll see the resources featured on WP:CCP as useful and instructive for my tasks. Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 23:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explain me how are you dealing here with copyright infringements and it seems to work well; just I must get used to current policies. I’m acquainted to Spanish Wikipedia guidelines, where both new pages and RC patrollers and admins prefer to follow a deletionist trend, due to lack of users able to modify article’s content, without deleting it.

Going off-topic, I’ve another question: What occurs if a biography of living persons article is perfect, but there are undeniable evidences that the featured person has personal interests in promote him/herself? It would apply a CSD, a proposal deletion or discuss deletion on AfD?

I ask this because there is an article about an Peruvian singer, I want to propose its immediate deletion. That stub seems to be valid, but that singer has her own promotional purposes, because of comments she has said from March 29 to April 7 on her Facebook profile (Spanish only) declaring to be very interested on promoting her biography and career, breaking with CSD-G11 criteria. Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 01:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The article on the young Peruvian is certainly not G11, and would probably be kept at an AFD discussion. Our notability guidelines for musicians are at WP:MUSIC, and the very first one states "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." The current stub shows this sort of external interest. Physchim62 (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Donna J. Stone

Hi. Thanks for the welcome mat, it is quite helpful. I heard back from Dr. Stone, and he rewrote the home page to Wielder of Words. I looked at the page and the text has been completely revised, no longer resembling the Wikipedia article I wrote. Didn't expect him to do that, but does that solve the copyright problem? --Mah Jong (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your advice sought

Hi Mrg :) Quick question for you (or one of your informed talk-page watchers!) Where do we stand regarding WP:NFC for a third party photograph found on e-bay of a hard-to-find book cover for the first edition of the book (printed 1949)? Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 09:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally informed talk-page stalker here! The fact that it is a third-party photograph is of little or no consequence to WP:NFCC. File:PicassoGuernica.jpg is from a third-party source, after all. Official sources are preferred, because they link back to the original copyright holder, but they are not obligatory, and would be impossible in your case. Don't forget to give details about the original publication: publisher, date and place of publication. Physchim62 (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks very much :) My concerns were (i) because the photo is on e-bay it makes crediting the source difficult, and (ii) can the photographer claim copyright on the photo (although clearly not on the book cover it depicts). I'll pass your advice along. EyeSerene^talk 14:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for my absence this morning, and thanks for weighing in Physchim62. :) Crazy busy work morning. :P (I'm going on a two-week vacation in the middle of May (woohoo!), and it's getting close enough that I think people are starting to pile on with stuff they want done before then.) In answering your points (i) and (ii), I'm going backwards. :) A derivative work qualifies for new copyright only to the extent that it is significantly different from the original. To oversimplify this to the extreme, I could photocopy a magazine cover, but I would have no copyright ownership of the results. If somebody published my photocopy, I would have absolutely no right to prosecute them for copyright infringement, although I might well be joined with them in an infringement suit by the actual copyright owner. :) If the photograph of the book cover is an uncreative reproduction of the original, then there's not likely any copyright issues with the photographer. If the book is an artistically arranged triptych around a floral display, well.... Only if point (ii) is satisfied is point (i) really required. Going back to the photocopy oversimplification, I don't deserve credit for mechanical reproduction. That said, Wikipedia likes all the details you can provide. When I upload album covers, I typically note where I found them, even though Allmusic (my usual source) isn't the copyright owner, either. It helps to verify that I didn't photoshop them into existence. :)

If you aren't sure if there's creativity in the imagery, you might ask at WP:MCQ. I'm not as keyed in to visual originality as I am textual. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the additional explanation. The image is here; it's just a straightforward reproduction with no artistic originality. EyeSerene^talk 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Mycle Schneider

There is some disagreement about what should be included in Schneider's bio, and I wonder if you could help out with it please... Johnfos (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I had better not weigh in myself to avoid a seeming of bias, since you asked me. :) But I see that it only involves the two of you, so I will post a WP:3O request and see if somebody else can come by and help out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi (2)

Hi, long time no hear. I was lulled into complacency. I know you said this copyright investigation could take months, but I checked from time to time and saw no new vios. I know you're incredibly busy, anyway. I am sorry I messed up with Jeff Glor, Elise Kemp and Jacqueline Tyrwhitt. The latter two mean a lot to me and I will rewrite them in the future to avoid any copyright issues, but I can't right now. Thanks for saving a few articles. I have to remember to ingeniously rewrite text, but sometimes I think if it's a directly attributed, sourced quote then there is no need. There's a lot more gray, for me anyway, than black and white. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I think you can remove your personalized greeting to me. It's a lovely shade of green but not really needed anymore. Cheers. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not really personalized for you; it's just sneaky that way. :) It displays the name of whatever user who is typing. Right now, it says, "Welcome, Moonriddengirl." :) I'm sorry that you were lulled into complacency. I try to cycle through and get to everything in good order, but there's always more work to be done than hours in the day. The good news is that, unless somebody else comes along to volunteer to work on it, it'll be dormant again probably for a few weeks. And I'm starting at the top, which means that the most difficult ones will get out of the way first.

I know that you were working with the best of intentions. I haven't forgotten our conversation. When reworking any content, feel free to come by and talk to me. It is a gray area for a lot of people, really, but I may be able to help nudge it a bit more towards clarity for you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, again. Thanks for your kind words and for pointing out that the message is not just for me. I always felt a tad embarrassed. Very ingenious tailoring, but I am a Luddite and couldn't tell if/what the difference is between HTML and ethernet if my life depended on it. :) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is evidently something we have in common. :D I didn't know how to do it, either, but I asked User:Amalthea how it was done, and he hooked me up. One thing it occurs to me that you may not realize: when an article is cleared, it will be marked N. (You already know that it's marked Y when a problem is found.) That keeps us from checking the same articles over and over again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Donna J. Stone

Hi. Received word that Dr. Stone sent the email today. Did it do the trick? --Mah Jong (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a note here, too, thanking you for all your help in resolving this issue. I'll let Dr. Stone know that his mother's page is back up, and I'm sure he'll be equally grateful. Seriously, many thanks. --Mah Jong (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Another q.

I was wondering, Moonriddengirl, something. If there's information which one does not know to be a copyvio (i.e., you see an article which is a copyvio, but you don't know it is since there's no tag or anything), and you edit it, are you too responsible for the violation? Since, there was some info on the page Florence which I don't know whether it was a copyvio or not (since looking at it now, it might be a copyvio, but I'm not sure). This is the info [19]. Ever since, I've edited it, and now it's been merged and changed in the page, but I'm not sure if it's an infringement (this is because when it was written, there were no wikilinks, the language was informal and chatty, and it was all in one block)--Theologiae (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. A court would have to be convinced that you did know or had good reason to know, and I don't think they'd do that with text like this. But good eye for recognizing now that it probably was a problem, because it is. :) It was copied from [20], and there's no doubt that they had it before we did. The good news is that we can fix the copyright problem just by giving them credit, which I'll go do. Similar to copying within Wikipedia, we have to attribute when we copy from other CC-By-SA sources, and the IP that pasted it here didn't do that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a feeling it was a copyvio, since it just seemed like one. Just another q. about paraprhasing copyright info. Can you paraphrase info from books and sources, keeping a similar layout, with attribution, provided that it is properly paraphrased. Thus, would this sort of "paraphrasing" be acceptable:

Original, made-up source:

There are several interesting places in Europe. The main capitals of this continent include Paris, London, Rome, Berlin, Madrid, Athens, Vienna, Brussels, Moscow and Lisbon. Paris is known for its shops and romantic, bohemian, atmoshpere; London for its classical monuments and funky feeling; Rome for its impressive buildings and picturesque roads; Berlin for its youthful and soulful feel; Madrid for its sophisticated, aristocratically classical look; Athens for its long and turbulent history; Vienna for its elegance and imperial appearance; Brussels for its ancient character and new business-like buildings; Moscow for its grandiose architecture; and Lisbon, for its winding alleways, and steep hills.

Paraphrased version.

In Europe, one can find numerous places of interest. There are important cities, such as Paris, London, Rome, Berlin, Madrid, Athens, Vienna, Brussels, Moscow and Lisbon, which are in this continent. Cities such as Paris are known to be artsy and romantic; London is known for its cool fashion and interesting sites; Rome for its beautiful roads and majestic palaces; Berlin is known to be ultimately a la mode; Madrid maintains a classical and elegant feel; Athens is incredibly ancient and has a long past; Vienna keeps its Habsburg-era dominance and beauty; Brussels has both the feel of a modern business capital, yet maintaining an ancient character; Moscow has grand buildings; and Lisbon is highly picturesque.

Would the paraphrased version be different enough (I've made them up, so the content is not relevant). Reply--Theologiae (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You're walking into a gray area. The way the courts in the United States figure this out is to get somebody (not an expert) to read both passages. Then they ask the non-expert: "Is the second version too close to the first?" If the non-expert says yes, then there's a pretty good chance the courts would find copyright infringement. (I'm not good at simplifying! I'm leaving a lot out in view of your age, but I keep wanting to explain it all. This is the "nutshell".)

If I found that paraphrase, I would at least tag it with {{close paraphrase}} and would probably blank it for rewrite, depending on how much more there was in the article and how closely it also followed. Some people might think it's worse than I do; some people might think it's not as bad. But I'm afraid that a lot of people would look at text like that and say, "Yes, the second version is too close to the first."

Learning to paraphrase properly is hard. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing has some suggestions for rewriting. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also has some suggestions for reusing material from other sources, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". A lot of colleges also have tutorials on this, like [21]. It's something that gets easier with practice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If the way a paragraph is written is totally different, yet the layout (i.e., the order in which facts are presented) are the same as another source, would that be too close? Because, even though I'm not sure, there might be info I paraphrased in the past which was a bit close. What should I do in this case? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Structure can be too close. It depends: are they common facts presented in an order everybody would use? For example, a biography might start by mentioning where somebody was born, then go on to talk about where they went to school and what kind of job they got. This is a natural arrangement. You don't have to reorganize facts for something like that. If it has unusual facts (say, where he was born is followed by the age and location when he lost his first tooth, which is followed by an explanation of how this affected his performance in the first grade Christmas play) or it has ordinary facts arranged in an unusual way, you could have a problem. In the example above, having the facts arranged in the same way could be a problem, even if the language is changed. There are a lot of different ways to describe and cluster the major cities of Europe, so there's not such a defensible reason for having it the same as a source.

If you think you have paraphrased too closely, the solution is pretty simple: rewrite it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Is close para. a copyvio?--Theologiae (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends. When I said above that the courts ask a reader "Is the second version too close to the first?", that's what I was talking about. If the reader says yes, it probably is. At that point, the courts look at other factors to see if it is excused or not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, another q. Would it be a copyvio to have a same or similar, yet very commonly used, sentence in a paragraph to another source [even without you knowing it is found in another source], such as "[somebody] was born on the 5th of July in [someplace]" or "Around [date], [somebody] did [so and so]", which may be the same to the source, yet are frequently used in the British language? Reply (I only refer to a sentence, not a paragraph).--Theologiae (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No. A single sentence that is commonly used or non-creative is not a copyvio. Creativity thresholds are very low, though, so be careful with this one. :) You'd be surprised by some of the sentences I've seen people trying to defend as common and uncreative! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider a sentence like "In [date], [so and so], a [job position], did [such a thing]" to be an "uncreative" sentence, just to understand the thresholds?--Theologiae (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly, but I can't say definitively yes without seeing the article and the source. You ask about a single sentence, but we can't really judge them in isolation like that, I'm afraid. Copyright considers a lot of factors. But I wouldn't worry about a single sentence like that if there's nothing else similar to the earlier source, especially if you know you never looked at it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, I just refer to this sentence just to understand (i.e. if such a basic sentence would be copyrightable or not). Anyway, thanks.--Theologiae (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Article restoration question

I've received a question about restoring a deleted page and I wanted to run it by you to make sure I've got the process correct so I don't give them the wrong answer. As I understand it, the process is basically once OTRS receives and verifies the permission, then they will restore the page (or whatever portion of the page we get appropriate permission for). Is that basically correct or have I got something mixed up? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I do. :) That's what we're supposed to do. But we don't have great central communication at OTRS, so sometimes things go wrong. If by any chance anybody should ever tell you that they wrote OTRS and it wasn't restored, I'll be happy to follow up on it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Crazy day, huh?

• sighs* Today has been certifiably wacky. I'm tired already and there's still hours to go until I head for bed. Silverseren^C 22:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, some days are like that. :) Hope you have some time to relax. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm probably going to go out and see Kick-Ass tonight. That should help me relax. :3 Silverseren^C 23:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hope you enjoy it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Clipbucket

Clipbucket deletion:

• This is unfair. www.w3reports.com is an independent webmaster news site. It is not related to clipbucket in any ways. Same goes for www.hostreview.com. Must it be on cnn? You not knowing w3reports.com does not mean it isn't a reliable source. It is a very reliable trustworthy site. Don't be unfair.

mini4me 23:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please why is PHPmotion still here? I do not see any notable link there and it's direct clipbucket competitor. This is unfair. What other sites and sources provide "news" except press websites? Host review site has also been provided for notability and still it's not been accepted. What's wrong? Google search shows over 200,000 search results and still you reject. What really??mini4me 23:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I find some things here disturbing. Aren't those sites PRESS websites? How many articles have links to nyt? Also clipbucket is not owned by an American, it is owned by a Pakistani while PHPmotion is owned by an American therefor I find the policies here discriminatory if an identical article from a particular country could stand and the other from a less known country wouldn't. I've given 3 trustworthy notable links that you may not have known and you're saying they are not reliable. You are now quoting an American press website. Well what can I do. You have the admin.mini4me 23:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"The news media refers to the section of the mass media that focuses on presenting current news to the public. These include print media (newspapers, magazines); broadcast media (radio stations, television stations, television networks), and increasingly Internet-based media (World Wide Web pages, weblogs)" This is what I see that article as, unless the description of news media here is wrong. Say if yahoo news release the same item, would you say it is a press release or a news media? Also I don't see how the article was just made by the company when there are quotes from different source.mini4me 00:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the information and please be fair by deleting phpmotion which has no notable link or source. Thank you.mini4me 00:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

you are making mistakes in regard to plagarism on the neighborhoods of Jacksonville florida

I WROTE THE ORIGINAL DEFINITIONS FOR ALL OF THE "WESTSIDE" IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF JACKSONVILLE FLORIDA...

I WROTE THEM ALMOST 8 YEARS AGO...

AN IDIOT THIEF WRITER FOR THE FLORIDA TIMES UNION NEWSPAPER HERE IN JACKSONVILLE WROTE A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE SEVERAL YEARS LATER (I HAVE A COPY)...

SHE PLAGARIZED PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING I WROTE "WORD FOR WORD"....

THE FLORIDA TIMES UNION LATER TOOK HER WORDS (MINE) AND USED THEM IN ONE OF THEIR MONTHLY PERIODICALS...

"YOU" HAVE NOW REMOVED "MY" ORIGINAL WORDS FROM WIKIPEDIA BECAUSE YOU INCORRECTLY BELIEVE THAT THAT "MY WORDS" ARE PLAGARIZED FROM HER.....!!!!

THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS THE CASE....

..........

ALL YOU NEED TO DO TO VERIFY THAT I AM TELLING YOU THE TRUTH IS LOOK BACK IN THE "HISTORY" OF THE THE "WESTSIDE (SOUTHWEST)" SECTION OF THE "NEIGHBORHOODS OF JACKSONVILLE FLORIDA",, AND YOU WILL SEE FROM THE "DATE" THAT I CREATED THEM UNDER MY LOGON OF "STARFLEET7"...

YOU CAN THEN CHECK THE "DATE" OF THE PERIODICAL AND YOU WILL SEE THAT "THEY PLAGARIZED ME"....

..........

I AM PREPARED TO TAKE WIKIPEDIA AND THE FLORIDA TIMES UNION TO COURT OVER THIS...

.............

I KNOW YOU MEAN WELL, BUT YOU HAVE YOUR FACTS REVERSED...

I CAN PROVE EVERY WORD I HAVE WRIITEN HERE...

CALL ME...

Robert Ellison

If you wish to discuss this with me, you will have to do so here, but please be advised that you may not make legal threats on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No legal threats. If you wish to pursue the matter in court, we cannot stop you, but you will not be permitted to edit Wikipedia until the matter is resolved. You should also be aware that you are extremely unlikely to have any legal grounds to sue Wikipedia, which does not guarantee that it will retain your text.

Now, if you'd like to provide more details, I'd certainly be interested in hearing them, but I rather wonder if you are confused in this. For example, it does not seem that you submitted this text to Wikipedia at all. Or this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio issue at DRV

Hi Moonriddengirl, I hope you are doing well. You've been recommended to me in the past as having expertise in the area of copyvio and plagiarism. There is an issue regarding that at an article I had previously deleted which is now under review at WP:DRV. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_April_25#Egersund_IK, specifically this comment by admin Stifle (talk · contribs). Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm well; hope you are, too. :) I'm experienced in that work, somewhat, and I would endorse Stifle's suggestion there. With an A7, there's always the chance that the content will be userfied or restored at some point down the road, even years from now, and having a note in the deletion log of the copyright problem is a really good idea. Of course, they can probably verify permission. But I'll take that up with them at their talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I couldn't help noticing your last colloquy. I see your hands are full but I noticed something -- "You should also be aware that you are extremely likely to have any legal grounds to sue Wikipedia, which does not guarantee that it will retain your text." sounds like it's missing a word in there somewhere -- should there be a "not" between "likely" and "to"? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, for the reason I am contacting you. Like I said I will rewrite the Elise Kemp article if it is deleted, but I noticed that you indicated "? Proactively blanked as, unfortunately, I can't see the source." I am not sure what that means but the following are the reference links for the Kemp page:

• Memorial in Flanders Field
• Details of Sister Kemp's death
• Biodata on Sister Kemp

Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Caught that myself just a second before you left your note. :D I'm working well past my usual shut down time and finding myself rather more bleary than useful. :/

The source I mean at Elise Kemp is [22]. Does the link work for you? I get "Firefox can't find the server at www.flanders1917.info." I tried looking through the Wayback machine, but it came up empty. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that link is now dead. Sad. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I found this link, but it's not as good. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a rewrite is in order here. I took a look at [23] and I think we can do a better job of separating the facts from the "expression" (the words and style used to express the facts), at least for the "early life" section. This reference confirms the lady's resting place. Physchim62 (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I created a temp page for Sister Elise Kemp and any help you can offer will be greatly appreciated. I will add the link you just provided to the page. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm crafting a Michelangelo at the moment, but will come by soon. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Moonridden - I was cross talking to Physchim62. Lazy of me. I left him/her a note on his/her talk page with the link to the temp page for Elise Kemp. As he/she recommended a rewrite, I am hoping he/she will help. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Michelangelo took much longer than I expected! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent problems with articles from www.wga.hu

Ciao! I've just rewritten the article Pala delle Convertite, where I had been signalled that there were Copyvio problems from www.wga.hu. I've thus deleted the boring markup from the page. Hope there won't problems and the page won't be deleted without me noticing that! Ciao and good work! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, these articles would be marked with {{copyvio}} to give you an opportunity to rewrite them in temporary space. G12 is not really appropriate for an article with a history like that one. We do need to delete the older versions in order to avoid inadvertent restoration of these, however. I've done that now. Thanks for the rewrite. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now marked this one as clean in the CCI. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Warren Goodhind

Hi there, can you tell me what the deal is with Warren Goodhind? I came home from work to find it had been deleted & restored about half-a-dozen times, and to my eyes there is no copyvio...thanks, GiantSnowman 20:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Not quite half-a-dozen times. :) After your creation of the article, another contributor came in and pasted content from [24] (look at the bottom). It was tagged and listed at WP:CP, and after a week I came in and deleted the later additions, restoring only your edit. I searched the OTRS queue and found no sign of permission, but he had other articles listed as well, and when I searched for those I found that permission for Goodhind was included with that...but that it isn't yet technically complete. I restored his text and blanked it in the hopes of completing it swiftly, but though he responded to my first e-mail within minutes, I haven't received the final clarification we need. I can go ahead and restore your version while we wait. You've already noted, I see, that the last sentence is unusable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for the explanation and quick reply! GiantSnowman 23:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My archives exploded

I was attempting to set up the MiszaBot III archiving system, like you have on your talk page. I think I made it work right. But the other problem is that my archives are all messed up. I should have never allowed the creation of an Archive #0, because it has really screwed up the formatting. I attempted to fix this by moving my Archive 1 to a Archive 2 header, which worked fine. But then, when I tried to moved my Archive 0 to Archive 1, I ran into a problem, as the Archive 1 page was acting as a Redirect to Archive 2 and would not allow me to move Archive 0 there. And it probably doesn't help much that Archive 0 used to be archive 1, the lower-case spelling, which messed up formatting even more.

So, anyways, what i'm asking is, can you delete my Archive 1 page and then move Archive 0 to where it was? And (I know i'm asking a lot :( ), after that, could you check and make sure that I set up the Bot archiving system correctly on my talk page? I'm not sure if I did. Silverseren^C 09:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorted the sub-pages for you. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. Do you know if I set up the Bot correctly on my talk page, so that it will start archiving to the (as of yet nonexistent) Archive 3? I think I set the parameters right, but i've never done something like this before. Silverseren^C 09:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks OK, but I took the liberty to move it below what I expect are permanent features of your page (otherwise you'd have to re-copy them every month). MLauba ^(Talk) 10:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, User:MLauba. :) (And good morning for me to you both!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

• From the team: Introducing Signpost Sidebars

• Museums conference: Wikimedians meet with museum leaders

• News and notes: Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!

• In the news: Making sausage, Jimmy Wales on TV, and more!

• Sister projects: Milestones, Openings, and Wikinews contest

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Gastropods

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny behaviour of a sock?

Hello. Please read this, you'll understand what I mean. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry for the delay in my response. For some reason, I didn't get the "you've got messages" banner until this morning. I don't know if this is some technical glitch or if I did something, but it's happened to me at least once before. :/ (I have my talk page bookmarked, and I kind of wonder if I used it to get into Wikipedia instead of my regular bookmark, "my watchlist". I guess that could do it; I need to keep an eye out for that, if so!)

Some very strange behavior, yes. I don't know. Bored, maybe? Wanted to make sure that everybody knows that Chrisjuchniewicz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had been an undiscovered sock of Wikinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? In any event, since Chrisjuchniewicz is blocked, I've blocked him for block evasion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I was wondering what had happened to you... but I know now what really happened. Anyway, the guy was really strange since I tagged him from day one with a welcome message and was editing periodically... until I saw him tagging himself, I thought he was pulling a fast one on anybody. Guess I was right about placing that welcome template for a potential troublesome editor, and that he was indeed a sock as you say he was. Bored teenagers... who wouldn't be bored had they really found their callings, I gather. Appreciate your attention to this, cheers~! :) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

.

Hi Moonriddengirl ,
Please see my response to your message on my talk page .
Intothefire (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of posting Rebel Cole

Could you please let me know what is your concern about copyrite issues regarding this posting? The webpage you cite is professor cole's own webpage, which has no copyrites. I think that you have over-reacted inappropriately. alanchicagoloop

Replying at your talk page. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Have replied re Maýr on my talk page, but check your email for a helpful hint. ;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Carers Poverty Alliance

Hello, I have had a meeting with the 'team' of which I am Leader of the Carers Poverty Alliance, I can email you from the CPA website, would this be acceptable? Thank you for your time Krys2549 (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. No, I'm sorry to say that the article was not deleted for copyright concerns, but because it gave no indication that the organization is of encyclopedic significance. Even if we receive permission to use the text, we can't retain it as it was written.

This particular article would be governed by the notability guidelines on groups. The rule of thumb here is noting whether the organization has received significant or widespread coverage in secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the group (excluding press releases and information solely available on the group's website—these sources may be used for additional information after notability has been established by secondary sources). All material must be attributable.

If you are able to assemble necessary sources to assert notability, an article on the organization may be appropriate on Wikipedia. In that case, we would be able to use a release from the official website to clear copyright concerns of the text, although the contents will need to be checked carefully to be sure that they meet neutrality policy. For obvious reasons, official websites are sometimes rather more positive than a Wikipedia article should be. Any praise of the organization or its impact needs to come from other people. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the stalking

WikiThanks

Ah, nothing like starting out the weekend with personal attacks on my talk page. Then I find out that you've already swooped in and protected the page and chastised the user while still explaining the copyright problems to them. You rock. Thanks a bundle! VernoWhitney (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) Personal attacks, unfortunately, are part of this work. :/ Quite a few people lash out defensively. Some of them become reasonable after the first shock and some do not. But I often find it helps to have others weigh in. I imagine that if only one person says it, they are more likely to suspect that person may be wrong. (OTOH, some people will not be convinced, no matter how may say it.) My usual approach is to ignore the hostility and focus on the issue as much as possible in the beginning of the conversation, though the degree to which I am friendly vs. businesslike is certainly affected. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stalking my page (again) overnight as well. A rather bizarre attack this time! --Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I gather he's a little frustrated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Need your assistance

Hi. :) Zibran 1 (talk · contribs) is continuing to upload screenshots of copyrighted material (he uploads them under a free license) despite my warnings. I don't really have a lot experience in image copyright issues so I'm wondering if I could get your opinion on what to do? Cheers, Theleftorium 15:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've blocked for 24 hours. This seems to have been going on for a while. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Theleftorium 16:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Attribution question for .gov and .mil sites

Hi MRG, I've found three newly created articles which are verbatim from .gov and .mil sites. OK as far as copyright, but do they need some kind of special attribution template?

• Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) from [25]
• The Department of Defense Whistleblower Program from various pages and files on the US Department of Defense, Inspector General website
• Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense ditto

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello! In order to avoid plagiarism, we need to attribute it to the relevant agency; you can do this freehand or use a template like {{Include-USGov}}. This lets you specify an agency, and link to the relevant policy page on the website (if one exists). I hope this helps! – Toon 19:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Toon. :) That's what I would have said. :) I look in Category:Attribution templates, Voceditenore. There's generally something that works. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both! I've added the template(s) to the articles and put a link to the cat in my workshop. Unfortunately, I've found two other articles out of the 13 this new user created which had large chunks of copyvio (not public domain) and have cleaned them. I'm checking the rest out, and if I find anything problematic, will list 'em at Copyright problems. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: See my query here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, dear. :( I'll take a look and see what help I can offer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Review of temp pages

Hi. If and when you get the chance, could you please review Talk:Elise Kemp/Temp and Talk:Francis "Frank" Hyett/Temp and let me know if they are on the right track. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was just about to do that. :) I was checking at Physchim's talk page to see if there had been conversation about the matter when the message banner lit up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I had left a message on User:Physchim62's talk page on 25 April. No result to my knowledge. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed Kemp and commented at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I saved past versions of the Kemp and Hyett articles and pruned from there. I'll start from scratch. Thanks for relisting. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok I redid the Kemp article. I'm starting Hyett next. Yours. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) It's fine to take your time. I've relisted, so they shouldn't go anywhere in the meantime. I may ask another admin who works copyright to take a look at them just to get a pair of fresh eyes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate it. If these articles survive could you rename them as Sister Elise Kemp (not Elise Kemp) and Frank Hyett (not Francis "Frank" Hyett) in the mainspace. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hyett done. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to your message on my Talk Page, I've been a bit busy in Real Life this week! As for page titles, we don't usually include titles such as "Sister". Mother Teresa is the exception which proves the rule ;) Physchim62 (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Moonriddengirl - User:Physchim62 states that "I can happily confirm that the temp page for Frank Hyett is free from all possible copyright violations." Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Question on Speedy Deletion

Hi Moonriddengirl,

There was a page under Richard Chan that I created. I was reading under "speedy deletion nomination of Richard Chan" under my profile at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geminitorch. My sincere apologies if I've violated any policies with Wikipedia. I created wikipedia for Richard Chan who is a friend that I know and about his background. It was by no means to advertise him. But my apologies for any errors that were done to perceive it in that manner. I wanted to know how I can retrieve a copy of what I wrote if possible. I want to review my work and then ensure it will be under wikipedia guidelines the next time I create the page properly.

Thank you in advance for your insight, assistance, or pointing me in the right direction.

Warm Thoughts, John S 00:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)John S.John S 00:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There are two options here. I can e-mail you the contents, or I can "userfy" it for you—putting a copy in your userspace for you to either retrieve the contents or rewrite it. Just let me know which you prefer, and I would be happy to help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Thank you very much for your help. I read up on userfy and I would like to go this route so I can carefully rewrite into wikipedia standards and ensure its proper. I appreciate it. A lot of learning, reading, and hopefully not many trials and errors. =) Thanks again.

John S 04:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)John S.John S 04:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's userfied. I've left you a note at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

hi, thanks for the message about what sources to cite and what's not allowed on wikipedia. :) 99.234.200.32 (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Minerals Management Service

Hello Moonriddengirl, there are various material on the Minerals Management Service website http://www.mms.gov/ . discaimer. Various studies listed as "OCS Study MMS". Most interesting of hem are:

• Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012 http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PDFs/2006/2006-062-Vol1.pdf The "Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS Region" is directly written as an author, so it could be OK.
  • http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/techann/000001.html OCS Report MMS 2000-001 - author "Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS Region" is the same as previous.
• Stability and Change in Gulf of Mexico Chemosynthetic Communities http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/2/3071.pdf - but this one is by a contractor Copyright status of work by the U.S. government#Works produced by contractors, but I have no idea how to verify this contract. (I would like to use a photo from this, but...)
• There is also MMS Ocean Science http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/ocean_science/index.html that seems to be public domain hopefuly.
• The only well documented is http://fl.biology.usgs.gov/coastaleco/OFR_2008-1148_MMS_2008-015/index.html, where is written that it is not copyrighted and public domain.

I would like to know, if these works that have an author as "Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS Region" are PD or not. Other hints would be also fine. --Snek01 (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at this: [26] I have the first success with verification of valuable source. ;) --Snek01 (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you know, if it's authored by the US government, it should be all right. With regards to the work with the contractor, you could try writing to the contractor themselves to see if they will grant permission in accordance with WP:Permission. If they do not retain copyright, maybe they'll say so. With [27], the images should be PD unless a byline is given. It says, "All photos courtesy of Minerals Management Service unless otherwise noted." I see on the bottom of the cover is a "Photo by M. Galginaitis used with permission of the Nuiqsut Whaling Captains’ Association (NWCA); not to be reproduced without permission from the NWCA." I think the text should be okay also, so long as no specific byline is given that may indicate it, too, is under contract (with one caveat: the words of interview subjects. The last I'd read, there had been no definitive answer as to whether these are owned by the interviewer who transcribes them or the subject who utters them, and interviewers were generally advised to get a release, as per [28]. I would be careful about presuming that the interview subjects in the magazine have surrendered their copyright). As for [29], hooray for them. :) Nice when it's definitive! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Need some help

For the primer, go here, and then here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just about to run out the door, but I will look at this as soon as I get back! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read it, and it currently seems to be in hand, particularly with the addition of User:jgp. I'm afraid that my input, being solicited, probably would not help at this point. Do you believe that any copyright concerns have been eliminated?

If the situation continues to escalate, a listing at WP:ELN or WP:RSN might be a good idea to recruit more uninvolved opinion, depending on whether he's trying to link it or cite it. You may want to point out to the other party that per WP:SPS, "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If reliable source are quoting this guy, then he may well be an established expert. I'm afraid that being considered an expert in blogs or forums won't quite do it. And per WP:EL, we are cautioned to avoid "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)" Does this guy meet WP:BIO? If not, he fails the minimum standard. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that copyright concerns have been dealt with considering I removed every single characterbiography from the article and replaced it with from what I could translate from the other language pages. However, he's begun saying that the work of fiction cannot be used as a source for information on itself because of the reader being some sort of interpretative filter, which was in response to JGP's suggestion that both the fansite and Wikipedia use the show as a source so the information is inherently the same. Delaluz stopped being collaborative the minute he began that discussion on the talk page, and has since merely been here to spread vitriol from a heated discussion I had with the webmaster a year ago (if Delaluz is not the webmaster himself).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution seems to be working. He may be heated in his assertions, but he seems to be accepting that the weight of opinion is against him. (I gather the WP:3O response was not as he anticipated.) I'm keeping an eye on the article, but I suspect that this one is probably winding down. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How to open an Arbcom case correctly?

It was decided upon in the ANI discussion that resulted in admin wheel warring and multiple users being at odds with each other, that an Arbcom case was necessary to resolve this entire thing. There was also an Emergency Desysop enacted on User:Tanthalas39 because of his actions in the dispute and his unblocking of himself. I don't know how that would also factor into the Arbcom case about the rest of it.

...how do I do this? Silverseren^C 02:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There's probably no longer any need to open a case, as the emergency desysop has already happened: ArbCom will be aware. You can find the instructions for requesting an arbitration here, but please be aware that ArbCom proceedings are long and tiring. In this case, there will be an almost automatic request for arbitration by someone else, so you might as well wait and see what happens, and then add your comments once someone else has done the bureaucratic side. Physchim62 (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that got messy. :O I have never opened an Arbcom case (and only that I recall ever commented in one), but I suspect that Physchim62 is right on the money with this one. No emergency, and almost certainly going to be filed by somebody pretty quickly. If you want to file anyway, I'd recommend first reading over Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration and then heading over to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_arbitration. And then I'd look at a closed case or two for some additional guidance on formatting and conduct. Grabbing at random cases dealing with people from 2009, I picked up this and this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think i'm going to let User:White Shadows open it instead. I think he'd know more about the procedure for doing so than I. Silverseren^C 11:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(edit conflict)Tempest in a teapot, methinks. Let ArbCom rule by motion if they believe there's something actionnable. Otherwise, a round of trouting for everyone involved should be enough. Nothing good can come out of making an ArbCom case out of this, except to demonstrate once more that WP:CIVIL is ineffective and impossible to enforce in a standard, sane and disengaging manner. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think when someone starts using curse words in any derogatory fashion, action should be taken. Silverseren^C 11:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And as far as I can see, it already has. Has any of this defused the situation in the least? Not that I saw. What do you mean to achieve with an ArbCom case, exactly? MLauba ^(Talk) 11:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Caution: Political speech.

I find this situation interesting, but I'm not sure if it's going to result in anything. I think we do need some better idea of how to handle WP:CIVIL and its related WP:NPA, but I personally have no real ideas what that might be. :) Philisophically, I support these policies. There's no reason we can't be professional here in our interactions, and permitting contributors to behave aggressively and disrespectfully (I believe) has the potential to really damage the project, both in its internal functions and its reputation among outsiders (both of which can discourage new, productive participants). If that were the prevailing mood of Wikipedia, I wouldn't be here. (Occasional conflict is inevitable, but I don't enjoy it or seek it out.) WP:BATTLE is poisonous. Not the policy, but the position it describes. :D

I'm inclined to think the biggest stumbling blocks of enforcing behavioral policies, though, are differences in interpretation, tolerance and application. I've seen people fly off the handle at what I would consider very minor rudeness, while others have not batted an eye at what looks like egregious abuse to me. And I've seen people get away with levels of behavior that other contributors are called to account for. The remedy for this? No clue. But the problems with enforcing behavioral policies are also poisonous, reinforcing the perception of cliques and causing good faith contributors to feel marginalized and devalued—both those who feel unfairly punished by a standard that they feel is not evenly applied and those who feel inadequately protected by the same. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm fully in favour of strictly civil interactions with other editors, and in that sense the policy isn't an issue either. The problems start when defining what uncivility is - "bugger" might be uncivil in Salt Lake City, whereas in London it may be barely less polite than "good day". Add a global community with various levels of English to that, and the whole "easy & quick" area of swearwords becomes already impossible to police.

But the problems don't stop here. Take civility warnings, in most cases it's impossible to deliver those without being uncivil yourself, and in the vast majority of cases, at least to me, the lecturing tone used to "warn" the subject is grossly rude, even if it only uses words you could use in polite society everywhere.

Consistent failure to AGF is another example of extremely uncivil behaviour that is however almost never addressed as such. I could go on forever.

I don't know whether it is by accident or by design, but last time I checked, my block pull-down menu still didn't have WP:CIVIL as a block reason, and it's both a good thing and reflective of the core issue with civility enforcement by block - it's impossible to do because establishing a standard is impossible.

I draw the line with personal attacks, though. And in that sense, for instance, "get the bugger off my talk page" is not a personal attack, but a civility lecture often treads into that territory. </rant>MLauba ^(Talk) 12:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't getting you wrong, just launching into my own confused thinking on the topic in general. :) I've thought about this before, but, as I said, I don't know the answer. I certainly agree with you wholeheartedly about differences in regional definition, which is part of what I meant with interpretation. Culturally, what I've been conditioned to think of as "polite" others may (and do) consider mealy-mouthed. Whereas I know that there are some cultures that consider my "polite" unacceptably direct and rude. And informing contributors of standards is, as you say, a whole other problem. Even if we could clearly define standards and even if we could communicate them politely and without being condescending, we still run the risk of arousing defensiveness and escalating the problem we're trying to avoid. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hyett/Kemp

Hi, Moonriddengirl - User:Physchim62 has stated that "I can happily confirm that the temp page for Frank Hyett is free from all possible copyright violations." If you can check out the Elise Kemp temp page when you have a chance, hopefully it will pass muster and we can close this particular chapter. Thanks for everything. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As I said above, I'm leaving the final consideration of these to another admin. Fresh eyes are a good thing. :) Hopefully, you won't have to wait much longer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with Kemp. Not entirely sure with the earliest portions of the rewrite, so I revdeleted it just in case. The final version appears clear and is now back in main space. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

• Book review: Review of The World and Wikipedia

• News and notes: iPhone app update, Vector rollout for May 13, brief news

• In the news: Government promotes Tamil Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject U.S. Roads

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Article copied from 1947 US journal

Hi - would you please take a look at Talk:John Moultrie, Lieutenant Governor of East Florida under Governor Grant. It's copied from a 1947 journal, the question is do we assume the copyright wasn't renewed or not. I've already deleted one article by this editor as pure copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. I hate these. :/ Here's our Catch-22: we don't assume with copyright, but proving a negative (not renewed) is pretty tough. I suspect that it's pd simply because the entire journal is available at google books. But I've blanked it and will try to poke around to see if I can find out anything more concrete. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, looks like I don't need to worry about that one anymore. ? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently another admin decided it was worth deleting right away. Well, I was the one who tagged it in the first place, so obviously I don't have a problem with it just disappearing. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So now I have a related question: While working through CCI:JHawk88 I came across some copied content which is originally from a 1931 book. I decided to poke around and found some copyright renewal databases that are searchable and didn't find it. What do you think of using {{PD-old-text}} and citing a couple of empty renewal searches as references for it being public domain content now? The searches are Google and Stanford but unofficial. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm always uneasy with content post-1923, but I think that could work (but also check [30], if you have not, and it occurs to me to wonder if this is linked at WP:PD; will check directly). If it comes up at WP:CP, I almost always rewrite on the "when in doubt" principle, but I know that the vast majority of 1931 books are out of copyright. Proving it is just a pain. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and attributed it with 3 cites which turn up nothing for renewals. I know that with CCI it's more often presumed violation, but after considering the above situation overnight, I understand that we can't assume that it's PD, but I'm thinking that there could be some standard of evidence where it's presumed that the negative is proved and three separate reliable sources seems reasonable (to me at least). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, too, and I'd probably handle it the same way in CCI or if I randomly encountered it on article patrol. My handling at CP is a bit different. While I'm not a lawyer, I have enough professional experience with the law (and, no, I'm not in prison, either :D) to have become somewhat paranoid. When I clear something at CP, I want to have good (as in "legally defensible") reasons for doing so to avoid getting called before a court that says I had good reason to know of the infringing activity (a "copyright problem" template and a specific source) and that I contributed to it (by removing the "copyright problem" template and restoring it to publication). Putting a "pd" template on the article and a note at the talk page explaining why I believe it to be PD? That's a bit different. (That said, I would not definitively declare it PD unless I could prove it! And I would never myself use a book that I could not prove was PD.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about the "legally defensible" aspect. My legal experience is heavily weighted towards establishing prima facie cases, so (apparently) that's how I approach things here. I'll have to keep in mind that a different approach is required to avoid contributory infringement once something goes beyond the level of CCI. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIVACY

Hi

I have a question about WP:PRIVACY - I have been looking at some NPOV edits on Kingston University made by 67.84.177.67 (talk · contribs), who after a bit of off wiki research, I believe has a a major WP:COI, however in order to prove that, I would end up having to name the person I think is behind the edits. Is this a breach of the WP:PRIVACY ? and either way what should I do ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid that could be a problem. As per WP:COI, which both clarifies and suggests the remedy:

Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themself discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identify themself or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.

I think you'd have two options. You could take this to WP:NPOVN and just not raise the issue of conflict. Lack of neutrality could be sufficient. Or you could take it to WP:COIN and rely solely on on-Wiki behavioral evidence. Either way, the purpose is to attract other contributors who are experienced in keeping content neutral to assist in evaluating and guiding. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker)There is no outing needed at all, the POV is quite apparent. Second-guessing and discussing other people's intentions and identities isn't going to improve the article in any fashion. I suggest going the WP:RFPP route if the problem continues. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the advice - I must admit to missing that bit on the WP:COI page - good job I asked. I will start off with the WP:COIN rout first for no other reason that I have been there before. Codf1977 (talk)

It's easy to miss bits. There are so, so many of them. :/ That's one reason why it's good to have lots of people around. :) Happy if I can help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE : I have now requested page protection @ WP:RFPP. Codf1977 (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

More Moutray copyvio

At [31] and [32]. The original article was many times longer, I think 1.5 mb until someone noticed it, cut it heavily and userfied it. I recognise some of the copyvio I've deleted, and can see more. I think both of these pages should be deleted, there is clear evidence the author doesn't care or know about copyright violation and is just copying wholesale from anything he can find. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Earwig's tool hits paydirt of the second page here: [33]. No time to investigate further today. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic, but any chance someone can tell me what tool you're referring to? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You bet! I'm just about to use it myself. [34]. His other one does not yet work, I don't think. At least, it doesn't for me. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't spend any more time on this yet, as it looks as though when the editor returns from his block he's going to self-destruct. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Moonriddengirl, I have a question of whether Not-so-interesting 1985 email about the John Hauser Unabomber case this is a copyviolation. The person who posted it removed the email addresses but some of the headers are still there. I haven't removed them, yet, because I'm not sure it is a violation of copyright. I could really use your expertise on this. :) Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll be right there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it and explained why there. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, you are so quick with these questions. I'll go take a look at your explanation so that next time, if there is a next time, I'll know what to do. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You are the best at helping with copyright problems and go out of your way to help fix any problems. Thank you for all the help you give the project. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very nice of you. :D I'm happy if I can help. I know when I run into a problem in an area I don't work, I'm constantly asking for help. For that matter, I ask for help even in areas where I do work. Wikipedians collaborate well. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Trust me, I'll probably be back asking more in no time! :) Have a good day and happy editing, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I told you I'd be back but I really didn't expect it to be this soon! :) Ok, here's the problem as I see it. This user is blocked for a week for copyright issues. I think it's a good block by the way though I'm unsure of the length of the block since this was the second time a copyvio was found. Now I don't know how you go about seeing editors using copy/pasting to articles to show that it's a copyright issue or I would do this myself. Vsmith has aparently caught this editor twice for this kind of violation which can be see by the conversation on the talk page. There is a CC sanction page and this editor has been brought there many times for issues about his editing skills. Now if you go to the user page you will see, even though this editor, in my opinion is an inexperienced editor who needs to learn more, has written or help write like a dozen articles. I thought that maybe his edits should now all be checked for violations in regards to copyright. I don't know how far Vsmith delved into this editors history of edits. So, here I am, to bring it to your attentions so you can decide if further inquiries into the editing practices of this editor is needed. I totally trust you will do whatever is needed that is best for the project. If you feel nothing further needs to be done, I am fine with that. I just feel more comfortable bringing this to you since you do know what is best for the project in regards to this kind of matter. As always, thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks!! I'm really full tonight though, I'll eat the cake to tomorrow! Cheers! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks also for my cake! (in case you missed my reply on my talk) CTJF83 chat 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are both welcome, and I hope you enjoyed your birthdays. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Charlotte Marsh came up on SCV today and the creator User:Bandalore appears to be the owner of the website it was taken from (See Talk:Alan Myers (translator), User talk:JLaTondre/Archive 5#Deletion of George Burton Hunter, and response to a previous CSB tagging). Any chance you could expedite the usual week wait and see if there's any verification of this that's usable verification/permission/whatchamacallit? VernoWhitney (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. I'll let you know what I find. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. I did a system search for "Alan Myers" and myersnorth.co.uk, and I found nothing. I also searched for Bandalore and "George Burton Hunter." Nothing. I've blanked George Burton Hunter and will speak to him about how to verify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Require your assistance regarding Jean-Pierre Fenyo

Not sure what approach to take here. Apparently CorenSearchBot tagged it as a copyvio but the author completely disagrees and keeps removing the notice (it was also apparently determined to be a false positive? on the Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2010-05-03 list). Then he posts a message on the talk page which brings up COI and attribution issues. The article itself is a blatantly promotional puff-piece but I believe the subject itself is notable and it could be salvaged, however we need to deal with these copyvio/COI/attribution issues first before we go ahead and stubbify it. I'm unsure how to proceed and could use your talents in this area. :) -- œ^™ 03:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll do the copyright check now. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's early yet, but I don't see any current copyvio. More of the New Yorker piece is visible at [35]. In addition, I ran it through Earwig's scanner and only found a few close hits to the subject's own website. Not that those are okay. :) But what was close enough to be a problem is already gone (from sidebar at [36]).

I've removed one unusable source (he can't prove that he predicted Obama & Biden by linking to a mock RS cover he created), added a few fact tags and some general tags. You're welcome to clean up the article yourself if you want to. Or you could list it at WP:COIN. It needs to be neutralized. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Backup Wiki pages.

Hi

Me again.

Copyright / CC-BY-SA 3.0 License question.

Is it appropriate to keep 'Backup' copies of deleted pages on a user or talk page ? as they will not have the History ?

For example - User:HHR or his (now blanked) Talk page - it was deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of debaters.

I don't know who HHR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is, however it could be a stale sock account of Singopo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Codf1977 (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, from a copyright standpoint, the question is whether there's creative material in the lead there that was contributed by other people. If so, the history needs to be joined to it. But per WP:UP#COPIES, it should probably go regardless. It hasn't been touched since September 2009, and the contributor hasn't edited (soick or not). Perhaps you should consider an WP:MFD? If you decide not to, let me know, and I'll look into the attribution question. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have gone the MfD route - see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:HHR and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:HHR. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction. Codf1977 (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. :) If consensus goes for keep, we'll tackle attribution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Palmerston Forts Society

Hi Moonriddengirl, I'm afraid I only seem to come here with bad news and this time won't be an exception! I've noticed that quite a few articles tied to the Palmerston Forts, Isle of Wight look like cut and paste jobs from their own sources (which are mainly fortlog datasheets produced by the Palmerston Forts Society). The specific ones I've noticed are:

• Nodes Point Battery
• Steynewood Battery
• Culver Battery
• Bembridge Fort
• Redcliff Battery
• Sandown Barrack Battery
• Cliff End Battery

While not being absolute copies, there are enough complete paragraphs to raise my eybrows a bit. A few others aren't quite as bad, but definately seem to include at least a lot of complete sentences (if not paragraphs):

• Freshwater Redoubt
• Hatherwood Battery
• Puckpool Battery
• Sandown Fort

The source of the copies is listed in the reference section of each article, so its easy to compare them. I'd welcome your infinately more experienced opinion on them as there's quite a few, and the same editor seems to be involved in them all.... Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad news is typically what I get. :D But, then, it's also typically what I give, so I have no room to complain. I'm happy to help. I'll be over to take a look soon. I'm doing a bit of maintenance work on my out-of-control watchlist. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

On a similar theme, I've noticed a lot of similar text between this article - Western Yar - and its primary source, the Isle of Wight Council page. I'm afraid it seems to be the same editor who's added most of the material as well (I assure you I'm actually researching this stuff at the mo and not stalking!). Ranger Steve (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Lost my internet connection for hours! Torture! It's not stalking when you notice an issue to follow up on it. In fact, it's kind of a good thing, especially when it comes to copyright. As WP:AGFC, our assumption of good faith is that other editors intend to comply; we can't presume that they have done so. :/ Now that I'm back online, I'll finish with the two left hanging above and then glance at this new one. It may be that a more thorough review will be necessary if this involves other sources as well as the cc-by-nc-nd one you noted above. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. My connection is flickering in and out. :/ Having left notes for the contributor explaining the situation, I think I'd better try to take care of some of the outstanding issues at CP. I'm frantically trying to get ready for a two week vacation (preparing for which seems to be generating a month's worth of extra work!), and this is seriously undermining my Wikipedia time. :/ If you see any more issues that would suggest a pattern of misunderstanding, this may need a WP:CCI. If the first source were not cc-by-nc-nd, we'd already be there, but it is possible that he thought the material was compatibly licensed. Either way, he cites his sources, so even if there is misunderstanding of how liberally we may reuse previously published content, he's obviously well-intentioned. I know you haven't said or even implied otherwise, but since my page has a couple of watchers, I just wanted to be clear. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Having seen their contributions here and on wikicommons I'm quite certain that there's no malicious intent. I'm afraid my knowledge of copyright stuff is limited to © and a pulsating headache though (hence my being eternally grateful for editors such as yourselves)! Would it be safe to assume that the content currently in the articles isn't going to be workable? If not I'll get writing on some new stuff (I have a few other sources to use as well). Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've blanked all of the first eight except one, which I've tagged as a "close paraphrase." They all need to be rewritten. I've just removed the content from the other article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have done a little bit of extra looking at some of the articles I know a bit about on the user's list of created articles. Unfortunately there do seem to be some more issues of at least borrowing heavily from sources (I really don't want to gauge them or decide what the threshold should be). For example, the Classic Boat Museum borrows quite a bit from this source (for the history) and this source (for the collections). Likewise, the Tennyson Trail route description borrows heavily from the PDF listed at the bottom of the references. Round the Island Race is better, but still borrows a bit from source number 3 (although realistically I wouldn't have noticed this if it wasn't for all the other articles). Sorry to keep flogging this, thought it worth mentioning given your suggestion above. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not flogging it at all, just establishing if a WP:CCI is necessary. Just to make sure that fresh eyes look into this, I've asked another one of the admins who works WP:CP to take a look at these. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Fresh eyes are a good idea - I think I need to stop looking now, my views are probably (unavoidably) a little coloured. If you fancy a fresh inquiry in the meantime (and y'know, run out of things to do before your holiday), I can give you a challenge for your Wikicommons account! Ranger Steve (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my. :O I may look into it later, but if I can I want to review some of the material listed at User talk:Moonriddengirl/sandbox. I need to make sure everything has a valid FUR. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

lol, I'd go on holiday now! Anyways, election's killing me - G'night. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Fresh eyes here, checked Classic Boat Museum, indeed problematic, tagged. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I thought I'd have a look with less bleary eyes this morning, and assessed an article I know nothing about. I compared Victoria Park, Portsmouth against its sources and found a few examples of similar issues.

The article says:

When the old fortifications around Portsea and the Dockyard of Portsmouth were levelled, vast areas of open space became available for development of the city. Twelve and a half acres of land was then obtained by the Corporation from the War Office and designated for use as a "people's park". The original layout of the park was designed by Alexander McKenzie, but has since been redesigned in the past 130 years.

Source 3 says:

When the old fortifications around Portsea and the Dockyard were levelled, 12 and a half acres of land was obtained by the Corporation from the War Office for a "peoples park".

Source 1 says:

The original layout of Victoria Park was designed by Alexander McKenzie, but has been modified over the last 130 or so years.

The article says:

The park is a clear example of late-19th century municipal landscaping with sections of vegetation screening the park from surrounding roads and buildings. A collection of monuments were moved to the park from various sites around the city including a miniature marble chinese temple of 1899-1902 commemorating HMS Orlando.

Source 4 says:

The park is a fine example of late-19th century municipal landscaping with belts of vegetation screening the park from surrounding roads and buildings. A collection of monuments were moved to the park from various sites around the city, including a miniature marble Chinese temple of 1899-1902 commemorating the HMS Orlando.

The article says:

The centre of Victoria Park features a large enclosed area containing an aviary with peacocks, parrots, cockatiels and other exotic birds. An area next to this contains mammals such as rabbits and guinea pigs which are available to feed by members of the public.

Source 3 says:

At the centre of the park is an enclosed area containing an aviary with peacocks, parrots and other exotic birds. An adjacent area contains small mammals such as rabbits and guinea pigs which children enjoy feeding. Contained within the park but primarily towards the eastern entrance there is a large collection of memorials and monuments connected to the Royal Navy.

There are other sections that seem original enough, but what's above is a fair chunk of the article. As before the article is reasonably well cited, but seems to borrow a little heavily from the original prose of the sources. Admittedly I'm not particularly hot on these copyright issues so I doubt that normally I would have worried about (or even noticed) this example - I'm not even convinced it is actually a problemlematic example, but in light of the above issues I thought it worth sharing. The pattern I think I'm seeing is that the user is genuinely expanding/creating articles using the sources, but perhaps relies too much on the original prose leaving his/her own work perhaps... er... lacking in originality or imagination (meant in the nicest possible way). Whether this warrants a CCI I'll allow others to decide, but I firmly believe this is a genuine error (and not the malice of forethought) that I imagine has left the user quite mortified. Feel a bit bad about that... : \ Ranger Steve (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand feeling a bit bad about it. Been there, done that. :) I think most of the copyright problems that I run into are good faith errors, and in this case agree with you wholeheartedly that there's no malice. We try to keep that in mind with copyright work. The WP:CCI page itself reinforces that: "Some contributors violate copyright from misunderstanding of copyright policies or laws. While it may be necessary to intervene to prevent future copyright issues, it is not necessary or helpful to treat individuals listed here discourteously." It's meant to be a low-fuss, low-drama way to check for issues and address them.

I'm looking at an RfC at the moment, but wanted to respond initially to thank you for taking your time to look into this. I'll review it more completely in a few minutes and will probably open a CCI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It closed while I was writing. :) I can look into it more now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur that a CCI is probably the way forward here, if only for completeness' sake.MLauba ^(Talk) 12:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested (for somebody less involved to evaluate). Now to notify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help Moonriddengirl, it really is much appreciated having editors like yourself (and your watchers and all the folks at CCI - which I'd never even heard of before). I'll keep an eye out for the evaluation (if it happens before your holiday can you give me a shout?). I'll try and rewrite some articles this weekend, time allowing. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You did most of the work here. :) And yes, I will happily let you know if it happens before my holiday. CCI was created for exactly this kind of situation, and as I said we try to keep it low drama. If you didn't know about it, we must be succeeding. :D At the same time, the process board is becoming a bit more widely known, which is good. We have over two dozen archived completed investigations, but we have about the same number open. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please enforce your previous ruling in template redundancy issue (edit war prevention)

Hi, you made a ruling in an extensive discussion in February, 2010 regarding the use of official and alternate names in geographic templates here Mures (Maros) County

Your summary of the discussion was this: Consensus of responders is that this template (ie. separate template with Hungarian names beside the already existing template with official Romanian names) should not be used. Romanian is the official language for the area, but several sympathetic to the need to recognize the prevalence of Hungarian alternate names for the locality support a single, bilingual template at Template:Mureş County. It is also suggested that a list may be appropriate. There is no prejudice against implementing either or both of these alternatives.

Further to your decision, similar decisions were made here [37]
(Trencsén District)
(Dunaszerdahely district)
(Tőketerebes district)

The dispute was intensive, however, a consensus was reached and respected until now. Now, the discussion is re-opened by Iadrian yu editor here Template:Mureş County .

Please, review the situation and make a decision if necessary. I think the template in its current form reflects consensus, provide prominence to official names, however, gives access to alternate names as weel, so it does not show any nationalistic excess. Thank you. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Just to clarify: I didn't make a ruling regarding the use of official and alternate names in geographic templates; I judged consensus of the contributors to discussion about that template. I didn't set policy or a new guideline, and without judging how a new discussion would go, I have to point out that consensus can change. Beyond that, I really don't have time to look into this right now, I'm afraid. But fortunately there are plenty of admins, and one of them will evaluate the situation when the new discussion comes to a close. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

question

Hello Moonriddengirl, Can you protect a page? The Invasion of Normandy [38] gets a lot of vandal activity. I've asked on the notice board before to please protect it for longer, but it never gets it. I think this page is something high schoolers look at. Maybe that's why it gets so much vandal traffic. Thanks, Malke2010 21:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi.:) I myself would not protect the article without a bit more immediate vandalism than it has been receiving. Obviously, protection can interfere with more than just vandals; it would have prevented this good faith edit as well. :/ I realize that this one is a vandal magnet; there are a few articles I routinely monitor for the same reason (like Holy Grail). If it is subject to an increase, it may be worth revisiting it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe you could keep it on your watchlist? I'm sure you have lots on there already but if you could manage it, I would appreciate it. Thanks, :)Malke2010 01:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I just trimmed it from over 2,000 to just under 600 articles (excluding talk), but I'll try.:) Note, though, that I'm going to be missing in action for most of the back end of May. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks. Also, semi-protection only blocks the IP's right? They're usually the vandals. It shouldn't block people w/accounts, right?Malke2010 01:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it blocks "new" accounts, too. Basically anyone who is less than four days old and with fewer than 10 edits under the belts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That's too bad. Maybe Jimbo could be persuaded to change that rule.Malke2010 02:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Need your help with OTRS

If you're not too busy, could you take a look at User talk:Wikieditaccount88 and see if you can find the email he/she sent? Thank you, Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The email. There are some issues though (the standard it is free to use but not under a license), and I'm running off. Sorry I can't handle it. NW (Talk) 21:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've left a note on the user's talk explaining the situation. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Another email has been sent. Can you (NW or Moonriddengirl) see if you can find it? Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've merged the tickets. I'm loathe to pick it up personally because if it doesn't resolve quickly, I won't be here to handle it. As far as I can see, the facebook page where the picture was originally published is no longer live. Do you know if it is actively published anywhere else? If it is, we need to make sure that she is connected to that point of publication. If not, the release should be fine. (Note that I may not be back online today. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think the image is available anywhere else. I think reason that we can't see the photo on Facebook is that were not "friends" with her. I'll ask NW to handle it. Theleftorium ^(talk) 12:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take care of it; it's not a problem. NW (Talk) 15:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Yesterday I was at a graduation (requiring a cumulative 7 hour drive!), and I'm desperately trying to keep things up to date as I get ready for my vacation. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS and Strange Image Copyright Issues

Hey there. We spoke last month regarding the image [39]. It became clear that the permission wasn't enough and I was wondering if there was an update on it. The reason I bring it up is because the User User:Chiefmanzzz who created it, is now uploading more images of this ilk, but labelling them as he created them themselves, and saying they're Dick Kline. However previously they claimed to not be Dick Kline and that they had gotten permission from him. Needless to say I'm starting to think not all is as it seems here, the user is claiming one personage, and then uploading images stating another. Any thoughts?Canterbury Tail talk 22:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Feh. It's complicated because the image was published in several places prior to its placement here. There is no doubt that Kline himself approves their use. It's just a matter of covering all bases and making sure there are no other copyright claims outstanding. We've got clearance from one of the former publishers and are still awaiting response from the other.

I don't quite know what to make of this. Rather than suspect that this person has been Kline all along, I'd be more worried that they might be using it as a role account, without being aware that this is not permitted. There is no doubt that Chiefmanzzz has worked in concert with Kline, so I would not doubt he has permission. But he needs to be advised that if Kline wishes to upload material directly, he'll need his own account.

Can you let him know? I'm in the frantic last legs of preparing for a two-week Wiki (and real world) break, and I've already got a three day backlog at WP:CP to address. :/ I'd like to have that as current as possible before I leave! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have words, that's fine. Go and enjoy your vacation, you need it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm not officially cut off from all contact until Thursday but might not have much Wikipedia time in the meantime. Still, if you need me before then, please let me know. I'll probably be hitting "my watchlist" right up until I'm dragged out the door. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We will frown if we see you editing in the two week period after Thursday, and you wouldn't wish to be responsible for furrowing our brows, MRG. Have a very good break from it all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks. :) I would most definitely prefer to furrow no brows! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Australian National University

Hi,

Can you have a look at the Establishment of $111.7 million Public Policy Precinct section of Australian National University - it has been copy and pasted but less sure about about copyvio.

Thanks (again) Codf1977 (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of a gray area, but consensus on Wikipedia has always been that press releases are not fair game. I've rewritten it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

CCI:Attilios

I was working through my daily allotment of wonderful paintings to clean and came across OTRS permission on one of the articles. Any chance you can check on that and see how extensive the permission is? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

On it. :) BRB. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Under today's procedures, it might not be a usable license as it is somewhat vague, but it makes specific reference to the following articles only:

• Narcissus (Caravaggio)
• The Baptism of Christ (Verrocchio)
• Madonna with Sts John the Baptist and Donatus (Verrocchio)
• Saint Madeleine (Caravaggio)

The OTRS agent who processed it said she had noted the ticket # on each relevant article talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sad. I was hoping it would be an across the board license and we could just mark off the whole CCI. Any chance you can figure out with your other OTRS cohorts (or just make a fiat judgement) whether thouse four can be marked as clean or not? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice. How about holding off on further work on that one for now, and I'll write the guy who sent the release? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. There're always more CCIs to work on. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, yes. :) And I'm falling behind! I'm getting ready for a two week break, and people at my day job are demanding way too much attention. :P Needy people. For my own future reference, I've written, and I'm using the existing ticket: Ticket:2005111210002641. Maybe we'll get a blanket release out of it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So much for a broad release. I'll mark those four as clean in the CCI. Thanks for following up on that. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It was worth a shot! I'm glad you found the OTRS ticket so I could follow up. I'll mark it at CP after I close out today. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

So apparently even those four are likely copyright violations, since the website copies their material from elsewhere to begin with. A friendly art buff saw one of my blankings and alerted me to this, and even went as far as finding some confirmed copyvio in one of the four "clean" ones. (Watch the drama unfold at User talk:VernoWhitney#Web Gallery of Art.) VernoWhitney (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Eep! Totally missed this. :/ I'll go look at the drama now, though my lag is equal to about a billion years in Wikipedia time. If you ever think I haven't noticed something, please feel free to shout "HEY!" in some friendly manner. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Only Fools and Horses episodes

Hi, Moonriddengirl. What are our options when dealing with an article that is breaching copyright? List of Only Fools and Horses episodes appears to be doing just that. I've checked a few random summaries with those at the BBC's website, such as Fatal Attraction episode summary, Mother Nature's Son summary (including the poor grammar!), Sleepless in Peckham summary, Ashes to Ashes.. I haven't checked all 63 episodes, but I'm guessing they're all the same. Do we blank the page, remove the summaries and leave the titles, directors, writers, etc, or is there some other way of dealing with it? Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) First thing I do in these cases is remove the epiose summaries. I've found it may be useful to paste in place of each a hidden comment: something like <!--Episode summaries cannot be copied from other sources; see talk-->. For the edit summary on removal, I'd put "copyright problem removed. PLEASE DO NOT RESTORE. See talk." Then on the talk page, I'd place {{Plot2}} and probably (given the extensiveness) {{cclean}}. If a registered contributor keeps reintroducing this text, then I'd try listing the page at WP:CP and using the {{copyvio}} template. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

re-deleted War of the Independents page

Hi, lol My War of the Independents page was deleted again and I received over 50 emails from fans concerning it this morning. I'm a little concerned about what's happening. May I have it restored again please. Thanks! DavidWilliamRyan (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Dave davidwryan2002@yahoo.com

Hi. I'm sorry, but this time I can't help you. I explained to you when I restored it that the article would almost certainly be nominated for deletion through a different process (User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 21#War of the Independents). It has now been deleted by community consensus and cannot be recreated without resolving the issues that led to its deletion. While deletion debates that have been closed incorrectly may be challenged (See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion review), this one was pretty clear cut and will probably not be overturned. The debate took place here, and I did suggest you might want to keep an eye on the article. It was tagged for a full week with notice of the debate to allow all interested contributors to weigh in with reason why it should be deleted or retained, but unfortunately the only people who responded to that notice agreed that deletion was the proper outcome.

While the content may be retrievable at some point as the basis for a new article, it is not likely to be accepted on Wikipedia without substantial third party coverage verifying that the book meets notability guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Links to wysinger.homestead.com which is full of copyvio

See [40]. This site is full of copyvio, whole newspaper articles, journal articles as pdfs, etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! So it is. I grabbed one at random (Merhotepre Ini) and find it links to [41]. No reason whatsoever to believe that this content is licensed. :/ Some of it does seem to be PD. I may not have time to help out with this too much at the moment, as I'm getting ready for a two week wiki break starting Thursday. It might be worth raising this on WP:ELN? Perhaps contributors there would help with cleanup? If the ratio of copyvio to PD is unacceptably high, User:XLinkBot might be at least a good starting point. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking what a good idea, then I realised that these aren't external links. I think XLinkBot is appropriate here, as the site itself is the problem, I don't think we should link to the site even if it has some PD stuff, what say you? Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, maybe clean up first and then XLinkbot? Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that we need caution. XLinkBot will only block unconfirmed and unregistered accounts, but I'm not sure if the ratio of copyvio is sufficient to warrant blacklisting the site from use by everyone. And cleanup can go either way; XLinkBot doesn't concern itself with what's already there, only what's newly added. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the site is ok as a convenience link? I can't see how this site is an RS, it's just a bunch of links and stored articles -- and is described in a number of places as a "Scientologist site on democracy and political philosophy". You can't actually get into the site so far as I can tell. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; I haven't had time to look at it, so I don't know what's going on with it other than the one link that I followed and a few that looked to be US gov. If it seems completely unusable, the blacklist may be better than XLinkBot. It's meant for spam, but I know copyright problem sites have been listed before. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

hi

i just wanted to say i think your user page is pretty cool. i think its nice how you review people's edits and everything. Decora (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Some people have very pretty user pages, but I'm afraid my talents don't go that way. :) I try mostly to keep mine informative. Sometimes it's more fun writing articles of my own than reviewing other people's edits, but at least I learn a lot. And it's not so different than how I started. When I first decided to contribute to Wikipedia, I didn't know what to write about, so I would just hit "random article" and contribute to whatever I found! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about attribution

Hi, Somewhere, I formed the impression that you are an expert on issues, especially attribution, that arise when copying material form another article. If I’m wrong, feel free to ignore this request. An editor posted a question at the Help desk on this subject. I misread the question at first, but after I understood the question, I attempted to answer. However, neither the person asking nor I feel I gave a complete answer. I think that, other than merge, split or transwiki issues, the answer is to use the Summary Style, and never to wholesale copy and paste, but I’m hoping someone with more experience in this area can give a more definitive answer. Enjoy your Holiday.--SPhilbrickT 17:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Answered at the help desk and will watch there in case there are further questions for this topic. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)