Jump to content

User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

René Guénon

What isn't OR in this 100Kb article is plagiarised from the subject's books. Now although he died in 1951, his books have been re-translated recently, eg this one [1] which has been copied to use in the article. As a translation, isn't it a fresh copyright? If it is, I think the best thing is just to stub it, it's just an OR textbook right now on his works anyway. I don't think anyone can go through the article just dealing with the copyvio stuff if I'm right about it still being in copyright. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll just give a short answer regarding the copyright issues, as I don't feel like digging into the rest of the article. Yes, a fresh translation has a fresh copyright, as well as the copyright issues regarding derivative works from the original publication. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Help me

Hello Moonriddengirl/Archive 23 I am राम प्रसाद जोशी from Nepal. My old acount is blocked at http://ne.wikipedia.org so that I open a new acount. My new user name is User:राम प्रसाद जोशी. I want make my old user page (User:Rameshti) and old talk page (User talk:Rameshti) to new user page (User:राम प्रसाद जोशी) but I can not move this page. please help me. --राम प्रसाद जोशी (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl is currently away. I have moved your question to your talk page and added the help template. The template is used to request assistance. Cheers. — CactusWriter | needles 20:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Dornock

I've rewrote again, its allot shorter but avoids paraphrasing this time. If you have any free time, please have a quick look at it. Thanks, once again. And have a nice holiday :) Acather96 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi,Acather96. Thanks for reworking the article. I made a couple small tweaks to the text, but it looks to be free of copyvios now. Cheers. — CactusWriter | needles 03:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

John Andrew Rea

Enjoy your vaka ! I rewrote the two sections you flagged on the John Andrew Rea piece, and dropped citations in for the website and the Port of Takoma newsletter. Can you take a look when you return? Thanks! --Cmagha (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Cmagha.

Unfortunately, the John Andrew Rea page you have recreated is essentially the same article deleted by Moonriddengirl last week. Even specific language cited during the talk page discussion at that time remains in the article. (fx: one of the most colorful characters ever to walk the sidewalks of Tacoma. He dressed flamboyantly in a cutaway suit and white fedora, with a black bow tie and a rose in his lapel. For 50 years he strode daily from his home on North Fiftieth Street to his real estate office in the Perkins Building. is copied from [2]). I'm sorry, but because of this, it is necessary to delete the page again as a copyright violation. If you wish to create a page for Rea, I would suggest you work one up in your user space by rewriting the article without use of any copyrighted language. Then request a reading before moving the article into the mainspace. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask me. — CactusWriter | needles 02:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xenotalk 14:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you may have an idea

Offline potential copyvio discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parten's classic study of play. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In Moonriddengirl's absence, I took a look. Yes, the article is a copyright violation. I've tagged it and left a comment at the Afd. — CactusWriter | needles 06:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Hi

Another question- I am not sure about this one - is List of former chairmen of Cambridge University Conservative Association a copy vio of [3] - I think not but wanted to check.

Codf1977 (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No, a list of facts in chronological order can't be copyrighted. See also Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Theleftorium (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Auerbach wiki page

My name is David McElroy and I work with Stephen Auerbach, a filmmaker here in Los Angeles. I created his page and added a bio, which he gave me (perhaps from his own webpage). However, I was told you took it down. Why is that? I even added a note explaining that we have permission to use his bio, seeing how he's the one that created it. Can you please un-delete it and then email me back at superdavit@hotmail.com

Thanks for your help.


David McElroy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdavit (talk • contribs) 22:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It was deleted because you provided no verifiable proof that permission was granted, only your statement. You need to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials in order to provide verifiable permission before the page can be undeleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My 4000th edit

Also for you. ^_^ SilverserenC 04:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I am honored. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of CP Gurnani

I have nominated CP Gurnani, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CP Gurnani. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: as this one was edited back to copyvio status, must check the other articles by this contributor. They are likely to be problematic as well. Note for interested bystanders: while I did technically create the article, I did so more in my capacity as an uninvolved admin, since it had been multiply created as a copyvio. I won't involve myself in the AfD, because I do not want to lose my capacity as an uninvolved admin here. My only concern with this article and any that may relate to it is making sure that any text we use is legally ours, either because we wrote it or because it's cleared. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted the article back to the original text that you created it with, though i've kept the external links in the article, as they can still be used for expansion. SilverserenC 21:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. :) If he gives permission for the text (which I suspect he probably is in position to do), we can restore it later and let others figure out whether the new content is sufficiently neutral. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A little returning surprise

[4] Not sure how good it is, though. MER-C 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. A whole new potential source of problems! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Restoring content deleted in College of Mount St. Joseph article

Hi, I was wondering if you could please provide me with some direction on how to restore a large amount of content and images that were deleted in 2009 in the article about the College of Mount St. Joseph. I see now that some of the images I uploaded were missing copyright tags and that permissions needed to be specified for content that was similar to copy found on various subpages of www.msj.edu. Now that I am aware of this, I will be happy to take these steps and any others that would allow the deleted material to be restored in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Could you please let me know how to proceed from here? Thanks! Cliffwjenkins (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Presuming you are in position to grant use of the material personally, the procedure is listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not directly in position but feel you can probably obtain permission, you might want to read over instead Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If you are not the sole copyright owner of the text, it does not need to be released under both CC-By-SA and GFDL (as explained at your talk page); in that case, CC-By-SA is sufficient. These two licenses, though incompatible, are quite similar in that both permit modification of the content and commercial reuse, but require attribution and forbid others from trying to impose their own copyright on their modified versions. If you choose to verify permission via e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation, the agent who receives that mail should restore the content. (The e-mail system can become backlogged; if you let me know that you have sent such an e-mail, I'd be happy to intercept it if possible and try to expedite it.) If you choose to verify permission at the subject website, we can address the matter directly within Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!

At least WP:CP isn't backed up for the whole two weeks you were gone, only half of it. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you—both for the welcome and for helping keep things under control here and elsewhere! :) Naturally, I already had a glance (yes, headed over there and checked my watchlist before crashing for a couple of hours, but I think I can be forgiven. I had not been able to log in once! Not even once! Well, I did log in from an airport terminal as User:Moonriddengirl2, but it was weirdly dysfunctional, so I wasn't able to edit). I'm working off of about three hours sleep out of the last couple of days, but I expect that I'll be back in the full swing of things soon. Meanwhile, I'll avoid anything complex. I can think again, sort of, but I'm not sure I'd pass a field sobriety test! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! :) Theleftorium (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And thank you also for your help. :D There was a time that leaving Wikipedia for a couple of weeks would have filled me with despair, but knowing you guys were pitching in let me almost forget about it completely. ;) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WB. Sorry I've been a poor steward in your absence, I just returned to editing today. Flight delays suck. MLauba (Talk) 21:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and welcome back to you, too! Solidarity on the flight delays! On the way out, we had an unexpected 9 hour layover in an unscheduled airport due to "mechanical issues" with not only the plane we were on (which was grounded), but the one that they flew into replace it which failed to clear the final check! (And then, when they did get us a plane, they had to find a new flight crew since ours were no longer legal.) Hope your delays were not too bad. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Bearable inbound, 1 day outbound. Not my idea of fun :) MLauba (Talk) 22:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Input desired

So now that you've been welcomed back, I figure I'll co-opt your talk page. I've proposed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VWBot and would appreciate any feedback you or your legion of talk-page watchers have at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup#Another bot for the project?. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

<delighted gasp> You write bots? If I can follow the thread (since the ground is currently rocking for me :D), I'll post a note now. Otherwise, I'll get to it as soon as I make sense again! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't written it yet, and it's been a few years since I've done any serious programming, but I figure it would be nice to have some extra robotic help around here. And (obviously) feel free to wait until you're recovered, I just wanted to post this here now so I didn't forget. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I wasn't feeling rushed, just wanting to let you know what it might mean if I don't follow up on this but do on other stuff. :) I think it's a fab idea, but the conversation is complex enough that I figured I'd best leave it until I've had a little more sleep. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Userfy my page?

My page This_Is_How_You_Play was recently marked for speedy deletion. The wikipedia help page indicated that you were one of the users that could "userfy" my page. I'm a noob on wikipedia and I probably did something really wrong, but I spent a few hours creating the page so I wouldn't want it to go to waste. Could you please "userfy" this page so that I can work on it until it's ready to prime time? Thank you Christorea (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the enlightment

Well, the title says it all. Since I'm still new to Wikipedia, even though I've been contributing (not as much, since I'm a RC Patroller, a Tagger, and even a WikiGnome), I've still got things to learn about (I'll never know it all, so as everyone, though :P), I've still got some problems identifying some issues. Well, the template left in that User talk is not actually right, since it was a PROD, not an AfD, but Twinkle didn't have a warning for that, so I used up the one it was best suited to this problem. I admit it, I'm (sometimes) lazy to read the whole help article, assuming that I claim to understand the concept of the article, I let slip some stuff I was unaware of. I'm concerned about the future of this article, what will we do about it? Oh, and welcome back! FredZ (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, sounds like me, except that I'm a little bit stubborn, I try to research for help for myself, but when I'm beaten, I just go to Wikipedia's chat (I should stay in there more often :/) and ask for it. Yeah, when Wikipedia changed its lookout I was confused, it was all under a single arrow, I've got a TW tab and that familiar arrow, but I still get confused while trying to bring the TAGHAMMER (© 1970-1979 Chapulín Colorado, all rights reserved), don't waste time on thinking how it was lost, just install it back :P. Well, I actually was referring to knowledge itself, but, I think it applies for Wikipedia as well lol. But yeah, good to know there're a lot of people who cares to share a share of their knowledge (I can only help with grammar knowledge [even though I'm not an English speaker], and tagging). And good to know there ARE real people to talk with! o_O all those people I've been talking were bots (look at my user page, it's full of bots!). FredZ (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, the good old Wikibreak enforcer, I've tried to do it myself (see this and say, am I Wikiholic? Guess so, I'm not sure if that's good or bad xD), but I just can't, I keep coming back, besides, it was a little too extreme for me. I've been searching for new gadgets, but so far, the only ones I'm satisfied with are Twinkle and Friendly, they're just so... perfect. Yeah, from what I've read so far from Signpost (not much, actually), it's pretty good, I hope I can be at 'Approved this week' section some day (?), nah, I'm not really interested right now, although I might change my mind some day, but I always do things half-heartedly, so that's impossible :P. But so far, what matters to me is RC-lling and stuff, although I'd like to create a gadget like Twinkle, that has interested me since ever, but how can you surpass something that's already like this? FredZ (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

Could you take a look at the permission for Pietro Porcinai and see if it's sufficient? It should be at Ticket:2007032510012681. I cave easily to needy messages on my talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Sure. :) I'm on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it probably is, but I'm going to check with an agent fluent in Italian to be sure before saying so. It's not quite as specific as I like, I think, but I don't believe that it's unusably vague. I'll get back with you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong ticket number. Ticket:2007032710020669 covers the biography on that site. It also covers "la lista dei lavori", which may be his list of works, but could also be his publications. Contact a native speaker for that. It does not cover any photos from the site. I'm following up on that at Commons. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So since list of works/publications aren't really an issue, does thi means the article can be unblanked with the Ticket:2007032710020669 placed on it? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Google translate would suggest yes. :) I'll ping Chaser in case he's not watchlisting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Procon

Hello... sorry it took a while to answer your post. Unfortunately, there have been problems with the Procon site in the past year or so. I found a significant amount of spammed ELs and "references" (i.e. links posted as 2nd or 3rd references after existing in-line references, or as replacements for existing valid cites), as well as a number of single-purpose and low-activity accounts that were doing this. At the same time, I learned that Procon had actually sponsored a contest amongst its members to spur the creation of an article about the site, complete with a cash prize. Discussions about this problem led to the conclusion that, while the site was useful as a starting point, it should not be used as a reference source itself. Documents found there should be traced back to their original publisher. Hope this helps; I do realize that the regular Wikipedians who have placed these links did so in good faith, and sometimes the edit summary doesn't entirely convey that. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 15:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I've updated the article with links to the full text of the decision from Google Scholar. Procon only provides a summary, with no links to the actual decision (and thus no way to verify the conclusions). FYI, here's a link to their contest. --Ckatzchatspy 16:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You deserve another one of these

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For cleaning up more copyright problems in a single day than I have in the past week. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I rewrote the close paraphrase that I saw in Doug Gray, so the only thing I left on the 20th is possible OTRS permission for restoring some content to Li Yi (sociologist). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Verno! I couldn't possibly have accomplished as much as I did, though, if you and the others of the copyright cleanup crew hadn't been as on top of things as you were (there was a time that my absence meant that probably little or nothing would get done at CP), not only at SCV and CP but on my talk page. And, Silver seren, that's kind of exactly what I did. :) I was pretty wiped out by the time I finished, but I was determined to get as much done as I could. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Global Positioning System

I'm hoping Ckatz, who's involved with this article, can help, but on the article talk page I've noted some copyvio. I don't have time, or at least shouldn't, to do much on it. It's a very complex article and there may be quite a bit more. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

At a glance I agree with the complexity, particularly as you note there that it could be reverse infringement. I'll take a look a bit later when I'm up and fully operational. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Some letters to publishers might be in order it appears. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Need your help again

There has been a lot of information added to Serial Killer which I'm sorry to say looks like cut/paste entries. I'm not sure how to check to see if that is the case so here I am. I removed a lot of the new edits for lack of sources, undo weight and POV type comments. Would you mind taking a peek? Sections like 'Fantasy' just seem wrong. You can see the new edit is the history. There are like three or four new editors adding large chunks to the article. It shouldn't be hard to see which ones. I swear though that the new stuff looks like it was taken from somewhere else verbatim or at least close to verbatim. I may be wrong with this but the way the new items are written it really looks like a cut and paste addition. I would really appreciate it if you have time to take a look at the article and if I am right, remove the sections that shouldn't be there. If I'm wrong, I'll be more than happy to apologize for wasting your time. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure.  :) I'll be happy to take a look. I'll let you know what I find. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Before I dig in, can you by any chance give me a date when you think it was clean? It's a whole lot easier for me to check copyvio edit by edit. If not, I'll do it the hard way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure I will, I should have done that to begin with. Here's the history of the article. An editor has worked the areas since I did but I still think there is a problem with copy/paste. You want to start looking after after flyer here. I think this is when the article was cleanest. I hope this is what you were asking for. :) Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Crohnie. I am not sure where all these new editors are coming from, except from a class; a lot of them joined Wikipedia about the same time (back in April). We have had college students who are currently studying this topic add major chunks to this article before, but we tackled the stuff that was wrongly formatted, unsourced, or just plain wrong back then. This time, I am not sure what to make of it, because I cannot check all these sources (at least not now). I was going to check for copyright text as well, but I see now that you will. Thanks for that.
Crohnie, excuse me for following you. I was going to bring this matter (something about all these recent additions) up on your talk page, but decided to check where you were first (your contributions) and saw that you came here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Who knows? It may be exactly that, a class. Thanks for the starting point, Crohnie Gal. I'll see what I can find. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, for example, Klindseth is from a class, as he or she stated, "I am a student at Seattle University and I wrote a research paper on medical serial killers. I added some common motivations and information on Richard Angelo." After Klindseth, many more started showing up. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Making notes. I will replace this with my conclusions, but if you care, you can follow my progress here. :) I'm up to [5], and there are certainly red flags. So far, I have not found any problems, though, up to and including this edit. I've done a mechanical scan and a spot check, and I'm currently checking a few of the sources directly (such as footnote 19. See [6]. Note, that this footnote may not support that text, but I'm not reviewing closely for this, and the contributor does not identify the specific edition, so the page number may be out of whack. However, from a copyright standpoint, there's no problem here, as I failed to find even a single match in that book for "child's development.") --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not comfortable with the closeness of the single sentence "Theorists interested in serial homicide have dedicated themselves to explaining why certain people kill serially." to the source [7]: "Theorists interested in serial murder have dedicated themselves to explaining the social problem of the serial killer...." Doesn't rise to the level of copyvio, though, since it is quite minimal, and I have not found evidence of other duplication in that post. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Moonriddengirl. Thanks a lot. I will go ahead and take care of that one sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. :) I'm not done, though. This is a slow process, when checking is thorough! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Update: I have been pretty impressed with how well these guys have avoided infringement (class activities I've encountered in the past have been more problematic). I found one quote that was not properly marked and repaired it, let the contributor know. But I just found the first substantial problem. As it was scrupulously sourced, I suspect that User:Jane Emily intended no issues, but I am continuing forward with analyzing her contributions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Done! That one contributor evidently was unaware of our policies, but otherwise I found little to concern me. I've removed her content and explained the issue at her talk page. Good catch, guys. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I just popped in to see if you had the time to check this and you did. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. What you did was a lot of work and I appreciate your efforts to repair the article. Tomorrow I'll check what you did so I can learn some more about how to do this myself. You are great at this and again, thank you very much for taking the time to clean the article up. Flyer, thanks too for what you did to help. I haven't been online since you all started the clean up. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem, Crohnie. And I am also most appreciative to Moonriddengirl. She helped me last year with my own embarrassing "close paraphrasing" issue. So, yes, she is awesome at what she does...and most gracious with it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
You are both very kind. :) What I do, Crohnie, is more tedious than magical. I use a couple of mechanical detectors ([8] is good, but doesn't exclude Wikipedia mirrors; [9] is good for whole articles) and supplement by spot checks in google and google books of "striking phrases". When I know there may be a problem, I'll also spot check the sources directly, if I can. (Spot checking the sources cited can deceive you, though. I've run into quite a few copyright issues where people are copying wholesale from other sources, including their citations.) Ordinarily it doesn't take me so long to do one article, but I'm having a bit of trouble getting back into my proper time zone. I was only six hours off of my base, but I've been struggling to control jet-lag induced migraines since I got back. Makes me extra slow. :/ (Flyer, I'm glad if I could help, and nothing to be embarrassed about. :) You were also quite gracious, which I always appreciate.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, those tools can be handy for me to keep around so I bookmarked them. :) I know it's a lot of tedious work, that's why I always hesitate to ask you for help on something like this until I'm pretty sure there is a big problem going on. This time it wasn't as big as I thought but still you did good getting rid of that which was a problem. Thanks again, and I hope the jet lag is easing now. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

CopyVio question

Hi Moonriddengirl,

I notice you get involved in copyright questions. I've noticed a table on Wikipedia that is copied verbatim from this this page, though somewhat re-formatted. I've removed the table, but it has been restored, on the grounds that the material on the webpage itself comes from multiple sources. There's a discussion about it here, if you care to weigh in. Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I do indeed involve myself there. :) I'll be happy to take a look and see if there's any input I may be able to offer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting! I've tried to clarify there further. Jayjg (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
You weren't unclear. I was simply too tired to dig into it. :) As I note below, I've been having some jet-lag induced migraines since getting back from my trip, and I wear out quickly (stupid migraines :P). That said, today is looking good, but I'm off and running now for other reasons. I'll come by and take a look a bit later. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not much of a help there...

Got two more trips assigned to me, this week and next. I won't be around, sorry. :( MLauba (Talk) 07:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll miss you. :) I hope that your trips go okay and currently you get my deep sympathy just for having to leave home. When I get back from traveling, I have a tendency to never, ever want to leave again. :/ (Today is - knock wood - my first day migraine free since getting back!) I hope you remain in the same time zone. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Does this change copyrighted material?

A new account just reverted my reversion on CP Gurnani from your original version to the one that was copied from the home website. The account's edit summary said that they are in the process of changing the website's home page, so that the information in the article will no longer be a copy. Does this actually change the copyrighted status of the article if they change where it was copied from? Wouldn't it be easier for them to just fill out a ticket to allow the material on Wikipedia? SilverserenC 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, afraid it won't help them. They must explicitly release the content for us to use it. I've explained that at the editor's talk page and reverted to the last version. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

When is consensus bullying?

I feel as though I am being bullied out of Wikipedia when all I do for the most part is qualitatively improve articles by adding citations. I have a group of malign editors that have formed a cohort against me. They have searched really hard to find a few matters of dispute out of my 20,000 or more edits that I have made to this Project. I would appreciate some of your time.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Just a placeholder to let you know I've seen your note. I'll come take a look and see if I can assist in just a few minutes, as soon as I've finished what I'm in the process of doing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I take it that you are referring to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering and Wikipedia:ANI#Community ban of User:B9 hummingbird hovering. Please excuse me if I'm wrong.
Answering you in the abstract, true consensus (that is, consensus that reflects community standards rather than a coterie of involved editors who may not be truly neutral or working within encyclopedic principles) becomes bullying when it is done in a manner designed to intimidate or degrade somebody.
Beyond that, at this point I'm going to second what User:FisherQueen said in answer to this same question at User talk:FisherQueen#When is consensus bullying?. I'm not sure if things are unsalvageable here, because I do not know the extensive background. I'm afraid, though, that you don't help your case with responses like the following:

my dear wikipedian-collegiates wonder why I rarely enter into conversation with such bland stupidity, all of them, those MOANING, have justly had their egos branded by the Hummingbird, this is true.

Even if you feel that your colleagues are being unreasonable, your best odds of continuing to contribute to Wikipedia come with demonstrating that you are yourself entirely reasonable and capable of collegial discourse. Rejecting input on the grounds of "bland stupidity" does not, I fear, give that impression. All conversations on Wikipedia are conducted, as it were, before the court. Nothing here is "off the record," and everything we say can and will be used against us (or for us, as the case may be) when our actions are called into question. You should never lose sight of that.
At this point, I expect your only recourse if you wish to continue on the project is to change your tactics. You certainly need to reconsider your methods of communication in this dispute. You need to communicate plainly to others at that ANI thread and in that RFC, demonstrating that you can understand and respect their concerns and, where necessary, modify your approach. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing help yes

Well, I feel it is important to open up the discussion with people who are impartial. I have 20 people for the most part who keep on banding together against me, that isn't consensus that is partisan.B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 12:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is open at two community fora: WP:RFC and WP:ANI. Many, many people watch those fora. Your best odds of helping yourself are to succinctly and plainly discuss the issues there. Opening up the discussion in the manner you are doing is not going to help you. Since it's not neutral, it is likely instead to be used against you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Help?

Note: I already asked this of MLauba, but he had to run away before he followed up on it, so now I turn to you. I was wondering if you could take a look at Talk:Public domain#Copyright infringement dispute (and if you enjoy drama, the related Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615#Copyright violations in copyright-related articles) and see if LakeT (talk · contribs)'s latest additions to Public domain and Orphan works are close paraphrases or not.

As a less serious question, have admins always been reluctant to get involved in copyright issues, or did others just retire and leave you holding the slack? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ack, I'm sorry VW, that one completely slipped off my mind :( I'd just say that I endorse your approach, but little good does it do. MLauba (Talk) 07:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Enjoy drama? Not hardly. I enjoy a peaceful life of drudgery with very occasional outings. :/ A certain degree of drama is, though, unavoidable in this line of work.
There seems to be a high degree of burn-out in copyright adminship. When I arrived, CP had a 23-day backlog; it seems mainly to have been maintained by User:KrakatoaKatie and a few other admins, who may have taken the arrival of an energetic newcomer as a good excuse to vamoose. :) Occasionally, one of them still pitches in, but I can't blame them for moving to other ground. It gets old. (Wait. You're an energetic newcomer. What am I saying? I mean...it's fun. And rewarding. Ha ha! Good times! :D Seriously, I'm not planning to abandon the field, but I dance jigs on seeing new folks show up and dig in. The more the merrier; many hands make light work; fill in your favorite cliche.)
All that said, I'll go reluctantly and peek at the drama of which you speak and see what I can do to help out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Whew. A minor drama. :) It seems like we have a new, good faith contributor who just needs a few points clarified (probably in the relative authority of non-admins, in addition to our use of non-free text, but I'm focusing on the paraphrasing issue first). According to my reading on this while we were working on Wikipedia:Plagiarism, a number of people trust in our non-profit status to excuse fair use in producing their works. But while this may protect us, this won't necessarily protect our downstream re-users, particularly in areas that are not as generous with fair use at the U.S. (somewhere, somebody laughs at my description of the U.S. allowances as "generous"). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for stepping in, it's always appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. At first I thought Orphan work was more problematic than it is, but the close paraphrasing is limited to a couple of sentences. I've removed one and revised some of the other content (also, it did not reflect the source). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Hi, Moongirl

Just stopping by to say "hi". I know you're busy but I just wanted to let you know I am still grateful for all your kindness and help. The process isn't over yet so I'll wait and see if anything else pops up as you advised me it would take at least several months. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, not fast. We had one that lasted for about a year before it closed. :/ Once I get fully back into the swing of things, I'll try to start cycling back through the CCIs myself, and hopefully more volunteers will wander in to help out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello,

You took down an article I put up citing the biographies of living persons rule. I'm confident that adhered to the policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPF#People_who_are_relatively_unknown Please can you refer to the policy when discussing this kind of unilateral action before acting. You are not the boss of what goes in or out, you can raise concerns and remove things that violate a policy that you can cite, but you are not judge and jury.

I hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdaddy (talk • contribs) 08:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

US Arab Chamber of Commerce

Hi.

Could you have a look at US Arab Chamber of Commerce. Is there an OTRS ticket pending for this one? It seems related to Arab Chamber of Commerce. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! They're not permitting reuse of the US Patent and Trademark Office under GFDL? (sigh) I'll have to go look and see if they've mailed something. The permission letter doesn't clear that website. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, what a short memory I have. :/ I cleared that one in a separate ticket, Ticket:2010053010026325, but could not restore it because it had been deleted under WP:CSD#G11. I noted it in the deletion log, for which I am grateful to myself. :D So, yes, that website is cleared. I need to check into the US Patent duplication and drop the OTRS notice at the talk page. Forming no opinion on the relative merits of the article otherwise, since I usually don't mix my copyright hat with other work (unless blatant). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. The article has severe COI/POV problems which is not a surprise as the article is a replication of their website. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I tended to think so. I suggested that the creator keep an eye on it for notes about necessary alterations. Needless to say, the OTRS clearance doesn't give the other stuff a pass. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, since the material is CC-BY-SA 3.0, I have free reign to make the necessary alterations myself! :) -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bothering you yet again

I'd like your opinion on a copyright matter. I happened on the article Broken Hill Ore Deposit and found that the text of the "Geology" and "Genesis" sections in it are verbatim matches for sections of this professional geologist's report (pages 5–7). However, the report is dated 3 October 2007, and our article was created on 15 August 2007, with the content in question present, which would seem to preclude any copyright violation on our part. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to believe that the geologist would have lifted major parts of the report from WP without acknowledgment. The editor who created the article has also created and expanded a number of other geology-related articles—never, as far as I can see, including any sources at all for his information. He claims, on his user page and in talk-page comments, to be an Australian geologist, so I suppose it's possible that he wrote both the WP article and the professional report; but his user name gives no clue to any connection. I'd bring the matter up on his talk page, but he hasn't been active since April 2009, except for two isolated edits last June and July. Perhaps I'm being oversuspicious; what would you do in such a case? Deor (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Despair. :/ Following which I would try to locate a source that may predate both. Failing that, I would desperately hope to find some evidence of natural evolution on Wikipedia which would suggest that it did originate here. Failing that, I would blank for a week and try contacting the contributor or article author. In fact, I think I'll go do those very things. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. The most major change here is the alteration of the spelling of sulphides to sulfides. The pdf follows the latter form (sulfides). This would suggest (but not conclusively) that they are not the same authors, and it would also suggest (but, again, not conclusively) that we came first. Sulphides is the UK spelling, evidently; I get a billion (read: 1,190,000) google hits for sulphide + Australia and less than half that (515,000) for sulfide + Australia. Our contributor, then, is slightly more regional specific. Given the dating, this is enough to make me feel like perhaps we shouldn't blank, but should just drop a friendly note to both authors, who are kind enough to be accessible, and see what comes of it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
E-mailed. We'll see what comes of it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. Please let me know what, if any, responses you get (either here or on my talk page will be fine). I'm rather curious about the matter. Deor (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Will do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair-use question

Hi Moonriddengirl, we've talked in the past and unfortunatelly I took the impression that you're an expert in copyright issues, so that here I am again :-)

My question is related to this article: Inela Nogić. This Bosniak girl was the person that won the beauty contest in the besieged Sarajevo in 1993, and was the inspiration of U2's Miss Sarajevo. It can be argued that obtaining a free picture of her is somehow feasible. Do you think that such an argumentation would override a fair-use rationale for this image: here?

Best regards and many thanks in advance --Ecemaml (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) You are welcome, but I'm afraid that I'm not as good with images as I am with text. That said, I'm afraid probably not. WP:NFC lists under images that are "unacceptable": "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." What's confusing to me here is that it goes on to add (in italics, omitted): "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." Now, if you ask me, a beauty queen's notability rests a lot more in her earlier visual appearance than most actors and rock stars. Arguably, somebody might produce a free image of her from that era. Arguably, somebody might produce a non-free image of these guys from that era, too. Because I find the rules on them inconsistent and have failed to get clarification on them, I tend to stay away from images of living people. If I wanted to place an image of her in the article, I'd probably get feedback at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. (Note that with the specific picture you've chosen, there are additional issues/questions. Who took it and when? Who are those other people? You'd probably need to know the answers to these at least, and you might have to crop it to only the subject even if others agreed it could be used under NFC.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, you're much more good at copyright issues that what you admit :-) Your answer has been very clarifying.
I'll post a question in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, but possibly after finding a picture which addresses the concerns you've listed. Best regards and thank you again --Ecemaml (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) PD: I've found the original source here. I'll try a crop of Inela and ask for advice in Media copyright questions
(talk page stalker) I can't see any reason why this image, and especially a cropped version, would be an acceptable fair-use image because its use is to identify the subject of the photo in an article about that person. The full image might be useable if, and only if, there was critical commentary about the image itself, not the content or subject of the photo and it would need to be sourced with reliable sources. Remember the article is about Inela Nogić and any image showing her should be freely licenced because she is still alive. Sorry not to be more helpful. This would basically be the same reply I would give you on the WP:MCQ page. ww2censor (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Your feedback is much appreciated. :) Like I said, I find it confusing. I don't know why a non-free picture of Led Zeppelin is okay but a non-free picture of a beauty queen is not. I just keep well away. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Another copyvio and a potential COI

Hi Moonriddengirl. Hope you enjoyed your holiday and had a good break. Back in the wikiworld I'm afraid I may have more for you again...

The article New Forest Coastal Heritage Project would appear to be almost a direct copy of this page on the NPA's website. I'm also fairly unsure about its notability and wonder if it might just be better off deleted. The creator of the article is JamesBrownNFNPA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has also edited the article New Forest. Specifically he's been working on the New Forest Coast section, his first edits coming only 5 minutes after an IP created the whole section. When added, the section appears to have been a fairly unedited copy of the parent NPA page here, but the current version of the article has changed it (but not a lot). These are the only articles the editor has edited and the latter section of his name (NFNPA) reads to me like New Forest National Park Authority (the runners of the website), and a James Brown appears in the news pages of the coastal section.....

BTW, the last incident I mentioned to you has progressed to here while you were on holiday. Welcome back! Ranger Steve (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tagged, so content hidden, editor notified of COI and copyvio issues. And I've suggested in any case that the article be a redirect to a paragraph elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't realised this was almost a year old, so I've emailed him. Dougweller (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Doug! We'll see if he responds within the listing period. And thanks, Ranger Steve. :) A great holiday was had; the new order of business: getting back into my time-zone. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Good luck! Any thoughts on the section in the New Forest article? Ranger Steve (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Not yet, but thanks for the gentle poke. :) I was so focused on the serial killers article yesterday that I completely failed to follow up on it. I'll take a look after reading over the rest of my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I swear I haven't forgotten this! I'm trying to catch up on CP, but as usual things keep intervening and I fall behind. It's on my mental "list." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, with all the information you provided, that one turned out to be startlingly easy. I should have just taken care of it immediately! Oh, well. :/ Anyway, I've removed the text pending verification of permission. If the contributor comes back and follows up, we'll have no issues with restoring it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Cheers MRG. When I have more time (ha!) I'll have to get you to give me a quick run through on all the procedures to make sure I've got it, and one day I might tackle a few myself and bug you a bit less. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sunscreen controversy

Hi, please check Rewrite on Talk -12.7.202.2 (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, pls recheck. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you help?

I have recently manually tagged an article for possible copyright concerns. The tag is being repeatedly removed with potentially disparaging remarks left behind. Can you look at this article and help me determine if it is appropriate to tag the article as I have. The article is Millennium Prize Problems and I posted the web address being plagiarized. The P versus NP section and the The Hodge conjecture section are both also copied from this site and I suspect perhaps more. Thank you in advance for any attention you give this matter. My76Strat (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You're quite right that it's a copyright problem, and I have restored the template you placed on it, protecting the article to prevent its being removed prematurely. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the action you demonstrated per this request. To add information, I would like to say it is my future intention to contribute to this article, because it seems encyclopedic. I was going to contribute when I noticed areas were plagiarized. I read and understand that in some cases it might be determined better to start the article from scratch. Whatever the decision is I intend to offer contributions to the article that emerges as editable. And really didn't want to expend much effort on an article which somehow became a candidate for deletion. That is essentially why I tagged the Article. Every action I endeavored was from my best interpretation of what was best for Wikipedia, and no other factor really. I was surprised when some seemed to ridicule my efforts, and honestly started to question my own actions. Even though they seemed intuitive. Nevertheless, thanks for assisting in this regard. My76Strat (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

National Foundation for Credit Counseling

Moonriddengirl, it would be most helpful if you can give me an idea of what portion(s) of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling page that you find violate the copyright. I am most surprised by your conclusion, since I have authored and edits dozens of Wiki pages over a few years, and yours is the first such notice. I really could care less if the NFCC page is updated, deleted or whatever -- it does however provide valuable and professional support to needy people -- but it would be helpful to learn what evidence if any you have to back up your copyright violation claim. Thank you. MykjosephMyk60640 (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As I said at your talk page, I am not the editor who tagged the article, though I have confirmed some duplication through the use of a mechanical detector that scans articles for duplicated content.
For an example of precisely duplicated content, the article says:

Each year, NFCC members assist 4 million consumers, helping many to reduce their debt and better control their finances.

The source says:

Each year, NFCC Members assist 4 million consumers, helping many to drive down their debt and take control of their finances.

Further, there is close paraphrasing and duplication of the same source in the lead. The article says:

The National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC) is a nonprofit organization that promotes the national agenda for financially responsible behavior and builds capacity for its Members to deliver the highest quality financial education and counseling services. Established in 1951, the NFCC is the nation's largest and longest serving national nonprofit credit counseling network, with more than 100 Member agencies and nearly 850 offices in communities throughout the country.

The source says:

Founded in 1951, the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC), Inc., promotes the national agenda for financially responsible behavior and builds capacity for its Members to deliver the highest quality financial education and counseling services. The NFCC is the nations largest and longest serving national nonprofit credit counseling network, with more than 100 Member agencies and nearly 850 offices in communities throughout the country.

In case it will help you to see the problematic text, I have bolded the content that is duplicated.
Because you had not been given the requisite notice, I have not fully evaluated the article, but, as I said, have relisted it. The other material may be fine. I'm afraid that you cannot incorporate non-free text into Wikipedia without clearly marking it in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline. In addition, its usage must be transformative, as set out in the guideline portion of that document. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CP leftovers

So I ran across the Tony Taggart article and noticed that it's still blanked from 15 April and listed as having incomplete permission under Ticket:2010041610020574. Any chance you could see what can/should be done with the article? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. I think perhaps he was discouraged by the deletion of his other articles? He never responded. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi MrG. How are you? :) I'm currently looking at the William & Mary Scandal of 1951 article from Jrcla2's CCI and I think the following paragraph paraphrases the source too closely. Do you agree? Theleftorium (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The William & Mary Board of Visitors officially stated in 1946 that it expected the school "to win more contests than we lose",[1][2] even though the process to become an athletic power had started years before. As a consequence, Rube McCray, the head football coach from 1944–1950, was given a substantial pay raise and earned more than any professor at the college in an effort to produce consistently winning teams. As a side effect of this decision, a double standard had been created for athletes entering William & Mary with minimal academic qualifications but who would receive nearly all of the college's scholastic financial aid.[1] Not only were the academic standards very low in order to bring in the best athletes, but McCray, who also jointly served as the school's athletic director and head of the physical education department, began to alter players' high school transcripts and their current college grades.[1][2]

Here's the text from the source:

Extended content

In 1946, the governing Board of Visitors of William and Mary stated the policy begun

several years before by officially asserting that it expected “to win more contests than we lose.” Translated into administrative policy this meant that the football coach would be paid more than any professor in any effort to turn out winning teams. It also meant that a double standard would be created for athletes who would enter William and Mary with minimal academic qualifications but would receive nearly all of the College’s scholastic financial aid. In order to compete in football against Michigan State and Oklahoma, academic standards were not only low, but the football coach (who was also athletic director and head of the physical education department) began altering high school transcripts, college transcripts, and granting grades for courses not taken by athletes, including those in

basketball as well.

Hi,and yes, in the center particularly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Great, just making sure that I'm not getting rusty. ;P I'll list it at WP:CP. Theleftorium (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
If that's all there is, any chance you can just revise it or remove it on the spot? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I was going to ask Jrcl2 to rewrite it, since the text can't be deleted from article (the rest of the text wouldn't make any sense). But I guess I can do it myself to save some time. :) Theleftorium (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Done! Theleftorium (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I don't think he's rewritten any of them, though I could be wrong. If you don't have time or if the problem is extensive enough to require deletion, blanking it is fine, but if it's plausible to rewrite it, it's much appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think he has rewritten any of the articles that I've blanked. I've been looking at some of his later contributions, though, and it seems he has learned his lesson, which is good of course. :) Theleftorium (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, very. Glad to hear it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Babelfish translations and copyright?

I'd like to do a BFish translation of an article on the Polish WP to (possibly) resolve a current article naming dispute. The translated article would of course need some work, so it'd go in my userspace first, but it would essentially be based on BF. The question's surely been addressed before, but could you point me to any relevant WP links? No hurry. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any, really, but it's an interesting question. First, you're in the clear. Babelfish cannot impose new copyright over a translation of a Polish WP article, because Polish WP is, like we are, licensed under CC-By-SA and GFDL, and while modifications are permitted the license requires that the derivative remains free. You should include babelfish in the attribution to be on the safe side. :) But I don't really know if the manufacturer of a machine translator could impose new copyright over content that was translated without human creativity. Hmm. I'll see if I can find any conversations about it on Wikipedia anywhere. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's reassuring. (BTW I ended up using Google translate instead). See, the first thing that came to my mind was the newer, copyrighted translations of the Bible - the original is presumably in the public domain :). While trawling the web I came across this interesting piece [10]; the author sees trouble down the road after robot translations become less, um, risible. But that lies in the future. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There's no copyright problem with automatic translators like Babelfish or Google. One reason is the one that MRG guessed – the lack of human creativity in the translation. Ah, you say, but there were humans behind the creation of the automatic translator! That's true, and brings us to the second reason. An automatic translator is a "process" for doing something: its creators might be able to protect it under intellectual property law, but they have to use a patent, not copyright. You can't copyright something which is patenable (and vice versa). To give an analogy, does Microsoft have a copyright over every document created using Word? Physchim62 (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just to nitpick, you can patent some things which are copyrightable (see in particular Design patents) and there are other things where a broad implementation (say a computer running a particular software program) is patented and the particulars (the actual software code for the program) are copyrighted. Everything else sounds right though. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ellen Faull

Hi MRG. Rather than check other sources for possible copyvio, it was easier just to re-write it (given the creator's past record).;-). All done now. See Talk:Ellen Faull/Temp. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Sarkissian

Hello, Moonriddengirl. I've done a fair bit of work, on and off, on the Arthur Sarkissian (artist) article since it was created last August, as have several other editors. Since there are no other pages about anyone called Arthur Sarkissian, I tried to move the article to become Arthur Sarkissian, but I get an error message that it's blocked. I think this must date back to the original attempts to create an article by a new editor who didn't understand copyright – the log shows you deleted Arthur Sarkissian at 14:59, 18 June 2009 for G12, and there were several subsequent attempts to re-create it.

Now that the article has matured somewhat and become established, is there any chance that the block on Arthur Sarkissian can be removed, please, so that I can move the article? — Hebrides (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure! Protection expires on the 18th anyway, but no reason to wait. :) Let me clean the old deleted edits out to avoid any confusion later if selective deletion is needed for something (it comes up a lot in copyright work, and 58 deleted edits in history will be a mess), and I'll go ahead and move it. Same amount of button use as unprotecting it and leaving it for you to move. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I have done, but unfortunately have had to block the contributor with whom you were conversing about it. He is sock puppeting, and he knows better. It's particularly disheartening to see he's had at least one article G12ed under this username, given that the block on his first account was for copyvio and that he continued violating that policy under his second. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing all the work for me :) I'm glad that it's moved to the right place. I've now fixed all main namespace links using AWB. It's a pity about the user, as I think he means well. I don't know much about him, but get the impression that English is not his first language and that he finds all the stuff about "copyvio templates" and sockpuppets, "blocked socks" and "abuse of editing privileges" really confusing. Well, you know yourself from the "pleeease!" messages he's sent you that he was quite open about the fact that he had to create a new username because the old one stopped working. I find it very easy to assume good faith in this case. He even gave out his email address and phone number in the hope that somebody could help him. I doubt if he will be able to work out how to get himself unblocked, as WP:GAB is frankly impossible for anyone with limited English.
I feel for him, as I've occasionally tried to edit foreign language wikipedias and sometimes the errors and messages I get are completely incomprehensible, even using dictionaries and Google translate.
Thanks again for your help with this. Best wishes — Hebrides (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I share your thoughts about the user. If I had been the original blocking admin and if he did not persist in copyright violations under both alternative accounts, I wouldn't have blocked. I wonder if I can find somebody with fluency in his language to help explain? I'll take a look and see what I can come up with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Knock wood. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
And yay! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Need your opinion

at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer on User:Derek R Bullamore's request. NuclearWarfare may have removed the right, but I think you're the one who is the most up-to-date on this subject. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy to weigh in, and have done so. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Looking for assistance in Armenian

Hello, thanks for asking me for assistance. I'll send him an e-mail in Western Armenian explaining the issue. Davo88 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Wood questions

Hi. I just described you as the copyright infringement go-to person on this. Would you, when you have time, take a look at the discussion at Talk:Natalie Wood#Linking to videos and the newest addition to the page, here. I still have grave reservations about linking to those clips and had even greater ones on the list of links added prior to that. The editor that added thinks they qualify as fair-use. There were just a bunch of inappropriately uploaded images by the article's resident sock puppet from magazines and articles that were deleted. I trust your judgment on this. Thanks so much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'd be happy to weigh in. I'll take a look at the links and come over. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Read, replied. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Dex Award

Hi,

I have nominated for AfD Barbara Dex Award (using Twinkle) - only to find it has been there before - can you check the current page vs the one deleted before to see if if should be CSD under G4 ?

Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Half a mo'. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I've G4ed it. The contents are only marginally different and do not address the reasons for deletion. Would you consider removing your AfD notice from the second creator? I don't want to confuse him, and I'm going to go add a personal explanation to my notice. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Will do Codf1977 (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Codf1977 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, I attempted to repair your AfD closing (malformed {{Ab}} template) for this discussion but could not quite get through the syntax of the (already substituted) templates. As a result, it is now closed with a slightly different wording compared to what you intended to say. Please check whether it can stay as-is. Sorry for any inconvenience, --Pgallert (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I went ahead and restored my version, but fixed my error. The problem was that I was attempting to substitute {{AFD bottom}}, which doesn't exist. I needed {{Afd bottom}}. I didn't notice that it hadn't worked! I appreciate your workaround. Hate to put everything into a box! :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Princess Louise Kensington Regiment

Hi.

I am a member of the PLK Regimental Association. I notice that their entry was deleted in 2008, not sure of the reason why. I intend to recreate the page, just thought I would contact you 1st.

Regards

Queensassociation (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time finding it. There doesn't seem to have ever been an article at Princess Louise Kensington Regiment, Princess Louise Kensington regiment, PLK Regiment, PLK regiment or PLK Regimental Association. I found a "redirect" at Kensington Regiment (Princess Louise's) which points to another article (Middlesex Regiment), but there doesn't seem to have been anything there before. Can you perhaps offer some alternative suggestions for title? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, it was Princess Louise's Kensington Regiment. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Courcelles! I didn't think about making it possessive. :)
Queensassociation, the problem with the article is that it duplicated content from a previously published source that did not carry a licensing tag compatible with Wikipedia's. A contributor noticed this situation and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 July 25/Articles, blanking the article for a week with a template that explained how to rectify the situation. While there were problems with the content that would make it otherwise inappropriate for inclusion (for example, it was written from the first person plural and the content was not neutral, the issue was not with the subject, but simply with the text used to describe it.
You are more than welcome to create a new article on the subject. You may wish to visit your first article for some suggestions for making sure it complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please be sure to use your own language to describe it in order to comply with our copyright policy and Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Janis Joplin

Hi Moonriddengirl, I think this photo on the Janis Joplin page was originally a fair use for the article on the album. Is it okay for it to be uploaded to her article? [11]. Thanks for checking, :DMalke2010 15:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say no. There is a free image of Joplin already in the article. Seeing her singing into a microphone (from around the same time period no less) doesn't help understand her article any better. So I believe it fails #1 of WP:NFC" No free equivalent" and #8: "Contextual significance." However, I don't do that much with image work. I'll run it by an image admin. User:J Milburn is one of my usual go-to guys for non-free image questions. :) Ordinarily, I'd send you to WP:NFCR, but that page is a bit of a dead end at the moment (even though I've been very impressed to note User:VernoWhitney cleaning up a bit around there). Ultimately, you might wind up at WP:FfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a funny one. At first glance, neither of the non-free images (the single cover or the portrait) should be used. We already have a free portrait in the article, and the non-free one shows nothing that needs to be shown, and while the single is of great importance and worth discussing, there is no pressing need to show the cover. However, the lead image does not actually seem to be free (at least not for the reasons claimed); it certainly won't be licensed under the CC license, though could possibly be PD (though I doubt it). At this time, I am going to remove the two non-free images and look into the lead image. That may, ultimately, be deemed to be non-free, meaning that, if no other free image could be found (and as one could not be created for obvious reasons) a non-free image would be acceptable in the infobox, if sourced accurately and given a solid rationale on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
After a little digging, I've gone ahead and nominated the "free" image for deletion. The Common's process is slow- if it is free, hopefully someone will step up to defend it, but I certainly can't see why it would be. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, and how bizarre! I noted that the image was on Commons and (sheepish admission) just presumed it was okay. I'm rather surprised to see that it was accepted as freely licensed just because some community photo site said it was. Her passport picture? And uploaded by a long-term admin. Color me confused.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much Moonriddengirl and JMilburn. I appreciate that. I had no idea that the lead photo was also not available. I was only aware of the album cover because of the album article. I do hope it works out that we can keep the image in the infobox. Malke2010 23:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Then my reply must have been confusing to you. :) In spite of your mention of the album article, I thought you were talking about the face shot! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I meant the photo that someone had added from the album article. I thought it might have problems being posted on her article. That's funny. Well, it worked out anyway. Thanks again.Malke2010 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

The better icon for this one comes from {{subst:SCV|cu}} which gets you

  • Cut and paste move fixed by investigator or others. --~~~~

I suppose it's really the same icon, but whatever. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. I can never remember the SCV icons. I don't even remember all the CP ones! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I worked up a combined template to pull double duty, but with 15 options it's hard to keep track of them all. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
15! Wow. Who knew our work was so diverse? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, make it 16 if you add in close paraphrase (which I've done now since I use it every once in a while at SCV when they're really borderline). Speaking of SCV, you can expect a nice drought coming up since CSBot has been down since early on the 3rd. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, my goodness gracious. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :D

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for all the great advice and help in the last year Malke2010 00:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! :) I'm always happy to help when I can. And sometimes to try when I can't. :/ But I prefer to focus on the good times. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted lists redux

So I came across 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up today and recalled that you had been involved in a discussion at Talk:Forbes list of billionaires regarding just how much of a list was allowable under WP:NFC. I was wondering if you had any general rules or guidelines on reproducing portions of creative lists. While looking for your old conversation I also found List of Forbes Celebrity 100 and List of members of the Forbes 400 (2008). I'm pretty certain that all of these need to be trimmed, but the question is how much. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and bodly trimmed List of Forbes Celebrity 100 since it's pretty much abandoned and it looks like you're MIA. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. :) I am unwell. Wasted the morning in the doctor's office. :P I've gone ahead and trimmed the Child Stars article. There's no specific rule, but I'm personally inclined to think that the top 10 is probably permissible. I'll take a look at Forbes 400, but I'm not sure what the criteria are. If I can't tell clearly whether the list is creative or not, I may leave it for a healthier time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see anything at Forbes 400 to indicate it was any different than the worlwide list of billionaires. I hope you feel better. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I see you're not feeling well. Take the day off from here and get some rest. It's allowed you know. :) Seriously, hurry and get well. I hope it's not anything serious. Take care of yourself, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both. :) This so-called cold has evidently led to some kind of lung infection. I prefer my medical professionals and diagnoses crisp and clear. :/ I'm planning to take it a bit easy today, though don't be surprised to see me surreptitiously poking at the copyright problems board.
Verno, I concluded the same thing about the Forbes 400. Fortunately, we already hashed that one out. I like my list copyright issues crisp and clear as well. No reason to complicate things. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey don't play with a lung infection, seriously. I had one that felt like a heart attack in the middle of the night (Mar. 2, 2010) requiring a 911 call. My Crohn's and the infection collided and with the nerve damage I have to my left arm the ER people thought so too. The infection started to get into my blood stream at the hospital so they slammed me hard with antibiotics. So take care of yourself. You definitely don't want to eat the food in hosptials. :) I just thought I would share since I didn't take my infection seriously enough and didn't start the antibiotics like I should have. Be well and soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oooh. Not something I want to happen. :/ I last had surgery in August (my basic underlying disorder is neurological), and hospitals are so not my favorite place to be. I will rest and treat it properly and try not to be too irritable with medical professionals. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Should you feel up to it, I just noticed that there's another half to one of the lists I pointed you at: List of members of the Forbes 400 (204-400). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Done with it. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ian Venables

Why isn't Ian Venables listed on WP:Copyright problems anymore? The article is still tagged. 74.227.52.21 (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That would be one that slipped by this morning, it's listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 May 30. Someone will take a look at it shortly. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry. I overlooked it; while we have a bot that finds those on the occasion that it happens and restores their listing, there's no reason for this one to cycle through again. I've restored the last presumably clean version of the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Girl band / All Female Band

Not our usual copyright stuff but I just tagged Girl band with a PROD but I am wondering if it could be speedied as a duplicate. For some reason it was a redirect to the All-female band article until January when an I.P cut and pasted that and put it here/there. If you think it can be speedied (Using A10) please remove the prod and do it. I see no reason why the duplicate article was actually created in the first place, and why nobody noticed it before. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I G6'ed it, though A10 would probably have worked. It was an unattributed fork, and there had been no meaningful later content to merge. It probably also would have been appropriate simply to restore the redirect to the top, but deletion seemed more likely to avoid future forking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

DumbBot

(sectioned from above)

Now that that's taken care of, is there a bot which finds them and recycles them through? I know DumbBOT finds them when they're blanked and never listed, but I don't remember seeing one that finds old issues that have been missed and putting them anywhere. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm almost sure, although I can't remember specifically a case to prove it. We could run a test, but I believe that DumbBOT lists them if they are tagged but aren't at the main WP:CP page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yup, section 5 here. :) Smart bot, that DumbBOT. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that section too, but then I thought, if that was all that it did what happened with Tony Taggart (which I mentioned above) that sat blanked for a month and a half? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Evidently, I broke it. :/ In this series of edits, I changed the hidden cat to distinguish it from other articles in the Possible Copyright Violations category. I've put it back for now. At some point, it may be worth asking Tizio to also compare Category:Articles tagged for copyright problems. Then they can be separated again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Now that you've got me looking at it, I really don't know what's going on with DumbBOT or the distinction between the copyvio categories. Looking at Category:Possible copyright violations I see that the current contents are a copy of Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided, so presumably DumbBOT should also be (and should have been) listing them at WP:CP and it would really make sense for the blanked pages to stay in their own sub-category (Category:Articles tagged for copyright problems) I would think. There's also User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedCopyvio which seems to be somehow related... something to poke into later I guess. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Urgh. More pending stuff. :/ BTW, there's been just a little bit of movement on that Russian OTRS ticket. The missing ticket has been located,and it is over 200 e-mails long! But it's still in Russian. I asked the mailing list what it was permitting, precisely, and so far I've gotten crickets. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, at least that's some news on the Russian Front. I also see the DumbBOT list has added some other old blanked cases since your update yesterday (in particular Kambakkht Ishq which was marked as clean but people have apparently been reverting and reinstating the copyvio content AND the blanking, and Rahul Sankrityayan which was blanked but never listed), so you must've solved that problem - of course if you don't mind waiting another day we can see if DumbBOT actually does anything with them besides list them at User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedCopyvio. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea to see what it does. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So DumbBOT didn't do anything but update the list... maybe that task is broken? I'll go through by hand later today and list the older blanked files it found. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Tizio is a good guy. If we can figure out the parameters of the problem and let him know, he'll probably help fix it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

An equally dry response

You left a message at my talk page here claiming that I was out of line. I appreciate your concern and more so your voicing that concern to me. I was not aware that removing a copyright template that was placed without explanation was considered a violation of any kind. The template in question, at least on the date it was placed, read that the user placing the template has also put a notice on that article's talk page explaining the copyright dispute. The user who placed the template did not. After waiting an ample amount of time for that user to do so, I removed the template deeming it was placed in error or abuse. The content zeroed out by the template was misformatted cruft that I on any other day would have simply deleted as it was all trivial and, as I pointed out, badly formatted and unreadable. I left it in place to avoid confrontation from a member of a WikiProject I was not associated with. Your edits have dealt with the cruft and made my concerns moot. Thank you for doing something about it. However, your message on my talk page seems over the top and if you have misgivings about my efforts here on Wikipedia in the future I would appreciate it if you would speak to me as a human instead of using what looks like a legal boilerplate. Again, thank you and good day to you. ^_^  æronphonehome  14:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The template does say that the copyright dispute must be clarified, however it's not a hidden comment. Check the template itself. "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it may be deleted one week after the time of its listing." My mistake was that I missed the part about the week. But as it says, you can't just walk past an article and stick the template there without doing anything else about it. If this goes against the policy of Wikipedia I'd recommend having the template edited so there isn't any confusion in the future. In all fairness two days had already passed after CosmicJake placed the template and I doubted he was going to return three to six days later and amend the talk page with an explanation.
I'm also aware that you didn't actually stamp my talk page with a form letter, my response was a jab in good humour, but since Wikipedia is a community of users and not a business or government you should speak to someone in less formal tones. It goes a long way, in my case especially, in getting people to relate to you. As if it feels to me like I'm conversing with a typewriter I'm not likely to take whomever I'm talking to anymore seriously than one.  æronphonehome  15:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright, alright. I see what the sentence is saying now. It was a misunderstanding, as is I think what we're saying to each other. You don't need to tell me for the third time that I blew it in your eyes, please try to assume positive intent instead of treating me like a problem. This is Wikipedia, try to enjoy yourself here.  æronphonehome  16:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

re Brett Livingstone Strong

Hi your disputes re mr livingstone strong dont seem to make sense ive bought some of the surfboards in question they are magnificent? ive seen one of the monuments found it breathtaking ive followed this guys career since i was 12 and aside of micheal jacksons comments i cant see what u mean its 95% factual you have created huge damage with this as journalists in australia will now not print anything thats disputed can you please enlighten me where its wrong? im really struggling with this are you an aggreived person thx luke u can ph me australia <contact information redacted> and ill ph u back whatever its very important to me thanks in advance luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastalstyle (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm happy to discuss this with you within Wikipedia. Please note that all colored text in my reply are "links" to other pages that help explain further.
The problem is with the article, not Brett-Livingstone Strong. And it is not simply my dispute; I added one tag to the article. The others were added by other contributors to highlight problems. It seems that it may not conform to any of our core policies. First, information should be verifiable with inline citations to reliable sources that are not connected to Strong. (For example, newspaper articles, magazine pieces, books & reliable industry websites that are not affiliated with Strong.) Second, it should not include any information which has not been previously published. Inline citations can help clarify if the article does not contain this; for instance, how do we know that "the artist’s intention was for her to be a symbol of light cutting through the darkness"? Is that printed somewhere? Finally, all information within it should be neutral in presentation. Any text that is not neutral must reflect the published opinion of a reliable source, and it must be attributed. I left some examples of non-neutral text at Talk:Brett-Livingstone Strong when I tagged that issue a year ago.
I'm not sure how this has impact on journalists in Australia. They should already be aware that Wikipedia's articles are of varying quality and require fact-checking. In fact, inline citations are preferred for precisely that reason: so that our readers can easily check to see whether the content is accurate.
You are welcome to repair the article such that the tags no longer apply. To start with, this would require correcting the sourcing and either neutralizing or attributing the language. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the Year

Hi, I saw you are eligible to vote for Picture of the Year. You should participate and support your favorite, to show that there's interest in high quality contributions that are no copyright violations ;) Hekerui (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Challenging! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC on color

Hi Moonriddengirl, Thanks for setting up that page. I have got a few ideas and I will put them up on the page. I'm just trying to get the wording just right so we don't end up with another problem like with the last one. Hope you are feeling better. I did not know you were ill.  :/Malke2010 14:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. It's important. :) Thanks for the well wishes. I'm not dealing with anything chronic (knock wood); just some opportunistic bacteria. The antibiotics and I will show them. :P Still and all, my natural Pollyanna tendencies always find plenty to be chipper about, though my mantra is more "Could be worse!" than "The Glad Game." :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Lib3rtarian

Hi, Moonriddengirl. We had an edit conflict on the editor's talk page: I was also trying to direct him to WP:CONSENT and to make clear whose permission he needs. I'm not quite sure why I was bothering, though, because I suspect he has a strong case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and that the problem will simply recur. The secondary problem is that his plan to contact Facco and Fidenato only bolsters the impression that he has an association with them, in which case he shouldn't be creating and editing articles about them or their organization in the first place. I discovered in the course of the research prep prior to the Movimento Libertario AfD that he writes for the organization's website, but if it's proving nearly impossible to get him to pay attention to copyright, good luck getting him to abide by WP:COI. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some suggestion at ANI that an indef-block would be appropriate for the copyright concerns alone. I'm not going to act on that, but I would not object if somebody else did. COI is a little outside of my usual area, though eventually you dabble everywhere. :) Has there been a COIN notice about him? If the copyright issue resolves, that may be the next step in dealing with the somewhat more complex issue of COI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
He now appears to be socking from an IP, as he did while blocked at Italian WP. I opened an SPI case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lib3rtarian -- Rrburke (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Misread timestamps. Withdrawn, with apologies. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Just as well I overlooked it, then! It evidently came in while I was working on a note in another section, so my "new messages" banner was not triggered. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long (see response 11). Evidently you're a "censor" (were you aware?) and we're all wikifascists ("fasciowikipediani"). -- Rrburke (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I'm very well aware of that. :) Working in copyright problems as I do, I am reminded of this periodically. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Input requested—from you and your watchers!

I know you don't really get into image copyright issues, but given your massive number of talk page watchers, I figured this is another good place to post for me to spam my plea(I hope you don't mind too much): your input is requested at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 68#Non-free magazine covers. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question, and I don't mind. Hope you get good response. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The New Confessions

Hello,

You deleted an article I did on this William Boyd novel and I would be interested to know on what grounds you did this? As far as I recall, the article was written based on my third reading of the novel so I hope it was not deleted on the basis of copyright infringement?

Ivan KinsmanIvankinsman (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid it was. The article was blanked and listed on February 3rd as part of the investigation at your Contributor Copyright Investigation. A week after its listing, it was deleted. As the policy at Wikipedia:Copyright violations makes clear, "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." While we seldom resort to that and have been slowly evaluating all of your contributions, I'm afraid that on occasion copyright status cannot be determined. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Any chance the plot could be shortened? As the article currently stands with a page and a half of plot, I'm fairly certain it exceeds the guidelines at WP:How to write a plot summary#Length and Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works#Avoiding violating copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the plot must be shortened, as I think this is a real problem under Twin Peaks v. Publications International (and our WP:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works). :/ Ivankinsman, I see you've been given a warning by an admin about it at your talk page. I agree that this needs to truncated. Otherwise, I think we may need some community involvement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I answered at WT:C, but I think everyone else started the weekend early...or got scared off... ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! And great response. I particularly like the practical suggestion for word count. Maybe people will wake up or stop by or something. :) And perhaps we should consider flying the word count as a rough guideline for a maximum somewhere? Ivan's note at the AfD suggests that this is an aspect of copyright law with which he has been previously unfamiliar. If you get a chance, would you take a look at my explanation to him there and let me know if you think it makes sense? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I think your explanation makes sense, I imagine it will require some more discussion if it hasn't occurred to him before now, but that would certainly explain some of the copyright issues he's been creating. As far as making it a rough guideline, I certainly like the idea, maybe it could be incorporated into WP:PLAGIARISM or WP:PARAPHRASE (which should really be a guideline too, whether on its own or merged into plagiarism). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright?

On Alex Zunger, I found what appeared to be copyright vio, copypasted from websites; I removed the copyvio with this edit after using a Google search. Was this copyvio, or did I delete good material? Brambleclawx 22:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You were right to delete simply on the basis that it is not remotely encyclopedic. :) The material that was on the nrel website is probably okay from a copyright standpoint. Most material that originates on US federal government (not state!) websites is going to be clear of copyright because the U.S. federal government does not claim copyright on works prepared by its employees in the execution of their duties. (Most national governments do claim copyright.) The stuff from the program Gutenberg .pdf we would need permission to use, so, yes, that material was a copyvio under our policies (as unverified content). Good call! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I don't mean to bug you but I was just curious about something (it regards copyright). If I wanted to upload a picture to post on an article and I wasn't sure who owns the rights to it, can I still do it? The picture has been published on websites and in various books through the years. http://www2.netdoor.com/~campbab/kong/kkfrank.jpg Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you're quite welcome to stop by, but I'm afraid I can't give you a definitive response. Probably not. Unless you can prove that the image is clearly public domain by age (which seems tricky), you can't verify that it isn't under copyright. But if I had a picture I wanted to run, I'd be tempted to run it by WP:MCQ. Though that's not exactly what they're there for, those folks are very savvy about pictures and might be able to find the origin for you. Alternatively, some of the research people at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment might be able to puzzle it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I'll give the WP:MCQ a shot and see what they say. I'm not getting my hopes up, but its worth a try.Giantdevilfish (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Quotation opinion

You may want to give your expert opinion for this MCQ quotes related post WP:MCQ#Paul Legrand, with longish cites from an 1854 book. OK?. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Having invested a couple of hours in an article, I'm checking my page now and am coming right over. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

fyi re ACTORcolours

The post RFC discussion has remained split and entangled. The current discussion is at:

Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the ugly lingering question of colors. :/ I hope the broader RfC takes place and brings some resolution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm ok with another RfC. I will object to a straight blue vs gray poll, though. This is complex question and many other concerns are connected. First off, my core concern is about crappy coding practices; all the hard coded styling out there. And there's also the view that these should not be tables at all, which moots the color question. While moving to class="wikitable filmography" would allow all sorts of styling, it would also invite a thousand new groups to the table. class="wikitable buffyverse" and such. You've seen my older comments; see the new bit at VPP about MedaiWiki stripping out all colours in a few years as this is a job for skins. I would support high-level abstractions on top of wikitable, but not fandom-specific ones. I proposed one for zebra striping:
For what it's worth, I think you're a good choice to pitch a next-RfC. Be good if someone monitored the tone of things and kept the structure of the discussion in-hand, too.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I meant to drop a few examples of similar-but-different code-messes:
On ANI, WHL referred to "blank tabling", which seems to indicate a view that they should typically be coloured at some local level; this is the main route to "Skittlepedia".
Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Jack, I would be happy to help monitor an RfC on the issue (I'd guess; I've never tried that before). I'm not sure I can pitch it, though, because even the word "coding" tends to cause a knee-jerk wince in me. If perhaps a spokesperson for each side could succinctly explain the issues as they see them, I might be able to collapse into a succinct nutshell, though. I think I grok the basic outlines, but until closing the last RfC I had no idea that "Skittlepedia" would be regarded as an undesirable destination. I'm sure you've noticed I've got a shiny orange skittle on my user page. No doubt I copied the code from some article or Wikipedia page somewhere and just blithely imposed my own color choice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'd not noticed your skittle; I tweaked it a bit and commented in the edit summary. I do lot of this stuff; I'm a developer. I'd be glad to put together a précis of some sort; mebbe WHL will do the same and you can extract a nutshell from it all. Mebbe you, she, I, Chicken Monkey and, say, Rossrs for balance can have a cup of tea somewhere and discuss the issues. WP:DR says to talk and I believe that's what's needed here, not attacks.
Glancing just below, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, although I do believe some issues are strongly coupled to the colour issue. Not sure who Bob is, though ;)
@Malke; templates code is not human-readable in a lot of cases; it is for developers and machines to read. See: here, for a recent example (and avoid the save button;)
Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Bob? Your uncle! :D (I have no legitimate claim to the phrase, being American and all. A friend of mine used to use it all the time, and it grew on me.) I'm happy to help reach some resolution on this in any way that I can. I like all the participants in the debate that I know and would be quite pleased if I could help avert some tension. :) Malke said below that he would run it by me before any action, and I'm sure he will. We've talked about a variety of things in the past. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I liked the Dickens connection mentioned; I'm a thespian, too. You've not commented at VPP; care to nudge the RfC idea along, there? I figure that I wrote a high percentage of the quarter meg RfC at WT:ACTOR, so I guess I'm up for a bit more. I've no idea who Malke is, but did see his "run it by you" comment. He says WHL's friendly, so they're acquainted, too. I'm thinking a week-long round of tea and a mutually agreed-upon RfC launch. nb: Timing's poor, for me, as I'll have some days I'm not editing in the next few weeks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, how do we get the broader RfC started on the color issue. Also, would making the template easier to read be a point that could be considered?Malke2010 14:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Malke. I would strongly suggest (oh, so strongly) that any RfC be strictly limited to color issues and that all deviating points be immediately and cheerfully squelched, as though voiced by an unruly dormouse. :) Mainly I suggest this based on the last RfC, which sprawled to the point of almost derailing itself. Secondarily, because really this question is larger than the template itself. Or the project. It deals with the basic question (so far as I can tell) of when and how it is permissible to deviate from standard style. Some far reaching implications there! I suspect that the RFC should take part at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (accessibility).
What's needed is for somebody to craft a succinct, neutral summary of the issues and place it at whatever appropriate home, apply an RFC tag to it and publicize it further at various appropriate points. VPP is already involved, as are ANI. Just notifying that it's live there would be sufficient. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion would be good. Since it started there, a notice at this specific Wikiproject would also be good, but it's important to avoid the seeming of canvassing so I'd probably not try to notify each and every project.
The biggest challenge: the succinct, neutral summary. The open of an RfC is not meant to be persuasive; arguments take place beneath it. Frequently somebody places a "PRO" statement and somebody else a "CON" statement. Then people sign in to agree or disagree and add their own points in follow-up. If the summary is too complex, people won't read it. If it's non-neutral, people will cry foul. It should be as much as possible specific to the issue and avoid all distractions. There is a "tool" to help with this at [12].
Once it's ready, put the {{RfC}} template on it, and Bob's your uncle.
Readability of the template should really be discussed among project members, since it is specific. Unless I'm misunderstanding you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll write something up and run it by you. Malke2010 19:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I would urge that no one seek a first-mover advantage by launching a hasty RfC. Any next RfC should be well-formed, neutral and at an appropriate venue. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Bob's Your Uncle! I know that expression, MRG. Good advice :DMalke2010 00:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I, too, would like to express my agreement that this -- holding a centralized, well-thought out, neutrally begun RFC -- is a good idea and my enjoyment of the expression "Bob's your uncle".  Chickenmonkey  00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Question, how would editors be notified if an RFC were to be started? Without abusing canvassing, I'm sure there are quite a few editors who would like to be informed on both sides of this issue. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Since this point has been argued about for quite some time I'd place pointers on WP:CENT, WP:VPP, WP:VPM, WP:VPR, WT:MOS, WT:ACCESS, and WT:ACTOR, from the top of my head. Personally I'm no fan of bot-notes to all users previously involved in the discussion; it's practically impossible to do with a fuzzy discussion like this that was held all over the place anyway. Amalthea 13:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Some points I had not considered. :) I had thought to notify WP:ANI as well, since the question had been raised there. But it might depend on how long it takes to put together. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Good ideas, thanks for taking the time to answer me. I like the sections picked to notify. I agree with AN/i too if the case last long enough or gets enough outsiders to remember it. If not, the others are enough to get a lot of opinions. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Taking action

I have started a subpage for the RfC at User:Moonriddengirl/RfC and begun by creating a first draft opening sentence and a bit of background. I have opened a question about the direction of those contents at the talk page, and I would very much appreciate (calm) conversation about it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I've notified everybody who has commented in this section. I hope. If I missed you, please excuse. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, message received and page is now on my watchlist. Again, thank you for letting me know. I hope it ends with a consensus this time around. ;) On a different note, how are you feeling today? I know how painful this infection can be, never mind how exhausted you get. I hope the antibiotics have started working their magic on you and that you are feeling a lot better. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Consensus would be nice. :) I'm feeling a bit better, thanks, but still tired and struggling with the whole "breathing air" thing. :/ I go back to my doctor on Monday for a follow-up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This is just to help until you can get to your dr. When you have trouble breathing sit up and bend over with your elbows on your knees. It helps you get the oxygen thus you can breathe easier. They actually had me doing this in the hospital until the pulmonary people could come to my aide. I hope this helps. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I am guardedly optimistic at the moment - feeling so much better this morning! - but I'll keep it in mind. Being guardedly optimistic, I'm not discounting that I may need it yet. :/ I'll be glad when I can stop doing these breathing exercises. They sound deceptively simple. Smack your chest; breathe deeply; cough. Nobody mentions step 3.a: prepare for the fires of Gehenna. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I let Wildhartlivie [13] know about the set up starting for the RFC since she wasn't involved in this conversation here but has been very involved in conversations about this elsewhere. I hope this was alright with you. Is there anyone else that should be notified? I'd be more than happy to help out with notifying editors since you are not feeling too well. Let me know if I can help, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, she's a good one to include, I think. I wasn't publicizing this one too widely as it's in the brainstorming phase, but she is familiar with the background and can probably be quite helpful in making sure it covers all bases. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Just stopped by to let you know that this is a busy week for me. Next week should be a lot freer, so I'll comment then. Overall, I see this next step as about colour site-wide and we need input up-front from all sorts of groups, especially the MOS types (no idea who that might be, though;). I don't think is should be the WP:ACTOR issues specifically. It should be mentioned as an impetus, and links for reference. Best wishes, Jack Merridew 05:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

CCI header

I hope you don't mind this. I cheekily considered changing "he" to "she" as in practice "he or she" seems to almost always be "she"! --Mkativerata (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL! No, I don't mind. :) In the interest of brevity (not my strong suit), I usually avoid "he or she", but I have no actual objection to it. Just by the time I get around to writing, "Once he or she has finished the blahblah, he or she should list his or her yadayada under the section that seems best to him or her" I throw my hands up and give up. We really need a good, gender-neutral personal pronoun in English! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of singular they, but some disagree pretty strongly. ;-) Dcoetzee 06:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I have a love/hate with the singular they. :) I sometimes use it, but the more pronouns are called for the more uncomfortable I get with it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Friendly notice

You are invited to make a comment at Wikiquette Alerts under Removing vandalism [[14]]. PYRRHON  talk   01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Al-Muthanna_club (June 2010)

Dear, as you might notice, I don't have too much time (/experience) on wikipedia, please see the current version of al-Muthanna club (June 2010), and tell me if its OK.Sallese (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have only a little time on Wikipedia this morning (as it is in my part of the world), but I will be happy to review it in a couple of hours when I return. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Have done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lib3rtarian

Just letting you know that I reopened the Lib3rtarian discussion as it doesn't seem at all resolved. He stopped replying to messages and started using IPs to sock around the block and continue editing "his" articles (he admits it was him) and his last message to me on his talk page was rather unpleasant (what I could make out, anyway). He accused me of ranting, being a hypocrite, fool, a fascist, something about me and kangaroos and koalas and "animals with a QI like (me)"...I think we might need to put an end to him editing here period. AGFing certainly doesn't seem to be helping make any progress. He refuses a translator, insists his English is okay, that it's just some Italian words don't translate well. He also made some reference to his organsiation and some "official behaviours" against me or somesuch, I'm not really sure but he seemed to be trying to say they were going to take action against me or something. So I've restarted that ANI report. Cheers, Sarah 05:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied at ANI; it looks like he's suggesting they may take action against Wikipedia. What a mess. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting his page. Muchly appreciated. I didn't really want to be the one to do it since the last lot of attacks were all directed at me. Cheers, Sarah 23:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Permission to Use Content Copyrighted by the College of Mount St. Joseph

Hi, On my talk page I have posted a formal permission statement that donates content and photos copyrighted by the College of Mount St. Joseph for use the College of Mount St. Joseph article. A substantial body of these materials were added by me and subsequently deleted by Wikipedia's administrators back in 2009. Could you please let me know if this action is sufficient to have the content and photos restored? I'll be happy to take further steps if need be, please just let me know. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffwjenkins (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Cliffwjenkins (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actors Project RfC

Hi Moonriddengirl, I added a comment on the subpage you made. Thanks.Malke2010 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll come take a look at it after I deal with anything else on the talk page and watchlist. I appreciate your feedback there. I wouldn't want it to languish. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, I looked on the RfC page you've made and my comments are gone. Do you have a second RfC page?Malke2010 11:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. No, there still there (User:Moonriddengirl/RfC). Perhaps you thought they were on the talk page? You might want to move them there. :) I'll be stopping by to try to move it forward a bit later, since we've collected some valuable feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I moved it. This RfC is not about actors, it's about colour. Template talk:Infobox television/colour#colour rationales, for example. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Who did I attack

Who did I attack? I simply mentioned that he was retired and frequently commented on American Idol articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My Co-nom

has now been posted! I'll send H an email letting him know we're good to go. ceranthor 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd co-nom too but I'm worried that three co-noms would be overkill? MLauba (Talk) 11:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. I almost never go to RfA. Ceranthor might have a better idea. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
That's really nice of you MLauba :) , but I think two nominators are enough. Feel free to "badger" any opposers, though. ;) Theleftorium (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment moved from user page

"I am completely open to civil, good faith discussions about my admin actions. If I'm doing something wrong, I really want you to tell me, so that I can start doing it correctly. If I see you making a mistake, I'm going to point it out to you as diplomatically as I can and consider that I'm doing you a favor." - Moonriddengirl
I absolutely do not believe what I am reading. Recently, you had warned a friend of mine that he would be banned if he continued to vandalize user pages. All that was said was something to the affect of "This user likes to contribute to American Idol related articles." Should he have done this? Probably not. Although I don't believe it was vandalism. Then when he posted a question on your talk page...an innocent question mind you, you banned him! How can you say you are open to civil, good faith discussions? I'm politely letting you that you are doing something wrong, and am requesting that you modify this behavior in the future. Thank you. --Loofus5 (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Moved from user page
(talk page stalker) Doesn't sound like the Moonriddengirl I know! Link? Never mind, I see now. Your friend would do well to stop calling other editors' "weirdo". –xenotalk 16:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for moving it, I had thought I was on the talk page. --Loofus5 (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
You and your friend would also do well to read our policies on block evasion. – Toon 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the accusation. --Loofus5 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
My full explanation is here, and I stand by it. Trolling is not welcome on Wikipedia. I disagree that I am doing something wrong, and you are welcome to seek wider community input, as "your friend" was advised. (I'll add on the assumption that you are sincere that your friend's intent to disrupt is evident in his edit summaries, [15] and [16]. His question on my talk page was blatantly disingenuous, as his edit summary was persisting in the same trolling behavior.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

File:FREJ.jpg

Hi,

Copyright again - can you have a look at File:FREJ.jpg - not sure that the licensing is correct but not sure which option to pick.

Thanks

Codf1977 (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It looks like it should be {{PD-textlogo}} to me. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Verno, and I agree. Sorry for my absence today, folks. I got an unexpected rush job in today that I must finish in time to make tomorrow's post. :P I'm hoping to get it done today so that I won't have to put any time to it in the morning at all. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're done with it...

...but just to be sure, is there any reason Way of the Warrior (video game)/deleted revisions 2010-06-06 is still around? VernoWhitney (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidently, just got distracted in the middle of clean up. Thanks! I have finished with the mop. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Auerbach

I tried adding Stephen Auerbach (whom I work with) to wikipedia, using a bio from his website that he gave me permission to use. You automatically deleted it. I responded with an email from my personal account, as well as one from auerfilms (stephen AUERback) with the template posted on wiki's website. I've got no response and his page still isn't up. Can you please help me. You can email me at: <e-mail redacted for privacy>

Thank you!!!!!!

Superdavit (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've searched the Wikimedia Foundation's e-mail system for "Stephen Auerbach", "Auerfilms" and your e-mail address, and I'm afraid that I didn't find any trace of an e-mail. If you sent the e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, there's a chance that it was lost in transmission. Please re-send it. To help process it more quickly, make sure that you identify the name of the article on Wikipedia (it was actually at "Stephen auerbach") and the url of the source for which you are providing clearance and that the sending e-mail address is either clearly identifiable with that domain or is listed on the contact page ([17]).
If you try again and let me know when it is sent, I'll be happy to search the system again and intercept it for more speedy processing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

World Telugu Conference

This is an important article on World Telugu Conference. Can I rewrite the article, if yes In what way. Please give me suggestion. Thank You.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 13:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to write a new article on the subject. As explained in earlier conversations at your talk page, you must write it completely in your own words, avoiding close paraphrasing. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". You can use a few brief, verbatim extracts, but you need to clearly mark these as quotations and they need to be used for good reason, such as those set out at WP:NFC. Even if they are brief, using verbatim extracts of non-free content on Wikipedia is a violation of copyright policy unless they conform to those guidelines, particularly with respect to quotation marks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:63.226.104.225

The IP (and self-declared "friend" of Loofus5) continues to blank User talk:63.226.104.225, claiming it is "their" user page, despite it being a shared IP. I've restored the version with the warnings and block notice as they're useful to other editors. Voceditenore (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that experienced editors have to refer to page histories. :/ Though I wasn't around for the conversation, I know it was decided some time ago that struggling to keep those warnings on pages was more trouble than it was worth. That particular fellow has been under discussion at Wikipedia:AN#Blanking your own talk page. I'm inclined to agree with you that they can be useful, but it would probably be best to restore the previous version. And keep an eye on the guy. :) I'm wondering if that "testing" of his was due to an autoblock from his named account. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree about the waste of time in trying to keep them on, but I thought I'd try a little test to see how long they'd stay if I put 'em back. Needless to say, not long.;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Question (disambig)

Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir. I just want to ask you that there is two Indian television actors with the same name Vishal Singh, how would you create pages on both if they have exactly the same name. Can you please help me. Thank you! Your friend, Survir (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Survir. :) I need a little more information before I can recommend a course of action. I see from the source that the guy you've linked may actually be named "Kunwar Vishal Singh." Does the other fellow have a third name, too? What kind of acting does he do? Which of them is more famous? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
They both don't have any 3rd name and they both work in television drama series. By the way, under the link Vishal Singh, the first sentence or two are about 1 actor, and the other two sentence are about the other actor. I think whoever edited was probably confused as well. And, they both are equally famous.Survir (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
So I suppose Kunwar must be a title? Hmm. Well, if they're equally famous, the thing to do is to put a disambiguation page at the main name, with a list saying "For the polo player and actor, see...." (if he has a famous role, you might mention it) and "For the actor, see...." The current article should probably be moved to Vishal Singh (polo player), with a new page for the other fellow created at Vishal Singh (actor). Then, since the polo player also acts, you might but a hatnote on Vishal Singh (actor) saying something about "For the actor in Famous Role, see Vishal Singh (polo player)." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl.

I wonder if I can impose on your time. I was referred to you by user Invertzoo as the resident expert on all things copyright. I have a question regarding uploads to wikicommons that I can't seem to find a definitive answer for on the help pages. Forgive me if I have missed it. For a seaslug article I created over at the gastropod project, I came across a great set of photos on an external seaslug forum website, submitted by a member of the public which would be of great value to the article. I emailed the owner and asked him whether he would consider releasing them to CC so they could be included on wikipedia. He said he was very happy to do so and would send me whichever photos I liked. However taking a look over at wikicommons I noticed that it isn't just that easy and I can't necessarily do it on his behalf. I don't know that he would want to go to the effort of doing it himself either. Is there a way around this? Have you encountered this problem before yourself? Best wishes, Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) You are welcome to come by at any time that I may be able to help you. As it happens, I may be able to offer some assistance in this case, as I do work with the OTRS volunteer team that processes permission letters for images and text imported from others.
You can indeed upload the images if you have his permission, but his permission needs to take the proper form and may need to be submitted to the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm not sure from your note whether the website is owned by the person who took the photos. If so, he can most easily verify the permission by placing a licensing statement on the website. For instance, he might say:

The images Title, Title and Title on this website are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. Attribution must be provided to [Whatever name he pleases].

If he does that, you can upload the images and under "Permission" copy what it says on the website. Let me know, and I'll come by and take a look to verify the release, simply in case the website ever disappears. I'm not a Commons admin, but as an OTRS agent my word added to yours might be helpful.
Alternatively, if he is not the website owner or would rather not have that license displayed on the website, he can mail us the consent form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. In that case, you'd upload the images first, put {{OTRS pending}} next to permission and make sure that he names the images as they are uploaded on Commons. He will need to e-mail from an address that is clearly associated with the domain where they're currently published or to ask that webmaster to temporarily list his e-mail address there. Unless he doesn't want to, in which case we have another layer of difficulty in getting that webmaster to confirm that the images came from his account. But it's not impossible. :)
If you can give me more details, I'm happy to help you navigate through the process! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl,if you have time would you please commentList_of_English_Electoral_Wards_by_Constituency,this AFD There are claims of copy vio. Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Thanks, Rob. I have commented there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a very informative comment, respect and thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Happy if I can help. :) List articles are complex. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

OTRS plea

Can you take a look and see if you ever received permission or anything for Livernois vehicle or from User talk:Shilaski? It's been repeatedly deleted under G12 but they claim they sent an email. A related article (Livernois Vehicle Development) came up at SCV again today which appears to be the same situation. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure! I'll go search the system now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we did; ticket:2010042810032861. The recipient declined to restore it for other concerns. Let me go look into this some more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the release is not exactly kosher. The contributor specifically licenses Livernois vehicle, but does not mention Livernois Vehicle Development. I'll take over the content (that is: the e-mail :)) and contact the contributor about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Just remembered, the copied material is also at User:Shilaski/Livernois vehicle and User talk:Shilaski. Does that material just get left alone or does it need to be deleted? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
It should be hidden until the OTRS completes. I'll take care of that. I can't imagine that there will be any problems with clearance; the connection to the source is obvious. The only problem is that the contributor didn't authorize copying from the source, but rather authorized Livernois vehicle. In WP:CONSENT, instead of listing the source url where it says "SPECIFY THE WORK HERE", the contributor named the article. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

You've Got Mail (<-- I love that film!). Theleftorium (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Permission Email Sent Re: Content Copyrighted by the College of Mount St. Joseph

Hi, Our Web Editor, Rob Schroeder, has sent the permissions e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. Hoping we could take you up on your offer to expedite the permissions process and restoration of deleted copyrighted material. Thanks very much! Cliffwjenkins (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Images

Hi, thanks for your help. Yes, the images such as File:Ziv Art Building.jpg are all copyrighted and owned by the College, and would be released to the Wikimedia Foundation per today's permissions e-mail. Cliffwjenkins (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Taking the plunge

So I decided to see if OTRS still needs a hand and dropped my application off at meta:OTRS/volunteering#User:VernoWhitney. You asked me to let you know if I did, so here I am. :) VernoWhitney (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Commented. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible close paraphrases?

Since I know you aren't busy dealing with other, larger, copyright matters <hah> could you take a look and see if LakeT (talk · contribs)'s recent contributions to the copyright articles are problematic close paraphrases or not? I ran into them before while you were away, so I keep seeing the similarities and would like someone else to take a look at it (and nobody else was very interested in checking it the first time around). See for example this diff compared to the source. The contributions are better than they were a month ago, but I can't tell if they're clean enough. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

People lack interest in evaluating copyright issues? Never happen! <hah!> I'll come take a look in just a little bit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I had rather forgotten that. I should have watchlisted public domain. His response to me there is a bit problematic. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
So far, I'm seeing more to concern me with respect to WP:V. Here, he writes:

Copyright law was created by statute and all works created and published before copyright law was first established are in the public domain. In this historical context Paul Torremans describes copyright as a "little coral reef of private right jutting up from the ocean of the public domain."[1]

In fact Torremans, here disputes this interpretation, saying, "the respective domains of author and public seem to have been much less clearly marked. If we stick with the aquatic landscapes, we might say that the realm of copyright was a shoreline of uncertain contours."[2] I don't know about you, but I read that quite differently. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I had completely forgotten that I had already asked you to jump in. Oops. After reading the source passage I'd agree that there's a problem, particularly given the "In fact, ..." which preceds your quoted segment. From the looks of it, though, quite a few pages of reading might be required to be really sure of what the author is getting at. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
More alarmingly, I had forgotten you had, too. :) My forgettery works quite well, but usually not that well.
This comes a bit uncomfortably close to [18] and [19] for me. And there's a few passages here that seem to draw heavily from this.
This one, otoh, seems just flat over the line to me. Compare: "The Lords had traditionally been hostile to the booksellers' monopoly and were aware of how the doctrine of common law copyright, promoted by the booksellers, was used...." with [20]: "The Lords had traditionally been hostile to the booksellers' monopoly and were aware of how the newly promoted doctrine of common law right was being manipulated...." Compare: "...strike a more appropriate balance between the interests of the author and the wider social good" with [21], "...strike a more appropriate balance between the interests of the author and the wider social good."
Talk page stalkers? Your input would be welcome here. I plan to speak to this contributor further about revising, but would appreciate additional eyes. Otherwise, I'll have to track somebody down. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

My apologies for seeking help here, since I have the ever-so-slight impression you may well be a smidgen busy, but I've got lost trying to find an appropriate forum for asking general advice on copyright problems. (Re-directing me to such a forum would be a much appreciated response.)

If you have the time, I have two queries: one about the WP:COPYLINK guidelines, and the other about licensing of people's own work

  1. There are a lot of links on Wikipedia to resources on muslimphilosophy.com such as scanned books and electronic encyclopaedia articles that is clearly still in copyright. I am slowly deleting such links and replacing them by legal (if often paywalled) versions. But would links to other pages on the site be problematic, given that there are then links to such material on those pages?
  1. Hkettani (talk · contribs) has uploaded to Wikipedia a PDF of one of his own journal articles as File:IJESD2010.pdf. This seems to be a copy of the article as published by the following journal: International Journal of Environmental Science and Development (IJESD). By uploading it here I assume he will have to have released it under some such licence as CC-BY-SA; but this seems to be the journal's own PDF, and thus may well not be his to release. I notice that it has already been tagged as {{di-no license}} by a bot. I reported this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#COI and COPYVIO issues with User:Hkettani? but my impression is that it was not a very useful place to ask for any help on this. What is the best action for me to take if I notice something like this?

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and you are very welcome to come by if you think I can help you. :) I do tend to be busy, but I enjoy interacting with people. So....
The forum for your first question is probably Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. You could get good feedback there, and I would recommend asking. My own personal opinion is, as with most stuff on Wikipedia, situational. :) In general, I would avoid linking to a website that has rampant copyvios on it unless there are very special circumstances to justify its inclusion.
With your second question, that's an odd one. First, even if he does license it, we'd need verification that he is the author and still has the right to license it (that he has not granted exclusive license to the journal). He'd need to verify his identity through the procedure at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If I encountered a situation like that, I'd explain to him what we need to verify permission, and I'd then tag the image {{npd}}, to give him time to do so. I might also list it at WP:PUF.
With the latter situation, let me know if you'd like assistance. Meanwhile, I'm signing off for the night. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for the advice and for taking the time to reply.
I've asked about the first issue on the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard as you suggested.
As for the second issue, the Image Screening Bot has now templated his talk page and the uploaded PDF will be deleted within a few days. Judging from this editor's contribution history, they will not be logging in again for a few months, so perhaps it's best just to let the paper get deleted and wait for some response when they do return. If the publisher ever hosts a copy of the paper, I'll link to that; in the meantime, if the paper doesn't get rescued, I'll remove the article links.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Continued Problems Malke 2010: What to do?. Toddst1 (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, do please go to this noticeboard. This thread is getting out of control. Toddst1 is canvassing admins to ban me from Wikipedia. He's not providing any diffs to support his claims.Malke2010 01:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm pretty much wiped out, but I have left a note at ANI. Sorry about all this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciate it.Malke2010 01:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware, Malke has been blocked for a month. She has asked for you at User talk:Malke 2010#Message for Moonriddengirl. AniMate 05:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to your statement on ANI:

... Talk of failed mentoring has been bandied about; has Malke been mentored? She says she has not. Others may have tried to advise her - I've done so myself - but mentoring is a collaborative arrangement that requires acceptance on both parts. ...

I agree 100% - it is a collaborative arrangement that requires acceptance on both sides, and usually looks something like this. Toddst1 (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem with off-Wiki communication is an inability to know what, if anything, was communicated. It seems that Malke 2010 was open to a relationship; did it happen? How far did it progress? I don't believe conversation has been exhausted here, particularly when User:LessHeard vanU and User:R Jordan had already suggested other actions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I am thoroughly impressed with the valiant effort you are making here. I hope it works out. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry to barge in like this but this latest edit (especially her trademark of leaving snide remarks in the edit summary box: "please don't come to my talk page ever again", directed towards Gwen) by her is hardly confidence inspiring for us. On another note, I sincerely wish you all the best in your endeavour in trying to mentor her. Regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 15:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I know that it's asking a lot, since basically I am hoping to change Malke's general approach to working with others. Naturally, it would be great if her first response to my epic note had been an, "Oh, I see," and an immediate switch to my way of thinking (which, being mine, must be right :)), but I understand that it's not reasonable to expect that immediately, particularly as she's likely to be upset at the moment. I'm glad to see she restored Gwen's note, which I think was helpful. Perhaps she's calming down. If a mentorship position is accepted, maybe it'll work; if it doesn't, she'll certainly have been given every chance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • MRG, I gather that it is going to be a conditional parole, for lack of a better word, for Malke if she is to be unblocked following the discussion on ANI. IMO, she needs to sit out at least a week of the block to cool down and reflect on herself first before her editing privileges are reinstated. But that's just me, the other guys will decide her fate from hereon. All the best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 20:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • People other than me will decide that, too. :) I've offered to mentor, which I hope will work out, but I won't make the move to unblock, since I don't consider myself uninvolved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with an image

Hi Moonriddengirl, sorry to bother you as I'm sure that you are busy. I'm currently putting an article I wrote through a military history A class review. The article is No. 6 Commando and the ACR can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 6 Commando. In response to a request for some more relevant images, I have uploaded this one to Commons: [22]. To be honest I'm not sure if I've licenced it appropriately and have a bad feeling that I might have committed some horrible copyright breach. At the ACR they suggested contacting you for some advice on copyright tags. Would you mind taking a quick look at the Commons description page and letting me know if you think I've licenced it correctly or not? If I haven't, then it should probably be deleted and you have my humblest apologies. The background story to the image is that I scanned it from a book published in 1996, but the photograph is attributed in the book to the Imperial War Museum collection and was taken in April 1942. Thus I have licenced it PD-BritishGov. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Judging from the template (which is usally accurate at commons), it may very well pass criteria #1 and be PD if it was created by the government, and judging from the military context it almost certainly was, but I'm not finiding it at the Imperial War Museum online search, so I can't confirm it 100%. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, VernoWhitney. It's been a busier than usual morning for me. :) I've had a look, and it seems to me that Verno is probably right. Just to be on the safe side, I'll see if I can get feedback from a friendly Commons admin. Since you're going for A class, I'm sure you'd like it settled! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks both of you for your help. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm reasonably certain this image is PD, provided it was taken by an employee of the UK Government, which it appears to be. Should be good to go. Dcoetzee 08:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I appreciate it. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Dayton

I have noticed that in the above Featured List, that the notes column for some buildings (KeyBank Tower (2), Liberty Tower (6), Centre City Building (8), Landing Apartments (9) and Schuster Performing Arts Center(11)) contains details which have been taken word-for-word from their respective pages on the Emporis.com website. If you have a spare minute could you take a look or point me in the direction of the correct venue to deal with this. --88.111.59.90 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like a widespread problem. Compare, for example,
I concur. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yikes. Get a little busy elsewhere and come back to another CCI! Oi. Let me see what's up further up the page, and I'll see if this has been listed yet. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I've put in the formal request. I stole your list of examples. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm already looking into the formal request. I see that issues were discovered a year ago ([23]), but no formal notice was given. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The article, List of tallest buildings in Dayton just (today) passed a two week long scrutiny by at least four administrators on Wikipedia's featured list candidates. Please see the closed archive for this nomination here: [24]. I am really confused that out of all of the people listed here, that they wouldn't have found the problems. And if this was such a big deal, then why did it pass the nomination as a FL? Thanks! Texas141 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not yet looked at that one, but unfortunately it wouldn't be the first time that an article had made it to featured status with copied content. Sometimes, in evaluating other factors, copying is missed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure the copying was missed by the reviewers. I've notified FLC director User:The Rambling Man of the problem. Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the notification. I agree that the probably copyright violations were not deliberately ignored, more likely just not double/triple-checked. This is a problem. However, before I move to delist the article, could I get some idea as to the perceived magnitude of the problem? It may be that the issues can be solved relatively quickly and easily, without reverting to a delisting. However, if that needs to happen, it will, along with the problematic text being removed entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It can probably be rewritten quite easily. I'll try to do it later today. Theleftorium (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

CCI etiquette

I was looking through the CCI I just opened for Chewygum, and there appears to be a significant overlap of articles with more recent user LightAj (talk · contribs) who was indef-blocked for copyvios a few weeks ago. See this history for example. Should I just make a general note for reviewers to make sure to check if copyvio has been reintroduced or should I run them through the contribution surveyor so I can make a note by the particular articles they worked on too? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! The copyright problems are interbreeding! I've had that nightmare with the Paknur CCI, since he edited under multiple usernames and often revisited his articles. :/ Chewygum, fortunately, has a rather short contrib history; a cross-comparison might not be too burdensome. If it seems like it would be, the general note would probably be sufficient. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I just ran the survey for LightAj, and they only edited 32 articles including minor edits, so it still shouldn't be too bad. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI, it was me who raised the alarm about LightAj (talk · contribs)'s blatant copyvios (his latest incarnation being JackHannen (talk · contribs), spotted by me and blocked by Tim Song (talk · contribs)) on the article page of Philippine Air Force and the admin Nick-D (talk · contribs) was the one who blocked him when LightAj chose not to answer my queries about the legitimacy of those image files he had uploaded for use on Phil related military articles. Problem is, despite having removed them from English WP, LightAj went a step ahead by uploading it to commons where I can't tag it for copyvio as easily as compared to here but the admin MilborneOne (talk · contribs) was notified by me to assist, LightAj has since been blocked indef by a commons administrator MartinH for his flippant disregard of copyrights violation. Hence, VW is not alone to suspect that there might be more fishes outside the net cast. Actually, looking through Chewy's edits, methinks that now would be a good time to ask Tim Song (talk · contribs) for help to WP:RFCU again. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 19:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing any other copyvio contributors showing up on a regular basis in the articles I'm skipping though, but I just started this afternoon and I don't deal with socks very often, so I may be missing some indicators. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You misspelled "sadly". HTH. ;) (sigh) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought I would reserve that for: Sadly, we now have 28 open CCIs... VernoWhitney (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dave1185 has asked me to comment on this. I've watchlisted many articles on the Philippino military for the last few years to protect them against a couple of persistent vandals, so have a degree of familiarity with these edits. While checkuser may very well prove otherwise, Chewygum and LightAj have somewhat different editing styles - copyvios aside, LightAj's textual edits were more productive. Articles on the Philippino military suffer from a high degree of vandalism, and I suspect that most of the editors who work on them are young and don't have a good grasp of the English-language. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) That meshes with my theories of why we see so many copyright problems in articles related to the Philippines in general. I see quite a few of those pass through, along with articles related to Pakistan, India and Malaysia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good faith edits

Thank you for showing me where I went wrong. All of these edits were made out of Wikipedia:Good faith and I did not understand what the issue was until you brought it to light for me. I will (from now on) be sure to watch the copyrights of material before I proceed to use editing purposes and I will take care to keep Wikipedia's copyright policy's more carefully when I edit. Thank you again for bringing this issue to light. I will now be a more productive editor as well as a more careful one. Texas141 (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks :D

Thank you. You always know the right thing to say and you always make the most sense of anybody anywhere. Of course I've brought you these flowers: [25], but after such a long day, you need a good laugh. I found this on recent changes patrol and he is my favorite vandal. Notice the name of the article. I can just imagine this kid sitting at his computer screen, chomping on a potato chip as he does this: [26]. Thanks again. See ya on the mentor page.Malke2010 00:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Malke. :) I have good hopes that we'll be able to work through things just fine. And funny vandal. Sometimes I think they do it just to see if they can. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. And the vandal would make the edit, then revert himself, then make the edit again. Like Boom Boom Boom. Hilarious.Malke2010 01:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that is funny. I was passing through last night and didn't check the history, only the diff. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User notification

I saw you just blanked George Clark (American football coach) and relisted it under today's CP page, and it reminded me of some questions regarding user notification I had (some of which I also posted earlier this morning at WT:COPYCLEAN). Since the article was created in Dec '06 and the copyvio introduced then, does it really matter if we notify them or not? Also something I just noticed this morning about my own edits, I haven't been notifying users when I blank the page once they've placed an OTRS pending tag or otherwise asserted permission. Should I be? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, I would have relisted it because it hadn't been blanked. If it had been blanked and the contributor not notified, I would probably have processed it and left them an explanation, since they haven't been here in quite a while. At one time, I would have just blindly relisted because them's the rules. :) That article has active watchers and contributors, though, who may very well react with shock to find it disappeared or stripped to its bare essentials. The blanking template gives them an opportunity to do with it what they will before an admin comes in to mop up. It isn't always received that way, but I tend to think it's a courtesy to contributors.
Whether you notify or not when blanking following an OTRS pending might depend on the circumstances. I will sometimes drop a note at the talk page thanking them for following up and explaining that the content will be restored; I will sometimes leave a note at their talk pages telling them the same thing. Sometimes I just put a note in the edit summary. I try to base it on level of clue (though sometimes I'm sure it's on no more noble a reason than how much I've got to do at a given moment), but a friendly word can soften the blow of a lot of bureaucracy. :) (P.S. Level of clue: if the contributor seems to have grasped it all, I am less likely to leave a note of explanation than if he seems befuddled; if he seems to know how to use edit summaries, too.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hrmmm... I'm still trying to work out the details for when VWBot should notify someone, and am just trying to think of different scenarios, and it's kinda hard for a bot to judge clue :(. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is. VWBot won't be able to tell if somebody has left a personal note, either, I guess? What about a disclaimer somewhere on the bottom? Something like: This notice has been provided as a courtesy. You are welcome to remove it. Please forgive redundancy if you are already aware of the situation.? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the plan is for it to see if a) the tagger has edited the contributor's talk page or b) the contributor has edited the article, article talk page, or temp page any time after the page was blanked. If that happens I figured it could safely assume that there a) a personal note was left or b) the user has read the template which provides the same info. I like the idea of a disclaimer though, I hadn't thought of that yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's a very sensible plan. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course figuring out just who is the actual contributor is the part that I've been putting off for now and trying to think of circumstances where it could either assume that the original creator would still be the one who cares or assume that it's been so long since the copyvio was added and it's not worth notifying anyone, since looking through the history can be processor intensive (see wikiblame). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
What about notifying the creator with a specialized template that says something along the lines of, "An article you created has been tagged for copyright problems. This may be because of text contributed by you or by a later editor. blahblahblah"? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
That would make it easy. Of course the copyvio template says to notify the contributor which also helps us to later spot repeat offenders, but if you think it's reasonable to have it just notify the creator no matter how old the article is then that saves a whole bunch of extra queries and logic loops I've been working through. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the bot is not meant to replace the notification request on the template, so I think that notifying the creator is better than not notifying anybody, and it will not infrequently be the same person. But I know that I routinely look to see where the copyvio entered, and I routinely check to see if the contributor has been notified. Maybe we should strengthen the recommendation of that in the advice for admins. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I was intending it to be a backup for people who aren't familiar with how to blank pages or just forget, so let me ask you this: Under what circumstances would you not bother relisting even when the contributor wasn't notified? If it was placed by an IP? If it was placed years ago? Both? Any other circumstances besides a CCI? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly if it was placed by an IP. If it was placed by a now-inactive registered contributor some time ago and if I would have G12ed it when it was created, I may delete without notification, leaving User:Moonriddengirl/carticle behind. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia mirrors, attribution etc

Hi Moonriddengirl, I was going through a few suspected copyright violations and came across a website that is a clear mirror of Wikipedia, but not only doesn't credit Wikipedia, it also claims copyright. Is there anything that can or needs to be done in that situation? Hope you don't mind me asking you—you seem to be a bit of a guru in this area! --BelovedFreak 22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You are welcome to ask me anything you like. :) The procedure for addressing the situation is at Wikipedia:Mirrors. Ideally, one of the major contributors to an article would take up the call to arms, since they actually do have legal recourse, at least if the website is in the United States. Any contributor can write them, though. If they aren't already listed there, you should also add them to the alphabetical section of Wikipedia:Mirrors, since that can help prevent our inadvertently removing something as a copyvio that is actually their taking from us. And thanks for pitching in with suspected copyright violations! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that link (which I probably should have just searched for myself!) I've listed the mirror on that page and contacted the website administrator, so thanks for the advice! --BelovedFreak 08:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. :) Wikipedia is a big place and few of us are familiar with all of it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

subpage

Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks for the compliment on the edit. I've posted on our subpage.Malke2010 14:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup. I am slowly composing a reply. :) Maybe I should do it in stages. Think I will! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible set of copyvio images on commons

Hi, I received an email today from Ed Pegg complaining that many of the graph drawings in Commons:User:Koko90 are copied from MathWorld. (I don't think the files themselves have been copied, but the images have the same vertex layout and the same visual stylings, far more closely than would be likely by coincidence. In most cases one can find the corresponding images on MathWorld just by searching for the name of the graph depicted in each image.) Is there an equivalent of WP:CCI for commons? Or, if not, what is the best way to deal with an issue like this? I left a message on Koko90's Wikipedia page about this, but he hasn't edited for a month. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and yes! :) It's not exactly the same, but in some ways simpler. I've done it several times in similar situations: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. It's a bit tedious in having to tag each image, but it clumps them nicely for discussion and review. The only real downside is that Commons has so few active admins that deletion debates can take quite a long time to close.
Alternatively, you might want to broach the subject at Commons:Commons talk:Licensing. If there is general agreement that the problem rises to the level of copyright infringement, an admin might instead want to speedily delete them as derivatives. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try giving Koko a chance to respond first, then probably try the mass deletion request if necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) As a Commons admin (and editor of graph theory articles): there may be a serious question here of whether these images reach the threshold of originality to be copyrightable, if they're very simple in their arrangement/layout. I think the images may have to be examined on an individual basis. Dcoetzee 18:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry about this oversight, I am learning how to publish a new page, and trying to help a well deserving artist friend who is well known and should be included in Wikipedia. You may be able to verify this by looking at her Website that I was trying to paste part of the biography here in Wikipedia. I Understand what the problem is now, even so she would be delighted to be in Wikipedia. I know she will grant permission, what and how do I get this to you so that it can be published?

Please do not band me from been able to publish pages permanently. I wasn't sure this material was copyrighted. I made several attempts to publish this not knowing what was happening. It would be very helpful for all people involved (Editors & Yourself) if a very visible pop-up warning came about the first time one accidentally violates a rule, rather that stumbling across the sea of information and small links a person not knowing has to look for. This will allow an editor from getting banned while trying to find out what is preventing them from publishing. I am not sure I got banned all ready as I made several attempts before finding your message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis De Pena (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Question for you..

Hi Moonriddengirl, I see you are mentoring here. I only read this partially but I think I read enough because I was watching bits and pieces of the AN/i. Now to my question, I've not had any contact with this editor but have seen him/her postings at a couple of talk pages I watch. Would you and him/she like some extra eyes to help with the mentoring? I've never done a mentoring before but have always wanted to be second fiddle so I could learn how to help editors that need it. If not a good idea just let me know. I promise my feelings won't be hurt. :)

On a different note, how are you feeling? I hope you are better now, your edits seem to show you are feeling better and have a bit more energy but I'd still like to check in with you. :) Take care and be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm feeling much better thanks. :) Frazzled as usual, but not lacking energy and air! And I'll check with User:Malke 2010. If nothing else, you could be a big help to her and to me if you point out any issues you see to me. She's active. :D I wouldn't want to overlook something that needs discussion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've become familiar with her. Please feel free to guide anything to me, also. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks CrohnieGal and Wildhartlivie. Appreciate the support. Also, Moonriddengirl, I've sent you an email. :D Malke2010 22:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

subpage

I've sent you an email. I'm also planning a post on the subpage today. If you're too busy or want to take a break, I'm not expecting an immediate reply. :D Malke2010 16:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It will probably be a break for me. :) Yesterday was rather frantically about writing articles to replace copyvio problems. I can't save them all, but I can't stand to see us lose our article on, say, Sistine Madonna. :( Anyway, I'll check the e-mail. And if I'm on Wiki, I will respond to your note there when I see it. :) (More art articles to replace! Oi!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, good. And by all means, please save Sistine Madonna. Malke2010 17:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on ELs to a site with lots of copyvio

You might want to see [27]. Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with OTRS

Hi MrG. Can you look into this and maybe add an OTRS template to the talk page? Thanks, Theleftorium (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been nominated for AfD. Still might be worth adding the template, though, if the content has been licensed correctly. Theleftorium (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Good morning, newly minted admin! (Mmm, fresh! and hopefully not dangerous :() I am on it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the release which I am addressing with the OTRS agent who handled the ticket. I think we may need a clearer statement of license. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, much appreciated! I just made my first selective deletion this morning: The Valkyrians. Not too difficult. ^^, Theleftorium (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Well done. :D You may know this, but if the history is extensive, it's probably best to move it to a subpage for storage (as recommended, I use Article title/deleted revisions 2010-06-28). That way if there's ever need to selectively delete something else, there's less confusion about what to restore. With that one, I'd have done it just that way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I read about that at Wikipedia:Selective deletion. :) I just realized that I probably should have used revision deletion in this case though. Theleftorium (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Unless they're allowing us to do more than one at a time now, it's not a huge time-saver. But, yes, with two edits, it could still be good. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Even though people are deleting more than one revision at a time, last I checked you're probably still not supposed to. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Only 27 more CCIs to go...

The Barnstar of Fine Arts
For taking the time to not only remove copyrighted content but to provide well-written and well-sourced replacements, for the oh so many Renaissance and Baroque painting articles I've sent your direction over the past couple of months. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Whoot! A new pretty picture! :D Thank you, but you do me too much credit. You did the hard haul there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about that. If I could have rewritten them I wouldn't have been blanking them to let other people do that part. Of course I think there are something like 21 more art pieces and a couple of biographies coming down the pipeline over the next week before the CCI is really complete, but I figured that the closing of it was a good enough occasion for merriment. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reason this CCI hasn't been closed yet? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Alas, because it has 13 subpages. :/ Only the first is complete. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, clearly I'm still not entirely awake yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
But, you know, it raises a good point: if you didn't notice that, why would others? I wonder if we can figure out a way to indicate that CCIs like this are not complete under the CCI. Maybe we should make subpages a subsection of investigation? (P.S. I'm still working to earn that barnstar. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Usually I notice them (I've been working off and on from the tail end of Paknur), and I am pretty out of it today. Maybe something to revisit another day, though. And yeah, I think I knew that if I gave you the barnstar ahead of time you'd feel obligated to spend time on the last of the paintings that are headed your way. :-P VernoWhitney (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I already turned this into a generic CCI thread, I figure I may as well continue: I just wrapped up the last little bit of another CCI and pursuant to our conversation at Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations#Confidentiality questions, I was trying to place it in the archive under the contributors name instead of the date, as far as I can tell, though, there isn't a way to specify a different subpage and title for the archive link (I've just put in a clunky substituted workaround for now). Do you know of a way to do it with the current template or should I look into adapting {{CCI-closed}} to take an extra parameter? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Guess this is the first anonymous one we're closing. :) I don't know of a way to do it; if you can adapt it, that would be awesome. The date started will be next to useless if we need to refer to an archived CCI later. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since my last bot-related question to you got archived and this is somewhat CCI related, I'm shoehorning it in here: The way VWBot is currently running it thinks that articles from a CCI which were blanked on the day a CCI gets closed need to have their contributor notified (see User:VWBot/Trial#29 June 2010 for two examples from yesterday). I know that it isn't required to notify contributors about a CCI blanking, but is it a problem if the bot does it for whichever articles are blanked on the day their CCI is closed? I haven't been able to think of an easy way to account for closed CCIs yet, so I guess I just want your take on if it's a big enough problem to worry about for later. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to bump me any time I miss something. :) I remind myself periodically that I should not rely on the new messages" bar but should look at every section on my talk page, but sadly I never seem to do that in spite of my good intentions. :/
Hmm. What if we delay closure of CCIs until the full seven day investigation period is completed? I think of people like Derek Bullamore; he's a good guy, and he's been working really hard on cleaning up issues. Even if no harm is intended, I'm sure that the copyright problem notices are embarrassing and (new contributor or not) may seem a bit bitey. (Even outside of CCI, I seldom leave more than one on a contributor's page; I usually will leave a CP notice and follow it up with a subsection saying something like, "I've also found issues in This other article which need to be addressed." That said, I make clear note in edit summary that I am listing another problem, because I rely on such edit summary notes as an admin when investigating copyright concerns.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Something like that would work, although as far as the bot is concerned it would only need to delay closure of the CCIs by one day, at which time the blanked pages are no longer new and it doesn't care about them (assuming people don't unblank them one day and reblank them the next, which we can't really control). VernoWhitney (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
No, we can't, but frequently it's the creator who in that case is asking for it. :) (Not always, but alas.) If a day delay works, then perhaps we should just unofficially adopt that practice for now and encode it if we start to get regulated enough to need it. At the moment, it seems to be mostly you closing them. And good job, btw. :D It had been my business plan to pass out barnstars when CCIs closed as a kind of general "carrot", but you have well surpassed that point. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, we can just leave them unblanked for one more day and use the "completed=yes" flag again. And I've been focusing on the easy to close ones, it gives me a sense of progress. I can't say I'd be opposed to more "carrots", though. :-P VernoWhitney (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll remember that. :D Last time I gave you a carrot, I got the idea I might be overloading you. You may not have encountered this yet, but some people don't care that much for carrots. I like them myself and will periodically update my userpage to record them, though I try to do batches because they make me blush. Why? I don't know. Even confessing that makes me blush. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Arpanmehra

Hello! :-) Do you agree that an indefinite block is needed for Arpanmehra (talk · contribs)? Theleftorium (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. This contributor isn't getting it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done But isn't there a template for copyright blocks? Theleftorium (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope. I use User:Moonriddengirl/cblock, and you are welcome to join me, but I never did get around to outfitting it for indef-blocks. I usually copy it and tweak it when that happens. Heads up if you do use it: in spite of what it says, time is not optional. Omit it, and you get a mess. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Great, thank you! Theleftorium (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

the archive bot

Won't archive anything unless there are about six five threads on the talk page. First time users who config with a short archive time, have only a few threads on their talk page and then wait for it to do its thing often think it's not working at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooh! I didn't know about that setting, thanks Xeno :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks ok to me, it should work. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! J.Delanoy could tell you how many times I've come to him with archiving issues, but he's probably blocked the memory. LOL! Oi. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The only thing that ever daunted me were the defaults on minimum threads handled, would that I'd ever bothered to look at User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo#Parameters_explained Oo Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've never really understood what I'm doing or where things were going wrong. I think this was my first run to J. I've been back at least once. I'm willing to bet he's seen me on the issue a good handful of other times. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, he spotted the glitch back then, you somehow added brackets to the value bucket, which the bot took as meaning "0Kb" (pls don't ask me why I spent 10 minutes of my life tracking that down :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
LOL. We Wikipedians. We're thorough. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
We're crazy, the lot of us, which is what makes it so cool :D Gwen Gale (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting group on the help desk today. :D Malke2010 17:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I like best about Wikipedia, we have people with a lot of different talents around here. And that's a good thing, because it means I can spread my help requests around. Poor J. For a while there, I didn't know who else to turn to about this stuff. (Ha, Gwen! Now I have another resource!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm (kinda) handy with groking configs and scripts, but I've spent my life fleeing from programming... fleeing :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I will give you a break, then. :) But if it makes you feel any better, this is about as complex as I usually get. I stay in the shallow end! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, please don't be shy about asking me about tech stuff here, truth be told, what I don't know, I know how to look up, I learn too and I like bein' nudged. Sometimes, I need to be nudged! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. You are now on my mental list of "go to" folk for stuff like this. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, the update I did yesterday on my talk page to the minthreads parameters for MiszaBot seems to have worked great. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Great! Maybe it'll work for Malke. :) We should find out in two days. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Bot working just fine. Yay!Malke2010 23:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Raised here, it seems that our first edit for Tryton copied some content from the copyrighted web page for the software. How do we fix this? –xenotalk 16:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL! In spite of telling somebody this morning I need to stop relying on the last message in "you have new messages" I did just that last night. You were masked by somebody cleaning up trolling. Sorry. :( The article is a clear derivative. Sometimes when content is completely overwritten, we can just remove older versions from history or even place a {{cclean}} on the article's talk page, but I'm afraid that this one remains a substantial copyright concern. It's no longer a G12 candidate, obviously. I've blanked and listed it, and it will resolve in about a week, probably with the deletion of all of his contribs to that article, since it's all problematic. The Userpage is a copyvio, too, obviously. By the time this is resolved, I think there will be no edits from that account to be retained. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem! I must admit, I was surprised that your usual SLA wasn't adhered to ;p. Thanks for your help on this. –xenotalk 14:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what a SLA is, but context gives me an idea. I have a bad habit of that one. Please feel free to drop an impatient "Well?" on my talk page if I'm not responding to. I always mean to, even if my answer must come down to "beats me." :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Service level agreement =) –xenotalk 15:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes. We have willing spirit, sometimes shoddy execution. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
As long as you don't mind me continually passing the buck to you, I won't complain ;p –xenotalk 18:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. We each have our strengths. (Or, I could say, tolerances.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi, the content of tryton.org is now under CC-by-CA, so the copyright infringement notice can be removed, can I do it myself ? -- Bechamel (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to extend my deep appreciation for your help, in "how to" vis-a-vis avoiding copying copyrigted material. My qeustion would then be, is it now, [with my last version AND your "fixing" part added] impossible, already, to revive the deleted al-Muthanna_club?Sallese (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Mysterious note to me

I have something to do on July 3rd. Don't forget, me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Lord#Filmography

Hi. Care to review this? There are threads related to it on the article talk page, User talk:Viriditas, User talk:Maile66, and User talk:Wildhartlivie. Jack Merridew 18:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jack. I'm not quite sure what's going on there, I'm afraid. While I can read consensus, I'm not so good with coding. :/ Is the template in use the one agreed upon and the font the proper size? With the color question, we can really stand to move forward with the RfC, but so far nobody has responded to the questions I left on June 18th. If we don't have some kind of concrete goal, I'm afraid it won't settle much. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I just answered a similar query at F&W's talk. I fixed the coding mess; I'm a professional at that. The issues I have with what I noticed are WHL attacking the sortability, and characterizing her way as "standard". The only point of that template is the colour, and that's still an open question. I've been really busy, but will get back to your questions later today. I'll prolly post a pretty detailed statement of what I see as the issues. Clearly, this need doing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
And while you're at it, maybe you could get Jack to stop wikistalking me and trying to stir up crap that is not an issue, or make an issue of it. The filmography table begin template most certainly DID have consensus at the RfC at WT:ACTOR, and really all he's doing here is complaining because these days, he's NOT using it and leaving in the mark-up he complained so viciously about before, even recently editing one page that I didn't put it on to add it and then is busily going about pushing his person POV preference of sortable tables. He's wearing out his welcome with me, oh no, he did that a long time ago. I'm really SICK of him popping up places where he has never edited before as soon as he sees that I have edited on the page. It's persistent and it seems to me it is done just to "announce" that he's stalking me. He has posted the same post as the one he did here to many talk pages, [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] and this one in what I would consider yet another violation of WP:CANVASSING, trying to cause me problems. This is OLD behavior and it needs to stop, really. I was of the impression that such conduct is not acceptable under the terms of Jack's being allowed to return to editing and factually, he bends over backwards to follow my edits, post such posts, incite things and endeavor to get rid of people who don't agree with his "seriouz-clue" folks. Wikistalking is defined as "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." That is precisely what he is doing. This Jack Lord filmography thing is an attempt to try and make something out of a response to a request for assessment and his efforts at cross posting most certainly are an attempt to create irritation, annoyance and distress to me and to inhibit my work here. The links he posted here do not indicate anything improper since consensus was to use the template and the rest is his own POV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know that Jack had ever been barred from editing, actually. I tend to keep my head down and focus on my copyright work most of the time, with occasional breaks for a change of scenery. Sometimes I later wish I hadn't. :/
My only involvement in actors and films (except occasional copyvio work and probably some vandalism or BLP reversion) is the RfC. If consensus is violated for the RfC, I'm happy to drop a friendly word in somebody's ear to point out what consensus was, although as time goes on there's always the whole aspect of WP:CCC. I'm also happy to try to help pull together an RfC on color use, because I can see that it is a difficult and contentious issue, and I am neutral on the subject and generally try to be helpful. :) (Truly: for a couple of years I hosted a subpage on Race and intelligence in my userspace because contributors couldn't agree on a neutral place to put it, and though I kind of cringe at the whole topic I figured I might as well.) Other than that, I'm afraid I have no special insight into this situation.
But it seems very much as though issues here go beyond this specific situation. It feels personal. I cringe to ask, but have the two of you tried mediation? Or an RfC? I'd really hate to see you come to metaphoric blows and one of you to wind up leaving. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me comment, though, I find you very helpful, a lot. And have said so. I have no real hope that mediation will help, and I made a long post on AN/I about his conduct toward me, which died a natural death when people stopped commenting and it was archived. However, the complaint has been around for quite a while and no one seems to care enough to stop him from stalking me. In fact, I have greatly curtailed my activities during the week when he is around because I am weary of the stalking and attacks. I am frequently hesitant to even log in for fear something else (like this today) will have reared its ugly head. The issue besides his conduct toward and about me, is his sudden interest in deprecating the prior consensus on the template and his actions to subvert it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm drafting a reply, but it's slow-going. Let me get to the copyright question that's popped up below, and I'll get back to it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. You're welcome to comment, and I appreciate that (your statement that you find me helpful, that is), but I do wish I could offer some concrete assistance. It took me forever just to read through the ANI thread. I'm not sure if mediation would help, but I do kind of wonder if the ANI thread you link might not have suffered with a bit of sprawl, just like the actor RfC. If you feel like Jack is not giving you enough breathing room and the two of you can't negotiate some comfortable terms to make things more pleasant for both of you (seems from reading the whole ANI thread that you both feel frustrated), then outside intervention might be really a good idea. I am hesitant to suggest a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct since it is by nature kind of adversarial (while mediation tries to bring you together). Really, it would be great if you could negotiate some parameters of interaction that would work for you. But you know better than I do what you two have tried and what has or hasn't worked. Beyond RfC I don't know what to suggest. Arbitration? Yikes. I'd go for the RfC first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is about how the whole ACTOR:RFC went. I've considered an RFC/U and mediation; F&W urged me away from that approach as 'escalation'. WHL's "seriouz-clue" folks comment above is a reference to a comment I made the other day concerning some editors I agreed with: User:Newyorkbrad, User:Risker, and User:John Vandenberg, all of whom have a pretty firm grasp on the clue-stick; see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston McCoy for my comment and her reaction to it. I've had a lot of discussion with the arbitration committee; honest dialogue is key to returning from an indef. If you're unfamiliar with my history, have a read and ask me to fill in any gaps. It's all out there and is constantly thrown back at me by users who don't like my views; it's a well understood tactic: "change the subject". WHL has placed her talk page off limits to me; she refuses to engage in genuine dialogue with folks who disagree with her; note all the criticism she removes from her talk pages. The real core issues are her ownership attitude towards her actor bios, and her appalling belligerence and bad faith. I don't give a hoot about her personally; I'm concerned about a huge amount of really poor markup that she's the source of. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
That's okay, Jack, I don't need to know your history; I'd forget it anyway. I'm good at that. :) I'm not offering to mediate; I'm just offering suggestions to help you two interact peaceably. Whatever the source of conflict, it seems intense. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
My history is there; it's what is. I'm all for dialogue with whomever. WHL needs to learn to collaboratively engage in dialogue with those who have legitimate criticisms and not go ballistic at the sight of my user name. I've been attacked by a lot of editors here and her attacks don't bother me. Her obstruction of efforts to improve things is another matter. I'm in the middle of a longish post on the /RfC page, so look for that in a bit. The Jack Lord page has brought this to a head and I'll be posting a lot more. When I first made a clean-up WHL didn't like I was called before WP:ACTOR with a reference to it as a "governing body"; I called it a "club" and have been on her shite-list ever since. Beyond the colour issue, is the whole issue of the authority of wikiprojects (which is nill). I'm sure some do good work, but I see a lot of empire-building here; a route for a small group to exercise a fabricated authority over large swaths of articles. This is what Chickenmonkey is getting at. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC) p.s. real name is David: see Jack Merridew ;) what I was re-reading when I was renamed.
Jack, there is no point in talking to you simply because every time your username pops up, it is there with the intent to create conflict, just as your inappropriately canvassing your buddies with your cross posting the note that started this section. And don't overlook the demeaning way you have referred to the WP:ACTOR project and have repeatedly said the same thing in the conflict preceeded that, as did your snarky comments. You have given no good reason to doubt your motives on this. Witness your blaming me alone and personally for the filmography code being use, despite your having been told countless times that that code was already in existence and widely being used long before I ever touched actor articles, the only thing that changed from what it was before me was the change of color and a slight reduction in font size. And let's not overlook that I specifically asked you to explain what was a problem in the extant coding and you replied I was too stupid to understand. So why would discussion with you over any of this be productive? Oh, and the specifics on your "seriouz-clue" was stated in a way that denigrated the editors who didn't agree with the opinion, once again belittling other editors because you don't agree with them. How is any of that congenial or "collaboratively engaging" in anything? And let's not overlook the many times you've signed to me "Jeers, Jack Merridew". Not quite collaboratively inclined, is it? And yet you complain that I don't want you on my talk page. Small wonder. What I want is for you to stop following me around. You do it and you know it. Fences and Windows has suggested that you stop stalking my edits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've not called WHL 'stupid' — I believe she's referring to this, where I stated:
You really want an explanation of what's wrong with the code? That would be a technical explanation and I don't see you as a technical person and would expect the details of poor markup to be outside your domain; most of the WP:ACTOR crowd's, too, I expect, as they seem to have promoted invalid code for years and have burdened the project with several hundred thousand tables that are malformed. Sigh; it's a wiki; they let anyone edit, regardless of competence.
See these [35] [36], too. I gave a technical explanation to Equazcion, and he agreed with the nuts and bolts code issues. WHL later claimed I did this because Equazcion is a man. Wow. Equazcion understands code, and I guess is a guy. Anyhoo, I'm certainly not a sexist and have worked with a fair number of sharp people who are women. This all highlights another major issue; people unskilled in technical matters wading into deep water. WP:RANDY ;)
This is where the invalid markup was introduced, and from there it's spread to some huge number of articles. From these, further copies have been made to non-actor bios using other colours; a gift that keeps on giving. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't plan to step into the middle of this, but since conversation is ongoing.... Jack, in the quote above, perhaps consider the emotional impact of your language? Had I introduced those tables (malformed or not), it would certainly not make me happy to have it characterized as "burdening the project". Presumably, we all want to make it better and hope that we are doing so. Also, with that "sigh" of yours, you rather imply that those of us who introduce invalid code may not quite be competent enough to edit. :) Perfection is not required and all. But, no, if that's the point in contention, it's really not the same thing as calling somebody stupid. I consider myself technologically impaired (almost technophobic), but I'm not stupid. I'm crackerjack with copyright work. We have different strengths, and ideally we pull together towards perfection. OTOH, if Wildhartlivie does see herself as a technical person, she might well feel substantially more denigrated by that than I would. If I asked you for an explanation on a point of copyright difference and you said "I don't see you as a legally-minded person" or "I don't see you as a logical person" or "I don't see you as somebody with any experience in this area" or suchlike, I'd be insulted. (Yes, there are certainly plenty of people who know more than I do, but I'm not ineducable.) From my work with copyright, I do know that even if people are introducing something invalid, they can frequently be brought not to; that whole "spoon full of sugar" really helps. :)
(And I'm not saying that the code is or is not valid--I don't know, and I don't really want to learn. I don't have time to push past my knee-jerk technophobia. :) I will make tables the way I am told to make tables, but I will leave conversations about the proper methods of table-making to people with a more global understanding of the issues.)
Still and all, I'm not at all sure that the conversation about it needs to be emotionally fraught. While you may not realize it, you both sound pretty intractable and unfriendly when you talk to one another. I suspect that there are some conflicts here that are not going to go away until and unless we get a definitive answer, but maybe we could keep conversation about it - if not friendly - as unemotional as possible? If you ever do seek mediation for your underlying conflict, it would if nothing else help people who are looking at a huge tangled mess and seeing what looks like hostility on both sides. Otherwise, it comes down to a "s/he started it", and even though I've got a singleton, I've been around enough to know what a headache it is trying to resolve that kind of thing. There are nuances that make it very hard for somebody who wasn't there in the beginning to figure out who is right. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've got only two comments here. A separate discussion on another talk page has occurred concurrent to this one, which, like this one, sprang from Jack's inappropriately canvassing support, which also has occurred like this one. Please see User talk:Fences and windows#Jack Lord#Filmography, where the wikistalking and harassment was addressed by Fences and windows and by Rossrs as well diffs of those conclusions. Also see my post regarding the claims that exist that blame me for everything and do not represent what is contended on WP:Filmographies at User talk:Moonriddengirl/RfC. Perhaps looking at others' opinions on this issue will hopefully reduce the monster-shouting about me. Thanks for trying to help, MRG. Again, I appreciate it. I would still appreciate any thoughts you have on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that at User talk:Fences and windows#Jack Lord#Filmography, Jack is not closed to the idea of mediation or an RfC. It might be a good idea. Frankly, I think it would be great if you could sort of avoid one another pending the result of the RfC (which I'll go to next; forget the CP listings), but I suspect that's unrealistic. You are both very passionate about your work. Jack, Wildhartlivie, any chance you could just sort of agree not to edit the same articles/talk pages for a bit? I don't mean stay off of ANI or off of the RfC subpage or what have you. But if you could avoid talking about or to one another on other people's talk pages and avoid each other in article space while this sorts out, it might help relax some of the tension around here. Even if you only accidentally arrive at the same place? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll agree to this, in a general sense, at least. There will prolly be exceptions but I'll try. No demonizing and reverting would be a good start. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Jack. :) Wildhartlivie, if you can agree to that, maybe we can at least diminish these issues while the matter is settled. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a meek fellow, I know, but people without expert knowledge are not the best people to be determining what's appropriate in whatever area. I'm comfortable with the basic rules of the road re copyright, but I'd defer to your opinion if you strongly expressed one contrary to mine regarding a copyright issue. One of my first encounters with WHL involved an image of Mary Pickford; I pinged Durova, who didn't agree with me (and I dropped it;). WHL is not adept at code; that's obvious and she's said as much. The term 'incompetent' is not a blanket insult; I used it to refer to myself at User talk:Jack Merridew#Um... (re brain surgery). I 'am' adept at a variety of 'code' and no one is really disputing that or that code I've identified as invalid is in fact bad code. If you need advice re coding (say a table) ping me.
From the recent comments on your RfC subpage, I'm coming to the view the the crux of the issue at hand is really about the authority of wikiprojects; a view that the members of a wikiproject have the right to declare what shall be in the articles under their provenance, a term used by WHL and Malke. This directly contravenes WP:CONLIMITED and WHL seems to be saying that's what she wishes to see changed. The ACTOR:RFC went all sprawling because there were a lot of issue involved (and some came up later, such as sorting and rowspan). These issues are all intertwined and while addressing them individually is a fine theory, it is less practical to do so; they're intertwined.
I suggested on F&W's page that Rossrs might serve as an informal mediator; no reply, yet. He's a friend of WHL's with whom I've had productive dialogue and he's seen a lot of this. I'm all for sorting this civilly. If WHL will cease attacking me, I'll respond to reasonable queries.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
(I've replied on Jack Merridew's talk page that I am willing. Rossrs (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC))
With respect to the core issue, I think I am coming to a similar conclusion. I look forward to feedback to my latest note at the RfC page. I hope you guys find a good mediator, and I hope you don't regret your statement: "If you need advice re coding (say a table) ping me." I am not known for shyness in asking for help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad to hear it; I'll opine in the subpage later, as I'm going out for a bit. My offer re tables and other techie bits stands. I do this a lot and am not without facility; see here and just scroll through it slowly; lots of hard-coded markup... which is ok, on a user page ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
boink; you have new posts on da subpage. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) It may be morning before I get to it; it's past my bedtime and I'm trying to finish a copyvio replacement article. But I'll put it next on my to-do list (after also putting out whatever urgent fires may rise during the night!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is why I wasn't going to be active at the RFC. I've watched this going on and have been called a meat puppet of WHL and more because of my open acknkowledgement of us being friends. I try to help keep WHL calm when she gets upset and/or is baited. She gets sick if she gets stressed out and as you know, I understand this so I try to help. I do it 'off' site via email where I feel more comfortable talking to her about the good, the bad and the ugly. I console her when things are bad for her but I also tell her what she should do differently to help the situation. It was actually working and she reached out to Jack for some coding help which he kindly did. That was a huge step from WHL to try and calm down the controversy. Unfortunately it didn't last. I still continue to talk to WHL when things get going which is how I found the thread at Fences and windows. I didn't have time to comment there but now I see Jack has again canvassed a bunch of editors, which I will also note are mostly administrators. Why did he put the same note on so many editors talk page, why so many administrators? Jack, why, what's the purpose? I am trying real hard to assume goo faith here but I have to admit I am have trouble doing so. WHL is an excellent editor. I admire the hard work she has done for the project. I wish I was half the editor she is and I mean this. Yet you accuse her of ownership issues and a slew of other things. You know if you keep saying this, do you think it makes it true? You also accuse her of having too many reverts even after she told you multiple times that she does recent patrol duty which is usually a lot of reverting of vandals. I do recent patrol too and I also do a lot of reverting. Why does this matter? What I would love to see is polite conversation without assuming someone has more or less knowledge in any area. I too reverted you a few times when you changed tables because it was under discussion and you said you wouldn't touch any tables, yet you did. I'm not going to get into any more of the accusation flying around. Basically what I would like to say is that if I can help either of you at least be polite and civil with each, something I think I am really good at, I am available. I talk with WHL via email because then we are free to say what we want and hash things out. Jack if you want to do this too, I am more then welcoming you to. I would really love this whole thing to stop already since it's gotten really old for all of us. So if you or anyone wants to chat with me please feel free to first ping my talk page. If things need to go to email then fine I'll say if it's ok to do so. I hope my long babble helps a little. :) MRG, I haven't commented much on the RFC but I promise to take a look at what your question is and give you a reply hopefully tomorrow (I'm going to lie down after I save this). Jack, please if you wouldn't mind, would you go to the others that you posted to about this and kill the postings as a gester of wanting to calm the waters. That would be appreciated I'm sure. We don't need more conversations like this one and the one at Fences and windows. Thanks in advance to you all, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, just an observation that I must make in fairness. I think highly of Wildhartlivie too. I don't know why Jack Merridew left that message on the talk pages of various editors, who they are, or why he chose them but the message was neutral and was the exact same message left on my page. Although Jack hasn't done so, some editors have commented that I have a long history of agreeing with Wildhartlivie so for anyone to draw my attention to a disagreement they're having with her, well .... they kind of run the risk of me sticking to tradition. Please take my comment in good humour as it's intended in that spirit. Rossrs (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry Rossr, I am in no way stressed or upset by what you said. I read what you wrote to Wildhartlivie and I think you would be a good mediator since Jack approves and I think Wildhartlivie has respect for you also. I understand your confusion about the message being left by Jack at multiple pages, as I too am confused by it. Yes it was neutral, well I guess it was, but I still see no reason for him to have left it at so many pages of editors. But anyways, going to go now, be well and don't worry about me.  :) --CrohnieGalTalk 22:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - On the surface of it, I am willing to let Rossrs try, if he is agreeable to it. I don't want, however, his friendship with me to end up being used against him, or me for that matter. Beyond the filmography controversy, my main issues are with being wikistalked, snarky and harassing comments to and about me, and Jack's tendency to canvass responses to RfCs or just discussion, whether they are appropriate instances of canvassing or the more troublesome inappropriate instances. That's as simplistic as my issues get. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Torremans, Paul (2007). Copyright law: a handbook of contemporary research. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 137. ISBN 9781845424879.
  2. ^ Torremans, Paul (2007). Copyright law: a handbook of contemporary research. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 137. ISBN 9781845424879.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_23&oldid=1147949487"