Jump to content

User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Lilian Govey and Margaret Tarrant

Hi Moonriddengirl, if you have time, would you mind looking at the above? Lilian Govey is a one-paragraph article, with all but one sentence paraphrased from Richard Dalby's The Golden Age of Children's Book Illustration (1991). Not sure whether it's close enough to count as a copyvio; or whether the words would be considered ordinary enough so that a degree of similarity was inevitable. The editor was not pleased by recent similar inquiries, so I thought I ought to check it with you, and ask what the procedure is (re: tagging, removing, deleting).

Dalby: "She illustrated several books for Harrap, Wells Gardner & Darton (under the pseudonym 'JL Gilmour', following a disagreement with this company), Dean (Dean's Happy Common Series; The Book of Happy Gnomes), Nelson (The Old Fairy Tales), and especially Humphrey Milford (The Rose Fairy Book; Nursery Rhymes from Animal Lands) who also employed her talents in several playbooks, Christmas annuals, and the 'Postcards for the Little Ones' Series."

"She spent most of her adult life in a remote Sussex cottage, where she where she became devoted to the study of local history, folk lore and spiritualism."

Wikipedia: "She illustrated for the publishers Harrap, Wells Gardner & Dean (using the pseudonym J.L. Gilmour), Dean, Nelson, and Humphrey Milford. Books include Dean's Happy Christmas Series, The Book of Happy Gnomes, The Old Fairy Tales, The Rose Fairy Book, and Nursery Rhymes from Animal Lands. For Humphrey Milford she illustrated several playbooks, Christmas annuals, and the Postcards for the Little Ones series. Govey passed most of her adult life in a remote Sussex cottage studying folklore, spiritualism, and local history."

Margaret Tarrant has two such paragraphs. The sources are this article by Denise Ortakales, and Richard Dalby's The Golden Age of Children's Book Illustration.

Dalby, p. 134: Besides her many children's books, Margaret Tarrant's postcards, calendars and silhouette designs were enormously popular. The plates in her edition of Nursery Rhymes (1914) were reissued as 48 bestselling postcards. Reproductions of her best-known painting, 'The Piper of Dreams', sold by the thousand to decorate sitting-rooms around the land. Her religious paintings achieved a great following in the 1920s and 1930s, especially 'He Prayeth Best', depicting a shepherd boy kneeling on a hilltop.

Wikipedia, citing Dalby: Besides her children's books, Tarrant's postcards, calendars, and silhouettes were extremely popular. Reproductions of The Piper of Dreams sold in the thousands, and the 48 plates from her best-selling Nursery Rhymes of 1914 were issued as sets of postcards. Her religious paintings of the 1920s and 1930s were extremely popular, especially He Prayeth Best, a depiction of a praying shepherd boy.

Ortakales: She has exhibited at the Royal Academy and the Royal Society of Artists in Birmingham. By 1953, her health and eyesight was deteriorating. Within a few years, she gave up her house in Peaslake to live with her friend Molly Brett in Cornwall. She died on 28 July 1959. She left her pictures to her friends and her estate to twelve charities.

Wikipedia, citing Dalby and Ortakales: She exhibited at the Royal Academy and the Royal Society of Artists in Birmingham. In the early 1950s, her health and eyesight deteriorated, and, within a few years, she left her house in Peaslake to join her friend Molly Brett in Cornwall. She died on 28 July 1959, leaving her pictures to friends and her estate to twelve charities.

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Slim. :) Lilian Govey is a particular problem, as there's no question that we are doing anything transformative with the material. I believe that both of them need to be rewritten. Ordinarily, I would blank them and address my concerns with the contributor, but (in a case of "can you believe the timing") while you were leaving me this note, I was making this one. :/ I will add reference to this matter to the CCI listing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Timing indeed. I've not really dealt with this kind of thing before (except for one-off copyvios I've spotted occasionally), so your guidance is much appreciated. If more problems appear, should we place them directly on the CCI page, rather than removing the material? Or both? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your attention to it. :) Once a CCI is opened, we generally clean the material directly, if we can. Since this contributor so far hasn't shown a lot of interest in rewriting these problems, that seems like the best approach anyway. If we can't, we do block and hope that somebody rewrites it before it comes due for closure in a week. When I can, I save them, if nobody else does. The solution for the longer article is probably to stub it for now. The shorter one needs rewriting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for jumping in - this is a field I'm familiar with. Would it okay for me to go ahead and try to fix these pages? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay? It would be beyond fabulous. :D Any contributor without a history of copyright problems is welcome to pitch in at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Susanne2009NYC. If you clean up an article, please note it there so that other reviewers don't evaluate it as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Will need to pick up books from the library. I've mostly cleared Beatrix Potter and am working on The Story of Miss Moppet. Will have a look at the CCI to see what needs to be done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You may wish to pay attention to the edits from Susanne2009NYC (talk · contribs); not only does this fit in with same plagiaristic pattern, I have suspicion to believe that this is a returned sock of a banned user. I am going to investigate into this, likely with CU. –MuZemike 22:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have reached my limit with google books today - so can't access any of these. Will leave them alone. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Jumping in here. Reading the above set my antennae twitching re the article Ruth K. MacDonald. If you scroll down Susanne2009NYC (talk · contribs)'s Talk page history (sorry, haven't figured out how to provide diffs), you will see a short interchange between us on 8 November re a possible close paraphrasing of a book bio (which I still intend to fix - just haven't got round to it yet). Seemed innocent enough (if a bit careless) at the time. Now I'm wondering...Might be nothing to this but I thought worth mentioning --Plad2 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion please

I would appreciate your advice on a copyright issue. About a week ago User:Fram started summarily deleting subpages from under User:Geo Swan. One of those subpages was User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives -- speedy deleted as a copyright violation.

I initiated a deletion review Wikipedia:DRV#User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives. It was closed early by an administrator who chose not to take a stand on whether it was a copyright violation. That admin emailed me a tiny rump of the of the original page -- entirely worthless. I left a message on their talk page not long afterwards, with what I intended to be some good faith questions about where to get the copyright issue resolved. But they haven't been online in almost a week, and haven't responded. I have however subsequently been emailed the full source.

I'd be very grateful if you would look at the deleted page.

  1. Am I correct that the first of the three tables, the one on pages 69 through 84 of the original source is not copyrightable, because it is a list of facts, as per Feith v. Rural?
  2. I acknowledge pages 85 through 90 contain some sentence fragments that contain interpretations, and that are not facts.
    1. Do you think they are long enough to pass de minimus?
    2. If they would pass de minimus, do you think a version of those tables where those handful of sentence fragments had been replaced, or rewritten would be no longer be a problem?
    3. Another administrator who looked at the deleted page suggested that, even if the pages had a sprinkly of original text on it, they were so brief and so infrequent they would be includeable unde fair use. I acknowledge I am not satisfied with my current level of understanding of fair use. Does this make sense to you?
  3. In your opinion, if material once lapsed from a policy, but is subsequently fixed, so it does comply, when is an administrator authorized to delete it, based on their concern over the earlier version?

I have done a lot of work on the Guantanamo captives habeas corpus cases -- probably hundreds of hours. This page, or a version of it, would be very useful to me as an aid to correlating which captives were included in which habeas corpus petitions. I have doubts over whether the original deleting administrator's action was firmly based in policy. But, if, for the sake of argument it was. A stripped down version of the page, that still allowed me to correlate the habeas petitions with the captives, would remain extremely useful to me.

Thanks for your help Geo Swan (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(TPS) Geo Swan, keep in mind that whatever the outcome here, now that you have a copy of the text you are always free to keep it on your own computer with a utility program such as Notepad. You can copy-paste the text into an edit window and use Preview, all the links will work, you can update and re-save to your own PC and no-one in the world can stop you doing it. So long as you don't actually commit the edit to Wikipedia, no-one will even know you are doing it. It's not as convenient as actually keeping a page on the WMF server, but it does get the job done. Now back to our regular programming... Franamax (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) My opinions on this, of course, are just my opinions. That said, lists are only copyrightable to the extent that they are creative. If this list is, as it purports to be, a comprehensive list of individuals who were verifiably released or transferred from Guantanamo, the elements of the list should not be copyrightable. If different people compiling such a list would come up with different results (say, because what data to include is subjective) it would be. It looks uncreative to me, but I am not familiar with the standards applied. If the contents aren't creative, the only concern would be in the creativity of presentation. That the table is reproduced in the same format and with some of the same verbiage could be an issue if that format and verbiage are not standard. The inclusion of sentence fragments may lead to a greater interpretation of novelty there.
There are a lot of factors that go into determining if content is substantial and, if so, if use is fair. In determining if the the content is substantial, a court might examine how central the content is to their document and also how central it is to yours. If they decide that the content is substantial (either because the content is sizeable or central) to either, they might then determine a fair use defense. In both, your best bet is to use the content transformatively. It helps to make sure that you are not superseding the original, but that you are adding something new to scholarship by your use of it. I myself would feel far more comfortable using such information as part of a larger whole, whether that be critical analysis of the document or a greater review of the circumstances the document discusses.
If I wanted to use that information on Wikipedia, presuming I am confident that the selection of elements in the list do not represent creative selection, I would not reproduce their list structure, but would format the information differently, and I would enlarge the article with either sourced commentary about the document itself or other sourced commentary about the situation. Doing so increases the probability that the little bits of copyrighted content you do use will not be "substantial" and that, if they are found to be substantial, they would be excused as fair use. Rather than advising you to create a stripped down version, I would suggest plumping it up. :)
In terms of personal access to what there is, Franamax's advice is good. I actually did that very thing to review the deleted article: previewed it in my sandbox. :)
On the question of what to do with articles that have copyright problems in history but not in current version, typically these days we "rev delete" the infringing versions. I have to admit that this is a questionable practice. If the copyright infringement is effaced through gradual evolution, then we may well wind up with a derivative work. If you take the Mona Lisa and paint a bit here and paint a bit there, you may eventually wind up with a painting that looks very different than the Mona Lisa, but which can still be shown to have the Mona Lisa as its base. There are some who would argue that all subsequent edits to the infringement are akin to "fruit of the poisonous tree" and that we should replace such articles with complete rewrites. Currently, though, this is not the way policy on Wikipedia is written. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, you state that "If different people compiling such a list would come up with different results (say, because what data to include is subjective) it would be." (copyrightable, that is). Considering that the list as copied was divided into three sections, "CERTAIN", "IMPERFECT DOCUMENTATION" and "LIMITED DOCUMENTATION – TENTATIVE CONCLUSION", it looked and looks to me as if other people researching the same data may well reach different conclusions, certainly with regards to sections 2 and 3. Things like a "tentative conclusion" are by definition subjective and uncertain. Fram (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. Since the page numbers did not correspond to the document I'm looking at (69 begins with "Rukniddin Fayziddinovich"), when he asked about the "first of these three tables" I thought he meant the one marked "Certain" in the first appendix, with the others considered separate tables. That's why I referred to a comprehensive list of individuals who were verifiably released or transferred from Guantanamo. Most certainly the "tentative conclusion" would be a subjective compilation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Fram (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

pics for article

Hi Moonriddengirl, I'm looking to find out if Wikipedia has any images of paintings by Jacob Lawrence or other African American painters for an article I'm rewriting. Don't remember what I did with that search link you gave me a while back. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Malke. :) The place to look for images is Commons. There, they are categorized just as articles are categorized here. I start by putting "category:Jacob Lawrence" into the search menu, and, voila: Commons:Category:Jacob Lawrence. You can then see at the bottom of the page that it is part of a parent category of Commons:Category:African American artists. I checked for a cat for African American painters, but there isn't one. You can browse through the artists category to see what you come up with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Susanne2009NYC

I thought I was doing the right thing but apparently it was "too close paraphrasing". I looked at the case page (or whatever it is) and didn't understand it. It looks all too complicated for me. I'm willing to cooperate but I don't know what you want me to do. It's impossible for me to go back and clean this stuff up. Just blank the pages. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Internet Archive

Hi again MRG, if you have time (and there's no rush), I was wondering if I could ask you about using the Internet Archive when checking for copyvios.

I tagged Wanda Gág as a copyvio today because several paragraphs are identical to this webpage, which seems no longer to be online, but which I found on the Internet Archive.

I want to be certain that it was Wikipedia copying the website and not the other way round. The material was added to Wikipedia in November 2006 in this edit. So far as I can tell that material has been on the website since before November 2006. There is an Internet Archive log of the website's pages here, and if you go into, say, the March 2004 version, you can click through to a list of illustrators here (which has the year 2004 in its URL), and from there to the page our article seems to copy from.

I have one small concern, and that is that the actual webpage for Wanda Gág does not have its own URL. That is, to get to (what I assume is) the March 2004 version, I have to click on the list of illustratrators for that month, and then click on Wanda Gág, but the URL doesn't change. So I'm not sure how I can be 100 percent certain that some of the Gág material is not from a later date. I'm wondering if there's a way to nail it down, i.e. to date that particular webpage.

I hope I'm not being an idiot and missing something obvious. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am being an idiot. There is indeed a way to get a URL for the webpage that contains the dates going all the way back. Sorry to trouble you! This is what happens when I try to do anything even slightly technical. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries; I'm right there with you! If it weren't for some of our tech savvy computer people, I'd be lost. Glad you resolved this one. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

BS

The Original Barnstar
Too often great editors like you are overlooked and not given the credit deserved for all their great contributions. So I am awarding you this barnstar to let you know I greatly appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, and please keep up the outstanding work!! CTJF83 chat 03:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Aw, thank you! :) That's very kind. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Any time! You do Rock! CTJF83 chat 22:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Image

MRG, I just tagged File:Anushka Shetty.jpg as F9, but notice that you'd done some deletions but retained this version, so can you check before it's deleted? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'd already noticed you'd tagged it and have already deleted it. :) It's another one of those cases where, just because one version was a copyvio, doesn't mean the other was clean. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hate when that happens! —SpacemanSpiff 20:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you take a look at East Indians, was tagged as copyvio a while back, and then I went on wikation and someone removed the tag. I don't see an OTRS note and the site doesn't seem to have a release note either, the article history has the tags etc. It popped up on my watchlist now and I remembered! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 21:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There's an OTRS ticket, just a little different than standard. :) It's the bottom of the three templates on the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Duh, I don't know why I missed that as I was looking for it! Thanks for putting up with me! —SpacemanSpiff 21:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not putting up with you; we're pulling together. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Need some help

Hi Moonriddengirl, I had asked Iridescent to look over an article that I had worked on some time ago Edward M. Cotter (fireboat) for copyright/plagerism problems and she suggested I contact you. I want to be sure that I'm not holding too close to my sources and if changes should be made. I realize that you're busy but if you could look at the SS Canadiana article for similar problems. I have also printed and read the pdf about plagiarism and it is helpful. Thanks Shinerunner (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm glad you found it useful! I appreciate your attention to these concerns, and I'm happy to give an opinion. I probably won't be able to get it done today, though, as my Wikipdia time is pretty much over. :) Did you cite all the sources you used? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The sources are cited on both articles and on the Cotter article I've corrected some dead/redirected links.Shinerunner (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take a look at it as soon as I can. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I corrected one dead link in the SS Canadiana article. The other dead link is accessible via WAYBACKMACHINE. Shinerunner (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sassy Pandez Page Updates

I see that there has been some activity today on the Sassy Pandez page, and some additional references have been added as a result. You may remember that when we first can discussing this page a couple of years we requested that my clients full name was removed from the page for personal safety reasons, but the new references that have been added today include this name, which again raises a very real personal safety issue. Please can we discuss this further, ideally on my Talk page. Thanks. AquilaUK (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your future's so bright I gotta wear shades!

The Barnstar of Awesomeness
Please accept a belated (but very sincere) "Thank You" for the time and effort you put into writing those two Copyright articles for The Bugle. I believe I've also managed to find an award you haven't actually got yet. EyeSerenetalk 13:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, this barnstar was hand-drawn by a University of British Columbia student during the FA-Team's first mission... and is unofficially the coolest (and officially the least tasteful) barnstar on the 'pedia. Enjoy :) EyeSerenetalk 13:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

WhooT! Thank you very much! :D I was pleased by the opportunity, and you're right: I've never had that one. I need to update my barnstars subpage soon, so I can put it in my permanent display! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And another one


 The Barnstar of Diligence
Presented with many thanks for your hard work in explaining and fixing copyright violations, for raising awareness of the pitfalls, and for helping to keep Wikipedians on the side of the angels. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Thank you! I do try, and I appreciate it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Imported Pages

IN RE: Copyright Talk Page

I wasn't sure where/how to continue. If I am posting in the wrong area, please move it back or whatever is proper.

So, I found the license you spoke of and added it to my wiki. It is located in the footer and the link sends you here. I believe this is kinda what you were driving at. I will need to go into each file I've imported and write a note in the Summary and that will take a bit of time, but I want to make sure I am on track. It's never been so much about the legalese and such, more of a belief that there is right and wrong in the world; the military drove that in my head!  :) I want to make sure I get stuff right and acceptable to folks both on Wikipedia and at large as I hope to set an example with others who visit to my site; to show that there is a proper way to use other folks' materials. Thanx! --Foreclosurepedia (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) You are welcome here; it is certainly much more convenient for me. :D As I said earlier in our conversation, I can't give you legal advice, but as far as our view of the matter, you are in the right as long as you (a) continue the license and (b) attribute your source. For some reason, I can't get your website to load by following your links, by pasting it in directly or even by looking it up through Google. I even tried switching from Mozilla Firefox to Internet Explorer, but still couldn't get in. Maybe there's a temporary glitch? :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Whoops. I see you've been blocked. I'll take this up with you at your talk page! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
So, everything has been corrected now. I had a final question and then won't bother you anymore. I have the license fixed and will go into the edit sections and place the hyperlinks as you suggested (here is an example of doing that which I believe is what you are talking about). It will take a bit to go back into each file and do this, but I am fast tracking it. To the question: I am bringing over images from ya'lls pages to populate the imported pages. What do I do here? I mean as I am giving credit and such for the importation and the image is embedded in the imported page is the license/edit page entry sufficient? Or am I just sweating small details? Thanx! --Coffeehound (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Jenny Morris (musician)

Almost a week ago a message appeared on my talk page regarding possible copy violations with the Wikipedia article on Jenny Morris (musician), I indicated to User:124.176.58.238 that the article's talk page was a more appropriate venue for the discussion. I transferred the material there and also posted the concerns, as I understood them, at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 November 11 but have received no response. Since that time, User:124.176.58.238 has repeatedly deleted a segment of the article (and sources) which has been reverted by myself and by two other editors. Subsequent edits by User:124.176.58.238 have added the claim that the information is "taken from my bio". I believe this is information which is independently verifiable and that no copy violation has occurred.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Articles listed for copyright review are not typically examined by an administrator until after seven days, to give contributors an opportunity to address them, as by obtaining permission or rewriting. This is why nobody has looked at it yet. But I'll go take a look now; just let me quickly scan my talk page to make sure there aren't any emergencies waiting this morning. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Your cool and conciliatory tone is a pleasure. Thanks for the expanding the details on copyright. I thought the IP was representing Jenny Morris, at first, and couldn't understand where there was a problem.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Chipmunk

It has been sometime since we last talked. I noticed that you closed Eastern chipmunk because of suspected copyright violations. Frankly, I think your action was overkill. I tried to find the sentence you gave as an example but could not find it anywhere in the article. I also noticed that many reputable editors have been contributing to the article and now their efforts have been lost. Can you clarify what parts of the article are violations? It is not obvious in such a long and well edited article. This is a rather important article since it is a well known, well loved, and common animal. It should not be blanked out for long. Cheers. DGERobertson 01:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The article has been blanked for evaluation. It will be addressed in a week. As I said at the talk page, it has been heavily edited by a banned serial copyright infringer who has both pasted content wholesale from copyrighted sources and minimally altered copyrighted content. All the content she has added will need to be evaluated or presumptively removed. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime for a few examples. If you would prefer, we can revert back to this version until we can separate out her content for review.
By the way, are you familiar with WP:SIGLINK? Your signature doesn't seem to comply. Perhaps you could fix this? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. I fixed my signature problem. I did check out this user's status. It is an odd case. Most of the edits that were made by the user were pretty harmless. It is going to be very difficult to cut out the copyright violations from the good edits and the good edits by reputable contributors. Dger (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the sig. :) It is going to be difficult, I agree. The challenge is going to be that she used book sources and we can't access them all. Given her history, if we can't find the sources and compare and clear, we have to presume that they are a problem. There are some contributors looking into her fiction-related articles who have access to her sources. I don't suppose you'd have access to the sources she used on animals, would you? :) I can see some of the book mentioned here through Google preview, but many of the books she's used are snippet view only or not even that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing the signature problem. No I don't have her book sources. I would need to check a library. Right now I am too busy to deal with this case. Prehaps in a few weeks. Dger (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

fair use

Hi Moonriddengirl. Could you have a quick look at this fair use rational being claimed for the infobox of a living person, seems a bit weak to me, I have nominated it at files for deletion here - seems like a very weak excuse for fair use to me .. thoughts? No hurry, no worry. Off2riorob (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rob. :) I'm afraid that one's beyond me. I find our non-free rules on people puzzling. There is an exception made for "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance" where "a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career", but when you look at that deeply, you have to ask: how do we know that we can't acquire a picture taken during their career? For that matter, how do we know that we can't acquire a free picture taken during the lifetime of a dead person? There is an additional complicating factor here that I don't really know how we take into account: personality rights. Japan is keen on those. See this, for instance. That might certainly affect our likelihood of getting a free image. But is that a factor to be considered? I don't know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hm, the mystery deepens, thanks Moon for the comments, I'm grateful for your experience. Lets see, what others there think, I would say the fair use on that pic is only to represent her in that movie and not to represent her overall appearance in the infobox, if the rationale is acceptable then , thousands of fair use pictures could be claimed in a similar manner .. retired, likes their privacy . seems a bit of a weak claim to me, lets see, regards. That link is interesting to the Japan portrait rights, but I doubt if wiki using USA law would comply with that, personality rights is another matter, I will have to have at some detail as to how that affects usage, seems to me that it is being used as a kind of disclaimer, add the template and at least you posted the warning for people wanting to reuse the pic and the same rational as us. Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no. We don't comply with that; we have a template on Commons specifically about personality rights. The point is simply that obtaining a free picture of Japanese celebrities is challenging, because you cannot simply snap a shot of them legally in Japan. But, again, I don't know if that's factored in at all. I agree with you that the rationale is weak, but that's why I'm puzzled by our rules on non-free images of people. :) I have a hard time understanding how, for example, a musician's notability could rest on his visual appearance. I don't understand why we can use images of actors in roles (Bella Swan, for example) in articles about those characters when the notability of the character does not rest in the appearance. (Do we need a non-free image of the actress to understand "teenage girl"?) But we can't use non-free images in the articles about the actors. Why can we use non-free images of actors in articles about soap opera characters when those actors often periodically change? I myself wrote FURS several years back for a couple of pictures of dead people that showed up at WP:CP, before we stopped listing them there. One of those images was subsequently deleted as an NFC problem at what was then IfD. The other one, listed at WP:NFCR, was kept. I could see absolutely no difference in their usage. From that point, I've sought clarification a couple of times, but have never received it to my satisfaction. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it is happening a bit willy nilly, and on a personal basis, loose interpretation of the policy, many users want to use more non free pictures. I see this as going against the mission of the foundation in regard to non free usage foundation licencing policy is the resolution on which our non free use policy rests. - Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
If the discussion supports their right to have that non free picture then would they be able to add any non free picture they like to the infobox, and also to the infoboxs of any Japanese retired porno model or sex worker or the like that we have no commons compatible licensed picture for using the same rational.
I'm familiar with it, but I'm afraid that I can't really spread myself too thin here. With over 40 CCIs and a constant rotating copyright problem list, I'm afraid I can't even keep up with the work I have. :/ I would love to see some clear and consistent approach for NFC images, but getting one ironed out is beyond me at this point. Since I've never worked with image issues outside of Wikipedia, I've chosen to focus on the area with which I am familiar: text. Anyway, hopefully a clear, policy-derived consensus will emerge. If consensus emerges that is not consistent with policy, I hope the admin who closes it will recognize that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope so also. Many thanks Moon, I was kinda bouncing some thought of you. As usual it has been beneficial. I am seeking Vernon's assistance as well in another matter, I though, seeing as I voted in his RFA. hehe. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna

h r u? 

no msgs since long?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Khanna&oldid=397498516

this contains some added info and corrections. do guard it ..i mean u may check it and ensure if at all some idiots make wrong chnages u will revert to my version ..Shrik88music (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to read over it or to guard it. (Which wouldn't be appropriate anyway.) Hopefully, other interested contributors will pitch in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sylvie Bodorová - OTRS [1]

Hello Moonriddengirl. I'm in contact with the people who sent the message with the permission. May I ask you what's missing there? Is it the correct license? I'd like to let them know, as they're quite confused (they know very little about copyright policy of Wikipedia, and my explanation (I wrote them an e-mail) was perhaps unclear.) Thanks for any hints. Kind regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) It is a specific license and a clear connection between the letter and the website. They may by this point have received their response, which I hope will make the situation clear. They have not yet replied. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your prompt response :) I'll watch there. Interesting username, btw. Sometimes I'm Beerriddenboy (a less poetic version) :)) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please help - I have letters of authority and need to submit proof to Wikipedia for usage of Pictures

Hi Moonriddengirl, I have made a few posts on my talk but have not received any feedback from Administrators so I'm communicating directly with you as you helped me previously. I now have three letters of authorisation to use pictures on the 44 Parachute Brigade (South Africa) article and would like to know how I can proceed from here. Can you please reply and give me guidance?

kind regards

--Smikect 16:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikect (talk • contribs)

Reply.

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Jhenderson777's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

By the way thank you for realizing the mistakes on those articles and I am sorry for any trouble I might have caused. − Jhenderson 777 21:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cookies!

For you! has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.


To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Manisha-An-Indian-Acteress.jpg

MRG, I'm going through Indian actor cats to eliminate copyvio images (finished Category:Tamil actors so far), and I came across this image. I have no reason to not believe that the editor who uploaded this is the painter, but his website seems to be selling this image through a third party site with a certain copyright policy. I don't see an OTRS ticket either. The editor is not active currently, so I'm not sure leaving a talk page message would help. What should be done here? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd tag it with {{npd}} on both projects. (I always put a brief note explaining why, such as "Published here; need to verify identity.) It would be a shame to lose it! Hope he follows through. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A quick look - vandalism? Hoax?

Check this edit and see if it is true. I was going to rollback but the user seems to been a long term user. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi.:) Caustic humor, I should think, based on who said it. He's right that you have to prove your identity; I did, too, when I signed up for OTRS. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
With a passport? That is insane. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that you have to use a passport. For sure you don't for OTRS. I would imagine there are many acceptable forms of ID. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It has to be verifiable ID. For most of the world, that means a passport; most countries don't have ID cards or photographic driving licences. – iridescent 13:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
They don't, really? :O </clueless American> It's funny the things you take for granted. I was just thinking a few days ago about how built-in furniture is the norm in these parts in kitchens, but nowhere else. (Unless you count closets, which are a kind of permanent wardrobe.) Why not use freestanding furniture in kitchens so that they can also be rearranged? (Excepting plumbing pieces, of course.) Or why not use built-in furniture elsewhere? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Lots of countries have them, but it's a case of where they're distributed. Canada, Ireland, Australia and the UK all don't have ID cards (the UK briefly experimented with optional ID cards a couple of years ago but they've since been abolished); since—the US aside—those countries represent the vast majority of Wikipedia's editor base, it leaves passports as the only practical form of ID for most non-US users. If you really want to lose the will to live, there's a full list of which countries do and don't have ID cards at List of national identity card policies by country. Britain recently introduced photographic driving licences, but they're for new applicants only and not retrospective; my UK driving licence is just a sheet of green paper with my name and a list of vehicle classes I'm permitted to drive. I believe the situation is similar in most other countries. – iridescent 14:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TWINS&curid=29650154&diff=397739134&oldid=397735144. I had thought my edit summary was adequate. --W☯W t/c 20:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

semi protect

the reason i put it was to indicate that semi protection is needed....to notify it i have even given a written statementShrik88music (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC) thanks for what u did now .. this is the same thing i had asked for....there are very few people like u , hebrides and e ripley who edit articles fruitfully other wise there are some who just dont want to contribute fruitfullyShrik88music (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

ILT

MRG, this is going to be one awfully big CCI.

I'm going to be traveling Thursday, preparing tomorrow, but I've started:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Beatrix Potter material is a huge mess. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The most amazing piece is that some reviewers are still disgruntled that I demand source checks, and am asking for a COPYVIO check on every nominator. There is such a thing as a library still, right ? :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Sandy. I'll take a look at it. I've got a lot to do today I'm sure to make up for yesterday's absence and to prepare for tomorrow's planned absence, but I plan to try to poke into it a bit while I can. The actual CCI is now listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Susanne2009NYC. The good news is that as CCIs go, there aren't that many articles. The bad news is that the contributor's content is quite enmeshed. I would hope that this case would help bring more attention to bear on the problem. Now that we've confirmed socking here, we see that this contributor has violated copyright under other accounts. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the other accounts yet, is this going to have to be expanded to every confirmed and suspected sock or has anyone else checked yet? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Verno, I'm sorry I can't be of more help. I've only checked Kathyrncelestewright (talk · contribs). Many of the other accounts were only used to harass FA reviewers, so the copyvio may be confined to only a few accounts. In my absence, you all can do whatever you need with that subpage of mine, but I suspect that if you go through all the socks and pick out the GAs first, those will be the hardest ones to tackle. Lots of DYKs, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
In that case I'll be going through all of them today and expanding the CCI whenever I come across any substantial contributions by other (suspected) socks so that we don't miss any. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Joy! :/ Good practice, but not pleasant. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
New one today, MerryMerryMe (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Seems like we might could use some more blocking power here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
To any stalkers who may be interested, the CCI is now fully populated with contributions from all socks and suspected socks that I couldn't quickly rule out at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Moonriddengirl, I just wanted to let you know that Ottava put up a source review of the one FA that Kathyrine contributed to, To Autumn, here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll find that at the CCI and link it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where to report this since the ILT stuff is all over the place now, but you may know how to deal with this. I found this image File:Old Mr. Prickly Pin.JPG which was uploaded by Susanne2009NYC and by now has been moved to commons, even though it shouldn't have been since none of Potter's illustrations are PD in the UK. She has several more uploaded pics at commons too:[2] Siawase (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl - a quick update. The Story of Miss Moppet is getting a good scrubbing; some editors from Wikiproject novels have stepped forward to offer help; and I'll continue to chip away at these articles - moving on to the GAs next. I haven't updated the CCI yet (actually don't know how) and don't want to until I know Miss Moppet is entirely clear - hopefully by tomorrow. Am busy workwise for the next few days, but will get in as much night work as I can. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed is SoniaSyle (talk · contribs); those contribs need to likewise be scrutinized as with the others. One of the articles she worked on, Cry (Michael Jackson song), is a GA. –MuZemike 21:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

<sob> VernoWhitney (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, only 16 more articles thankfully. That's not too bad all told. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Man, do the socks ever end? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, I don't know how to update the CCI, but so far have identified close paraphrasing or direct quotations on each of the articles I've looked at. Three are almost completely scrubbed: The Story of Miss Moppet, The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher and The Tale of Peter Rabbit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Debits and credits copyvios

I notice you did some work removing copyvios from this terribly written article, and archived part of the talk page. I had already archived it and it looks like you might have archived my archive (nested archives??) but that's not what I'm here about. On the archive that I created, I left in a section that was a blatant copyvio so I could review it and possibly rewrite it, but I never got around to it. And I shouldn't have left it in the first place. I've removed the "introductory text" bit from the archive page, but you may want to go further and remove it from the page history, which I can't do. Ivanvector (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. :) It is a terribly written article, isn't it? I considered trying to fix it up while cleaning the copyright concerns, but alas I've got too much copyright work outstanding and it would take me some time to figure it all out. I just lack the background. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I'm a professional accountant and I can't make sense of what the editors are trying to say. Needs a complete rewrite. I've considered doing it myself a number of times. Ivanvector (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

El Salvador national football team

The text you are TAGGING as copyvio has been altered thus complying with the set of Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA 3.0 policy. Yes, the article was once tagged as copyvio although it has now been altered or changed. You may just be saying that a article may be deleted if it had any copyvio a year ago. It is in the history but you must understand it has been changed! Thank you. Jaime070996 20:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it has not been changed. The example I placed at the talk page was from the version of the article immediately before I blanked it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
So, if i agreed with you, what COULD be done to fix that very little "infrigement"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaime070996 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Backwards copy vio template suggestion

I just noticed your post here, and saw the backwards copy vio template at the top of the page. Of course it's a great idea to tag articles in that way, but I wonder if it would be even more useful if instead of (or as well as) posting your comments to the talk page, as you did, the template could be altered to have a "show/hide" section in which your comments could be pasted. That way a future editor who comes across the apparently copyvioed text would be able to see the results of your work and not have to wonder whether you made a mistake. Do you think this would be useful? Mike Christie (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be fabulous! Do you have those skills? :D I'm pretty tech-lite! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I've never really worked with templates, I'm afraid. I'll leave a note for Geometry guy; he's an expert. Mike Christie (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Take a look here; Geometry guy has implemented a test version. I think it looks fine. If you like it, I'll let him know to move it over the current template; or do you think some discussion is needed there first? I don't think it's necessary myself -- it seems an unexceptionable improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
That's great. :D As long as the comment is optional, I don't think it would be at all controversial. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I was feeling moderately pleased with the idea myself when I came here to say thanks, but then I noticed that I apparently linked "here" to here, rather than Geometry guy's talk page, in my post above, which cancels out any sense of cleverness I might have had. Oh, well. Perhaps I can blame wikEd, which I'm still getting used to. Anyway, glad it worked out, and thanks for the barnstar! Mike Christie (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL! Pshaw! A "what was I thinking?" moment doesn't undermine the brilliance of the idea. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

hello i have been observing the comments posted in shrik88music talk page . thier some of the users kept on telling him that wiki wants exactly the same things as written in the source.i would hve modified like how shrik has been doing. now its getting absolutely confusing as to what is needed. why a double stance is being taken . there is bound to be copyright issue if directly scenetnce is copied so why not modify the words?

as far as links are concerned they are authentic and info needs to be added . why dont you help in incorporating the info i had copy pasted?Quicklight (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh khanna

do see the rajesh khanna talk page. Quicklight (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

i will wait for a day and see whether the so called editors who opposed are genuinely interested in contributing to the article. i would modify the words and sentences and ensure the info i had pasted comes in separate para. can u recommend me some like minded individuals..who can help in modifying the sentences. info was vital to make all wiki readers of future to understand that he formed "popular on screen" or hit pairs with those 7 actresses in particular.Quicklight (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I felt a Funeral in my Brain

Do you, or any of your lurkers, have Gale Literature Resource Center accounts? I haven't, so I'm unable to check whether this is a copyright violation of the sources cited. I've cleaned up the article to make it easier to check. Uncle G (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't, but I sometimes do stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange to ask for assistance. If none of my lurkers can get it, I can do that, though I'll be gone for a long weekend as of Thursday and might not see a response in a timely fashion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey! :)

Hello MRG. I was wandering if you could help me. If you look at List of 90210 episodes you'll see in the section for the third season it include information from the lead of the season 3 article. Even though, the "only include" things are used. Season 1 and 2 sections only include the episodes like they're supposed to. Any ideas on what caused it? Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad, ignore me! Jayy008 (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll carry on, then. :D Glad you worked it out, whatever it was! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Garside

With regard to the Ropbert Garside kerfuffle, it's worth you contacting Panyd (talk · contribs), who was handling a closely related OTRS ticket. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Will do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Rajesh Khanna redux

Hi Moonriddengirl, sorry to bother you with this, but if you have a minute, could you take a look at Talk:Rajesh Khanna and comment on the text I've suggested there, in the section Talk:Rajesh_Khanna#whats_the_issue? I'm a little worried about the words "popular on-screen pairs" which is the same wording as in this source; there may be a better way of phrasing it so we can avoid it altogether, but perhaps a three-word noun phrase wouldn't constitute a copyright problem? After all, there is a limited number of ways you can express the concept, and I imagine that if "popular on-screen pairs" is a copyright problem, then e.g. "popular pairs on the screen" would also be problematic. Quoting the source verbatim might conceivably work, of course, but there are already quite a lot of direct citations in the article. (I think I may have spent too much time reading about this, today, and my brain is shutting down. There are probably ten obvious rephrasings that would remove the problem altogether :-) ) Anyway, I'd appreciate it tremendously if you could weigh in on this particular issue. --bonadea contributions talk 19:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Three words are probably okay. :) Let me come take a look and see! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It would certainly be a trifle too small to worry about at worst, but if you want clear separation, what about "Also popular were his pairings in the 1980s with yada yada yada"? If you retain what you have, I don't think there's an issue, but you're welcome to use that approach if you like, with no need to attribute me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

i dont think its a big copyright issue --- fact can be represented only in this manner ir. he formed onscreen hit pairs with....Quicklight (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a big copyright issue, but not because facts can only be represented in this manner. English is a word rich language, and there are many ways to express content. It's a very small amount of text, but, given your prior pasting of text, I would not want you to take away the wrong impression from this. It is necessary to write content in your own words. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - you are a star :-) Have had very limited time for WP activity today but will hopefully get back to this tomorrow. Thanks again for your help. --bonadea contributions talk 21:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

from the above discussion its clear that there is no copyright issue as far as the sentence "He formed popular onscreen pairs with with Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz in the seventies and with Hema Malini, Tina Munim, Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon in eighties in many romances and social melodramas and films from a range of different genres." - so can i paste this ???? if any1 reverts it foolishly you can talk to themQuicklight (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I presume you have a different source to verify that he was in films of different genres with these women. From a copyright standpoint, it shouldn't be a problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Garside

Moonriddengirl, In 2007 Mr. Garside got his world record which is WHY this person became an editor in 2007. They drove this article into an edit war because they are an opponent of Mr. Garside. They have, on and off, been edit warring with Mr. Garside for years under different names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 11:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

For one, Mr. Garside has the world record and here, the weighting is wrong. We have been into this before with Wikipedia UK (legal) and I will not revisit the same discussion as was discussed in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 12:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Plus, no one is talking about locking articles, but why all the changes? Nothing has happened to this story to warrant changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want me to answer you, stop writing on my page and wait for me to do so, please. I cannot reply if you are changing the page as I am typing.
Yes, we've been into this before. UK Legal has no authority, period. It doesn't matter what they think or say.
There's little point in pretending that you have no connection to Mr. Garside; either you are Mr. Garside or you work for him, as you claim copyright of File:India Gate Monument Start.jpg and you are solely interested in his article. By contrast, this user has thousands of contributions stretching back years and has edited this article for the first time on November 20, 2010. Are you really suggesting that he registered three years ago and put in all those edits just so that they can edit this article on one day? Edit warring on material like this? --Moonriddengirl (talk)12:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No tangible reason to change the article as it stood on 19th November has been asserted. Therefore one assumes that the edit that is negative towards Mr. Garside has been conducted by the same detractors who did this in 2007 and 2009. We cannot allow this kind of harrassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 12:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, YOU own the article do you? Negative and unwarranted edits are not acceptable. We have been through this before, for years. What was wrong with the article as it stood on 19th November 2010? Do explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


This kind of harrassment? Are you honestly asserting that because User:UnicornTapestry made changes like this:
"Guinness World Records certified that The first fully-authenticated run around the world record" to "Guinness World Records certified the first fully-authenticated run around the world record"[3]
that he must secreetly be affiliated with somebody who dislikes Mr. Garside and hence cannot be permitted to edit the article?
Nobody has to explain to you what's wrong with the article. By contrast, if they enter content that is problematic, you can address that. But you cannot simply revert because you liked the way it used to be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I really do not want to get into a dispute with you over this, but frankly, no changes to this article are warranted. Can you explain why this article needs to be changed at all? Please note that on 19th November, just 3 days ago, the article was fine and since then aggressive changes took place, that we do not agree with. We know who is doing it and we intend to protect the reputation of this living person, Robert Garside. Wikipedia has a policy on living person and with regards to the article itself, there has been a long history of personal attacks against Robert Garside, I think you know this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 12:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not lock articles into preferred versions, period. You do not get to control this article or decide when "changes to this article are warranted." Articles on Wikipedia are open for editing by anybody, and you are undoing the work of a good contributor with no stated reason. Can you explain what is wrong with altering the clear error "certified that The first fully-authenticated" to "certified the first fully-authenticated"? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do remember that the Robert Garside page, as you know, has been subjected to personal attacks for years using various pseudonyms and we thought the edit was about right, even though we had issues with the dispute section. Please note that personal libellous attacks have also appeared on Guinness World Records page and Royal Holloway University page. Who does it and how they do it is difficult to know for sure, which is why this page is monitored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 12:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And talk about ownership issues, what about this page?

Franz Lidz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Written by the guy himself. Reads like a resume.

E.g. Lidz chose journalism because "I wanted to find an 'ism' that wouldn't become a 'wasm'

Where is the reference to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 12:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already explain why. The guy aggresively edited the article and it is unfair. We have covered this ground before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 12:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am quite happy to detail our case if you provide me with an e-mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 12:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dromeaz you need to back off and show some respect to Moon 'cause your line of reasoning is completely erratic. First, nobody owns articles at WP and the point to the project is that anybody can improve the way things read as editors see it fit [4]. So long as a users are not spamming or inserting false literature, anybody's got the right to edit Wikipedia. If ya dont agree with an editor's changes, then use the article's talk page to voice your concerns...if you think an editor is edit warring, then report it to WP:AN3...One last thing...get yourself used to signing up your comments with the ~~~~. Peace. Jrod2 (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, not sure if you will get this so I will put it here too, what I said was: Having to monitor these pages: Robert Garside, Guinness World Records, Royal Holloway University, is unfair. The balance of the article has to be considered and so does the fact that there are detractors who have edited the said pages negatively and maliciously. We think the page was fine 3 days ago and since no new events had taken place and no explanation given, we see this as a personal attack against a living person and must defend that at any cost. The article is about Robert Garside who ran around the world, received 2000 positive national and international media stories and not about those few nay-sayers who have nothing to say but negative things. They can use their own blogs for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 13:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am a staffer at a publishing house in the United States. Part of my job is to oversee and monitor the Wikipedia entries of our authors. One of the entries that I am in charge of is the author Franz Lidz. For the past couple of months his entry has been under attack by Robert Garside, who has used at least three Wikipedia account names to make alterations. I and other members of my department have continually tried to undo his revisions -- yet he will not stop the harrassment. I have contacted other Wikipedia administrators, but they have been unable to make Mr. Garside cease his relentless edit wars. Is there anyone I can appeal to who might be so empowered. Thanks so much for your help.TruthBTold212 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC) TruthBTold (Bloomsbury USA)

Er, if you were looking at a recent version of that article, then that terrible prose is probably my fault. - Amog | Talk • contribs 20:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Bah! Maybe some of it (don't looks too hard at my contributions please! *grin*), but I know some of it was from various other editors. Sheesh - that entire situation is just wierd, looking at the edit history of the two articles and some of the references had me laughing. Ravensfire (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL! One of those "too many cooks" situations, with some of the cooks having very strong preference for specific seasonings. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

question

Hi MRG, and hello to her many wonderful page stalkers who can also feel free to answer:

Is there a policy or guideline that suggests how to name articles related to America? I'm working on an article Slave breeding in the United States and it seems it might be better to call it Slave breeding in America. It is afterall, the United States of America. It's already a redirect, and I wanted to move the page, but thought I'd better ask as Wikipedia might have a style that is preferred. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Because America can mean the Americas (North America and South America) or the United States, the easiest way to handle such naming questions is to call the country by its true name, the United States. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gwen Gale: I did think about "Americas." I don't think that bit would be a problem. The title seems so big. Anyway, thanks for the info.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we usually go for precision there. As long as there is a redirect from the easier title, we can keep it at the precise title without issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
An alternative is to use the title ...Americas, and expand the scope. I'm far from conversant on the subject, but I believe there's much to say about the practice in the Caribbean Islands, so the broader title could encompass those aspects. Is there any reason why the article would not want to cover relevant examples in the islands?--SPhilbrickT 23:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

interference

if there is problem issue must be discussed in talk page and reverts by genaic is absolutely illogical. she keeps checking my contributions and is interfering with my work. she doesnt know anything about films of India. i am the person who has taken pain in improving many articles and also creating pages of films starring khanna and also bringing more info about khanna in his wiki page too. others have only checked grammatical or spelling mistakes of other's contribution no one has added any vital or information worthy of being mentioned in rajesh khanna main article or in his films

this genaic needs to stop interfering and should mind her own business iu have lost patience with her i think she needs to be blocked now. she keeps giving me warnings about me getting blocked. everwhere she is removing the word Superstar in rajesh khanna artciles....she has a personal problem with it ...she is biased.. Shrik88music (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Geniac is an administrator and has been for almost four years. This does not mean errors cannot happen, of course, but it does suggest that she (presuming you are right; I don't know) is likely to be familiar with our editing policies and guidelines. I would recommend you ask her what the problem is with her edits, if you do not understand, and listen to her response. It will likely come with links to whatever policies and guidelines are supporting her. If it does not, I'm sure she'd provide them on your request. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sitapur_Ki_Geeta&diff=cur&oldid=398008379 you can see here how she is biased. see the problem is she keeps removing most of the important things contributed by me. everywhere she boldly claims unCONSTRUCTIBLE AND UNEXPLAINED EDITS are made by me ...when the fact is its her who is first of all not aware of the film,khanna's role in it, etc.. she also removes the word superstar when already the needed reference has been provided and i keep ensuring iam adhering to wiki policy too. if you observe today that khanna article is 45kb long it cause i created filmography page and also added info..from 2008 onwards i alone have been adding the info ---quality info with references in khanna wiki page too in addtion pages i created pertaining to his films. others have only been creating nuisance..very few contributed to the article like some who checked the grammatical errors or wiki policy compliance.

iam not biased fan or something ..whatever contributions i have made till now are free of spelling errors and also references have been given too.Shrik88music (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you asked User:Geniac to explain the problem? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

earlier i had done so ...but now its of no use. see my talk page she claims the same thing again and again. the version put by me has no problem. she has problem with word superstar. now iam going to revert BEWFAI and Sitapur ki geeta to my version again. ask her to stop making reverts or edits to such articles in this manner.Shrik88music (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. If you disagree over content, you must reach consensus through conversation with other editors. That consensus must be supported by policies and guidelines. If you can't agree with one contributor, there are ways to ask others to make the deciding opinions. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I see that another admin, User:Gwen Gale, has very helpfully supplied more information about concerns at your talk page. Looking at your edit here, I share those concerns. You do seem rather intent on labeling Rajesh Khanna as a superstar. Arguably, this level of detail may overwhelm other articles. The plot synopsis you placed in that edit is not, I'm afraid, grammatically correct English. This sentence, as it was, was better balanced by English usage: "The rest of the story is about whether Asha gets a chance to convey her feelings for Ashok, how Renu became a mental patient, the relation between Renu and Ashok, how Ashok solves the problem and how the mystery gets unfolded."
By the way, I have talked to you before about attacking other editors. Edits such as this are not acceptable. You don't call other contributors liars. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

moonridden , common what iam saying is only the reaction to her continuous act of reverting well refereenced articles. u still have not responded to her completely baised act in artciles like -- bewafai,insaaf main karoonga and sitapur ki geeta. i showed you how in-spite of being well referenced she removed the informations i posted. like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sitapur_Ki_Geeta&diff=cur&oldid=398008379

as far as your observation about ..."The rest of the story is about whether Asha gets a chance to convey her feelings for Ashok, how Renu became a mental patient, the relation between Renu and Ashok, how Ashok solves the problem and how the mystery gets unfolded." -- if at all there are grammatical error everyone is free to edit it. in fact everyone can improve the article. but right now people are delibrately removing the infos. i want others to improve the artcile with respect to grammer, spelkling , spacing etc... but removing vital , basic info is wrong ---

also iam not labeling him a superstar ....rajesh khanna was born years before and has ruled from 1969-1991 . so its not that iam claiming something. i have provided enough evidences ...genaic keeps saying absolute nonsense statements about my edits ---why that you are not seeing.Shrik88music (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not see her edits as biased. User:Gwen Gale and now User:Bonadea have explained some of the problems at your talk page. With respect to the grammatical error, the problem is that the content that was there was not a real problem; it was your change that introduced errors to the sentence without adding new information.
If you think that the word "superstar" needs to be added to articles that reference him, you must get consensus to add it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Just because something is referenced does not means it should be included. Articles must have a neutral point of view and terms like "superstar", "hit pair" "highly encouraging audience" are peacock terms and should not be used. For example, look at Michael Jackson. He was definitely a superstar, but you won't find the term in the article. Yoenit (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was away on tour and could not access Wikipedia. I found on return that a lot of content has been deleted. The articles

are based on content from 'The Jats, their role in the Mughal Empire' by Girish Chandra Dwivedi - 1989. The author of this book died long back at an early age of forty-one. As such these are not now copyrighted contents. Regards, burdak (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Depending on which copyright law applies here (Indian, British, USA) material is copyrighted until 60-70 years after his death. When did he die? Yoenit (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
He died in 1979. I've explained the misunderstanding here at Mr. Burdak's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The copyright of the book 'The Jats - Their Role in the Mughal Empire' by Dr Girish Chandra Dwivedi was purchased by Surajmal Memorial Education Society Delhi and Edited by Dr Vir Singh in 2003. It was Published by M/S Originals (an imprint of low priced publications), A-6, Nimri commercial Centre, Near Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV, Delhi-110052. Before posting these articles on Wikipedia I had contacted Editor Dr Vir Singh who permitted me to do so. So these articles may be restored back. Regards --burdak (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
We can't just take your word for that. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I've asked him to confirm at his talk page. If permission is provided, we'll have to make sure that the permitter was not also under the impression that Dwivedi's text was public domain but legally acquired copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was away on tour and when returned I found that Farmers' movements in India has been deleted. I t seems not fair. You wrote that article Farmers' movements in India seems to have been founded with content copied from The Encyclopaedia Indica (more detail is at the article's talk page). No proper justification was given for deletion. There seems no basis to delete it and there is no such information on the article's talk page about this. burdak (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

—Preceding undated comment added 01:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

CCI and Corensearchbot

I notice that the CCI backlog continues to grow, to a point where it's unlikely it will ever be resolved with manual review. My understanding is that Corensearchbot only reviews new articles. Is there any way CSB could be used to review all diffs by a certain user, and that somehow a report could be generated using CSB combined with whatever tool we're currently using to generate the subpages? Have you ever talked to Coren about this? This would make sure many egregious violations are resolved quickly, and would make the pool for human review much smaller. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It is horribly discouraging, isn't it? :( Even the CCI subjects are complaining about the delay. I'm not a bot person, but there have been conversations about copyright bots. Besides Coren, we now have another Bot operator on board, User:VernoWhitney, but he's traveling for the Thanksgiving Holiday. I can't honestly remember if we've ever talked to Coren about doing a search of articles identified in a CCI, but when Verno gets back it would be great to get his input on that. He also has the keys to the Coren code and may be able to check it to see if it's helpful. The problem, of course, is that Coren's bot can't check books or identify close paraphrases, but I'd agree that if it could even cut down the workload, it would be a good thing!
I've also been thinking that we need to bite the bullet and more liberally apply the WP:CV allowance of presumptively removing contributions of large-scale infringers. I hate doing that, not so much for the sake of the infringers, but for the sake of the other people who've worked on the articles they've tainted. But we may not plausibly ever be able to catch up with the backlog otherwise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd imagine one of the problems with using Coren Search Bot or similar is that I believe it will only check current web pages for copyright violations, so not only would it ignore books and close paraphrases it would also miss anything where the source text has now changed. This may not be a problem for newer contributions but is likely to be more problematical for older additions, and it seems logical that the longer, more difficult cases will have lots of older contributions.
Why we're on the subject one of the tasks I was thinking of writing a tool / bot for was checking the diffs on those pages and removing any that are clearly not copyright violations (at least by the person in question) - for example addition of references, reversions, moving of text etc. If this is likely to be helpful I'll look into it, but as it would be my first proper bot / tool it probably wouldn't be ready for a while. Dpmuk (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Ooooh! That would be wonderful! :O There would so be a barnstar in it for you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
One problem with scanning old articles is that you find a lot of mirrors, which is not a problem for newly created ones. I always try earwig bot's algorithm on CCI articles, but it only finds the most obvious cases. Yoenit (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
One of the good things about Earwig bot is that it can scan older versions. I wonder if there's any way to get it to scan diffs? Or to devise a bot that does? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Earwigbot can scan older versions? Is that the elusive copyvio intersection tools which gives me a 500 error? Yoenit (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
No. That, alas, was a great idea that didn't pan out. :/ This is the regular bot. Where it asks for article name, put in the permanent url, and it will generally scan older versions. I understandthis was an unintended feature, but it helps me! Just to test it, I just put [5] into it, and it scanned just fine. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Thats awesome. Yoenit (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

time of year to give Thanks

The Teamwork Barnstar
To Moonriddengirl in appreciation of the thoughtful advice you give and your kindness in being my mentor. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


And have a very happy and well deserved Thanksgiving holiday! Malke 2010 (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, Malke! :D That's very kind. I hope you also have a Happy Thanksgiving. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Help with copy vio, please

This article Guillaume de Fontenay appears to be a copyvio of this page, although I did not check thoroughly. I know I keep promising to learn to tag the articles myself, but I am still without well adapted computer. I have removed most material and left just a stub, could you assist by removing the copyrighted material, if it is that?

As usual, thank you for the excellent work you give to wikipedia! --Kleopatra (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. :) Thank you for finding the problem! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Need your searching skills :)

Hi, On the log from the 16th, there's Peer-mediated Instruction tagged as copy / paste. Can't find any sources though. It does look like a copy from a word document, but I tried the tools, then a bunch of searches on Google scholar and books and came up empty. Mind having a look? MLauba (Talk) 10:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That copy/'paste tag adds a whole new level of headache to CP. :) My practice has been to search for a source and, if I fail to find it, to remove the tag, but put a {{cv-unsure}} on the article's talk page. I'll go see what I can find here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 Done :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Grove enquiry

I hope you're not reading this and enjoying Thanksgiving instead! Anyhow, I responded here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Can this indeed be free?

[6]. Can this indeed be re-licensed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. :/ What did he do, sew one himself and take a picture of it? Take a picture of one at a museum somewhere? I'm not sure if the emblem itself is creative enough to generate copyright protection; I'll get some feedback on that question. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


I did not need to sew one myself or need to visit a museum. I have a number of such Polish forced worker patches in my collection of Polish WWII artifacts that either belonged to my family or similar Polish familes whose members were deported to Germany as forced workers during WWII. So the original

belongs to me from my perosnal collection and I took a photograph of one particular version which was a better image than the image I replaced. Hope this clears up any confusion in a satisfactory manner? Krgds Sjam2004 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It clarifies where you got the image, thanks, but it does not clarify the underlying question of whether the emblem itself is copyrightable, I'm afraid. Owning the object does not give you copyright of it; for example, you may own a modern painting, but you cannot take pictures of it and license them to the public. As I said, I'm not sure if the emblem is creative enough to generate copyright protection, and I have sought feedback. If it is not, then your using your own picture is perfectly acceptable. If it is, then there are complications. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think you will find you are wrong re modern art. The purchaser does own the copyright to the painting after the sale not the artist, and as a conseqeunce reproductions of the painting are the copyright of the artwork owner not the artist, it is the same with an original photographic positive or transparency (however not for an original print from an original negative as the photographer usually retains copyright in negative images but not positives sold to clients). But you are correct I do not own the copyright to the

emblem itself which is in the public domain as are most design works produced by state authorites, I only copyright entitlement to the photographic image of the emblem. Krgds Sjam2004 (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, absolutely I am not wrong about that. Owning a piece of art does not give you copyright ownership of it, any more than owning a DVD gives you copyright ownership of the movie or owning a book gives you copyright ownership of the content. Don't confuse ownership of the item with ownership of the intellectual property, which requires a transfer by law. Most designs produced by state authorities are actually not public domain; see Wikipedia:Public domain for a little more information on that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Re MRG, I think there may be confusion here, assuming the others are talking about Polish state authorities. Under Polish law, "governmental symbols, documents, materials and signs are not subject to copyrights" (it's why we have the {{PD-PolishGov}} template). – iridescent 20:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, good for Poland! Would that all governments were so generous. :/ Do you have any idea about the basic question of the degree of creativity? Images are not my area, really, and while I am myself inclined to think that this emblem lacks sufficient creativity for copyright protection, I really don't want to be wrong there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't german copyright law apply here instead of Polish? I personally think it lacks creativity. Whatever the decision, it should also apply to the yellow badge. Yoenit (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this would be German copyright law. I may just trot this off to one of the Commons help boards. They consider it quite a lot, and if there is a free image available of this item, it should be placed there anyway so that it can be accessed from all projects. For now, I've got to get a cake! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

On a related subject, inspired by our little discussion, see this suggestion (Sjam2004, perhaps you'd like to join our project and help us out with that idea?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I think there is some confusion between copyright (IP) ownership of an orignal work and a replication or a reproduction of an copy of an original where there is no transfer of absloute title as used in the example bewteen a DVD copy of a movie and the absolute title of ownership of an original painting. Or is the contention that if a living artist were to die their heirs would have claim to the copyright to pictures in my collection at some point in the future? Od course I could not claim the creative work was my own but I am able to claim copyright to the reproduction of the original image which is why most artworks held in collections when published are attributed as " Reproduced courtesy of the xxxx collection" whether it is the a private or institutional collection etc. However this is a long way away from the simple 'P' patch photo I used in the Forced Labour articles. Of course I am happy for you to ammend any copyright details for it to be entirely copyright free which is what I thought I had done apart from commericial usage? But if this is an obstacle then please feel free to ammned the copyright notice :-)Sjam2004 (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the heirs may have claim to the copyright of pictures which you own. When you buy a picture, you own the item, but you can't legally make copies of the item you own unless in addition to purchasing the art work you have also purchased the copyright or a license permitting you to do so. See [7] for a brief explanation: "Unlike a car, a work of art has two separate and divisible property rights: the actual work itself and the copyright therein. An artist can sell, give away, or otherwise transfer the actual physical work of art, yet he/she still maintains ownership of the copyright, unless stated otherwise in writing." As it notes, among the exclusive rights of the artist is the right to make copies. How long they maintain that exclusive right varies by country. In the United States, the law runs for 75 years after the death of the artist, during which time copyright ownership is indeed in his heirs. The originals of images reproduced "courtesy of" are generally copyright expired, though I'm sure there are some cases where rights have been conveyed or where the "courtesy" is afforded to the copyright owner.
In the matter of this image, I'd been waiting for feedback, as I said, on whether the image was creative enough for the copyright in the original to even be a concern. I asked a Commons admin, since this is more within their scope of work, and he also doesn't think that its copyrightable. As the underlying image is uncreative, there should be no problem with your taking a photograph of it and releasing it under any license you please. In fact, it looks like this really should be on Commons, where it is available to even more people. :) I would suggest that you add more information into the "source" description. The image is even more powerful knowing that it is not a reproduction. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
That's great news. I've added the move-to-commons template, and barring any objections, I'll move it myself in a few days (but if anybody wants to do it earlier, please go ahead). I'd also suggest that this discussion is copied to or linked from the image's talk page (so that if anybody in the future raises questions about the applicable copyright, they can read this exchange). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Blow molding

Thank you for cleaning up the copywrite violations of Blow Molding. However, you blanked out all of the edits for a long time. Some of these are deletions are valid and should be added again. We cannot view the past edits to reconsider them. Please let us look at the deleted edits for us to restore valid ones. Thank you. Pkgx (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have temporarily restored the hidden edits from 13:03, 27 February 2009 to give you an opportunity to mine any usable content. Please be sure that you don't resurrect anything placed by User:Aikshahchaodannanajia or anything added by subsequent contributors that interacted with that user's content in a way that would constitute a derivative work. The safest way to avoid creating a new copyright problem is to extract information but rewrite it from scratch, as the template formerly blanking the article recommended. I'll list the article again at WP:CP so that those edits may be redeleted in about a week. Thanks for your interest in helping to clean up this copyright problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible Wikipedia:Copyrights / Wikipedia:Plagiarism in WP:GAN

Hi Moonriddengirl. Having had the benefit of your expertise on two previous GAN reviews, I think I have a case of Wikipedia:Plagiarism that does not appear to involve Wikipedia:Copyrights. I would welcome your input at Talk:Petroleum industry in Iran/GA1. Thanks in anticipation. Pyrotec (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If the content is Public Domain, attribute it (and given the length, turn it into a proper quotation), that's all that is needed. MLauba (Talk) 11:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Jenny Morris (musician)

Recent IP editor at her article and talkpage could be a banned sockpuppeteer. Consider name at bottom of Jenny Morris - Bio website. IP acknowledged this was their site, not the official jennymorris.com

Now see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tony Senatore and the various edits by those puppets at JM+talk. I suggest User:124.176.58.238 be added to this list. Further investigation is needed to unmask other possible puppets since June 2007 (last of previous outbreak?) that may have evaded detection.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm traveling so I'm afraid I can't really look very deeply into this at the moment, but I've tagged the IP as a suspected sock. It seems quite likely. If the other "accounts" used to access Wikipedia were also IPs, I'm not sure if there's much use in digging those up, even if we could (since he may have moved on), but certainly if there are other named accounts it would be good to get those tagged! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

CCI bot

Following discussion above I've started work on a CCI bot (my first bot) and have it reading from CCI pages quite happily and assessing some of the diffs. I may have gone a bit mad in what I'm currently thinking of getting this bot to do - see User:Dpmuk/DpmukBOT. Any comments (from Moonriddengirl or any talk page stalkers) on the relevant talk page would be much appreciated. Dpmuk (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I like some of the ideas there quite a lot. Automated opening of CCIs seems like a good time-saver to me, if we can do things like determine parameters of how many articles can be listed on a given page. With regards to the different sections, would the bot be the one to move those articles around? If so, that could work quite well. :) I am confused, though: why did the bot say this edit is okay? Did it do a mechanical scan for copying? If so, I'd prefer some other method of noting that it didn't find matches than strikethrough, because that's exactly the kind of thing that needs human evaluation. A glance at [8], I see the following text:

In the middle of the picture the cracks tend to run parallel to the short sides. They spread from the middle towards the stressed locked edges, while the cracks starting at the short sides curl round as shown in the diagram.

In the edit, I see:

In the middle of the picture the cracks tend to run parallel to the short sides. They spread from the middle towards the stressed locked edges, while the cracks starting at the short sides curl round. The stress at the corners is more than double that of the center.

Don't know if there's more than that, but I suspect that content could use review. :)
Of course, you may just be randomly acting on diffs to demonstrate what it would look like. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep, random diffs to show an example! Sorry, should have made that clearer. I do intend to post a proper example but I want to do a bit more testing and tinkering myself first. Hope to have an example in the next few days but am currently rather tired after a Scout training weekend so won't be doing any tonight. Obviously even then getting an up and running bot will still be some way off. Dpmuk (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh and yes, the bot would move things around in the lists depend on {{y}} and {{n}} tags (from the little bit of CCI work I've done trying to see which articles have been checked and which haven't is irritatingly difficult). I'm currently intending to have a full mock up working in the Bot's user pages for comments before letting it anywhere near the real thing. Dpmuk (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
That sounds great to me! I look forward to seeing it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

William H. Young

I am just wondering why the information about William H. Young, 17th President of The National Association of Letter Carriers, was deleted. I know this may sound silly but he is my husband of over 25 years and every now and then I like to look at the page and remember some of his wonderful accomplishments. I understand that there are probably not many people who would be concerned about someones page being deleted, but it was to me,a testiment to his 40 years of contributions to labor and the working men and women of this great country..and as if you couldn't tell, I'm very proud of him. Anyway, just wanted to ask.

I would appreciate a reply and am at <redacted>

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Deborah Young 11-26-2010 173.66.138.63 (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why you would be proud of him. I'm sorry that the article has had to be removed. The article was deleted because, unfortunately, it violated our copyright policies. On 15 October of this year, a contributor noticed that the article William H. Young (NALC) was created with content from [9]. Wikipedia can only host content from other publications if those publications are public domain or compatibly licensed with our license. I'm afraid this content was published under full copyright reservation: © National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO. The contributor who noticed this problem notified the person who created it (here) and put a tag on the article advising any interested contributors that it would probably be deleted in seven days if it was not rewritten or if permission was not acquired from the AFL-CIO. Unfortunately, neither of those things was done within the time period allotted, so the article has had to be deleted. Legally, we cannot host it. I hope that one of our volunteers will create a new article to fill the gap with content that we can retain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi MRG. As you can see, the red link has just turned blue (although it's now a redirect). I've rewritten the article as a stub using other sources, but will expand it a bit more later today. I really should stop lurking at your talk page, I end up writing articles on some of the most arcane subjects (at least to me). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No, you should absolutely not stop lurking at my talk page. :D I appreciate your taking the time. I had thought to look into doing something about this myself once I catch up on the copyright backlog from my vacation, but, alas, I know all too well that new copyright issues can derail me. :/ It's a stellar replacement. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Anderton, Lancashire

For information the history of the deleted copyvio Listed buildings and structures in Anderton still exists in the Anderton Lancashire article. It was moved to a separate page on 15th October.--92.41.186.57 (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've deleted it from the history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Another ODNB issue

See User talk:Ylyandres. Not so many contributions to worry about, but I was led to that article from Bryan Stapleton where there was about a paragraph of direct copying. I think there may be a couple more. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Something else: Our Lady of Doncaster. There was huge copying in from the church's website. I took it out a year ago, and have just noticed that I was reverted in March. An explanation to the IP number editor is needed. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) I'm looking at this second one, but I can't find any duplicated content. Either I'm tired enough to be missing the obvious (plausible! yesterday was a lot of travel), or they've changed the website. Wayback isn't giving me any help here; I keep getting "server errors". :/ I ran the article as it is through several mechanical detectors, but didn't pick up anything. If it's the former, if you can point out some of the duplicated content, I'll be happy to rev delete it. I'll take a look at the other one now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, point 1. I did a little baby CCI on him and identified additional issues from the ODNB. Some are blanked, one G12ed, one revised on the spot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I trouble you for a favor?

When you get a moment, could you sniff around the contributions of the AUE (talk · contribs)? One of his article got csd-tagged for copyright violations, but its been here for so long that I am concerned the other articles he's created may also be of the copy/paste variety. Since I know this happens to be your area of expertise I wonder if you could look into the matter or pass this info along to some one who can follow up on it to make sure whatever else s/he put up here is in fact from a free source. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Tayhanes (talk · contribs) may also be a part of this as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


(talk page stalker) There's no substantial trace left of both users' 4 remaining live edits. MLauba (Talk) 09:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh thank god. I always hate to hear about those article that are copyvio's that somehow manage to survive 3-4 years on here without anyone actually picking up on there true origins. At least this isn't going to be one such instance of that occurrence. Thanks for the help, I appreciate it.
Amazing how long stuff can get by. :/ I've seen some blatant copypastes in my time that have gone unaddressed for years in spite of obvious tell-tale signs like use of first person plural pronouns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sufficient permission?

While editing the Hal Abelson article I saw a note at the bottom of the page stating that the article contained information from the subject's personal website and that permission was granted to use the material. I went to the talk page to confirm (via OTRS ticket or somesuch) and there is a copy of an email posted wherein it appears that permission was indeed granted, however I'm doubtful that a cut and paste of the purported permission is sufficient to meet Wikipedia's copyright policies. Do you have any advice as to how to proceed? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Since I can't really look at it at the moment, here's what I'd do: if the content is brief, remove it for now and ask the contributor to confirm via the processes at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. I'd place the {{cclean}} at the article's talk, as it includes instructions for verifying. If it is extensive and cannot be easily extracted, replace the page or section with {{copyvio}} and list it at CP, giving the contributor the generated notice with a little extra added telling him that while you see he says he has permission, he does need to verify this through the requisite procedures. Thanks for following up; you're quite right that a cut and paste e-mail on a talk page doesn't meet those requirements! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


(talk page stalker) Context for the travellers: The statement of permission, in the form of an e-mail reproduced on the talk page, was added in 2003, before OTRS, and looking at the copyvio note posted back in the day, in accordance with what was then practice. Obviously since OTRS our standards but also means to verify have risen dramatically. Which begs the question what we do with the old stuff.
We have two choices, either accept the old permission as valid and leave it at this (until and unless the owner complains), or edit out / go back to the owner and ask them for a better permission. The latter is a bit of a slippery slope though - if every time we change our permissions system we need to get back and re-request permission, you can figure where that leads.
An argument could be made that contrary to OTRS, the old system didn't guarantee that the permission was genuine, and while it's a fair point, challenging that automatically assumes bad faith from every contributor who conformed to the practice of pre-OTRS days. In my unqualified opinion, I suggest that we edit out what can be remedied but otherwise accept those old statements of permission as valid until challenged. MLauba (Talk) 13:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow! This is a tough one. :/ The permission given wouldn't pass muster today, of course, because it's specific to Wikipedia. Maybe I'll ask the OTRS list? I'd usually shoot this one by our attorney, but we don't have a regular one at the moment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I've written just to see if there's a precedent that I don't know about. :) I have to note that the permission even at the time shouldn't have been usable. Prior to the placement of that note, copyright policy was already clear that permission had to be "to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license", and there's no suggestion that our license was ever even mentioned to this guy. I think regardless of standard practice, we're going to have to go route 2 with this one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Another (talk page stalker) comment. I think this is exactly the type of quesiton that needs a much wider community input. My slant is that "back in the day" Wikipedia allowed a lot of things which are no longer allowed without very explicit information about. This thread relates to text but for images it seems there was a bit more of a specific stance taken when Jimbo finally made the announcement that Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted in May of 2005. I don't see where any such statement was ever made about text. Although this in one of those "common sense" items that does not seem work in reverse. Most editors/admins would agree that use of full text from, say, a book is a clear copyvio and would be fairly silly to accept a non specific comment of "Sure go ahead" as permission to reprint everything. With files (images in particular) many editors/admins don't have any problem with using a full image and saying that "sure go ahead" is permission enough. Some don't even need that much, feeling a "self" license tag with zero other information is fine. And this is seen with current files, not just pre-2005 ones. I agree that "the old system didn't guarantee that the permission was genuine" but due to 2010 policies and growth of users I don't feel that "challenging that automatically assumes bad faith from every contributor who conformed to the practice of pre-OTRS days." But I know for a fact both Moonriddengirl and myself have been questioned and "attacked" when challenging some of these older "permissions". I don't believe there is any sort of blanket "grandfathering" for these permissions. It does need a wider audience I feel - at a foundation level would be great, but I don;t see that happening much anymore. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If there's no precedent, I'll figure out some good place to open up the conversation. So far, I've gotten no response from the OTRS team. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Blog-sourced BLP mostly copyvio

Hello again. Alex Abella, a BLP, is sourced mostly to a blog. Please do NOT click on any other links when you are at the blog, as it also locked up and crashed my browser when I went looking to source the remainder of the article. It is slightly rewritten, phrased moved to front or back, but it's a copyvio, the first 3 paragraphs, and, if it had not crashed my system, maybe the rest. Can you please remove the copyvio material from the history? As usual, many thanks for your valuable contributions to wikipedia. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll be happy to take a look at that, but since I'm away from home will have to wait until I get back. If I lose my connection, I may not get back on! Maybe a friendly talk page stalking admin will take a look in the meantime. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, it's in the edit history for now, and I've rewritten as much of the article as I can while not neglecting my precious microbes. Your stalkers are among the best, also, but may be mostly Americans on vacation this weekend. --Kleopatra (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Some are Brits living in Thailand ;) --Kudpung (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
We're a very diverse crowd. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Then how come everyone was on vacation? Usually the stalkers are much faster.
Not too much of a hurry on this one, as it was a bio plagiarized largely from the subject. If it had been an urgent one I would have read the instructions. I swear I will one day....
As usual, thanks for the great contribution to wikipedia, Moonriddengirl, Kudpung, and everyone who takes care of copyvios. We can write our own. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

I happened by Wikipedia today, and tried to check on the status of my contribution, Cold War Legacies, but frankly I have obsoleted myself, and need to ask for your help, if any is needed. Because of an unrelated book I'm writing at the moment, I just don't have time to attend to this; in fact, I have no idea where the matter stands and I find the related Talk pages overwhelming.

As I mentioned before, I am the copyright holder for both Nuclear Shadowboxing and Nuclear Insights; so please help by taking care of the issues. Because I don't have any time to track the talk pages, any inquiries will have to be sent to me directly at waterfoxg@gmail.com

Sorry, but that's the best I can do. The Wikipedia relearning curve is too steep and time-consuming, and I admire those of you who have the time to persist. In fact, I'm a inveterate Wikipedia user/absorber for the unrelated book that I mentioned.

--Alex

____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfox1 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Some help

MRG, can you please take a look at File:Reema Khan.jpg and some other files from the same uploader, I had to delete a lot under F9 before but don't have the time to look through these currently. Also, I tagged B. M. Sreenivasaiah College of Engineering for copyvio clean up, it's a little tricky because different parts of it appear to have come from different edits, would've cleaned it up myself, but again, no wikitime currently. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Having verified that one of his new batch was a blatant copyvio, I have indeffed him and invoked Wikipedia:Copyright violations to delete all of the images he uploaded under claim of his own copyright. I don't doubt that matches could have been found for many, if not all, but with a serial copyright infringer like that, it's a waste of community resources. He obviously either could not understand or did not care to follow our copyright rules. :/ I'll look at B. M. Sreenivasaiah College of Engineering when it pops up at CP. Maybe a regular contributor will work on it in the meantime. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you just check this quickly please?

I am pretty sure that this edit, which is still in the article, is copyvio from [10]. I know that the bit about the snake goddess fetish is unsourceable elsewhere. Thanks. I'd delete it now but I'm dealing with one of those editors.... Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Looking at this now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's a copyright problem. Blanked with a note at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Mariology

Hi, I have finished the main merge items, but the History of Mariology still needs spelling fixes, some link touch ups and further checks, but nothing major. But as you know historians do not really have a sense of time. So it can wait another day, although your help in fixing the copyright items will be appreciated. On that note the people I have seen that have no sense of time are the archeologists - for them a decade means nothing, and century is but an hour.... but that is another story. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Genticity and Customer1

Hi MRG. You A7'd Genticity way back in 2007 and somehow it crept back. They've just posted Customer1 which is the same company again. I've A7'd them both, and if you get there before anyone else does or before the creator removes the tags it would be good. Perhaps also salt. Up to you. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) It's changed a good bit since its early days. Last time it was here, it was three sentences long. It's got an assertion of significance this go-around. I'm not sure if the claim that "Customer1 has also been a finalist for the Microsoft Impact Award for three straight years." would clear WP:ORG (especially since it is sourced to a press release by the company!), but I think it clears WP:CSD#A7 this time. Let me take a deeper look here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've merged them both into Customer1, and I've done a bit of expansion. I think it may be notable. They've been discussed multiple times in Call Center Magazine. It's a pretty specialized industry. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No problems with that. Thanks for your help.--Kudpung (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Kitties

The Founders Intent has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

LOL! Thanks. Kittens are always a lovely surprise. :D FWIW, I'm not upset about this issue, and I realize you didn't write the message. I really had just hoped to talk about the approach with respect to audience. Certainly, it's all to the good for us to pull together for the project. It's just a matter of working out the best way to do that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I rewrote the "form" message that was provided. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 17:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I think it's a great improvement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

question

I've left a question for you on History2007's page. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me fix the listing for the AfD for Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)? I got a computer glitch and lost the page when I was filling in the preloaded discussion. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Give me a minute. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thanks. Also the reason for deletion is content fork, and the category should be Christianity and any category that is related to Catholicism.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I just used the text that you had. So far as I know, we don't have a specific Christianity cateogry, but I'm sure that somebody will fix it if I'm wrong. :) You can edit your deletion rationale if you like so long as you do so before anybody else replies. "content fork" is a bit vague. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Don't know what happened there. On the other thing, Content fork seems to be the thing on these AfD's. I guess you could say POV content fork, but looking over the article it's really a duplication of about 14 other Mary articles. A lot of it is verbatim, too.  :/ Malke 2010 (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
As a general rule of thumb, you should presume that the people who look at the AfD will have no familiarity whatsoever with articles on Mary. The "regulars" may know what's going on, but those who just happen upon the listing at AfD will see the situation as set out there. For that reason, it's a good idea to be very clear and explicit at AfD about what it is that makes an article undesirable. I don't do a lot at AfD (can't remember the last article I nominated), but I generally think it's a good idea to point out the policy and what it is about the article that makes it out of line. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hello Moonriddengirl!

I was the admin for a page you deleted, and I hate to admit, but as I'm new to wikipedia I can't even seem to get logged back in.

17:01, 25 October 2010 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) deleted "Automotive Fleet & Leasing Association (AFLA)" ‎ (Listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over seven days)

There shouldn't be any copyright problems on that page, as we are the holder of the copyrighted materials. Were there just additional references that were needed? This page was a lot of work and is linked to by the Association and our Publications. Can you please assist me in bringing this page back up, or advising what I need to do to bring it back?? My boss will kill me that it's down.

Thanks!

Lauren Fletcher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.23.116.114 (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Lauren. :) First, your log-in issues: since you're e-mail ennabled, you should be able to get the Wikipedia servers to send you a new password, if that's the issue. See Help:Logging in for more information. The copyright problems come in because the website has a specific copyright reservation on it. Since Wikipedia has a very specific licensing requirement, we can't import previously published content unless the website has a compatible license on it or unless permission is verified. There's a note at your user talk page, User talk:AFLA Wiki, explaining how it's done. If you need assistance with any of that, please let me know; I'm happy to help you with the process.
While you're here, though, I do need to suggest that you read over our guideline for editing articles that are closely related to you and our FAQ for businesses. We ask that you keep within that spirit in editing the article, once it is restored, and your boss does need to be aware that the content may not remain as it was. Articles on Wikipedia are open to editing by anyone, and the content may be modified to make sure that it meets our general policies and guidelines. Please let me know if you have any questions about that, too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Supporters"

I can't believe I am going to you again. In all the time I have been editing on WP I have only gone to an admin over obvious vandalism type scenarios. I have never had to approach an admin over normal editors and yet I have come to you twice over Malke. I know you have warned Malke before about addressing people as if they don't have a mind of their own. She is now going through all her numerous AfD pages and adding things to make it seem as if we are mindless people following History2007. She seems to not see that just because the people going against her just don't agree with her actions and her content. Due to the type of person I am I wouldn't open up a case against her, but cases have been opened up against editors for much less then she has done. Can you at least request that she not start any new AfD/merge requests within X amount of time? This is really taking away a lot of time that could be spent editing, updating articles.Marauder40 (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Malke's comments subsequent to your note seem to better present people as supporters of the position, but I've reminded her. I don't think it's appropriate for me at this point to suggest that she not start any new AfD/Merge requests in any period of time. Regardless of the merits of the requests or their outcomes, I do not believe that they are being made in bad faith. They seem to be targeted to improving coverage of a specific subject on Wikipedia. The last round of AfDs did result in some consensus for change, which would suggest that the conversations may be needed. I'm not sure if there's a better location for the conversation, but I have little involvement with articles related to Catholicism—perhaps, aside from this, none that have not been copyright related. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I have to disagree with the apparant reasons for her making the AfDs since the timing and actions on other pages point towards ownership and "sour grapes" types of issues. Also the fact that good may have come out of her actions is like saying good came out of shooting something with a shotgun when a BB gun would have been better. Thanks again.Marauder40 (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't say that I believe multiple AfDs at this juncture is the best approach, but I think it is outside of my scope to impose restrictions except in clear concerns of WP:BATTLE. I understand why you would perceive it the way that you do, but Malke has consistently expressed concerns about the treatment of this subject on Wikipedia, which leaves room in my opinion to presume that she is motivated by a desire to help ensure that Wikipedia's coverage of articles related to Mary are neutral and accurate. Given that two articles were merged as the outcome of the last round of conversations, it seems that others at least share a belief that the articles needed work. If the articles are improved, the project benefits. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Obviously she isn't listening as shown by this edit. [11]

Update a template

Could you take a moment to update the {{Di-no permission-notice}} tag? Almost every link is a redirect. I would do it myself but as it is locked I can't.

And this is just a pet peeve - but Wikipedia:Non-free content should be Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The wording is "If you believe the media meets the criteria at..." and it makes more sense to link to the actual policy, not the guideline. I know, for whatever reason, a lot of the links go to the fair use guideline and not the policy and that has led to me having discussions with some editors and admins who feel that, because Wikipedia:Non-free content is only a guideline, nothing on that page is required. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll update the redirects, but would like to talk about the other one. :) I like linking to the guideline myself, because it incorporates the policy in its entirety. If you go to the policy page, you have to follow it to the guideline. The combined document is very clear that part of it is "an official policy on Wikipedia". I think that might be worth pointing out to the editors and admins who overlook that! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Had to write an e-mail. :) It's done! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sassy Pandez Page

I contacted info-en-q@wikimedia.org a couple of weeks ago regarding my concerns with the Sassy Pandez page as you suggested, but I have not had a response. I therefore wanted to follow up with you again on this matter, and would be grateful if we could discuss further on my talk page. Thanks. AquilaUK (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 30

Hi, MRG, if you get chance, please could you explain copyright and trademarks as they apply to logos in the above deletion review? Thanks—S Marshall T/C 05:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Gearing up to make a statement. :) Images are not my area, though! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

New article created by copying material from a number of other articles

Vegoia was recently created from an unknown number of unknown articles (see the edit summary when it was created). It's thus copyvio with no way to trace it back to the original editors. Any precedent for dealing with something like this? There's an AfD on a similar one, created from 3 named articles - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegoia and Egeria. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've only seen this come up before in conjunction with copyright issues from other sources; I've never seen a case where we could not trace attribution. :/ If the contributor positively cannot trace where the content came from, it's probably best to redo it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Hi MRG, could you find the time for a look at Temporomandibular joint disorder? There's a remarkable overlap at this website, but it may be a reverse copyvio. The string "Gentle jaw stretching and relaxation exercises you can do at home. Your healthcare provider can recommend exercises for your particular condition" was inserted into the article in 2007. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you have good instincts there! You've indentified where "Gentle jaw stretching" came in. We can see where the lead was altered earlier that year here, in a way that is mirrored by that external site. We see another change by the same IP which is similar to content in the external site. "Oftentimes" became "often" here, when a bot gets at it. Do you want to place the {{backwardscopy}} tag, or would you like me to? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer to leave it up to you, if you're reasonably sure. I still suspect that the March 2007 edits (User:Tmj association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) may have been copyied from another (possibly offline) source, as there were html tags inserted in those edits (later removed) and xhe added over 4KB to the article in a little over an hour. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Aha! found! The metadata shows the pdf dates to 2005. It is labled as being by the TMJ Association at tmj.org, so I suspect an honest (albeit COI) error. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Good job! We can a backwards copy from "drloy", since they clearly took some content from us, but I'll follow up on the TMJ Association material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay; I've cleaned up what I found duplicated. Please let me know if you see that I've missed anything. :) I've got to be out of here in about 20 minutes, so I'm rushing a bit! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, that would have taken me forever. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Help requested on Lulua Mosque

I have a question/request for help. Please take a look at User Talk: Md iet. The last section on the article Lulua Mosque is a bit confusing, and I can't figure out how to search for the info I need on previous instances of the article. Here's what I can figure out:

  1. Some time in the past it was created.
  2. Sometime around the end of October someone called it a copyright problem.
  3. On 31 October 2010, you deleted it as a copyright violation. Given your extraordinary work in this area, odds are far more likely than not that you got the deletion correct. However, I can't figure out if there's a way for me to see where the work was originally copied from. I imagine you can see that by looking into the deleted history of the article.
  4. Today, User: Md iet recreated the article. I have no idea how he wrote it.
  5. The article as it currently stands is, for the first paragraph, a copy of an article on yawiki, which Coren Searchbot noticed.
  6. Now, of course, yawiki got the article from us, back when the article originally existed prior to 31 October. That means that Md iet certainly didn't copy them.
  7. But it does imply that Md iet copied the info from the same place that it was copied from in the first place. Which means that it probably is a copyright violation, just not of yawiki.

So, I'm wondering if you can look into the article history, and see where it was copied from. Note, further, that the editor has had problems with copyright in the past (on images), and has been blocked for being disruptive in other ways, so it may very well be that the editor did recreate a page deleted for copyright reasons and did so knowingly. So I guess in essence what I'm asking for is help trying to figure out if he 1) was associated with the prior instance of the article, and thus should know better, and 2) committed an intentional copyright violation by copying the information from a third source which i don't know. That is, is this a time to provide some instruction, or a time to provide some blocking?

I appreciate your assistance in this matter given all of the things you do. I'll watchlist your page, so feel free to reply either here or directly to MD iet. 07:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was the one that originally tagged it for deletion as part of the users CCI. Not being an admin I can't see the deleted content but I am fairly certain that it was an almost verbatim copy of [12]. Looking at the latest creation, and now being somewhat familiar with the user's writing "style", it does look as though he has used his own words to write the article and that his assertion that yawiki yanked his content almost straight away might be right. It must be said that there is still a potential copyvio associated with the article in that the photo of the old photo (originally uploaded by this user) has no source information and thus we cannot assume that it is out of copyright. Boissière (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I haven't really looked at the article yet, but yawiki goes so far as to say 'It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Lulua_Mosque"', so that is definitely a mirror site and not copied from there. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
It's got to be a mirror. The content has been changed, so I think that he has made an effort to rewrite it. For one example, the deleted article contained the following: "The tower-like mosque was rectangular in plan with three levels, with the ground-floor walls built of local limestone blocks with a rubble core." The original source says, "The tower-like mosque was rectangular in plan with three levels, with the ground-floor walls built of local limestone blocks with a rubble core." The new article says, "It was a three story mosque having tower like structure. The construction material was local bricks and limestone." There's some rewriting going on. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I concur that yawiki is a mirror, and that the new text is more substantially different than the previous one. I'll try to use some of my close-paraphrasing-but-not-copying skills on the article to get it further away, plus I'll add a citation to that site. However, the picture does seem to be a problem, but it also doesn't. I admit to not understanding how copyright works. The picture almost certainly appears to be more than 70 years old, although of course we can't verify that. However, on the picture's specific page on the above website, it states that the picture is copyrighted to the "Creswell Archive, Ashmolean Museum." Since that site claims copyright, do we automatically assume that it is, and thus tag it and delete it? Or do we try to do more research to figure out the date and whether or not its legitimately copyrighted? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to that article! It's certainly looking much better. :) With a serial copyright infringer, we generally lean to the presumption of copyvio. I have to admit that I'm not visual enough to feel confident that it's the same image. Might it be the same site photographed separately from the same vantage? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Cut and paste page move

Bobdatty did a cut and paste page move of Newspaper wrapper to Wrapper (philately) thereby losing the history. Can you please fix it for us besides which the talk page was not moved. I have already told him that this is not the way we rename pages. TIA ww2censor (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Doing... Courcelles 19:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Article and history reunited at Wrapper (philately). If you want it moved back that's going to take an admin's help as well at this point, but it will be trivial to do. Courcelles 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! :D I'm off to finish evaluating Temporomandibular joint disorder. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

mess caused by a user you finally blocked ..

hi,

i have no clue how to fix this, but i've seen the mess here is related to a user you then blocked ..

a google search to "Thomas Benjamin composer" finds the right article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pohick2/List_of_Nike_Locations

but obviously the main link is "broken"

thanks for your help fixing this,

kind regards.

88.153.20.54 (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. He copied content from here. It's been deleted as a copyright problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your thoughts requested

Hi. I know you're an editor with experience in dealing with copyright questions. I was wondering if you could look at the concerns I just noted about our article on the Battle of Stalingrad. I summarized them here. I'm not sure exactly what's going on - my gut tells me that the wording came from Beevor initially, so I'm not sure what it's doing in a published work from 2007 and in our article - but I can't say that for sure without my copy of Beevor's book in front of me. Anyhow, I just wanted to get some additional guidance on how best to proceed. Thanks. MastCell Talk 20:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, Mastcell. I took a quick look at the article history and it appears that the 2007 Ridder book may be a reverse copyvio. I left a reply on the talk page. More investigation may be warranted, of course. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

tag

I simplified the tag so that it is clear to all that they should not post there in order to prevent more of this [13]. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

what is our position on ...

Hi MRG, I noticed this BLP Barbara-Rose Collins which is attributed and in quote marks but is basically a cut and copy of an external link http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000633 - a GOV site but should we be duplicating the content like that? Off2riorob (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rob. :) If it weren't a government site, it would be a problem under WP:NFC, as it is an extensive quote and is not used transformatively. But it's PD, so the concerns are restricted to plagiarism and the usual factors: neutrality, verifiability. Since it's in quotation marks, it's not a problem for plagiarism. :) It should be rewritten, though, because it's obviously unencyclopedic. We use sentences here. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ha, yes, we try to. I still find that Gov PD thing hard to accept being from the UK - its all top secret and restricted here. Thanks for the pointers. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory

Hello again, M.

Concerning The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory, deleted after 7-day notice at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Significance_and_Basic_Postulates_of_Economic_Theory, I have not been able to locate further details on the grounds for copyright violation. My impression was that the deleted article was well documented. I recall writing the future originator of the article, who had written a nice WP article on its author Terence W. Hutchison (oops!) when he had first expressed interest in writing such an article. I was happy to see that the article was well documented & met other standards (so I thought). The latter may always have been so in other cases for that Editor. Would you have any further details or any suggestions as to whether the article might be resuscitated or even restored (if its deletion was based on the not-always-applicable "not-proved-innocent" standard).* Thank you for your consideration. No rush here. * I note that you yourself have been active in salvaging articles, where feasible. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Documentation does not efface copyright problems, I'm afraid. Attribution can't replace proper license. The contributor in this case is the subject of a Contributor Copyright Investigation, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Robertsch55. When it can be verified that contributors have violated our copyright policy on multiple occasions, their major contributors may be removed presumptively. In this case, the evaluator found duplication in a 1998 book, The Handbook of Economic Methodology, by John Bryan Davis, D. Wade Hands, and Uskali Mäki. I can only view the book in snippet, but while we do try to clear articles of concerns, when there is reason to believe that content has been copied or too closely paraphrased by people who have verifiably violated copyright policy on multiple occasions, their articles are deleted if not rewritten. I do try to salvage articles when I can, but unfortunately we have far too many to permit me to do so even as often as I once did. :/ If you would like to take a stab at replacing it, I would be very happy to resurrect the non-creative elements, including the list of references which you might consult. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm the one that blanked it originally and did go through multiple snippets from that book to confirm that all but (the last) two sentences were too closely paraphrased; I didn't find those last bits specifically but their language when compared to the rest of the editor's work leaves me strongly inclined to believe they were copied from elsewhere too. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting input

I'm feeling exceptionally uncreative today, so would it be possible for you or a stalker to help out with removing some bits of close paraphrasing in the rewrite of Adi Schwartz? There's some conversation and an example at User talk:VernoWhitney#Adi Schwartz. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. :) If no stalker gets to it, I should be able to do something in an hour or so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Emphasis on the "or so". :) I've taken a stab at it. It's tough, with such a short run of prose. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that; I've gone ahead and moved it since it looks much better now. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

User:MoonRiddenGurl

I assume this is not you? I didn't block right away because their contributions seemed OK-ish. Thoughts? TNXMan 20:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No. :) I presume it's User:OSUHEY, a serial copyright infringer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, they've been blocked and I didn't see any sleepers hanging about. Thanks! TNXMan 20:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Jezhotwells's talk page.
Message added 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have provided some links. These are actually pages in English on that site. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Jezhotwells (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lilford Hall

Hi I am Charles Micklewright who has written around 99% of the content for the article "Lilford Hall". Much of the material has been obtained from the wesite www.lilfordhall.com which I have written and own. I am happy to grant permission under my copyright rights to Wikipedia for the article "Lilford Hall". How do we proceed so that the original article can be restored? My e-mail address is aziza@micklewrightc.freeserve.co.uk

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.40.72 (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) The procedures for verifying permission were set out at User talk:Micklewright on 22 November. Basically, you can verify permission by one of two ways: either placing a release on your website or e-mailing a release to the Wikimedia Foundation. You can read more about the procedure at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If any of that is unclear, please let me know. I'm happy to help you through the process.
If you choose to send an e-mail, please be sure that you identify all articles on Wikipedia which used the text by name, that you provide a link to the website from which the content was taken, that you indicate a usable license (as set out in the process page I linked above) and that your e-mail address is clearly associated with that website. That will speed the processing of your permission and get the content restored more quickly. The two most common problems we run into with permissions are unclear or unusable licenses and communications we can't positively connect to the source. (If you don't have an e-mail address that clearly connects you to the source, there are ways around that; let me know, and I'll help you come up with one that works for you.)
If you choose to release the material at the website, please let me know here so that I can restore the content. It's by far the swifter method. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Query

Dear Moonriddengirl,

Can I ask you for help? Please have a quick look at a question on my talk page and the associated article, Yılmaz Onay, and tell me if my answer was correct (it's a copyvio issue signaled by CorenSearchBot). Thanks for your time! Drmies (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyvio advice requested

Just want to run something by you. Mario Moya is up for CSD as a copyvio. Sure enough, the text matches this bio. However, the text in our article was added 2 September 2009. The bio doesn't have a date, but may be more current. (I checked Wayback, didn't find an older version, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything.)

Of relevance is the fact that the WP addition was by a user named Mario Moya. My guess is that the subject of the article added the bio material himself, and more or less simultaneously, used the same material for the website bio.

I don't have a clear copyvio, as I cannot dismiss the possibility that the WP article text came first. It might be a reverse copyvio, but I don't have enough facts to establish that as well.

However, it might be necessary to establish which is which if we thought the article should remain. My current thinking is to delete the article for other reasons, and not address the copyvio issues. I'm not quite comfortable with a speedy, so wondering if it should be a Prod.

This all may be moot in this specific instance if someone comes along and deletes it, but I'd be interested in your advice in any event.--SPhilbrickT 17:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) What I would do in this situation: convert the speedy tag to {{copyvio}} and list it at WP:CP, giving the contributor the requisite notice. That seems a little more polite in borderline cases, and it gives us a little time for her to verify permission before it's gone. When it comes up at CP, I or whoever closes it will look for evidence that we had it first. Lacking that, we have to delete, but at least it gets a shot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, wait. There was an article before the content was added, which does change things a bit. It's not G12able if there's clean content in history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll follow the progress there.--SPhilbrickT 18:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Adi Schwartz

Just wanted to say thanks for your help. I especially liked this rewrite [14]. Good work. Nik Sage (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a bit of a challenge, since I could not find more sources to supplement, but I'm glad I could help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification re: Malke 2010's mentorship ending

Hello Moonriddengirl. Could I be so bold as to ask that you clarify today's ending of Malke 2010's mentorship "due to disagreements about its administration" ? As you know, I was one of many who expressed concerns due to her multiple blocks, threads at ANI, etc. I also, as you recall, had highly unpleasant encounters with this editor, and was of the opinion that a lengthy block was called for under the circumstances but withdrew when mentorship was accepted; now I see that Malke 2010 has had still more blocks since that time.

For the record, and in the event additional ANI threads are started for this demonstrably problematic editor, could you please elaborate on the recent circumstances? I have your page watchlisted and will look for a reply here. Many thanks, Jusdafax 03:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. With respect to the "still more blocks", I do need to point out that one of the interim blocks was withdrawn; feedback from multiple parties to the blocking admin suggests it may have been based on a mistaken understanding of the situation. As to the rest, conversation about the mentorship may still be ongoing, but I think it's fair to say that at this point we (for different reasons) do not feel that the mentorship is likely to be effective anymore. Although I think she has much improved since then, after more than five months as her mentor, I have become personally invested and no longer feel that I would be "uninvolved" enough to apply sanctions if any were needed. It seems best under the circumstances for me to withdraw, unless the situation changes, and to let the community know that she is not at this point under my guidance or observation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks again. Jusdafax 22:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Derivative work - paraphrasing

I have a delicate situation involving an admin which is clearly paraphrasing. The question is whether it is too close, because he introduced factual inaccuracies into it. Could you please take a look. The diff shows what he added from a single source http://www.plainsborohistory.org/turnpike.htm. I was the GA reviewer Talk:New Jersey Route 26/GA1 and repeatedly suggested that he get a second source or drop the paragraphs from the article. He told me at the outset that he didn't want any messages on his talk page from me, and withdrew the GA nomination without any message to my talk page or on the review page. I question the wisdom of leaving these paragraphs in the article, but I want a second opinion regarding whether the paraphrase is too close. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll take a look at that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's pretty clear what source he's been using, and not just because he cited it. :/ He follows lockstep. I'm inclined to think it's just on this side of okay, since the content is chronological and the facts basic, though the inaccuracies are worrisome. :/ I'll invite additional review, though. These are the gray areas that can be difficult to assess. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 17:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kurtis Blow

The article Kurtis Blow appears to be an unambiguous copyright violation of this site. Originally I tagged the article for CSD but reconsidered based upon the CSD tag that this instance might be more complicated. Therefor I removed the CSD tag and applied a maintenance tag, as well as notify you here. Please cause the correct action to ensue and I will watch from the sidelines Thank you and I am sorry for increasing your workload. My76Strat 17:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that during the interim of these posts a correction was made. I believe the issue is resolved but having posted this request, I leave it for you to verify upon your own leisure. Again, thanks for the important work that you do and the valuable liaison you have become. My76Strat 17:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) I added the {{cclean}} to the article talk page. It's possible that the contributor is the copyright owner, based on his edit summary, but we would need to verify that...and it's really not appropriate for us anyway. :) And please don't worry about increasing my workload; this is my workload. :D I've chosen to help out Wikipedia in this way, and I am happy to help. I appreciate your kind words. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know of a little dilemma with this CCI. I've been doing as much as I can to review the images that were marked as public domain or already had {{Non-free use rationale}} full and valid, but the rest are mostly claimed for fair use with a sentence fragment such as "low res, no revenue loss, person is dead." A few times I've tagged these images for deletion for invalid fair use rationales, or I've tried to get the user to add the template, and the discussions ended up heated. The biggest cases of this went on here and here (look at the diffs). I'm not quite sure how to continue. The images in the CCI not yet reviewed are nearly all ones of this sort. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. :/ I appreciate all the work that you've been doing there, and I'm sorry that it's been dramatic. I'm not entirely sure how best this should be handled. I think perhaps I should invite an admin who works non-free images more regularly to help us figure out the best way to get these images taken care of. I would recommend WP:NFCR, but frankly that forum is so backlogged (with listings dating back to June) that I don't think it's a good approach. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I think asking for help from an admin would be the right idea. There are many admins who are very experienced with image copyright. If the WP:NFCR backlog dates back to June, I wouldn't add to it if that can be avoided. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Most of the older NFCR cases could be closed, but it really isn't a very high-traffic board, so I would also recommend against it. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I've asked for advice on the best approach. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, this is indeed a unique situation, and I admit I'm a bit at loss. The problem lies in the fact that {{subst:rfu}} tags don't allow removal (i.e., a separate administrator must review them), whereas {{subst:dfu}} does (something we might consider altering btw). My recommendation, as an administrator who's been around for less time than you (but someone who has nonetheless observed Wikipedia for a while) is as follows: try to talk to the editor and figure out why he's unwilling to add the template.
  1. Is he standing on principle for principle's sake, a lá Giano (who deserves a star for Wikipedia navel-gazing drama of the year, followed by such notable incidences as the Pedophile userbox occasion... am I digressing?)? If he is, find out what that principle is. If it's because he thinks that WP has too stringent standards for fair use, then tough; if he continues to remove the tags, maybe you could try a block discussion at ANI or a RFC/U. I happen to think the fair use standards here are a bit much too sometimes, but I don't go ignoring them. Even if the user is worried that standards will change again and he'll be left out in the cold, I see little other that we can recommend we have him do - we need to have images brought up to code.
  2. Is he refusing because he's uploaded thousands of images and lacks the time to write a rationale? I can understand his frustration - Wikipedia's standards have changed - but we need to keep up with them. I'm sure calm discussion with the user could work out a solution, even if it's obnoxious and requires someone to go through the man-hours to help tag the images. If calm discussion does nothing, I'm afraid I'll have to punt too and recommend going to WP:ANI. I didn't even know WP:NFCR existed until you posted it on my talk.
  3. Is he just lazy? I admit I'm a bit worried this is the case given what I've read at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822 (of course, I could be wrong). See solution for first. Are RFC/U's ever effective by the way?
Hopefully we can work this out in such a way that doesn't involve the mass deletion of Richard's images. Let me know if I've been specific enough. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was the approach that I attempted when I came upon certain images he's uploaded. I think he is refusing for a little bit of all three of those reasons (but not really lazy, because he comes quickly in defense of these images). At first he sounded very startled and demanded an explanation. So I explained to him about the insufficient rationales and what was lacking and strongly recommended that he use {{Non-free use rationale}}, because its parameters give you the chance to add all you need for a rationale. Then he was angry on the file talk pages and either did not understand the fair use requirements or insisted that there was no problem. He then went on to revert some of my edits. I think that he somewhat understands fair use requirements by now, given what I and some other users have done to help get through the CCI, but he's uploaded so many images that he only spends so much time with each one and isn't prepared to face the consequences. Therefore, I believe it would be appropriate for an administrator to politely confront him on his talk page and kindly ask him to explain his actions. What he writes back, and most of all, in what manner will determine whether or not a block is appropriate. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, the text below is the user's response to I assume me, from his user page:
"Why is this now the second time that someone has flagged my image for deletion, taken by me, tagged properly by me. Every Essjay on Wikipedia thinks they are an expert on copyright law, and knee-jerk delete everything and anything." Jsayre64 (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it's not just you. :) For example, he posted this, choosing for some odd reason to draw conclusions about my training and education. Since I have attempted to talk with him reasonably at multiple points, I'm unsure why he wouldn't just talk about his concerns with me, but I overlook that kind of attitude routinely in copyright cleanup. He was also strangely confrontational here with another admin over copyright matters, at least until I intervened. Sometimes people are disgruntled about copyright cleanup. I would prefer to avoid the RfC/U or ANI option if possible. Too much time wasted in drama. :/ Personally, I would hope that Richard would not need to be blocked. At least with respect to this matter he has been difficult to work with, but the vast majority of his contributions to Wikipedia are constructive. To me, what matters is getting the material squared away. Many of these images are valid; they're just not FURred well.
Before I consider speaking to Richard (based on the link above I would not expect a satisfying conclusion to that, as I have not found him generally approachable), I think there are several factors that we need to think about in the approach of this. Images that fail NFCC should probably be separated out and handled differently than images that have skimpy (but valid) FUR. For the latter situation, I believe we have a tag for that, don't we? Not a deletion tag, but one that asks for the missing information to be corrected? I feel like there's one and that I ought to know where it is, but my ability to forget things I know is truly remarkable. :D If we don't have one, we darned well should, and I am minded to correct that.
With respect to the ones that clearly fail NFCC, probably the best thing to do is to tag them {{DfU}} with a clear explanation of which part of the criteria they fail. Drop me a note, and I'll watchlist it. I'll handle any disputes that may arise. If it is less clear, it's probably best to list the images at WP:NFCR, backlogged or no. As long as you tag the images as instructed, note what you've done at the CCI and explain at NFCR what you think the problem is, you don't need to do anything more than that. That will bring it up for review by others. It may take a while, but we'll have met due diligence. :)
By the way, if you feel that this situation is too uncomfortable for you to do more, I will completely understand. I'll be sorry to see you stop, but you have my appreciation for what you've done already. We're all volunteers here, and the project benefits most by having you active and happy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For images whose rationales state the insufficient "low res, no revenue loss, person is dead," should I merge that into {{Non-free use rationale}}, or should I tag for deletion with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}? I don't see any template that requests improving the rationale without also being a speedy deletion candidate, so it's a tough decision. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. That was answered above. :-) Jsayre64 (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Good think you bumped; I kind of lost sight of this yesterday. I had meant to follow up on it. I have now. :) (Sorry; the season has me a bit swamped in real life. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio (I think) and what do I do?

Hi there, I'm not really sure where I'm supposed to take this, but I've heard you are the resident copyvio expert, so I'm hoping you (or a talk page stalker) can help me. On The Lees of Laughter's End, the "plot summary" section appears to just be a copy of the blurb of the book (although I can't actually prove it atm). So is that a copyright violation? Assuming the answer yes, what am I supposed to do? Originally I would have thought it would have been fine to just remove it, but with all that copyvio drama about a month ago, I somehow got the impression that it couldn't just be removed, an admin had to actually delete it from the page history. Any help at all would be appreciated. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely a copyvio. Handling. Courcelles 08:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've expunged it from the history. Given it was foundational, it might be worth looking through the other creations of User:Setne for more cut and paste jobs. I'll leave MRG to do the copyright lecture, she gives it so very well. ;) Courcelles 08:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that so quickly! :) Jenks24 (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Rule #3 of Wikipedia: If the language looks just a bit too clever, and just a little promotional, you 'll never go broke betting it was copied from somewhere. Courcelles 08:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. :) I will, once I'm fully alert. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not much point in the copyright lecture, as the contributor has been gone for years, but a baby CCI seems needed. I've confirmed copying in several articles. I'm conducting it at his or her user talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, M, didn't mean to leave you with that much work. Thanks, though. Courcelles 03:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem! It's work that needs doing. Between extra work workload at this time of year and the need to do other things, I may not catch up CP until the New Year, but it's all pulling towards the same goal. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I can't believe my question caused you so much work. Thanks to both of you guys for your prompt action and for the mountain of copyvio work you do :) Jenks24 (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
What you did was find a long-standing problem that needed cleanup. I appreciate your uncovering the issue. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

please will you help?

Dear Moonriddengirl, the Robert Garside page is being attacked again. I would appreciate your intervention. Can you help? Dromeaz (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Another question

MRG, how do you update an existing CCI (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vrghs jacob‎) to include more recent contributions? I just reverted copyvio text on one recent edit (Special Protection Group) and there could be more since the CCI started. BTW, almost all contribs on Commons have been deleted and the user was blocked there for a week or so. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 48 hours. Here's hoping that he'll get the point. If not, we need to go indef. To update the CCI (which we've only had to do twice), we run the program again and narrow the date range to between the opening of the last CCI and today. This point, we should probably simply be more presumptive of vio and eliminate text in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If he is still blatantly pasting without any effort at paraphrase in the weeks following his notice, he either does not get it at all or does not care. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
THanks for taking care of both issues. BTW, since there are quite a few India related CCIs open right now, do you think it might help if a note is added to WT:INB listing them and asking people to check, or would that result in less scrutiny as not everyone may have the expertise to be as diligent as the regulars? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a tough one. :) I'm all for bringing new people in to help out with copyright concerns, but there is a risk in asking people who aren't familiar with the requirements to undertake it. At the onset of Darius Dhlomo's CCI, there were a couple of people who restored copyright problems to publication. :/ I'd say that it might be a good idea if you wanted to ask, but I'd recommend that you encourage them not to help out unless they're sure that they understand Wikipedia's copyright policies and to seek feedback if they find an edit that they think may be too closely paraphrased. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Will avoid posting then, better safe than sorry. The burdak CCI seems to be quite difficult, there's a lot of multi-way copypasting on a few articles that I've seen so far and each article is going to take a long time to check. —SpacemanSpiff 13:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I've figured the reason for my confusion. Apparently these weren't the only copyvio edits on that page, two sources were used ([15] and [16] and its precursor) with the former being the primary source for the more recent edits while the latter was also used. However, the latter has been used in different forms across at least 2-3 edits in 2009, (I'll need to figure that one out), and part of the recent edits was moving around the content from the earlier copyvios! I think I know how to fix this now, but I'll let you know once I do it so that you can check. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to be the go-to person for this, so I thought I'd ask. I'm wonder if there are any investigations at WP:CCI that I should try and prioritize over others. I see some have been up a long time, yet others are more high profile, etc. I'm busy wrapping up Texas141 right now; it's easy since the sources are already there so I can just look for copypastes. Are there any of the 40+ left you would suggest I try and do first? I could of course just pick them as I see them, though if any are urgent I can tackle them. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd say just do whichever ones you're comfortable with - we're happy with any help we can get. Obviously it would be nice if we could close some of the really old ones, but it all balances out since that would mean ignoring the newer ones which are often easier to track down and clean.
If you like having the sources handy there's always Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Banglapedia (source) which is a bit different from the others since we're looking at all of the articles which link to that one website, regardless of the contributor. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion, that. :) The oldest, unfortunately, are often among the more difficult, so while I would love to see those cleaned I think the risk of burnout is higher there. Another that could be relatively simple is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Pohick2. He also tended to cite the sources he copied or closely paraprhased, and he has actually complained about how long it's taking us to clean up after him, so I presume he'd like to see that wrapped up. Your help on any of them is very much appreciated! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Pohick2 is going to be expanded later today: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pohick2. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, good! I was thinking we needed more to do. :) This seems like an excellent time to roll out your newest tool to me. When we have socks of confirmed serial copyright infringers, we don't need to bother. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll propose it at WT:CCI and try and post some updated edit summaries and talk page during the day today - if there's support for it maybe I can run it tonight or tomorrow. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Good to go. Meanwhile, I've nuked his recent creations per G5 and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ultrasonic impact Treatment page deletion

Good day or night,

Regarding the deletion of the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ultrasonic_impact_treatment

I need time to dig up a different source to which the author can release the copyright, email a release statement, or petition for un-deleting.

Background: The author of the deleted page for Ultrasonic Impact Treatment (TayHanes), is my client, Taylor Hanes, Chief Operating Officer of Applied Ultrasonics. See http://www.appliedultrasonics.com/rapidresponse.html for complete contact information.

Applied Ultrasonics is was formerly branded, "Esonix." See 0:50 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRPZq8-jEmc.

The cited copyright violation was of the following content: http://books.google.com/books?id=uczkKDKn5HYC&lpg=PA225&dq=%22ultrasonic%20impact%20treatment%22&pg=PA226#v=onepage&q=%22ultrasonic%20impact%20treatment%22&f=false)

If you scroll up a page, to here http://books.google.com/books?id=uczkKDKn5HYC&lpg=PA225&dq=%22ultrasonic%20impact%20treatment%22&pg=PA225#v=onepage&q=%22ultrasonic%20impact%20treatment%22&f=true, you can see the authors of this content are L. Teheni and E. Statnikov.

E. Statnikov is the late Efim Statnikov, founder of Applied Ultrasonics, a.k.a. Esonix. See http://www.appliedultrasonics.com/company.html. L. Tehini was also a founding member.

Here http://books.google.com/books?id=uczkKDKn5HYC&lpg=PA225&dq=%22ultrasonic%20impact%20treatment%22&pg=PA225#v=onepage&q=%22ultrasonic%20impact%20treatment%22&f=true you can also see the title, "Esonix," which is the previously marketed name for Applied Ultrasonics (see 0:50 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRPZq8-jEmc)

Summary: The author of the deleted page on Ultrasonic Impact Treatment is the COO of the company which employs the authors of the cited copyright infringement (thanks SuggestBot). I am looking into the easiest way to release the copyright: posting the content on their website with a release, adding a release to the Google Book, or emailing a release. Any advice as to which route is best would be greatly appreciated.

Or even better, if this is enough information to undelete the page, I will be so happy I'll do a little dance.

Cheers, Crockett --67.188.129.47 (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Good afternoon. :) I do so wish I could make you that happy! I'm afraid that since we have no means of verifying the identity of people who post on Wikipedia, though, we have to provide licensing permission through external means, and when books are involved, it gets complicated. :/
It seems that the article, Ultrasonic impact treatment, was deleted on November 29th; as you say, it was deleted for copying content from this book. The complication here is that copyright is reserved in that book to the Technomic Publishing Company, and we cannot know their licensing terms. A few years ago, we had to remove quite a bit of text that was provided by the author of several books on Scottish history when it turned out that he did not have clearance from his publisher, who retained rights. As Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials notes, "If you are the original author but the rights have been assigned to your publisher, you have given up the ability to license the work to us." Lihttp://appliedultrasonics.com/pdf/pdf11.pdfcense for this content, then, might require a statement from the publisher in line with Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. If they will not license it, but instead declare that the copyright belongs to the authors, we would need a release from L. Teheni as the (presumed) surviving author, unless he is willing to verify that the content was created under a formal "work for hire" situation, in which case Mr. Hanes' permission would serve.
I'm sorry; it's so much easier when the content is first published on some other website. All we need then is a license release there. I am happy to talk to you further about how to facilitate licensing the content, though I do have to wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to rewrite it. I would volunteer to help with that, but "ultrasonic impact treatment" is way out of my field. I might at best produce a very short article which could then be expanded. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Hey thanks for the quick response and thorough explanation!

Let me see if we can dig something up to post with a release on appliedultrasonics.com to which we can add a release:

Do I understand that if we post the source content on appliedultrasonics.com with a release, the page could then be un-deleted? I'm not a veteran Wiki editor, so the thought of copy/pasting with all of the citations is intimidating:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LN-qDCvIW_AJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_impact_treatment+ultrasonic+impact+treatment&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Thanks!

Crockett Dunn (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Oooh! Can you show me what section looked like a copy/paste job, so the author can re-write it and cite other sources. UIT isn't my primary field, either. Crockett Dunn (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's not quite so simple as hosting it on the website now and putting up a release statement; it would have had to have been the point of first publication, unless we can verify that there's nobody else in legitimate position to claim copyright (as Technomic Publishing Company are with the book). :) I have not evaluated the whole article. I don't believe I ever saw it before today. It was not listed at the Copyright Problems board, where I typically put in my time. But from what I saw, the foundational edit to that article was a copy from that book, beginning with the words "The principle of UIT is based...." The article was later massively expanded by User:Tayhanes. It does not look to me as though the content he added was taken from that book, though since I can see only a little of it in Google books, I can't be sure.
When there is an assertion of permission, we typically blank articles and list them at that board for a week to permit contributors an opportunity to verify permission or to rewrite the content. There should be no objections to my undeleting the page and blanking it, which would permit the author to evaluate the content. The template that overlies the article links to a temporary subpage in which it can be rewritten, if it can't be verified. The content will be temporarily viewable in the article's history. I can explain any of that further if need be. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the page is here. It's listed at CP, and it needs to be handled within the week before it comes due for admin closure. Again, please let me know if I can clarify anything. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm on it... 7 days.

Thanks Moonriddengirl!

Crockett Dunn (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Is it correct to have the temp page in the :Talk area?

Hello. :) Yes, it is. Strange, I know, but that keeps it from popping up in "random article" lists and allows it to be completed before it is put into mainspace. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Darell Hammond

Sorry for that - a banned user had recreated several deleted article which he'd created originally, and I didn't look closely enough at that one. I've now restored it. For more information, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smkovalinsky.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

For more laughs, see User:Sunflowergal34.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that he's exaggerating his success. All the more reason to strengthen the Paid editing guideline.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Cadfael Chronicles

The Cadfael Chronicles have been deleted, the author may be suspect but the article was valid. Can it be restored please Carl Sixsmith (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

May I ask how you know the article was valid? Its creator is a blocked serial copyright infringer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The majority of the article was split from the Cadfael article (we wanted to break up the article into character and series), which has been worked on by a wide array of users, this wasn't a copy and paste job from another site it was an internal wikipedia split. Unless the Cadfael article is also copyright violation it shouldn't be included in the sweep. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll restore it, then, but would you please evaluate it to make sure that the content is all taken from that page? We really can't afford to take chances with copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Harald Hauswald

Oh [expletive deleted].

Yes, I do understand that the creator is a serial copyright infringer. However, the article consisted of (i) two very short paragraphs followed by (ii) lists that (a) I think are unproblematic and (b) are tedious to re-create. What if I were to resuscitate the article with fresh introductory paragraphs written by me (and not plagiarized)? -- Hoary (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There should be no problem with new content. :) If you can confirm that the prior content is not a copyvio, there should be no problem with it either. Some of the articles I'm seeing are short; many are not. I'm not reading through them, but only G5ing where there are no significant additions by others with the additional WP:CV rationale that "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." Since being blocked for repeatedly violating copyright, he's created hundreds more articles, and WP:CCI (including his) is more than bloated enough. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm a bit sleepy now, so I'll wait a day or two before resuscitating two thirds of the article (which will be the easy part) and writing the remaining third afresh. -- Hoary (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

On a similar note, I may try and go resurrect Grace Lin if I can find enough outside my own contributions to it. :D Do we have a list of the files that are being deleted somewhere, or should I just dink around in Accotink2's deleted contributions? I'm not likely to go too far outside the one or two articles I had contributed to, just a thought. I certainly don't want to make more work for you. Syrthiss (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
No list; I was working off of Soxred93's tools, and I'm afraid it diminishes as the articles disappear. :/ You can look at my deletion list, though. I'm pretty sure everything I've done today is off of his list. I had barely touched WP:CP when this came up. Fair warning: there's hundreds! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Okee. Its probably just easier to view his deleted contributions then, since I know your deletion log will get longer as time goes on. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
LOL! True enough, and probably soon. :/ I've got to get back to my regularly scheduled mopping. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Max Conrad

Hi User:Akradecki had a draft of the Max Conrad article in his/her sandbox. In fact I left a message in User:Akradecki's talk page about putting on Wikipedia. I was under the impression User:Accolink2 saw the message and retrieved it. If you are unable to bring the article back would you please be open to bring the Max Conrad article from User:Akradecki's sandbox? Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

He took it from another Wikipedian without attribution? Standard blatant disregard. :/ He knows better. I'll create a new version based on that sandbox. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. :) Thanks for letting me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for doing this. I had found the NY Times obituary about his death on April 3, 1979 and was able to put the citation back in. Thank you again-RFD (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this please.

If you can keep an eye on File:Mmix.png for me. It was tagged on December 1 and the tag has been repeatedly removed by the uploaded. I have warned them and given them a final notice now. They posted a question on December 1 that I replied to (What's the right license for File:Mmix.png?) but they did not seem to care based on the edit summary's. If I revert the image again I would be in violation of 3RR. Thanks. (EDIT: They just reverted it again, now claiming the image is in Public Domain and adding a {{PD-author}}. EDIT 2: They have supposedly sent an email to OTRS as well now so you can kill two birds with one stone so to speak.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I tagged it as having no verifiable permission yet and added OTRS pending to the page and will keep an eye on it. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I would have presumed that contributor was new, given his/her confusion over whether you were a robot. I'm surprised that s/he has been here since 2006. Thanks, Verno. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. I'll be interested if the OTRS simply says "no problem, I don't consider it proprietary." as the claim or "permission" says. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wondering if you had checked OTRS On this. I am wondering if it was actually sent. A new comment on their talk page says: The author replied, but was quite annoyed at being contacted again. I should have gone with my instincts and never listened to you. Sigh. Lets put this to bed now is what I say - take a look in the OTRS system and if there is none there than remove the {{OTRS pending}} tag and go back to the December 1 tag the uploader kept removing (Was set to be deleted yesterday - December 8) as the {{PD-author}} tag added on December 7 would prove to be false. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there is an email in OTRS, so it should be resolved relatively soon. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I know the uploader claimed to have sent an email to OTRS and you added the {{OTRS pending}}tag to the image based on that, however the comment today would indicate otherwise, that is why I asked MRG to take a look in the system. It seems highly unlikely the uploader would first say there has been an OTRS sent and then, a few days later, say the copyright holder had responded and "was quite annoyed at being contacted again." To me that sounds like the uploader simply claimed an OTRS and added a PD tag to prevent the image being deleted yesterday. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being obscure. It's Ticket:2010120810004261 and looks like we're just waiting on the OTRS volunteer it's locked to to go ahead and approve it (unless I'm missing something, which is possible - it's been a long day for me). VernoWhitney (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
You know what I find funny about all of this? I asked MRG to keep an eye on it before the OTRS and obviously the above discussion happened. The OTRS was "accepted" bu another OTRS team member who I had never spoken too so I asked them about the chain of events and they said I could ask someone else to (re)check. It doesn't matter anymore, but though I would point that out here anyway. It would be so much easier if permission OTRS's such as these were simply made public, more so when the "public" chain of events seems to indicate something other than the OTRS "private" ones. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, sometimes it's confusing. Sorry about that. I left a more detailed rundown of the situation at User talk:Sreejithk2000 if you're interested. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry I haven't been commenting. FWIW, I have been following up on this, but Verno had already covered pretty much everything. I did review the ticket, and I would have approved it as well. It's a shame we can't find some way to make this process more transparent. As you probably remember, we did talk about something like Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard for Wikipedia, but as with so many things itfell through the cracks when something else popped up. I'm dealing with a migraine today, but if I can remember, I'll try to draw up a proposal about that later. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Walter Roth

Thanks for cleaning up this article, but unfortunately you left a <ref> tag without any information in it and deleted the revisions where it was introduced, so I can't fix it. shoy (reactions) 17:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Hang on a minute, and I'll haul it out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for letting me know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For helping find a solution to the matter at this place. I have suggested the matter be archived. Take care and Have a great day! Mercy11 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad that it worked out. I've collapsed the section, and it will archive automatically I think within 24 hours of its last timestamp. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This listing has come due for admin closure, and I have a question for you there. Hopefully, we'll be able to close out that matter soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think, this discussion is no more relevant, the article we are talking about has been deleted as per an Afd. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 02:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It was deleted, then undeleted and relisted. I already removed the 30th from CP after it was deleted last night in case you are interested in restoring it and actually resolving the copyvio issue rather than letting it relist tonight. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks for the explanation. I was a bit confused. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Following up

File:2-kristin20rt.jpg. Still tagged as you left it when you checked OTRS on it in August. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought there was some kind of automated follow up on those kinds of things. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
There is - me! LOL! Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
LOL! Good thing, too. It seems like otherwise some of this stuff would never get taken care of. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

CanadianLinuxUser

I hope you will question the real identity of CanadianLinuxUser. Given his style of arguing on the Robert Garside page, we feel we know his identity. Be careful. 87.82.116.134 (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Signatures

MRG, we had this conversation a while earlier on scanned signatures. Apparently the policy at Commons is a little different in that signatures don't appear to be copyrightable. Just thought I'd let you know since more of our editors appear to be getting autographs. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Q

An editor told me, "You disagree that plagiarism is widespread on Wikipedia? Perhaps you should check out WP:CP and meet the good folks at WP:CCP." I doubt that plagiarism is widespread on Wikipedia. Who is correct? Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to say honestly and accurately that it depends on your definition of widespread. :) The real place to look here is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, where we have quite possibly hundreds of thousands of articles waiting review contributed to by people who have persisted in violating our copyright policy (usually in a manner that also constitutes plagiarism). (Not to mention the ones already archived.) At WP:CP, I routinely see this, and WP:SCV usually gets a couple of dozen additional articles a day. Plagiarism is by no means rare on Wikipedia, but I can't begin to guess the percentage of articles that contain it. If somebody told me that a random sample found 10% of our articles contained substantial plagiarism, I'd believe it. It meets my definition of "widespread." But this is what I look at every day, and it's possible that my perceptions are skewed. I like to think that the situation is improving. I certainly see a lot more people paying attention to the issue than I used to. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Very interesting, and surprising, to me. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Let me ask this. Having found Southern Poverty Law Center is loaded with unattributed direct quotes from the group's official web site that make the page look like an advertisement, like as in several entire sections are plagiarized from splcenter.org, should I be reporting that anywhere? I should think that I should not be the only one reviewing for plagiarism, especially since some editors who actively perform the plagiarism claim I'm only doing it to cause trouble. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, you're not the only one reviewing for it; some of us review for it practically full time. :) And we are often accused of trying to cause trouble. But just to clear up terms here: plagiarism is a secondary consideration. It's easily addressed by attributing. The first and most important question is whether the content meets our copyright policy. Essentially, we can only copy content from other websites or publications if they are verifiably public domain or compatibly licensed. If they are not, and if permission is not confirmed through WP:OTRS, content cannot be copied except in brief, clearly marked quotations (as per WP:NFC). If the content doesn't conform to this, it is a violation of our copyright policy, even if it was probably placed by somebody connected with the company. I'm not able to do much reading at the moment (migraine), so I'm not comparing the article to its sources, but the handling of it depends on how extensive it is. If there are a few unattributed quotes, they can be dealt with through attribution. If there are extensive quotes, they need to be cut down. Extensive quotes are forbidden by policy. (Basically, we can't take too much from a single source.) If whole sections are copied from the website, those sections should be removed for rewriting or blanked with {{subst:copyvio}} to give other contributors notice and time that the content must be dealt with. At the very least, if you find content that violates our copyright policy, you might explain your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. That will bring it up so others can take a look. There's kind of a handy overview at Wikipedia:Cv101. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that the above has been copied to Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#Excellent advice on handling plagiarism/copyvio that is so prevalent here. I'm looking into the accusations that LAEC has made against other editors. There's more to this than just a copyright complaint. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This edit from SPLC is what I was thinking when I wrote "some editors who actively perform the plagiarism" above: 03:22, 5 December 2010 Blaxthos (talk | contribs) (65,846 bytes) (Undid revision 400572385 by Badmintonhist (talk) putting "quotes" around something in this context is "challenging" it. no need, since description is accepted in reliable sources)
Thanks. Please, Dougweller, let's not create problems and draw Moonriddengirl into them. That Blaxthos edit removing quotation marks from a quotation is at a minimum a legitimate basis for saying "some editors who actively perform the plagiarism", especially when you add in his attacking editors seeking to remove or edit the offending material to resolve any copyvio or plag issues. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


If you don't want Moonriddengirl involved, maybe you shouldn't post to her talk page. I'm sure she can look after herself. I don't understand how Blaxthos is 'some editors'. But your comment was below the revelation of some really large chunks of copyvio, and it certainly looks as though you were referring to that., I never dreamed you might have meant [17]Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding All Day (album)

Hi Moonriddengirl. I wasn't 100% sure where to post this, but since I've noticed you in quite a few copyright discussions talking sense, I thought I'd check with you... if it would be better on a noticeboard, feel free to copy it there. I've been following discussions All Day (album) for a few days, it's a mashup of songs, and editors have been identifying the samples in order and by length and timing. Following a discussion on the page, since this was clear WP:OR, the information was removed. However, a source has now been found, which includes start times for the samples at Fastcompany, all shown on a big image. I've transcribed the information to Talk:All Day (album)/FastCompany, so we now appear to have a decent compromise - not OR, but with the information that people are looking for. My only worry is that this is a copyright violation, taking so much information from the image. It will be referenced clearly, but I thought I'd double check if that's sufficient. Oh yes, by the way a number of news outlets have told fans to check for track listings on Wikipedia, as has the artist himself on Twitter, just to make things more fun. Worm 10:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's actually a circular ref, not a reliable source.... Thanks for reading anyway! Worm 11:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) Just as an FYI, since you took the time to write, I don't think that would have been a copyright issue. The rule of thumb there is whether there is creativity in the information or the organization/presentation. If you're talking about a comprehensive list of samples (and the samples used is not "guesswork" but fact), then there would be no problem in using the information. The presentation, obviously, is creative, but you weren't wanting to duplicate that. :) If you find one that isn't a circular reference, those are the factors to consider. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for such a clear answer. I'll keep that in mind if we're lucky enough to find a non-circular ref.Worm 12:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thx for lightning response

... on User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 30#The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory. --16:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

CanadianLinuxUser

Moonriddengirl. This is Dromeaz. This is confidential. Please look at the contributions made by CanadianLinuxUser. We believe him to be Phil Essam. He is an arch enemy with Robert Garside. He has been hassling Robert Garside's colleagues, sponsors and other associates since the year 2000. That is 10 years. He drew the Robert Garside page into an edit war in 2007 and isn't becoming an established user/administrator, just a ploy? Look at his historic contributions. And I am the one to get blocked? This is absolutely ridiculous! 87.82.116.134 (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that my talk page is heavily watched, which means this probably isn't confidential. You might want to remove the section once you read my reply. I don't know the history of CanadianLinuxUser. Under this username he has not been here that long, but I do not know if he had previously edited Wikipedia. I'm afraid I'm under the weather at the moment, but I have gone in to clarify that "some" challenged. I will continue to do what I can to try to keep the article neutral, and I understand there is some conversation about the matter off Wikipedia as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Pssst...get well soon...


FYI: I am not Phil Essam. I've been a contributor of Wikipedia on and off since April 2008. I was updating the Jesper Olsen page noticed the edits of this user and learned the story of Robert Garside. Email me if you need real information CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, he just admitted to being Dromeaz ... Said user was banned indefinitely. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have no reason to doubt that you are a Wikipedian with no personal experience with the subject of the article. My interest is solely in keeping the article neutral. I know that User:Dromeaz is indefinitely blocked (not banned), but there are special circumstances when the subject of an article or his representative are interested in keeping it compliant with WP:BLP. As that policy notes, "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material." I had long known that User:Dromeaz was also User:TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate (said as much here), but so long as he continued to work within process would not have thought he should be blocked. Unfortunately, as I told him at his talk page, I think he did get a bit overzealous in protecting the article. But we should nevertheless make sure his concerns are fairly heard as we try to make sure that the article is encyclopedic and complete. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Right... banned blocked... I keep mixing those up. :-) I do admit that it is hard to keep neutral with that article. Glad you are here to reign me in :-D CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Moonriddengirl,

This is Preventionbetterthancure, the author of the article about Communities That Care.

Thanks for your note about the copyright issues. If I understand correctly, the copyright issue is because the Blueprints for Violence Prevention website now has a PDF summary of Communities That Care posted on their website. Since I wrote the article, CTC has been found to be effective in an experimental, controlled trial in 24 communities. Blueprints has subsequently reviewed the research and has decided to declare CTC as one of its 'promising' programs. Hence their post. I think if you review the article I wrote about CTC, you won't find exactly the same language between the Wiki article and the Blueprints PDF.

CTC is in the public domain, and CSAP (Center for Substance Abuse Prevention) of the US Govt officially owns all the CTC manuals and materials. They had posted those materials on their website, but have recently revised their website and in so doing (temporarily) lost the link to the CTC materials. The materials can temporarily be found at www.communitiesthatcare.org.

I hope this explanation is sufficient to have you remove the block on the article! It is encouraging to me to see from your comments that there are 20 page views per day, telling me that at least some people out there in communities trying to do something to help their youth are looking for info about CTC.

Please let me know if this explanation is not sufficient, and I will see what I can do. thanks very much, Preventionbetterthancure (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback here. I'm afraid that I am unwell at the moment, but I will copy over your comments to the listing page. If another administrator doesn't review the matter before I am back on my feet, I will make it a priority to do so, so that we can get information on the organization back in publication as soon as possible. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I created this all by myself...

...so says the editor who uploaded File:Cover SimonSues.jpg and a couple of others. I can't tell if that's true or not, but I did find it interesting that this indicates lots of deletions for copyvio reasons. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless he is the creator of this comic, images like File:Razzaffen Contract.jpg this are clearly going to be a problem. If nothing has been done with them by the time I'm all back on my feet, I'll tag them for PuF. Meanwhile, that article could do with a run through the Earwig tool! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

First, let me say sorry your not feeling well and I know that Migraines are an, excuse the pun, real headache and I hope your feeling better soon. Due to the ongoing discussions about the recent bot run I submitted a recommendation regarding the current policy of dealing with copyright violators at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) here to modify slightly the wording of the current policy. --Kumioko (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your good wishes, and I have replied there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

  • Gana sangh kshatriya (AfD discussion)
  • Singh, Upinder (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Pearson Education India. ISBN 9788131711200. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)

This looks like very light paraphrasing of the sources that it cites, to me. Compare Gana sangh kshatriya#About Gana and Kshatriya Rulers with Singh 2008, pp. 267, for example. What do you think? Does it rise to the level of zapping and starting again? Uncle G (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd better leave that for when I'm less medicated. Maybe a talk page stalker can compare in the meantime, but if not I hope (knock wood) to be back on my game by tomorrow. I'm seeing marked improvement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
It certainly rises to the level of requiring a rewrite. For instance, I see in the foundational edit:

There was no single hereditary monarch in Gana. Instead there was a chief known as Ganapati, Ganajyestha, Ganaraja, or Sanghamukhya, and a aristocratic council which met in a hall called the Santhagara. Effective executive power and day-to-day political management must have been in hands of smaller group.

The book says:

There was no single hereditary monarch in Gana. Instead, there was a chief (known variously as Ganapati, Ganajyestha, Ganaraja, or Sanghamukhya), and an aristocratic council which met in a hall called the santhagara. Effective executive power and day-to-day political management must have been in the hands of a smaller group.

Further down, I see:

The Ganas greatest assets – governance through discussion - were also their greatest weakness. They were vulnerable to internal dissension, especially when faced with aggressive monarchies. In the Lalitvistara, the future Buddha is described as sitting in heaven, thinking of his impending birth. One of the questions raised is; which family should he born in? The other bodhisattvas and gods discuss and reject the candidature of the Lichchhavis of Vaishali. They say that these people do not speak to each other in proper manner. Do not follow the Dharma, do not preserve the ranks of social status and age, do not become anybodys disciples, and each one thinks,’ I am king, I am king. The Arthshashtra asserts that Sanghas were unassailable and advises the king to win over friendly ones. It suggests that head of sangha should remain self controlled and just towards other members, and should do what is beneficial and agreeable to all others.

p. 268-269 says:

The ganas greatest asset – governance through discussion - was also their greatest weakness. They were vulnerable to internal dissension, especially when faced with aggressive monarchies. In the Lalitvistara, the future Buddha is described as sitting in heaven, thinking of his impending birth. One of the questions raised is: Which family should he born in? The other bodhisattvas and gods discuss and reject the candidature of the Lichchhavis of Vaishali. They say that these people do not speak to each other in proper manner, do not follow the dharma, do not preserve the ranks of social status and age, do not become anybodys disciples, and each one thinks, 'I am king, I am king.' The Arthshashtra asserts that sanghas were unassailable and advises the king to win over friendly ones. It suggests that head of a sangha should remain self controlled and just towards other members, and should do what is beneficial and agreeable to all others.

I've blanked the article and noted it at the AfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It's good to have my opinion confirmed. Uncle G (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Afc copyvio issue

Okay, so I finally tagged an article with a copyvio tag, but it's actually an Afc submission. My thought is, the editors who monitor Afc will take care of the matter? Does it require removing information from the edit history? It may be public domain material, as it is Minnesota government, but the plagiarized portion came from a signed article. I suggested the writer can deal with the plagiarism-only issue, if it is public domain, in some manner, if they choose.

As usual thanks to you for your contributions to wikipedia. (And your talk page stalkers.) --Kleopatra (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You happened to catch me on. :) The State of Minnesota copyrights its government documents; per [18], they are licensed for personal or non-commercial reproduction only, which we can't accept. I've never seen an Afc submission at CP, but it looks like this should be the first! (If you haven't listed it there, directions are on the template itself--it's a simple paste.) If it isn't rewritten or permission provided, it should be deleted. Thanks for keeping an eye out for this issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
That was easy. Thanks for the help. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_30&oldid=1147982826"