Jump to content

User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Wine Magazine

Hi Moonriddengirl I have followed you suggestion to merge Wine Magazine and Wine & Spirit International, and have in fact incorporated them with Wine & Spirit (a separate entry), but it does leave me with concerns about how Wikipedia users are supposed to look up topics of interest if they are not linked, as Wine Magazine will not be. Take “The World Atlas of Wine”, for example. This was going to be the next small article I was going to add, but if you suggested that should be merged with Hugh Johnson, the only way that Wikipedia users could find information on the most important wine book in modern times would be if they googled Take “The World Atlas of Wine” and “Hugh Johnson”, and the more that users have to resort to such methods, the more chance there is that they will be lured to other sites instead. Best Mr Meticulous (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) The concept of "merging" as Wikipedia uses it as a little more in-depth, as set out at Help:Merge. When a merger is complete, it leaves a "redirect" behind. For example, if you look up 2002 Farm Bill, it takes you to the article that contains the information, Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. What we should do at this point is convert both WINE Magazine and Wine & Spirit International into redirects so that we make sure that readers searching for them find the information easily. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (P.S. I'm going to go ahead with that. Please let me know if this fails to resolve your concern.)

Non-notable band?

Hi! Could you check out Northern Nash High School Band, please? I just ran into it while fixing some typos. To me it seems worth deleting, but I have no previous experience in the application of the notability guidelines. Thanks! Malhonen (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm looking at it now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay. The biggest concern here was copyright, as most of that article was copied & pasted from the band's website. I've warned the contributor about that. That kind of information is in the absence of size concerns probably best incorporated at the high school's article. I've merged the non-infringing content there and left it as a redirect. :) It might be deleted if brought up for a deletion debate, but it would probably have escaped speedy as it does claim some notability (and, also, as it is at least tangentially a school article). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Grassroots organizing

Good catch regarding the grassroots organizing article copyright. I had asked ages ago for permission to use that text from the author, and never heard back. If/when I get around to it, I'll try to get permission and put that text up. Unnyn (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you get permission, should be no problem. :) In any event, the article was tagged by User:Reyk. DumbBot listed it at the copyrights problem board, and I just processed it routinely. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem - prof. Lackovic, ORPHEUS

Dear Moonriddengirl, We are trying to publish an article at Wikipedia and I can't understand how Wikipedia grew so big with this kind of procedure to publish something. To resume the problem: Prof. Zdravko Lackovic is in charge for ORPHEUS web site, http://www.orpheus-med.org, in front of the regarding organisation. I am the webmaster. Wishing to describe, explain and promote ORPHEUS organization, he tried to publish this article in Wikipedia. Unfortunately his knowledge is not big enough to avoid any kind of mistake and somebody stated that his article is subject of possible violation of copyright. You can see that at his address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORPHEUS:_Organisation_for_PhD_Education_in_Biomedicine_and_Health_Sciences_in_the_European_System At the mentioned web site, http://www.orpheus-med.org, you can find history, mission statement and description of the ORPHEUS, together with the list of executive committee members, their e-mail addresses and their biography's. All of them are respectable academic citizens and scientists. At the index page you will find Mission statement, an article containing the text we are talking about. At the end of the Mission statement you will see the note that this document is published under GPFL license, linked to Wikipedia GNU FDL text. Author of this text is prof. Lackovic, and his name and email address you can find at the ORPHEUS web on the Executive Committee page, listed as President, with CV and e-mail link. Prof. Lackovic is trying to reach you by mail, but it is very difficult to find a real human email address at Wikipedia. So please be satisfied with this what you got from me, and publish that document at last, please. If you need something more to be explained, you can use my email damir AT hamberger DOT hr, mailing address Damir Hamberger, Bolnicka st. 55, 10090 Zagreb, Croatia, telephone +385 1 3465 500 (09:00-22:00 CET every day), GSM +385 95 830 9936, and I am also reachable at email address webmaster AT orpheus-med DOT org. Sincerelly yurs, Damir Hamberger

Dhamberger (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. :) The GFDL release at the page is sufficient. I'll make a note at the article's talk page pointing out where that release can be located and restored the contents. As far as contacting me by e-mail, in the "toolbox" at the side of this page, there is an option to "e-mail this user". This is found at every page where a user has enabled e-mail. You're always welcome to reach me there. (I should note that, as long as my page is, you have to scroll up a ways to see it.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And this is a quote from the message Prof. Lackovic is trying to send to wikimedia.org, but I really don't think that this will reach the target. :)

Original Message-----

From: Zdravko Lackovic [1] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:53 AM To: 'Permissions - Wikimedia Commons' Subject: RE: [Ticket#2008070810010474]

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK ORPHEUS -Organisation for PhD education in Biomedicine and Health Sciences in the European System

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE: GNU Free Documentation License

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

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

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

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

July 14, 2008

Zdravko Lacković MD, ORPHEUS President

Dhamberger (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:WP:CP

Ooops :) Glad that you noticed my report. Thank you very much for your help. KoberTalk 14:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) I believe the copyright concerns may be addressed, though I'll continue watching the article for a while in case the problem occurs again. Good luck working out whatever the content dispute is there! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I've just noticed from recent activity that it seems this user has been lobbing some serious personal attacks. I'm sorry that I missed that. The language difficulties made it hard for me to follow a good bit of what he was saying, so rather than bog down in trying to figure it out, I focused on what I thought to be the heart of the matter: stopping the copyright problem and trying to point him to somebody who could help him communicate here. "Please read Georgianist fascist writes" flew over my head because I lacked the context to understand it. I'm still totally in the dark about the nature of this dispute, but I'm sorry that I didn't address the matter of civility while I was talking to him. (I also still have no idea what "this is 'scientific' or RELIABLE' more Kartvelist attacks by Kober and Iberieli" means. Given the other comments, though, I'm guessing that it wasn't friendly.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to upload an image file in wikimedia to add it to my article through Wikimedia Commons. Since it is a copyright logo, I was going to add the following tag: Permission = See below license = {{Non-free logo}}. However, when I preview it, the copyright licesing doesn't appear with the rest of the information. In turn it looks like I don't have any licensing info, which would ultimately result in the deletion of the logo. Please let me know what I'm doing wrong. Thanks Smhaft (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that I know very little about Wikimedia Commons. I'll take a look to see if I can figure this out. Otherwise, I'll try to track down somebody who can. (I'm "neutralizing" your template, though, as it is working here, and it's labeling my talk page a non-free logo. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Commons does not use that template. When I tried to search for it, it directed me instead to this notice. It seems that Commons is only for free content. If you want to put the logo here, you'll have to upload it through Wikipedia instead. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

uploading image error

Thanks for checking it out. At first, I thought to upload an image file through wikipedia, but when I clicked on the form to upload it, I got an error message that I was unauthorized to do so: "The action you have requested is limited to Autoconfirmed users, Administrators." That's when I thought maybe there was a different way to add the logo. So if the image has to go through Wikipedia, and not Wikimedia Commons, how do I make this work? Smhaft (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Odd. I don't do a lot of work with images, but I was uploading them prior to becoming an admin. It's hard for me to test out what might have happened, because I am an admin. Hmm. Did you start at Wikipedia:Upload? If not, doing so might simplify matters. One thing that might be an issue: is this for an article that currently exists in article space? Logos can only be used under the fair use guidelines, which means that the article must already be established. I honestly do not know if Wikipedia's automated processes are smart enough to check for that or not. :) Why don't you try again, and if it continues to be a problem I'll try to hook you up with somebody here who does more image work than I do. I've recently started working in that area more, but I am by no means experienced there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My contributions

Just in case you're interested, MoonG: I posted a summary of my contributions here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You get around. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Heroes"

Hi there, tks for reassessing this article recently. I gathered the inclusion of technical personnel was all you saw as necessary to maintain this at B-class. I've added this so pls have another look when you can and check that it looks adequate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A Period of Transition

Hi, you asked if all the info on the "songs" section of the article were all referenced to pp. 198-199. Yes it is. I've made some edits to make the sourcing clearer, I think. Thanks. Kitchen roll (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've reassessed it as a B. Well improved. :) You might want to expand footnote #4 to indicate that this is a "section source". That might help make it clearer for other readers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Kitchen roll (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Moonriddengirl! My RfA was unsuccessful. See: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Masterpiece2000. I'm very disappointed. I've created more than 100 articles. However, other editors raised concerns about my votes on AfDs. I will take care about the concerns raised by editors and apply again after sometime. I want to contribute to more admin-related areas such as ANB and ANB/I. Your help will be important. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm sorry to hear about your unsuccessful RfA. It's a stressful process, I know. I'd be happy to help you with AN and AN/I to the best of my ability, but I must say that my participation in those boards is minimal. I read them fairly routinely, but I tend to participate in more focused areas. Right now, I'm giving most of my time to copyright problems and to article assessment. Is there any specific assistance I can give you at the moment? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind reply. If I face any problem, I will contact you. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do. :) I'm happy to help in any way that I'm able. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Black Holes

[2] Cheers, Naerii 16:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Reassessed.:) You're quick! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Or bored :P Naerii 16:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL! I know the feeling. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Uh, thanks. I obviously don't do this for the recognition or (lack of) remuneration.  ;) Cheers. -- Robocoder (t|c) 23:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, obviously not. If you did, you'd be showing very poor judgment. :) But I thought you deserved the recognition anyway, no matter how intangible and non-usable as legal tender. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to intervene

Japanese calligraphy by Satow. The kanji read (from right to left) "敬和" (Kei-Wa), literally "Respect and harmony".

Please consider looking over a very difficult controversy at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. My single sentence edit to the second paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has been reverted several times thus far; and the demonstrably futile defense of that single sentence has relied on the in-line citation which accompanies it. The talk page defense of that edit is marred by claims that I have been uncivil and that I've engaged in personal attacks. See for yourself how WP:AGF WP:Civil are used as threats, as blunt instruments which are intended to thwart any hope that an exchange of views can lead to a constructive outcome. If you choose to intervene, I would ask that you bear in mind my view that Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation seems worth trying in a situation which is rather more serious than can be easily grasped without a background in Japanese history, modern Japanese constitutional law, and the international naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s.

In short, without any effort to give too fine a point to my words: "Who's kidding who?"--Tenmei (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've read over this several times, and I'm afraid that I don't see how I would be able to be of any assistance there. I have no background in the subject. There are some specific venues suggested at WP:DR where you might be able to find assistance, although if you feel that the background is necessary, the WikiProject talk page is probably the best place to go. Hopefully a neutrally phrased mention at one of those will bring knowledgeable editors who might assist you in ironing out your differences. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not enough contribution to Wikipedia

Thanks for shedding some light on the issue of uploading images:) Does the drawing board or the comments that I've sent to you constitute as part of contributing? I want to add my article but I'm still apprehensive about running the risk of it being deleted in case it's not meeting the proper standards yet.--Webguru1 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think so. I don't think that the system reads the area that you've contributed to. However, there's a lot of article work that needs doing, if you want to be doubly sure. :) You could have a peak at Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories, or you could respond to one of the article listed at Wikipedia:Cleanup. (This is actually where I first got seriously involved in working on Wikipedia.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Contributions

Hello,

I am trying to add some information on Wikipedia about the industry I represent and i was wondering if you would help me. My intent is to educate the many Wikipedia users of the services that my industry and company offer to everyone. Let em know if youcan help. Thank you,

David Swan dswan AT customprograms DOT com dswan AT inteliChek DOT com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.34.14 (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I may be able to help. It depends on what exactly you hope to do. If you propose to write about your own company, that may be problematic by our conflict of interests guidelines. There are careful procedures to follow there. You may be able to add information about your industry, as long as it is verifiable through reliable sources, is neutral, and does not promote the industry or company. If you hope to create articles, you will either need to create an account and log in or to place them at Articles for Creation, where volunteers will review them and create them for you if they meet content guidelines (particularly notability guidelines). If you have questions about any of this, I'd be happy to expand. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Basically I do want to make note of my company because it is so unique and the definitions that I have been looking up are very general. There is a company that has done what I want to do for my company and my industry. The company name is "Attensa". I would like to make note of my company as a participant in the "secret shopper" and "mystery shopping" industry. We do "market research" for different industries and have a concentration in the Automotive Industry. We gather prices for our clients on their competitor's services, products and tires. This enables our clients to become competitive in the marketplace. We do very specific reports on a weekly, monthly and quarterly basis. I have a lot of samples of our work as well as Articles in magazines like Tire Review. You can learn more about my company at www.intelichek.com.

At the end of the day, we help the end consumer get a fair deal for automotive services, products and tires. Our clients like BMW, GM and even Nissan rely on our information to price out their services to be competitive with the competitors across the street.

Let me know if this makes sense and if you can help! Thank you in advance for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.34.14 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are several things that you might consider. Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not create an account and simply introduce such an article. You could request it at requested articles. This is the forum where you can list an article you'd like to see written. Note that these sometimes take a while, so this is not necessarily a quick solution. You can write it up at "articles for creation", as I noted above. You can also create an account and write it in a user subpage, following which you could request that it be put into article space at the conflict of interest noticeboard. In all cases, you should be prepared to provide reliable sources that verify that the company is notable. If you choose to go with option #2 or #3 and write the article, again, you should be sure to be neutral, and you'll need to avoid original research. You should also be clear about your conflict of interest in any case, declaring your connection tot the company. (In case you aren't aware, policies & guidelines are tucked behind the colored text.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tech time

I see that you noted here that the copyright problem is addressed but you did not leave a note on the article talk page for future reference. Per WP:IOWN, the listing on the web page is sufficient but notice should still be made on the talk page, As you have been highly involved you would probably be the best person to make the notice. Jeepday (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I had not yet, as given the other concerns about the material, I was waiting to see if it was going to be necessary. I will do so now, though, and we can see if the summary is condensed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Blah

for you naerii 13:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I thank you here, too, just in case you have suddenly stopped watchlisting his page! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A talk page stalker answers your question

Regarding your question on User talk:J.delanoy (which I have watchlisted, for reasons that I can no longer remember), you can do this in Firefox by going to Tools->Options->Privacy and unchecking "Remember what I enter in forms and the search bar". However, doing this will affect not just Wikipedia, but also other sites with similar forms. I don't believe there is a Wikipedia-specific way of doing this. In other news, this is probably the first computer "how-to" question I've answered in my life. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My first such answer, and I was beaten to it. Oh well - my answer is slightly different from Naerii's, so maybe it was not in vain after all. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I wish there was a way to just clear the ones that aren't needed anymore. Thanks for knowing how to do computer stuff. :D What's really funny is that my "RL" friends tend to ask me these questions. Blind leading the blind. Poor, poor "RL" friends. (Extra help is better than no help, by a country mile.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Super-talk-page-stalker here. You can clear the ones you don't need by moving onto them and pressing "delete". =) –xeno (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Ooooh! Targeted deletion! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Assistance

Thank you once again and i understand the conflict of interest. It osunds like I need a professional to help me with making this happen. Are you available to help me for hire or can you recommend someone that can help me? If you know of anyone that can help me please forward them my e-mail address at dswan AT customprograms DOT com. Thanks again.

David Swan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.34.14 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, David. I'm afraid that taking money to make these edits would likely put anyone helping you into a conflict of interest as well. COI policy notes the difficulty of working neutrally when "you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes." It may not be impossible, but it's not a line I myself would choose to cross. I believe your best bet here would be to locate volunteers within the Wikipedia community at one of the forums that I suggested. If you don't wish to try to contribute any neutral text yourself, requested articles is probably the best way to go. Your chance of finding a volunteer there is significantly better if you do provide references to reliable sources like newspaper articles or magazine profiles. That way, any volunteer who is considering options will be able to easily determine if you meet notability guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

bugnot

I must go offline for a few hours--please follow up if necessary. Feel free to block if he reintroduces libel--but I see he has never been formally warned before I just did. DGG (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm back. DGG (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome home. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoygabsadds 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for my first barnstar! I really dig it. You've done a great job re-reviewing albums articles too with that new-fangled c-class thing. I've been fiddling around trying to boost some more articles up myself. Great work! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Ag Silver

I was still working on the article for the band Ag Silver but you deleted it. :(

How am I supposed to compete the article with all the markup offline?

Mckellac (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Generally speaking, if you are actively editing an article you might mark it with {{inuse}} to indicate to other editors that you are still working on it. At the time this article was deleted, though, it had not been edited in an hour and a half. If you don't have time to dedicate to an article beyond a sentence or two, you might want to work on it in your userspace. There are instructions for doing so here. You may be able to develop an article there with more leisure, although even in userspace articles should not be kept without development for long periods.
You may want to review Wikipedia:Your first article. At the top of every new page, contributors are advised to review that, as it contains some very valuable tips for making the contribution process easier for new contributors. As that document points out, there are some article types that are commonly created that do not meet our guidelines, and because of this, Wikipedia has developed a standard where they may be speedily deleted. Bands are among those article types. In order to establish a band article on Wikipedia, you must include enough information in the article to suggest that the band may be important. Ultimately, to avoid other deletion processes, you'll need to provide references to reliable published sources that demonstrate that the band meets our notability guidelines for music groups, but that indication of importance should be present at the least. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

When someone tags a page for speedy deletion, they are supposed to notify the page creator that they tagged it. Are there any similar templates that admins can use to let people know that their page was speedy deleted?

Also, when you get a chance, can you look through my recent logs and see if I made any mistakes with my admin actions? I am still a n00B when it comes to admin-ing, and I don't want to start any bad habits.

Thanks for your time, J.delanoygabsadds 04:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but only one that I know of: {{Nn-warn-deletion}}. As the initials make clear, that one deals with notability. And, of course, you know quite well the one that we made for copyright violations. :) I'll go look at your logs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking good. :) But since you ask, I'm going to go really, really deep into it. Because you know that's what I do. :D
With regards to I love whitney, while WP:CSD#A1 does work just fine, WP:CSD#A3 would also have worked as "attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title" (I can't believe I wikilinked those CSD criteria. Do it in my sleep, I tell you....) or even WP:CSD#G3 (and I did it again!), although I wouldn't go there for a first page with content like that.
The vandalism policy includes under "silly vandalism" "creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc." Usually, I'll modify the deletion rationale for a first offense, something along the lines of [[WP:CSD#G3|Blatantly non-encyclopedic page]]. I would have done this, for example, with Poop dock. And I always, always, always leave {{uw-create2}} if I delete under that tag. {{uw-create1}} implies that the article may still be around. uw-create2 is a no-nonsense "don't do it again" tag. (And it occurs to me that I should have mentioned it above.) (I've actually left this contributor a uw-create1, since he wasn't notified and since those kinds of pages can become problematic. I left the "Poop dock" creator a 2.) (And why am I telling you this? It's not like you don't know. Well, you never know who else might stumble upon this, and it could be beneficial to him/her. :)) I think I would have deleted Evelin Garcia under G3 just for clarity. Once a person has repeated a word in all caps more than, say, 12 times, we can safely assume that he doesn't have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. :) Since that contributor had already been given a uw-create2, I've given him a {{uw-create3}}. One more on the road towards blocking, if necessary. And also lets him know we mean it. Matt Rhodes looks potentially to have been an attack page, though it's possible it was friends horsing around and not intended as an attack. In any event, it looks like a deliberate bad-faith introduction of content. I'd have given a uw-create for that on top of the existing A7 notice. (And I did.) I'd have also deleted it as a G3, with the modified wikilink: Blatantly non-encyclopedic page.
(Again, the way you handled those looks fine. I'm just discussing alternative handling. I like to leave a very clear record of vandalism when I see it in a contributor's logs. If User:Bob Cunningham decides to make a habit of vandalism, a record showing that Matt Rhodes was an A7 doesn't easily lend to the understanding that the article was part of that. Of course, an admin can easily investigate, but this is just the reason why I handle those in that way. Articles like that one are "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".)
The way you handled Tone diesel looks fine. Left a warning and everything. :) An alternative way to address such pages is to move them to user space and leave a {{nn-userfy}} at the talk page. Again, what you did was fine, and especially given the content there. I bring this up only in case you aren't familiar with that template, as I didn't stumble upon that one for a while. You may already know all about it, though.
Looks like you've had a very productive first run at the CSD cat. Go you! :D I entrenched there for probably the first 6, 7 months of my adminship. It's a job that's never done. And I'm off to look at today's batch of copyright problems! (Another job that's never done, though at least the backlog is addressed. For now.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Template

I started making a template to be used to notify people that their page has been speedy deleted. Here is an example of my notices for CSD G1 through CSD G4 look like. What do you think? J.delanoygabsadds 17:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. :) Practical suggestion: do you really want to make one for every instance? It might be easier to make a blanket one. "Your article has been speedily deleted under the speedy deletion criteria" with (if this is technically feasible) a link to the deletion log for the article. (Is that technically feasible? I dunno.) I'm not a big fan of the big exclamation point, as I think it's a bit officious unless the notice needs to be--vandalism, copyright, stuff like that. I think it may be a bit friendlier without it for what are probably good faith contributions. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It is one template, you just use this:
{{subst:User:J.delanoy/CSDnotice|CSD=criteria page was deleted under|page}}.
and change the "CSD" parameter to G1, a7, vandalism, or whatever. I subst-ed it four times in the sandbox so you could see where I was going with different pages (CSD G2 is miles away from CSD G3, for example). I will change the images for the less, um... angry, notices. Thanks for your suggestions. I'll let you know when I finish it. J.delanoygabsadds 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I just actually read what you were saying. I thought about making a "generic" notice, but I couldn't come up with anything that would work for everything. Do you have any ideas? J.delanoygabsadds 17:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
nvm, I just got an idea. And yes, it is technically feasible to link to the deletion log like that. J.delanoygabsadds 17:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that might make the job a lot easier. :) It's a time consuming job, and the less specialization necessary, the quicker it goes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

←Just to add a little more. I myself might go with something along the lines of:

That may be too wordy, though. Just my thoughts. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What do you think now? J.delanoygabsadds 18:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, though I'd probably wikilink those policies and guidelines. How is it used? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikilinked policies and added doc. (note-to-self: Template:Admin dashboard does not supercede Special:Watchlist...) J.delanoygabsadds 21:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Fabulous! You are so the man! I'm adding to that my "Frequently used templates" page right now. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

/* Cut and paste moves */

hi! i have made several changes to a page/article using a username that reveals personal info about me in the nature of username, i would like the record of these entries to be removed please, is this possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.210.243 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Removal of these is not likely, but you can follow the steps at Wikipedia:Changing username to get them changed over to a new username that doesn't reveal personal information about you. You'd need to log in to the account and place a request at that page, and a bureaucrat will review your request and make the change if appropriate. At that point, all your prior edits will show under the new name rather than the old. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
When personal information such as phone numbers or the names of pseudonymous Wikipedians who have not revealed their identity is posted by accident or in whatever way, it can be "oversighted", i.e. deleted so even administrators can't see it. However, if the information was in your username itself and you presumably used that name on purpose, I don't think that would apply. You might want to just abandon that account, stop using it and start editing under a different name. That may be better for you than officially changing your username, which would connect your new username with the previous account. See alternative accounts. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

/* Cut and paste moves */

Hi

I have made several chnages to an article which i did using a username that reveals personal info, how is it possible to a: reverse these changes and b: remove my username from the history of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgeza (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See immediately above for the answer to the first. Otherwise, there really is no way to reverse the changes. There are very rare instance where edits are deleted by developers. You can read more about this here. As I said, though, this is very rarely done. Your best bet is probably to change your username as I described above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The prose thing

Hi, this may be little on the absurd question side but, to not make the same mistake again could you tell me, exactly what should i take as "Prose" in the rating of albums articles, i rather not make the same mistake trice.

Thanks. Zidane tribal (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Happy to! :) A prose section is a section of sentences and/or paragraphs illuminating something about the article. Take the album Hard Candy. It has a lead section--one section of prose. That's required for every article. It should give an overview of the rest of the sections. Then it has 5 more sections of prose: "Release," "Promotional tour," "Musical style," "Reception" and "Singles." Reception even has two subsections: "Critical reception" and "Chart performance." The section following "Singles," "Formats," would not be considered a section of prose because it's basically a bulleted list. To qualify as a section of prose, it needs to be written with sentences in paragraph format.
The album America's Sweetheart has only one section of prose: the lead section. In order for it to reach a C class, somebody needs to divide the lead according to WP:LEAD. (And there have been times when reviewing albums when I've wanted to "fix" it myself, but then I wouldn't be technically allowed to review it. Reviewers are not supposed to have made significant contributions to the article.)
Please let me know if you want more info. I can generally rattle on at great length on any almost topic :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thaks a lot. Zidane tribal (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Epsom Hospital Radio page

Hi,

With regards to the content on the Epsom Hospital Radio page on Wikipedia, please note that yes it is a copy of www.epsomhospitalradio.co.uk/history.html

I actually host the website it is sourced from, you will find exactly the same page on www.andrewtijou.co.uk/epsomhospitalradio/history.html

As I own the copyright, please can you remove your copyright restricition and restore the page?

Regards Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATijou (talk • contribs) 1 August 2008

Hi. The instructions left at your talk page explain what you need to do if you are the owner of the material. Essentially, you have two options. First, you can release the material at the website under the terms of the GNU Free documentation license, which means that the material can be used or modified, here and elsewhere, commercially or otherwise, so long as authorship credit is retained. (You don't, of course, get attribution for future changes, but your core material must be credited.) Once this release is added to the website, then the material may be restored, where it can then be further evaluated to see if it's appropriate for Wikipedia.
Your second option is to send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Epsom Hospital Radio. After that, a volunteer from the Wikimedia Communications Committee will place a note on the talk page authorizing the reuse, and the material can be restored.
I know these steps may seem overkill, but they are necessary as Wikipedia does not require identity confirmation at log-in, so we have to be able to verify outside of Wikipedia that you have the authority to release this information.
Currently, the article is tagged for deletion, though, as I don't believe that it meets our notability guidelines. It seems to operate on a limited scale. Do you have reliable sources that can help verify that this radio station is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia? If not, it may be better to create an article on the hospital itself, which is more likely to meet our guidelines, and to discuss the radio station in that context. You can remove the deletion tag currently on the article if you disagree with it, but it may then be nominated for a deletion debate. Please help address the notability concerns.
If you own the website, then that also could create a problem, in that Wikipedia strongly discourages individuals from editing on subjects to which they are related. This is in our conflict of interest guideline. It's not impossible, but it requires that you be particularly careful to adhere to neutrality standards and also to avoid original research. Even if you know that something is true, if it isn't verifiable through published sources, you can't include it in the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:J.delanoy/CSDnotice

I've noticed that I tend to use this most after deleting test pages. Got any ideas of how we can mention in the template that the Sandbox is available for testing stuff? I tried to come up with something, but all my attempts look weird in the preview, and they just don't "flow" well. J.delanoygabsadds 04:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you insert an optional field after "verify their content"? Something in the line of "If T=y then print 'If you would like to test, we have a sandbox specifically for that purpose.'
Then you would have:

A page you created, I love whitney, has been deleted under one of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to view the page's deletion log for specific details on which criterion applied. Please see "Your first article" for information on Wikipedia's guidelines, and note that all articles on Wikipedia must be neutrally written on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. If you would like to test, we have a sandbox specifically for that purpose. If you have any questions about our policies and guidelines or how to contribute to Wikipedia, please feel free to ask at my talk page. You can also ask at Wikipedia's help desk, which is typically monitored around the clock by volunteers. Thanks

You actually could just put that line in anyway. But note that I changed "these policies" to "our policies", since I think it sounds odd to use "these policies" when the sentence before it isn't about policies. :) I also added (optionally) "or how to contribute to Wikipedia". Does that work, or do you want to brainstorm further? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
No, that's good. I updated the template and the doc, it's not really that much different. In the documentation, I said that you have to add "|t=y", but it really doesn't make a difference what you make "t" equal.

Typing {{subst:User:J.delanoy/CSDnotice|t=sjadbg383lksugbw|Login successful}} produces:

Speedy deletion of "Login successful"

A page you created, "Login successful", has been deleted under one of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to view the page's deletion log for specific details on which criterion applied. Please see "Your first article" for information on Wikipedia's guidelines, and note that all articles on Wikipedia must be neutrally written on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. If you would like to test something, we have a sandbox specifically for that purpose. If you have any questions about our policies and guidelines, please feel free to ask at my talk page. You can also ask at Wikipedia's help desk, which is typically monitored around the clock by volunteers. Thanks, J.delanoygabsadds 18:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. :) I like the addition of "something", too, as it makes the sentence clearer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Alan Johnson

Please go back and look at the article again. there are a variety of surces. If there is a particular sentance copied form the guardian, I apologize. But why make a big fuss? Why not just sumerize whatever the Gaurdian wrote, and improve the article instead of pasting up this billboard?Elan26 (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Since my reply is lengthy, I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please go ahead and take the article down. I read a couple of things by Johnson, wanted to know more aobut him, noticed that he didn't have a page and created one. He has a ver common name, and I really don't have time to research him properly. Please do whatever you think best. Delete the page. Whatever.Elan26 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26
    • Are you sure? He looks like a notable individual, and you're very close to creating a copyright violation free version in your last edit. If I don't hear otherwise from you and you haven't edited the article further in the next 24 hours or so, I'll go ahead and delete the article. If you confirm that you don't wish to create a new version to be placed there, I'll go ahead and do that without waiting. But as the article is blanked to prevent its being archived and duplicated by Wikipedia's mirrors, allowing it to remain as it is for another day or so is not a risk to the project. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that he is notable. I would not have created an article otherwise. It's just, I'm not sure I have time. Leave it up for now - I'll see if I can find a few minutes. thanks.Elan26 (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Thank you

"(Deletion log); 13:28 . . Moonriddengirl (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Nomi Sunrider-TofJ3 cover.png" (CSD I1: Redundant to another image)"
Thank you.
Had problems getting image to display.
Thought it was image.
Weird. Fixed it eventually (at JPG).
Appreciate the help cleaning up.
Best Wishes.
Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 20:38, 1 Aug 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Happy to help out. :) It's actually nice when a deletion makes the contributor happy. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image speed deletion

Hi,

I uploaded the image Greek Civil War - Flag of DSE hold captive .jpg which is an image I collected from a site that is dedicated to the Greek Civil War.

I am sure that there is no license issue for this picture as it is a historical picture wide known from historical books of this period as well as special editions in Greek newspapers.

I would appreciate your advise on how to upload correctly this image on wiki so to be a reference on the article Greek Civil War.

I have also uploaded by mistake the same picture under the title Image:Meros86 Photo4 small.jpg which is orphaned since I couldn't follow the instructions correctly on removing it. Cn you please assist me on this as well?

Thanks,

Dkace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkace (talk • contribs) 11:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) While I pasted the notice on your page, I did not tag the image; the image was automatically marked by Wikipedia as you uploaded it. I copied the notice to your page as a courtesy so that you would understand what had happened to the image.
Given the date range of the Greek Civil War, I have some concerns that the image may not be usable. Wikipedia:Public domain discusses how to tell if an image is usable, but it doesn't discuss specific copyright law in Greece. As far as US law is concerned, whether or not that particular image is usable will depend on when it was first published and whether or not it was copyrighted. Image work is not my primary area, and the best advice I can give you is probably to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. There are some very knowledgeable and experienced image contributors there. When you ask there, you'll want to give as much information as possible about the image, such as the website you took it from and, if you know, who originally took the image and when/where it was originally published. Good luck with it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will follow your advise, I learn something more everyday :-)

D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkace (talk • contribs) 14:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Eastlaw/Not all business articles are spam

Hi Moonriddengirl, I wanted to thank you for your comments on my essay. I have read your suggestions and implemented some of them. As I said at the beginning of the essay, this is still a work in progress, and I hope to continue improving it.

By the way, I was hoping you could tell me if it is possible to move User essays into the project namespace. Do you know if it is permitted, and if so, what is the process for doing so? Who makes the decisions about such matters? (I've been here a while, but up until fairly recently I haven't really involved myself much in the internal administrative affairs of WP.) --Eastlaw (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm happy to toss in my opinion, and I hope that it will be helpful. It is possible, yes. In order to be in Wikipedia mainspace, an essay needs broad consensus. I haven't seen one go through that myself, but if I were writing one and thought it was ready to go "live", I would probably propose moving it to project space at WP:VPR. I'd have to say, though, that I'd probably get it as ready as you think you can first, because my personal impression is that "broad consensus" is tough to gather. :D Inertia is a real issue around here, I think. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm back

Hi Moonriddengirl, just a note saying that I'm back from my wikibreak. Thanks, Midorihana みどりはな 03:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Midorihana みどりはな 22:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

the page alex torquetti

the page has been deleted,but when i search in the yahoo search toolbar with the name there's a link to the page and i cannot delete it,someone tried to frame me.Please what can I Do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aturquie (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If I'm understanding your concern correctly, I'm afraid that this one is just a matter of time. Most search engines update their searches every few days or so, and any Wikipedia ghosts lingering should fade away soon. There's nothing that we can do to speed that process here that I'm aware of. If you mean something else, please let me know, and I'll see if I can figure out an answer to your dilemma. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks,all i'm worried about is that it would not be deleted but maybe it will after sometime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aturquie (talk • contribs) 17:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job

You really did an excellent job revamping the Salesian article. Thanks for clearing up the mess. I don't really see why Chile should have blanked the page with that copyright infringement template. But anways, I can live with this current revision, its actually rather nice and to the point. DukeB-120th talk 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) From the note that he or she left at the copyright problems board, I gather that s/he was concerned there might be additional problems. This is one of the reasons why I checked the rest of the article so carefully. Fully copyvio free! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of valid material

Hello, I have read some articles by the southern avenger and I wanted to read some more about him on Wikipedia. You deleted the article. He is very notable, and how about you not be so quick to delete articles. Did the page meet any of the rules for speedy deletion? Probably not. Please respond on your talk page, and do not delete this thread until we have a resolution. Good day. 76.125.24.48 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, indeed. The page met criterion WP:CSD#A3, as the only word in the article was the template "hangon". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

template_talk:weasel

I want to use concrete terms. He wants a jeneral one. I don't want equivocation in the template. He insists on it. I want to put some levity into an audio submission I made. He flatly rejects it. I suggested a change in my audio. He did neither confirmed nor denied that it would be an improvement to be precise (substitute "draw" for "suck"). I don't think it's safe to analyze motivation from the typed word, regarding biased. He won't accept that significance or notability concerns content within a page, too. I don't feel like going through the recording process if I don't trust his judgement on these other issues. BrewJay (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You may want to refer to the dispute resolution policy for ideas of how to resolve your differences. For example, since it involves the two of you, you might ask for a "third opinion" at the relevant noticeboard. Please follow the instructions for neutrally requesting feedback. Meanwhile, please do not continue attempting to implement change to the template before gaining consensus at the talk page. Templates may be widely used throughout the project, and edit warring on them can be particularly disruptive, as the changes you make can affect a great number of pages at the same time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see that you've just been to 3O. However, your request there did not conform to the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about. I would have revised it for you so that it did, but I'm afraid that I can't quite grasp the nature of your dispute. I've removed it for now.
The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Dispute about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.
If you need help revising your request, I'm happy to help you formulate it. Can you explain briefly what you want to do that the other editor does not? And how an audio submission relates to this template? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "30" is. I made up a form on the administrator's notice-board with five participants named. Two versions are there, so you can answer the questions without inspecting history or talk space. I will copy results to the talk space in a few days, and you are welcome to do so if results are in before that time. BrewJay (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry; I didn't notice that I'd messed up the formatting of my wikilink. 3o is WP:3O--the third opinion noticeboard. (I've fixed the link above now.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you'll notice that the effect of your actions has been to take the issue completely out of my hands and decide in favour of David Levy, another admin. Your referral to the "dispute resolution process" (deletion process, really) was irrelevant. My first impulse at recognizing that I was going to be frustrated on every turn, once a day, was to take it to WP:IRC, and I think that's what I will do, now. In the future, I think that's what you should recommend. BrewJay (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody asked for protection. It looks like the discussion was locked, too, even though it isn't. Maybe that why I don't see any votes, yet. BrewJay (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Material on my talk page will be archived after a period of inactivity. I don't blank content here, as I keep it for those archives. The talk page is not protected, or you would not have been able to edit it. I imagine, though, that the other responders at ANI, who I invited to weigh in on the question of protecting the template in the same manner that other highly transcluded templates like Template:Fact (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) already are, may simply not have much feedback to give on the specific wording question. You might get better feedback by inviting participation at an appropriate noticeboard, like WT:NPOV. You may find more editors there who are interested in discussing potential changes to that template. You might either place your question there, with a note at the talk page of the template that you have done so, or place a note at the NPOV talk page asking participants there to join the discussion. Do remember, please, to phrase your question carefully, in keeping with WP:CANVASS. A neutral pointer to the discussion is perfectly fine, in an effort to attract neutral participants. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thank you so much for cleaning up the Salesian High School article! MY♥INchile 03:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. :) I monitor WP:CP tickets for a while after resolution to be sure the problem doesn't reassert, and I noticed you were requesting verification of another fact. Added. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Moonriddengirl, you're everywhere I look! Thanks for your evaluation of a few of my (many) album articles. I appreciate the constructive criticism. It is a good reminder of some guidelines of which I was sort-of-aware and the consequences of sometimes choosing to ignore them. Although I may not be in a hurry to fix these articles, I'll keep your advice in mind as I go about composing others. Regards, MrFizyx (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) The album guidelines aren't necessarily written in stone--sometimes there may be good reason to ignore them or good reason that you can't meet them (some of the album articles I work on are old enough to lack readily available information), but, unfortunately, they do have specific requirements for article rating. OTOH, while it's undoubtedly a great feeling to see an article you've worked on get a good rating, there's plenty to be proud of even of the ones that don't. :D I've written maybe 80 album articles. So far as I know, only one of them has even been rated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio issue with Dey Mansion

Hmm, well you are right, I don't remember (don't remember the website either), but from the sounds of it I made a mistake when reviewing the article... you say it was the 8th paragraph, which probably means I missed it when skimming through the page. I'm glad you brought it up, I'll be more prudent in future! Glad you caught it anyway, cheers for the note, - Toon05 13:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Even though you might not remember, I figured I'd better check in case you had investigated and found evidence that the other site had copied from a public domain source or something. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Great minds think alike

[3], [4]. – iridescent 22:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Oh, well. We'll be watching, eh? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The weird thing is, he might actually be keepable – but his fanclub are, to put it mildly, Not Helping Their Case. – iridescent 22:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I combined you two geniuses posts into one post at WP:AN. Hope that's not disruptive. Block me good if it twere. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
MRG is almost seven times more likely to be my sockpuppet than the highest profile alleged-sockfarm in Wikipedia history are to be sockpuppets of each other. The software don't lie; my secret is out. – iridescent 23:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Only you would actually look that up, Irid...:-) Keeper ǀ 76 23:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I've always had a vague fascination for just how inaccurate the "proof" that tool provides is, and how many of the soi-disant Defenders of the Wiki over at SSP use utterly crackpot evidence, ever since I first spoke to Taxwoman and Poetlister and realised that if these were the same person, it was someone so convincingly impersonating two people with completely different interests (not to mention sleep patterns) that they were certifiably insane, rather than the two pleasant and helpful people I was talking to. (Incidentally, it provides a far more convincing case for me being a sock of Poetlister than of Taxwoman.) I have never understood the mentality of the sock-hunters; if I want to post to Wikipedia under three different names, then why the hell shouldn't I? Since all our processes are (repeat after me) Not A Vote, the "ooh, they might votestack on AfDs" argument isn't worth the time of day. – iridescent 23:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
(sorry MRG for all the orange message bars - hoping you're offline so you "only get one" :-). I agree, Irid. I've never been too keen on SSP, until disruption happens. i.e., votestacking. Here's the thing. If an editor, any editor, by creating multiple, influential "editor in good standing" accounts, decides to speak up at AFD, etc, then it is disruptive. It just is. I don't care what you say, AFD is a vote. I close dozens of AFDs weekly, I find it rewarding and at the same time mindless. I don't "count" votes, but I do weigh the merits of the arguments presented certainly, as is my yoke. If an editor is able to convincingly create multiple accounts, aren't they also able to then create multiple "delete rationales" or "keep rationales" at XfD, thereby flying under the radar of XfD closers? How is that less damaging than the more obvious ones like what brought you, MRG, and I, here? (namely "southern avenger AfD). In my mind it's more damaging. One person, a human, somewhere in the world, has created multiple accounts so convincingly that they are about to fly by undetected at deletion discussions, thereby keeping what they want and deleting what they want. Terrifying really as it relates to the integrity of this little project. Keeper ǀ 76 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

←I was. :) feel free to use my talk page. It feels very cheery to come back to! :D That software is pretty scary! (We both edited the article YouPorn? I don't remember editing the article YouPorn. Although after looking for my name in the article's history, I kind of wonder if 90% of Wikipedia has edited YouPorn.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I went and added two appropriate commas to the lead of YouPorn just so I could be in you two's little club :-) Keeper ǀ 76 23:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ha! YouPorn sucks in another Wikipedian! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh. You had me at "you porn sucks". Too much inuendo for me to read any further...:-) Keeper ǀ 76 23:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ha! Oops. </blush>. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Re to Keeper on SPAs – either XfD/RFA aren't votes, in which case it doesn't make a difference if one account makes three valid arguments, or three accounts make one valid argument. Or, they are a vote, in which case why don't we just come out and admit it instead of all this whining about "consensus". If anything, I'd say one editor making multiple points carries more weight in an argument debate than multiple posters making one point each, providing you keep them below the tl;dr limit; just look at the "oppose per..."s and "support per..."s that myself, Ryan, Malleus and even Majorly leave in our wake at RFA. – iridescent 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think XfDs/RfAs halfway are votes...and halfway aren't. I look it at it this way. If you have two positions that are each equally supported by policy, then the numbers who weigh in on a given side are going to equal rough consensus. If you have 1 person arguing within policy and 100 not, the numbers don't matter. (Hard to come up with clear examples of that that don't fall down to something like WP:C.) The problem with sock puppetry and canvassing is that consensus is meant to be formed by a representative cross-hatch of contributors. Vote-stacking gives an improper view of the community's will by skewing the distribution of your sample. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

sabrina newman

victor canceled the funeral service and held a private burial this is for the Sabrina Newman articlePeterparker3000 (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't routinely contribute to that article. My involvement with it stemmed solely from the copyright violation reported to the copyright problem board. If you want to discuss potential additions to the article, you might want to do so at Talk:Sabrina Newman. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mi Reflejo - Quality scale!

Hey, sorry if I'm bothering you, but in the last days I expanded the article Mi Reflejo and so I asked myself if you could review it again?! Olliyeah (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I've done the paragraph thing..thx.. ;)Olliyeah (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yaltah Menuhin

This is a message from Iain C. Phillips. I contributed an article about Yaltah Menuhin, which you have deemed to be an infringement of copyright. On your page, you state that two messages sent to me were bounced back; I don't know how and why that happened and am in process of checking the reason(s) with my webhost. I AM the webmaster of the Yaltah Menuhin website and chairman of the Yaltah Menuhin Memorial Fund. The article I contributed is therefore in no way an infringement of copyright, but I would be happy to answer any further questions you might have. My e-mail address is ymmf@yaltahmenuhin.com. I look forward to hearing from you. Iainphil (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

Hi. Although I left instructions at your talk page for how to verify that information in a way that Wikipedia can use it, I'll resend the e-mail address. The problem may be with the "contact ymmf by e-mail" link on your webpage. It launches an e-mail window addressed to the following: ymmf@yaltahmenuhin.nl <ymmf@yaltahmenuhin.nl>
Both of my e-mails to that address were returned with the following failure message:
(I didn't just resend but clicked the "contact" button a second time.) Hopefully, an e-mail addressed to ymmf@yaltahmenuhin.com will fare better. :) I have just resent it to that address, and if it somehow goes astray as well will advise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yaltah Menuhin

Thank you for your prompt response. I am going abroad tomorrow for two weeks and will pay serious attention to this issue as soon as I get back. Is that OK? Sorry about the confusion; clearly I have to sort out a number of things a.s.a.p., but promise to be a good boy in future :-)iainphil (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We do have to keep the material blanked until we get official permission, though. I'll make a note that we should be receiving it soon. If it'll make it any easier for you, I'll resend just the "release" portion so all you have to do is forward it to the proper address. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yaltah Menuhin

None of your e-mails have reached me (yet); this might be a "real" problem with my webhost (being looked into by them as we speak/write). Have changed my Wikipedia contact e-mail address to iain.phillips@planet.nl. If you don't mind resending to that address instead, I'd be very grateful. Once again: my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainphil (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. They're on their way. Hope that I didn't accidentally copy the final "." into the send address! If I did and they bounce, I'll try again. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures from Picasa

Hi, im also a registered member on Picasa. The picture you mentioned about are from the user mohsin's album and I did ask for permission before using them on wikipedia. If hes doesnt have a problem with me using them why would anyone else? If I am asked my the user to delete them from wiki I would be more tham happy to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) 4 July 2008

Hey, yes sure, ill get in touch with mohsin asap and get that done but i think ill be needing a hand when it comes to this URL etc etc thing as i aint too good with all that. I would really apprciate your help! So please kindly instruct me step by step on what i need to do & i will get in done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) 4 July 2008

Hi, looks like i have lots to do lol but dont worry ill get it all done asap. Just want to know how long do i have to do all that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) 4 July 2008

mda pic

Hi I have done what you asked me to do, sorry i keep making the same mistake time and again I always put own image because I find it easier but ill try not to make the same mistake again. Also do I need to put ive photshopped the image? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) July 10 2008

Darkbot

Please visit www.freezedown.org once again, You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*. Yes I do. If this doesn't satisfy the requirements then remove the information completely.

Thanks juicejar

mda picture

sorry i thought you just wanted me to add the authors name? I dont know about its copyright satus to be honest & sorry once again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) July 12 2008

Right I understand I think! Like you said, the website does not anything on the copyright & to be honest im not too sure what to do next. Plz help. Also just want to ask if the latest to pictures i have added are ok, I think they are.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) July 12 2008

Right ill get in touch with him soon about it. As always appreciate your help—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) July 12 2008

Hi, just been on the world66.com website and found this on copyright, http://www.world66.com/about/copyright_policy So this means im ok to use images from the website as long as I put the authors name right? And yet the images I last uploaded from this site were up for speedy deletion! Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) July 13 2008

Yes i did photoshop shivala temple image only because the orignal image from the website was very poor qualitywith buffalos around near the temple which didint exactly look too good. Also i did want to delete the first image of the temple i uploaded becasue i was happy with the edit but did not know how to. Would you do this if you know how to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) July 13 2008

Boy this is alot harder than I expected, seems like I cant do anything right on here & anything I do contribute is analysed by everyone on here. Just want to say you should check other articles on cities ive seen a london image photoshoped and that has a gold star for its edit! Any I think the best thing for me to do is wait till my cousin gets back from pakistan, hes took my camera & has pictures of all the citys notable places. Thanks for your help & sorry to bother you time and again


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:174_7432.jpg this is the image I was talking about & most of them are editied using different softwares but none have any sort of tags on them. So what exactly is your job on here if you dont mind me asking? Do you know anyone who can help me contribute on the mirpur article? Theres so much to add there things like history, dispora, local economy etc etc but dont know how to start of. Any tips?

Regarding questions about Kalpesh Sharma article deleted under speedy deletion

I had posted an article which was deleted by you under speedy deletion. Can you kindly please tell me how to post the article that I created? What is the way to remove speedy deletion marked on any article.

Tulsha Sharma Tulshasharma04 (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The article was originally deleted following a deletion debate, here, which reached the conclusion that the individual did not meet notability guidelines. In order to establish an article on that person, you will need to be able to demonstrate that there is significantly more information than available at that time to verify that he does meet the notability guidelines for people. This will require reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines or respected news websites, that are independent of the individual. Primary sources and blogs are not usable for this purpose.
Article creators may not remove speedy deletion templates from an article. If an article you've written is nominated for speedy deletion, you may--if you receive the notice in time--place a {{hangon}} tag (include brackets and all) on the article beneath the deletion notice. Following that, you explain at the article's talk page why you feel the article does not meet the stated rationale, and the administrator evaluating the article will consider your reasoning. You may also continue to edit an article that is tagged for speedy deletion to alleviate the tagger's concerns.
In this case, since the article has been multiply recreated following the determination to delete, the space has been temporarily protected to prevent accidental creation of an article there. If you can demonstrate sufficient reliable sources to address the concerns raised at deletion debate, it may be appropriate to unprotect the space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks (belatedly!)

Hi - thanks so much for the barnstar, and please accept my apologies for my tardiness in responding! Our phone line went out the morning of July 28 and our DSL connection went with it - it took until this morning (Aug 7) to fix. Our broadband DSL service is through a local company, but I'm still cursing AT&T because it was actually their fault because it's actually their actual line, actually. They did the same thing last winter, too, and we were offline for almost three weeks. They get really nasty and ugly if someone (like me) doesn't like their crappy, slow DSL and goes with a faster, cheaper, better company for DSL service. Phooey on 'em.

Anyway, Centrx reverted my changes back to the old, outdated, incorrect version while I was temporarily compromised Internet-wise. So, today I rewrote it again, to address some of his concerns. I left a note on the talk page, and I'd appreciate it if you'd chip in there too. It's not perfect, but simply reverting to a version that was two years out of date isn't the way to go.

I know how tough it is to slog through those big CP backlogs, and it bugs me no end that we pout and preen our "Thou Shalt Not Violate Copyright" feathers to newbies and the press while we sit on months and months of copyright backlogs that everyone seems to ignore. I stopped working there because I just couldn't spend all my time and energy at it with little or no help. I mean, there's only so much one girl can do.

I'll check it more frequently, and we'll get this admin advice page hammered out pretty soon. I can't put my finger on what the page needs, maybe because I've looked at it too much. Fresh sets of eyes will spot where I'm using too many words and then I'll smack my forehead. Well, maybe not quite like Homer does, 'cause I'm cuter. ;-)

Thanks again, very much! :-) - KrakatoaKatie 06:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. You done good.
My DSL has been flickering like crazy for weeks. It hasn't gotten to the point yet where I'm willing to wade through customer support, but I know it's going to go belly up at some point. :/
I know the pain at this point of the CP backlog. When I stumbled upon it, it had over 20 days accumulated (I don't remember how many, but when I complained about it at AN there were 20 left :)). It's up to date, but I spend a good 4 hours a day keeping it that way.
I've been wondering if it would be possible or advisable to try to organize some kind of Admin Backlog taskforce of admins who are willing to focus attention on those areas that get badly backlogged. I'm not the best cat-herder, though.
My change to the instructions was very minor. My first change was wrong, because I'd just stumbled out of bed. Fresh eyes are better when they're fully open. :D As I noted at the talk page, we've got another change likely in the future as a new image CSD seems to be near the point of implementation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, MoonG. ☺ I've been wondering about the copyright status of Image:Circumcision_by_Country.png. Someone (originally Emilfaro, I believe, with an earlier version of the image) made this image using data from a WHO document, using a different map projection etc. from the map in the WHO document. Do you think there would be any copyright issue re WHO or is it fine? Coppertwig (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd take that one to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, which is where I go when I'm not sure myself. :) (P.S. Hi!) My work with images is still pretty limited. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, MoonG. Since the image is on Commons (which I forgot to mention to you), I'm taking it instead to commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Image:Circumcision_by_Country.png. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That discussion worked out fine. (A little birdy told me to post here.)☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC) (Hi again! tweet tweet) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
In the same spirit as the above message, this message is to say "Hello!". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Louis Sterling entry copyright

Hi, I spotted you've deleted that - it was too complicated to get my employers to release the content properly! I'm going to have a shot at re-doing at some point, I hope that's ok? RJM81 (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. No problem, so long as it's written in your own words. I can see why the release would have been complicated in that situation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

St. Michael's Cave

Hi there! I see you have recently deleted the content of this article as it was tagged as copyrighted material. If I remember correctly, parts of the article were not lifted. Is there any way of having the deleted text copied onto my user space in order to re-write it? Thanks in advance. --Gibmetal 77talk 15:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As you know, the entire first paragraph was copied from this source when the article was established. Unfortunately, there were no copyright free versions in history.
I noted that you had copied the contents of the article to the subpage with a thought to revising it. However, unfortunately, in doing so, you duplicated the copyright violation. The purpose of the subpage is to allow revision from scratch. It can't contain any of the copyrighted material, which would then remain in history. It also can't infringe on the GFDL contributions of previous contributors, which means that the material must be rewritten entirely.
Additional information included the claim about the name, which was either taken from or afterwards mirrored to here, along with a note that this grotto is now being utilized as the Sanctuary of Monte Sant'Angelo. It incorporated a sentence from this source, "It is...Gibraltar's events" (but not, fortunately, the pun.)
Give me a minute to look through the deleted history so I can determine what information you may have added which you can reintroduce without GFDL concern. Other material, I can summarize for you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay. You, yourself, added the following text, and you should be able to reintroduce it as long as it is your own original language. If you introduce it to the article, there will be no attribution concerns for GFDL, since you introduced it originally:
You probably know this, but if you copy the above from the page source, you can copy formatting, too. Forgive me if I'm pointing out the obvious. :)
I also see that you added a reference to the base material and removed a "copypaste" template in 2007. Unfortunately, a reference is not sufficient to alleviate copyright concerns with pasted information. The material must conform to fair use requirements. This material, unfortunately, didn't.
It seems that you contributed most of the non-infringing text to the article, so the above additions should help you flesh it out nearly to where it was. Information at the copied sources can, of course, also be included as long as it is not copied or as long as a paraphrase does not follow closely enough to form a derivative work.
Please let me know if I can provide you any more information about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


merging 'habbush letter'

until this thing is hashed out a few more days/weeks, i appeal to your good nature to please reconsider whether merging is the thing to do.

the media is rather quiet about it, i know. but they are perhaps just waiting. as suskind has said, maguire (one of his sources) may not have even read the book. suskind has yet to release more taped transcripts. he also may have other sources than maguire or richer. plus there is the whole 'office of special plans' theory.

there is nothing to report... yet.... this will take some hard digging... if anything is there, it might take a few days / weeks to find it. until then, please consider not merging.

wikipedia, if nothing else, can be a good place for people to come, in this case, to learn the basic facts of the case, in a simply laid out manner. i even have spent hours on that page, and i still learned things by reading what others had written.

please consider all of the screaming headlines on various blogs, websites, and so forth, making outlandish claims about this incident. people are saying all sorts of things that are not actually in the book, such as 'bush forged documents'. at the very least, wikipedia seems to be trying to get the facts straight, which imho could be a public good.


thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.57.199.173 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I have not been involved in proposing a merger from or to Habbush letter. I did complete the merger from White House Iraq-War forgery allegations to The Way of the World (book). If it's the "White House Iraq-War forgery allegations" article you mean in terms of spending hours on it, the material is not lost. A merger does not delete information from Wikipedia; it simply relocates it to a different title. I'll be happy to discuss the matter further with you if you'd like to clarify. Unfortunately, your contribution history under this IP is not helpful to me in figuring out which article you're discussing, since it doesn't show extensive involvement in any of the articles. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Queens of the Stone Age Taskforce

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed taskforce Queens of the Stone Age|Queens of the Stone Age. There's alot of Queens of the Stone Age-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this taskforce can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this taskforce off the ground and a few Queens of the Stone Age pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I've got my hands full at the moment. :) Good luck with it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
hm, well i don't know how to that? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, see this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Be_Black_Hole_Sun/archive1&oldid=223538554. Rudget left a message two me. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed taskforce Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music. :) --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What page are you watching, my talk page or something else? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well thats nice, question what is the copyrights problem board? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It's linked on your talk page. It's a board where administrators investigate articles and images that may be copyright violations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User 71.139.42.128 , 71.139.30.138, 71.139.29.160... and so on...

FYI, banned user Griot has returned to making dubious edits to Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns, Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2004‎, User talk:Griot and other pages. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a matter for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, though I don't know what, if anything, would be done about it. I suppose checkuser might confirm if Griot edited from those ranges before (or might have already done; I'm not reviewing the last checkuser). But I don't think a rangeblock would be forthcoming, as it would quite probably affect a good many more users than Griot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thank you MRG, yes Griot edited from those ranges. I could let User Boodlesthecat know, too. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image Removal on Raymond Kennedy

Hi,

I saw that you removed an image from the page for Raymond Kennedy and was curious what exactly the copyright concerns were. The picture had been taken by and uploaded by his daughter. Did she just not tag the image appropriately?

199.103.21.26 (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The image was tagged and listed at the copyright problems board on August 2nd, as it has been previously published and no official permission had been provided that would allow us to use it. I left a note on her userpage explaining how she might verify her identity so that we can continue to use the image. I hope that Ms. Kennedy will be able to provide verification so that we can properly restore it and return it to the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cougar

Nice find! I came up empty on that one, thanks.--Atlan (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) I wasn't sure myself, but I thought google books might help out. Not a lot of hits, though, so it certainly isn't common! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Papunya Tula

Nice work restoring the article!--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :D I enjoyed working it. It's an interesting topic. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

It's not a POV fork though, just a national list, no different from say List of Roman Catholic dioceses in the Netherlands. It would be a POV to say that there should be one for the Netherlands and not for Great Britain. I don't care what it's called, be it United Kingdom or Great Britain, but every other country has a list. The UK should have one too. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry if you're unhappy with the feedback you received. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to inform me of the feedback I received. I appreciate that. I just don't see how the page is POV. It completely puzzles me. I've made around 300 similar lists and the only one that's been questioned is that one, and only because of one person who hates the concept of Great Britain. Maybe you can help me understand I just don't see it at all.Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You need to resolve that with the uninvolved admin who gave you the opinion. I have not researched the topic or the situation and am not involved in the content dispute. I'm not sure how or why you picked that particular admin to ask to serve as your third opinion, but you did, and you did so with the statement that you would accept his judgment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi I had an article I started and didn't get to finish deleted. I was writing about a singer from my state and didn't get to add all of his album info or venue info before it got deleted for saying he wasn't famous enough. It was my first article and I was wondering what I did wrong exactly and if you could help. Thanks

(Candycornaddict (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

Hi. When you write an article, you should always include an introduction that indicates what the subject is and what makes the subject significant. It is always a good idea to familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines that pertain to the subject, in this case the guidelines on music and musicians, so that you can be sure that you clearly demonstrate that your subject meets that guideline. All articles require reliable sources to verify that the information is accurate. Sources can include newspaper articles or magazine articles or respected independent websites, for instance. Primary sources, like the subject's own website, can be used to add detail, but they can't be used to verify the notability of the subject. We need sources for that which are not connected to the subject.
I've added a "welcome" template to your userpage that has many good links that could you help. Another good page to read is Wikipedia:Your first article. This page, which is specifically engineered for new users, covers what I've indicated above and also goes into more detail on other matters to watch out for. I note, for instance, that your article on this individual included the lyrics of his songs. As that guideline points out, lyrics are seldom in public domain. It's quite likely that this subject's songs are copyrighted. Wikipedia can't include copyrighted material in its articles unless the copyright holder gives us official permission or unless they are released at the source. (You can read more about that here.) This would be true even if perchance you were Bryan Karas. Since we don't require identity verification at account creation, we couldn't just take your word for it that you were releasing the material to us; you'd have to verify it through one of the processes outlined at that source. (We'd have a different situation then, though, in that you would have a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest don't make it impossible for you to contribute to an article, but they make it considerably more difficult. For that reason, autobiography is strongly discouraged.)
As a final note, as "Your first article" points out, it is sometimes a good idea to start an article in user space and move it to article space when it is finished. Steps for creating a user subpage can be found here. That gives you more time to complete an article before "publishing" it in the encyclopedia. When it's finished, it can be moved. (You have to have been active on Wikipedia for 4 days to move a page. I think it's recently been implemented that you must also have made a certain number of edits, but the number is not high.) Alternatively, if you have time to complete the article quickly, you can also tag an article you start in "article space" {{inuse}} (placing brackets and all), which turns into a notice that the page is being actively edited. This tag should not be used if you're not going to be actively editing the article.
I hope that this is helpful, and I'm sorry that your first experience at writing an article was a frustrating one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

conflict of interest in petplan pet insurance

I would like to have the conflict of interest notice removed from petplan pet insurance - the only reason it is up there is because I uploaded the petplan logo...If this is an issue, please let me know, but otherwise how could I remove it or have someone take it down?

Thanks in advance, Athlon2009 (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The reason it is up there, according to the article's talk page, is because you claimed to be the copyright holder of the logo, which is only possible if it is your company. (See here.) If the logo were only being used under fair use, you could not have released it into public domain, as you did. (By releasing it into public domain, of course, you are allowing anyone else to use it and modify it as they see fit, commercially or otherwise. At some point, I presume, somebody at Commons will verify that you are authorized to have done this, but Commons is administrated separately from Wikipedia) Additionally, since your edits have entirely been related to this company, it seems quite likely that you do have an affiliation of some sort with it. Are you not affiliated with the company or employed by it in some way? If you are, then the header is appropriate, and the template will likely only be removed if you restrict your contributions as recommended at WP:COI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. Yes I am affiliated with the company and I have full rights to use the logo...I know that my edits must be very careful and abide by the rules at WP:COI. But, must I wait until someone at commons verifies this before that notice will be taken down?

Thanks, Athlon2009 (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as you understand that your releasing that logo gives everyone else fulls right to it as well, commercially or otherwise. :) Of course, it's just text, so I'm not sure what they could do with it. But, no, Commons has nothing to do with the tag. The tag was placed by an editor here who noted your affiliation with the company. These tags are often used to warn readers of Wikipedia that the source of information they are reading may be biased. Wikipedia's articles are meant to be neutral, to cover topics from all sides. When an official affiliate of the company contributes to an article, it can be difficult to tell if they are providing unbiased, even coverage. I think the tag might be appropriately removed if you are willing to abide by COI and proceed carefully with the article. But you must understand that this means only making uncontroversial edits. Removing sourced information relating to financial difficulties the company has had may seem like you are interested in controlling the information in the article to make sure that it presents the company only in a positive light. This is not allowed. If you have a valid reason to suggest removal of controversial information, you would need to explain that at the article's talk page and perhaps utilize the "{{request edit}}" template to get those changes made. If you're willing to self-disclose your conflict at the article's talk page and acknowledge your willingness to proceed as recommended at WP:COI, I would feel comfortable removing the template, although I am not the contributor who flagged it. As you undoubtedly know, I have researched & revised the article since then, and I am confident that it is not biased but fairly represents all sides of the subject at this point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I've got no cookies or emoticons, so a small Thank you must be enough for your action relating to the Björgvin Halldórsson article. Sebastian scha. (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you is more than sufficient. :) But, again, couldn't have done it without you pointing out the problem and so kindly providing a solution. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of proposing to merge the processes but I wanted to ask a WP:CP admin first. From what I can tell the two processes are currently preforming the same function and using copyright problems isn't widely advertised or supported by scripts for image deletion. Thoughts? BJTalk 21:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly to be suggesting that images be removed from CP and solely listed at PUI, I'm all for it. :) That's mainly because I'm not deeply familiar with images, and I'm if not the only then one of the few admins currently working CP. :D But, also, Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/Advice_for_admins makes CP seem like an unnecessary destination for images, anyway. If they're blatant, they should be tagged for WP:CSD#I9. If they're not, they should be at WP:PUI. I think there would be good reason to consolidate image copyright examinations into PUI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I'll add a proposal to remove the image functions of CP at the talk. BJTalk 03:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl: to be honest, I do not remember uploading Image:Stasicus.jpg, the copyright status of which is currently contested. I do not regularly contribute anymore on Wikipedia, and so am unsure what the current policies are and what the procedure would be to correct this. Its copyright status, being unsure, is most likely some sort of violation.

Thanks for your time. Alekjds talk 04:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. :) I'll go ahead and process it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Hollies

Hi. Thanks for the advice. I see that you're right and it does have some issues. I probably thought it was vandalism at the time, but perhaps I should be less suspicious of anonymous IPs. If I have some time over the next few days I might have a go at rewriting it to deal with the problems. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been working at it, but the copyvio is pretty deeply imbedded (see my note at the article's talk for when it was first introduced). It may be necessary to revert to a version prior to the introduction of the violation. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I've restored an earlier version. If you do manage to reincorporate some of that text (shame to lose it!), please be careful. It was twined like a vine throughout everything, and the source that was plagiarized is itself very lengthy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cajkovski zlatko.jpg

Yeah, the FUR looks fine. If someone was going to be picky, they would say that you have not provided the original source (and so it isn't easy to determine the copyright holder) but I doubt anyone will pick you up on that. J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say "Hi"

Hey! What's up?

I've kind of drifted away from this page, I guess because now I can just delete stuff myself or whatever, but I just wanted to say "Hi" and I wanted to thank you once more for all the help you gave me when I was trying to wrap my head around WP:CSD. I will say right now that I very seriously doubt that I would have been able to pass my RFA if you had not helped me, because I would most likely still be making bad CSD tags, and you can probably imagine what someone with my editing background would have experienced at RFA if I didn't know CSD well...

I also want to let you know that I often see you working here and there, and I really appreciate the work you do. I don't understand how you can like dealing with possible copyright violations, but I assume that you probably feel the same about someone who can like doing practically nothing but revert vandalism :P

Have a wonderful evening!

J.delanoygabsadds 00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! :D It's good to "see" you. It was my pleasure to talk to you about stuff. You're an excellent contributor, and I bet you've been doing a fabulous job with the tools. :) I actually can understand the vandalism reversion, because that's what I used to do. :) Copyright violations get a wee bit tedious, I will admit, but at least when I'm done, I'm done! Vandalism, CSD, never-ending.
Feel free to drop by any time. :) If I can ever give you a hand, you know I will. And you can bet I'll call on you in the reverse. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Actually, can you take a look at this? Do you have any idea why it says "autoblock disabled" on some of my IP blocks? Is it even possible to autoblock an IP address? J.delanoygabsadds 00:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I presume it's because the IPs are common dynamic IP ranges, at which point autoblock is automatically disabled. (So says Wikipedia:Autoblock.) That's about all I can give you, though, given that I'm still not even sure what a dynamic IP is. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks anyways. I think I may have figured it out. All of those blocks were made with Huggle, and I don't think Huggle uses Special:BlockIP. Anyways, I guess it doesn't really matter. J.delanoygabsadds 01:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A little problem

Hi, in my article sorting work i find me something bothersome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_January_11 this page has 2 project templates that i can`t remove, could you take a look, please, either to remove them or rate them.

Thanks. Zidane tribal (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The templates have been "transcluded" to the page and aren't actually there. It's a carryover from a day when the deletion of articles was discussed at the article's talk page. At some point after the deletion debate, the project tag has been added to the VfD. To find the template, you'd need to figure out which of the articles being discussed is tagged. In this case, here's the first problem: Talk:Dosage (album). Here's the second: Talk:Blender (album).
I've never run into this before and wonder how widespread this is. I'm going to poke into that and figure out if there's something that needs to be done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I sort the articles and the log is off the list, thanks. Zidane tribal (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Stanisław Wygodzki

Hey, I just wanted to say that you did a great job of improving the Stanisław Wygodzki article. I don't know why I couldn't find the information you did. Probably not looking carefully enough. Also, I wanted to point out to you that the orphan criteria require that the incoming links all be from mainspace, non-disambiguation, and non-list articles:

When counting the number of links to an article, count only the links that come from other articles. This excludes links from:

  • Any namespaces except the main article space, i.e. those articles without a Foo: prefix (e.g. Wikipedia:Bar, User:X, etc.) (see WP:Namespace)
  • Disambiguation pages
  • Redirects
  • Any list articles, eg. List of XYZ, or Year in articles, e.g. 2008 in Foo

Right now the only incoming links satisfying the criteria are the Auschwitz concentration camp and Dachau concentration camp articles, which is why I re-tagged it as an orphan. Even those links are borderline, since the sections which link to him are lists. So, I'd like to re-add the {{do-attempt}} template. I will wait for your response before I do so, however. Thanks,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, thanks for reminding me of the naming conventions. I haven't read them in a long time.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I wasn't aware that list articles are excluded from orphaning. I should have read further down the page. Thanks for pointing that out. :) Please, feel free to restore the tag as it seems it's still appropriate. If I could find more about the guy, I could probably figure out where else he might connect, but, alas, almost everything is in Polish! I found an note about his connection to socrealizm, but it was just a snippet tucked into a pay-per-view article (currently first here). Pity, too, since it seemed to suggest that he may have been notable within that movement! Ah, well. The only reason I investigated rather than deleting as an A7, by the way, was because of the interlanguage links. I figured if he was notable in Poland, he could well be notable here. :) Thank heavens for Google books! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bruce Crane

Hello again. Thanks for once again dropping me a line. I've been careless there again, glad you could get it. I'll be going on a much-needed wikibreak in a few days - hopefully whenever I return I shall be more alert. For the time being, I'll just leave WP:SCV well enough alone. Cheers. - Toon05 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Roderigo Possebon

I just created this article and then realised that it had been deleted as Rodrigo Possebon (with no e) at an AfD that you closed but he has now played a league game for Manchester United so now passes WP:N. Can you unlock the "no e" version and ove my article please. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't seem to have been the closer of that AfD, though I did once delete it as a recreation of a deleted article. The space has been protected by User:Accounting4Taste. I'll let him know about your request. I do note, however, in your new article that there is no sourcing for his playing a league game. It would probably be helpful if you supplied that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps not, given that you seem to have asked us simultaneously...and two other admins as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Bishops Lydeard

Thank you for your guidance I am very new to Wikipedia and knew little of the culture and never heard of GDFL but have taken steps to comply. I have also made sure I am not the owner of the website to avoid COI. I hope in future that my edits will be neutral and written from scratch. 86.135.208.100 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It is a difficult environment to navigate when you are new. I, also, had never heard of GFDL when I first arrived. However, if you are not the owner of the website, then the caution about COI that I placed was not intended for you. :) My note was specifically in response to this comment, in which the IP editor asserts "I am the website owner...." In any event, we appreciate your willingness to follow WP:COI and to remain neutral in your edits. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"how would Moonriddengirl handle this?"

Hi Moonriddengirl. I had to wait before coming to your talk page to say this, but I wanted to let you know that I occasionally check on the interactions you are having with others, ever since I came to you for some assistance back in March. I often have used the phrase "how would Moonriddengirl handle this?" when I'm heading into something difficult, because I've been so impressed with your communication skills and your generosity in helping other editors. It was helpful towards my gaining the trust of the community, I am sure. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! And congratulations! I've got that tangobot thing on my project page but often forget to look at since I'm currently a bit focused in my efforts. I need to try to keep up, though, because I had no idea you were running. Anyway, your kind words mean a lot, and I do appreciate them. Sometimes I worry that I will overlook the niceties in trying to check off the "to do" list, but I think they're important, and I very much appreciate the reminder that others do, too.
Good luck with the tools. If I can help in any way, please let me know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the niceties go a long way indeed. Thanks for the message on my talk page as well! Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I echo Paul Erik's sentiments. And there's a message for you on my talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Eurogliders

Was a very early piece of work - appreciate the pickup - will get back to improving the article somethime in the future. Dan arndt (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought perhaps that might be the case. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Template wording help

Hi Moonriddengirl - first, I'd just like to say how much I enjoyed working with you on the "no-permission" criterion - thanks for your friendliness and support :)

On a related matter, I wonder if you might find the time to cast your eye over a family of templates I've created to deal with another common image copyright problem scenario - derivative works where the uploader may indeed own the copyright to the scan or photo and can licence it however they please, but where there is an "image within an image" that they do not own:

Incorporated image has: Image template Warning template
No source {{di-dw no source}} {{di-dw no source-notice}}
No licence {{di-dw no license}} {{di-dw no license-notice}}
No source and no licence {{di-dw no source no license}} {{di-dw no source no license-notice}}

I'm not confident that I've made these as clear as they need to be, and was looking for more eyes. I also didn't bother creating "no permission" variants, since I think the corresponding scenario is unlikely in the extreme (although not inconceivable, I guess - "Mountains in Springtime by Mary Smith. The artist said I could put my photo of her painting on Wikipedia").

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've cast an eye, but my eye has fairly limited experience. Of course, that may be good here, as the people who get these warnings will not be image experts presumably. :) That said, they all look pretty good to me. I do like, though, how very clear {{di-dw no source no license-notice}} is. I wonder if some of that language could be incorporated in {{di-dw no license-notice}}, maybe by changing:

to something like:

This is just an idea, though. I've never had to communicate about these issues with a user, so I'm not sure what their common points of confusion are. It may be that the wording you have now is better; I put it out there as food for thought. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright with images - notifying the uploader

Hi [smiley]. I do notify uploaders, but in this case the uploader made only two contributions long ago, so I consider it pointless to leave a message on their talk page to be not read. In this case the user does have a valid email, though I'm not sure if I sent them one or not. Maybe I should leave a message on such people's talk pages just to say that I have emailed them. Richard001 (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. :) It's probably a good idea to notify them anyway, though. Even if they're not contributing, they may return at some point, and it's good to show them what's happened. Also, while I don't know if it's stated anywhere with respect to images, it is currently required that contributors of copyrighted text be notified before deletion. In any event, pardon for presuming that your lack of notice stemmed from unfamiliarity with the process. :) Since you had left the text copyvio template rather than the image copyvio template, I jumped to the conclusion that you may not have been familiar with copyright tagging. (A look at your userpage would have led me to conclude it was instead a slip of memory. I'm very familiar with those.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it wasn't a slip of memory, although I was pretty sure there was a more relevant template (I think I had a quick look for one actually but was in a bit of a hurry). It's easy to be around here for years without tagging a single image for something like this, though you still feel like a bit of a newb when you don't know what you're doing :) Richard001 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you told me that. :) I've had a look at {{copyvio}}, and it really needed to tell people how to handle images. It does now! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Euroscript

Dear Moonriddengirl,

Thanks for helping with the Euroscript page. When writing it I tried to avoid copyright issues but evidently failed. I'd be interested to know why the links to films being made by people who have used Euroscript's services were removed. Does this not count towards notability? And also: do notability citations have to be internet-based or can they refer to written media?

All good wishes,

Ianralph (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Looking at the version of the article as it was when I edited it, the only links I see that you might be referring to are this and this. The latter does not count towards notability, as it is not an independent source; it is a member profile created by a woman who claims to have won the award. That might verify that the award exists, but it does not document its notability. In the former, I see no mention of Euroscript. Whether or not it would count towards notability would depend on how it is referenced and by whom. If you are referring to other links, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Source code for a deleted page

Hi, a page I was watching was recently deleted. I was hoping to edit the source code (add more references, explain notibility, importance), and possibly resubmit the page when it meets 'quality standards'. The page was LlamaBot (IRC bot). Thanks for your help. (By the way, the page was deleted without warning for "Blantant Advertising" - do you think that is the case?) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I have userfied the article to User:Arbitrarily0/Sandbox. Heads up that you should improve and use it quickly if you plan to. If you choose to reestablish the article, you have to move it rather than copying it to make sure that the other contributor gets credit for his part. You should handle it quickly, though, one way or another to prevent its being deleted again. Promotional material is not permitted in userspace either.
The article as written is overly promotional. It includes non-neutral statements such as "allows the user to customize the bot in many useful ways" and seemingly promotional statements like "Due to its popularity and dedicated team of programmers, LlamaBot has a huge variety of different scripts available, and has numerous operators willing to help with any problems that may be encountered". It's important that we don't add personal opinion to articles. If a credible reviewer has said that the bot can be customized in useful ways, you should cite that source. Otherwise, you should not draw conclusions about whether its features are useful or not. :)
It seems to me that reliable sourcing to prove it meets notability guidelines is probably the most important thing. If you verify all material with reliable sources, the promotional issue should take care of itself. Just be sure that all of your coverage is fair, including both good and bad commentary about the subject.
And, of course, if you have a conflict of interest--that is, close relationship to the subject--please proceed carefully within that linked guideline. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Oversight question

I've corrected that article. I missed it in the original email. Sorry for the trouble, and thanks for letting me know! - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A token of my gratitude

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for the appreciation and also for lending a hand. I guess the best way to stop people from adding such large amounts of copyvio text is to have a nice article to begin with. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I want to thank you for your help with Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. You handled the situation very well. I am glad that I notified someone since I would not have been as easy to work with. Thanks again! Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. :) I appreciate your pointing it out, since it seems that we helped clarify a few policies and guidelines for a new contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mailing Thanks

Hello!!!!

Thank you for reverting malicious destruction on my user page. :)

Hitro 13:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001

No problem. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the SU-122 page. I would just like to mention to you that I believe there are several instances of possible copyright violations in the article. I posted the most obvious ones on the talk page. I am not completely comfortable with untagging the article in its current state and I would like to ask you to take another look. I myself am not a copyright expert so if I am wrong please just say so. It seems to me there are several instances of text that is either verbatim or very closely copied from self-published sources. I don't know if that's legit or not. I have noted the same sort of edits from the same user at the SU-85 page.

Thanks very much. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I note that the editor has indicated that he sometimes takes shortcuts in copying text from other sources. I've spoken to him at his talk page about that. I spent two hours this morning comparing the article with this source. (You can see the outcome of that here.) I think it is clear of infringement on that source at this point. I did not look at other sources. I see now that you pointed out elsewhere a problem with respect to this source. I'll look at that also. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I appreciate it. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I've looked it over. Not seeing anything myself, I have asked the assistance of an administrator with a background in Soviet military history. I hope that he'll be available to lend a hand and can help resolve your concerns one way or another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my increadably long delayed resonse, I've been busy all day getting read for my upcoming collage semester and have only been in the house about an hour and a hlaf, long enough to read you message and look over the article. I see a few statements that are not cited to a source, so I have added cn tags to those to see if we can get sources; if not, then I will remove remove them. Also, I had (breif but thorough) look at the articles and think that some more rewriting may be in order. I would also suggest looking at the Federation of American Scientists website ([5]); alot of milhist contributers use info from that cite, so it may be a good idea to make sure that nothing from there is here uncited. I will take a much more thorough look tomorrow when I can think about something other tuition and books :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I had another look this morning after stockpiling some sleep, and I believe that the article is at this point copyvio free. I checked out the Federation of American Scientists website (one fo the few places that has info on Soveit-era weaponry in any usable capacity) and no material there appears to be here in a copy/paste capacity. The only thing that worries me is that SuperTanker17 has a book cited for a reference, one that I unfortuently do not own. I therefore can not rule out the possibility of mertial being taken from the book in a copy/paste sense, but at this point I think every thing has been rewritten enough to negate copyvio concerns. I'll keep an eye out on the added cn tags and moke sure those get sourced, but on the whole I must commend you for rewriting everything for compliance here in such a short amount of time. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Hi!

Thanks for taking care of the 'Greek Theater' article :)

ShAkUn SaInI *_* (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reassessing Deleted Page

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Thanks for helping me get the source code back for a deleted page. I've made some changes to it and was wondering if you would take a look (it's still at user:Arbitrarily0/Sandbox) to see if it might be ready for Wikipedia. I tried to make it more neutral and I added some references. Tell me if you think it still needs more work. Thanks a lot! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have to say that this is outside of my area. You would probably get more informed feedback from a WikiProject related to it. I presume one of the projects here would be appropriate. In your position, I would check the talk page of whichever project seems most likely the right one and, if it is reasonably active, make a request for feedback there.
That said, I will offer what feedback I can.
The intro seems promotion free. My first problem is a minor one: "satisfy a larger variety of clients." Who says they're satisfied? :) I'd change the word "satisfy" to "reach". More seriously, I'm not sure about the reliability of some of your sources. You source "many useful commands" to what seems to be a personal website and "LlamaBot is one of few IRC bots that stresses humor and game-play along with practicality" to (it seems) a non-professional, user submitted review. Neither of these meet the definition of reliable source. Both of these are likely to qualify as "self-published" sources. There's no source at all given for "The format for using LlamaBot commands is relatively simple", which lacking attribution can't be used as it's a statement of opinion.
Having no background in that field, I am not easily able to judge its notability, but I strongly suspect that you need additional reliable sources to verify this. You may get better feedback on that from people involved with such products, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help, see you around, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for moving my message about potential copyright issues with Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg to the appropriate forum. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Frank Dillane

Thanks for the explanation, no objections from me. Cheers. MrMarmite (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arby "n" the Chief

Hi there. Given the number of times the old version of this page was recreated after being deleted (see log) would you consider WP:SALTing the Arby "n" the Chief page? -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 15:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. :) Regarding your dad, I know that feeling! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've protected it for a year. If it gains notability during that time, it can be unprotected as appropriate. I rather suspect, though, that fans will find a way to recreate it under yet another variant if they really want to. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk)
I'm sure they will... we can make it more difficult for them, though! >:-) -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, thank you for letting me know about the Thai school stub.

I made few edits based on previous Thai editions. I added the founder name and date. The rest is the school motto which I omitted. Other edits are also irrelevent though. Thanks. --Manop - TH (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

CSD:A7

Got your message about CSQ Magazine. I thought that A7 covered companies as well. Thanks for your clarification!
Quanticle (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio, US sources, court cases

Hello there, you popped up on my watchlist, so I thought I'd ask you about this. Looking at Grady v. Corbin (which came up as a SCV), it appears that some of this article is taken from this page. Now in the article history, the article's author asserts that "This is a quote from the decision (which is public domain, of course)". My question is: is a document such as this issued by the US govt, or compiled by (and therefore property of) supreme.justia.com, which states that content is copyrighted at the foot of the page? Now the only copied content appears to be the partial sentence "...Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted" therefore my instinct is to just change that into an actual quotation and cite it. Thoughts? - Toon05 22:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Welcome back from your break! I think that quoting and citing it is a good idea. Justia can't copyright the words of the court, and Supreme Court decisions are public domain. But even if it is not a copyright violation, it is plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah good. I have a reasonable understanding of the court system over here, but that side of the pond; less so. And thanks! - Toon05 20:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Album review

You know the album review status and that I can't rate my own articles, could you do a quick look-see over the make-over I did on Mastered by Guy at the Exchange? It was rated a C, but that's because there isn't much personnel (not many people did things on the album, so....) could you check it out? I'll owe you one! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks good. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I owe you if you are ever need of a quick-up review or two! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Мордор

I never know what to do when I see a new article like this. Obviously, I couldn't read it, and it was so short, I guess I just took a wild guess that it might be something speedy-able. If that is Russian for Mordor, couldn't we just redirect it there? Beeblbrox (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks it got translated and wasn't a very nice thing at all. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't tell. Mordor could be a Russian cereal brand for all I know.:D It's usually a good idea to get a translator to look at it, if there's any doubt. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

P. M. Pu

As far as the number of citations is concerned, note for comparison that the books by one of the leading combinatorists of the 20th century, Adriano Garsia, only pull in fewer than 40 cites according to mathscinet. I am comparing the two because I happen to have created both pages recently. I have no doubt that many mathematicians who have a wiki page do not get as many cites. Katzmik (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) The point is that we need to verify such claims with reliable sources to demonstrate that they are not original research. Since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and there is no requirement that contributors demonstrate any particular expertise, we have developed these policies and guidelines to ensure that all readers can verify information in every article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure which particular points you are referring to when it comes to verification. As far as the number of citations is concerned, Google scholar is easily accessible and anyone can check what the number of citations is, for Pu or for anyone else. How many citations constitute "significant impact" is also a matter of common knowledge which does not need expert verification, only common curiosity to go through a few typical publications. Katzmik (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned in my edit summary, I am referring to the assertion of "a remarkably high score by mathematical standards." What constitutes a remarkably high score is not common knowledge. The editor who tagged it as containing original research and needing additional sourcing, here, may have had other issues in mind. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I asked the other editor for clarifications. Katzmik (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Carnivàle copy

You are listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Can you please provide a copy of {{Carnivàle}}, or restore it? It was deleted in a TfD a year ago, but the topic has now grown to five articles now, at which point a template would make sense for navigation again. I take this to be uncontroversial, so I approach you instead of going to DRV. Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 12:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) That's an odd one, since it looks like a conversation basically between two people and it seems that the template was essentially deleted under {{db-g7}}. I'm happy to restore it to your userspace. I leave it to your discretion if the circumstances that led to deletion have been sufficiently overcome to put it back in project space. Give me a moment, and it'll be right up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay. It is now located at User:Sgeureka/Carnivàle template. It seems to me as though it would be uncontroversial, too, but I would probably expand it if I were you before moving it to project space. Happy editing! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I have updated it in my userspace but it looks emptier than I anticipated. I'll probably ask other editors for input before moving it to main space (if it gets moved to main space). :-) – sgeureka t•c 12:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Always a good idea to get consensus. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to First Goryeo-Khitan War. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, nowadays, I dont have time to write and edit any articles related to Korean history, you can edit these articles to make in conformity with Wikipedia policies. I apologize for creating article in a very quickly and clumsy way. Regards.Whlee (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

DB-I11

Hi again - I've updated the template to parallel its sister, I4. Do you think that's sufficient?

Like DB-I4, this is only intended to be applied to an image if {{di-no permission}} has already been in place for seven days (and {{di-no permission-notice}}).

Admins probably won't often place this tag; they'll just check the notification tags and delete the image.

Or are we at cross-purposes here? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for the feedback on the dw-templates - I can see that some reworking is in order, but these have temporarily gone to the back burner.

Hmm. I'm afraid I misapplied the tag, then! I presumed it was one of those self-dating wonders that would show up under the "dated deletion categories" at C:CSD, like Template:Di-replaceable fair use. If it's not, we probably need to write a usage document for the template so that other editors know how it works! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The usage parallels I4: When an image with no permission is identified, tag it with {{subst:npd|source=somewebsite}}. This will automatically add the image to the correct date category, and generate a notice to copy to the uploader's talk page.

After a week, any admin can review the situation, and then speedily delete the image if appropriate; or any user can add {{db-i11}} to say that they've reviewed it and are now asking for an admin to go ahead and delete it. (Of course, admins should be careful to review the work of the reviewer...)

The usage and the procedure is essentially (and intentionally!) the same as {{nsd}} and {{nld}}; the sole difference being that in this case, the uploader must have been notified, whereas with nsd and nld, it's "only" a courtesy.

Yes, that should definitely be documented somewhere, but where? I can't even find the equivalent documentation for nsd and npd... --Rlandmann (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. Maybe we should consider creating an image speedy instruction subpage to avoid overwhelming the actual CSD page but create a compendium? I'm happy to help out with it, though I don't know how to do a lot of those speedy image processes myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Great idea! Maybe this could even be expanded to a "problem images" how-to page? I'll start getting some thoughts together. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me know how I can help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD templates again

Hi, MoonG. I may start a TfD to delete those "/new" CSD templates soon. If you, as one of the contributors to the templates, indicate that you prefer to keep them, I might not start the TfD. If you have comments please post them at User talk:Coppertwig#Template talk:Db-blankcsd/new. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you've been busy. I didn't see an answer to this. Or maybe you just have no objection to the old "/new" templates being deleted. By the way, I saw a swan a couple of days ago. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) I don't have any real opinion on the matter so didn't contribute. Feel free to TfD them if you like. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. Here goes: The draft CSD templates have been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Draft CSD templates. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the complications, but in the list at the deletion discussion I forgot to include Template:Db-p1/new (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages), although it is in the original proposed deletion list at Template talk:Db-blankcsd/new. (I was also going to put convenient deletion links on the list at the deletion discussion by using a different display template, but you were too fast for me!) Anyway, the p1/new one doesn't even have any significant specific changes; could you please delete it as G7/G6 like the others? Thanks. By the way, I've asked Rossami if there are any objections to deleting that talk page Template talk:Db-blankcsd/new. I searched my contribs for Feb and March for "/new" and didn't find any other templates I'd missed. Oh, please also delete Template:Db-histmerge/new (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages). I found it by searching Happy-melon's contribs for February and March. It's simply a redirect with no history. (remember not to delete by mistake the "real" templates they redirect to!) Probably should have been included in the list. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Have done. Deleted the Template talk as WP:CSD#G8. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No Doubt

Thanks for the assessment of No Doubt (No Doubt album). I found it as a B-class article and have started to source it (which is difficult considering that it sunk without a trace at the time of its release). Evidently it wasn't B-class then! Your advice will be useful. Thanks. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 18:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Actually, it probably was a B class then! The C class has only recently been added, and the criteria for B class has become more stringent. If I can offer you any input, please let me know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've made extensive edits to the article since you reviewed it. Would you please have another look and tell me what else I need to do to make it B-class? -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Looks like B class to me. :) I've reassessed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
THANK YOU! If I can ever do you a favour (unlikely as I'm still beginning to distinguish my arse from my elbow on here), call it in. Now to get the article to Good Article standard... -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Lol! Thanks. I like Wikipedia, so improving an article here is a big plus in my book. :D Good luck with it. I left you a suggestion at the talk page for finding more sources. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm the idiot who put infringing copyrighted stuff in Holling C. Holling's page two years ago. Thanks for taking care of it, and thanks for being diplomatic on JesseW's talk page. Honestly, I normally know better than that (Actually I'm pretty proud of my latest article, Visual arts of Chicago, if you'd like to have a look -- very carefully cited). I can understand JesseW's exasperation, though. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually see the note that he'd left you until I read this. He does seem a bit weary. I tend to assume that people have mistakenly violated copyright unless they're obviously trying to get away with something, defend their use of blatantly duplicative material or persist after being notified. When I saw your note to him, I certainly didn't get that feeling about you.
And your Visual arts of Chicago article definitely looks thoroughly cited! I'm always impressed by long reflists. :D It also looks like you should have nominated something in it for WP:DYK. Might have gotten a front page reference for that one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. Yes, I was pretty grumpy when I wrote the note on your page, Artemis, for which I am quite grateful that you took in such good part (better than it deserved). I'd have responded earlier, but I was torn between wanting to thank you for your nice and responsible comment on my talk page, and wanting to gently suggest you look through your earliest contributions and see if there are any other lurking issues. BTW, Moon, it's people with your attitude (and preference for text) that restore my faith and enjoyment of the 'pedia. Keep on keeping on. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:You Me At Six

Why was the page deleted? They may not have been notable previously, but they recently have had notable tours with big name bands, namely Paramore and Angels and airwaves. Moreover, they have appeared several times in magazines such as NME and Kerrang just to name two. A simple google search will reveal that they are indeed notable. DavidJJJ (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted as an article that has been deleted following an WP:AfD which did not address the concerns that resulted in deletion. If you would like to create a new article on the subject, you might do so in userspace. If it address the concerns of the Afd, by documenting notability per WP:MUSIC, then it can be moved into article space. Currently, however, the space is protected as the article has been multiply recreated without addressing those concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC) (P.S. Sorry if the link to user subpages is absolutely unnecessary. Since we haven't collaborated, I'm not sure your level of familiarity with the environment.)
Oh, and I am willing to restore the deleted article to your userspace for further development if you would like it to work from. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah Restore it. i'll do it, again. RWorange (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2008 (BST)
"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable, Kerrang magazine have done numerous coverage on the band, including reviews of gigs, news about the band itself and also direct interviews.
That would make it notable, and therefore you can now put it back up.
Currently, none of that is in the article. If you want to add it, it would certainly help substantiate notability. The article is here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Venue Management Association

Hi,

I am new to Wiki...i placed this info article on VMA, which I WROTE...as there is an abbreviation record in Wiki as to what VMA stands for.

Simple enough I thought??

Its no copyright as its my words and site.

John Benett VMA www.vma.org.au —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.21.249 (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at your registered user account, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK...go see: http://www.vma.org.au/default.asp?PageID=7 and I have placed the notice at the foot of that page as suggested.

My name is also spelt Benett not Bennet.

Can you now please re-instate the info about VMA?

John Benett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.36.86 (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

Thanks for your post on my talk page. I am still having a hard time understanding the documentation on Template:Copyvio which is why I did not add the tag. It does not seem to address the issue of sections that are violations. It seems to relate to only entire pages or indiviudal links. Again, I do not understand how a link can be a violation. At this point it simply has me totally confused which is why I posted to the admin page. Dbiel (Talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If that's a problem others might also have, it should probably be addressed. :) I know what it's like to try to figure out a procedure and to throw my hands up in frustration! Are you referring to the directions at Template:Copyvio itself, or to the directions for using it at WP:CP? (If you didn't see those directions, then I should think it would be helpful to put a pointer to them at Template:Copyvio. If those directions are unclear, then I'll try to improve them.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. No I did not see WP:CP before. I added a link to the section in the template doc page as it does provide information missing in the template doc file and definately helps to better understand the use of the template Dbiel (Talk) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

nytro game engine page

Can the "Nytro game engine" article be saved ? it was deleted by you, I'm the developer.

Nekitu (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The article was deleted as a copyright violation, which means that we need to get external verification of permission before we can restore the text. The article's creator indicated that verification of permission had been mailed to the Communications Committee on July 10th, but that permission letter was evidently never processed, or the Wikimedia Foundation would have restored the page. The website pages that were copied, [6] and [7], still display a copyright notice.
If as the developer you choose to release that text under the terms of GFDL, either by noting that you have done so at those pages or sending an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation (see WP:Permission for specifics on where to send it and what your release should say), the article can be restored. Otherwise, a new article would have to be written. In either event, the article needs reliable sourcing, independent of the subect to verify that it meets notability. If you choose to contribute to the article, please first read through our conflict of interest guidelines to be sure that you operate within them. Wikipedians tend to be very suspicious of promotion, and articles that are believed to be promotional are speedily deleted.
If you choose to release the material at the website, please let me know, and, after verifying, I can restore the article. Alternatively, if you choose to send a release directly to the foundation, the article will be restored after that permission is received and processed.
Please let me know if you have any questions about these processes. I'll be happy to help as I can. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Emreaydin.ens‎

Hello there!!!

User talk:Emreaydin.ens‎ is consistently uploading copyrighted images. I have warned him once but in vain. if possible then please look into this.

Thank you

Hitro 13:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into it, but suddenly my talk page is very busy. :) I'll investigate as soon as I can. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thank youHitro 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I was about to give him a final block warning after investigating and deleting a few of his contribs, but somebody beat me to it. If he persists, he will be blocked. Meanwhile, I'm looking through his contribution history to see if I can positively identify the sources of any more of these images for processing. Thanks for pointing it out! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose account

Being involved in articles about Gwen Stefani and No Doubt, I came across an AfD for Now That You Got It by a user called User:AFDaccount. He has also nominated another single of Gwen's, Early Winter, for AfD. Neither article is AfD-worthy and will probably be speedily kept. He is obviously either a single purpose account or - if he decides to participate elsewhere - in violation of username policy. You're practically the only admin I know so hopefully you can clarify the issue for me. Thank you. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 13:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is out of my usual realm, but I'll look into it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. According to the userpage, this is a registered account created by this IP editor, [8]. IPs are not allowed to tag article for AfD, and it seems that he (<-presuming) has found some articles that he believes are inappropriate for which CSD won't serve. I notice that these articles were tagged prior to the overwhelming response. It's possible that the response to these will help the user to better understand what is considered AfD-worthy and what isn't. (This is all presuming good faith, of course.) If he continues tagging articles inappropriately, then it would probably be a good idea to talk to him at his talk page about his tagging, with a friendly pointer to some relevant policies and guidelines. Unless he continues tagging after that, to a point where it becomes obvious tag abuse, then he hasn't necessarily done anything wrong. At this point, he could simply be misguided. The process itself might educate him.
As far as the username is concerned, it seems a little "iffy" just because it might suggest some kind of authority, but it is not explicitly forbidden by policy, since it doesn't claim that he is an admin or a bot or the like. If I were in your position, wondering about it but unsure, I'd bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Username policy—not, obviously, in a "Hey! block this guy" way, but in a "Is this a problem that I should talk to him about, or is this okay?" way. :) The contributors there have lots of experience in username issues and may have seen similar questions raised before.
Anyway, please let me know if I'm unclear with this or you want to talk about it further or anything further develops. :) At this point, aside from possibly questioning the username at policy talk, I think it's a "wait and see" situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I think I'll sit on it until the AfDs clear and assume he'll learn a bit more about policy from the results. If not, I'll go to Wikipedia talk:Username policy and bring it up. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 14:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good approach. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Photorejuvenation

First of all, I was extremely insulted when an IP accused the article of being a copyvio, and even more so when I saw your message today. Indeed, if one paragraph or two were similar doesn't mean that the entire article is copied from somewhere! For heavens sake, even the images there I created myself! I even asked anyone who doubts my claims to go and check all the sources I cited (and there were plenty of them). It was not word-for-word. It wasn't copied. It is not a copyvio!

Ok, as you can tell, I am quite angry from this whole episode of unfortunate events and have asked for it to be speedily deleted since I am the only contributor. I hope you'd respect my wishes and delete it yourself or at least not try to restore it.

BTW, thanks for your welcome, but I have been here on WP for a very long time and even on my newest account, am almost as WP-old as yourself.

Cheers mate!

Λuα (Operibus anteire) 17:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied at the user's page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Screwing up with a paragraph or two shouldn't be a reason to remove the entire article, you know. Even before its "creation", it had a good deal of hits, and for the very short two weeks it survived on WP, it was viewed more than 4000 times. Well, it was even featured on the main page in the DYK section.
Actually, your argument here ignores the fact that both the WP article and the web site you cited are based on the same offline source, but with different rewordings.
Oh well, you were just doing your job in the light of the evidence you had. I hope this wasn't rude, I was just angry given the countless hours I spent working on it and going through numerous books. Accept my apologies for my action above.
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Replied at the user's page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You know what really astonishes me? You reply real fast!
Anyway, well... I will try to write it from scratch, but thanks for the offer though.
Cheers mate!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You Me At Six

I'm lost. I look at the logs, and I see your name all over, but what I can't figure it is how a page protected against creation even got created again.Kww (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It must have been unprotected when I selectively restored to userfy, here (see further up my talk page). I should have considered that, since it was evidently inadvertently unprotected before, but it didn't occur to me that it would unprotect! I'll go take a look at it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The newest incarnation was a copy and paste and so a straightforward deletion. I have re-protected the space with a note to take it to DRV. The commenter above suggests that the band may have achieved notability, but given the constant recreation of that article without proper sourcing to verify that, it seems an appropriate requirement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sequence of events is that User:Deb renamed You me at six to You Me At Six. I thought that that overrode the protection, but it actually erased the protection, because when you rename, the protection status of the source article is the one that's applied. After it got deleted, there was no active protection in place. The other editor is fooling himself, methinks.Kww (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Possibly. Anyway, it is protected now for a time. It seems like it would be easier all around for this band to go ahead and make something of itself. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I came across the page You Me At Six Discography at random and made a minor improvement to it. I see the group is the subject of a notabilitity discussion in which you are involved and thought this may be relevant. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I have nothing to do with the notability discussion. :) I deleted an article via WP:CSD#G4 and subsequently userfied it with directions to the user (above) how to address notability. That's about the extent of it, other than dealing with wonky protection issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Off Your Colours created today. I'll take care of the discography as a G6 once the band and the albums are gone.Kww (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Make Money

I notice you are making a good effort to work with new user Binutc (talk) regarding the Make Money article. Frankly, I didn't see any prospect for this article, and was thinking about taking it to AfD. However, I don't want to butt-in if you think you can make progress. Any thoughts? ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was considering doing it myself, but was giving him one last shot. :) I would have absolutely no objections to your doing so, given that he did not respond constructively to my first efforts. And I really appreciate your courtesy in asking. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Template {{24 Characters}}

Last night the page was deleted under G6 criteria and then undeleted by the same user a few hours later. Either the deleting admin, didn't pay attention to what they were deleting, thus wrongly deleting it or they have a genuine reason as to why it should not have be deleted. The contents of the template appears in another template in its entirety {{24}}. this template is now redundant and needs deleting as part of general housekeeping and removal of old outdated templates etc.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) That would be something to take up with the deleting/restoring admin. I see that there is already a thread opened about it at his talk page, and that a user objected to its removal there, which would further indicate that its deletion may not be uncontroversial. If consensus can't be reached, it may need to go through TfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please can you do a move a page over a redirect

Please can you move the page National missing persons helpline to Missing people over the current missing people page. to preserve the histories and can you also say something to the the user who created the Missing people page User:Getreadyrefresh.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. :) I am on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for all the info - will certainly read it and try and follow it - just wondered why for the National Missing Persons Helpline article you've put it back to the old info - I'd moved that to Missing_People and used the Cancer Research/Imperial Cancer pages as a template - so therefore just putting a line on the National Missing Persons Helpline article that they had changed names - and cited a BBC article about it - why is this incorrect? How could I have done this better?

Thanks again, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getreadyrefresh (talk • contribs) 14:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded at user's talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries - I'm new to this - so presumed I was in the wrong somewhere - learnt about move function now - and the signature button (thanks!).

I've changed the National Missing Persons Helpline] to a one liner - as seems the norm for charities who've changed their name... but cant change the pages title to National Missing Persons Helpline - which is annoying. How do I do that?

Thanks--Getreadyrefresh (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that probably not necessary. Once the article was moved from National Missing Persons Helpline to Missing Persons, it automatically created a "redirect". Anyone who searches for "National Missing Persons Helpline" will find themselves at the article "Missing Persons". Rather than create a one-line article at the original name, it's better to have a full article on the charity, including the history of the name change, which readers can locate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Me again! Ok so now Missing_People has changed again (not my doing) and all the text has gone? Also National_Missing_Persons_Helpline shouldnt be merged with Missing_persons - if anything it should be merged with Missing_People as Missing_persons is a general page about the missing issue, not a page about a UK charity.

thanks --Getreadyrefresh (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. That was my typo. Rather than snag the actual title from above, I made the mistake of presuming it had been abbreviated. National Missing Persons Helpline does redirect to Missing People. If you click on the first link, you'll see. The editor who pointed out the cut & paste merge situation above has restored earlier information. Do you have a problem with the text at Missing People? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, wait a minute. I think I see the confusion. Your most recent edits, reducing information to a one-liner, was actually done at the "Missing People" article, not at National Missing Persons Helpline. If you attempted to edit National Missing Persons Helpline, you were probably automatically redirected to Missing People and didn't realize it. You can see where you've contributed by looking at your contribution history, here. National Missing Persons Helpline is a redirect page now, which will take readers who search for the term directly to the new article. The only way to know that you've been redirected is to look at the title of the page where you've landed. If you've been redirected, there will be a notice just beneath it telling you so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-automated edits

I've figured out how to do semi-automated edits and have run a couple of articles through a Perl script to add links from the Notes section to the References section. For more info see e.g. User talk:EdJohnston#Semi-automated edits to modify citation formatting. Let me know if you have any articles you'd like this done to. (Or else! Otherwise I will start grinding through the list of Featured Articles ...) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. :D I'm sure I've got lots of articles that could use that treatment, but the most recent one that comes to mind is Ship Ahoy (album). If you feel like playing, have at it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page, in a probably-too-little-too-late attempt to collect discussion in one place, or to increase the number of "you have new messages" banners I get. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: De-userfying articles

Not a problem. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the policy. I did try to find one but I suspect I was spelling userfy wrong (userify) and so didn't find it. If he'd continued to userfy pages after the comments today then I would have brought it to ANI as it would have obviously required intervention. Dpmuk (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Velvet Hammer Music & Management Group

I have added a number of references to the page, however we are working on the overall content for the page. Do these references count as being notable & valid since they are from sources like Billboard, All business, etc. If so, when can I have the note that is currently on the page taken down. Thanks. Ivygirl16 (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Give me a minute to investigate, and I'll be happy to give you some feedback on that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to address basically two issues here. The tag on the article calling for additional sources will probably be satisfied by what you've added. However, the notability concerns mentioned on the talk page may require more. This boils down to Wikipedia's definition of "reliable, third-party publications."
Getting specific, this one looks to be an excellent article. It was published by a respected industry source and offers substantial coverage. I haven't read the whole article yet, but I could easily imagine that it alone would be sufficient to verify the contents of the article.
In terms of addressing notability, "notability" for companies is verified by showing that other people have made note of them...specifically, that they have widespread coverage in reliable source. The Billboard article above lays excellent groundwork for that. A few more of that type of thing, and there'd be no question. Some of the other sources you've added to the article can help a bit towards that. Some of them can't be used at all.
This and this are borderline, but usable. The reason the first is borderline is that we look for substantial coverage, and it is extremely brief. The second is borderline simply because college papers are not generally regarded as the best sources for Wikipedia's purposes. However, again, it is usable. In aggregate with other articles, it can serve. This one is not really helpful. It is extremely brief and does not substantiate that the company is notable. This one is not a secondary source, since it is basically self-published. We look for disinterested sources for this.
You have two sources, here and here, that can't be used to verify notability or to substantiate information. They are mirrors of Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, we do not meet our own reliability standards. :)
Anyway, I'm going to go format the article a bit, including removing unusable or unnecessary sources, and I'll see if I can find something else along the lines of the first article to help address notability issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Great, I will go back through and remove the links that are not useful and add a few more that may be of greater use. Thanks so much for your help.

Ivygirl16 (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Have at it. :) I have organized what I could with the sources I had and added additionally an MTV article I found. I could not add anything from this source, as it is tucked behind a paywall. That doesn't make it unusable. We prefer sources that anyone can access, but sometimes we have to make do with what exists.
I have to urge you, though, if you are officially affiliated with the company in any way to please read our conflict of interest guideline before you edit the article and please make sure that you stay within those boundaries. In a nutshell, what we ask is that you be particularly careful to be neutral and to use good sources, avoiding information you may know to be true that cannot be verified by our readers. These are the same things that we ask all contributors, but we do ask that those with an interest in the subjects of articles take particular care.
Let me know if I can give you any further information or assistance, and happy editing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I will definitely review the article in order to ensure that it remains neutral. Thank you so much for all of your help! Ivygirl16 (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noting, I'll take care of this.--OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter Schumann

Sorry to bother you about this again, but there's been more censorship/vandalism to the article on Peter Schumann. I've documented the specific acts here: http://ianthal.blogspot.com/2008/09/bread-and-censorship-making-radical.html. As I mentioned previously, I was mentioned as an involved party in an earlier draft of the article so I feel it best I not do any reediting.IanThal (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. As the material easily meets our sourcing guidelines, I've restored it. I've put the article back on my watchlist for a time, so I should notice any efforts in the next month or two to censor information again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you again.IanThal (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ohoh 0_0 I didn't copy "the trivia section" from an external page, I transfered it from the main article (Cup Winners' Cup) to the records and statistics specific article when I reorganize the subject. =_=

Anyway thanks for deleting the trivia section. --Uncle Scrooge (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Venue Management Association

Hi again...john Benett here who wrote the history detials for the Venue Management Association, which was removed re copyright. I have included at the bottom of the history page on the VMA web site, the disclaimer you requested?

I cannot that that the entry has been re-instated?

Can you advise?

John Benett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbenett (talk • contribs) 21:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The article was reinstated, but it was subsequently nominated for speedy deletion as overly promotional and deleted under that rationale on September 10th by an administrator called Masamage. You can see the article's deletion log, here. It is not required that article creators be notified, but it is regarded as a courtesy, and I'm sorry that the editor who nominated the article for deletion didn't extend that courtesy to you. As I suggested on September 1st, it would be a good idea to verify notability of the organization with reliable sources that are distinct from the organization. These can go quite a long way to keeping articles from being deleted on Wikipedia, though it is also important that they be written with a neutral tone. If you have any questions about those policies and guidelines, please let me know, and I'll be happy to try to assist further. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(:

Cool [9] ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Replacement text for {{copyvio}} tagged Tsukuba International School

Hello again, hope you're well! A user has written some new content to replace the problem text from the page, but I'm lacking the tools to move it over the old content, is there any chance that you could take a look at the new stuff and move it over the old history if it looks ok? This is per a request on my talk page. Best, – Toon(talk) 17:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Done. :) (Hope all goes well with you, too. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I'm 83.194.220.158 (dynamic IP). Thanks for having moved to WP:PUI the conversation I started on WP:CP. I indeed noticed that the purpose of WP:CP was mainly text, but wasn't able to find where to list images. I don't understand why I failed to find it, since it is actually mentioned in the header of WP:CP... =/ (in my defense, English is not my mother langage, as you must have noticed...) Sorry for the waste of time, and thanks again! 83.196.53.61 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) You inspired me to add instructions to the footer of the page as well. Images used to be handled at CP, but they were removed about a month ago, and they still wind up there by mistake periodically. Again, thanks for tagging your concern. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much;

I want to thank you, for first I thought I had to edit Safdar Abbasi again. But you did it with future guidance to me. Thanks once again. I am not aware have I messaged you alright, anyway I want one more help. Please tell me how to upload an image and attach it to anyone's profile. I had tried it but when uploaded it asks, owner? copyright? and so on to add in to it. Although I uploaded it from google search. Please tell me briefly if you can. Thanks in advance again.

--Qutabshahi (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm happy if I was able to help. In terms of uploading images, that can be complicated if the person is still alive. The copyright of most photographs is owned by the photographer. If you have taken a photograph of an individual and want to upload it, you can release it by GFDL or a compatible license. If you've found it through google search, it is probably copyrighted. To use a copyrighted image, we either have to get permission from the copyright owner or we have to indicate how it meets our non-free content guidelines. For example, we can use logos from companies even if they are copyrighted. We can also use album covers or book covers even if they are copyrighted. These can be justified under US "fair use" laws. However, our current policy does not permit us to use images of living people or existing buildings unless we get permission. The idea is that it is always possible that somebody will take a picture of the individual that we can legally use.
Even pictures of non-living people can be tricky. I myself tried to write a "fair use rationale" for a man who was dead in the belief that we could use his image here. Evidently I was wrong, as the image was deleted.
If you don't have permission to use the image, you might want to ask at "media copyright questions" for help writing a "fair use rationale" for it. The contributors at that board are usually knowledgeable about image issues and will probably be the best help you can find. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

What is Wikipedia's policy on talk pages with no associated article page? Do they allow this sort of thing? I've never seen it before so I was wondering if you knew whether or not it was allowed. Thanks for your help, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) It's not specifically disallowed, but they're usually not necessary and are cleaned up by tagging them with {{db-g8}}. Most often, they're forgotten remnants of deleted articles. Sometimes they're vandalism. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - but I have one more question for you: how can you right-align text on Wikipedia. It defaults to left-aligned, but you can use <center></center> to get the text center-aligned...but you do you get it right-aligned? Thanks again, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
You definitely wander out of my area with that one. :D Beyond the basics, I'm clueless when it comes to formatting. I had a quick go to see if I could come up with something, but failed. You might want to ask that one at the help desk. That's where I'd go. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay :) - I'll try the Help Desk. Thanks, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Moonriddengirl! You were right, someone at the help desk knew:

<div align="right">...</div>

Thanks a lot, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool! I will try to remember that, in case I ever need it myself. :) (I'm glad they could help. I thought somebody might; I learned how to make columns by asking there!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks back

Thank you as well. I appreciate in your case that you do not seem to be of the thinly-veiled opinion "I am right and anyone who disagrees is a heartless bastard." This does not extend to everyone else in that discussion. I'm sincerely sorry to see it turning out the way it has, though, it's really unfortunate to see it turn out that way. I guess I'm feeling a bit of an ass myself—when BLP was first coming around, a lot of the opposition to it was based on the possibility of it being used in exactly this way. I worked to convince (and did convince) a lot of people that we would never possibly tolerate that, that it would only be used against unsourced or badly sourced information, that we wouldn't tolerate its use as a hammer to suppress legitimate content disputes that happen to involve a living person, that we certainly would never allow the removal of reliably sourced information using it as a justification. I was generally even pretty good at convincing people. I guess it's a bit disheartening to see that not only was I dead wrong, I might have helped suppress more vigorous opposition to BLP that might have held it in a lot tighter check. So thanks for being patient with me when finding the situation a bit upsetting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Lucia Zarate

You recently declined my G12 speedy nomination of this one. If you check the article history, the initial creator created the article with text copied from here. The other edits to the article were not significant edits. Isn't that enough for a speedy? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm still examining the article now. It was not percisely pasted from the external source, which you can see in archived version here, although the language follows very closely and is unquestionably derivative. But G12 must meet all of the criteria, and I don't believe that there is no non-infringing content on the page itself worth saving. I have not yet determined if I think it should be tagged with {{copyvio}} or if I'll simply save some time and revise it right now. I'm reviewing archived news sources on her. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I am out of time. (Past bedtime in my part of the world. :)) I believe that I have sufficiently addressed the situation for now, but if you think I've missed something, please put the {{copyvio}} tag on it with a note pointing out what I'm overlooking, and I'll finish cleaning it up tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agnes McLaren

Hi. I've reworked this article a bit and added references, but thinking about it again, these would only seem to cover WP:V, rather than specifially WP:N - can you have a quick review and give me your opinion ? Thanks :-) CultureDrone (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks good! The Crawford book seems like a particularly strong source. The basic criteria of BIO, of course, is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] * If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]" I'd call that Crawford entry substantial coverage in a reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject source. Well done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - it's always nice to have an independent opinion :-) CultureDrone (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

Hi

I need some help in solving a dispute.

It is regarding this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a-ha_awards

A certain person is constantly reverting my edits. The cause of the dispute, is the fact that I wish to include all known awards that a-ha has won, while this certain person wants to only include what he calls " important / notable " awards. Personally I don't understand that he can dictate what is important award or not. An award is an award in my opinion and I can't see how my wish to include certain awards, can be a problem to others. I would appreciate any input you might have on this. Mortyman (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) The first step (according to our dispute resolution guidelines) is to discuss the matter, civilly, at the article's talk page. I see that there has been some discussion at your talk page. Bringing it up at the article's talk page may allow more contributors to participate. If they do not, you can neutrally invite additional input by one of the processes outlined in that guideline. From my personal experience, I would sooner suggest you request feedback from a project or policy/guideline talk page before using the "Requests for comment" process, as that process can be very, very slow and sometimes doesn't bring responders at all. Please pay particular attention to the "neutral" part of that recommendation. :) We have rules against "canvassing" to bolster support for your position in a debate, and to avoid giving the appearance that this is what you are doing, you will want to ask people to join the conversation in such a way that you do not seem to be attempting to bias them towards your position. You can make your case at the article's talk page, but you should only briefly describe the conflict wherever you seek feedback, without seeming to be trying to persuade people. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanx. In other ways a long way to go to solve this.... I appreciate your input. Mortyman (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes, yes, it can be slow. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Query about Boblins and Odd-Jobbers

[edit] Boblins Hi. I may be wrong in this assumption, but if you are also this user, here, I wanted to drop you a note about the use of copyrighted material in Wikipedia articles. In accordance with our copyright policy, Wikipedia cannot accept material that has been pasted from external sites unless we have verification that we are authorized to do so. This may take the form of a release at the website, permitted reuse of the material under GFDL or releasing it into public domain. (It is not enough to give permission at the website for us to use the material on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia articles may be modified and reused, commercially or otherwise. The release at the source must accord with that.) Alternatively, permission can be given through e-mail as directed at WP:Permission, by providing a proper release to the Wikimedia Foundation from an address associated with the source.

Bold textYour assumption is correct, I am the same user. I am very new to Wikipedia and clearly not understanding the rules. How do I make comments and produce new pages about my own products on Wikipedia within your regulations. I am wanting to do something like the Lazytown page, but dont understand how they can produce that page but I cant? Please let me know. Many thanks.


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mcflipster" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcflipster (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi.:) I have not seen the Lazytown article yet (though I will go look at it in a minute), but as a general rule of thumb, the condition of other articles can't always reliably guide you in creating your own. Many times, problems are not discovered or flagged immediately, and you could be misguided as to what is permitted or preferred here. You're usually safe if the article has a high assessment, but not always. We have even had featured articles where later we've found serious problems, such as plagiarism, that have needed to be addressed. One of our greatest strengths as a project is that we're open to inclusion by anyone, but that can be a source of problems, too.
There are several issues to consider here. First, the one that brought me to your page, is copyright. Since we do not require identity verification at account creation, we must have external proof of permission to duplicate copyrighted material here at Wikipedia. There are two processes by which copyright owners usually clear their material. First and simplest, you can place a note on the external site releasing it to public domain or under the license GFDL. That license permits modification and reuse, commercially or otherwise, so long as you are given credit for what you have authored. If you put content on Wikipedia that you have released at your site, please make a note on the article's talk page that you have done so, giving us a direct link to that statement of release.
The other way to do it is to mail a letter (e-mail or snail mail) to the Wikimedia Foundation. That's a little more complicated. You would want in that case to be sure that the address verifies your connection to the site (an officially company e-mail address is ideal). You'd need to include a link to the website copied as well as including the name of the article at Wikipedia. Your letter should indicate the terms under which you are releasing the material (public domain or GFDL). You can read more about where to send that and what to say at WP:Permission. There is even a boilerplate permission letter there which you should use as a base for your release. If your release doesn't meet the guidelines--for example, if you only release the material for use on Wikipedia--we won't be able to display it. If you go that route, you should make a note at the article's talk page that you have done so, but note that the article may be blanked until the permission is processed.
The next consideration is our conflict of interest guidelines. You can contribute to articles related to your enterprise, but it is discouraged in most cases. You need to be especially carefully to remain neutral and abide by our verifiability policy. All information you add should be sourced; you can't include details that you know to be true, but which our readers can't verify. These policies and guidelines govern all contributors to Wikipedia, but they are emphasized where a conflict exists since contributors with an outside interest in a topic sometimes overlook them. Sometimes contributors have created articles on subjects of interest to them in userspace, what we call a personal "sandbox". I have seen contributors seek feedback at the conflict of interest noticeboard before moving these articles into article space. That helps ensure that the material does conform, and it can help alleviate concerns of other editors. This is a good idea, because if other editors believe that you are promoting your own interests, they will frequently tag the article saying so and sometimes even nominate it for deletion as "spam". Nobody wants that. :)
Just as a general rule of thumb, you should review the relevant notability guidelines before including any article. Articles that do not demonstrate notability are also frequently deleted, especially if they seem promotional.
Hopefully, this doesn't sound too daunting. (And since you're new, I'll note that all of the colored text hides links to guidelines and policies.) I'd be more than happy to explain any aspect of this if you'd like. Also, as I said at your talk page, we do have a help desk where you can get feedback from other contributors. Please remember to "sign" your name wherever you leave a note (not on an article, but on talk pages or discussion boards) by typing four tildes (~~~~), which will expand into your username and a timestamp. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Just have to add that I have removed the material again. We can't include it, as I note above, until we have proof that we are allowed to include it. The website still bears the "all rights reserved" notice. We need verification of permission first. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:COPYRIGHTS

[10]. Cheers, Jayen466 18:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiize

Does this page meet criteria for deletion? It does to me, but I wanted to check with you first, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it did. It's gone. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
:) - You mean I did something right on Wikipedia?! w00t! αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

See here [11]. Normally a translation wouldn't be a copyvio, since a translation is by its very nature being put in to the editors own words, but this is indeed a copy and paste.--Crossmr (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

there is that too, for future note, as on my user page, I'm only ko-1 right now ^^ so my korean help is somewhat limited.--Crossmr (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, MoonG!

Um, your talk page seems to be right-justified!! (And if it's been like that for a while, that just goes to show that I haven't flown in and perched here for at least that long!)

I just added Wikipedia:Copyright problems to my watchlist. I think I'd like to learn how to handle these sorts of problems. Well, I have a question: it says "Pages should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before they are checked and processed by administrators". What is the purpose of that? That is, what's supposed to happen during those 7 days? Is that to give people a chance to re-write the article? Is it to give people a chance to find out who owns the copyright and maybe try to get permission from them? Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, wait: I may have just found the answer to my own question: at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins it says "If someone else has already informed the claimant how to release permission, do not delete the article until at least 7 days after that information was provided to the claimant.". Well, I'm a little confused about the order things are supposed to happen in. An admin waits 7 days, then follows the instructions, which means sending a message to the copyright holder, then waiting another 7 days ... or probably it just means don't delete the article at the beginning of the first 7 days. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It only displayed like that for me for a day, so I didn't realize it was still showing that way. :) A contributor above forgot a </div>. I've added it.
Here's the way it's supposed to work. WikipedianX finds a copyright violation, but it isn't a G12 candidate because it doesn't meet all of the criteria. If the vio is small, he removes it from the article and warns the contributor with the user warning copyright vio template. If the vio is substantial, he tags the article with tl:copyvio, which blanks the article. He locates the contributor of the material and notifies him or her accordingly. (The template instructs him to do this, and many taggers do.)
In the seven days that the article is blanked, contributors may seek to verify permission to use the material or may rewrite the article in subspace, without GFDL or copyvio infringement. After seven days, the administrator checks back. If there's no evidence of verification and no subspace version and if the copyvio goes all the way back, he may delete the article. If there are non-infringing versions in history, he may restore that version, either relegating the copyvio to the article's history or deleting those versions. (I've created a template warning for when I do the former.) Quite often, there's no good reason to wait 7 days, and people don't. If you look at WP:CP, you'll see redlinks of articles that have been deleted within hours of tagging.
If I find an article has been listed seven days where the contributor has not been notified, I will often leave him or her a message and either relist it or consolidate it to older issues, unless it's a clear deletion ala G12 or can be easily addressed by removing the violating chunk. In that case, I handle it immediately. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think that makes sense! Then I guess one way I can help is to check recent listings to make sure the contributor has been notified. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, that would be helpful. Also of potential use, keep an eye out for images that wind up there by mistake. We don't get a lot of those anymore, but we've had two today already. :) (One of them self-corrected, but didn't strike out.) I also occasionally glance to see if the CP listing should actually be a CSD listing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, check my work here, MoonG: I was just looking at Gombojab, listed since Sept. 14. First problem: it's marked as speedy-delete due to "no content". Well, I would delete that speedy tag, since the only reason it's there is that the page has been blanked due to copyvio concern. Second problem: the contributor has not been notified. So I could do that. But third problem: it seems to me to be a blatant copyvio, with no claim of permission that I can find, and no reason to think the contributor (Jimhuffman) is connected with the journal that apparently originally published it (according to note at bottom of web page). So actually it should have a CSD G12. So what I would actually do is change the speedy tag to G12 and then notify the contributor with the usual user-warning templates for G12, without any need for a 7 day waiting period. Does that sound right to you? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. It's not marked for speedy deletion; it's been PRODded, but, yes, I would challenge the PROD, since the reason it has no content is the cvio template. :) I would notify the contributor. Wayback confirms that they had it first, here. I don't see the point, though, in changing the tag to G12. It's coming up for review tomorrow. Barring any sudden activity, it is likely to be deleted then. Presuming I'm the admin who handles it, though, I'd first check to see how many internal links the article has and whether or not I could feasibly replace it with a stub (particularly if it seems highly notable or has many internal links). I've done quite a lot of that (for a single example, see Tams-Witmark). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. That's a couple of things I hadn't thought of. Well, I'm just getting started! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
That one turned out to be unusual anyway, since it was a duplicate of John Gombojab Hangin, which was also a copyvio. I deleted both, but wrote a new stub for the latter. I would generally create a redirect in such a case, but there didn't seem to be any point in creating a redirect from part of the man's name. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Moonriddengirl/monobook.js

Dear Moonriddengirl, I just saw User:Moonriddengirl/monobook.js. I installed Twinkle. See: User:AdjustShift/monobook.js. User:Moonriddengirl/monobook.js has more features than mine. How can I add some of the features your monobook has? And what are the benefits? AdjustShift (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sadly, I could not tell you. :) I believe I last edited my monobook when Twinkle was having compatibility issues with Firefox, back in December of 2007. Somebody posted a way to workaround those compatibility issues (User:AuburnPilot, maybe?), and I pasted in the fix as suggested. It worked. I haven't touched it since! I am extremely pedestrian when it comes to technology, so I have no clue what I have that's different or why. As long as it keeps letting me place warning tags, though, I'm good. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Womanizer (song)

Thanx for doing some clean up work, I'm trying to maintain the quality of this article but it's really difficult amongst the swarm of IP's. — Realist2 14:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) I saw your note (AN, ANI, can't remember which), but you're so quick I haven't had the opportunity to pitch in before now. :D The semi-protection on it ought to help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes I tried multiple places to draw attention since my plea went unanswered for hours (seriously what's up with AN/ANI these day's it's so slow). I was considering nominating myself for adminship to acquire the tools to look after it myself lol. But it's semi protected now so all is good. I'm not even gunno look at the article on her new album, far to much hassle. — Realist2 14:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Schools Barnstar

The Schools Barnstar
For fantastic work clearing school articles of copyright violations, I award Moonriddengirl the Schools Barnstar! Jh12 (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you so much. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Publib

First, I want to thank you for fixing the copyvio issue with the Publib page. Having said that, I would like to know why you removed some of the content with the excuse "Removing material with an inappropriate tone" since there was no tone at all? If you search the archives http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/publib/ you'll notice that there was, in fact, a huge thread on Hydrox vs. Oreo cookies. I just don't understand why that was removed. :)

AllenTateRocks (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Allen D. Tate

Hi. Wikipedia's styleguide calls for an "impersonal, formal and dispassionate" tone, here. The are problems with that regard in sentences such as "We have had such philosophical discussions such as "Which is better, Oreos or Hydrox cookies?" among many other quite entertaining debates. On Friday, you can expect that someone will post a Friday funny, and it usually extends past the weened into Monday or Tuesday." We do not write articles in the first person, and we don't label debates as "entertaining" unless we are attributing the perspective to a reliable source. (See also our neutrality policy.) The conversational style there is fine for article talk pages or boards on Wikipedia, but the articles themselves are meant to be written in the kind of encyclopedic style you'd expect to find in, say, Britannica. They don't always reach that level, but that's the goal. :) (Oh, also, we don't sign articles, only talk and board comments.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. There certainly are way too many rules to abide by. ;) AllenTateRocks (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's a bit of a learning curve. :) I hope that the "welcome" template I left on your page will be helpful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the problems with Waldorf School of San Diego. I have created a new article for the school that doesn't take any wording from the school's web site. How can the article be replaced? Thanks, EPadmirateur (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to that article. :) It's done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks, EPadmirateur (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Article deletion

Hello Moonriddengirl, could you help me to delete an article I've created named "The Kuningan Place"? This because I did not have the permission from the owner of the project to publish it online.

Looking for your soonest reply. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjahja (talk • contribs) 03:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If you had been the only contributor, the article could be tagged {{db-g7}}, and it would be deleted. It has been edited by an IP address, though. This may also be you, but since its not connected to your account, your best bet may be to place a {{PROD}} on the article, explaining why the article does not belong. I would note in that prod that you are the article's creator and primary contributor. If anyone objects to the article being deleted, it won't be. You would have to pursue WP:AFD. But if nobody objects, the article will be deleted in five days.
Here's how you do the PROD:
  1. Place the following code at the top of the page: {{subst:prod|concern}}
  2. Replace the word "concern" with a brief reason that you've proposed deletion.
  3. Make sure that you keep the {{subst:prod| part unchanged, or else an error will appear. Likewise, be sure that you've got the set of brackets at the end.
  4. In your edit summary, announce that you've proposed deletion.
I hope that this helps. Please let me know if I can explain any of this further. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Boblins and Odd-Jobbers

There are several issues to consider here. First, the one that brought me to your page, is copyright. Since we do not require identity verification at account creation, we must have external proof of permission to duplicate copyrighted material here at Wikipedia.

Mcflipster: I work for the copyright holder, I think I pressed the wrong button releasing copyright of the logo and dont know how to revert it back to being copywritten. With regards to the text I inserted referencing the shows characters, this is correct information, and text created by the IP owner so should not be classed as plagiarism, and I believe is relevant when referencing the show. I am very daunted by this and am trying to not make mistakes. Regarding a new Odd-Jobbers page, will I ever be able to create this. I want to do the same thing and note it's premis, insert character images and profiles and international broadcast details. How can I do this without having the page delelted again. I am clearly not getting this so plain english, no terminology, would be appreciated in your response. I have express permission to use all the copyright material, however, want it to be protected on Wikipedia.... HELP..... (Mcflipster (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)).

Hi. I'm sorry for the language difficulties. I will try to honor your request and speak as plainly as I can. Of course, you know a more detailed response is above.
You must prove that you have permission to use this material. This is a matter of law, so we can't take your word for it. You can prove it by making a note at the website that the material is free for use under GFDL or in public domain. Or you can prove it by sending a legal release notice to the Wikimedia Foundation. If you'd like to use one of these two options, please let me know, and I will try to help you with the one you choose. Until we have proof of permission, you can't copy material from anywhere. If you do, it will be removed. We have some documents on Wikipedia that are meant to help with this. First, there is the copyright policy. In your case, you might especially want to read WP:IOWN.
I'm not sure what you mean by "want it to be protected on Wikipedia". If you mean that you want the material on Wikipedia to remain as you put it, that you can't do. Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia and probably will. If you mean that you want the material to be used only on Wikipedia, you can't do that, either. Wikipedia is licensed under GFDL, so anybody is allowed to copy anything we have. They can print it for free or charge for it. They can change it. The only thing they legally have to do is acknowledge who wrote it. If what you mean is that you don't want it deleted as a copyright violation, then, again, what you need to do is provide proof of permission.
I hope that helps. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

--Hordaland (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)== Possible copyvio at Sleep? ==

Hello MRG. I've been following links and trying to find out how to report or ask for help with a possible copyvio. I find it all daunting, and, taking the easy way out, am dumping the problem in your lap. The copied material has been in the article for months (some of it possibly added 27 January this year, possibly by user Rishirajmd, diff, but I'm not sure I'm a competent detective). I'll watchlist this page. Here is the message I left at Sleep's Talk page:

http://www.luciddreaming.com/information/sleep-restoration.php has just been added, by IP user 68.81.232.6, as an "External link". That page carries the legend "Copyright 2008, All Rights Reserved" at the bottom. Huge chunks of that page are identical to the same chunks of the article.
I don't know how to find out whether luciddreaming.com copied and copyrighted text from Wikipedia, or Wikipedia has lifted text from that site in violation of copyright. Do you?

If you can help with this, an answer at Sleep's Talk page may be as appropriate as an answer here; your choice. --Hordaland (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look at it. :) I'll get back with you as soon as I've investigated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! And you are almost incredibly quick!! --Hordaland (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

←No problem. I'd just finished what I was doing when your message popped up. :)

I feel very confident in saying that they've infringed on us.

First thing to do is to check the wayback machine. If it shows that the page predates us, then there's no further question. It doesn't. There's no archive, which likely means that the page is less than six months old. To verify that we had it first, though, we trace its evolution in the article. This is a whole lot easier with less active articles. :) But to me the deciding factor is the subsection on ontogenetic hypothesis of sleep. The term ontogenetic first entered our article in June of 2005, here. At that time, the relevant section said:

REM sleep (or Active Sleep) seems to be particularly important to the developing organism. Studies investigation the effects of REM sleep deprivation have shown that deprivation early in life can result in behavioral problems, permanent sleep disruption, decreased brain mass ( Mirmiran et al. ), and even result in an abnormal amount of neuronal cell death ( Morrissey et al. ). This is called the Ontogenetic hypothesis of REM sleep and suggests that the activity occurring during neonatal REM sleep is necessary for proper central nervous system development.

This gradually evolved. You can see its evolution by looking at these diffs: [12], [13], [14] and [15]. The text evolved towards the form used in the external site, which strongly lends to a belief that it started here. Coupled with the lack of an archived version and the copyright date on the website, and I think we're good. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I put an abbreviated response at the article's talk page, too. :) Thanks for bringing it up. Always good to be sure! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hrmph. In case you've missed it, the original IP editor (above) is (claiming to be) affiliated with luciddreaming.com and has apologized to us on Sleep's Talk page. The legend on the linked page has been changed to credit Wikipedia, though not unambiguously IMO. Thanks for your good work! --Hordaland (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Government of Gibraltar Press Release - Steve Hogarth concert to take place in St. Michael's Cave
  2. ^ Gibraltar Autumn Festival of Art and Culture Programme of Events
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_8&oldid=1139326459"