Jump to content

User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40

Pomerania during the High Middle Ages

Hey,

Some editors expressed concerns that I had too closely paraphrased a source here. Since all editors involved in the discussion have been part of the EEML, against whom I provided evidence at arbcom and opposed the expiration of their topic bans, I would appreciate a neutral evaluation of the concerns. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I will be happy to take a look at that a bit later today. I like to be fully awake before evaluating close paraphrasing concerns. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I was going to bring this to your attention but saw you were on holiday until the 14th (Happy Valentine's Day btw) so instead I posted a notice on Wikipedia/Copyright problems. Yes, since there is a history here I would like for an outside opinion on these issues. All these look like very close paraphrasing to me, sometimes even verbatim with just one or two words altered (there's also POV concerns but from copyvio point of view they're secondary). Volunteer Marek  17:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, please take a look at [1]. It's incomplete and I'll keep filling it out. I was also going to provide the Google translations of the key passages, however messy those can be, as a source of independent translation. Volunteer Marek  17:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks. :) Happy Valentine's Day to you as well. I'm sorry you didn't get a response at WT:CP; I see there's a bit of a backlog there. :/ I'm afraid that we seem to be shorthanded in the copyright department at the moment. Some of our regulars have cut down their time on Wikipedia, alas.
While there were some serious issues with Drang nach Osten, I think that in general Pomerania during the High Middle Ages looks better. Looking at the examples provided here (I find that format pretty easy to follow), I am most particularly concerned with paraphrasing in the third row ("The social standing of the free...was relatively wealthy." The fourth row may also follow a bit closely in structure. From a copyright standpoint, I really think the second row should be fine. It has the same information, but I don't think it retains too much of the creativity original. With respect to the first row, the only real issue I see is in the part that looks like it could have been composed by cutting and minimally shifting text from the original:
  • "The gards consisted of a small castle for the castellan and his staff, and of a fortified suburbium for the craftsmen in the duke's service"
That could use a bit of rewriting.
Our copyright policy does caution against following too closely, but it is unfortunately unavoidably vague on the subject because, as opposed to direct copying, close paraphrasing can be a very subjective thing. Sometimes the alterations are so minimal that all viewers would agree an issue exists. Sometimes even the volunteers who work copyright cleanup don't agree whether a rewrite is sufficient. The general approach encouraged by our copyright policy is caution; "in in doubt", we tend to revise. That way, there's no more doubt. :) Sometimes there's general agreement that content isn't too close and we move on.
When evaluating close paraphrasing concerns, we have to consider both language and structure. Creativity in a piece of writing covers the words chosen, but also covers the organization of material and sometimes even which facts are chosen to support a point. This is one of the reasons why you cannot translate copyrighted content from one language to another without permission, even though you may be literally changing every word. The structure and other creative elements of the original are retained. The more creative the content in any aspect, the more distance is required in paraphrase. In addition to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, the Signpost article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".
These kinds of issues, where they occur, are generally good faith errors that can be resolved just by increasing awareness of the concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I already had rephrased this, the only remaining sentence that might be an issue is "The gards consisted of a ...". How would you rephrase that, and does it need to be rephrased at all (given that it is not a copy anyway)? That a gard consists of a castle and (at least one) suburbium, and that the craftsmen were in the suburbium and the castellan was in the castle is no secret and not the result of the source's research. Neither is it a secret that the castles were small - many of the respective fortifications still exist, and if you walk your dog there, you can easily throw a stick from one side of the ring wall to the other. The source rather puts widely accepted facts into a concise sentence without any special lyrical creativity, as wikipedia is supposed to do, too; the words "castle", "fortified", "suburbium", "castellan", "staff" and "craftsmen" (or their German/Polish cognates in the source) are non-exchangeable standard termini; the sentence's structure does not leave much room for rephrasing either since these words relate to each other in a distinct way that needs to be properly reproduced. Therefore it is - in my view - not faulty that similar wording is used in wikipedia. What do you think?

If your answer is negative, how about "the gards consisted of a small castle and a fortified suburbium, housing the castellan and staff and the ducal craftsmen, respectively...", or how would you put it? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) First, it's not really a question of secrecy. Copyright doesn't care whether facts are well known or heavily guarded; facts aren't copyrightable. It's all in how those facts are expressed (which can include selection of facts and organization of them). US courts don't set a high standard here such that "lyrical creativity" is required, although they do require some; the threshold of originality has been deliberately set very low. Close paraphrasing when content is basic is generally going to be a cumulative issue. The more of it there is from a single source, the more problem you have. The passage that I pointed out is really only an issue for me, as I said, because it looks sort of like you could have taken scissors to the original to get it, and it wouldn't be an issue at all in isolation from the other concerns. Only because there has been some close following from the source in other passages would I worry about revising it, as part of an overall separation. I generally handle such concerns with my own rewrites by flipping such content a bit, which you do very ably in your "how about" proposal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I will apply the "how about" phrasing then, just to be on the safe side. Can we lay VM's table to rest then? As a non-native speaker, I can't make sense of "you could have taken scissors", though, what does that mean? I did not cut and paste, if it means that, the source is not even in English. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked at the other articles on that table and haven't really evaluated the rewrites of the other sections. I trust that if there are further concerns, they'll be mentioned. No, it does not mean "cut & paste", although I can see how you would think so based on my use of the words. :) I'll try to explain what I do mean more clearly. The structure is very similar to the source, almost as if it were an abridged rewrite. If you think of it as building blocks, they are all presented in the same order. (By the scissors, I was thinking of it like a long piece of paper with some of the bits cut out, leaving some of them in place.) Often in rewriting, I start by moving my building blocks around. This isn't alone sufficient to do a complete rewrite (stupid and obvious example: "Santa Claus comes on Christmas Day" cannot be rewritten "On Christmas Day, Santa Claus comes.") But in conjunction with changing language, it can help. It works both on the sentence level and on a larger level with paragraphs and papers. In your "how about" phrasing, you did this naturally. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for clarifying. As always, your help is very much appreciated. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Jeffree Star concert tours

This article has a copypaste tag on it. Am I right in assuming it's not a copyright concern as it's a list with no creative input? If so what's your take on what attibution (if any) is required to avoid plagiarism?

No, that's not copyrightable, and I don't think it's even a plagiarism concern per se. It needs WP:RS to WP:V and all. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Not even remotely really my area but if I get the chance I'll try and look for some sources. Dpmuk (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Xylophanes aglaor

Not exactly, I was referring to the rewritten sections and if this was ok (i.e. no longer a violation), but I guess they would be since 90% of the CATE text is gone.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I can use this as a template to rewrite. I can read and write English well enough, but I am not a native speaker, making it harder to be creative with language. Thanks again! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries, just delete it, I will see it in the watchlist and try to rewrite using your template. Good luck with the backlog. I will try not to add to it anymore.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My question pertains to the use of material, verbatim, from the website of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The "Proprietary Rights Notice" (copyright notice) is here [2]. For example, what if I wanted to copy and paste a large portion of this article, (or the whole article) into a Wikipedia article (or create a new article)? In your opinion, does this "Proprietary Rights Notice" allow me to use this material in such a manner? The phrase "noncommercial use" is what actually caught my eye. Wikipedia articles appear to be a noncommercial venue. However, there may be some other issue that I am not aware of - which is why I am here :>)

I will look for your reply here. Thanks in advance for your time. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Thanks for checking; you are quite right to be uncertain. :/ Wikipedia does not accept non-commercial only content despite the fact that we are non-commercial because of our mission to create a resource that can be freely reused by others. Sometime way back in the ether, before I ever heard of Wikipedia, it was decided to require that material be licensed for two things which that site is not: (a) commercial reuse and (b) modification. (The latter is a bit more obvious for us; if we aren't licensed to modify, we can't build on or alter content in the traditional Wikipedia model.) Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? has a little bit more info. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mention at Jimbo's talk page

Hi, you may want to check my statement at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Biased ! as I have pointed to your draft and in case I have misrepresented anything. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Eep! Center stage! Okay, thanks. I was thinking it was time to ask for wider input, anyway. :D I'll go take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk)

Courtesy notice

You may have an interest in a discussion relating to non-free content at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content as it deals with an article you recently edited. For talk page stalkers: This is a courtesy notice, not canvasing. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films copyvio tag removals

Hi, for some reason Ancient Anomaly has the impression that the copyvio template is "copyright trolling", see diff. You may want to drop a note on their talk page if you feel it would help. Cheers Fæ (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, you are not suppose to use threats of blocking to resolve disagreements you are personally involved in.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for a CCI to close

I virtually wrapped up Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Texas141, and this can be closed once the final couple articles are addressed. I'll be moving to the Banglapedia CCI after this since that one's been pretty easy to tackle so far. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoot! You rock! I will make wrapping up those final few a priority, hopefully for completion today. Getting one of those off the list is always a fabulous feeling. Thank you so much for helping out in that department. You are sorely needed and much appreciated. :) (Might as well say it here, too. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_31#Copyright

*Ping* :) CTJF83 16:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'll try to take a look at it at some point in the next few days, but honestly it would really help if you could review them yourself first and flag articles that you believe may still be problematic. :/ We've got a multiple day backlog going at WP:CP and, what, 50? open WP:CCIs. Plus I've got a project of my own I've been trying (and failing) to work on, and I'm trying to get a new essay ready for mainspace on copyright questions regarding lists. I take a few breathers to poke in at ANI or monitor conversations elsewhere on Wikipedia, but it tends to feel less like a "breather" when I'm evaluating other content for copyright problems. It feels like the same ol' drudgework. :P Too, if you identify and correct issues, that'll go a long way towards showing that you've mastered the problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I actually think I fixed all the problems during my last RfA, when you told me about that tool. I just wanted a quick double check that there are no more issues. It's not a big deal, I won't be going for RfA again anytime in the near future. I understand you are very busy, we can put this on the back burner until I'm ready to RfA. Thanks! CTJF83 22:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

International Weddell Sea Oceanographic Expeditions

Could you take a look over this page please. It was tagged G12 (which I restored after the author had removed) but that was removed by User:UnicornTapestry after they re-wrote it. However, to me it is a pretty clear derative work and so I suspect it might still by copyrightable. Asking you to take a look rather than tag it so as to hopefully not unneccessarily anger the editor involved if I'm wrong as they've clearly made a good faith attempt to sort out the article. Dpmuk (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As part of a rescue effort, I did a clean-up of the International Weddell Sea Oceanographic Expeditions article. It's possible the original author may have copied borrowed heavily from the PDF and did prematurely removed the db tag. I cleared out the junk and focused on saving the article. Notify me if it needs more work or comes up for deletion.
best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Page 25 of [3] is the relevant source. Dpmuk (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
On it, belatedly. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks very much for your work on this, UnicornTapestry. It is very much improved, but still follows closely in some places. Especially when content begins as a blatant copy it is important to rewrite completely to avoid creating a derivative work. (One of the things courts look for is evidence of copying, and in this case they've got it in spades!) I've tagged it as a close paraphrase and put one example (with my "form letter notice" for any other contributors who want to pitch in) at the talk page. If you have the opportunity to do a bit more rescue, that would be great. :)
And, speaking of rescue, I've been thinking about trying to recruit more people to try to help rescue articles at WP:CP. You think that's something that your project might be interested in? Frequently those are notable topics and sometimes articles are deleted just because we don't have anywhere near the manpower to rescue them. I used to rewrite as many as I could, but now that we've got a billion articles backlogged on CCI, I'm afraid I really just can't do that much. My time is consumed. :P --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The idea's worth floating with the Article Rescue Squadron, possibly a subgroup specialising in copyright law. Since I'm new to the group and still feeling my way around, would you consider providing them such a proposal?
Thanks for your supportive words, Moon. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to do that sometime this coming week. I have often thought that it would be ideal work for people interested in saving articles. Sometimes there are other problems, but usually the only thing wrong with them is that the text belongs to somebody else. -It's a real service to the project to fix them. :) -Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

October debacle update

Hey, MRG; I should probably say Happy New Year, since I don't recall if I've talked to you yet this year! I'm wondering if you dropped any hope of changes at DYK following the plagiarism debacle, or if you're aware of improvements? At FAC, we ended up never getting consensus to adopt any formal process, but reviewers are aware, and we make sure all new nominators get at least a one-time education and check (there are many regular FA writers who don't warrant a spot check-- we know their work, and they don't violate copyvio). It seems to be working fine; we're not letting 'em through unless we know the editor's work or have checked it.

But two new DYKs with plagiarism surfaced today (one from yesterday), so I looked into what changes they may have made there. Unless you are aware of anything else, all I can uncover is that 1. they now require nominators to review other submissions (in other words, more reviewers now, possibly some unqualified, possibly less accountability, I'm not sure), while their reviewing instructions say nothing to these new reviewers about checking for copyvio or plagiarism or close paraphrasing or sourcing. Have I missed something, or did make changes I'm unaware of? The two new DYK issues were by the same editor, who had only two DYKs, so I don't know if a broader check of that editor's work is needed, but in case, the DYKs were Cajetan J. B. Baumann and SS. Cyril, Methodius, and Raphael's Church (New York City). DYK removed the plagiarism from the first, and I attempted the second; fortunately, in both cases, he was the only editor so they could be blanked. Anyway, weren't we hoping/expecting DYK to do more in terms of changing their processes considering the extent of the problem and that so much new content goes through there? It's alarming that only checking last night's DYKs turned up a blatant case, so I'm wondering if you feel any progress has been made over there. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the DYK reviewers are more conscious in general or not, but I have noticed a few DYK candidates making their way through WP:CP in recent months. I'm afraid there's always a new crisis on the copyright horizon to keep me distracted, in addition to the ever growing piles of backlog. :/ (We've lost some of our core workers in recent months and are now operating on an even thinner crew, although, encouragingly, I am seeing trends that new regulars may be emerging. :D) I'll go take a look at the DYK reviewing instructions and see what I can do, once I check this morning's fires to see if anything went out of control during the night. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if the DYK reviewers are more conscious in general or not, but I have noticed a few DYK candidates making their way through WP:CP in recent months. I'm afraid there's always a new crisis on the copyright horizon to keep me distracted, in addition to the ever growing piles of backlog. :/ (We've lost some of our core workers in recent months and are now operating on an even thinner crew, although, encouragingly, I am seeing trends that new regulars may be emerging. :D) I'll go take a look at the DYK reviewing instructions and see what I can do, once I check this morning's fires to see if anything went out of control during the night. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay; I see that the DYK rules includes the following: "Within policy – Articles for DYK should conform to the core policies of Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyrights. This means that nominations should be rejected if a short inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources, violate WP:BLP or that they have problems with close paraphrasing or copyright violations of images and/or text." So that's good. I have added a link to that at Template talk:Did you know#How to review a nomination. I've also added information about copyvio and plagiarism to Wikipedia:Did you know/Article.
Other than that, I don't really know how to fix this one, Sandy. :/ It's not a really organized review procedure. I've joined the conversation about it at the DYK talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
You did exactly what was needed! Thank you again, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

copypaste tags

I was wondering if you knew whether there was any consensus about when these should be removed. User:Minimac has removed the tags from several articles with comments like "No copyvios found" in the edit summary, e.g. Greenberg v. National Geographic. Although I accept they've made a good faith search to find sources should the copyvio tag be removed after that, after all theirs plenty of off-line sources, old versions of websites etc that could be the source and won't show up in simple google searches? In my opinion the example I give still looks very liekly to be a copyvio to me and so I would've thought the tag should remain. As you've been around this area for so long I was wondering if you knew whether there'd ever been a discussion on this. Will drop User:Minimac a line and point him at this. Dpmuk (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) There's never been a discussion about this that I know of, but since {{copy-paste}} began listing at WP:CP, they will pop back up on that list over and over again if the template is not removed. What I do, after I carefully try to identify a source and fail, I remove the {{tl|copy-paste} and put {{cv-unsure}} on the talk page, using the username of the individual who originally tagged under parameter 1 and the diff of that original tag under parameter 2. That way, the potential for problem is still noted to invite further investigation, but the article is not left bearing the stronger warning where no source is identified. We even have a specific template now to note that that's been done at WP:CP ([4]). I use this as my edit summary; the cv-unsure tag in use with those parameters looks like this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Only the new taggings get put at CP - there's still a few dozen older tags still left (and there were hundreds, so most of the backlog has been removed). For some background, I have broached this subject with Minimac a couple of times before at User talk:Minimac/Archive4#Copyright cleanup and User talk:Minimac/Archive4#Copy/paste cleanup. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Cheers for that. I'm working through the backlog of these tags so they won't appear at WP:CP. Hopefully once this backlog is gone it will be gone for good. :-) I had considered adding {{cv-unsure}} but wasn't entirly sure how the different tags were related. Have now added the {{cv-unsure}} tag to the article in question and may go and do it to another. Dpmuk (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I am thinking of restoring the copypaste tag to the most recent article I have been working on, the Information technology audit, because there may still be some more copyrighted text to check. It's probably my fault for removing the tag too quickly but the problem is that some of the article's text seems to be copied from many sources, therefore it was harder for me to find out which sites do or don't have the text copied from Wikipedia. Minimac (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) While you're here, let me thank you for all the work you've been doing there lately. Actually, both of you have been very encouraging for me. We've lost a lot of people lately, and there are times when it all seems overwhelming. Seeing other people care keeps me going. :)
Sometimes, it's a real bear tangling out those kinds of backwards copyvios. At least once the backlogged copy-paste articles are cleaned up, we may not run into so many of those...except at WP:CCI. It's a lot easier with a brand new article at WP:SCV. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Jamshid arian assl

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Here’s a tricky one for you, well for me anyway – can you help yet again?

After a very minor clean-up, with polite advice in the talk page of the article Jamshid arian assl I realized it was a blatant copy from ariana-ev.com. I added a speedy delete for copy vio. The creator, User:Mersedeh Abedini blanked the template him/herself, and added a “hang-on”. I left another message with the creator on the talk page: Talk:Jamshid arian assl, and added the template back, explaining that creators do not remove delete temps. It was taken off again.

But a further removal, probably inspired by my talk page comments, was made by User:Narcissus24, see revision history which to my mind is a sock puppet of Mersedeh Abedini. If you look at the revision history of Narcissus24 here, he gives the name Mersedeh Abedini.

I don’t want to get into an edit war here as you will understand, so I’d be grateful if you could pass your eye over this little beauty and make any judgement you think fit. Also, I’m not too up on how we deal with socks – is this up your street too?

Best wishes, Acabashi (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry for my delayed response; I was not able to get on Wikipedia much on the 19th and for the time I had earlier today (well, yesterday by Wikipedia time) avoided my talk page so that I could catch up on some of the backlog at WP:CP. This is not my usual approach, but that backlog seems to keep growing!
I see that the article has been deleted, which is good. In case you run into this in the future, here is what I would recommend: if you are not sure that it's a sockpuppet but in either case feel very strongly that the content is a copyright problem, once the tag has been removed use instead {{copyvio}}. While the speedy deletion tag can be removed by anyone who is not the article's creator (which does open temptation for socks!) that tag is not to be removed except by an administrator or an OTRS agent. Sometimes people will remove it out of process, but at that point it should be a simple matter to alert an admin to the issue, who can either protect the page or block the person removing the tag. (Very occasionally people will remove it for good reason, but they should explain that if they do--say if they prove that the copying was backwards or if the content is licensed at the site.)
Sock puppets are very much not my street. :) In this case, though, it seems like the quacking is loud enough that any admin might take action. I see that the shenanigans were identified (maybe you told somebody else in my absence or somebody else noticed) and one of the socks is indefinitely blocked.
Sorry, again, for my delay! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Displacement chromatography

Hey, I had just gotten done reworking those 4 paragraphs, both to remove the copyvio and to improve the quality of explanation. I had alerted Kkmuray to get any deletions taken care of before I put any more work into the article. Please explain what level of revision is acceptable in this case.Dankarl (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops, misread the diff and thought you had nailed the whole section. Question still stands, tho. In the meantime I'll try another rewrite.Dankarl (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. So far as I could see, the remaining problem was just restricted to that one area. I would have tried to help replace it, but I'm afraid the subject is beyond me. :)
I see you have attempted a rewrite, but I'm afraid that at least some of the rewrite still constitutes a problem. :/ For example, you've placed the text:
Wide separation of peaks, preferably to baseline, is desired in order to achieve maximum purification.
The source says:
Wide separation of peaks, preferably to baseline, is desired in order to achieve maximum purification.
Obviously, this particular passage is identical. We can't do that unless we are quoting a brief excerpt in accordance with the practices set out at non-free content policy and guideline.
While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. So that it will not constitute a derivative work, material from the sources we use must be rewritten "from scratch", unless brief and clearly marked quotations are used. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".
I appreciate your willingness to work further on this material; please try to make sure that the language and the structure of the original are not retained. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Think it's pretty thoroughly purged now. Take a look.Dankarl (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems to be pretty thoroughly rewritten, thought that judgment is a little hard to make when you're not familiar with the lingo. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Backlog drive

Just an update. See here. I don't know if it will have any effect though.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

oooh. :) Crossing my fingers. Thank you very much for following up on that! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

can you look at Lord Acton article?

Hello, Moonriddengirl. I didn't know you were an expert on copyright violations! Can you look at the Lord Acton article for me? It is taken from the 1911 Britannica, mostly verbatim. My understanding is that the EB1911 is public domain and not copyrighted. Also, it is noted at the bottom of the article that it is based on the EB1911. So, 2 questions: is there a copyright violation here?; and if we credit EB1911 do we need the "citation needed" tags currently at the end of several paragraphs? Thanks, as always, for your help. --Kenatipo speak! 17:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I don't consider myself an expert; I'm just experienced. Copyright is a huuuuge and confusing topic. :D That said, this question is easy! No copyright problem with this 1911 source. If it had not been published in English, there might be complications (and might not be; see footnote 1 of Wikipedia:Public domain. Did I mention that copyright is confusing?), but it was published in English, so we're good. In terms of the citation needed tags, if that content came from EB, the best thing to do is to cite it there. Readers don't necessarily know what particular content is derived from that source, so that can help verify. The credit at the bottom mostly addresses Wikipedia:Plagiarism concerns, though it does serve as a general reference. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your lightning fast response! (I was just about to tell you to take your time -- I thought I saw you working on some old stuff at the copyvio page). Thanks for clearing this up. I will add specific refs for all the cite needed tags, including the bleeding page number! --Kenatipo speak! 17:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Happy if I can help; copyright is the area where I generally work, so I'm pretty familiar with Wikipedia's approach to it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Time's list of 100 best novels

Please forgive my ignorance of these copyright laws. However, I would like to understand why Time's list is copyrighted. If Time's list is copyrighted, aren't Modern Library 100 Best Novels, The 100 Best Books of All Time, AFI 100 Years... series, and Le Monde's 100 Books of the Century also copyrighted? Wolfehhgg (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, undoubtedly, at least for several of them. Fortunately, we have permission from the copyright holder for the AFI 100 Years... series (OTRS agents can see it at Ticket:2007041310002766). I've reduced Modern Library 100 Best Novels. I already have written to our interim attorney about this matter and am awaiting her response; I'll ask her about Le Monde's 100 Books of the Century. It is a poll of 17,000 people, which should water down the creativity, but the list is drawn from a master list of 200, which itself is a creative selection. I'll also ask her about The 100 Best Books of All Time, since it is a list by 100 writers. In the case of the Time list, it is the opinion of two people merely. I suspect she'll tell us they aren't safe, given her last word on this issue (that lists are only really safe where completely formulaic), and they'll have to be reduced as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Could check this

Just wanting to do a check of this OTRS and if the licensing listed is correct. File:ClicheCover09.jpg. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It all appears to be in order, both in the license given and the authority that permitted it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Eileen Nolan

I rewrote the retirement section as per your instructions. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Re your comments on my talk page. Yes I would like to think I have learned something from this CCI (see diffs for Gordon Reece article which I fixed which had been for a long time a pure blatant copy/paste), but I am always going to make a mistake here or there. I guess by restoring so much text removed absurdly by Minimac I restored too much. I have removed the offending portion. Sorry. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. - Mimimac nominated an article I created, Richard Burkewood Welbourn, which he came upon by chance at the CCI, for deletion. Then he changed his mind after one keep vote by a third party, but has yet to withdraw the nomination -- this is irresponsible nominating of AFDs on Minimac's part, IMO. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Meghdad Ghobakhlou

Hi
Please Undo deletion of the article above, It has been deleted because of "No indication of importance"; but the person's article meets the criterias of WP:Athlete as "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable." I will provide enough references for the article.
Best Regards. Amirreza talk 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I will not overturn the deletion by another administrator of an article. If you want to expand the article with sourced content, I will userfy it for you for improvement. But it would need to be improved before returning to article space; I see it was an unsourced WP:BLP. If you believe that User:RHaworth erred in deleting the article under WP:CSD#A7 and wish it returned as it was, you may want to start by talking to him about it to see if he will reconsider that choice. If he does not and you still think the application of the policy was wrong, you may wish to pursue deletion review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Amirreza talk 13:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Does that mean you want me to userfy it or are you going to talk to the deleting admin? :) I don't want to guess and be wrong. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) None of them :) Please Provide me a copy of the article, so I can create it again after I made it fully sourced. Amirreza talk 13:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, userfying it is the best way for me to give you a copy, since it includes all mark-up and the edit history of the article, which we generally need for copyright reasons. There isn't much that's copyrightable in this article, but there is a bit. :) Given that, I've just put the whole thing with history at User:Amirreza/Meghdad Ghobakhlou. You'll notice I've "nowiki"ed the cats and the stub template. Those shouldn't display in userspace, but they're all still there and ready to go when you need them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I will move the article to the article space after being well-sourced. Amirreza talk 13:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oswald Lange

Hi, Im new to Wikipedia. I do respect the site, however the article I made was a tribute to my grandfather.. Im not sure what I did to get the article removed, but I would be more than happy to comply to wiki's regulations. please advise! Opa1912 (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC) ToddR toddslap@hargray.com

I've left a note at your talk page with a bit more information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to work on the Great Backlog Drive, and doing edits in the Style category. In that process, I ended up coming to List of Class of the Titans episodes. The version before I got there included "synopses" of each of the episodes, as is common for a page like this. The tone, though is clearly inappropriate for a Wikipedia page, and in fact, is more like what one would find in a television guide. And, a quick search shows that, in fact, that's just what those are--every TV listing I see for this show, as well as some SPS websites, use the exact same sentences (ex: ABC 2010; 2006 SPS). In fact, looking back at the very first creation, it "attributes" the summaries to [www.teletoon.ca]. I went ahead and removed them all, because they certainly are not the neutral tone we use for episode summaries on Wikipedia. What I'm wondering is, can such texts also be considered copyright violations? Can such short passages be considered copyrighted? Can copyright "diluted" like trademarks can? I mean, this text obviously appears identically in all sorts of different tv guides, both local and national, so does that mean it no longer has a copyright status? Or was does that imply that it was public domain in the first place? In a sense, it doesn't matter too much, because those summaries are WP appropriate; but, if someone were to modify them and re-introduce them, I can see that whether or not there is a copyright issue might change how much they have to alter the text. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my. :/ This is a huge and perpetual problem we encounter. Yes, television summaries are copyrightable. You can defend a copyright claim with a "laches" defense (to William Patry's dismay), but not necessarily in the sense that "if John does it, I can, too." :) There are all sorts of reasons that a copyright holder might assert for going after the usage on a website like Wikipedia, including our popularity and our encouragement of commercial reproduction. A single brief copyright summary, properly quoted and attributed, might fit within WP:NFC and (fair use); the problem is that they accumulate, especially in list articles.
I appreciate your removing them. What I usually do in such cases is place {{Copyvio plot}} on the talk page and, sometimes, put a hidden comment in the summaries such as <!--Please don't copy plot summaries from other sources. To meet our copyright policy, these must be written from scratch.-->. It depends on how likely it seems that people will reoffend. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep a watch on the article, and if they come back, I'll take some steps to make sure people don't re-add them. I have requested that people that actually watch that show start to compile their own summaries. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And another…

Considering the output of Google maps, is a generated map view

  1. copyrightable by Google?
  2. or is Google merely the tool creating one's own product?

Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, maps are copyrightable, and Google does claim copyright on their maps. The question has been raised many times at WP:MCQ ([5]). Depending on what you want to do with it, there may be some good suggestions there. For instance, here User:Graeme Bartlett talks about how to use Google maps in conjunction with free images to generate a usable map. Here there is conversation about how to use a google map within non-free content policy (pretty limited :)). A free alternative for locating cities is here. For actual maps, User:Calliopejen1 recommends free alternative openstreetmap here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

PAX (The Center to Prevent Youth Violence) article

Hi,

You've marked our article with a copyright concern. We actually own the information that I posted (I work for the organization) so we own the rights to the words that we posted. Please let me know what to do in order to get the post back up. I appreciate it!

Best,

CPYV (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Stephanie Guerami, CPYV www.paxusa.org stephanie@paxusa.org

Thank you for your note; I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

PAX (The Center to Prevent Youth Violence) article

Hi,

I've added that clause to the bottom of our website (you can find it here: www.paxusa.org). Let me know once the wikipedia page is restored or if there's anything else I can do. Thanks!

CPYV (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)CPYV

Exmoor Pony

Hi,

I found a paragraph in this article which appeared to be a direct copyright violation, and I removed it [6] and noted on the talk page.

This paragraph, and potentially more content, appears to have been in the article since the earliest revision of Jan 2005, when it looks like it was copy-pasted by an IP, from the webpage which is now at [7].

I am unsure of further action, so...as always, I'm seeking your advice. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have done a total re-word of that section (didn't spot, myself, that it had been a straight copy-paste). Hopefully the re-word will help fix for the future, but nothing can be done to change the past! :o) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Aww, ponies! Thanks for your attention to the issue, both of you. :D Removing and then rewriting the direct copyright violation is a great first step. It may be the only step needed, but I'd recommend you compare the first edit to see if there's any other problems with the source that would, in your opinion, rise to the level of a copyright policy violation. If so, look at the current version of the article to see what's happened to that content over the years. If you can still see the traces of the original, then it's potentially a derivative work issue. That content should be rewritten as well. If it has been overwritten, then there should be no lingering issues. I don't know if revdeletion is necessary here; what I would do is keep an eye on the article to see if the removal/revision is reverted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed - thanks. I hope we can avoid revdel, because it has a long and interesting history which is not related to the copyvio. I will certainly keep an eye on it, and make further checks of the prose. Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  14:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello. Thank you for clearing up my user talk page :) As sysop in de-wp I've blocked the user idefinite, so he had to vent his anger at my user talk page here. Greetings, Siech•Fred Home 13:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, is that what he was on about? :) He went on quite a tear there, though he didn't get to keep it up for long. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Daryl Hayott

Hello

I am a staff person for Keep the Light Records and yes I revised Daryl Hayott's wikipedia page. You mention someone needs to have a "neutral point of view." I believe I wrote from that perspective. Facts are facts. His story is what it is. Could you please remove the notations at the top of his page?

Also, I submitted Billy Nichols' page on wikipedia. Billy Nichols is another famous songwriter, singer, producer and multi-instrumentalist. What is the process? How does it get to be an actual approved page? It still says it has to be reviewed.

A third person that I submitted was Andre Saunders. Andre is a songwriter and singer from the major music industry. He has worked with major artists in music. He left his position at a large record label in 1984. His page was deleted right away. I don't understand what was missing from his page that caused it to be deleted.

I would like to follow the process so that the additions I make to Wikipedia are accepted.

Thank you for your help. I look forward to hearing back from you. If you write back, will I get a notice in my email? Again, I am not understanding the process here.

Thank you.

Tomaca info@tgovan.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomaca (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Daryl Hayott

Thank you for your very quick response to my questions and for the explanations. It is appreciated.

Tomaca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomaca (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by National Film and Television School

Thank you very much for reformatting the article "List of awards and nominations received by National Film and Television School". (I created the article, but couldn't decide upon a suitable reformat.) Excellent, excellent work, Moonriddengirl. ProResearcher (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) That was a bit of a challenge for me, as I'm not fluent in "table". But sometimes the best way to close a copyright listing is just to do it yourself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

errors in my contribution to Body Piercing

I would like to know why my removed text is not listed. I thought it was customary for removed text to be apparent so that other administrators might see your changes.

You have decided to remove my quote entirely, therefore kindly remove the page numbers in my citation to reflect your changes...

I also wrote about the "contestation of heteronormativity" and you changed this to "rebel against heterosexual norms."

This represents the loss of an opportunity to provide an internal Wiki link, because there is a Wiki page on Heteronormativity.

I would like you to remove "rebel against heterosexual norms" and replace it with "contest heteronormativity." and make the internal Wiki link to the Heteronormativity page.

"Rebel" is not at all the spirit of my contribution.

Thank you for your swift attention to these matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisiunia (talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Table error

Hey I was wondering if you can help me out with a table problem (if you can). Here User:AJona1992/Sandbox13 (Track listing) the table won't show normally as it would in any article. If you can help that would be much appreciated thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, it was a missing bracket. — ξxplicit 06:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Explicit. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Leila Sadeghi's page in wiki

Dear Madam/Sir, I would like to know why you delete the page of Leila Sadeghi for several times without any acceptable reason. The information was from her site and some other sites which have wrote about her. All the information was trustworthy. By regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.75.160.89 (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Articles on this individual have been deleted by a number of administrators under various names. It was twice deleted by two different administrators under Leila Sadeghi, once for violating copyright and another time for failing to assert what made the subject of encyclopedic significance. It has been deleted by four different administrators (including, once, me) under Leila sadeghi. In every single instance under that title, it was deleted for copyright concerns. In total, it has been deleted by six different administrators. With the copyright concerns, explanations have been given to the creators both of why we cannot accept content that is copied from or very closely similar to previously published sources and what they could do to remedy the problem. (Most recently, see User talk:Behzadnesari.)
In short, Wikipedia is bound by the copyright laws of the United States, in which country we are based. While we can use brief, clearly marked quotations from all previously published sources, we cannot otherwise use or closely rely on sources unless we are able to verify that they are public domain or compatibly licensed. The website which is most often used ([8]) is neither public domain nor compatibly licensed. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
I have prevented further creation of an article under those titles because of the fact that users under various registered accounts are repeatedly violating our copyright policy, which we cannot permit. None of them so far have come to discuss the issue, but instead have just kept creating the same problem.
If you'd like to create a usable article on this individual, you would certainly be welcome to do so. In order to create an article about her, you'll want to assert notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines on biographies, which will mean utilizing reliable secondary sources. Her own writings can be used to expand the article, but not to verify her notability. An article of this sort would be covered by Wikipedia's guidelines on "biographies of living persons", which in part urges editors to be extremely careful not to include any information that isn't sourced, even if it's true, and also reminds us that biographies particularly must be written from a neutral point of view. All content, except for briefly marked quotations, should be written "from scratch", in your own words. (Her bibliography is an exception to this; as long as it is a "complete" bibliography and not a selection from her works.)
If you do wish to create the article, you will either need to register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles, or obtain assistance. Since the space is protected, an administrator will need to lift that protection before a new article can be put in place. Once an article has been written and can be reviewed to be sure it does not suffer from the same problems as the ones that were already deleted, that can be easily done.
Just let me know if you are interested in creating a new article and, if so, if you would like to do so as a registered user or an IP, and I'll be happy to give you some further suggestions for how to proceed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Carolyn Yarnell article deletion

Hi – I am representing composer Carolyn Yarnell (and heating up her dinner as well :-)

I had planned this evening to begin updating her Wikipedia article, only to find it had been deleted. I intend to model the article on composer Michael_Daugherty's excellent example (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Michael_Daugherty).

Before initiating a new article, I would like to see the old one and ascertain if any of it can be used. Is this possible?

Yours, K-melion (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi K-melion. Moonriddengirl will explain why the original article was deleted but just a brief note about what you are about to embark on. Carolyn Yarnell is a notable composer and deserves a good article. However, the article you want to emulate is everything a Wikipedia article shouldn't be. It is full of material for which there is no reliable published source, unencyclopedic in tone, and gives a very strong impression of self-publicity to any neutral observer. Its current form was written at the subject's behest with text provided to his representative. I know this because I tried to discuss these issues with the person who expanded the article, and who incidentally created numerous individual articles on his works by pasting in copyright and unencyclopedic material from his music publishers' blurbs, most of which have since been rectified by other editors. Wikipedia is now taking a much firmer stance on new biographies of living people and you will have to be prepared for this article to be scrutinised very closely for unreferenced personal information which has not been published anywhere, promotional tone, etc. On your talk page, I'll leave you some links to helpful guidance pages which I strongly encourage you to read before creating a new article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi MRG. Me again, the mad biographer . I've recreated the article Carolyn Yarnell as a stub which can now be expanded. I have also referenced it to within an inch of its life. I thought it would be best if the article were created by an editor without a potential conflict of interest. K-melion, I'll pop over to your talk page now and leave the links to the guidance pages which you should read before expanding the article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Voceditenore. Great start. :) K-melion, the problem with the former article lies in its creator. Wikipedia, as you probably know, is built by volunteers, but we do have some policies which we are all required to follow. Among them, we cannot copy content from previously published sources unless we can verify that they are public domain or compatibly licensed (although we can use quotes; for the more complete explanation see Wikipedia:Copy-paste). This particular individual was a serial copyright infringer; in spite of repeated requests that he stop, he continued building articles by cobbling together pieces of previously published materials without regard to Wikipedia's policies. Accordingly, his account was blocked from contributing. He is not welcome at this point to contribute to Wikipedia under any user name; when it was discovered that he had created another account to persist in his behavior, all of the articles he created under that new account (with a few exceptions) were deleted. Unfortunately, this one was among them.
In cases such as this, deletion does not reflect in any way on the subject of the article but only on the creator. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't this suggest that there's a case for holding back on article deletion when the problem lies with the creator and the treatment rather than with the subject, and instead leaving / creating a stub in place of the article with contentious content or origin (perhaps with an advisory tab)? Opbeith (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
That would be one to take up at WP:CSD. The articles were deleted per Wikipedia:CSD#G5: "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others". FWIW, though, while I don't typically work sock puppetry areas, when a serial copyright infringer who already has hundreds of articles listed for copyright investigation returns with a sock puppet to create hundreds more, it's a policy I support. It is a huge drain on community resources as it is to evaluate these articles rather than (as per Wikipedia:Copyright violations) presumptively deleting them; we have thousands of such articles waiting for review. :/ I don't personally have time to stubbify all such articles, and we certainly don't seem to have anywhere near enough people willing to help out in doing so. Never mind WP:CCI (which has articles listed for evaluation for more than a year), we're floating a perpetual backlog at WP:SCV and given some increased "real life" work demands in my neighborhood I'm not able to keep on top of WP:CP at the moment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Did I detect the sound of a sinking heart crashing? Don't worry, I wasn't floating that one in order to dump it on your plate, just musing. I take your point about the practicality, though I wonder if one of the people who are inventing odd robots to automate this, that and the other might make the task simpler. Opbeith (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
LOL! You have good detection skills. :D My usual cheery optimism has been flagging lately. I'm usually good at keeping my eye on the individual tree, but I must admit that lately I've been increasingly aware of how big that stupid forest is. :/ Mixing up my metaphors, it's like being set to sweep at the edge of a landfill. It's a lot easier when you don't look around to see just how much sweeping remains undone. I'm for anything that might make the task easier, but I don't know of any really good way to automate this kind of stuff. In the one CCI, we had approval to autoblank all of the contributors articles, which I think probably did help, but there were also people busily rolling back the template without any regard whatsoever for copyright concerns (restoring copyright violations). And the trial bot run we did to revert contribs by a serial infringer to the last prior to his, inviting contributors to review the material and restore it if it was copyvio clear, ran into problems and complaints. With the first massive CCI in which I was involved, we had a whole group of people busily stubbing his articles, and it still took almost a year to close down (AIR). Interest kind of flagged, eventually. And we've got over 50 CCIs pending. Yikes. Too much forest. I don't want to see it. :( That said, if some bot programmer comes up with something here, I'd be turning cartwheels. :) I'd be happy if I could just get the tool to compare two sources that I've requested. It could eliminate a ton of time from my work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Chin up - be positive! I am instinctively very intolerant of the people who do the Wikipolicing, quite a few of whom have no idea how to behave towards fellow human beings (or that fellow human beings exist). If nothing else you've made me appreciate all the hard work that some of those people are busy doing behind the scenes - while making me twice as intolerant of the ones who can't do the front-of-office work in the helpful, considerate and ultimately constructive way you do. Alright, breathe again, that's my unctuosity ration for today. But I'm even starting to feel pangs of guilt for all the sentences and paragraphs that must have passed through my system like nutmegs in the Indonesian forest Kate Humble was walking through yesterday. Opbeith (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. :) You've certainly helped to lift my spirits! (By the way, there's been no further action on that e-mail situation. My OTRS inbox remains empty. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping me posted anyway - I won't hold my breath! Opbeith (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Need your help again

Please have a look:Talk:2011 Chinese protests#VOA video file, the question whether VOA is a reliable source had been asked. Since this is the first time anyone had raised this question with me, I would very much appreciated your opinion on this matter. Thanks. Also, please comment on the US Army Signal Corps video files [9]. Would these video files also classified as US propaganda? Arilang talk 07:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, User:Arilang1234. :) I'm afraid that I can't really offer much enlightenment on that particular issue. So much is going to depend on how it is being used and for what; the VOA is certainly a "reliable source" for some subjects, but may be less so for others. What I would recommend that you do is neutrally open up the discussion at WP:RSN, explaining (or providing diffs to demonstrate) exactly what the VOA and the US Army Signal Corps videos are being used to source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Arilang talk 19:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

IP User:59.167.141.97's sudden and adamant action [10], and [11], destroying the combined effort of me, User:TheSoundAndTheFury, User:Carwil, User:PCPP, and User:C.J. Griffin, who had spended many long hours working between 4/1/2011 and 27/2/2011, see Talk:Great Leap Forward#The Indian/Chinese death toll comparison. Please give advice on dealing with this disruptive action by User:59.167.141.97. Arilang talk 13:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It does not look like vandalism as Wikipedia defines it (a deliberate attempt to compromise Wikipedia); it looks like a content dispute. I gather from the talk page that prior consensus was to remove that material, but as consensus can change, the specifics of that paragraph should be discussed to see if consensus still stands. Dispute resolution can be pursued as necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, like I said before, many long hours of hard working being destroyed by a few key strokes just make me angry. Arilang talk 13:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Understandable.:) If it is confirmed that consensus still supports the removal of the content, it should be swiftly resolved. If he continues restoring the material after consensus is confirmed, then there are issues with disruption. In the meantime, though, it has to be ironed out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you again, I shall go back to the talkpage to seek consensus, and try to get some result. Arilang talk 14:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

E-mail

Sent you one. Courcelles 21:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Sergei Magnitsky page

Hi User:Moonriddengirl,

I wanted to compliment you on a fantastic piece. I will be adding to it in the near future. I see that you are also an admin. That is a dream of mine. Do you have any advice on how I might become one?

Thanks, JamesChambers666 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, both for your kind words and for improving the article. :) I had never heard of Sergei Magnitsky before I was called in to address copyright problems in the article. Although we couldn't retain it because of those issues, I felt compelled after reading about him to write a new article. His story certainly moved me. :/
In terms of your becoming an admin, the first thing to do is to build some time in saddle, so to speak. :) Forgive me if I'm telling you stuff you already know; I see from your userpage that you have more experience than your time of registration would suggest, but I don't want to presume you know something and leave you floundering. :D
Administrators are in essence nominated (self-noms also work) for a community review procedure called request for adminship (RfA) during which all interested contributors are invited to scrutinize their history and edits and to question them to help determine if they have sufficient knowledge base and an appropriate temperament to be an admin. People there are looking for evidence of dedication to the process; I don't hang out much at WP:RfA, but if I were a new contributor I wouldn't even consider accepting a nom these days until I'd been on the project at least six months. I accepted my nomination a bit naively in 2007 a month shy of that figure, which I think added some challenge to the process. And I'm told that things are more rigorous now than they were then. :)
People like to see substantial contributions to articles to show that you understand what goes into developing them and that you will empathize with and respect content creators. Some people also like to see you take content through review processes, raising them to good article or featured article status, and/or generating new content for WP:DYK. Given your work on Magnitsky, I suspect that generating content won't be an issue for you, but there are other avenues to help the project for those who are not as confident in their writing. :)
Even if you are a focused content contributor, you should demonstrate your ability to work in the back channels of Wikipedia. People will want to see how you handle tension, because admins get lots of that. :) I myself like to see how people engage newcomers. I consider myself still a short-timer, having becoming active in the project only four years ago, but even in that short amount of time I've been able to see that we need a constant influx of new blood to keep things going. Making Wikipedia a welcoming environment is crucial, I think, to the continuing success of the project. I'd recommend putting in some time at the help desk, new contributors' help desk, Wikipedia:Drawing board, Wikipedia:Articles for creation or similar.
Looking at the back channels is where you might want to consider what your focus would be as an administrator. Basically, administrators evaluate content for deletion (sometimes summarily, sometimes after community discussion), address vandalism and assess community discussions. (There are a few other things we do, as discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators, but those are the biggies.) People will want to feel like you can be trusted in all those maintenance areas, but you certainly can specialize. There are many places to help out in those areas before you ever reach the position of running for adminship (new page patrol, helping out with copyright concerns, recent change patrol, deletion discussions, third opinions, to name a few). Working in some of those areas will help you really learn the policies and also give you a "resume", so to speak, that shows the kind of work you're capable of.
So, basically my advice comes down to this: (1) contribute content, (2) help people, (3) learn the policies and guidelines, and (4) contribute to the maintenance of the project.
If you have any questions about any of this, please feel free to ask. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I would love to talk to you more about all of this, but first I want to create a category for the Russian oligarchs, kind of analogous to the U.S. Congress or British parliament categories. Do you know how I might create this? Kind of like a guide to Russian politicians? JamesChambers666 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but I wonder if you might be able to help me. The "Justice for Sergei" Act names 60 individuals that have been banned from entry to the United States. Would it be possible to create a category for them and to write pages on them? It seems appropriate. JamesChambers666 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, hi! Sorry; I missed your note up here. I'm not quite sure how to answer your first question. :) Are you asking how to initiate a category? If so, it's pretty easy; you add Category:I'm just making stuff up to the bottom of the page and it will generate a redlink category for you. Go to it, and you can put it in parent categories directly by adding Category:Whatever is above it in hierarchy. You can use {{Cat exp}} to give an overview of the category so that people know what it's for.
In terms of your second question, it really depends on who these people are and whether they meet WP:BIO. Per WP:BLP1E, I suppose, some of them may not merit a separate article.
One problem, though: the Justice for Sergei Act has, so far as I know, not yet passed; I'm afraid the Newsweek story that reported it had was erroneous (see correction here). According to govtrack, it has not yet become law, and as of these two sources in November it was still proposed ([12]; [13]. Per this in December, it was still a proposal. I've altered the article a bit to accord with the sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm... One other question. How long until I can edit semi-protected pages? There is a lot I feel I can contribute and it's very frustrating to have so much of Wikipedia closed off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesChambers666 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It's usually four days and 10 edits. If you still can't edit semi-protected pages, I'm afraid you must be doing IP block exemption editing through Tor, which would mean 90 days and 100 edits. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple copyvio question

Hi there. Yesterday I removed the episode summaries from American Treasures, which were copied directly from the show's official website.[] I was curious what you thought about this diff, which compares what I removed with readded "reworded" summaries. To me it is still a copyvio--they are not reworded--some words have been eliminated to make the summaries simpler. Thoughts? Am I being overly picky? Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. That's a derivative work issue; you can't abridge somebody else's writing. I've explained at the article's talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ardalan Ashtiani

Hi

Do yo Remember me? :) I'm the one who asked you to help me recreating the Article Meghdad Ghobakhlou. Please move do the same with Ardalan Ashtiani, move it to my userpage till I can find sources for it and then recreate it.

Best Regards. Amirreza talk 21:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) It's at User:Amirreza/Ardalan Ashtiani. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks alot. :) Amirreza talk 20:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Archiving and a NOR discussion that touches on plagiarism

Hi Moonriddengirl! I know that the admirable essay you created on Close paraphrasing is near and dear to your heart :-) so I thought I'd mention that the MiszaBot archiving parameters for that its talk page seem kind of wonky to me. I've only fussed with MiszaBot once or twice, so perhaps I've misunderstood something, but is it really intended that the "archive" literal (parameter) should be set to the string "Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism/Close paraphrasing %(counter)d"? I don't see where the "Plagiarism" token (directory name) comes in, i.e. don't see why it should be embedded in the string at all. Perhaps it's moot because (also for reasons I don't understand) no actual archiving appears to have been done yet, but I thought you might like to know anyway.

Also, I noticed that the second post you made to the "original research" section of that essay's talk page would seem to inform and apply to two threads that concern the same attempt to change the wording of WP:NOR. ( You might like to search the page for the word "racking", to cut to the chase. ) If you decide to comment there at all, please have no hesitation about disclosing why you showed up, i.e. that I informed you of the matter. I'm not the least concerned about any accusation of canvassing in this instance, despite the regrettable ... "tension", let's say, between myself and another editor, that has unfortunately occurred in those two fairly short threads. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't create that essay. That's User:Dcoetzee. I just pitched in a bit. :) I'm sure I'm the one, though, who muffed the MiszaBot business. I tend to copy that kind of thing from other pages, and I probably copied it incorrectly. Hopefully I've fixed it. :D I'll take a look at the OR thread to see if there are copyright concerns that need to be brought up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I'll have to try reading through it tomorrow. I'm afraid it's been a long day, and I'm not quite on my A game. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I see it was Dcoetzee who created that essay. I must have looked at the history for its talk page, instead, where you did make the first edit. I won't be banned for misattribution, I hope? ;-)
Re possibly having a look at this, there's not the least rush; I know you do a very great deal of "heavy lifting" here, both in a policy sense and (to mix metaphors) on the front lines, keeping the barbarian hordes of mostly well-intentioned, mostly clueless copyright violators from overwhelming the kingdom. I'd send you on vacation to a land where there were no cameras and no written language for a few months, to recharge, if I could.
That's just my playful way of saying, "Thank you for the tremendously-needed and tremendously-substantial work I know you do here", of course, and that I certainly encourage you to take care of yourself and step back from this frequently childish, frequently wearing, mostly delightful place when you feel tired. I thought I'd just add that you might also like to search the page for the sentence, "Editors have caused lots of plagiarism drama by essentially basically just copying what the sources say, because those editors were trying not to violate NOR." But please don't bother if you have more important or more urgent priorities, at all. One can't do everything all by one's self, after all. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Daryl Hayott & T. Rodgers

Hi

Two questions this time:

Daryl Hayott - does the message at the top of his wikipedia page have to appear there? Is there another location that request can be made other than directly on his page?

T. Rodgers was another page I had submitted to wikipedia. He is well-known as one of the founders of the Los Angeles bloods gang. He has also done film work and has film credits on his IMBD page. This page was deleted. If I re-add him as an actor, would that be acceptable?

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomaca (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: I see from Tomaca's talk page that you promised to try to find someone to review one of the other articles s/he created, and that has been awaiting review since November of last year, viz. Billy Nichols. I don't mind doing so after I complete the promises I've made below. I anticipate I can give the unsourced Nichols article the investigation it needs, and perhaps some article-rescue-squadron-ish wikilove if I find that it merits that in terms of WP:MUSIC, etc., within the next two to three days, if you've not found anyone else who's willing to undertake the task before then. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
( talk-page stalker ) Hi, Tomaca. Moonriddengirl may want to respond to your questions as well; I'm just replying in the role that Wikipedia refers to as a "talk-page stalker", i.e. as just another volunteer editor who wants to help improve the encyclopedia. I'm sorry to have to tell you that the short answer to your first question, about the Daryl Hayott article is, "Yes, both the 'conflict of interest' and the 'additional citations needed for verification' notices do need to stay where they are for now, at the top of the article." There's no other place they can be located, and their presence there is appropriate and fully justified by Wikpedia's relevant policies.
I don't give that answer lightly: I've spent over an hour investigating the question. That is, I've spent over an hour looking for reliable sources to try to verify the claims currently made about Mr. Hayott in the article, to try to determine whether he qualifies as "notable" according to our very specific and rather exacting criteria for musicians. Despite searching multiple public and proprietary databases for information about him, I've been unable to verify any of those claims.
Further, your apparent role as a publicist for Mr. Hayott, and your extensive editing of the article about him does, in fact, necessitate the "conflict of interest" notice, at this time. I'll address this much more fully, either on the talk page for the Daryl Hayott article, or on your own talk page, almost certainly within 24 hours, and probably much sooner.
I've not yet looked carefully into the question as to whether T. Rodgers' career as an actor would meet the standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but will do so, and will reply when I post further information for you about the Hayott article. In the meanwhile, however, I'll observe that entries in IMDb aren't sufficient to support inclusion of a film professional in the encyclopedia. More to follow, soon, on your talk page or on the talk page for the Hayott article. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Your help here would be greatly appreciated, OhioStandard. Thank you very much. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarkson, Ohio

Confused, what was the licensing violation with this article? Talkback, please. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It was put into article space by User:Wikiapelli (here) but created in sandbox by User:Wikipelli. An easy distinction to miss. :) We have a serial license violator who is evidently now taken to impersonating users. See also the ANI report. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay; as you suspected, I missed the difference in the two names, so I thought you were objecting to Wikipelli copy/pasting information from his/her own sandbox. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Messy attribution

I think some history merge is needed, but... Sociological Perspectives (journal) was created as a copy & paste from Sociological Perspectives which was then turned into another article. If possible, the firt few edits from the history should be moved between the articles. At the same time, content from Sociological theory was pasted into Sociological Perspectives, and the theory article was redirected to SP. Sociological theory is a more correct name; after fixing the history merge, could you or another admin move Sociological Perspectives to sociological theory and merge their respective histories? I hope this is clear :) PS. Oh, and current SP article also incorporates content from Sociological paradigm... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good gracious. :) Let me get a Diet Coke and poke at this one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that's a  Done on Sociological Perspectives (journal). Next.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay; all done. Merged Sociological theory and Sociological Perspectives, moved back to Sociological theory because, no matter what, the capital P is wrong. Added a copiped tag to the talk pages of Sociological paradigm and Sociological theory. And good work figuring all this out, Piotrus! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi MRG. Ten related articles of the type Classic 100 chamber (ABC) have been taken to AfD here, largely on the grounds of non-notability. But I'm wondering if these should/could actually be deleted more quickly as copyvios. They are verbatim copies (albeit re-formatted to sortable columns and wikified) of ranked lists from the radio company's website. There is definitely a creative/subjective element to the company's compilation in that they are the results of their listener surveys. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Get back with you on this as soon as I finish the above...for all that lists make me want to run screaming in the other direction. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I loathe list articles. This question actually dovetails with a follow-up question I asked our interim counsel about surveys and their results. No one should be able to claim creativity in a survey, since it reflects the opinions of whatever number of people polled, but in a situation like this the ranking seems to be among a list of options offered by a single source--the radio company. That means that the options reflect creativity and so the whole should be protectable, but I wanted confirmation on that. I don't have it yet; in the interim, the safest thing to do is to pull these lists way down to accommodate fair use--say the top 5 or so? I'll work on that if you don't have time, but I've got to run at the moment. I've got to get a dog with a possible UTI to the vet in 15 minutes. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Moonriddengirl,

Can you please return my Festivals in Nigeria article which you deleted? My coursemates are interested in the article and might do some adjustments to the page.Cheers Earlymen (talk) 06:56,02 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Articles that were deleted for copyright problems cannot be restored. That particular article was found to host text copied from several different sources; it would need to be rewritten from scratch. While we do sometimes restore such articles temporarily (with the template which blanks them intact) if contributors intend to rewrite them and would find the contents in history useful in the doing, I'm not really clear from "might do some adjustments to the page" if that's what is proposed here. Are your coursemates planning to write a brand new article in the temporary space that would be provided for this? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverse plagiarism

Hi Moonriddengirl, I've uncovered a case where Wikipedia has been plagiarised without attribution. I know this isn't quite what you deal with, but thought you might be able to point me to the proper noticeboard (or tell me if Wikipedia even cares about cases like this?) Thanks, Sasata (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I care very much, mostly because these cases sometimes lead to inadvertent deletion of the content on Wikipedia. :/ The first thing to do is to place {{Backwardscopy}} at the talk page, up at the top. That makes it less likely that somebody will make that mistake. You can just copy your findings completely into the "comments" parameter; if you want help with that, please let me know! The second thing you can do is follow up at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. I generally do not do this unless I believe a source may copy multiple pages. I have never pursued non-compliance against a print publication; I sometimes do against web sites when the copying is extensive or it seems likely the website will comply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know about that handy template. I've documented it for the world to see (including, hopefully, the author and his editors/publishers). Sasata (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Persistent offender

Hiya, sorry to bother you but I just realised I don't know if there's a particular place to report a persistent copyright violator - AIV? I see User:Wtimrock was blocked by you back in November and 2 days ago created this copyvio. --BelovedFreak 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:CCI is the place you are looking for. MLauba (Talk) 10:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, it wasn't so much that I think an investigation needs to be started as such, although I could be wrong. Looking at his recent contribs, I couldn't see any obvious problems other than this one article created a couple of days ago. It's more that he's been warned and blocked before for this, so presumably he would be blocked again, and AIV didn't feel the right place to take it. --BelovedFreak 11:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I've indeffed. He was first warned about copyright policy in 2007 and in spite of the prior block shows no interest in following policy. Maybe this will get his attention and encourage him to take those concerns seriously. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid a CCI probably will be necessary. :/ I did a random spot check and the first (and so far only) article I looked at was pasted from the IMDb bio. I'm poking more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks and sorry... should have looked a little further. I only stumbled across it fixing disambiguation links. --BelovedFreak 13:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Nothing for you to be sorry about in this situation, unless it's general shared misery over the copyright problem. :D You're the one who detected that it was ongoing, which could save us a much bigger mess down the road. Timely intervention is crucial to keep these CCIs manageable. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I wish I helped out more with this copyvio stuff, but I do find it quite draining to be honest, makes me respect the amount of work you and others put into it even more! BTW, for future hypothetical situations, if I found someone who has created another copyvio after prior warnings/blocks etc, but there is no real problem as such to be sorted at CCI (and I've actually checked more thoroughly!), is there a better place to report them, or should I just use AIV?--BelovedFreak 13:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think WP:ANI is the place to go (and I link it like you need me to; such is the power of habit :D). But if it's a clear-cut situation, you can also just stop by here or probably the talk page of any admin who works in copyright. Really, there's not much more clearcut a preventative reason to block than repeated copyright infringements. (Copyright cleanup really can be draining; sometimes I go to ANI just for a change of pace. I find I feel guilty when I write articles instead; how messed up is that? :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that is messed up! :) Ok, I always forget about ANI, but that makes most sense. And, I know this isn't required to post here, but I'm making a mental note to help out more.... at least at WP:SCV, which is usually a bit more straightforward! Thanks for your help :) --BelovedFreak 13:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

National Dance Company of Wales

Hello. If you have time, please could you have a look at Talk:National_Dance_Company_Wales#Copyright_violations and comment if necessary? Thanks. (edit) The user is asking about adding a suitable licence to the NDCW website which you may be able to answer. --Mirokado (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC) --Mirokado (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Have done. :) Thanks for helping him out with this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

With regard to quotations / fair use

Something I'd like to get your view on: In The Shadow of the Wind#Critical reception the entirety of an Entertainment Weekly capsule review is quoted. In real life, I'd consider this a violation of fair use—like quoting the full text of a short copyrighted poem—even though it's enclosed in quotation marks and the source is cited; but perhaps I'm oversensitive about such matters. What do you think about this sort of thing on Wikipedia? Deor (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's too much. We are restricted by TOS and WP:NFC to "brief excerpts", and I've reduced it to that accordingly. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of Jewish control of the media

I was surprised to see the extent of some of the quotation used in the references there. I'm not saying it's necessarily inappropriate, but it might be something that somebody with an experienced eye should perhaps look over.

Note that there's been a fair amount of bad blood and unpleasantness on the talk page in the not too distant past, so you may find some editors there somewhat sensitised. Jheald (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. My first impulse is to think that's a real problem under NFC; on closer look, I see that there is a combination of quotations and commentary. There's probably better fair use defense here than many articles I look at. But I want to go do a word count on some of those sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd be interested in your comments on word count. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
What I found, or why I looked? :) I'll kind of cover both. There are no safe percentages in copyright; a little can be an infringement or a lot can be okay. It depends on the global use of the content. But the more you take, the riskier it becomes. I did word count on some of the books, particularly looking to make sure that multiple notes from one book were not cumulatively a greater issue. I checked the online sources; some were approaching but not quite crossing 10% of the total word count. If they had gone over 10%, I would have felt the situation more urgent. But, again, that's my own little bar and not a court-sanctioned one. :) (Of course, in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises the court found 300 to 400 words out of 500 pages to violate fair use. That was primarily because of other factors than substantiality, but it demonstrates pretty aptly that there's not really a magic number that is safe.) The numbers I found left me uneasy, but only enough that I felt I should ask if the quotes could be truncated. If there had been lengthier taking from single sources, I might have tagged or attempted to truncate myself, but in global context it didn't seem clear-cut to me. Most often when I'm asked to look at extensive notes of this nature, they are more decorative than anything else; their contents could be easily paraphrased with key phrases singled out for quotation. This one seems to be building academic discourse more than superseding its sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Muddle

Koudekerk aan den Rijn - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think I am missing some context here, but that article contained Dutch text copied from [14]. I have removed it as a copyvio. Yoenit (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Nope. You got it! Kittybrewster ☎ 11:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Yoenit. :) I've revdeleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Clan of Zhu

This is built up by copy and paste from other articles with no attribution. How do we sort out the attributions? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably with great difficulty. :/ Fortunately, it's a new creation, which means that mirrors will be at minimum. What I sometimes do in these cases is run the article through an external plagiarism engine. What it doesn't find, I can probably track down myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've gotten it all. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's great. I like the null edits and didn't know about the talk page templates. How did you determine which edits were from which article? Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Paragraph by paragraph, I plugged it into this free plagiarism checker. I usually use Earwig's tool, but the fact that it's configured to eliminate Wikipedia doesn't help here. :) The Plagiarism checker found the articles that matched for me. (You do have to remove citations.) The only issue I found was in determining whether Ming Dynasty or History of the Ming Dynasty was the origin of text, since there was duplication, but it turned out that History of the Ming Dynasty was created as an attributed split, so I went back to the point of origin. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is my first time editing Wiki. I've added a "See Also" section. Check it up! Selina502000 (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC) BTW, I created a new article called "House of Zhu". It's the same as "Clan of Zhu". That's why I deleted the contents of "Clan of Zhu", and redirected it to "House of Zhu". I do know sometimes I copied paragraphs from other Wiki articles, and I've tried my best to rearrange and rephrase them. So I hope you would not delete my works because I spent a lot of time editing these. Thank you for your consideration. Selina502000 (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I got your message. Actually, I'm the author of the "Clan of Zhu". I created this article. I just deleted it, and made a new article "House of Zhu". I'm just copy/paste my own article. I think it's fine. Selina502000 (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I got your message. I see what you mean now. I've already included "Ming Dynasty", "Hongwu Emperor", "Yongle Emperor" and "Zhu (surname)" in the "Also See" section. In this section, I've included all WiKi articles I referred to. Sorry for my misunderstanding. Check it up to see whether it is OK or not.Selina502000 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Camelot (TV series)

Hi,Moonriddengirl -- Just saw the banner you posted over the plot section for the article, Camelot (TV series), indicating it is paraphrasing of one copyrighted description from the Starz website. I actually used quotes from 4 different sites, referencing them all, and where words were taken directly from the sites, I included them in quotation marks as direct quotes linked to the reference. I purposely tried to avoid "original research" by using direct quotes set within my description, and tried to avoid violating copyright by comingling the four sources. I thought I had done this carefully -- and successfully. Please look one more time? :) NearTheZoo (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick PS - just want back and reworded first paragraph (the one strictly based on Starz.com) and took down the banner. Please double check to see that it is now ok! NearTheZoo (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) The problem was in the first paragraph, really, and I noticed that you had already cleaned up the copy-paste issue. I appreciate that. The difficulty with close paraphrasing is that copyright goes beyond protecting against verbatim reproduction; it also protects against "derivative works"--works that follow too closely in language or structure. When rewriting to avoid copyright problems, it's really best to do a major overhaul. The first couple of sentences followed pretty closely on the structure of the source, but especially in content like this:
I don't believe it was at all the level of a copyright problem, but it needed to be rewritten a bit more to separate it from that source. Your rewrite eliminates all concerns. :) Thank you very much! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank YOU! I like to keep learning! :) NearTheZoo (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ridda wars

I happened to stumble on a new user's assertion of plagiarism, actually sounds like copyright violation; but, I don't have the reference listed. I don't feel that I can assert anything by Template:Cv-unsure on the Ridda wars page since I'm only a reader in this case. If you can provide some direction to the new editor, I'd feel better about this situation. I have placed a welcome message on the user's talk page. Thanks.SBaker43 (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's a challenge. I'll see if I can figure something out through the snippet view of the book. Sometimes I ask at the resource exchange, but with this particular source I worry that it may be hard to find somebody with access to it. :/ I'll see what I can do about it tomorrow, when I'm a bit more on my game. :) Thanks for following up on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

100 000 edits

100 000 Edits
I, Zidane tribal, award Moonriddengirl this (kind of) unique star for reaching 100 000! (Yes, I stalk your edit count) You are fantastic. Indispensable to the project and you are dressed in opals and rags, feathers and torn taffeta you know strange songs and you are so very kind."

I think you can call me a Groupie, i really look up to you and find inspiration in your words and work. Is an honor to be you acquaintance. Zidane tribal (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you are so kind! :) Thank you! You are very welcome to stalk my edits, and, for what it's worth, I peek in on you now and again as well. I'm always glad to see that you're still working away on Wikipedia. Your dedication is truly admirable. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Congrats, MRG! And you don't look a day over 40,000 edits! Drmies (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL! I'm glad to hear I carry my edit count well. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

hi

dear I'm Khalil Hamra .. first of all.. not me who made that page of me with my info .. people i don't know made it .. and it was very helpful and i used it allot with news papers and companies i work for . i just want to know why did u delete it ?

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.252.76 (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The problem with that article, I'm afraid, was in its creator. Wikipedia, as you probably know, is built by volunteers, but we do have some policies which we are all required to follow. Among them, we cannot copy content from previously published sources unless we can verify that they are public domain or compatibly licensed (although we can use quotes; for the more complete explanation see Wikipedia:Copy-paste). This particular individual was a serial copyright infringer; in spite of repeated requests that he stop, he continued building articles by cobbling together pieces of previously published materials without regard to Wikipedia's policies. Accordingly, his account was blocked from contributing. When that happens, a person is not welcome to contribute to Wikipedia anymore. When it was discovered that he had created another account to persist in his behavior (the account was discovered because of his further violations of copyright policy), all of the articles he created under that new account (with a few exceptions) were deleted. Unfortunately, this one was among them.
In cases such as this, deletion does not reflect in any way on the subject of the article but only on the creator, who knew that he was not permitted to edit but chose to do so anyway.
Ordinarily, I would recommend that you write a new article, but Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. Under the circumstances, I'll be happy to create a new, short article on you later today based on such reliable sources as I can find. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I have created an article based on what I could find. Unfortunately, it is hard to create articles on journalists sometimes because you are heavily represented in news searches, but generally as an author. Your prominent award certainly helps. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo comparison

Hi, User:Reaper Eternal has suggested I seek advice from you on the following. I've copy/pasted my original query from that user's talk page:

If you have a minute could you please take a quick look at the pic under the heading "Stratford" at [15] and compare with [16].

I think that they are the same photo but one is a cropped version of the other. I have concerns because all of the photos at University of East London display the characteristics of having been taken by a professional and the person who is claiming ownership of most of them on Commons is an editor who, until my recent work, appears to have committed numerous copyvios in that article. Of course, the editor in question could be a pro photographer but the tone of language used by him/her suggests to me that s/he is a student there (eg: the person left a msg on my talk page - here.

UEL claim copyright so even if the editor did take the thing, and UEL used a cropped version, then it is a bit worrying to me, AGF or no AGF.

Thanks - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm working on it right now. A few of his images on Commons have been deleted since I found copies; another tagged. I'm considering that a bulk deletion request at Commons might be appropriate, but I'm still scoping it out. I'll update you soon. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Bulk deletion was going to be my next suggestion in the event that you agreed with me. This person (who is female, BTW) has committed so many text copyvios that I'd be very wary of any image uploads if even one turned out to be a vio. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
It's already up and going at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of S naylor89. Evidently, User:Wknight94 was looking over this girl at the same time as I was or noticed some of the content I tagged, one. :) I'm considering whether a request to block the user would be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a bit of a shame because she only edited UEL articles but she was a repeat offender and also didn't seem to be paying much attention to other guidelines/policies. What happens about all the images that are still on the UEL articles? Presumably they'll suddenly disappear (bulk delete) or some poor soul is going to have to go through each one? Even the graduation photo is a copyvio - from a Flikr "all rights reserved" account. I'm new to this aspect of WP. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, her fate is in the hands of the Commons admins, who may decide that a block is unnecessary at this time. And if she is blocked, she may be blocked temporarily or may negotiate a release of her block if she indicates that she'll stop. Deletion debates can remain open on Commons for a loooong time. Once it is concluded, if the conclusion is to delete, some admin will have to go through and click the boxes to delete each one. I believe a bot removes them from our article, but I think a human has to take out the captions, etc. Please take the one that you've found over to Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of S naylor89. The specific image should be tagged {{copyvio|source=url}} on the Commons image page, but documenting it at the deletion debate will help establish the pattern. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Got it, done it. Thanks very much for your help and patience in explaining etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for following up with your concerns. :) The longer situations like this go unaddressed, the harder they become to clean up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Help...

Hi MRG--I have some sort of technical problem, I think. I'm trying to upload the cover for Uniko (album) but seem unable to do so. I have something, File:Kronos Uniko cover.gif, but it's nothing, and when I try to replace it with something else "stolen" from the internet I get some remark about MIME types or so. Can you help? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. If you're up for trying all over again, I'll delete the whole thing. If it doesn't work, I'll see if I can find out why. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please do. Squank you! Drmies (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, done. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks MRG--I've got it working now. Note the first reference, to the Quartet's website--follow the link to where they offer a free track. I just heard "Plasma" and it's really, really good. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Very nice. :) (My crappy headsets notwithstanding. :P) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

<--I'm glad you enjoyed it. Say, administrator, is there something hidden from sight that won't allow me to create Henryk Górecki: String Quartet No. 3 ('...songs are sung')? The search results won't let me create it--I can only created it with two periods, apparently. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

List of The Bad Girls Club episodes

Please advise this person User talk:Chocolate911 to stop vandalizing this article. He continues to add unsourced claims and undo my reverts. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like somebody beat me to that one. :) Down for three days, and very likely to be longer if it continues after. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

March 8

Hey Moonriddengirl, I am so all over International Women's Day. I think I have three DYKs for that day. Writing articles like Wim Hora Adema makes me realize how far we've come, and how incredibly important such women were. I owe them a debt of gratitude. Why am I telling you this? I don't know--maybe just because I am pleased that our wikilove-child (boy or girl) will grow up in a slightly better world. Oh, and thanks for all your help the last few days, with various administrative matters. Have a great Sunday, and perhaps you can say a prayer for the women of Afghanistan. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As one of the women of the world, I thank you for helping make it a better place. :) And the women of Afghanistan, sigh. We still have a long way to go. :( Thanks for all you do; you've been tremendously helpful with copyright issues lately, and congrats on the DYK pile-up! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been helpful? Thanks! As for the rest, credit goes to my wife, my mom, and various other women in my life including the Lady. And credit also to Sonja Barend--I grew up watching her, as I grew up reading Annie M.G. Schmidt and Anna Blaman (a redlink! aiaiai. there's a challenge for you). Well, that's enough for now. MRG, I'm glad the Lady introduced us. Later, Drmies (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Abdullah page

All copyright violations reported have been corrected and removed. Please remove the copyright statement. (Mni9791 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC))(Mni9791 (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

Iffat page

All copyright violations on this page have been completely removed. Not a single copyright violation at all, to the best of my knowledge. (Mni9791 (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

Hi, it's me again, sorry. I'm still champing at the bit with regards to copyvios etc on University of London and its related articles. I'm not sure why, since I have no inherent interest. On the other hand, no inherent interest is often a plus in this sort of thing.

Anyway, my query ... If a logo is modified by adjusting its physical dimensions (pixel width/height) but maintaining the same h/w aspect ratio, and is also modified by reducing the colour depth then might that still be a copyvio? I suspect that since the changes are, for all intents and purposes, a deliberate attempt to circumvent copyright and do so in a "snide" manner, then it is in fact a copyvio. OTOH, this is all about logos and I seem to recall seeing somewhere that logos are often a special case.

Believe me, it is not my intention to seek problems nor to concentrate on images - they're generally quite low on my to-do list - but this particular issue is all part of a wider pattern in relation to UEL and, well, I am clueless. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Altering an image just creates a derivative work, so, yes, it still creates a copyright problem. The question with logos comes down to whether they are creative enough for copyright protection to exist or, if not, whether they can be used under Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guidelines. I am not as strong in images by a long shot as I am in text, so it can be difficult for me to judge creativity in visuals. I usually ask for feedback from the folk on Commons, since they do a lot with this kind of thing and since ultimately it's their neighborhood. :) If the image is hosted on Wikipedia, I'd just alter it to a non-free claim. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
That's great, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi MRG. YouTube seems to have a new feature - an "artist identity" with a brief biography and links to all videos of them on YouTube. Here's an example. However, these are not the same as official YouTube channels run by an artist, recording company, or operahouse, e.g. this one, and the vast majority of videos are pirate/copyvios. Two new editors, [17] and [18] have added these to hundreds of articles at a furious pace, and one has even made several templates for them, e.g. Template:YouTube artist. Before I start reverting them on all the opera singer articles, I'd like your opinion on whether my reverts are justified per WP:ELNEVER. I'd like to assume good faith, but I'm also beginning to wonder if there are COI/spamming issues as well. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're very justified under WP:ELNEVER. It would be lovely if those videos were all legit, but they blatantly aren't. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mark Rudman Article

Hey Moonriddengirl,

A while ago now you deleted the article i'd put up for mark rudman because the information had been lifted from his personal website. The thing is, i was intentionally using the website as a base at the behest of mr. rudman. If i demonstrate permission from Mr. Rudman, is it acceptable to base the article off his website?

thanks for your time,

Zacheyman (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Zac

Thanks for your note. I've answered at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Interesting argument about releasing contributions under the applicable license

An interesting argument was put forth that hiding the release statement would allow a user to contribute without appropriately licensing their contributions. Perhaps you could comment? –xenotalk 19:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. I may not get to look until tomorrow, though. I had work day from the netherworlds of your choice today. :P I'm not sure my reasoning skills are functioning. Certainly default hiding would be problematic; optional hiding could be an issue if terms change, I suppose. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

CC problem

Hi Moonriddengirl, while trying to improve File:Qera.jpg I eventually became aware of the fact that the image is licensed under Creative Commons but not "share alike"; this one is "no changes" and "non-commercial" which is unfit for Commons as I know. But it seems that also en.wiki needs permission to change an image and use it commercially. So I think we better dump the file. I'm also going to notify the original uploader. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I've come across the appropriate speedy deletion tag now. Problem solved. De728631 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get on in time to save you some searching! FWIW, we have WP:GID to help with those. Thanks for your attention to the issue. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Franziska Lechner

I have a permission - I wrote it in Discussion:

"You are welcome to use information about our Mother Foudress, Mother Frannziska Lechner We are praying hard for her beatification. Sr. M. Thomas More FDC"

From: "info@sisters-fdc.org.uk" <info@sisters-fdc.org.uk>

--Josinj (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note; I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Do you have time to please check & confirm that my addition of this external link to Wikipedia articles (e.g. here & here) does not violate copyright law? As you can see, the link leads to the Official Youtube Nollywood Movies Channel. All movies on that channel are legally obtained, fully licensed and free. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that link leads to a category, which may include movies uploaded by others. (If not now, than in the future.) To link to the official channel, you need to link [19]. The company claims to license the content (and [20]), so linking to them should not be an issue from a copyright standpoint. It would be good to kind of keep an eye on them, though; if there's ever any indication that this is not true, the links should be yanked. :) And I would strongly recommend noting the licensing link in a hidden comment or at the talk page of the article, because this situation is unusual enough at this point to potentially cause confusion! Some ofthese links are likely to be removed under a mistaken but good-intentioned concern for copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
(Using the word "official"as you have done may suffice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC))
Thanks very much for the information. I've added a hidden comment in the said articles as you've recommended. Amsaim (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

Hi MRG,

Would you mind taking a peek at Talk:Camberwell Public Baths where I have been accused of paraphrasing and possible COI? There was similarity in the first sentence of the text being quoted but as I look at it again, after changing that first sentence (which I have just done) I can see little need to change anything else according to what we would normally consider paraphrasing. I accept that I may be too close to the text to see the wood for the trees but another pair of eyes may be quite helpful. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Fæ.:) I'm sorry for the stress of the situation. :/ I'm happy to take a look and offer some feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that's kind of a challenging one, where we meet the tension between low creativity (on their side) and the need for completeness (on ours). I think that's all pretty successfully straddled in the early parts of the text. Where I see issues that would concern me are under the part that begins "Reception and entrance foyer...." In this case, the structure follows very closely on the original. For instance, "Reception and entrance foyer have been renovated to ensure compliance with the disability guidelines including a hearing induction loop and visual impairment amendments" almost seems like an abridgement of the source's "The reception area and entrance foyer have been renovated to ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act guidelines and in addition the centre has introduced a hearing induction loop and visual impairment amendments" (Since I have to link something, I found that quote here; not sure where he found it :) Bolding add it for illustrative purposes). While I consider it something like reaching around behind your back to scratch your elbow, rewriting stuff like that works best if you shake up the structure as well as the language. Generally, I'll try to turn the whole paragraph topsy-turvy by finding some other way to approach the material. In this case, I might look at the list of improvements and characterize them by the nature of the improvements. Off the top of my head, for instance, maybe that would be "Changes to the facilities generally addressed customer comfort and convenience, particularly around the needs of the disabled, and energy efficiency. The latter improvements include structural refurbishing and the addition of new electricity supply with energy saving lighting." (etc.) Of course, there are other viable ways to do this. The basic idea, though, is that it may not always be safe to follow in their footsteps even if they've chosen arguably the best way to present the information, as it reflects their choice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll have another crack at re-phrasing along the lines you suggest in the next day or so. I was disappointed to see Jezhotwells' pointy comment in their review and have said so at User_talk:Jezhotwells#Camberwell_Baths as it is not what I would like to see in the reactions of a GA reviewer and this is the first time that the process has been a negative experience for me. Thanks for your practical advice. Cheers Fæ (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry it's been a negative experience. :( I find that this issue can be particularly uncomfortable since there's always going to be a level of subjectivity in evaluating this and since people who care about these kinds of issues (like you) can understandably be distressed to have that called into question. Too, as with other subjective evaluations, there's always going to be good faith disagreement in reviewers both as to whether there is a problem and, if so, how serious a problem it is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't get the wrong end of the stick, the bad experience was not having the article critiqued for potential paraphrasing, it was in the middle of the GA review being accused of COI and then having a pointy comment saying that I do not understand basic copyright of Wikipedia text. Considering that I am an OTRS volunteer it is not easy to let such allegations pass by unchallenged without appearing incompetent. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Then I am off a bit. :) I didn't assume it was the critique, though, I presumed it was the strong divergence in opinion about the status of the piece (copyright okay versus blatantly not), which is why I mention the subjectivity of this particular work. I've seen stuff show up at CP marked as a copyvio for close paraphrasing that I myself found at worst superficially similar; I've also seen content restored to articles by others as "okay" that I thought was blatantly over the line. Sometimes when working at CP we do gut checks by asking other admins to check rewrites in particular. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sanity check

Could you do a sanity check of my actions at Isua greenstone belt. As most of it is very close paraphrasing rather than exact copy and past I'd appreciate you looking it over. Cheers. Dpmuk (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You've got some very clear examples of close paraphrasing at the talk page. The only thing I would suggest is that you pull your table down to fewer details. It's better to show clearer examples, I think, and to explain why the other content concerns you (presumably because it was placed by the same guy and so copyright can't be assumed). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, done. So you'd agree that reverting to the old version was sensible - it's too technical a subject for me to do a rewrite and I do think we're closer enough to the sources for it to be serious enough that we need to get rid of it. Dpmuk (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if you were not able to yank out the stuff by that one contributor, unless you choose to blank it with {{copyvio}} to request that contributors rewrite it, but frankly unless the page is heavily edited this is probably just as effective an approach, and maybe better. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nagging suspicions

So my bot caught a duplicated article this morning which revealed a copyvio original article which revealed a history of copyvio warnings (and no block until now, ugh) which led me to a few other recent copyvios. I haven't compiled enough evidence to open a CCI since Dcoetzee's Contribution Surveyor isn't working for me at the moment (I've already asked him about it). In the meantime though I have a question which I thought you might be able to help with: Have there been any repeat offenders with a focus on Pakistani bilateral relations before? I didn't see any open CCIs which matched up but I keep thinking I've seen the pattern somewhere before. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember anybody with a hard focus, but some of the User:Siddiqui socks have gone there in part of the general focus on Pakistan. I can't remember what article, but I do recall there was one resurrected from User:AlphaGamma1991 or one of his variants (User:Marduking?) that made me suspect sock that turned out not to be. This might be worth asking at User talk:John Vandenberg, since I think John retained info on the IP involved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I had that thought given the Pakistan focus, but the editor-in-question - QadeemMusalman (talk · contribs) - was active at the time that some of the sleeper checks were run on Siddiqui, so it doesn't appear to be them and I don't have any other indication that they're a sock, just a bit of déjà vu. <shrug> I'm just as happy to not have to deal with more SPIs. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Me, too! I've been making a strong effort to get through Siddiqui in my spare time, and I'd prefer not to have to expand it with a new sock. :/ Better for morale, somehow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Very prolific

Hello Moonriddengirl:

I chanced upon a long list of contributions made on Jan. 15 of this year by editor Marekzp. Based on the sheer amount of text added to some articles ( those with edit notes "Information ... added" and "Note ... added"), in about six hours, I wonder where it all came from. If it is original, the editor is very prolific.

Some of the same text is on wn.com but where it originated from, I don't know. Perhaps you can take a look at it. Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Tough one. :/ wn.com is a Wikipedia mirror (see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#World News Network), so we can safely exclude them. I haven't found a source but will poke some more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


Proto-Indo-Europeans

This edit [[21]] seems pretty clearly copyvio. I've already reverted twice on OR issues here (using sources that don't discuss the specific subject), so I'd appreciate it if you'd confirm that it is copyvio. I'm hesitant to revert a 3rd time. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

For sure, this is a copyvio. I'm checking to see if it's been sufficiently altered subsequently from [22] or if we now have a derivative work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Removed. I'm with you here; this is not a 3RR issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I should have been bolder. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar


 The Barnstar of Diligence
for your very hard work in helping to define copyright for lists, and your efforts to stay in good humor throughout. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Philippe. :) It can be disheartening, always being the bearer or bad news, and I appreciate your support and your assistance in connecting our legal counsel. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


Request to take a look at Michael Arthur Worden Evans

Hi, Moonriddengirl. It seems like I am constantly coming to you on issues of copyright violations (heh). Could you take a look at Michael Arthur Worden Evans? The article at 23:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC) was a heavy copyright violation, being a cut-and-paste job from three sources. I tagged it with {{db-g12}} and alerted three of what I saw as the heavier contributors.[23] One of them came back, removed the tag, and rewrote the article, which seems to be safe.[24] However, the copyright violation material are still in the older revisions. I am uncertain if the problematic material in the history should be left alone, so I am alerting you to this. Jappalang (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I leave it; sometimes I don't. The worse it is, the more likely I am to delete it. I rev-deleted the troublesome edits. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


Linking to a site containing copyvio

I can't recall what we do in cases where there is clear copyvio on a site, eg [25] which is a copy of a Sunday Telegraph article. Can we link to other pages? It's being discussed at User talk:Paul Bedson#Linking to copyvio. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally, yes, we can link to other pages depending on the value of the site overall. I'll come take a look at the particulars. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, have read. Precedent here is really Youtube, I think. We know that there are lots of pages on Youtube that violate copyright, but we don't have a blanket ban against it because it also contains much usable and useful content. On the other hand, http://www.azlyrics.com/ should be blacklisted. (And maybe I'll get on that next. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Marini at the Hirshhorn.jpg

Honestly? I wouldn't know where to begin. I uploaded that image, and a few others, without knowing about freedom of panorama; someone mentioned it to me, whereupon I promptly stopped. I'm not sure if an argument can be made for keeping it. Personally, I think a possible tactic would be to hold that the statue is standing on federal land (the National Mall), and that therefore it, too, is covered by public domain. While that's thin ground - and while the Hirshhorn, being part of the Smithsonian, is not technically fully federal (as I understand) - I've seen a similar argument being made for the Boy Scout memorial on the Ellipse. And that image was kept, over at Commons.

Put it this way: if it's removed, I won't be broken up about it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, neither was the fellow who crafted the Boy Scout memorial, as I recall. I think that was a private commission. Anyhow - thanks for the help. I don't mind seeing it listed somewhere (anywhere) to get some feedback. I would like to keep it if possible, merely to have an illustration of the artist's work, as I don't know what else may be available. Though regardless, at this point I just stick to taking pictures of trees and things. :-)
Let's go with WP:PUF for now and see what happens - thanks for the suggestion. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. I'll sit back and let it take its course for now, see what happens.
Thanks for the hand-holding; I'm ashamed to admit that even now I'm sometimes baffled by the minutiae of non-article-space 'round these parts. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I usually just stand at the corner, forlorn and wailing...I find that helps. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Yesterday, I wrote an article about William F. Moran in doing so, there were two key pieces I may have "too closely paraphrased" to one of the sources (another online encyclopedia article). One of which was pretty detailed about a school that was founded and named after him in a specific location, etc I probably followed this closer than I normally would as I did not want to hose up the names in the wikilinks. I ended up rewriting the piece hereTalk:William_F._Moran/Temp to the degree that I pulled out the material in question. The only similarity I feel it has to the source I was accused of plagurizing is that they are both summary-style biographical sketches of a custom knifemaker who died 5 years ago. Can you take a look at it when you get a chance? Thanks in advance.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that this has been resolved. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It was, thanks anyway!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Request re. Henry Curtis-Bennett

Hello. I realise that you're a busy sort, but could you please take a look at the copyright question at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rodhullandemu/Henry Curtis-Bennett? It concerns a userified copy of the article Henry Curtis-Bennett, which was deleted via Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 January 12. Thanks. --10:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.237.87 (talk)

Thanks. I got so hung up on the note below yours that I'm afraid I overlooked that I had older messages for a while. Sorry for the delay. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Two-piece.JPG

i thought i provided a rationale. i am concerned by your comment "Its use in Two-Piece Reclining Figure: Points is purely decorative; this is currently a two-sentence stub, and there is no critical evaluation of the artwork whatsoever".
is not an image the best way to show a work of art? are all stub articles not to have non-free images? is not the 10 points a sufficient rationale, or must the lesser template be used, which leaves out information? i have no idea if i have "successfully addressed the concern". i rely on the non-free 3D tag. Slowking4 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. An image may be the best way to show a work of art, but that doesn't mean that legally we can display the work of art. Fair use in the United States considers four factors, each of which work together. The one that concerns me here is "Purpose and character". When an image of piece art is displayed alongside critical commentary, the usage of the artwork becomes transformative. When it's simply used to note that a piece of art exists, it is probably not. For a random examplean article that offers critical commentary on a piece, Lansdowne portrait (while far more developed than you probably need be) not only displays the image but analyzes it. If the image were still under copyright, a fair use defense would probably be considerably easier to mount in such circumstances than simply in an article that notes a painting exists and where it is hung. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
this is a good point, but i followed the policy. do you wish to revise the policy to incorporate your "transformative" requirement, that is not there now? this is a sculpture in public space, 3D not 2D. even the atomium is relaxing their copyright claims. let me know what your requirements are clearly, so i can comply. Slowking4 (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Lacking critical commentary, it doesn't meet WP:NFCI: "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." See also Wikipedia:NFC#Applied to Wikipedia: " However, to be more certain of avoiding legal liability, and to understand the meaning of Wikipedia policy, editors should consider the legal rules as well. See fair use for further information, and the Stanford University summary of relevant cases, on the subject of fair use. Non-free material is used only if, in addition to other restrictions, we firmly believe that the use would be deemed fair use if we were taken to court." As you agree that it's a good point, I would recommend that you bring it in line by adding critical commentary to the article to sustain the use of the image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Is a nursery rhyme from 1930`s ukraine copyrighted? Father Stalin look at this was deleted as a copy right infringement but I do not see how it can be given the age of it. Tentontunic (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not automatically public domain unless it was published before 1923. Let me look a little more deeply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Feh. This old, international stuff is a pain in the neck. :/ Do you have any idea who wrote it or in what year it was first published? Ukrainian copyright law protects for the term of life of the author + 70 years. If the work is published anonymously, it protects for 70 years from first publication. Complicating things, if the author died before January 1951, it would be PD (see Commons:Template:PD-Ukraine). Complicating things further, it may be public domain in the Ukraine but not in the United States because of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The author is unknown. It was a nursery rhyme from 1930. Thats all I know of it. The Bloodlands book puts first usage at 1930-1933 time. Tentontunic (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I just can't tell you definitely. :/ It could very well still be under copyright in the U.S. (which is what really matters here, since we are bound by U.S laws) if it was published first in 1930. Cornell has a handy little chart, here. As it says, if it was published outside the U.S. without compliance with U.S. formalities and if on 1 January 1996 it was in the public domain in the Ukraine, it would be public domain here. But if it was published anonymous in 1930, it wouldn't have been public domain until 2000, which would miss the Uruguay Round Agreements Act cut-off. In that case, it would be copyrighted a kind of staggering 95 years after publication date--or until 2025. For now, you might need to create an article that does not include the text of the nursery rhyme but just talks about it. And I'm sorry that I don't have better news. Copyright law is a bit crazy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Can it still be used if attributed? As in, state categorically that it was published in Snyders book? It is a damn shame to have this deleted as I was still expanding on it. Tentontunic (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Not in accordance with our policies, I'm afraid. You can quote a little bit of it, but not the entire nursery rhyme, unless we can find enough information to prove it is public domain. For example (drawing on what you already had going), you might say something like, "The first line addresses Joseph Stalin, leader of the soviet union at the time of Holodomor, directly as "Father Stalin."[1] The second line introduces the theme of the Collective Farms which the Ukrainian peasants were being forced onto at the time.[2] Subsequently lines describe the failures of the farms with nothing to sustain the child left by parents forced onto the kolkhoz except "Just your picture on the wall." That kind of thing. (I don't know what the sources talk about.) If you'd like, I can return the article you had to you without the nursery rhyme for further development. It seems like a pretty powerful poem on a horrific event worth documenting, and it would be a shame not to have coverage on it. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I should like that very much, thank you. The reason I created the article was for the very reasons you articulated, a powerful poem on an horrific event. Tentontunic (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay; I've put it at User:Tentontunic/Father Stalin just so you can expand it a bit without fearing it'll get tagged for something. :) Of course, you can move it into article space whenever you think it's ready. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I came here on the same issue, to ask you to look at User talk:Tentontunic#Father Stalin and confirm that I had advised the user correctly. Also, does translation establish a new copyright? I couldn't find any definite statement about that. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yes, unfortunately, I agree that the content was not usable. And, yes, translation most definitely does establish a new copyright, even if the original poem is public domain. (It's a derivative work issue.) If we did manage to prove that this poem was without copyright, we'd have either had to find an English version out of date or translate it from scratch. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
That is interesting, if Professor Snyder gives permission can it be used? I have mailed him about it already to ask were he sourced it from you see. Tentontunic (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid, because the original is not public domain (or, at least, we can't prove it is). If we could prove that the original were public domain, then we could certainly ask him to and use it if he permitted. The way the law is at the moment, we would need permission from both the copyright holder of the original work and the copyright holder of the translation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
But whomever wrote the original more than likely died in the Holodomor, or the war just after it. If he responds (He is currently in DC on a talk about the book) with the source for the poem, and it proves the author died in the 30`s even then we may not use it? How can there be a copyright holder if he is dead? I am sorry to be taking up so much of your time with this. Tentontunic (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
As I explained above, copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author--even longer in the US if the material was not public domain by 1996. But as I also pointed out, there is an exception in the Ukraine if the author died before January 1951. But we have to be able to prove who the author was and that he died before January 1951. It doesn't help if the author is unknown and we assume that the author died in the Holodomor or shortly after. We would need evidence. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, unfortunately user the four deuces is of the opinion that it is not worthy of wikipedia. [26] Looks like there shall be no article on this nursery rhyme after all. Tentontunic (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Extensive quotations

So I was looking at Cyril Heppleston which got tagged at SCV and think I've stumbled onto some overly-extensive quotations but I wanted to run it past you before I acted. The quote (at the bottom of the article) is the entirety of his entry in the Golden Book of Cycling. The book is old (earliest entries are from the 1930s) and doesn't appear to have a copyright notice, but since there's only one copy of the book (per the article) it wasn't "published" until it was put on the web which would make it still copyrighted and so the extensive quotations at both of those articles (and probably more) are in violation of WP:NFC. Do you and/or your stalkers agree with that assessment or have I gone off the rails somewhere? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree; it should be truncated per WP:NFC unless we can verify that it is no longer under copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

New Editing Toolbar

Hi Moonridden,

I don't know if you can help me or not, but I figured that if questions are in order, finding an administrator would be the place to enquire. I don't if the same thing has been happening to you but with the new Editing Toolbar that has recently replaced the old one, many of the features (if not all of them), do not seem to work - actually it appears all of them do not work. I was enquiring if you are familiar with this issue? And if you are, can you please direct me to where I might find a solution? I have always seen your name on various articles so that is why I chose you to ask, as I don't really have communication (certainly of a regular sort) with anyone on Wikipedia. I appreciate any help you are willing to offer or any virtual direction you suggest that I may travel in. Thanks...

Best Regards,

Steve Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm happy to try to help, but likely doomed. :) I just bungle about with the systems and have to run for help routinely. What I would recommend you do is ask at the help desk WP:HD; there are a wide variety of people there who may be able to nail down the issue. If they can't, I'd ask at WP:VPT. I don't really use the editing toolbar; I can never remember to. :/ But I just now took a quick tour through what I have, and it seems to work. But for all I know I've disabled something so that mine is the old one. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You might consider simply disabling the new edit toolbar at Special:Preferences → Editing → uncheck "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" –xenotalk 20:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Xeno! Hey, if you have a moment, can you go stalk at User talk:LessHeard vanU? If you know anything about rangeblocks. I just asked him about them, but he can't help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Mario Moonriddengirl, your princess rangeblock expert is in another castle =) –xenotalk 20:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Thanks anyway. It's worth a try. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello,

my name is <redacted>[User:Former user 9172] and i am a editor in wikipedia. I saw that you have blocked my user account.

I would like you to look at the following pages that i have created : http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Weiler http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dimitris_Reppas * http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Michalis_Karchimakis * http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Spyros_Kouvelis http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Milena_Apostolaki * http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Giorgos_Petalotis * http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Litsa_Kouroupaki * http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Evi_Christofilopoulou http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Haris_Kastanidis * http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Haris_Pamboukis http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Giannis_Diamantidis * http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Pavlos_Geroulanos *

I would like you to look at the "View History" section of these pages.

The pages that have the star sign on their right side, are being constantly vandalized by specific users.

I was trying to protect these pages, but i do not know how. I read all these pages in wikipedia related to page protection and i tried a few methods such as Wikipedia:PAGE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), as well as {{protect:NAME}} , but i did not manage to protect them.

Yesterday i contacted the secretary of the Panhellenic Socialist Movement and informed him about these vandalisms and ask him to take legal actions to stop these people.

Today i contacted mrs.Litsa Kouroupaki, as well as mr.Haris Kastanidis and reported to them these incidences as well, however it seems that they did not manage to take any actions.

A few hours ago, i contacted wikipedia in +14158396885 and informed them as well. The person that i spoke to, said that i should write a letter to info@wikimedia.org. . He told me though, that the persons that operate this account are volunteers and not an employee of wikipedia, so it is usually taking time until some action will be taken, in order to stop these users from vandalising theses pages. I asked him as well whether he knows what shall i type in order to protect these pages, but he replied to me that he doesn't know.

In case that you will go back to the "View History" section, you will see, that it is not me that it is vandalising, or performing disruptive editing on these pages, but the people that are editing them after me.

You can look at this page as well : http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Andreas_Loverdos , to understand, that even an unknown user, reverted the actions of these specific users saying indirectly that they are insane.

I did not want to call wikipedia and ask them for an assistance to take actions about these incidences, but i had no other choice as they were vandalising them every 10 minutes.

As you do understand, it is not me that it is vandalising, or performing disruptive editting on these pages, but the people that have editted them after me. I did everything possible to protect them, but there was no result.

I do not want you to take any actions whatsoever against these users. I believe that i did not do anything wrong to have my account blocked, so i would like to be able to use my account. Additionally, if it is compatible according to the legislation of wikipedia, i will ask you not to allow to anyone to edit on them, apart from me that created them and if that can not happen, then please write to me on your reply what shall i do to protect these pages.

In case that i can not have the rights to use my account anymore, although i do not see the reason for that, i will ask you to delete every single one of these pages, as i have been asked to do in case that i can not find a way to protect them from being vandalized.

I am looking forward for your reply.

Kind regards

<redacted> User:Former user 9172

I'm afraid based on your note here that you may have misunderstood the way Wikipedia works. We are a website composed by volunteers; with a very few limited exceptions, every page is open to editing by anyone. That you created the page does not give you control over it, I'm afraid. As it says at the bottom of every edit screen: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Articles on Wikipedia belong to the Wikipedia community, who will alter and expand them in accordance with policies and guidelines. Sometimes you may not like the way the articles are changed, but you must persuade others to your point of view. You can't just keep reverting them. Please see WP:OWN, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Too, I'm afraid that while we will sometimes delete articles as a courtesy when creators change their minds, we do not do this once they have been edited by others. If the articles meet our inclusion guidelines, they are likely to be retained.
Looking specifically at Pavlos Geroulanos, there is no apparent vandalism in that article's history. With respect to Andreas Loverdos, I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the comment the other editor made. If you look at the changes he made, here, the content he is objecting to was actually the Greek introduced by you. The "sane" version he restored was that of another editor.
In order for your account to be unblocked, we need some indication there that you now understand the way that Wikipedia works and are willing to follow our processes. You may certainly talk to other contributors about the development of these articles, but you can't stop them from being edited so long as those edits are within policies and guidelines, as it seems these are. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl. Maybe we can also remind this editor to retract his legal threats as well as his personal attacks. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
@<redacted: User:Former user 9172>: Suddenly after being blocked and having engaged in clueless edit-warfare for days and incommunicado against established and good-faith contributors you come here with legal threats and you call us vandals to boot. You need to seriously recalibrate your pattern of thinking and reconsider your baseless accusations. I demand an apology from you. I came to your talk page and wrote to you in Greek and in a very nice way. Instead of replying you chose to delete my message and those of my fellow editors without any justification. You have vacated reason in your discourse with your fellow-editors here. I strongly suggest you reacquaint yourself with the concept of civilised discourse. The time for Neanderthal dialectic tactics is long passed. Welcome to the 21st century. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mashers

First time I hear this term. Would it amuse you to know that the reverse phenomenon, apparently, exists? I've received email by (ostensibly) a young woman trying to hook up with me because I looked "cute and sad" on a photograph. — Coren (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL! I guess we're all vulnerable. :) I went through a little time period where one contributor was very persistently trying to date me. (I'm thinking courtship rituals were very different in his culture than mine. AIR, he was the reason I added the reference to my husband in my userpage. :)) And one guy sent me a kind of risque photograph of himself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Some attribution histories to solve

History of Poland (966–1385) (old article) was apparently redone as Poland during the Piast dynasty. Attribution template or history merge? Also, should talk pages be merged?

Same thing with History of Poland (1385–1569) and Poland during the Jagiellon dynasty.

You may want to drop a note to User:Orczar about what he should be doing with regards to mergers. He is doing a good job improving the History of Poland articles, but he seems to leave some artifacts in his wake... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Poland during the Piast dynasty was originally split from History of Poland, see these diffs: removal, cross-page diff. I think the same was done with Jagiellon dynasty, but I didn't verify with diffs. Attribution templates ({{Copied}}) are appropriate here. Since I had the oldids ready, I placed them for Piast dynasty. I'll place the others within a few days, if no one else gets to them first. I'm not sure if any content was merged from the date-range articles, as I didn't see any large increases in page size. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I did Jagiellon dynasty. There's a content dispute at Piast dynasty involving some unmerged content, which needs its source to be tracked down. Flatscan (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The source was History of Poland (966–1385), and the dispute is over some content that wasn't merged from there. I added the templates, so I think this is complete. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
History of Poland during the Jagiellon dynasty already has the copied template at its talk. I'll look at the date range articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
History of Poland (966–1385) doesn't seem to have been copied from anywhere. I haven't found a source. This seems to have been the extent of the merger of it to Poland during the Piast dynasty. If so, I don't think we need an attribution template. The information is basic, brief and slightly reworded. It's also attributed, albeit not with an actual link. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
And, well, this is just not much of a merge. :/ (History of Poland (1385–1569) -> Poland during the Jagiellon dynasty) No attribution needed for that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I used those diffs to place {{Copied}}s anyway, we can remove or hide them later. I've been thinking about a {{Not copied}} for edit summaries that say "merged" (implying a copy) but really mean redirect. Flatscan (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Pedro Costa (musician)

I'm here on behalf of User talk:PascalRoyal. He rather prematurely recreated the above article. I know that you deleted the talk page:

I'm a lowly regular user with no access to the deleted page. I have no idea upon which criterion the article failed WP:BAND. Maybe its a different Pedro Costa?

He is a new user (be genteel and specific); he will do things exactly as stated. For example, he moved the draft article we were discussing from his user namespace to the main namespace (creating a #redirect page, which I've since corrected). The picture uploaded for the article may be a WP:VIO?: I didn't get a chance to ask him about that. I was hoping that the article no longer qualifies for Wikipedia:CSD. The article includes references to de:Pedro Costa it:Pedro Costa sv:Pedro Costa; they don't help my cause for a non CSD LOL!. Please respond to his talk page at User talk:PascalRoyal. Many thanks! Argolin (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I did not delete the article under CSD, but because it was a copyright problem and he did not verify permission. (Thanks for pointing out the problem with the image! I've left him a note about it at Commons.) Prior to that, though, it was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, by User:Bearcat, who wrote "Wikipedia is not a promotional database; unsigned artists who have yet to release their first album are not notable." I'll come leave him a note at his talk page. I'm concerned about the promotion and poor sourcing in the existing article, though. :/ "Costa began exploring his talents...." "member of the very popular male quartet" "immortalized in a TV commercial for a local car dealership" "An uplifting song about self discovery". This article needs some serious work. :/ I'm very much afraid that it reads like there's a WP:COI here; the only contributions this user has ever made are to this article, which he's been working on since June 2009. I'll drop a word at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with this article. Citing articles are a pet peeve of mine. When I started on wikipedia, I had no clue how to do it. Now, I find it easy: I have a user page devoted to references modeled on Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue/Resources with example citations. I'm trying to get User talk:PascalRoyal to correct his link rot. Thanks again. Argolin (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Pedro Costa

Thanks Mooriddengirl. I'm a fan of Pedro Costa's music and always thought he should be on wikipedia. Of course as you can see I've struggled to make it a reality LOL. I will try to make the article more neutral and find better references for some of the claims. Many of them are just from what I know from either Pedro's website or social network posts. I've emailed Pedro asking permission to use the image as well. Thanks for all the help with this :) PascalRoyal (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I'll reply at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and feedback

Dear Moonriddengirl,

Thank you for your response and feedback! I think I have come to the conclusion that for me Wikipedia is far more trouble to try and contribute to than it is worth - I see little point of completely re-writing articles I have already written due to some strange process in US (and I am, in the UK) Copyright laws.... Ah well...

Keep up your valuable work...

Best wishes,

Paul Pjk142 (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note; I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made the one statement neutral and removed the paragraph on similarities until I find some references. I noticed that something is wrong with the formating of the references section now. Do you know how to fix that? BTW i emailed Pedro Costa and got permission for the image and forwarded the email to wikipedia. Do I just wait now? Thanks for all your help. PascalRoyal (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

David Eppstein

I am not happy as I have discovered that an article that I carefully wrote based on fact and sourceable material has been removed by this man David Eppstein. I think he has wilfully deleted the piece I wrote about my father and his position as a notable member of staff at Royal Holloway College without even communicating with me about it or indeed giving me guidance as to how to write it better.

John Healy

JohnDennishJOHNDENNISH (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Eppstein

With respect I did not compromise another article with inappropriate content as you suggest. If the individuals who deleted it had cared to check properly then they would have found that what I had written was wholly correct and not in any way contravening your rules or indeed being placed without sufficient sources.

JOHN HEALY JOHNDENNISHJOHNDENNISH (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A young editor

DonaldET3 (talk · contribs) has a very shaky understanding of what can and can't be copied into WP, and appears to have a hazy grasp of copyright in general. I've blocked them once for copying lists found elsewhere on the Web that were clearly copyrighted, following a previous incident in which he made the natural but incorrect assumption that an absence of notice left the material free. He appears to be very young, and I hate to come across as a meanie, but I suspect he's disinclined to listen to me after the block. He's made various comments at Articles for deletion/List of invertebrates that reinforce the air of cluelessness and disinclination to follow advice. Perhaps a word from you might help. Acroterion (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a word with him. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - he wants to contribute to WP, but I, for one, never knew much about copyright until a fairly advanced age, so I'd rather try to educate the young and enthusiastic. Acroterion (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Always a good goal. We can use enthusiasm. :D One of my favorite copyright admins failed his first RfA due to off Wiki copyright concerns, but he most definitely proved that he could take on board those concerns and conquer them! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Pedro Costa (musician)

I guess I thought the references would stay in one column. I see now how they work. Is there anything else I need to do for this one? I'd like to add more info but will have to get proper sources. Now that I seem to kind of know how to do this I'd like to do more articles. Will have find some other things to write about.PascalRoyal (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was not going to even assume that you were the same person that was emailing the artist. Moonriddengirl is all I know ;)

As far as linking other pages in. I will think of others to link back. You've been a great help. Creating the entry seemed like such a complicated thing. I'm glad I tried again. Now I feel more confident to do more.PascalRoyal (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

^^Full disclosure:I am aware that you are not a child

I have come across a database of historic images run by the federal government and would appreciate some guidance. A few of the images there like this one (check Los Molinos, image sc1178.jpg) state that permission is required to reproduce that image. Would it be alright then to assume the images like this one (check most images) which do not have a "Permission required" at the bottom of them are in the PD per Fed government or really old?AerobicFox (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

edit: links did not link to the specific image.AerobicFox (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) (I have reached an age where being called a kid is not offensive to me. ;)) First, this database seems to be run by the California State University. That's not a federal government agency, but a state government one. The bad news is that most states retain copyright over their websites. The good news is that California is one of the very few states that release their public records into public domain. However, this is not necessarily true of photographs. :/ (See [27]). They are frustratingly vague as to how we are to know whether information on the state website is public domain, and I haven't been able to find any indication on that specific webpage (for the CSU) to indicate copyright status. I can't seem to get it to load the specific images, so I can't see the "permission required". If they have a habit of publishing that on images, then it may be safe to assume that the rest are okay, but best odds might be to write to them at their contact address to ask them. If they verify that all images which are not tagged "permission required" are PD, we can store that via OTRS to avoid any future misunderstandings. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I shouldn't have any difficulty getting in contact with them, so I will go ahead and ask.AerobicFox (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

US supreme court decisions

Currently looking at Cupp v. Murphy. As far as I can find most of it is not a copyright infringement of anywhere. However some of it was copied from the US supreme court decision. As the work of the US federal government am I correct in thinking that these are PD. The reason I ask is that in this edit User:Minimac removed some text as a copyright concern, but I believe it's not copyrightable (as part of the opinion) and so it would be best to readd it as it adds valuable context to the article. I am aware of the plagerism issues with this but I'll sort that after I'm finished with the copyright issues. Dpmuk (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes. This one is kind of doubly PD.:D Not only is it federal, but according to U.S. law, judicial decisions of any governing court are PD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Just wanted to double check where I stood before I reverted another editor (if it wasn't for that I wouldn't have asked). Dpmuk (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Another Question.

Is it permissible to use a scan of a painting from 1848 which is from a book in an article? Tentontunic (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on where you are. In the United States, per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., yes, so long as it is an exact photographic reproduction. U.S. copyright law does not regard these as copyrightable. But whether you can safely upload them may depend on where you live; just because they are not a legal issue for the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't mean they won't be for you. See National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. That uploader is subject to US law. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Then I am on safe ground as the book is an American one. Thank you once again for your help. Tentontunic (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Attribution and shared accounts

Am I correct in my understanding that shared accounts present an issue for licensing purposes? See here, if you have a minute. Thanks, –xenotalk 22:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of hard for me to get worked up about that one. :) I've heard people say that role accounts are a problem for licensing purposes, but frankly I've never really seen anyone explain why. Our license doesn't really seem to me to support that, and if it does, I don't know how we can permit IPs to edit. It says, "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." Every time the person hits save, they are explicitly agreeing to release their contents, so it's not an issue of one person making the agreement and others editing unawares of the requirement. (If anything, it seems to me that where we really run afoul of attribution is when we allow users to usurp the names of older accounts, since in that case we're no longer attributing in the manner specified by the author or licensor. :)) Mind you, I had never worked with a copyleft license prior to coming here.
That said, of course, there is the pesky policy: WP:NOSHARE. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok... so bottom line being - (in your learned opinion) attribution is kindof a red herring here? –xenotalk 23:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, my opinion is certainly not so learned on this issue that I would unilaterally declare a pass for such accounts, but, yes, I don't think it's a real issue. If we wanted to be really, really safe, we might require that those who wish to use a shared account (presuming we decide we're okay with them) specify a willingness to group attribution. But, again, I simply cannot see how from an attribution standpoint there is any difference between a named shared account and a user editing from a library or school or other shared IP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Your input

Could we get your input over thataway? We need some copyright clarification from an expert. SilverserenC 02:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've read through the discussion (at great length...and done some additional research), but I'm not sure that I'd have anything to add to it other than another opinion. The copyright status of the work isn't really in question; while there may be precedent to not protecting works created illegally (In English v. BFC & R East 11th Street LLC it was held that a group of murals and statues placed in a garden without permission did not deserve protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act because they were placed without permission), it would first need to be adjudicated that the original photograph was created illegally and thus not copyrightable. So, we presume that the image is copyrighted unless it is proven otherwise. But that doesn't mean that our usage of the image conforms to WP:NFC, which is a subjective standard devised by Wikipedia and intentionally more narrow than "fair use." Personally, I think that the image has a very strong claim to fair use and to NFC especially in regard to Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed, where it is the subject of sourced commentary. I'm a little less convinced of its necessity in 2011 Egyptian revolution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

About references.......under the postings

Hi My name is Nandu kavalam. I uploaded information about the works and culture and systems of my place, through my books published . But in the profile when u check Nandukavalam, it comes its an autobiography and it will be deleted in 10 days since it HAS NO REFERENCES. IT DOES HAVE REFERENCES AND I ALSO QUOTED SITES AND BLOGS TO PROVE THE INFORMATIONS ARE TRUE. KINDLY TELL ME WHY IT STILL SHOWS IT HAS NO REFERENCES AND WILL BE DELETED IN 10 DAYS? my email address is nandukavalam@mail.com Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandukavalam (talk • contribs) 10:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple copyvios

I have stumbled upon a long-term user who has uploaded a number of copyvios. The issue first became a concern when I reviewed Douglas D. Anderson, which was up for speedy under G12. After confirming it was a copyvio of this page I deleted it. I wanted to ensure that the article creator (and in this case the only real content contributor) was aware of Wikipedia's copyright policies, so I went to his talk page and noticed a number of copyright and unfree file notices. When I checked the editor's contributions, the first one I reviewed was also a copyright violation and I deleted it. As the editor has several hundred edits, I think they will all need to be checked. Is this a significant enough incident to open a CCI? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh. :( I usually go for 5. Let me take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, this is good news. :D He's only got 5 articles to which he's made large enough contributions to clear the CCI software (presuming it's working). There are like 8 images or so. I can take care of this without a CCI. :) Which is good, because the CCI software is not cooperatively producing lists. I'll see what's there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've tagged some at Jon M. Huntsman School of Business. I've removed other content from the same article. There's a possibility that the user may be in position to grant permission, as he may have created the page at the behest of the university. I didn't find any problems in the other four articles the CCI program listed (List of Business Schools in Utah, Old Oquirrh Bucket, Merlin Olsen or Mountain West Conference. The images all seem to have consistent metadata, suggesting they were made with the same camera. This would lead me to think they probably are his, unless we have some reason to suspect otherwise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well that certainly does seem to be best case scenario. Thank you for the follow-up! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Duane Hitchings

I was shocked to find out I was deleted from Wikipedia for "blatten copyright infringements". I just found out about this recently. Everything that was on my page was/is true. Example. I was a co-writer of the super hit "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" by Rod Stewart. Long story but my name was mistakenly left out as co-writer. It took forever, but my name is now listed in SOME alter "best of albums". I have co-written 3 other hits with Rod. I have also written other hits and have songs for major artist's releases . I am a Grammy Award winning song writer with KimCarnes and Craig Krampf for a movie called Flashdance. I am also a well known musician/keyboard player since 1968 having recording playing/credits with Jimi Hendrix, Buddy Miles, Cactus,etc. Two notes on Rod Stewart's " Blondes Have More Fun" album - John Jarvis, a friend of mine, was not the main keyboard player on that album, I was AND David Foster played the Fender Piano on "do Ya THink I'm Sexy" with me playing synth and organ. I wish you would look into this. I was sent an e-mail from you folks about where to correct this but received a e-mail telling me I had sent my info to the wrong place to your site. I truly hope we can resolve this and I can either be put back on Wlklpedia or left out because the explanation why I was exceeded from your site is wrong and very embarrassing for me. As you surely know, this is the wrong business is have bad information that makes me look like a liar. I would appreciate this being resolved as I am sure you can understand OR take the note OFF Wikipedia that I preformed a dishonest act on your site. The information you but up is blatantly wrong as I am sure you would agree if someone would look into my history.

Thanks for your time Regards, Duane Hitchings Songwriter Institute of Nashville If you would , Google my name and you will find many references to me ( MySpace, Facebook etc. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhit (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I'll reply at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I notice you posted in the other thread asking about case law. With the discussion which appears there I figure I would just respond here lest you miss a response there. You must have missed my earlier post that said: Out of the darkroom, into the limelight: Thomas Condon breaks his silence - In part: Condon was convicted in October 2001 on eight counts of gross abuse of a corpse for taking photos of corpses in the county morgue. On April 16, he was sentenced to serve two and a half years in prison. See also: Morgue ‘Art’ Cost Taxpayers $8 Million.

Hope that helps. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, I'm familiar with that case, but I don't believe it's really comparable. Condon did not have permission of the families; he was convicted of "gross abuse of a corpse" "Based largely upon the extreme emotional harm inflicted upon the families after they discovered what Condon had done" (see the unsuccessful appeal). This image was taken at the family's behest, according to the Washington Post, and released by them. It was a question of journalism, not art. Beyond that, it has nothing to do with the assertion being made in that argument that images of dead people are exempt from "fair use." :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Confused - You asked if there was any case law, now you say it doesn't matter ("has nothing to do") with the overall discussion - but a large part of the issue with this is that most people can not walk into a morgue, or medical examiners office, or the local crematorium or a funeral and start shooting video or taking pictures. The "source" of the image is one of the, if not the, core question here. In the above case someone obtained permission from the morgue but not the family and in the other case there seems to have been implied permission from the family (or at least a family member), but not from anyone else. In both cases the overwhelming issue is that the location was normally off limits - nobody was supposed to walk in and start taking images. If *that* is the case with this image, and it really does appear to be the case, than it would fail our Non-free content policy as that requires the media specific policy to met - which, for this, would be the image use policy. Being dead, or not dead, or even the overall content, is not the root of the discussion in that sense. Once the "how the image was obtained" is verified, and if it meets Wikipedia policy, than the other issues figure into the discussion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You may have missed the purpose of the question: I asked for case law supporting the contention that fair use does not apply to images of dead people. This case law does not support that, not remotely. And that's all I was asking for. (On the other question, though, I'm confused: heirs of the deceased are their representatives in matters of personality rights; why do you presume that the morgue also has some control over the images of the deceased?) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
On the first - I did not get that is what you meant when I saw your question. On the second - it isn't about "heirs of the deceased" having control over images they took, nor is it about a morgue having control over "images of the deceased" - it is about the *source* of the images. At Wikipedia one of the things I always do is question the "self" tag when someone says "From my personal collection" or something similar. Doesn't matter if the subject is dead or alive. It is the same idea here because, per the policy, some examples of private places are "At any medical facility" and "In the parts of a building where the general public is not allowed." The general public can not wander into an autopsy room, the E.R, or the city morgue and start snapping away. In many such locations family members and staff might be allowed in, but if there is a no photo/video enforcement any person engaging is such actions could be arrested for doing so. So that is one way "the morgue also has some control over the images of the deceased". Could their be exceptions? Sure - but by all accounts in *this* case someone paid off someone and either handed them a camera or a cell phone to take the images, or to let them take the images themselves. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a very long conversation, so I can understand if you didn't read it all. I certainly didn't. :) My engagement had solely to do with the contributor claiming that images of the deceased are exempt from fair use. I have never seen anything referring to such an exemption, and in the absence of evidence don't believe we need concern ourselves with that.
But in the case you cite, it wasn't actually about where the images were made as much as it was what they were and how they were taken. The court was explicit that their judgment was to do with the injury to the family members of the deceased (that's why it was "gross abuse of a corpse"). There would have been no injury if they'd been given permission by the family (not the morgue). (The morgue itself was sued and settled, by the way.) I have no idea what laws govern photography in Egypt; it may or may not have been against the law to take those photographs in the morgue. As to whether the illegal origin of a photograph could bar its publication by a separate individual, well.... That would make for interesting case reading, too. But I don't have any interest in arguing the minutiae of the matter, really, or I would have gotten more involved than I did....which was to point out that there is no support for a prohibition against using images of dead people under fair use. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

He's back

Vanished or not he's back. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've watchlisted his articles and so when I'm awake and online should see and take necessary action (though I don't have to here, since it's already done). A combination of short blocks and semi-protection seems like our best approach here. WP:RBI will probably lead to the best outcome. That said, I don't believe that he is intending to be disruptive; I think he is just not quite grasping the situation here. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Moonriddengirl. I leave it up to you. Your analysis sounds fine to me. The only thing that really bothered me is the name which implies that he vanished, although he hasn't. But I guess a sock is a sock no matter the colour. So I will not belabour the point. :) Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Shaming_Pillar.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shaming_Pillar.jpg

Hi. :) Why do we doubt the origin of this one? I only vaguely remember Scania. Whose permission are we waiting for? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Easy, he/she is in Hong Kong, how did he/she took the shot? Best part of the joke, the photo comes with a damning watermark. Otherwise, why would I want to doubt the origin of this photo? Wait, its the dubious author I'm doubting here. Anyways, can't you get it deleted? This has become a copyvio eyesore long enoough already, wouldn't you think so too? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 04:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not an admin on Commons. :) You've tagged it for NPD, but without some explanation it probably won't be deleted under that rationale. I see the text on the photograph; I presume that's what you mean by watermark. I can't say with 100% certainty that Scania didn't go on vacation and take the photo, labeling it him or herself. I've looked around to see if I can find a match to the image, but I don't see anything and TinEye didn't turn it up. The thing to do might be to nominate it for deletion there, explaining why you think the copyright claim is dubious. If you haven't done that before, Commons makes it easy; it's a link in the toolbox. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

History of Pomerania in Early Middle Ages

I have to get the book from the library again - it should be here soon. Or I could just rewrite it "blind" but I think I'd rather wait an extra day or two.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I really do appreciate your help with that one. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody describe this case in more details? I've picked some talk of possible copyvios related to History of Pomerania in the past few weeks, but I didn't have time to read upon it fully. How widespread is the problem? Do we need help fixing it, or is it under control? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

For the Piskorski source the copy vio part is essentially under control, at least as soon as I get the book from the library again - the problem there now is more just straight up POV pushing (changing words, presenting text out of context, omitting sentences which don't "fit", etc.). The problems with the Best source were dealt with by simply removing most of the copy vio-ed text [28]. I still think there's the question of other possible instances, particularly with the use of the Buchholz test on numerous Pomerania related articles - I have the book and I can see that here and there single sentences have been more or less copied but since the book is in German and I don't speak/read it very well I cannot do a very good job of checking it without devoting a huge amount of time to it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Action

Hi MRG, should you take some action over this edit on User:Skier Dude's talk page? ww2censor (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into this one. I've given an NPA warning to the IP. There's history that makes it complex. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, geolocationally, I think this may be a sock of User:DisneySalt, who altered messages s/he received from User:Dudejerome. DisneySalt's "suspected" sockpuppets place him in the UK, as with this IP, while Dudejerome asserts he is in California. Evidence to support that, imo, would include DisneySalt's unacceptable refactoring of Dudejerome's notices to him to make it appear as though Dudejerome had attacked him. See the header change here and worse. According to a note left at Dudejerome's talk page, here, this has happened before, from an IP in similar range. (And so it did: [29].) So far as I can see, on that occasion too, the editor was somebody who had left a message on Dudejerome's page, but in this case months after the fact, when Dudejerome's response had been entirely proper: [30]. This looks on its face like a slow campaign of harassment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Talking to a CU about this privately. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed a likely match to User:Peparazzi (whose socks included DisneySalt). I think we'll need to keep an eye out for recurrence and definitely make sure that Dudejerome is aware. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You're good! Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Moonriddengirl for informing me this and Ww2censor for bringing this action up, I really appreciate it. If you guys keep watching these user ips and usernames that match to DisneySalt/Peparazzi/etc., I'd really appreciate it. And for more information, this user is mostly around editing Philippine television show articles and such. I will keep on the eye too if I see editing patterns that match. --Dude (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Lists? We all love lists

I saw that you had already cleaned up THE–QS World University Rankings, 2009 once. I was about to G12 the whole thing but perhaps you want to have a look at this in light of your recent exchanges with the Foundation legal. In light of what I read on the Bollywood talk page, I don't think this qualifies as fair use.

Delete and salt? MLauba (Talk) 16:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Here's where I heave a massive sigh. Based on what our attorney said, it would be difficult to justify keeping that list at all. As you know, I had earlier reduced it to 10, but given her notes I'm not sure if even that is safe. But at the very least it needs to be massively reduced; there's no way we can justify keeping 2/3rds of the list under "fair use." You're probably right that more decisive handling is better. We really need to get a community discussion going on the handling of this kind of list now that we do have attorney guidance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


Tried to close off the Bollywood from February 24 and gave up, because I simply don't know how to sanely handle such an issue. Maybe we should simply put in a guidance that entries are selected based on the Fibonacci Number or the list of prime numbers? drawback of both approaches is that entries 1-3 would be there in any case. Perhaps 1-3-6-10-15-21-28-36-45-55-66-78-91 or something... MLauba (Talk) 16:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what's going to come of that one; it's a terrible mess. :( I guess I need to get an RfC going about the list issue in general; maybe that'll help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh heck, you know what, you run that RfC, I'll use the latter above to clear Bollywood and that way we'll have a live example to discuss in the RfC. Sounds like a plan? MLauba (Talk) 17:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Update The deed is done. Not looking forward to the fallout but what the heck. IANAL after all. MLauba (Talk) 17:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a shot. I was thinking that one was going to stay blanked forever. I'm drafting an RfC here: User talk:Moonriddengirl/sandbox. It'll probably take me another hour or so. It would help if I could actually say, "This is how I think they should be handled," but the fact is that I don't really know how they should be handled. Well, realistically, I know how she says they should be handled. I'm not sure of a solution the community can live with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In terms of concrete measures, I thought about this while driving home. Some things in no particular order:

  • We may want to consider a separate and distinct tag for non-free lists, same with user talk page
  • Blanking or simply tagging issues? I'd have to go for blanking above tagging, personally
  • Remedies:
    • Worst case remedy: transform list into excerpt based on a purely standard formula which should be consistent throughout. Why? To avoid making subjective choices, whether informed or not
    • Best case remedy: transform dry listing into commentary on every major entry in the top five. Which probably improves it by several orders of magnitude
  • RFC: this will probably also need to affect WP:LISTS at some point.

And then I arrived at my destination :). MLauba (Talk) 22:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films

Hello, Moonriddengirl, as I see the recent edit made on the above page, further to our discussion on the talk page, I'm interested to know if the same kind of edits will be made on List of highest-grossing films. Thank you, Shahid • Talk2me 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can show that it's not based on actual statistics, then please follow the process for listing it at WP:CP. The instructions are at the top of the page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
As said, on Boxofficemojo's about page it is stated, "the calendar gross data is generally considered more comprehensive after 2001, while pre-2001 estimates are considered approximate" and "when daily data is not available, estimates are used and are based on weekend and weekly data and historical box office trends." You said, "If our attorney is able to offer guidance, then it should be applicable to other lists of similar provenance."
Why would you not do it if you already started it on the Bollywood page? Could you please help me with that? This area is just really complicated for me. Shahid • Talk2me 18:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
In answer to your question, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. There are tons of lists on Wikipedia that are likely in violation of copyright; I can't take care of them all. I clean them up when they are brought to my attention...and preferably when they're brought to my attention thorugh proper procedure, in part because nobody else really wants to close them. The one that User:MLauba just closed has been sitting waiting for another admin to review it for some time. (And I'm grateful to him for taking it on.) You are welcome to tag the article(s) and to explain your concerns with it. The process is listed at WP:CP. I am actively attempting to prepare an RfC on the question of lists in general. There are probably hundreds of list articles that need to be evaluated to accord with our attorney's advice, and I do not intend to aggressively pursue any of them until I am sure how the community wants to handle it. What User:MLauba did to this particular list is precisely in keeping with the advice given by our attorney. It is also even more generous than the allowance currently written at WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand everything you're saying and agree with you. But you also said, "I clean them up when they are brought to my attention" - that's what I did. I do not try to make a childhish act of sweet revenge. I just want a consistent standard to be implemented on lists of this sort. I'm honestly not that familiar with the process and I believe your involvement will be much more useful. I asked for your help, nothing more than just that. You said you cannot take care of them all. I have no doubt about it, and it goes without saying, but I'm turning to you with a specific request. Shahid • Talk2me 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to bring it to my attention, do it officially at WP:CP. This particular article has in itself proven to me that if I tag it, I will be perceived as involved, which will hamper my ability to help address it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for your time, I'll do it later. Shahid • Talk2me 22:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Pamela Evans

Hi, re WT:CP#Licensing problem, I suggested when I reported to WP:CP that the creator needed to add a GFDL licence to the source as well as CC-BY-SA, but I think I got that wrong - since the creator does not appear to be the copyright holder, does it only need CC-BY-SA? The source has now been updated with a CC-BY-SA (but not GFDL) licence [31], so that would make it OK. January (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yes; I'm sorry if I didn't explain that clearly! Only if the person who places it on Wikipedia is the copyright holder, and only if s/he is the sole copyright holder, must license be dual. We usually try to get it dual anyway if we can, but if they just do CC-By-SA they're technically fine. I think that the specific dual license is required of sole copyright holder/creators to keep them consistent with our general terms of use. All other contributors to Wikipedia must dually license; there's no reason to exclude importers of previously published text, unless somebody else holds interest in the content as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Your explanation was perfectly clear, I don't know why I interpreted it the wrong way round! I'll remember for next time. January (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Saeed questions

Would this discussion be any different if we used the photo from the Facebook page of We are All Khaled Said, which was mentioned in multiple RS as the place the photo became most noteworthy?

Why isn't the image considered public domain at this point?

Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your second question. :) Why would it be considered public domain? Images remain under copyright for decades after publication, generally, unless there is an official release of the content. As to your first, if you can locate the actual photo on the original point of publication, that would be best, I think. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
My question is: the family released the photo to the world and spread it all over the place, effectively giving up any copyright claim to it, especially now that the photo is everywhere and no one claims to own it and it is of historical significance... so, aside from the fact that public domain probably has a specific meaning which does not apply to what I just described, why isn't it public domain?
And one more, if you don't mind: Does it matter that we can't trace the image posted at Masrawy directly to Saeed's brother who gave it to Saeed's cousin who put it on the internet? Ocaasi (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. :D No, the spread of it on the internet does not make it public domain. The family owns the right until copyright expires, or until they release it. Which does open up a possibility. If you contact the family, they may be willing to license it so that we can use it. Obviously, they care greatly about making this known, or they wouldn't have released it in the first place. I'm not sure I follow your second question here, either. :) Is this the same photo that was published on the Facebook page? There are over 3,000 images on that Facebook page, so I don't see it, but that means little. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, lay understanding of legal concepts is cute. (Not that it matters, but I didn't think the spread alone would make it public domain, but the family's effort to spread it). ;p
I didn't want to bother the family, or folks in Egypt who are almost as harried from recent events. But user Egyptian Liberal has been in touch with Wael Ghonim, who knows the family. This is possible, and I believe they care enough about Saeed's legacy to go grant permission for us to use it. I just don't want to go to them unless we have to, since it's one more thing for them to do, plus it will take some digging to get in touch. Thanks for explaining.
About the photo, USchick initially argued that the photo from Masrawy was not 'the same photo' that the family released, since although they are digital copies, they could/are different. I am asking just in case there is any chance that concern is relevant, although, I don't think it is.
Here's the Facebook photo (note, it's from the Arabic version of the page) http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=105400932843113&set=a.104265636289976.2684.104224996294040 . And here's from the English page (they're actually two different facebook accounts) http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=133983486640644&set=a.133967863308873.12078.133634216675571 . Ocaasi (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand not wanting to bother them unless you must. If you decide to, let me know, and I'll make sure that you have the right release forms and everything so that we only have to bother them once. It could be a bit tricky, verifying that they are who they are. I think it would be better to upload the image from the official youtube, which I gather to be the elder, Arabic one. What a sad, sad situation. I don't really understand why the conversation about it is so heated; I've seen some very tense copyright conversations, but none like this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The situation is the way it is because people who don't know that much about copyright, or don't know that much about the Egyptian Revolution and Said's role in it, or are concerned about setting precedents based on past situations that were similar but not sufficiently so, are making arguments as if this was a run-of-the-mill deletion debate. It's not that sad though, since the real tragedy is elsewhere, and Said's work is done.
Technical question, are we effectively claiming an NFCC rationale to violate both the family's copyright and Maswary's? Ocaasi (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
No. Without some indication of genuine copyright ownership, Maswary is presumed to be hosting it under fair use, just as we would be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
If we decide to go with the Facebook photo, how can we avoid confusion at the NFCR discussion? Most issues would be the same, but the file would be a different one. Ocaasi (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Given what looks to be quite the lengthiest and most circular debate I've ever seen on NFCR, I think it probably would only complicate things at this point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree--given the level of procedural perfunctory-ness at the page, it would be not-worth-it. The scary thing is that some people enjoy (almost) this level of discussion, and the scarier thing is that I might (almost) be one of them. Thanks for working on the File Description. I added some as well, including a link to all of the sources which I put in a talk/subpage at the article. Ocaasi (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • USchick is making us go in circles here with questions we've already answered and other questions or reasonings that have absolutely nothing to do with copyright or fair use. I really don't think someone who doesn't know how fair use works should be arguing about it. :/ SilverserenC 22:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes people decide the right answer and then figure out the reasons afterwards. I have a feeling we might be in that storm. There are actually a few theoretically interesting questions left, if we can ever get to them.Ocaasi (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe... some people cannot imagine that this kind of thing--the image--happens in the real world. And their unconscious resistance to that fact keeps them from justifying that others be able see it. For them, to accept that this photo happened, that it mattered, and that it belongs on Wikipedia may be more than they can handle. I'm going to go with that for now... Ocaasi (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl. I noticed you mention on the village pump that you have difficulty recruiting admins to help out with copyright and was wondering if there was anything I could do as an editor (I was under the impression that most of the work was meant to be handled by admins). I'm fairly busy at the moment, with a couple of bits of mentoring that I'm doing, but I do see that dying off over the next few weeks and if there's anything I can do to help out after that, then let me know. WormTT · (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, yes. :) We (by which I mean I) would be very grateful! :D There are a couple of jobs that are open to anybody: editor, admin. I'd say the areas of greatest need, depending on what you like to do:
  • WP:SCV, which holds all of the articles tagged by CorenSearchBot. These need to be looked at and, frequently, tagged for further action. Sometimes they are cleared. This list is updated every day.
  • WP:CCI, which holds all of the editors listed for complete content evaluation. We have thousands of articles awaiting review there. Each CCI contains instructions. The earlier ones are usually more confusing, because the process was still new. If you want to help out there, you can start anywhere--newest, oldest, middle. It doesn't matter. :)
  • WP:CP, where the articles tagged for problems are listed. Theoretically, this does require an admin to close, but there's a lot of work for non-admins, too. For articles blanked, you can offer clean rewrites if writing is your thing. For articles tagged {{copy-paste}}, you can see if you can find a source (if one isn't given) or, if it is, if the copyvio can be rewritten or needs to be deleted. (Sometimes the source is PD or something and attribution just needs to be given.) For articles tagged {{close paraphrase}}, frequently some rewriting is all that's needed. Listings aren't closed until at least a week after they are tagged, but this kind of attention can be done at any point.
If you're willing to help, I would be very happy to talk to you more about any of these kinds of work. We are in desparate need. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yikes! Ok. Well, I've just got to nip to a meeting for a couple of hours, but I'll have a look through it all when I get back - I'm sure I can help out a bit :D WormTT · (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Any time, and any amount of assistance is appreciated, even if ultimately the tedium of the job overwhelms you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Right. Back from the meeting. I've looked at WP:SCV, am I right in thinking the CSBot has found similar text elsewhere online, and all that needs to be done is that it is evaluated to see if it is a copyright violation? I'm pretty sure I could do that, though it'd be good to get help on the right procedure. WP:CCI seems a little daunting - evaluating another person's work like that... Might have a go after working on WP:SCV for a bit. WP:CP, I might be good at. I've done a fair amount of article writing and I think I could cope.
I'm a little unsure about close paraphrasing though, some sentences I've seen brought up as a close paraphrase seemed impossible to re-write. For example, if a source says "Kate Winslet won the 1997 Best Actress Oscar for her work in Titanic", Kate Winslet, 1997 and Titanic are proper nouns, and I don't see how they could be subsituted. Would something like "In 1997, Kate Winslet was awarded the Acadamy Award for Best Actress for her Titanic role" be close paraphrasing? The problem is, there's only so many ways you can express some sentences. (I'm sure I should have been taught this at university... but I went and did a maths degree and they neglected to mention essay writing skills!)
Assuming what I've written will is acceptable, I'm pretty sure I could help out on close paraphrases and re-writing. So looks like I might be able to help - even if it's a small amount every so often. WormTT · (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, SCV is simply that straightforward. :) There are occasional complications; sometimes, it'll link to a mirror site. What's usually happened there is that they've done a copy & paste from another Wikipedia article. Sometimes the mirrors are just really fast. Sometimes it'll be a Wikipedia mirror that shows that the prior article was deleted, and an admin will need to check to see what can be done. If articles have been PRODded, I usually just restore the history for attribution. The other big thing to keep an eye out for is repeat offenders. Sometimes people get a string of SCV notices or G12s and nobody seems to realize that they are doing it over and over again. When that happens, we might need to take further action.

WP:CCI is not quite as daunting as it seems; it's generally just boring. By the time a contributor has a CCI, we aren't wondering if there's a problem; we know there is. It's all out in the open, and it's actually less confrontational from that point than some of the other issues. Once in a while, though, there are exceptions. We've had some CCI subjects that are very difficult to work with, even though the majority of the ones that are still active contributors are really very open to the process.

Close Paraphrasing, like a lot of things, is somewhat subjective and is generally a matter of scale. The larger the stretch of content that follows closely, the more likely it is to rise to the level of copyright problem. Copyright covers both language and other creative elements such as structure. Even following the arrangement of a source can be an issue, unless it is completely formulaic. Your rewrite on Kate Winslet seems fine, since it is a low-creativity sentence and the information is free for use. But, again, it's a matter of context. If that's the only passage closely followed, it probably wouldn't be tagged at all. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the collapsed instructions at WP:SCV should be helpful. There's also the probably overly-complex Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/How to clean copyright infringements and the very simple Wikipedia:Cv101. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Fantastic. I'll see what I can do tomorrow, you've certainly given me a little more confidence to help out. I did read the Cv101 before, but it was in relation to a CV I'd found - and guess who helped me out ;) WormTT · (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been doing this a while. :D But, great, thanks very much for your willingness to give it a bit of a go. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Euproctis melanosoma

Hi moonriddengirl. Thanks for the message. It happens sometimes that I forget to rewrite passages. Normally, I gather as much info I can find and copy it in a document before recombining and rewriting the content. Sometimes though, I think I have rewritten it all, but forgot a section. I always thought the bot was a handy way of pointing that out, but it seems that is generating a lot of work for others. I will try to watch more carefully in future...! Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasnt trying to give the impression I wrote these texts.. I thought the reference would be enough to make clear the text is from that document, but it seems I need to put in a template. Will go back and add it to the articles right away!Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you posted a copyvio on my Talk page rather than the actual offending editor's

Re: Radu Marian: You posted a copyvio notice on my Talk page. I did not do a copy & paste from another site, but it appears that a later editor, User:Maria Markova, has. Could you please remove the copyvio notice from my Talk page and place it on hers? Thanks. I haven't edited the article in 6 months. While I did take some info from his official site at that time, it was not wholesale copy & paste like that editor has done, as I'm very aware of copyvio issues. Softlavender (talk)

I'm a little confused by your response. What does this mean: "and it indicated it was not functional at the time. It'll come back. Since you did the site page, we know it existed first." What will come back? What was not functional at the time? I "did" what site page? What does "did" mean? What existed first?
Also, the two sentences that you quoted as from the site are mainly where he has appeared: a list of locations and theatres. There's no way for me to edit that to be dissimilar. If you would like the first sentence to be re-worded, let me know and I will. Are these two sentences the only offending text? That hardly constitutes a copyvio, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Those two sentences are the only two direct quotes from the site which I personally made. One of the sentences is a list of venues which cannot be changed. Why then am I being given a copyvio notice? I did not copy and paste anything else from the site. Meanwhile, User:Maria Markova has wholesale copied and pasted an entire page of text, overriding all of my edits. I agree that the article as of February 1, 2011 is a blatant copy and paste, however this is definitely not of my doing and the copyvio notice should not be on my Talk page, unless you consider one sentence (11 words) grounds for a copyvio notice. Softlavender (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
So, you are saying the 11 words "is a regular guest at some of the most prestigious European music festivals" constitutes a copyright violation? How would you have imparted that information into the article without quoting it exactly? As it is, I had already sourced the info the the site. And why is it so threatening to the original site? If you want me to get permission to use those 11 words, I will be happy to. Softlavender (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Help!

There's an apparent copyvio problem at Acute radiation syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article that's getting 100,000 views/day right now and is in rough shape. Please see the talkpage. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this version it's very clear that this originated as a copy and paste from [32]. I would say that normally this wouldn't be a problem as it's a US government work but the fact that it's got NATO branding all over it may make this more complicated. Hence only commenting here on what I found and leaving it up to people that know more about the law to decide how to deal with it. Dpmuk (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, it looks like a paper prepared by employees of the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute; if so, it would be PD. I'm checking to see if I can verify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, we know Brooks is an employee, because it gives his e-mail. Shoemaker is, too. I think we're good to go, but I'm going to see if I can find Ledney just as another layer of assurance. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup, Ledney as well. Let me check attribution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi. I wanted to thank you and User:Xeno for your help. Xeno's suggestion to disable the new toolbar in fact worked. Thank you both very much... Regards, Steve Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's very gracious of you, but I'm afraid all I did was give Xeno a forum to help you. :D Hooray for talk page stalkers! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My sincere apologies

Currently Drmargi has been leading you to a wild goose chase while stirring up trouble for editors who want to create or contribute to the articles. He has been trying to block any edits at Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares (UK) and Kitchen Nightmares (US)that have been to do with the closures of the restaurants shown during the broadcast of the show. If you would have seen the shows themselves you would know that the closures mentioned have nothing to do with the consensus that he is talking about. Trying to say that the consensus includes all closures is wrong and the onus is on him to provide the information or proof that previous discussion includes closures of restaurants shouldn't be included. You can find the discussions here - Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares#Restaurant_updates.2C_next_round 121.214.195.123 (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Antonietta (name)

Please help me. We already discussed this in emails. I sent you the emails from the website confirming that it is allowed and that where they obtain their information. You have allowed the entries on the French meaning Antoinette (which as evidenced are somewhat similar). Why are you preventing these entries to further elaborate on the Italian meaning Antonietta? Please assit me with making the proper enteries. I greatly appreciate all your assitance. I cannot and do not understand this site. It is very time consuming to figure out and navigate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourbabynamer (talk • contribs) 14:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please?

Would you please? It's not like any of us are advocating for an unblock, we're just asking that the user be allowed talk page access, as there is no expressed reason for them to currently not have it, as they have not abused it at all. SilverserenC 12:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I really don't think I can help here. :( It's not something I would ordinarily do, as I don't work that kind of issue, and I'm afraid that the way I found out about it would make me even more uncomfortable stepping in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you know what I can do then? It seems like admins are just avoiding responding to the discussion (which is rather unprofessional, IMO). SilverserenC 22:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry! I didn't mean to leave you hanging. :( Admins avoid responding when they don't have anything to say. There are some cases where it just doesn't seem worth the fight or others where they may tacitly agree. And sometimes they just don't notice. I respond at ANI often, but I don't read every section. I'm more inclined to read sections with headers that suggest they are of interest to me or which look to me as though they have no admin response at all. On days when I'm experiencing serious copyright burnout, I read more; I can go days without even looking. :)
What I would do in your situation, once it becomes obvious that nobody is going to respond, is either (a) tag the section {{unresolved}}, so that others don't assume it's closed, or (b) create a new subsection. It's a whole lot easier for people to see in a subsection with a single note that something needs an answer. You can even do both. The section is probably closed by now, but you can ask again.
However, you know, asking again doesn't mean that anybody will ever do anything. Sometimes stuff just goes unresolved. I have made requests that have gone without response at several different noticeboards. It's always disappointing, but there's not always anything you can do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Fürst p114
  2. ^ Kowalski p22
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_33&oldid=1147949600"