User talk:Moonriddengirl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome

If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.

While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.

To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.

I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.


Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it.
Hours of Operation

In general, I check in with Wikipedia under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time on weekdays. I try to check back in at least once more during the day. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 22:25, July 12, 2014 UTC (purge). Refresh your page to see what time it is now.


RAF Merryfield & possible copyvio[edit]

I went to the RAF Merryfield article to try to add some references and found much of the text is very similar to this site. It was added to wp in 2007 (diff) but I have no idea whether wp or the other site had the text first - should I add a copyvio label?— Rod talk 21:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) A quick search suggests that website is rather new ([1]), but that's not definitive, because it could have come from somewhere else (meaning the website - they do sometimes move. :D). Their "About Us" page suggests that may be the case, as they claim to have been around since 2001. Given that, I want to take a look at the evolution of the content to see if I can tell which came first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, typo at insertion point ("to he built") suggests it was either transcribed from a book or developed here naturally. That error is not on the external site. Excellent sign minutes later with small changes such as camp->airfield and August 24->24 August. The external site uses both of them. The "Ahhot" typo is a little concerning, though, as that kind of thing usually indicates a poorly digitized source - the scanner misreads the lower line of the "b". Also note "2$" for 26 and "September &" for "September 6". Here's more of that: "Ramshury" instead of "Ramsbury". But again a change is made ("with Merryfield" becomes "with the station"). I think the source you spotted copied from us, but if I could get inside of it, I'd be looking at UK Airfields of the Ninth, the source, for matches. :/ I don't suppose you have a copy of that book, do you? I'd love to eliminate that concern. Unfortunately, the contributor who added the article does have an early history of issues (see 1 and 2, for instance. There are other CSB notices, but I'm not checking those, having verified these two). I need to make sure that the content was not copied and that, if it was, the content is PD and properly attributed per current plagiarism guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I don't have the UK Airfields of the Ninth book but did get the Berryman one out of the library - which prompted my interest in the article. Your expertise and tenaciousness in these queries is brilliant.— Rod talk 13:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've had a lot of practice. :D I guess I'll start with WP:REX. They can sometimes help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Check back at REX, me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey there. I saw this discussion as I've still got Skinny's page watchlisted. I have got Airfields of the Ninth, and I'm afraid to say that when I was using it for work purposes a few months ago, I noticed that of the ones I looked at, almost every article on airfields that are in that book, contains copyvios of varying sizes (RAF Thruxton and RAF Stoney Cross are memorable, plus a dozen others). The book is at work, but I'll check it tomorrow and give you some examples. Sorry, I only just remembered this issue - it's quite big, but was of low priority when I was reading the book as the work came first! Seeing this thread has just reminded me... Ranger Steve Talk 13:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ranger. When you have a chance, could you make a list of the articles that need looking at? Also, Pinging MRG, Pinging MRG, cleanup on Aisle 3. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Will do. Be warned though that there's dozens of airfields in the book. I'll probably do it on a county basis, as the book does, and it may take a while. Ranger Steve Talk 14:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh dear... thanks for taking up that herculean task. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. If anyone else has a copy of the book, it might be handy. By the way, something weird with your sig datestamps above (March 2014?). Ranger Steve Talk 14:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That's deliberate, to make sure it doesn't archive too early :) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. :) I was hoping not to forget this one. Thanks, Crisco, for pointing out the activity - as focused on the little copyright investigation as I've been, I think I would have missed it altogether. One thing I might suggest, @Ranger Steve:, if you don't mind - can you check to see if there's a pattern in who added the problematic content? If so, we can do this as a regular WP:CCI. If it's been copied by multiple people (the way Banglapedia has been), it's a far different problem. If it's one person and there's at least five problematic articles, I would open a CCI for him. If you would prefer, if you can just list for me maybe 5-10 articles that are clearly copied from that source, I'll be happy to do the investigation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Will do. I'll shove it all in a sandbox and then you can decide where best to put it. Looking above, I think you've already identified the main source of the problem, but I'll confirm this more definitively tomorrow. Ranger Steve Talk 16:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi both. I've started a summary of one article at User:Ranger Steve/Sandbox3, to give a flavour of the issues. There are 62 articles in Airfields of the Ninth; I've randomly looked at a few and made some comments. I'm afraid that's all I've got time for today. I fear it may take some time to ascertain how deep this issue goes; it might be worth contacting the editor in question directly and seeing if he'll take on the work... Ranger Steve Talk 07:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ranger Steve. I've done so, leaving him a note in the existing section for copyright concerns on his talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ranger Steve. I note you indicate that the editor in question has a concerning propensity for unattributed cross-article copying. Not good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to give scope here, I have gone ahead and run the CCI: User:Moonriddengirl/CCI sandbox. I randomly spot-checked the first article on the top of the fourth page. It was an article on a song, and it was copied from a website but cleaned long ago. I popped in on an article midway down page 7, Jamie Colby, and find the following passage added to the article (among others):

While waiting to take the Bar Examination, she was asked to fill in at a television station for an anchor who was on maternity leave. She enjoyed it so much that she decided to seek a future in Journalism, although she did later take and pass the bar....

Since the passage cites IMDB, I checked IMBD, where i find:

While waiting to take the Bar (to become a lawyer), she was asked to fill in at a television station for an anchor who was on maternity leave. She enjoyed it so much that she decided to seek a future in Journalism, although she did later take and pass the bar.

This was added in December 2011. I haven't checked the other sources for copying. That's about all I have time for right now. @Wizardman:, I already pinged you on his talk page, but your thoughts here would be welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Ugh. And. Uuuuggh. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Ouch. I was going to list all the airfields in my sandbox and start summarising the extent of copyvio in each, but I suspect it might not be necessary? Anyway, I've taken a random airfield again; RAF Balderton. Again, whilst its not a direct copy and paste, a lot of content is very very similar. A summary will appear in my sandbox shortly. Also, I have a concern about the black and white images used in most of these airfield articles. The photos themselves, most of which were taken by the RAF between 1942 and 1946, are presumably out of copyright. However, notice the runway numbers and north arrow? They're exactly as they appear in the book and are most likely modern annotations. Would they therefore be copyright of the author/publisher? Milhist would hate to lose these images, but I thought I'd better mention it. Ranger Steve Talk 14:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Ooh, images. This is where I prove a little more useful than just pinging people. Based on my look, it's probable that the numbers at File:Balderton-18apr44.jpg, for instance, would not pass the threshhold of originality needed to claim a new copyright (although I note that the UK does have a lower threshhold than the US, so at worse this would have to be hosted on Wikipedia). Doubt the directional arrow would be PD, though, unless it was in the original. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
        • In my experience of them, RAF aerial images do not have a north arrow (an north is rarely at the top!). Sandbox has been updated. Ranger Steve Talk 14:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Which means a lot of cropping in the future ... :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
            • If the CCI has that many issues we're finding already, we probably don't have a choice other than to open it, although the sheer number means it will probably never be resolved :/ Wizardman 16:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've opened it at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819. He's been actively working on cleanup, I'm happy to say, and I'm going to go in and annotate which articles he's cleaned, but, @Ranger Steve:, it would be really helpful if you could first take a look at a couple of them to see if the cleanup has addressed the problem. Maybe [2], [3], [4] and [5]? If those four are okay, then I think I can generalize that the cleanup is going well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Can do tomorrow (been out of the office today). Ranger Steve Talk 16:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry, been hectic for a few days and I won't be around for another ten days. Looking at those 4, they seem to be fine now. I haven't read all 4 in minute detail, but I can't see any evidence of block passages. I have noted that the cleanup has been quite blunt on some other articles, basically hacking almost all of the content out, which might include other, non-copyvio, contributions. I'll have to check later. Ranger Steve Talk 11:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you, and no worries. We all have real lives. :) (Hopefully!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Potential copyright issue I have not encountered before[edit]

Hi MRG! I would like to ask your advice about Draft:Catfish Hodge - Blues Musician which has text substantially taken from [6]. The source text states it has been reproduced on Oldies.com from a book (The Encyclopedia of Popular Music by Colin Larkin) which according to Oldies.com is licensed from Muze. I was trying to work my head around this logically, but its been a long day and I just confused myself even more. I am unsure who the copyright owner is and how reproducing this on Wikipedia sits with our licensing conditions. Any help would be very much appreciated. Bellerophon talk to me 20:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I am aware the text of the draft is highly promotional in tone, and I am not suggesting it should be incorporated into a live article, regardless of the licensing implications; however, better understanding the copyright implications will assist me in advising the author how to move forward. Bellerophon talk to me 21:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:Bellerophon. :) I often look at copyright issues in complete isolation, so I understand that approach. :D We would need verification of license or PD status from the copyright holder of the book (generally the publisher or author) to use the content. Even if the material is licensed such that it can be reproduced on Oldies.com, we have no official indication that this license extends to us or is compatible. The copyright holder would need to follow the process at WP:DCM. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks MRG, I've removed the offending text for now :) Bellerophon talk to me 06:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

OTRS question[edit]

Hi there, I'm working on the Tanzania article which contains the image File:Amani-TT4798.jpg. I just wanted to confirm that the permission was given by the artist/copyright holder. (In my experience, when people see folk/naive/primitive paintings, sometimes their copyright alarm bells don't go off -- just want to be sure everything is legit.) Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, same question re: File:Lugwani.jpg. Thanks again! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Calliopejen1. What we have with the first one is a batch permission from the website owner claiming explicitly that when he purchased the paintings copyright was transferred. (The OTRS agent who handled the release had explained that photographing the painting would not give him rights to it, so he did explicitly claim to own copyright to the painting itself.) The second one, alarmingly, offers no information on license of the sculpture. The person who sent the permission licensed the photograph and only asserted that the sculptor "is aware of my edit and is happy about it." It's clearly a derivative work, and we have no confirmation of license from the sculptor. :( I'll ask the tagger to get a specific release of license from the sculptor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Requested at c:User_talk:TBloemink#Derivative_work_request. If we can't secure this license, the image will probably need to be deleted. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

Quoting all of a translation[edit]

In this case the translation is very short, 90 words. Is that ok? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In the law, it's context dependent, User:Dougweller, so hard to say. In our policy, it's not okay to quote all of anything that's copyrighted - WP:NFC explicitly permits brief excerpts. This is, of course, because one of the factors of fair use considers amount and substantiality. 90 words from a 400 page book may be okay; 90 words of a poem, probably not. (Length is not a sole factor in any case; all factors must be met. Our policy is deliberately simplified and conservative.) The legitimacy of use of a translation is likely to be stronger if the focus is on the translation and not the original - for instance, if we're working on the article on Dorothy Sayer, we are likely to have better cause to quote extensively from her Dante translations than we are to simply use her translations to illustrate the article on Dante itself. If we're using a translation simply because we don't have one, we are more likely to be superseding than transforming. And the case for need is weaker, much as it is with photographs of living people, because there's nothing to stop us translating the source material ourselves. (You don't mention the copyright status of the underlying work, so I'm just assuming that it's out of copyright, but the translation is not.) Anyway, as to the general principle, based on policy alone, I'd be inclined to remove anything that copies the entirety of something copyrighted and replace it with paraphrase and brief excerpt, as permitted, where its usage conforms to WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah. It's actually on my talk page right now, something called 'Siduri's advice'. It's also File:Sippar Tablet with Cuneiform and translation of Siduri's Advice from Epic of Gilgamesh.jpg. The original is rather out of copyright by now!. But I don't think there is a copyright free translation. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. On his own talk page he is still thinks he can get basic changes in our policy. I'm tempted to just ignore him. But I'm still not sure what to do about translations and the image. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Could use another opinion, no rush[edit]

Could use another opinion. Do not feel any obligation to support my tentative position, I'd be happy to hear that the article is OK.