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 12:35, April 27, 2015 UTC (purge). Refresh your page to see what time it is now.


The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

Roxane Butterfly[edit]

Regarding Roxane Butterfly, I processed ticket 2015012410013376, which seems to be valid. I'm a little confused, though, when I look at the copyvio report. The report claims that the infringing text was from [1], which is a third party site and I would normally inquire further ... but I can't find any relevant text on that site and the duplication report seems completely useless - it only matches a few words. Does the copyvio duplication report cache the text or does it retrieve it live? I'm guessing/assuming that the text disappeared from the other site sometime in the last few months. (Though I have restored the article because copyright was the only reason given for deletion and that appears to be resolved via the OTRS ticket, if you would like to re-delete it for G11, I have no objection.) --B (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, B. :) While others might feel differently, I tend not to mix copyright with other issues, so I would not redelete for G11, but I support your tag wholeheartedly. :) Your assumption is right on; it's quite common when content is legitimately copied from an external website that the first thing that the person who posted the content will do to address the issue is to remove the content from the external website. Unfortunately, this doesn't help us. When I (at least) notice this happening, I generally have to explain that copyright doesn't terminate when publication is withdrawn and that we still need verified license. Generally when you don't see text that has been removed for copyright reasons - unless you suspect vandalism - it usually means the external site has changed. Sometimes (like in this case) Wayback will straighten that out for us. Sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, you generally have to use other factors to determine. An internet search might find other mirrors of the site, or you might look at promotional language, or you might simply have to rely on the experience and reputation of the tagger and what response (if any) we receive from the contributor. We run into a similar issue when an article is flagged for resemblance to a book that is not available for preview. Years and years ago, when I first started working copyright, a bureaucrat pointed out to me the prohibition in WP:C against taking chances: "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." On the basis of that "if in doubt" provision, I make a stronger effort to replace such content with something we can retain, even if just a stub. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I didn't check Wayback. They credit her site, so I'm fine with the explanation that it (go to http://www.roxanebutterfly.com/ and click on "Bio") was the original source. We have OTRS permission for that text, so copyright isn't an issue. I have added a prod because, well, the more I look at it, the more awful it looks for an encyclopedia article. If I had seen this article anywhere other than coming to it from an OTRS ticket, I probably would have deleted it on sight ... but like you, I'm more hesitant to mix copyright with other issues. When I'm doing an OTRS ticket, I try to only represent whether or not the copyright question is settled and not take administrative actions on other issues. --B (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bob Meistrell[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

DSM-5_codes[edit]

Hi MRG, I see you've previously been engaged in discussions around the APA's copyright assertion on DSM-5. I haven't seen a clear explanation of where the line falls on lists, but would you please have a look at DSM-5_codes. It may be fine, but I can't tell. Thank you, LeadSongDog come howl! 21:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, will you look at the time? .... :/
Okay, no. I won't run away. :) There is no clear explanation, LeadSongDog, because like a lot of copyright stuff it's nebulous. Wikipedia:Copyright in lists is the best I've got.
With respect to this case, while the US copyright laws that govern Wikipedia do not protect non-creative speech, the threshold of creativity is very low, and creative elements include not only descriptive language but also facts chosen and the order of facts. For one example of how low the threshold is, consider American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans, where even taxonomic classifications are found to be copyrightable. In one specific example selected to demonstrate the creativity, the Court noted:

Number 04267 reads "guided tissue regeneration--nonresorbable barrier, per site, per tooth" but could have read "regeneration of tissue, guided by nonresorbable barrier, one site and tooth per entry". Or "use of barrier to guide regeneration of tissue, without regard to the number of sites per tooth and whether or not the barrier is resorbable". The first variation is linguistic, the second substantive; in each case the decision to use the actual description is original to the ADA, not knuckling under to an order imposed on language by some "fact" about dental procedures.

We've got also Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Association, which affirmed the right of AMA to claim copyright in a book of codes and accompanying descriptions of medical procedures. (cf. this brief, and, more currently:
  • the CDC's stance on the copyrightability of diagnostic codes at [2]: "The ICD-10 is copyrighted by the World Health Organization (WHO)External Web Site Icon, which owns and publishes the classification. WHO has authorized the development of an adaptation of ICD-10 for use in the United States for U.S. government purposes. As agreed, all modifications to the ICD-10 must conform to WHO conventions for the ICD."
  • Something quite similar in this PDF by the US Government office Centers for Medicaire and Medicaire Services: "There are over 7,000 service codes, plus titles and modifiers, in the CPT-4 section of HCPCS, which is copyrighted by the AMA. "
A couple of court cases affirming copyrightability of taxonomic descriptions/diagnostic codes and two government agencies affirming copyrightability of diagnostic codes and descriptions. In this case, we're seeing copying not only of codes but of language. At least some of it. For one example, chosen kinda at random: "cause considerable harm to others (e.g. forced sex, physical cruelty, use of a weapon, breaking and entering, stealing while confronting victim)" takes me to Google books where I see every word has been copied, although mildly rearranged ("breaking and entering" has been reversed from "stealing while confronting victim".
If this were blanked and listed at CP, based on the above, I'd have to process it as a legitimate copyright problem unless somebody could produce something demonstrating otherwise or unless on further searching I found something to clear it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
So, the page is at least rather scary, given the APA's attitude on enforcement. While I don't much like the idea of blanking, we may need to do something about it to clarify how far the detail in these blurbs can go without begging for trouble. If we're not already there, we must be close. Student editors, particularly, seem to be filling in more detail every time we turn around. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, LeadSongDog, the page is at least scary. I believe it should be blanked, because I don't really see any other option. My blanking it means I probably won't be able to process it, but c'est la vie. It's done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, now we'll see how it develops. At least this will show our good faith during any discussion with the APA. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

Gunther Holtorf[edit]

Hello. Thanks for your edits on the article. There seems to be some confusion, though, when it comes to how many km/mi Holtorf travelled. The "official site" says 900,000 km (i.e. 559,353 mi), other sites say "almost 900,000 km" or "556,000 mi" (i.e. 894,300 km) and others yet say "884,000 km" (i.e. 549,400 mi), so maybe we should say "approximately 550,000 miles" (with a convert template) in the article. The mention of Guiness Book of Records also seems to be a mistranslation. The only source for it seems to be an interview with Holtorf himself in Spiegel Online where he says "ein Eintrag ins "Guinness Buch der Rekorde" ist in Vorbereitung", i.e. that "an entry in GBoWR is being prepared", which is not the same as a confirmation that the submission has been accepted by GBoWR as a world record, or even that GBoWR have received such a submission yet. Thomas.W talk 17:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Thomas.W. Feel free to use the approximate language and the convert template. :) Works for me. With regards to Guinness, the second source for that sentence says "550,000 miles and 215 countries later the Mercedes - nicknamed Otto by Miss Holtorf - has made it in to the Guinness World Record books." ([3]) Not being from the UK, I'm not generally familiar with it, but is the Express considered broadly reliable? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they misinterpreted the interview with Holtorf in Spiegel Online? Since Holtorf himself doesn't claim that it has been accepted as a world record, only saying that an entry in GBoWR is being prepared, I think we should wait until we get some confirmation fron GBoWR before claiming that it really is a world record in the article. Thomas.W talk 18:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I can add that a search on "Holtorf" on the Guiness World Records web site ( http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/ ) returns nothing ("No results found"), while searches on "Gunther" and "Günther", to make sure there are no alternative spellings of the family name, only return records that have no connection to Holtorf. Thomas.W talk 18:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Although I'm always a little uneasy putting something in an article that differs from what the source says, I'm comfortable with the language you put in the article. I'm not really that sure of Express. I wish I could understand this 2015 interview I just added, but it's much, much too fast for me to hope to follow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to ping you, Thomas.W . :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hmm. Written about in Iceland, too. But I really can't use that: [4]. Just noting for my own interest. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have sofar listened to just over 20 minutes of the interview, that is about half of it, and the only interesting parts sofar is that he met his fourth wife Christine, whom he spent most of the time on the road with, after putting a personal ad in a newspaper in Germany, seeking someone who wanted to see the world, and that he refers to the natives of Kenya as "die Schwarzen", on radio, which would not be politically correct in the US or UK. I was afraid that it would be in Bavarian German, since it's on Bayerische Rundfunk, but Gott sei Dank it isn't, it's in "standard German". I'm taking a break now, and a cup of tea, but intend to listen to the rest of it later tonight. Thomas.W talk
Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A copyright issue[edit]

Hello, Moonriddengirl. I came across a copyright issue that spans two pages, so I'm not sure how to deal with it through the templates.

The draft Draft:Hedda Gabler (2014 film) was created September 25, 2014, and the same material was added to Hedda Gabler (2014 film) on October 2. There is an edit summary stating that permission for the plot summary would be mailed. Sure enough, there is an OTRS ticket on the draft talk page. However, more than just the plot summary is copied from this source, which predates the Wikipedia draft. I am thinking of history merging the draft with the mainspace article, moving the OTRS ticket template to the mainspace article talk page, and rewriting whatever is not part of the plot summary to be less promotional. Does this seem right to you?—Anne Delong (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That seems exactly right to me, Anne Delong. :) I've read the OTRS thread, and it is very specific that permission is for the plot alone. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, it took a little fussing, because the copy was pasted over a redirect about another topic, and then the page was moved to a new title, dragging along edits about various other films. I ended up with two pages, Hedda Gabler (2014 film) and s rather rudimentary Hedda Gabler (filmography). I found that I couldn't copy the OTRS tag, so I had to copy the contents of the article talk page to the draft talk page and then move the draft talk page, but it worked once I figured out what to do.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks for fixing Organ transplantation in China. I looked up the article after viewing a TV program on the subject, broadcast on an Australian national TV network on 7 April (which accounts for the spike in page views on and after that date). It's a pity that the article was in such a bad state for such a long time - the refs weren't visible - not a good look for WP! Anyway, I've now added an EL to the TV program. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to repair it, Bahudhara. :) It always makes me unhappy when people's copyright problems taint work being done by others. I feel bad for them! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Un Canadien Errant -- English Version[edit]

Hi, Moonriddengirl --

Two things:

1. I noticed in a wiki discussion that I was given credit -- by you, I believe -- for most or all of the content of the article on this song. But that is not true. I only provided the literal English translation from French, and the new English song version -- see below. Someone else provided all the historical information.

2. You may have had nothing to do with removing my credit as the writer of the new (2011) English version of the song Un Canadien Errant, but FYI I restored it. I wrote the new version because I love the song and was very disappointed with the Gibbon version. It took me parts of three days to do a "singable" version that adhered closely to the original, and as you can seen from the editing history I continued to improve it for a while. I didn't copyright my lyrics because I wanted people to be able to perform it anywhere, any time, without concerns for copyright violation. As you can also see from the editing history, I made sure that the copyright issue was taken care of prior to publication. In the interest of history, accuracy, and because I spent some significant effort on the work I would like to retain my writer credit in the wikipedia article. Brian Puckett <redacted>

Best regards, Manfromtexas (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Brian. Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)