|
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.
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Could you take a look at this user's contributions (especially deleted ones) and see if anything needs doing? Given the number of copyvio notices over a long time I think a block could possibly be in order but I don't know where to go to ask for one. I don't think it would be worth a CCI given the small number of contributions so I'll try to look into the others later today. As an aside I've often thought that we're missing an obvious place to report editors for multiple copyright violations for consideration of blocking. We have CCI but that doesn't cover the situation where an editors contributions are repeatedly speedied. Dpmuk (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Glanced at his or her last article and it is now blanked at CP. I've blocked for 48 hours. Please let me know if you don't have time to review the other articles, as I think this problem is likely to be rampant. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly rampant - just about all the text they introduced was a copyright violation. I think between User:CactusWriter and myself we've got it all. Dpmuk (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, not sorted. One of my G12 speedy requests at India-Paraguay relations was denied. There's numerous direct copies and the structure is even the same. To me this is a very clear G12 so thought I'd ask you for a second opinion rather than edit-war with an admin. Dpmuk (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whenever anybody challenges a G12, the thing to do if you are convinced it is a copyright problem is to put it through WP:CP. Unless you can clean out the problem and leave a functioning article, in which case you can also do that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to take a step back from this before I say something I may later regret. Dpmuk (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've cleaned what I found. There's one sentence that looks like it could be a title in the source, and thus not copyrightable: "Agreement between India and Paraguay on Exemption of Visa for holders of Diplomatic and Official passports – 1996". Otherwise, what's left is a quote that isn't really transformative. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel like I owe you an explanation now I've had a chance to step back from it a bit. I was afraid that if I said something at the time I'd say something that was specific to the admin involved rather than a more general comment and I've tried hard in what I've written here to keep it as general as I can. I've long had a concern that admins are automatically considered knowledgeable enough to deal with copyright problems as soon as they pass RfA despite rarely being questioned on copyright and the fact that if they weren't previously working in copyright there contributions won't show their understanding of it (I hasten to add that I've no idea whether this applies in this case). Editors holding "higher" positions have been the subject of CCI but yet it is assumed they know what they're doing. In most cases I'd be happy for admins to learn on the job as mistakes can be easily reversed but that may not be the case with copyright if, for example, they end up leaving copyright on the site and it goes to court. Unlikely I know but the consequences could be severe, and probably made worse by the fact that we were aware of it. All that said I realise that's the system and I'm not going to be changing it.
- It also irked me a bit that the G12 tag was just removed and a potential copyright problem remained. Is it worth adding a note to {{db-g12}} that admins should consider adding to WP:CP if they decline rather than leaving it to the editor to notice the decline and add it.
- Finally I was also a little irritated by how different admins interpret the speedy criterion differently. I realise this is inherent in the system and there's no way round it so I normally let it slide but yesterday it did add to my irritation.
- I wasn't willing to change the article myself for two reasons, a) It would have been hypocritical for me to do so as I have voted delete before at AfD for these sort of articles as I don't believe all such relationships are automatically notable and b) in my opinion the sort of work you did still leads to a derivative work (especially given the similar structure) although I accept your greater knowledge in this area. With hindsight I should probably have tagged for AfD and CP (although this combination has it's own problems).
- Sorry for the length of that. Dpmuk (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (tps)First, I appreciate your cautious wording, as that is more likely to lead to improvements. I wrote as someone interested in copyright issues. I've had passing interest for years, and fancied myself as moderately knowledgeable. However, the more I'm involved in CCI and related areas, the more I realize how much there is to know, how much there still is I do not know, and how hopelessly deficient was knowledge was when I thought I knew a fair amount. I'm trying to tread cautiously, and learn as I go along, but I do appreciate that mistakes have potentially more severe repercussions if a copyvio is left. I've been mulling over how best to develop a school for copyright investigators (we do have some good resources, but could use more, such as case studies.) it occurs to me that any such effort should be part of admin school as well. I just took a quick glance at Wikipedia:New admin school, and don't see much advice beyond the link to CSD criteria.
- Oh, and mainly as an aside, I can't put my finger on it, but I've noticed when I do some CCI work, and see an X-Y relations article, I tend to skip over it and work on something else. Not sure why.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Dpmuk, we all have stuff that frustrates us sometimes on Wikipedia. At least, I assume we do; I know I do. :) But the value of it being a collaborative environment is that, when we hit the wall, we can step away and let somebody else do something about it. I tend to agree with you that if an administrator removes a G12 tag from an article because he doesn't think it rises to that limit, he should generally put a {{copyvio}} tag on it instead. I'm a little baffled that he didn't, given the copying I found, but he's not the first I've seen that didn't. This has been a head-scratcher for me for a long time. I didn't see close structure in the remaining content, but that doesn't mean I didn't overlook something. I excised what I saw. If you are feeling less frustrated and want to, please feel free to poke further. I've got a few things I need to do this morning, and I won't have time. :)
- Sphilbrick, brilliant observation about new admin school! It never occurred to me that we were so light in that area. If nothing else, maybe a link to Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101? The case-study resources sound like an interesting idea. :) Oh, the stories I could tell. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I'm sure we all do have things that frustrate us - this one just happened to involve several at the same time so it get to me more than normal. I also wouldn't normally air things in quite the way I did here but thought I owed you an explanation given my abrupt reply. I will see about modifying the G12 template. I also agree that he admin school one is a good point. Dpmuk (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G12 changed. You or any tps should feel free to change the wording - that's definitely not my strong point. Dpmuk (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for raising this issue, Dpmuk. It does become the responsibility of the admin who declines a G12 to address any partial copyvio issues which remain. I've added a bit more clarification for G12 on the CSD criteria page. (I think most administrators tend to glance at that criteria page rather than the read the full guideline at Wikipedia:Copyright violations.) I hope the extra emphasis there helps. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi everyone. I saw these edits on my watchlist and wondered about their motivations. I agree that declining editors (not always admins) should not simply untag, and I hope that these notes help. The G12 definition is getting a little long, so I'll keep an eye out in case someone tries to trim it. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I updated the New Admin School with a brief blurb and link to CV 101--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no set rule, some people get sniffy when their name is used without their knowledge, some don't. I think you would be one of the non-upset people and I've never told you the many times I've referred to your opinions or yourself as a great person to consult with problems. However, since I revealed your secret identity here, thought it would be better to let you know. Regards! Franamax (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 sonia likes this. sonia♫ 05:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Awwwww. (fiercely blushing) That's very kind of you (both of you, and Sitush, I see). And great! Some kind of complicated copyright issue! LOL! :D (I'll be reading that page as part of my MDennis stuff later today; can't wait to see what it's about.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. K told me to ask you about the copyright issues on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dominic.
Dr. K deletes all the revisions that I make saying that special permission is needed even though all references and writing are from http://michaeldominic.com/?page_id=437 which I wrote for him Mr. Dominic from an interview and research that I did. Dominic also states at the top of the page that it may be reproduced.
I also emailed him to ask him if he wanted me to update it for him with the notes from his site and he agreed. What else needs to be done? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dominic 98.14.0.184 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) The problem is that his permission is not compatible with our license requirements. He says that information may be used and reproduced "for informational purposes copyright free". While we use content for informational purposes on Wikipedia, we license our entire website to be reused and modified for any purpose. For that reason, we can't accept content that has restrictions of that kind on reuse. We don't require that content be released into public domain or that no restrictions be applied, but the only restrictions that we permit are (a) a requirement for credit and (b) a requirement that reusers use the same license. It would be easiest if Mr. Dominic put this release on the page:
- The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
- The first license is required; the second is optional. Either way, we'd need to provide proper attribution to his site, which we do with a "template" at the bottom of the page: Template:Dual, for instance. If he decides to go this route, Dr. K or I should be able to help you.
- One thing that Mr. Dominic should realize is that there's no guarantee that content will remain or will remain unchanged on Wikipedia; in fact, we almost guarantee it will not. Everything here is open for modification by anyone within the allowances of our policies and guidelines. It is a very collaborative project.
- If he doesn't want to put the release on the website, he can mail it in to the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team. Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries gives directions for doing that. In that case, the volunteer who responds will help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much! :) It can be very time consuming to confirm a reverse infringement, but so worth it to me. I hate to see good content lost. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG. Thank you for clarifying the details to the IP above. I am here for another reason though. Please see this edit and this. I am concerned that this user is going to import on Wikipedia large swaths of translated, but copyrighted, text from Greek just to prove a point. It is not looking too good on many fronts, BLP, COPYVIO, POINT etc. This unfortunate article Takis Fotopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is already listed at BLPN and the dispute is ongoing. I would appreciate any action on your part, with the usual disclaimers and apologies. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put the article on my watchlist. If I see issues with extensive quotations, I'll stop and have a word with him. Please feel free to nudge me if I overlook it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much MRG. Will do. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, I need your expert eye on this one. Looking at Sylvester Medal I was wondering if putting all the "rationale" for all recipients in this article is in line with the copyright rules on quotations? It looks too much to me, but maybe this is allowed for award citations? Note that this article reached FL status, and the current reference for the award is changed to http://royalsociety.org/awards/sylvester-medal/ (I have not updated the references yet). Thanks, SchreyP (messages) 08:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's really not. :/ I spoke to the contributor who did that work (not formally, but he's a co-worker, and we were discussing a work matter, so I brought it up), and he indicates that he was less familiar with issues at that time and is all for the material being reworked to be free. He doesn't, however, have time to help out with it right now. He's under a massive time crunch on a work project. Do you understand the subject well enough to help with that? Math is most definitely not a strong point for me. :/ Oh, I can calculate percentages like nobody's business, but I have no clue what "theories of aggregates and of sets of points of the arithmetic continuum, of transfinite numbers, and Fouriers series" means. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Moonriddengirl, I can help with the rework but it will take time. I was thinking of blanking the column with rationale and add the reworked sentences one by one. And add a note on the talk page. No hard feelings to the contributor, I had to learn it also bit by bit and I have still the feeling I can learn more in this area. Any process I have to take care off related to the FL status of the document? -- SchreyP (messages) 18:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer not to rock the FL status if we can help it. Maybe we can in interim replace the quotes with content copied from the various articles? Let me look at that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG! I got confused between what ordinary editors can do at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. I had blanked Mobile Payments in India and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 January 9 (clear copyvio from 3 different sources). I then thought I'd help out by evaluating the other articles listed on that page (both bot and manually reported) as there seemed to be quite a backlog. If an article was a false positive, I only marked it as such and didn't actually remove {{Copyvio}} from the article. I now realize that only Copyright problems board clerks can evaluate the manually reported articles listed at Copyright problems. I'll go back now and add notes to that effect for each entry. But I'd be happy to apply to be a clerk, if you need more. How do I go about it? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've pretty much just done it. I'll file the paperwork. :) I'd love to have you aboard! Today I'll be pitching in on that backlog. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems/Clerks#Voceditenore. I've notified the active folks at the board, but have boldly added you already. If there's any issues with my action, be it on my head. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okey Dokey. I'll try not to bring things landing on your head
 . I'll start out with just a few articles a day there, mainly the bot reports. They generate an awful lot of false positives. I've also started doing work on the IEP CCI. I'm concentrating on the users who don't appear to have had any evaluation done by OAs at Wikipedia:India Education Program/Students. I must say, what a behemothic task it is! Sigh... Voceditenore (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On a tangentially related note I'd consider myself still active as I'm working on trying to clear the (rather large) backlog of {{copypaste}} tags that has built up since the bot broke which stopped them being automatically listed at WP:CP. Of course as they're not listed at WP:CP it may seem I'm no longer active. Dpmuk (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi! I've seen your work there, so I know you're active in copyright work. Sorry I didn't think about pinging you! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been moving home for the last week (I've recently moved to the US so this mainly consisted of making flatpack furniture) so probably wouldn't have had a chance to look. I made the point more so I didn't get removed as "inactive". Dpmuk (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The NZ government requested the University add a wikipedia page on Prof Brian Tinsley. So with his permission and materials supplied by the university (some of which are also available at also available at http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/faculty/tinsley.html) I created the page wikipedia page. This page has been seen by Prof Tinsley who was the author of the material and was approved by him. The material is available for reuse under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL.
Please would you unblock this page and not reblock it.
Thank you
Sincerely
Prof. David J Lary
Office: +1 (972) 883-5643
Cell: +1 (972) 489-2059
William B. Hanson Center for Space Science
Office: WSTC 2.808
800 W. Campbell Rd. MS/WT15
Richardson TX 75080-3021
USA
David.Lary@utdallas.edu
http://utdallas.edu/~david.lary/
http://mints.utdallas.edu
Davidlary (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 129.110.5.91 (talk)
This one is moderately confusing, so I'm calling for the big guns.
Alabama Moon (film) looks like it was created today (16 January) by User:The Shadow-Fighter. Which is sort of true. However, editor claims here:
You must be confused. I didn't create that article, I just moved Alabama Moon to Alabama Moon (film). That bot must have made a mistake.
I think what happened is that Alabama Moon, which was created in 2009, was created about a future (at that time) film. User:The Shadow-Fighter notes that the book preceded the film, so moved the content (maybe via cut and paste) to Alabama Moon (film), then edited Alabama Moon so it was about the book.
I think this leaves the history messed up.
Plus, it looks like a copyvio, as it seems to be created today and content matches another site. However, given that it isn't that new, there's a decent chance it is a reverse copyvio. Note that when at the purported source, clicking on more brings you to the WP entry.
I think some cleanup is warranted to preserve the history and I don't have practice doing that (yet).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I have history with that one. :) I cleaned up the article on the author in 2008 and was intrigued enough by the article to go read that book. Let me look at it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, point 1: the editor is wrong. He didn't move anything; he did a copy & paste page creation. First, I'll work that out. Then I'll look more deeply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried the Wayback, but couldn't find the site, so I haven't confirmed whether the prose in the WP article preceded the site.
- The first instance of the prose appears to be this edit, added by Jarrod K, who hasn't edited since 2009, and was blocked for copyright vio, leading to suspicion that it is a copyvio.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It probably is. Plot descriptions frequently are. :/ Now that I've got the history of the film article tucked in at Alabama Moon (film), I'll take a look at that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And so it is; see this August 2009 source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of sounding like I'm sucking up, it is a pleasure to see a pro at work:) I hope to be able to handle something like this myself someday, but until then, it's nice to have the experts to ask.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aww. :) You make me blush! I'm delighted that you're pitching in. They make splitting and history merging sound more scary than it is. You do want to be careful with history merges, as they can be a royal pain to undo when the history is complex, but it's really just a matter of "delete them all; restore some; move; restore the rest." Voila. You have a split. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like a key step is creating a temp, cause you can't simply move A to B and vice versa, so you need a temp place. I'll try one sometime.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I haven't been on SCV in a while (my main focus on WP is to write articles), but I should be "back" by the 20th :) Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 21:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any time you can give is welcome. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moon. I sometimes wonder if you get sick of being the go to person for all things copyvio by everyone but, well, you are. Anyway, there is a question at the help desk that I thought raised some interesting copyright questions for text attribution that I had not come across before (and I'm not so sure the advice given thus far is correct, and my gut reaction is that it is not) but I don't know. Not asking you to do anything. I just thought you might be interested and would certainly have something to add if you were. See Wikipedia:Help desk#School project related Question - How should I go about this?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa! Holy wall of text! I'm reading. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Phew. If I were this contributor, I would do one of the following: (a) work offline with my classmates and submit the entire document under my own user account, acknowledging in edit summary that it is a collaborative work and potentially listing at the talk page all authors involved (we only need the license of one of the authors of the collaborative work) or (b) take the IP editor route. The tricky bit about what's being proposed with his giving attribution in edit summaries is the clause of WP:C that reads, "If you import media under a compatible license which requires attribution, you must, in a reasonable fashion, credit the author(s). You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain." That could create some red tape. I'll speak to him at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this user has requested me via email to bring this to your attention. He wants to discuss an urgent matter with you before the blackout begins. He stated that he had sent two mails to you earlier, but no response was forthcoming. If you recall the fellow, he was blocked indefinitely by you upon request. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! I haven't checked that email address in weeks. I wonder why he didn't ask at his talk page? I'd have seen that. :D But it's just as well I didn't, as there were other letters there that need my attention. I appreciate your letting me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just copied this from the main article Jaffna kingdom and then created a new one. Corenbot says it is a potential copy of this, my analysis says that the website copied it originally from Wikipedia including the references and now Corenbot thinks the new (not new), but newly generated from the old article is a copy. Just for your information. Kanatonian (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I have no doubt that the page is a mirror of Wikipedia, since the links are to Wikipedia pages. :D But these kinds of "finds" sometimes work out well anyway, because it sometimes alerts us when content has been copied from one article to another. You are certainly the main author of Jaffna kingdom, but because it's a collaborative article, I need to ask you if you are 100% sure that you are the only person who has ever edited the content you copied. If not, we do need to "attribute" it to copy it from one article to another. The procedure and the reasons are explained at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, but I'm happy to help. Is there any chance that anybody else contributed to it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, few other editors actually contributed to it. Kanatonian (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks. I'll do the attribution. We have to do this because Wikipedia's content isn't public domain either. Legally, those people who have copied our article are violating your copyright (and theirs). People are allowed to reuse our content, but they must meet our licensing requirements, which includes giving credit and releasing the content under the same license. :/
- Attributing when you copy from one article to another is pretty easy. The required bit is the edit summary - all you have to do is write in it something like,
Content copied from [[article]], which see for attribution. It's also recommended that you put the {{copied}} template on the talk page.
- I'll do that now, and you'll see how it's done for next time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! Thanks. :) I'll make a note at the Corensearchbot "suspected copyright violations" page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice. To avoid copyright issues the article has been rewritten at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brian_Tinsley/Temp Davidlary (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG! I think your input would be really helpful at meta:Talk:India Program/Education Program/Documentation#Plagiarism section is both inaccurate and misleading. I also suggested that they run the final text of the brochure past you before using it with students.
I had a look at Understanding and Avoiding Plagiarism done in 2009 as a booklet for schools and universities using WP as an assignment, but I'm wondering if there ought to be an additional simpler and shorter version which stresses the copyright infringement issue clearly and succinctly including avoiding image copyvios. There was some talk of producing something like this in the middle of the IEP brouhaha, but I suspect it got lost in the shuffle. The current booklet is quite "advanced" and possibly too nuanced for many students? Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I sent an email to Nitika offering to help work on that section, if she'd like. (In my Mdennis capacity.) The Understanding and Avoiding Plagiarism piece was originally written for the Signpost. I'd agree that it's probably a bit indepth as a primer for students, especially if it is one of many pieces and especially because it was never meant to be used to address copyright issues! Would you like to collaborate on pulling together something a little more basic and to the point? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maggie, would you be willing to be the closer for this RfC? I plan to launch it tonight or tomorrow, and it's been suggested that we should decide on a closer and a duration before it launches. Please let me know today, if you're willing, since if you're not I'd like to find someone else before starting the RfC. I haven't heard back from other editors as to whether you'd be an acceptable closer, but your name has come up before and nobody has raised any objections, so I'm guessing you'd be a good choice. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If they'll have me, I'll close. :) However, if it's difficult to read consensus, I may reach out to some other uninvolved admins to help. I kind of like that new model. --User:Moonriddengirl 14:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
