User talk:Moonriddengirl

edit count | edit summary usage Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I attempt to keep conversations in one location—so much easier to follow them in archives down the road!—), so I will likely respond to you here (if I've already been talking to you at your page I may continue to place my comments there, if it seems necessary for context). Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I think it would be helpful to you, I will leave a note at your talk page letting you know that an answer is available. If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template message I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with another warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked. You may read more about my personal policies with regards to deletion here. Use of Sound Samples Hi there, I've added a few 30 second sound samples to a couple of articles (Song to the Siren, Tim Buckley, Jeff Buckley, Dr. Dre). While i'm confident the samples do fulfil the fair use criteria i've listed them under I'm increasing suspicious that i seem to be one of very few people adding this type of media to articles. Am i doing the right thing? Does the fair use rationale seem fine to you? Does this kind of thing belong in the articles at all? I'd appreciate your thoughts! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Hi. :) How long are the songs? 30 seconds fits if the songs are longer than 5 minutes. If the songs are shorter than 5 minutes, the samples need to be shorter, according to Wikipedia:Music samples. It's 30 seconds or 10%, whichever is shorter. For Song to the Siren, 30 seconds is too long by a bit. 27.6 seconds is the maximum the sound clip for that should be. Another consideration: are you reducing their quality? Limiting your song samples to one sample per song recording? Placing the song samples next to conversation about them in the article? (Looks like yes on a quick glance.) Meet those conditions, and you should be doing the right thing. :) I've never added sound samples because it's never occurred to me to do so. I might have to give it some thought! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks. That's the kind of guideline i was looking for. I didn't know about the 10% rule so i'll change the length accordingly. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I think that's done it now: [1] [2] [3]. Thanks for the help. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Glad if I could help. That's a new one on me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry to butt in at the end of a conversation, but a while ago, I had uploaded a sound clip but I never did any more because I thought I would get yelled at for using so much fair-use stuff. However, it never occurred to me before now that almost every article about songs has the cover of the album or single, and all those images are used under fair use. Do you think Wikipedia would get in trouble if we uploaded a lot of sound clips as long as we obeyed the whole schpeel about quality and length? J.delanoygabsadds 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I would be inclined to go light rather than heavy--I wouldn't put in a sample for each song--but I'm naturally paranoid cautious that way. :) But I think that as long as you stay within fair use, you should be fine. For example, I might put up a sample for "Groovin' High", an article I wrote on a song yesterday. I will not add any to Groovin' High (album) because I'm not currently planning to discuss any of the songs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Well, I was only going to do like one song, so don't worry! (I can see what you thought I was going to do..... add a sample to every article inclusive in the subcategories of this category :P ) I just really read Wikipedia:Music samples, and I am somewhat confused about where the proper place to put a sample is. In the articles you were shown by Sillyfolkboy, he put them in a "floating box". In the article where I put my sample, Tattoo (song), I put the sample in the infobox, similar to the example given at WP:Music samples. What is the distiction? I mean, how do you know whether or not to put the sample in the infobox or not? J.delanoygabsadds 13:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I didn't know you could put them in the infobox! I think the uses of the samples between the articles are different, it makes more sense with one sample from the single in the sparks article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC) ←Phew. Such a relief to me to hear that! :D It seems like they could go in either place. Infobox or article body if the article is about a song; article body if it's not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) heh, thanks :) (You know, April 1 is only 286 days away.............) Just kidding :P J.delanoygabsadds 13:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Being mischievous is too much work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I accidentally uploaded Image:Miley Cyrus - See You Again.ogg with an unacceptably high quality. Can you delete it as db-author so that I can re-upload a lower quality sample? The reason I would like you to delete the "image" (Why do they call every media file an image?) is because if I simply "uploaded a new version", the high quality version would still be available. J.delanoygabsadds 15:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks. If you want a laugh, check out the file history for the "image". (scroll down on the page) I just love copy/paste... *rolls eyes* J.delanoygabsadds 15:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Hey Can you check if this article is copyrighted?. I revert the author who said this article is copied from that link. To me the article is not copied from there except for some lines. Can you help?. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I'm looking into it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Okay. The section entitled "Field" is a direct copy from the source. That's five sentences there. The first two paragraphs of the subsequent section are copied from the source. After that, there is some effort to rewrite in that section, but there are still whole phrases that infringe on the original (For example in the original: Since 1990 it is made of carbon fiber; wikipedia: Since 1990 it has been made out of carbon fibre.) The section entitled "Play" at least starts with a copy of the source, except that numbers have been spelled out (18 becomes eighteen). It looks like substantial copyright violation exists. Blanking the article until those sections are completely rewritten seems like a good idea. In general, "copyright violation" notices are not reverted or removed until an administrator investigates them. They are listed on an administrator noticeboard. This one, as you see, is listed here. Sometimes they can backlog there, so it's not a bad idea to seek out an administrator for feedback if you think an article has been improperly blanked, but we shouldn't remove the tags until that's resolved. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks. I was wondering how can this article get B class when half of the article is copied?. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC) My guess would be that the rater didn't know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Can you check this and reply if possible?. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC) arguecat4 I read the entire discussion and I removed personal info. why cant you guys give me a chance to validate any of the info???????????? I am researching her personal blog now-which is in Japanese-so it takes time for me to research it being as I am not a fluent speaker. This conversation should continue on the Administrator's Noticeboard. If you want to add information to the article, be prepared to provide reliable sources to validate it when you do. Again, given your history, there is no reason for us to make special allowances on a presumption of good faith. If you really want to contribute constructively, given that you started off vandalizing the article and admit as much, you should be more than willing to demonstrate that you intend to comply with guidelines now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC) AfD stuff Thanks for your answer to my question, MoonG, which I've read more than once and which sounds very reasonable. I've been wondering about the things I said here. Maybe some of those things are valid things for the person closing a discussion to consider, and maybe some are not. What do you think? (I can't remember if I've already asked you this question – sorry if it's a repeat.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry for the delay in getting back on this. I needed to read through some of the context there, as I find it difficult to give an opinion on your argument without knowing a little bit of the background. :) (Just a little bit, though; I have not even read through the whole page.) I liked what Johannes Rohr said there: "Closing down an existing project would required a clear community consensus (as opposed to a simple majority)" I'd agree with that wholeheartedly. I think that people who close discussions need to be sensitive to the gravity of the discussion in question—for example, at this point, it is easier to pass an RfA than an RfB; a higher ratio of opposes is regarded as acceptable in the former than the latter without raising questions as to whether or not consensus to promote was actually achieved. In deletion, default position is keep. (See point 4.) As to your specific note, I'm finding your question difficult to answer, as I don't think the standards of AfD can be applied to that conversation. A good many of those comments boil down to one word. In an AfD, "keep" and "delete" do not speak to policy; without some indication of reasoning (even the relatively weak "per nom", which at least means "I agree with what the nominator said") they should be discounted altogether. In an RfA, the community seems to accept "support" without further comment, but expects explanation for "delete". I keep finding myself flipping as I frame my reply between addressing whether I think your comment there was valid to that discussion, which has some of the characteristics of an AfD but also substantial core differences, or would be valid to an AfD. :) Given your header here, I presume you're talking more AfDs, and I don't really have any position to be weighing in on the specifics of a closed debate on another project anyway, so I'll go meta and address what I think is the core of the question. I agree that the closer looks at the arguments for nature and strength. One of the challenges of closing AfDs is that the process falls down as a discussion. In an actual jury trial, all evidence is collected and discussed, and then the jury retires to consider it. Everyone has a chance to voice his or her opinion, and the "vote" is taken only after everyone has done so. In an AfD, juror A might make his !vote on day 1 and never look back (he should, but many evidently don't). On day 3, Juror F comes along and makes a brilliant counter-argument, but juror A never gets to see it. If Jurors A-E don't respond, we can't know if they would have been influenced by that argument. In that case, a closer should take into account the impact that Juror F's argument had on all subsequent jurors and conceivably weight those more heavily than the !votes that came before. The input of subsequent jurors helps to be sure that we aren't allowing ourselves (as closers) to admit our own bias to the project. After all, just because we think Juror F's argument was brilliant, it doesn't necessarily follow that everyone else will agree. Sometimes Jurors G, H, I & J will give it the raspberry, and perhaps Juror K will even point out the big old flaw that Juror F (and we, the closer) missed. (This is, of course, assuming that all arguments are equally within policy and the debate hinges on finer points of it--say as to whether the only six sources to be found on a topic constitute widespread and/or substantial coverage or not.) But what happens if Juror F is the last responder? Unless Juror F pointed out a serious policy issue, I would be unlikely to overturn the default position (keep in AfD) on the strength of one argument. (I just wanted to be clear that obviously none of this applies if what Juror F points out is a trump card--as in, "Delete. The article is great. It was great when I first read in the New York Times, too. It's a copyvio." You know that, but talkstalkers may not. :)) If Juror F is the last responder and I felt that Juror F's position might influence others, I might relist. Or I would myself become Juror G. (Another substantial variation from the courtroom set up: the "judge" has the opportunity to recuse herself from hearing the case and instead become a juror.) As a closer, I would look at the lack of response to debate in determining the validity of the original argument. Its impact on the outcome might be determined by whether others have taken on the task of responding. (Example: "Juror A says non-notable because." "Juror B says Juror A is wrong because." "Juror C says I agree with Juror A because." The fact that Juror A didn't respond doesn't mean Juror B is right; Juror C has effectively responded on his behalf.) It would also depend on whether the point/question being ignored is a statement of differing opinion merely or has a firmer grounding in policy/logic. If Juror A says, "There's only one source that says this matters" and Juror B says, "True, but that single source is The Definitive Oxford Guide to This Subject" I'd give more weight to Juror B. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Thank you very much for your thorough investigation and reply, as usual, Moonriddengirl. I hope I didn't impose on you too much by asking you a question about an unfamiliar debate on another project. No apology needed: I figured you needed time to think about it, and there's no requirement that you necessarily answer at all. Your answer is very interesting and sensible and it will be useful to have it, and your other answer, to refer back to. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Re:Removing hangon tags from articles Thanks. Iam aware of the rules. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Good. Removing valid content, including tags, is generally regarded as a bad idea. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC) There is no valid content Moon. That user also had removed a previous db tag. Here go and browse the site [4]. Happy browsing. :). --SkyWalker (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) It doesn't matter if there is no valid content or if the user had previously removed a db tag. The reason we don't indefinitely block people after their first vandalism edit is that there is a chance that they might decide to stop vandalizing. There is a chance that this creator might have been operating in good faith, and allowing him to follow process doesn't stop process from working. If his "hangon" was not persuasive or forthcoming, then the article would have been deleted anyway, and we wouldn't be in the position of leaving somebody a note telling them to put a "hangon" tag on the article and then removing the "hangon" when they do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Ok fine. So restore the article and let him do whatever he wants. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I do believe you are missing the point. If I thought the deletion was inappropriate, I would have brought that up with the admin who deleted it. I was on the verge of deleting it myself. The point is not that the article should remain, but that you should not obstruct the processes put in place. You yourself left the notice for the creator (and good for you; those are important) telling him how to contest the speedy deletion. He might reasonably take issue with you then blocking him from following the instructions that you left him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Iam short temper sometimes or many time but i do understand your points. For instance when i have created some articles and went on to improve it. The next min i see a db tag and after few milli seconds the article is gone. Do you know how angry i was?. I started to hate some of the wikipedia admins and still do. Atleast there are few admins here i like :P. Anyways Moonridden i do understand what you have said and i wont do it again. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I can imagine how frustrating that is. When I'm working on an article, I always put an {{inuse}} tag on it so that other editors know I'm not finished. This is also supposed to eliminate edit conflicts. It doesn't always, but I think it probably does help. I suspect that the admins who deleted your articles didn't mean it personally, though I'm sure it must feel that way. :/ Anyway, thanks. While I wind up deleting quite a lot of articles on Wikipedia, I think it's important that we be as fair as we can be to creators so that others don't wind up feeling the way that you did. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks :). Here is the cookie.--SkyWalker (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Shell3395 Tell this guy he's been blocked. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I was in the process of looking for the best template to do so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks ...for this note on ANI.[5] I'm flattered! :) BrownHornet21 (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC) You earned it. Difficult role you've undertaken. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Coyote Point Systems: Delete? Hi Moonriddengirl, Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the Coyote point systems talk page. In the interest of full disclosure, I should let you know that I am associated with this company (I'm the founder). I don't think that that should immediately disqualify me from creating an article. Someone needs to "prime the pump" by creating the page, and then (hopefully) the community will fill in by updating and maintaining the page. There was a useful pointer from Kevin to the WP:CORP page, and I'll make sure I add some more independent sources to the page. In general, I do think that this company is notable for being a pioneer in bringing what has generally been a very high-end (i.e. expensive) technology (Application Traffic Management/Load Balancing) to the mid-market, which has resulted in better internet infrastructure for organizations with limited budgets! Additionally, as I tried to indicate in the article, Coyote is a pioneer company in this particular technology space. We're mentioned in a number of other pages, such as load balancing and f5 Networks. I'm pretty sure that nobody from Coyote added those citations. Anyhow, I will endeavor to improve the notability aspects of this page, and hope that it remains in place. Coyotekish (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Deletion of Perfect manners Hello, I saw you deleted the article I wrote about that book, I couldn't follow the hole discussion because I couldn't get connected to the Internet for a good while. Is that article completely deleted or would you be able to post it to me so I can improve it without starting from the beginning? Would you give some advice to avoid other deletion proposal for I must confess I could not understand why was Perfect manners considered uncontested. Thanks in advance --Munifico (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Hi. The article was deleted following a "proposed deletion", which is only for uncontroversial deletions. It was uncontested because nobody removed the prod tag. However, it is standard practice to restore PRODded articles if they are requested back, so I have gone on ahead and restored this one. The guideline you'll want to read here is Wikipedia:Notability (books), which explains the criteria for establishing book articles on Wikipedia. You'll want to use reliable sources to verify how your article meets the guidelines. This will help you to avoid a deletion discussion on the article. Good luck with it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC) One thing I should mention: this is probably something you should attend to soon. It is also standard practice to notify the proposer of deletion that the article has been restored, and he or she may choose to proceed with a deletion debate now that the deletion has been challenged. I have tagged the article for {{notability}} concerns. Feel free to remove that tag once secondary sources have been provided to verify that it meets the guidelines linked above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Hi. Thanks for the information. I probably will take it to AfD, but I'll give the editor a couple of days to provide notability/sources before I review it again - it only seems fair, especially if they've got problems with internet access. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Image:David Cargo1.jpg and You took care for Image:David Cargo1.jpg: 12:37, 22 June 2008 Moonriddengirl deleted "Image:David Cargo1.jpg" ‎ (Copyright. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 May 20/Images) Would you mind doing the same to: Image:Jerry Apodaca1.jpg‎; - For the same reason: State of New Mexico public office buildings:This is photo taken of a photo hanging on the wall taken by another, professional photographer: copyrighted work. Thanks, ~ WikiDon (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Certainly. It's done. Thanks for catching those! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Found another one: Image:Clyde Tingley1.jpg Should I report it? ~ WikiDon (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I deleted it as a WP:CSD#I9. This is appropriate when a false license is asserted, and the flash flare made that one blatant. I don't know if the individual just didn't understand that you can't take a photo of a copyrighted photo and call it yours, but there's not much point in discussing it with him as he is indefinitely banned for sock-puppetry. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC) DYK On 22 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Groovin' High, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Vishnava talk 18:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Woohoo! :D Thank you so much! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC) COI I write because of your prior response to the BLPN post I submitted regarding Dicklyon's violations of BLP and 3RR at Archives of Sexual Behavior. He is now accusing me of violating COI in part because of that, so it seemed appropriate to notify you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MarionTheLibrarian. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Centre for Distance Education I DID NOT copy and paste. I used the MOVE BUTTON. I was allowed to move it under WP:BOLD. Thanks for being a jerk. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)