DJ/Producer/founder of record label 'Music of Life <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Megalaser|Megalaser]] ([[User talk:Megalaser|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Megalaser|contribs]]) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
DJ/Producer/founder of record label 'Music of Life <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Megalaser|Megalaser]] ([[User talk:Megalaser|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Megalaser|contribs]]) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Thank you for your note. I will reply at your talk page. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you for your note. I will reply at your talk page. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
== [[Criticism of Sunni Islam]] ==
At the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Sunni Islam|AfD]] for the above page and on the articles [[Talk:Criticism of Sunni Islam|talk]] page [[User:Unflavoured|Unflavoured]] has raised concerns of CopyVio with http://www.answering-ansar.org. I am not so sure, however since a possiable outcome of the AfD is merge, would you mind having a look and see what you think.
Thanks
[[User:Codf1977|Codf1977]] ([[User talk:Codf1977|talk]]) 08:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
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.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 04:08, 12 October 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Rajesh khanna
you had once suggested that its better to make a seperate page Rajesh Khanna Filmography.
iam not aware as to how it should be made or edited.if the page is created i can definitely help you update the filmography.
it would be better if Rajesh Khanna Filmography is created seperately with 6 columns Year,Film,Role,Actress,Director,Other Notes.
the reason being that many things about khanna is missing from the wikipedia article right now, but if information is added then page will look longer so seperate page of filmography is the need of hour.
Hi. I'm not intending to make a filmography for this individual, but good luck to you should you choose to do so. If you have not yet found a mentor, as I've suggested in the past, a mentor might be able to help you with formatting. Alternatively, you can visit the help desk. I'm afraid I still do not have time for taking on new duties at this point. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:33, 14 zSeptember 2010 (UTC)
atleast tell me how should i create tht page in such a way that it does appear in that link under R to the world.i cn fill up all those six columns viz. Year,Film,Role,Actress,Director,Other Notes. by myself but only if iam able to create that page.Shrik88music (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have crrated a seperate page Rajesh Khanna Filmography.
iam not aware as to how it should be edited that there would be 6 columns Year,Film,Role,Actress,Director,Other Notes.
i wil by myself manage to fill up all details if u dont have time but just create that page with those 6 columns atleast.
if you would be able to fill up the columns actresses,year,role with help of the already created filmography by me at present it would be great. gradually i will fill the columns roles,other notes,director.Shrik88music (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to be unhelpful, but I'm afraid that I don't even have time to do the work that I need to do. I have suggested mentorship would be helpful for you. If you don't want to seek mentorship, that's fine, but we do have a help desk with volunteers who do have time to help you and will be happy to do so. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry – I've sorted it. I'm sure you've got enough on your plate with the Darius Dhlomo work. I really admire all the hard work you put in. Best regards — Hebrides (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i by myself keep taking help from few selected people as they seem to be intelligent and not biased fans....rajesh khanna article must be made semi protected i feel as those who have not got themselves registered are editing rajesh khana articleShrik88music (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrasing
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at CeeGee's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
bot task explanation (to Moonriddengirl and Uncle G)
75.62.2.105 (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think that the task explanation should stick to just that: the explanation of what the task being performed is. We don't need a "How can you help?" section. I suggest refactoring what's already there and placing it into the "Why this is happening" and "What happens next" sections. Uncle G (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a slightly more businesslike opening than "Welcome to the CCI Bot-assisted copyright cleanup of September 2010." :) It sounds very like a community rock festival or something, and I'm not sure that it's going to strike the right tone for the dismayed and angry, of which we will encounter plenty. (Voice of experience here. People do shoot the messenger.) I wonder if we could remove Darius Dhlomo's name from the header of any versions, while I'm at it. Those who choose to contributor can read the specifics further down. Those who just want to know why the article is blanked don't need to. I see, Uncle G, that Darius has been subject to some abuse. :( I like the "What is happening" explanation; it's thorough and it suggests the WP:AGFC. I think from there, though, that I prefer the original's brevity of just going straight into "Where this was discussed" and "What happens next." Those who want to help can follow the instructions. I'd incorporate some of "How many and which of those articles actually infringe?" into "What happens next." --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not to say, of course, that there's nothing there that I like. On the contrary, I like the short and long factual answers. I also like the idea of greater flow. Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to MRG about the rock festival issue and will try to make a change. I agree about removing DD's name from the header, and in general about not plastering it around more than necessary. I think we need to address several types of readers, maybe by splitting the page out to two or more separate documents:
Readers who come across one of those articles while looking for info, see that template, and wonder what's going on but probably won't get involved in review/cleanup
Editors involved in athletics articles / copyright cleanup / general maintenance, who might want to help with reviewing
Non-Wikipedians who hear about the incident on (kidding I hope) CNN, probably in some distorted form (the WP Signpost article already had problems) and think WP is a nest of copyright pirates. So the idea is to have some kind of FAQ explaining the overall situation to the best of our knowledge, and what we are doing about it.
The bot is likely to cause considerable disruption and get people asking questions, so before we launch it, I think it's worth our while to create some reasonably complete and well-organized writeups to point people to. So that's what I was trying to start in on. Obviously there's a ways to go. I'd much appreciate any further thoughts. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable point about that split in the exec summary, but I think the need for an overview is not addressed by what is listed there. The idea is to have a completed document or two (that are editable like anything else, but that organize the info and present it in finished form) rather than pointing into the middle of discussions that sprawl all over the place. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some merger of the two documents would seem good to me. I'd like to keep the lead businesslike, myself. But we need to get whatever we're going to use drawn together quickly, I think, as we've already publicized this. Delay in implementation is only going to further add to the confusion, I fear. But I would like to see some explicit mention in this document that only contributors with no history of copyright problems should help out. We've already had one problem related to that, and it's best to make sure that everyone is aware of that up front. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to edit or merge/transfer anything I wrote as you see fit. I can probably spend some more time on it tonight but have other stuff to do between now and then. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cleanup instructions look like (I'm guessing) standard CCI instructions and as such they seem ok to me. More to the point, the CCI pages are directed at people involved in cleaning up articles. This is going to be such a disruptive operation that I'm thinking we need a FAQ-like document geared mostly towards folks who just want a quick understanding of what's going on, but probably don't wan't to get involved themselves. Does that make any sense? That's part of what I was aiming at in the sandbox text linked above. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then please work on the new section of that page that I've just started. ☺ This is, after all, the main CCI case page. I've put it at the top of all of the navigation boxes. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit of intro to the overview. I'm quite uncomfortable writing about how to assess the legal status of anything so I'm going to leave the cleanup section alone. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Franamax
Moved from previous section by 67.119.14.196 (talk); I hope nobody minds
Just stalking here, but as a matter of principle I frown on asking BAG to make these kind of decisions. Requesting the bot flag is essentially saying "I m going to make thousands of edits without really looking at any of them and I want the special bit that lets me do this without any recentchanges patrollers seeing it (even though it will flood individual people's watchlists and the most common response of bot operators is to steadfastly deny they ever did a single thing wrong, I'm not like that and anyway it's too late to go back once I've run the bot)". Now, I'm philosophically opposed to simple blanking of articles created with a copyvio, because I feel it devalues the subsequent work of many others and paints much to broad of a stroke, so maybe you should ignore me. And I realize my alternative of examining each case and dealing with it appropriately is very time-consuming and I haven't done my share, ao again, maybe you should ignore me. I'd rather see a much more tightly defined task though, like if the article was created with 10 bytes of content and is now 100Kbytes by other editors, will it still get blanked? Franamax (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Franamax, the best place to bring up points like that is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI, where wider discussion of this operation is happening. I think the point of the BRFA is to get technical feedback about the bot operation itself, rather than to get a bot flag (a separate decision). Re your question about a 10-byte article with 100k of later contributions, yes it would still get blanked, but then anyone looking at the edit history could see what had happened and unblank it. In practice most of these articles have little substantial editing by anyone other than Darius. 75.62.2.105 (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Picking up with User:Franamax, this isn't my ideal solution, either, but we currently have hundreds of thousands of articles that require review at CCI, with over 20,000 alone in this CCI. The listing already excludes anything below the "minimum" threshhold by this creator (100 bytes, I believe). We have CCIs over a year old. Leaving them unblanked does nobody any favors, either, as contributors who build derivative works off of unusable bases will have completely wasted their time. At least with this method, they are informed. I'd much rather find the article I want to work on blanked and know I have to start over than put hours into something that will later be deleted, especially if I'm then told, "Oh, yes, we knew last year that all of his stuff was going to have to go, but we didn't get around to it in time to keep you from wasting your effort." :/ Beyond that, the operations of bots and their capacities are well beyond me, so I leave that one to people who understand them. ;) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CorenSearchBot
Maybe the CorenBot could be programmed to identify copyrighted text added to existing articles so that this fiasco doesn't happen again? Dr.Blofeld15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand (and I am not a bot person, by a long shot!) this is not really possible because of the amount of material added to existing articles and the workload it would place and because of the prevalence of Wikimedia mirrors. Coren's got a pretty good ratio of actual problems/false positives, but I suspect that would tank if he tried this. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have a backup copy of CorenSearchBot's code running I've been thinking about playing with it to try and do just this, since we won't really know how feasible it is until it actually runs, but other things keep climbing ahead of it on my todo list. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chances are, you'll drown in false positives unless you manage to have and maintain a list of mirrors and (legitimate) copies of Wikipedia articles. I tried running version 3 of the code over recent changes, with a trigger that it needed to be a substantial addition (IIRC, > 300 words or so) and even then it had trouble doing the web searches fast enough, and it was buried in hits.
Mind you, if you did the search on the added text as opposed to resulting article, you might have better success — but diffs aren't very good to determine what is addition or not since it's newline (i.e. paragraph) based. — Coren(talk)16:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, of course, there's the problem of the search engine that the 'bot uses. Yahoo doesn't pick up, at least from the search strings that I used, the copyright violation at Maurizio Damilano that Dr. Blofeld was talking about earlier, for example. Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That too; though it's fairly simple to switch search engines. (Indeed, it already has the code to use Google instead — which gave better results — but whose license did not allow that use) — Coren(talk)18:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In these Darius articles there's lots of text that's obviously copied from somewhere (because Darius doesn't write like that), but gets no search hits, so all we can do is blank it and rewrite it. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coren, if you're still here, can you program CorenSearchBot to pick up any edits that remove an article from Category:Articles tagged for CCI copyright problems? That gives at least a slight re-check of articles that editors un-blank from Uncle G's bot sweep. At least one person has already re-introduced copyvios by restoring insufficiently checked stuff from Uncle G's initial test run, and CorenSearchBot has at least some hope of picking up on that. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear MRG, if you're not too busy, can you perhaps give your opinion about a question I asked at Commons, here? You know all this stuff, and I don't, and it seems there isn't a very clear consensus. Thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that they're right; if the images are not public domain in the United States (and it seems like they aren't), they can't be hosted on Commons. The U.S. has much more narrow laws about copyright, and Commons and en Wiki both have to comply. :/ Unless you can find something free or validate something under NFC, you may be out of luck on that one.
Wikipedia:PD#Country-specific rules helps explain a bit why: "being in the public domain in its home country does not automatically mean that the work was also in the public domain in the U.S. because the U.S. does not follow the "rule of shorter term". Commons:Public domain#Country-specific laws also suggests how complex it can be: "Images uploaded to Commons, unless uploaded from the United States, involve the interaction of two or more copyright jurisdictions. Generally, the policy applied on Commons is to only allow images that can be used in all (or at least most) countries"; "Also apply the copyright laws of the country you are in and the copyright laws of any web server you got the work off. In the case of a French painting uploaded to Commons from a French web server by someone living in the UK three copyright jurisdictions would apply: France, UK and US." Mmm, okay. Complex much? (Understandably complex, but still, what a nightmare!) As far as the U.S. is concerned, a somewhat oversimplified list of considerations is offered at WP:PD (reproduced with minimal modification here):
If the work was published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the U.S.(With a caveat for works published without copyright notice, see footnote 1.)
If the work was published 1923 to 1995 (inclusive) and not copyrighted in its countries of origin in 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S.
Otherwise, if the work was published before 1978, it is copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years since the original publication (i.e. at least until 1923 + 95 = 2018), and if it was published 1978 or later, the work is copyrighted until 70 years after the (last surviving) author's death.
Hi. I have not been a party to anything that has gone before in the current editing block of Malke 2010, but I would like to chime in here as a "character witness", and plead for assistance in lifting/shortening of this block. How can I help in this situation? Malke was a very calming influence in a couple of contentious situations I encountered in the past with other editors. When I was ready to throw in the towell in the face of irrational argument, she drew me back to the table. When I became a little overbeariung, she restrained me. I have only ever known her to deal in good faith, and I believe that whatever this situation is, she IS dealing in good faith. Eastcote (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a placeholder, I'll note that I'll come take a look at this pretty soon. I'm fresh up this morning and need a little more clarity before wading in to what is obviously an escalation of the last I knew. --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies
Hi MRG, To my horror, I discovered this edit when I checked my contributions this morning. I must have hit the stupid rollback button by mistake. Head now suitably hanging in shame. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you doing your typical "Copyright removal" work today! Anyway, may I request you to rev-delete some edits on the Beaver Creek Camp page please? The content that was added by User:NAKANA were copyright infringements. I reverted most of their edits and gave NAKANA a warning. [1]Minimac (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's back! On one of his old IP's. He used an edit summary this time, but I disagree. I've put it up for discussion as you know, so unless he makes the effort to get involved. Can he be blocked again or page be protected? I don't want to revert until action has been taken. Thanks for your help as always :). Jayy008 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Edit summary is progress. :) Why don't you try to invite some other editors to achieve consensus? You might revert (not as vandalism) with a note that you are reverting per WP:BRD pending consensus and a pointer to the talk page (I'd put this in edit summary and at the latest IP talk page) and then ask for feedback at Talk:One Tree Hill (TV series) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Make your question neutral, something like, "Conversation about formatting and inclusion of characters blahblah." :) If he's going to make an effort to talk, we should encourage more of it. If other editors weigh in (knock wood) and clear consensus emerges, he might learn to work within Wikipedia's consensus model. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good plan! By the way, it is vandalism because the format he uses ruins other pages. When you don't use the equals sign in headling characters it prevents direct linking to the page. Like for expample one of the characters of One Tree Hill has had their page redirected, it can't re-direct to the exact character in the current format because the name is only bolded and not equals sign. Hope I'm clear. Jayy008 (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding you correctly, that may be wrong, but not necessarily vandalism. Vandalism happens when a contributor is deliberately trying to mess things up. We sometimes have to block people who mess things up accidentally (and won't stop), but that's a different problem. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. Jayy, this isn't exactly what I had in mind. :) It reads a bit confrontational. Maybe you could change it a bit so it sounds more like, "Hi, thanks for explaining what you're going for! I'm afraid, though, that it may not really work for us because....(explanation) Please come by the article's talk page to talk about it more." We want to be friendly, even if he's been a bit difficult to deal with in the past. :D Who knows? He could wind up being a great contributor. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...as an aside that I appreciate the tone of your conversation and your willingness to consider the matter more fully. Essential qualities in a Wikipedian. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and no worries.
I will say that more tha once I've felt the slight irony that in the cci discussion, I was (at least for a bit) being seen as the "hardliner". (Though in the case of CV, I believe we pretty much have to be cold as ice about it, compared to FU which is pretty subjective at times.)
Yeah, the whole FU thing baffles me. Why can we have pictures of living actors in articles about characters they've played, but not in the articles about the actors? And how is an album cover in an infobox not decorative? I just throw up my hands over the whole thing and leave that to others to work out. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you ever have an issue, I've found user:J Greb very helpful. He's usually who I go to regarding the various infoboxes and images thereof, when I have questions : )
And speaking of going to other people, jut out of transparency, in case you didn't see it, see user talk:xeno. I thought a 3PO might be a good idea (and I think he's capable of neutrality even when he has a personal opinion - at least just to give me advice : ) - and I feel he helped. - jc3701:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of a Wikipedia article about me
I was wondering why the Wikipedia article on myself, Michael Korolenko, was deleted. There was nothing false in the article and nothing copyrighted in the article. I myself did not write the original article (it was pretty much taken word for word from my biography in one of my online classes). It has been on Wikipedia for a while and I edited it a year or so ago if I remember correctly to simply update it. I see no reason why it should have been deleted. If you could reinstate the article I would appreciate it.
Thank you, Verno. Mr. Korolenko, it wasn't deleted because anything it was false, but because it was copied from your website, which bears a clear copyright reservation notice. Even if it did not bear that notice, it would be copyrighted under U.S. law (as copyright is automatically bestowed). It would need to bear an explicit release for us to retain it. I see from my colleague's note that you have already written to the Wikimedia Foundation. Once you have responded to their note with a licensing statement that we are able to use, the article can be restored. Alternatively, if you decide to verify permission on the website, please just drop be a note here telling me that you have done so, and I can restore the article. --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that WP biographies have to be written from published sources that are independent of the subject. Citing a fact or two to the subject's website is one thing, but if most of it is copied from there (even with permission) there may be neutrality problems. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's simply text from the person's CV, then it shouldn't be a problem. CVs are almost always self-published and it's hard to find the info from anywhere else. In such cases, we can WP:AGF I think. Offliner (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I meant was that using a self-published CV as a source should be OK. Naturally, the subject would still need coverage in reliable third-party sources to be notable. Offliner (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
text copyright question
Hi I saw you did some work on the copyright project-page regarding text. Is this a copyvio?
"After the 1970–71 season the Inter Cities Fairs Cup was taken over by UEFA. A match was played between the first ever Fairs Cup winners, FC Barcelona, and the last winners, Leeds United, to decide who would get to keep the old Fairs Cup trophy permanently."
a copyright violation of this:
"After the 1970-71 season the organisation of the Fairs Cup was taken over by UEFA. The competition was renamed the UEFA Cup with a new trophy being introduced. A match was played between the first ever Fairs Cup winners, FC Barcelona, and the last winners, Leeds United, to decide who would get to keep the old Fairs Cup trophy permanently. These two teams also had the best overall playing record in the competition since it's inception in 1955. "
Yes, in the sense that it is a problem under our copyright policy. :) We require that content either be (a) reproduced precisely (in limited quantity) in quotation format with attribution or (b) rewritten completely. Stuff like that should be more fully rewritten. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a doubt
I am checking into P. Niyogi's contributions and have a doubt. Niyogi has created content sourced to many offline books published locally and not available in gbooks. What to do in such cases where there is no way of checking the text?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you so much for looking into this! I'm extremely sorry to say that we usually presume they are a copyright violation and remove or rewrite them. In this case, it may be valuable to get a better sense of where he has violated copyright. Sometimes we can begin to recognize a pattern in a contributor's work so we can recognize his own language patterns and see where his language differs. If you can point out a specific source that seems to be heavily used in any given article, I might be able to find somebody who can dig it up for comparison and that could help us. If we identify a major problem in one specific text, it makes it more likely that there are major problems in other inaccessible texts. If the content is copyright clear, we may be able to act less aggressively. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An OTRS question
On the commons I nominated this stamp for deletion because Australian stamps are copyright for 50 years per Public domain stamp templates because I disputed the validity of the attached OTRS ticket. Túrelio declined the nomination and left this comment on my talk page saying that the OTRS permission obviously came from Australia Post but when I questioned him he cannot confirm the ticket as he is not an OTRS volunteer. Would you kindly have a look at it for me as I have never heard of a postal administration giving a free licence for any of its stamps other than press and media use, which is essentially fair-use? TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Communication is from the Australian Post, but I'm not entirely sure about the license. In his first letter (not to us; he is speaking with an intermediary), the copyright holder says, "There's no fee for educational use." His correspondent is very good at seeking to clarify that, noting among other points that the content may be reused by "commercial entities", and his correspondent responds (among other things), "All fine." This seems like he's quite comfortable with commercial reuse, but I'd like to write directly to the licensor to ask him to explicitly confirm the terms of release. I'll get back with you on it, and if I should forget (oh, that never happens), please nudge me. :D Seriously, if I write a letter and he doesn't respond, I may well forget to follow up. There are always ten billion things going on, it seems. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this one is resolved. The Australia Post does not permit modification and restricts reuse to "educational purposes", so the stamp has been deleted. As an aside, people who work for the Australia Post are very friendly. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG! Could I get you to help me at T:TDYK with this nomination? As I stated in my review of it:
Reading Town Hall appears to be copied in wording, style and tone from the first reference, and not re-written from scratch as required by WP:COPYVIO. Am concerned about putting a potential copyright violation (not saying it necessarily is one, but it's subjective) on the main page.
I suspect that my actions at the article speak for themselves. :/ I've left examples at the article's talk page. Thanks so much for keeping an eye out for this! --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some guidance. I believe I recognize File:Arecibo naic big.gif because of its similarity to a photo that has been hanging in my office (without a copyright notice). The photo was taken in order to document the 1974 upgrade of the telescope to an aluminum dish. I can tell by the antenna that the photo certainly predates 1998 (the date claimed by the uploader). The person uploading the photo claimed it was the work of NASA because he found it on a NASA website. I then put a {{puf}} tag on the photo page and on the Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 17 page. However, a robot correctly noted the image in on Commons and not on Wikipedia.
The uploader claims that this is a NASA image. However it comes from APOD which in turn states, "Specific rights apply." The subpage states, "All the images on the APOD page are credited to the owner or institution where they originated. Some of the images are copyrighted and to use these pictures publicly or commercially one must write to the owners for permission. For the copyrighted images, the copyright owner is identified in the APOD credit line (please see the caption under the image), along with a hyperlink to the owner's location." In this case, Cornell University. The NAIC website gallary says, "Note to the media.... You are welcome to download these images for non-profit / non-commercial use. For permissions and credit policies see our "media services and support" page. Please credit all photos with: "courtesy of the NAIC - Arecibo Observatory, a facility of the NSF"
I could not find a puf page on Commons, so I changed the attribution to {{PD-US-no notice}} even though I cannot prove that this is the 1974 photo. Could you please resolve this or forward it to someone who can resolve it. The photo is currently available under a "no commercial use" license. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Good sleuthing! Since I'm not an admin on Commons (or that heavily involved with images), I'll dig one up who might have time to help work this one out. There are a couple I turn to routinely. I appreciate your following through with your concerns! --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G: I am not advocating the deletion of the file, I just want the problem solved in whatever way is appropriate and I don't want to be the judge of what is required. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it certainly seems that you should be. Commons doesn't take images with such licences, and you are certainly making a case that it has that licence. So deletion from Commons is one step to be taken, here. A normal, non-speedy, deletion nomination is where to put that case, and have it discussed by multiple people. It's not as if Commons is a stranger to this issue. It's come up many times over the years. They do have some familiarity with addressing it, You simply need to go there and start the ball rolling. Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. As Uncle G suggests, the correct procedure here is to nominate the image for deletion on Commons. Even if you don't personally believe it's non-free, if we're uncertain of its status then it's generally our policy to delete. You may request that it be transferred to En wiki for use under the Non-free content policy, but then you would bear the burden of adding a non-free content rationale, since it's unlikely the original uploader is around to do so. If you want to do this, please just request it in your deletion request. Dcoetzee07:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response
Once I hear from the powers that be at Wikipedia, I will give them permission to use the article. And thank you again for the quick response.
Michael Korolenko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.81.187 (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks to clean the Bina Nusantara University article. I'm really appreciate it, but it appears that someone with IP 202.58.180.58 is doing major addition to the article. Could you help again to recheck the article for possible copyright violation? If the additional text is not an infringement, I will proofread and clean-up the Wiki markup in that article. Thanks before. Oh yeah after resolving that IP address, it actually an IP from Bina Nusantara University (but, university's IP can be used by anyone inside the university, so further checking to the article is very needed) Ivan Akira (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for bringing that to my attention! :) Some of the content they've added seems okay, but a good bit of it was pasted direclty from the university's facebook account. I've reverted that part. I'm not sure that all of the other material they added is usable, but I'll leave it for regular contributors of the article to determine what should be retained. I've left them the standard copyright notice, which does include a link to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If they're able to verify permission, they can follow up and the content can be restored. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally don't think that person who just copy-paste will really concern about the notice in their discussion page, but it is the best thing that we can do in Wikipedia, I think. Okay then, now I think it safe for me to wikify the rest of the text. Thank you very much for your hard work! Ivan Akira (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have given him a final warning. If he continues, we will have no choice but to block. I think he means well; I note he is requesting permission for the last article you blanked, but his piecemeal copying continues. We've barely scratched the surface of his already opened CCI, and now it looks like we need to expand it. If you should see further problems, please let me know in case I don't notice. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even remember there was a CCI, apparently there're too many to keep track of. <long dramatic sigh> Maybe more people will help out with them given the recent hoopla and upcoming mass-blanking. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
Thanks for blocking the user. I was really hoping he/she was going to change when I saw the edit summary. But the user just put the same edit summary for the edit again. I don't think there's any hope. May I revert the edits? Or was there a reason you left them? Jayy008 (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left them because I am uninvolved. :) It's up to you and any other contributors to the article to revert them if they are inappropriate. (Have you gotten any response to your request for input from others? It would be helpful to have other eyes here.) If they are returned while the contributor is blocked, I will revert them as block evasion. If the contributor is not blocked, it's a content dispute unless there's obvious vandalism. I blocked him for continued disruption, as he is continuing to edit war and not making any effort to follow the consensus process. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got ya :). Right, no I haven't, as of yet. When the user first made the edits I had a feeling he wasn't going to give up so I kept an eye on the page. At the time, 2 other users reverted his/her edits as well, but it's just been me ever since. I've really tried explaning myself, the discussion is still open as well. I'm really happy to discuss it but there are certain things that can't be done as I've explained it ruins re-directs to the page. Jayy008 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saul Hertz
I'm trying to track down the possible copyright violation for the Saul Hertz page from August 2010. I'd like to re-post the article, but with the appropriate changes. Jabrody24 (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see that you were not given the requisite notice. I'm sorry about; the contributor who tagged the article should have copied it to your talk page, and I should have noticed that he or she did not. The problem with the article is that from its inception it followed too closely on [2]. For one brief example, the article as you created it said:
On November 12, 1936 Dr. Karl Compton, president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology spoke at a luncheon lecture at Harvard Medical School. His topic was "What Physics can do for Biology and Medicine". After the presentation, Dr. Hertz asked Dr. Compton "could iodine be made artificially radioactive?"
That website says:
On November 12, 1936 Dr. Karl Compton, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke at a luncheon lecture. His topic was What Physics can do for Biology and Medicine. After the presentation Dr. Hertz asked Dr. Compton, "Could iodine be made artificially radioactive?"
Other content, too, followed too closely.
While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. So that our articles do not constitute derivative works (which require permission from the copyright holders), we must write them completely in our own language, except that we may use brief quotations if they are clearly marked and used in accordance with non-free content guidelines. 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".
Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be public domain or permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution.
I reverted the edits you referred to in your last comment on my talk page (User:Maharshi Balmiki). It's definitely an old sock who edits articles on the Hungry generation and has created pages on many marginally notable poets related to that movement. Most of his recent edits seem to be copy pasted from somewhere, perhaps a wiki mirror or some old version of the page.
BTW, you might be interested in this, where yet another new incarnation of a banned editor commented on you (and a few other admins) who deleted his own or his favorite NN poet autobiographies. (his last incarnation I assume was Bineeto Pathok (talk·contribs), banned after a large scale vandalism spree). --Ragib (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. I didn't know what he was up to exactly, but it raised some red flags. :) As to User:Aqute31 and his note that "I already have seen some users such as Ragib, Moonriddengirl and kubigula...who I believe are trying to establish their own fabrication about Bengali Literature", I just have to laugh. People will see conspiracy theories anywhere. Yes, clearly, I am working very hard to establish my own fabrication about Bengali Literature and sneakily going about it by never writing in that area. :D Is there no point where the logic centers trip over to say, "Hmm. If three people have opposed something I am trying to do, maybe the problem is in what I'm trying to do....."
Your guess about his identity seems spot on. I did indeed delete Hassanal Abdullah as a copyvio, though I had long forgotten. The current version seems to be copyvio free, although I noted (and changed) a reference to Amazon.com review--not exactly a RS. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. :) That's a weird one. At Ticket:2006060910001353, our correspondent released that and several other images for "redistribution under the GFDL or into the public domain - a similar license (such as certain Creative Commons licenses)". In other words, he obviously copied the text from somewhere, and at its most liberal reading, it's not GFDL, but public domain. However, even though there's a ticket number on the image, the e-mail chain says, "solved on-wiki"; there's no indication what that means. :) The agent who tagged it doesn't seem to be active here, on Meta or Commons (where he is an admin) anymore. It's been about a year since he's popped up anywhere, so I can't ask what he meant. And nobody ever wrote the contributor back to thank him or request clarification. Maybe they were talking about it with him somewhere on Wikipedia at the same time? Either way, there's absolutely no doubt that the person who wrote us is Lubna Agha. The e-mail connects to the website. Even if he didn't exactly nail down the terms under which he was releasing it, there's also no doubt he did intend to release it, and GFDL is certainly among the possibities. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you please have a look at the edits made on the temp page for the article on Leprous and let me know if it's ok to remove the warnings? Thanks Lakeoftearz (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I will be happy to take a look at that just as soon as I've finished addressing the copyright problems that are due for admin closure today. Thank you for reworking it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry for readding that template. That'll teach me to edit while still wiping the sleep from my eyes! Thank you for the quick response and handling of the copyright issue! keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did the right thing. :) Aside from the note at the talk, you'd have had no way of knowing I'd resolved it because there was nothing left for me to do at the article. Their reverting the template didn't restore the content, so I just left it be. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of One tree Hill characters
Hello... Don't judge by the title, I'm not here to tell you about the user being back lol. Can you tell me which template to use for expansion of character descriptions on the page please? I don't want to just put "expand" as the articles long enough and may give people the wrong idea. Jayy008 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I am sorry to trouble you. If you do not want me to edit or create new articles in Wikipedia, I will stop doing any edits immediately. Is that what you want. Please give your view, whether I am unfit to write articles in Wikipedia, the so called free encyclopedia.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 07:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer that you continue contributing but without copying content, otherwise I would have blocked you already. As to your fitness to contribute, I can't opine without understanding why you keep copying content onto Wikipedia from other sources after having been told that this is against our policy and our website's Terms of Use. I explained to you in January 2010 that "you cannot copy text or even closely follow text from another website unless the external website is licensed compatibly". I explained to you in October 2009 that "Text should be written completely in your own words, unless you are briefly quoting material for the reasons and in the way described at the non-free content policy and guideline." You have been blocked in the past, and your contributions are still listed at Contributor Copyright Investigation. Yet here, almost a year later, you are still violating our copyright policy. Why is this? Are you having trouble composing text in your own words? Do you not accept the necessity of doing so? Understanding why may help me better answer your question. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reality of the war was not in question. Civil war in Chad (1998–2002) wasn't deleted as a hoax. The article was posted in violation of our copyright policy, I'm afraid, and while it was listed for a full week to allow interested contributors time to rewrite it, nobody chose to do so. It's unfortunate when contributors violate our Terms of Use, but, when they do, we must delete their content; as it says at the bottom of every edit screen, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Any contributor who would like, though, is welcome to submit a new article on the subject which does meet our Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I've done things correctly, everything on User:Moonriddengirl/checked should now have been tagged. I'm going to pause for a little while to let the dust settle, again. I've just looked at the all-in-one list's related changes; several editors are already unblanking. Uncle G (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice
I seem to have an issue with another user, specifically User:Pectore. I do not know if i'm going to make any headway in discussion with him, but I don't feel like the situation is (yet) something that should be taken to ANI. So, i'm coming to ask your advice on what I should do to help the situation. Here's what's going on:
A CfD was recently conducted about the Saffron terror category, which only had the Saffron terror article in it. Considering that the category was far too specific, it was decided in the discussion here that the category should instead be renamed to Hindu terrorism. The consensus of the users in the discussion was for rename, all except for User Pectore. Thus, the category was renamed here, which I was the one to go about remaking it. Then, I went and started adding articles to the category that had once been on there. These included 2006 Malegaon blasts, 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings, Mecca Masjid bombing and also Terrorism in India because of the sections relating to the previous articles. I was systematically reverted by User Pectore ([3], [4], [5], and [6]).
I then had a discussion with User Pectore about these reversions on his talk page here. I eventually conceded the point and decided to go look for more specific, obvious, and non-ambiguous examples of Hindu terrorism. What I found was the Bajrang Dal. They appeared to be a militant organization that used fear and other tactics against non-Hindus, the definition of terrorism. So, I added them. I was then reverted and a comment was left on the talk page here.
As can be seen from the comment in parentheses, "(if it serves any purpose at all)", User Pectore appears to be on a drive to remove any articles from the category and to get the category removed altogether once it is empty.
This can be highlighted by the fact that User Pectore has been involving himself heavily in the talk page on Saffron Terror for the past few months, trying to put in information that more and more tries to show Saffron terror and Hindu terrorism to be made up and not real. He and User:Wasifwasif have butted heads about the article for quite some time. I personally believe they are both biased in their own way, as is everyone, with one against and one for the idea of Hindu terrorism. And because it is terrorism, it's clearly going to be a contentious subject.
So...i'm coming to you, you being the most capable and cool-headed administrator that I know of, to ask for advice on what my next step should be to deal with this issue, in terms of the Hindu terrorism category and my attempts to put articles into it, and with User Pectore in general. I will take this to ANI if I have to, but I really don't like having to do that. SilverserenC22:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry you're having this frustration. :/ I think if I were in your position, I would start with a discussion at Category talk:Hindu terrorism. I see, actually, that there's one already going. You might possibly request additional feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism. I'd be ever so careful in phrasing that request, as this could be quite a heated discussion! Once consensus emerges, it is easier to see if a conflict is preventing somebody from recognizing and working within that consensus. If so, the WP:NPOVNmight be able to help, even though it's not exactly their neighborhood. Otherwise, ANI may be the only choice, but I would want to be sure there is a clear consensus first. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you can see from the talk page of the category, I haven't gotten any response after I put a comment there. And I did already ask for some help from Wikiproject Terrorism yesterday, with no response as of yet. I guess i'll go give Wikiproject Hinduism a try, but...you're right, that will be tricky. I can presume that the people responding will likely be offended at even the thought of terrorism related to their religion, so...eh. I'll give it a whirl. I just don't want to start a fire with this. SilverserenC00:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Harris page
Hello,
I am Simon Harris, author of the majority of the text on my own wikipedia page which I have been contributing to for several years under my wikipedia username: megalaser
Today I have checked my page and it has been dramatically shortened, much of the text deleted, most information removed and now it is very short and has inaccuracies as well. I gather this is because a wikipedia editor thought that the page contained copyright violations because the text matched that on my own website: www.harrismix.com
Well, there is no copyright violation - I wrote it all, the website is mine and I am the subject of the wikipedia article.
This wikipedia page is very important to me, I put a lot of work into keeping my public information true and accurate. I understand from the history that it was you who looked at the page, considered it a copyright violation and removed most of the content, this would be a couple of weeks ago?
Please can you undo this edit and return the page to how it was before? I would very much appreciate this. If you would like proof that I am Simon Harris I am happy to provide whatever you need, I am the copyright holder of the text and I hereby state that everything in the article was true and accurate.
I am not an expert on wikipedia and how it works, if you need me to provide any proof please just let me know what I need to do but i would sincerely appreciate it if you could please re-instate my page to how it was before this happened.
At the AfD for the above page and on the articles talk page Unflavoured has raised concerns of CopyVio with http://www.answering-ansar.org. I am not so sure, however since a possiable outcome of the AfD is merge, would you mind having a look and see what you think.
