|
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 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time on weekdays. I try to check back in at least once more during the day. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 18:39, 20 October 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Hi, Moonriddengirl . I just read the potential copyright violation with respect to the contents in David J. Schwartz (Author). Kindly help me with some suggestions for the page in question, and other two pages (see below) I m contributing to avoid potential copy vio.
Please suggest me a solution for page - David J. Schwartz (Author). I would highly appreciate if an edited version is kept, instead of deleting the whole page. So it could serve as a reference for future edits. Jean Julius Vernal 14:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. All you have to do is rewrite it. :) The instructions for doing that are on the template blanking the page, under "Can you help resolve this issue?" where it says "Otherwise, you may write a new article without copyright-infringing material. Click "Show" to read where and how." Basically, you just go into the temporary page it links you to when you click "show" and write the text over from scratch, and it will be used to replace the content we have. Please be sure to start from scratch. Sometimes people who aren't familiar with this process begin by copying over what they had. It is very hard not to create a derivative work that way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the detailed explanation. Though the thought of starting from scratch was bit tiring, managed to frame a page Talk:David J. Schwartz (Author)/Temp with some innovative words. :-) And of course, I need some expert opinion on the structure, especially grammar. Your thoughts please. Jean Julius Vernal 19:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
As you can see in the revision page for The Magic of Thinking Big - I removed few mins back some potential copy vio quotes and passages
Kindly share some insights on the usage of passages or quotes from revision 499569759 ? ( Any possibility to keep some bare minimum lines or passages?) Pls see revision comparison in ques Jean Julius Vernal 14:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- There are several factors to consider when using quotes and passages from a copyrighted work, and this one is especially complicated.
- First, let's deal with the list of quotes copied from his homepage. Somebody - probably the author or his agent - has accumulated this list of quotes because they think it's important. There is creativity in the selection of the quotes; they didn't just choose them at random, and they are not necessarily the same quotes that somebody else would determine are important in the book. That makes their list in itself copyrightable, separate from the copyright status of the quotes themselves.
- In this case, you expanded the list, which can help. That means you're using your own selection criteria and not relying on theirs. But there's no getting around that you used their list; you cited it. :) The US copyright law that governs us regards recasting, transforming or adapting pre-existing works as creating a "derivative work". If the pre-existing work is in copyright, you either need permission of the copyright holder or you need a valid fair use defense. Since your list incorporates the entirety of theirs, fair use could be difficult. Taking is substantial. You would do better to select quotes that you yourself find notable in the book, bypassing their list altogether. Their list is short; it will be difficult to avoid taking too much. The book is long. It's a bit easier.
- But that raises other issues - while you can use reasonable quotations as necessary to support your article, you have to have good reasons for including them, and they need to remain balanced with other text both to avoid copyright infringement and sustain fair use and to comply with our local standards. See WP:QUOTEFARM. Quotations should not overwhelm the article. Nobody has an automatic right to take content from a copyrighted work. We can only do so if we are in some way advancing scholarship, creativity, etc. You could write an article on that book that would infringe on the copyright even if you didn't copy a single word, if you summarized it in too much detail without having a good reason. This is because one of the key factors of fair use is whether or not you are making use of copyrighted elements "transformatively" or simply superseding the original. If you talk about the contents of the book solely because you want people to know the contents of the book, you may be replacing the need for the original without adding anything to it. If you are critiquing the book - praising, criticizing or analyzing it - you are adding something new. This can then be carefully balanced against the amount of non-free content you appropriate. You can quote more, summarize more. As long as everything has a good reason.
- It would be easier in this particular article to justify retaining quotes if you balanced the article out with more scholarship. Could you add a critical review section? Could you talk about the influence it has had? For instance, I see two articles where notable people discuss the impact the book had on them: [1]; [2]. Both Lou Holtz and Brian Wansink seem to have transformed their lives after reading it. Articles on Wikipedia are never finished, so it isn't always necessary to develop one area before working on another, but this is one of the few areas where we need to build one before we can really use the other. :) Laying the groundwork for a good article opens it up to transformative use of non-free content.
- In overall terms, on Wikipedia, we try to take as little non-free content as necessary to produce a good encyclopedia article. Non-free content can certainly be essential to a good article, but we should try to choose the non-free material we use carefully to make sure that it is the best at serving its purpose and that we do not draw too much from any one source. Quotations should generally be woven in and among other content that sustains and elaborates on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the detailed analysis and comments. I highly appreciate your valuable inputs. Jean Julius Vernal 07:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Any suggestions? Jean Julius Vernal 14:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- My typical suggestions are (1) bring in as many sources as you can, and (2) weave them together to create something original. This is harder to do when you are covering basic facts of a person's life, but in that case it's particularly important to avoid taking "striking phrases" from your original. For instance, in your earlier versions, the article opened with " who has been intimately involved in some of the intense headline dramas, from hostile takeovers to hostage negotiations". This is very finely crafted, highly creative language taken verbatim from the source. It includes two [[alliteration|alliterative runs: "intimately involved intense"; "headline hostile hostage" and ends with a nice bit of linguistic balance. While job titles, etc., are not copyrightable, content like this cannot be taken unless it is quoted and fully attributed and, as mentioned above, unless it is "transformative."
- I suspect that this particular article is not in that bad a shape at this point; it's been edited by two different contributors since it was established. What I would do in your position is read over the article and read over the sources, asking myself if there are points of commonality that could and should be altered. If I could not find them, I'd politely ask the editor who tagged it to point out the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I ll take your earlier point - "Articles on Wikipedia are never finished, so it isn't always necessary to develop one area before working on another". I let the page remain as it is, and hope others open it up further in years to come as I m unable to find anymore reliable sources to tweak. Was inspired by his book - You can negotiate anything , so thought of writing a bio. Cheers Jean Julius Vernal 07:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanking you in advance. Jean Julius Vernal 11:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I ran across this article while working on the Dawkeye CCI - there is a large chunk of text added here and here (not by Dawkeye) in 2004 and 2005, which is more or less identical to [3] which was added as a reference in 2010 here. Owing to the long gap to the text being added here and a cite to the duplicate text being added, (which is unavailable on the wayback machine) and the nature of the site - a military records site, I have a strong suspicion that the www.forces-war-records.co.uk is a copy of the Wikipedia article rather than vice-versa. Could you have a look and give an opinion?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you don't mind me butting in, but I noticed the tag and had a look myself. I'm fairly sure that its the website copying wikipedia (and failing to attribute it) in this instance. Searching through the history, the article has developed fairly organically. Note the misspelling 'modernsation', which was introduced in this edit. Most of the other misspellings introduced at the same time were worked out in later edits. That one survived and now appears in the mirror website. It's not the first or only instance of this site copying chunks of wikipedia. Their article on HMS Vanguard (23) is a rough copy of that article as it stood c. 2010. Benea (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the site is copying wikipedia without attribution, you can send a copyright violation notice to the website. See Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind? Hardly! Thank you very much. :D Masterfully done, Benea, and thanks for pointing out the process, Ryan Vesey! Appreciate your working on the CCI, Nigel Ish. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dogfacebob (talk · contribs). Loads of notifications on talk page, editor has never responded on their talk page. See for instance [4] and [5] or [6] and [7], [8] and[9]. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. :/ I will do the necessaries when I get back in town tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, this didn't work as well as I'd hoped. :) But I guess it did...just not as quite as quickly as I'd hoped. Looking at it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More problems found; opened. Contributed indeffed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I DONT KNOW WHO'S SCREWING WITH MY PAGE FOR MY ASSOCIATE WE OWN OUR IMAGE'S I AM NOT BEING MALICIOUS BUT THEYRE ARE THINGS IN THIS LIFE THAT ARE
MORE IMPORTANT THAN DELETING PAGES BECAUSE OF A IMAGE SITUATION ............I AM A NERD 2 THE FULLEST BUT I HAVE A LIFE.....THIS IS NOT IN ANY WAY DIRECTED TO YOU BUT WHAT THE @@@@@@@@
THESE ARE OUR IMAGES DOE'S ANYONE HERE LIKE....GET OUT I MEAN TALK ABOUT BUEARACRACY
PLEASE TELL EVERYONE ANTHONYBEX PAGE IS LEGAL !AND IF WE HAVE ALL THIS ENERGY PEOPLE SHOULD DELETE THIS BLOODY RECESSION ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonybex (talk • contribs) 23:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My guess is that this editor, who has created an article in his simple Wikipedia userspace, is talking about images such as [10] on Commons. And how do I link correctly to Commons images? Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've deleted a related article before[11]. A simpleWiki Admin is now discussing the images with the user.Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! Good sleuthing there, Doug. I'd have been at a total loss as to why he was coming here. :D To link to anything on Commons directly, you precede it with
Commons: Commons:File:Spit-Polishing a starless sky 2009.jpg. (This always looks slightly funny to me when linking to things in the Commons namespace: Commons:Commons:Village pump. But, then, I'm easily amused. That said, of course, you can also get to an image on Commons just by using the same link you'd use for an image here, with a colon (:File): File:Spit-Polishing a starless sky 2009.jpg. MediaWiki pushes files on Commons to all of our local projects that don't have a file under the same name so we can use them exactly the same as if they were hosted locally. Lovely feature. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the info about linking. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted User:Anthonybex for copyvio (it was also ludicrously promotional). This editor is affiliated with the subject and recreated a similar page mmore than once on simpleWiki where an Admin had deleted it for copyvio. At Commons an Admin is trying to explain to him why some of his images are copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Doug (and MRG). Even if he did write a non-copyvio article, I highly doubt it would survive an AfD. His mother was notable, but there is nothing available aboutEric Charest-Weinberg himself, apart from his own press-releases and blurbs. Even his gallery has only local coverage, and pretty scanty at that. No in-depth coverage of the gallery itself, mostly "What's on" announcements and a few reviews of exhibitions, and this obvious puff-piece at miamiartguide.com. Voceditenore (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I just looked and nothing in the Miami Herald (where for some weird reason I was once the PA to the City Editor (actually he may have been the chief editor, as I recall being made to answer phone calls from the state governor because no one else wanted to). Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can always take advantage of the fact that there are project-neutral names for some namespaces, including the project namespace: commons:Project:Village pump. Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this video is a copyright violation. See also this reversion. It appears that the video was uploaded by the congressman himself, but it's impossible to be sure who took the video. If it's a U.S. government work, it would be fine, but there's no proof of that. I also don't like some of the other edits initially added to the article - some are unsourced, some are trivial - by an IP calling me names and, as you can see, by an editor with few contributions calling me a vandal, but I'm more interested in the CR issue. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know. I wouldn't assume it's PD, just because it's was uploaded by the congressman. It could have been taken by his wife, as you note, or anyone else. I wouldn't support uploading it to Wikipedia without more information. Linking is a slightly different matter. WP:LINKVIO cautions us against linking to works where we "know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright", but I'm not sure that there's enough reason to doubt that Inslee has license to display the video. I've removed videos placed by official Youtube channels before - for instance, when minor celebrities upload clips of their appearance on news broadcasts - but this is a different kind of beast. I think I'd probably be okay with retaining the link from a copyright standpoint; we'd certainly have a fair case to make that we had reasonable expectation that the video was authorized! :)
- I feel your pain on dealing with people on those kinds of articles. :/ I still keep an eye on Kevin Powell. Back when he was still politically relevant (I'm assuming he's out of the scene now simply because all is quiet on his front), I was accused of working for him and of working for his enemies - depended entirely on whose POV I was trying to thwart.
- If you want me to have a word with the user who called you a vandal, please let me know. I will be happy to explain to him how dispute resolution works. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your analysis of the copyright issue is not surprisingly nuanced and useful, thanks. As for User:Zentalon, I'm frankly puzzled by his history. He has only a handful of edits in 5 years. He seems to be particularly interested in Burner, but his edits aren't disruptive. I'm not one who normally suspects socks under every mantle, but I wonder if he edits with other accounts or as an IP. In any event, you don't have to do anything on my account. If you think you should independently of me, that's fine. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dropped him a note. I wouldn't have wanted to say anything if you'd have preferred I didn't, but since you don't mind.... :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same editor as the one using the long quotations in multiple articles (e.g. Look Mickey see above discussion on long copyrighted quotes) also uses non-free images in multiple articles.
One of them in the Brushstrokes series is being discussed. See Talk:Brushstrokes series#Merger discussion about the use of the same non-free image by Dick Giordano: File:Brushstrokes source.jpg to explain the "source" but text only mentions it and does not discuss it.
I thought the Non-free rational requires that discussion in the text is sufficient to make the use of the Non-free image necessary. (Currently used in four articles, as I removed it from the fifth.)
If you are not the right person, could you refer me to the person who is? Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) Non-free images are really not my thing, but you're right that our policy requires that they be used for good reason and sparingly. Technically, review of non-free images takes place at WP:NFCR, but I have to say that I'd be wary about relying on it. It just doesn't get enough participation. :/ Hopefully the conversation ongoing will come to clear resolution. Otherwise, I'm not 100% sure what I'd do. The conversation is tricky. I might launch an RFC about it on the talk page of the image, publicize it at the articles using it and at WT:NFC and WP:NFRC? I've never seen that done, but it seems like a potentially useful way of attracting conversation about the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure when [12] was written. Is the 2009 date correct? If it is, Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi is copyvio. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Going by Wayback, it looks like the 2010-10-14 version of the biog page didn't yet have a biog of Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi - there's a link for it, but it just gives a popup saying it it's "comming soon" [sic]. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, it's a terrible article with weird/bad references, and I found a copyvio copy of it at [[13]] which I had thought at first was the source, but maybe the article isn't copyvio. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Boing! :) Adding to that, there are signs of natural evolution. Take the sentence "He believed that the real worth of a poet's creativity is to be eventually gauged by those who looked into his works in their eagerness to know him better" in the link; it starts as "He believed that the real worth of his contribution is to be eventually gauged by those who looked into his works in their eagerness to know him better—Taab-e-nazar agar ho tamasha karien kaleem,Ab har taraf zia hi Zia anjuman mein hey" and is gradually altered here. (More alterations further, but I stopped there. :D) I'll put the backwards tag on the talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've heard you're the go-to copyright person so I invite you or your TPS to Gujarat Science City as I'm not sure I've done the right thing. The article was tagged a G12 on creation but an IP deleted the bot-tag and the speedy was never handled. I stumbled across the article today, realized it was a copyvio & easily found source. I stubbed it, but not sure if there's anything else I need to do since there's copyvio in the article history. Yes, I'm an admin but I'm rusty and never dealt with copyvios in depth. I plan to get back to the article within the next few days so it doesn't look like an A7 but the material wasn't salvageable. Thanks in advance. I'm watching here & the article so I'll see any changes there or notes here. StarM 02:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- see also Science City, Jalandhar, same issue. StarM 02:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fine approach. :) The only note I'll bring up is that sometimes it may be a good idea to rev-delete the text to avoid its being restored, inadvertently or intentionally. This is totally a judgment call. I'm more likely to do it when content is extensive, since the risks are higher, and especially when there's not a lot of other substantial content, since at that point "amount and substantiality" is more of an issue, diminishing the odds of a fair use defense. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Off to go read up on Rev Del as I think that was introduced during my hiatus here. StarM 00:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's back and prolific too. I'm not really active currently but I've blocked three socks recently Blamecivil95, Mixveg12345, and Rasikaraja. He's also changed locations again and now claims to be a friend of Vrghs jacob (see the statements on Blamecivil95's talk history). Can you keep a look out? A lot of Indian government articles are impacted. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- <sigh> I'll try. :/ I don't get as much time in my volunteer account as I used to, though. Not by a long shot. (Today's a holiday, and I've spent a good bit of it already as Mdennis, over at Commons. :D) Any chance you could ask the India Wikiproject to keep an eye out for him? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just random thanks. The World, or at the very least Wikipedia, is much improved by your efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.86.10 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. :D I try. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you please cast an eye over File:Alzavolaopusdeiclub.jpg and determine if the licensing procedure is correct? It seems that an attempt has been made to license correctly, but I'm wondering if merely reporting events (which may or may not have happened) is sufficient? Does the "Wikipedia Letter of Request Form" have to be registered with WP to be official? Thanks for any help you can provide. GFHandel ♬ 23:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. That's an amazing description. :D
- If this photo were uploaded today, I'd tag it and explain to the photographer that there are two problems - the permission isn't logged at OTRS, and the permission letter doesn't explicitly approve the license. Older images are sometimes grandfathered in, though, so I'm not 100% sure the best approach to take here. From the subject line ("RE: photos of Toni Zweifel and Alzavola Club for use in a web-based encyclopedia") to the permission ("So ok to integrate them in the article!"), there's nothing to indicate that these people realized they were consenting the "normal" license requested ("Normally we ask permission for material to be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of the photo, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely -- and even potentially use them commercially -- so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, nor prevent others from using or copying them freely.")
- The uploader hasn't been active for almost four years. I think I'll bring it up at Commons VP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Licensing_question_about_File:Alzavolaopusdeiclub.jpg. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A strife-ridden argument with what I think is still an NPOV problem, I just found someone trying to add an article from a Persian wedding magazine to a quote from the Britannica. Looking at the quote I realised it was not only very large in relationship to the article, but since it was from an encyclopedia, probably even larger in relationship to the article in the encyclopedia. As I have online access through my library I checked, and the quote is 281 words out of an article of 1577 words. The quote is in the legacy section and is by Richard Friedman. I'd really appreciate help with this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I generally do in such cases is truncate. That's what I've done here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. A great job. I must remember about brief quotes. I almost wish we never used block quotes, they are too easy to exploit for pov purposes. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recently saw Jim Shoulders referenced on TV and I feel like there might be some interest in the article soon so I started improving it. It was completely unsourced. While adding refs, I found some copyvio [14]. Could you do a quick copyvio check to help me find what's left? Do we have any decent alternatives to what Corenbot used to do? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "Shoulders was a lifetime member of the Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame in Colorado Springs and the National Cowboy Hall of Fame in Oklahoma City. He is the only professional cowboy honored at Madison Square Garden in New York City" uncopyrightable as uncreative? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spit-Polishing_a_starless_sky_2009.jpg){kind=link}
