|
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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 06:12, 13 August 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
hello. Here again with a copyvio question. Not sure how to handle El Museo del Barrio which is lifted directly from their website. Specifically here. It's also far more promotional than an article should be . That said, don't know if G:11 or 12 apply to a long standing article. Do you have any guidance here? As it's not actually sourced I wouldn't mind wiping it and starting anew, but don't know if that's kosher in this situation. Thanks in advance for any guidance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs) 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. :) Neither G11 nor G12 work when there are clean versions in history, and in this case, we've got some basic information dating back to 2005. When a copy-paste is not easily excised, you certainly have the option to rewrite it boldly or to revert back to the last clean version - an approach recommended by policy at Wikipedia:Copyright violations and what I went ahead and implemented. The article could still use a thorough rewrite, if you feel up for it. It's all sourced to primary sources. But I don't think the text is copied now. :) The article was hijacked in February 2011, almost certainly by an employee of the museum. And I agree that it was much too promotional. (If you come upon a lousy article, with or without copyright problems, you are always welcome to start it over in accordance with WP:BOLD. I do recommend checking edit history and talk page first, though, to make sure that there aren't interested contributors whom you should approach at the talk page first. In this case, there's no sign of that at all.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, as always, for the help and advice. Have my work cut out for me, but that's much better than that sad brochure masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Have a great weekend. StarM 02:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleaned up, at least a start. I think there are enough secondary sources to warrant removing the primary tag - please let me know if you think I should add it back. Thanks again StarM 03:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like a good direction. :) Thanks for taking the time. And I see diverse sources there, so, of course, tag is no longer needed. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again! Enjoy the rest of your weekend
Hi. If we suspect copyvio, run a Google search on a likely phrase, and a hit suggests it might be copy-pasted from an ISO standard that we can't afford to download, what's the best procedure to follow? Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I frequently base this on how much matched text I can find or contextual clues. If the likelihood of copying is strong, I will usually either presumptively remove it or flag it with the copyvio template. I may ask at WP:RX if anybody can view the original. But, like with sock puppetry investigations, sometimes "quacking" is strong enough not to require that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are copyright issues regarding use of this image. I went to IRC and took some help. legoktm, stated that the material was copyrighted by govt. as it was used in 1997, however, we are not able to find any such policy by the govt of Pak. Your name was pointed out so would like to know your views regarding the issue. The main question is wheather the image should be included in the article or not? I'm planning for a FAC so the problem should be resolved and your help would be appreciated. Thanks! TheSpecialUser TSU 02:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I have some concerns about it. Deletion discussions can take months, but I've put the preliminary question at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Currency in Pakistan. If they tell me that Pakistan currency is not free, or if they cannot verify that it is, I will nominate these images for deletion on commons, and you'd be better off removing them from the article before the FAC. If they tell me it's okay, well, we'll know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for your help :) TheSpecialUser TSU 16:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examsguru was recreated 3 times, what was the point in "salting" it... for only 6 months? They just recreated Examsguru a 4th time when it expired, and they'll keep at it until the cows come home: Wikipedia is SEO gold, they say. "Salting" = permanent, not 6 months. 62.147.8.77 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd only be speculating, but unlike some names which are unlikely to ever be article names, this one has the potential of being legitimate, if the right person does the article in the right way. I also think some people trying to make a bogus article do get bored, so a time-limited slating could be effective. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here, so perhaps it is time for a longer, perhaps unlimited salting, on the assumption that if someone wants to do it legitimately, all they have to do is ask and it can be reversed. However, I don't know all the history, so I may be missing something.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing at WP:Salting to even hint that it's permanent. :) Temporary salting may be sufficient if it is long enough to break the cycle of disruption, as Sphilbrick notes. Most of the time I've done it, it works just fine in the short term. In this case, though, they are laying claim to new bases for notability. Four of the sources in the article did not exist at the time of its AFD. I have some doubts about the reliability of some of those sources, and I doubt that being one of a billion (give or take) finalists for the 2012 Red Herring 100 Asia Award confers that much notability. But circumstances do change. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maggie,
I realize this is Copyright 101 for you, but I wanted to make sure that I had this right:
If I want to use an image from Commons that is GFDL only (uploaded pre-dual-licensing conversion), in a PowerPoint-type presentation at work (definitely commercial use, but not something being sold), is that okay? Do the GFDL images need to be handled differently than the dual-licensed images? Does it matter whether it's an internal presentation or "published" to customers or others? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I have to start off with the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer and I can't give you legal advice. Nobody can here; not even the Foundation lawyers. You know that. But I need to say it. :D That out of the way, I'm happy to share my opinions with you and how I would handle it.
- GFDL license permits the same kind of use that CC-By-SA does, so commercial reuse is definitely okay. The challenge for reusing any GFDL item is the requirement to include the full legal code. It matters less who will be able to access the presentation than the form in which it is presented, I believe.
- If I wanted to display a GFDL image in a PowerPoint presentation, of which there were no printed copies, I think what I would do, based on my reading of Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, is place this text on the image page:
- Copyright (c) YEAR ATTRIBUTION. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this image under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is available at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html and by request of presenter.
- Then I would have a copy of the license for examination by anybody who requests it.
- If the presentation were to be printed, I would replace the final sentence with A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License". Then I would attach it as an appendix. If the printed presentation cannot deviate from the one displayed, I might adjust the language accordingly, maybe like A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License" and can also be accessed at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html.
- As I read it, FSF very kindly anticipated updates to their license from the beginning, so GFDL has always been forward migratory. The license includes the following text: "Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License 'or any later version' applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation." If the GFDL is non-specific, I would stick with 1.3. If it is specific and does not specify "or any later version", I'd alter my language accordingly and point to 1.1 or 1.2, as appropriate. It's still forwards compatible, but there's no reason not to be accurate. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the quick and enlightening response. I'd summarize it as "you didn't really want to use these images after all". But I'll keep your suggestion handy, because it looks like a good way to handle it if it can't be avoided gracefully. Thanks again, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't waste too much time trying to teach this new editor the ropes - he's actually been around for quite some time. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne. JohnInDC (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting me know! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you opine on User talk:Tijfo098#Question? Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG...Gerda Arendt and I have been working on Franz Kafka for two months and hope to take to FAC soon. While working on it, I was trying to find sources for several sections that had no source. I found many seemed to come from an ebook from eBookEden. I used it as a source thinking since it was a book it was ok. Then I became suspicious---did prior editors use it as a source or did the writer of the ebook use wiki as a source? Then during the peer review, which I just closed, Truthkeeper88 said she was suspicious of this too. We can't tell what's going on. See TK's part of the PR (at the bottom) and the Kafka PR thread at User_talk:Truthkeeper88. Gerda and I want this to be as good as we and helpers can make. We absolutely do NOT want it tainted in any way. My plan, unless you advise otherwise, is to rewrite sections using that source and find solid sources. Please put your final findings on the talk page of the Kafka article. I will help as much as possible, but I don't know for sure what to do and face it, I'm not an expert in this area. Can you help? Gerda, TK, and I would really appreciate it. PumpkinSky talk 23:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, and sure! :) Looking into it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, first thing I see is that the publisher is eBookEden; this is good news. See Mirrors and forks. But just to be absolutely sure, I traced the influx of content visible on the page linked by Truthkeeper (thans, TK!) at [1] as well as the first page. I searched for the phrase 'major fiction writers' from their lead (which is tellingly familiar in configuration to our "house style"): this phrase entered into our article in September 2008 when an IP removed the word German from "major German fiction writers". The rest of the lead is either identical or very close to the first page of that publication. This is a good sign of "natural evolution" since it is unlikely that somebody copied their text, but added the word "German" - which somebody else later removed. I then did a search for "eponymous author", a line used to describe Jeremy Iron's role. This was inserted in April 2004 with very different language. Notice how significantly different the page was then from the rest of the eBookEden. Just to nail it completely, I looked at a significant addition of text dating after the phrase "major fiction writers" entered, and found this December 2008 edit. This content is present in the eBookEden as well. These are clear signs that the content evolved here naturally. This is a {{backwardscopy}}. And most definitely not a reliable source. This publisher shouldn't be used for anything on Wikipedia per WP:CIRCULAR. :/ (putting this on the article talk page, too). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I've got usage of that ref down to a dual use of one page. See post I just made on TK's page.PumpkinSky talk 10:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just read your analysis on Talk:Franz Kafka. See my response there and many thanks! PumpkinSky talk 10:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Cherokee, a language which does not have a 'p' sound, the English "pussy" (meaning cat) became "wesa"; so the etymology is not all that far-fetched. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Mike. That's interesting. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling this was copied from somewhere, although maybe it was just written by a PR person. It contains writing like "APLS welcomes all those interested in exploring the intersection between politics and the life sciences; especially in the areas of: political behavior, public policy, and ethics. The APLS welcomes not only those who hope to further advance research and teaching in these vital new areas, but also those engaged in public policy." They read like some cut-and-paste from a mission statement from somewhere. It's not online though. Any ideas? It looks it was written by the webmaster of ALPS [2]. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's always difficult. What I would usually recommend there is putting {{cv-unsure}} at the article's talk page. This gives editors a heads up that you have some doubts and asks anyone who finds a source to flag the content. Without a source or other strong suggestion of copying (like a history of it), I think that's all we can do, since as you mention it could just be written by a PR person.
- That said, there's also nothing wrong with trimming the promotional content to the bone. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Omdo came right off the block that you applied for edit warring that was raised at AN/I and went straight ahead to make his changes again to Sabah, again without a talkpage post, and without even edit summaries. Clearly the 24hrs did not leave an impression. CMD (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for letting me know. Blocked for 48 hours. Cautioned that if he resumes edit warring again, the blocks will continue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a look at this asap? Someone's objecting to blacklisting on the spam blacklist. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This DYK nom is using a very small portion of text from the book. Is that kosher? I raised the question here. Ryan Vesey 21:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting one. I think probably it's okay since it's a brief snippet that is attributed inline (author and book) and it's not being used out of context but as part of a sentence. Policy does require an inline citation with every quote, but given those facts I would not myself object. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
