|
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 10 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 15:53, 18 November 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Draft:Soft robotics was deleted as a copyright violation, and restoration was requested at WP:REFUND by SirJamesHunt. I went through the draft finding and removing passages copied from several sources, while leaving the framework and references in place to facilitate a possible reconstruction, and Fuhghettaboutit removed some more. The requester has now explained at User talk:JohnCD#Soft robotics that a group of researchers in the field set out to make an article, quoting passages from their various papers. It looks a promising article, and I would like to help them.
The paper which was the source of the largest number of quotes, here, is actually released under CC-BY. It was my impression that a {{CC-notice}} template at the end of the article would make it legal, but Fuhghetttabout it says on my talk page that more specific attribution is needed; and anyway it is desirable in order to avoid plagiarism. Assuming that the authors of the other papers quoted make a suitable copyright release, the same issue will arise.
So my question is, where an article incorporates whole paragraphs copied, with a suitable license permission, from a previously published work, how should that be acknowledged in the article? It looks as though we need a variant of {{CC-notice}} that says "This paragraph incorporates text from this source... " Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey John, Moon. That's not quite what I said, but I've clarified at your talk page in the section you linked above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Moonriddengirl (talk) for your support. We are still discussing a number of possibilities at JohnCD's talk page (talk) → [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJamesHunt (talk • contribs) 20:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
This edit introduced a pastiche of copy-paste from a number of different sources, and I have now reversed it. I put a speedy tag on it but it was ignored for the best part of 24 hours, so restored an early stub version. However, it seems that the current practice is to oversight the offending text, so I would request that you do that. In fact, I think it would be better if it was deleted outright. FYI, I have a "clean" version waiting in the wings, so if you would see fit to delete it so I can move the clean version into place. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, User:Ohconfucius. :) I can't delete it outright, because G12 only applies if content is corrupted to the beginning, but I can certain rev-delete! Done. Of course, you're welcome to copy-paste your new text on top of it. Thanks for locating the problem and salvaging the article! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, it's happened again. :-( -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have cautioned the user. It's not the same one who placed the content before, so he may be unaware. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Does it require oversighting? -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I almost missed this. Sorry. I think it's not critical. It's a smallish amount of text and was promptly removed, so odds of inadvertent restoration seem slim. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello M. Last year you were helpful in explaining a copyvio situation at this thread Talk:Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century#Copyright violation. If you have the time would you please take a look at the conversation I started here Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Question regarding a list article waiting for approval. The situations seem similar to me but - a) they might not be or b) things may have changed in the last 10 months. Whether it is a thing to be concerned about or I am way off base any input that you can give will be appreciated. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 23:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, MarnetteD. Thank you for noticing the issue; I've removed the list and explained my reason there. I really dislike that we have to do that, but those lists have commercial value - they sell books. While we can reproduce and compile lists of facts, creative lists are explicitly forbidden by WP:NFC for that reason. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking a look at this and for your response. It is always good to have an editor like you who is willing to share their knowledge and experience. Thanks for your help and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 14:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moonriddengirl,
Since you are the OTRS-agent who originally death with the ticket related to the images created by Tom Frost I would like to inform you about Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Tom Frost. Given the complaint this seemed like the best course of action.
Regards,
Natuur12 (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Moonriddengirl. There has been an ongoing dispute about the paraphrasing at Rose–Baley Party that I think will take someone like you to sort out. Are you willing to take a look? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have pretty limited time for volunteering at the moment, Rationalobserver, and these can be huge, but I will come take a look and I will try. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reviewed and put in my thoughts there. I agree with those who have opined that there is some close paraphrasing that does not rise to the level of copyright problem. I've explained there why and how I think such things may be addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please would you help. This draft is, as far as I can tell, a word for word translation of http://www.dartn.de/EDC and thus I suspect a copyvio. But I am not clear on the law of translated material. Fiddle Faddle 18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- gentle nudge
 Fiddle Faddle 15:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Fiddle Faddle. :) I tend to do my talk page from the bottom up for no reason I can coherently explain. :) Always been that way, at least as long as I can remember. And now with notifications I try to get those before my talk page. (I don't always.) I just ran out of time before I got here this morning, and, too bad, because I could have spared you some time! This one is an easy one.
- The right to authorize translations belongs to the copyright holder of the underlying text. If it is a word-for-word or even a very close translation and the source is copyrighted, it is for our purposes no different than if it is copied or closely paraphrased in the same language. Unless the source is public domain or compatibly licensed, we cannot use the translation. I see no indication that that particular source is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I shall forever think of you as a bottom up girl ~giggles~ and I will flag it for deletion unless you have already. Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG, long time, no pester :) I've just found a massive chunk of copyvio at Sahajanand Saraswati. I've removed it but I think something might have to be done with the history. Can you help? - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also just removed this from Ambala district. MRG, I regularly remove copyright violations, which are a particular bane in the existence of India/Pakistan articles, but I'm never sure when a manipulation of the history should take place. Is there any decent clarification for this? - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Sitush. :) Decent clarification? Probably not. It's not really strongly codified. I tend to follow most of the principles at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins which, nota bene, I probably wrote. (Maybe not. Not trying to steal attribution, just acknowledging. :)) I rev delete under two circumstances, usually. (1) If the content is recent and revision deletion costs nothing to the transparency of the article (we lose a few diffs of minimal content) or (2) If the content is extensive and restoration (inadvertent or otherwise) seems likely. Having myself once accidentally restored a copyvio somebody else had cleaned, I know that this can happen. (Copyvio introduced at point A; second copyvio introduced at point B; somebody notices copyvio at point A and removes it; somebody notices copyvio introduced at point B, and I revert back to position A.) In the olden days, before revision deletion was created, we dealt with this by selectively deleting the histories of articles and compiling a GFDL-compliant list of authors, but revision deletion retains that list for us. I don't do it automatically, but I suspect some do it more liberally than I do and others less. In the case of Ambala district, you've got only one substantial text addition after the introduction of the copyvio, and the copyvio is quite extensive. I would rev-delete that. (In fact, I did.) In the case of Sahajanand Saraswati, we have the copyvio being deliberately reintroduced, months after you removed it last, and it also is substantial. Another good candidate for rev-deletion (done). And also semi-protection, if it comes back. Whoever you're dealing with there is patient. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for sorting it out and for the explanation. It strikes me that passing the buck to you is the best solution, so it is just as well that I do not have the admin stuff! - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Flowers for you!
|
| I just wish these could be real ones. Thank you so much for your advice on the Rose-Baley article. I know how busy you are and really appreciate you taking the time to give us such a detailed and helpful analysis. As always, you're a guiding light. Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
I saw you deleted my additions to the Ann Packer article. You mention copyright concerns. Any quotes were footnoted. Like a lot of stuff on Wikipedia the existing article was fairly crappy and it not do her justice. Firstly, it was badly written and most of it seemed to be anecdotal. I just reorganized it. I am not sure what your copyright concerns were. Is there an appeals process? If there is not I won't bother in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Hutchens (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I will reply at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May one be right to-reight a wrong?
Or does that just make a eleft?
My sincere regards,
Drazardous.DraZarDouSc8leS (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl, Would you be willing to weigh in here [2] as to whether this is a copyright problem? Thank you. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
