User talk:Moonriddengirl

edit count | edit summary usage Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If I have left a message at your talk page that seems to invite reply, I am watching it, unless I've requested follow-up here. If you leave your reply for me here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I think it would be helpful to you, I will leave a note at your talk page letting you know that an answer is available. If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template message I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with a warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked. You may read more about my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright. Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it. I will not consider it wheel-warring if you reverse my admin actions as long as you leave me a civil note telling me what you've done and why and as long as you're open to discussion with me should I disagree. School for Advanced Research Hi, MoonG. Perhaps you could look at this one early; permission seems, according to the talk page, to have been arranged through proper channels: Talk:School for Advanced Research. Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Hi. I don't have access to mail sent to permissions-en, so I can't check for that release. We'll have to wait for the OTRS ticket. With any luck, it will come within a couple of days. Otherwise, we get the frustration of trying to figure out why not. And, oh, this can be frustrating. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, OK, sorry. I didn't know how these things work. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC) It's a waiting game for us on this side of the e-mail. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC) I thought emails usually travelled at two-thirds the speed of light? Anyway, I think this one arrived. See Talk:School for Advanced Research. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC) I may need your expert copyright help with Jan Grootboom. See User talk:Coppertwig#Jan Grootboom. First I had deleted a nifty story from the article; then I deleted a link to a web page where the story is displayed. The story is from the 1915 book. If there's no copyright problem, perhaps the story itself could be restored to the article; if there is, possibly the web link should be re-deleted. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC) USS Liberty Yeah, I hit the revert button the third time, started entering a summary then realised I'd already reerted twice, figured I'd leave it for someone else....then knocked my enter key. It has been a slow edit war for some time really, some people have way too many horses in the race I guess. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC) The most important comment I can make is that this is not an edit war, it is a concerted effort to censor any mention of comments by Captain Ward Boston, USN, JAGC, Ret, the chief Navy attorney for the 1967 U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry into the Israeli attack, from being shown on the USS Liberty incident page. Two people, Narson and Jayjg , have been removing an entry I have carefully vetted. The Findings of the Moorer Report, with no copyright notice whatsoever, is located here. Some History: 1) The original discussion involved the assertion that the entry was a WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE violation, yet repeated requests by myself and one request by User:CasualObserver'48 for an explicit explanation of how the entry is a violation has been summarily ignored, primarily by Jayjg who simply deletes entries. 2) Of particular interest to you should be how User:CasualObserver'48's original request for clarification was removed from the Discussion Page at the point in which he entered it. I had to go back through the archives to retrieve the request and I reprinted it. I also identified myself as the one who reprinted it. You see, someone removed it and I was unable to find out who did so. Who had the ability, not to mention audacity, to remove a request for information? Whoever did that should be removed from Wikipedia forever. 3) In my many attempts to satisfy repeated deletions of the entry, I have quoted a) the Congressional record, b) Statements made by persons who submitted Affidavits for the report and c) the report itself. In all cases the entry is removed for the flimsiest of reasons. Note that if the person removing the entry was performing his/her due diligence, then the entry would be modified by that person in order to satisfy his/her particular problem with it. This has never happened. Not only are flimsy reasons used to remove the entry, no attempt to mollify the concerns of those removing it are even attempted. Again, this is not an edit war. This is a blatant attempt at censorship. I, on the other hand, have modified the entry several times in an attempt to satisfy their concerns. All my modifications are deleted in their entirety. 4) Artificial arguments used against my entry are common place. One example is to ask for a newspaper article which is a second source for the report. Why does my entry require a newspaper article to second it? The report was entered into the Congressional Record. Am I to understand that Wikipedia doesn't accept the Congressional record as a valid secondary source? Is a newspaper article supposed to be more reputable then the Congressional Record? 5) You mention copyright concerns - the link above is a direct link to the Findings of the report. There are no copyright notices on the Findings page, and it is the only source I have attempted to quote. A careful and thorough analysis of the history of the attempts to appease Jayjg and Narson will show that appeasement is not possible, as their goal is to censor any mention Captain Boston Wards comments from the Moorer Report. These two do not edit the entry to satisfy their problems with the reports contents or the entry itself, they remove it. That is censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldFacts (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Hi. As the administrator who protected the article, it is important that I remain uninvolved in this dispute and hence I will not comment on specifics, but please read over Wikipedia:Edit war, which may help you understand why this is an edit war. You have already gone over the 3RR limit, though you may well have been unaware of it. If you continue to revert after the expiration of protection, you are likely to be blocked from editing. There are other venues where you may seek assistance if you feel that your views are not being fairly considered. You can read more about this in our dispute resolution policy. With respect to copyright, copyright notices are not necessary in the United States, as copyright does not require registration but is automatic. For that reason, in order to reuse material from external sources, we must be able to demonstrate that the text is in the public domain or is released under license compatible with GFDL. Lack of a copyright notice is insufficient. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Considering the blatant failure to AGF there, and his churlish demand that someone be indef banned for a comment on a talk page being lost, I'm not entirely sure what encouraging him down the DR path would achieve, as his attitude makes it highly unlikely anyone would agree to voluntary DR and the compulsory DR (namely arbcom) is unlikely to take so minor a case. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC) There has not been and never has been a blatant failure of WP:AGF on my part. Unlike you, I have modified my entry countless times in attempts to appease those who delete the entry. My modifications speak volumes for WP:AGF. You, on the other hand, delete the entry and do not attempt to appease your own problems with the entries. There in lies the basis for my accusation of censorship. It's never been about how I present my entry, it's that I present my entry which causes it to be deleted. Secondly, Comments on WikiPedia discussion pages cannot be 'lost', but they can be deleted. In this case, an explicit request was made to Jayjg asking that he explicitly site his reasons for removing my entry. Specifically, the question was: Outdent, Jayjg, what is the basis for the removal of sourced material under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. What is specifically in error? He has neither answered the questioner, now has he answered me, other then simply STATING that they are violations. The requirement for Newspaper articles is another red herring. Most news paper articles do not save their articles 'for ever'. The Congressional Record, on the other hand, is available at all times. I have, however, found several articles by Thomas Moorer recently which will be brought up.WorldFacts (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Uhm, you deleted CO48's question WorldFacts. Stop intimating that was Jayjg trying to duck it. Also, no-one has specified newspapers, merely other sources that comment upon or discuss the report. If we are to look at newspapers, the claim that newspapers from 5 years ago are not available is ludicrous. Anyway, if you want to continue this, lets take it to the article talk page? --Narson ~ Talk • 18:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I did not delete CO48's question. I added it back in, twice, perhaps 3 times by now. Jayjg has not answered it and I am not intimating that he is ducking the question - I am stating it as fact. Incidently, if he says "It's a violation", it's not a violation. If he adds "because of x and y and z and THAT Is why it is a violation...." then he has answered the question. (Just trying to be clear, vis a vis WP:AGF) To date, no such explanation has been forthcoming. Lastly, I have no intention of bringing this back to the articles discussion pages as we are in an infinite loop. I add the entry and you or Jayjg deletes it. I'll continue with the problem resolution process until: 1) My perfectly valid entry is added back in without fear of total deletion. 2) We find out who deleted CO48's question and 3) The deleter is removed from Wikipedia. We can't have such vigilante's running around on cyberspace or Wikipedia anymore then we can have legal depositions and declassified Top Secret documents showing information concerning the murder of American Sailers by Israel censored.WorldFacts (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Let me make it clear: you deleted CO48's question. Please stop asking for yourself to be indef blocked, it looks odd. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Why are you being so combative ? (Let me make it clear: you deleted CO48's question. Please stop asking for yourself to be indef blocked, it looks odd) -- Clearly Worldfacts has a point and he/she deserves a response to the original questions posed - and that was for an explicit explanation from JayJG of how the entry is a violation.--Henrywinklestein (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC) WorldFacts is demanding the lynching, I'm merely pointing out the man he is trying to lynch is himself. He is deliberatly not getting it at this point (His previous bad faith attacks used up all my good faith) and is merely trying to play slow ball edit war. Anyway, lets stop spamming the poor lady and take this back to the article talk page, shall we? We must be driving her batty with all the New Messages spam. --Narson ~ Talk • 07:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC) I have to note that you're unlikely to reach any wider consensus by pasting your concerns at my talk page. I am uninvolved and intend to remain that way. Though Narson is responding to you here, new responders are unlikely to do so, unless someone stopping by with a random question about copyright concerns should decide to chip in. :) If you wish to break the loop, consider asking for feedback in a more appropriate place. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard might bring more input into whether the matter is truly fringe, or Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard might help determine if others regard the matter as OR. But please first review Wikipedia:Consensus. While it is appropriate to ask for wider input at an appropriate forum, it is not appropriate to continue seeking feedback in the hopes of getting an answer you like. (See also Wikipedia:Canvassing#Forum_shopping.) As far as I can see, you've only discussed the matter at the article's talk page, here, and at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, so that's not a danger at this point. But you should choose which forum might best serve your needs carefully and stick with it. (The responder at editor assistance, who suggested third opinion, seems not to have been aware of the scope of the disagreement. There are already too many people involved for 3O.) If a clear consensus emerges against the addition of this to the article, you will need to respect it to avoid disruptive editing, which can result in your being prevented from further contributions to the article. It can be difficult to remain calm and patient with the process when you disagree with others, but it is essential for productive contribution to Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Our dispute resolution policy may be helpful in many ways, as it also includes suggestions for conduct in discussions, including reminders to "stay cool" and pointers to WP:AGF as well as various boards that may be relevant to his concerns (such as Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Pointing SPAs to various additional fora to obtain their goals seems a little Beansy, but then, I am pretty sick of the whole thing so far, so anything that seems like it will prolong the constant grind doesn't appeal. --NarsonTalk • 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Simply answer Worldfacts concerns in proper fashion and lets get JayJG to explain why the entry is a violation and this would be settled.--Henrywinklestein (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Dispute resolution is policy, and it's available for all contributors unless they are editing in defiance of a community ban. Additional fora will either serve to confirm the perspective of those who oppose addition of the material or to confirm the perspective of those who promote it, but in either case wider community input is part of consensus building. That's why the policy, exists, after all. Lacking any background with this material or familiarity with at least most of the editors involved, there's certainly no reason for me not to assume good faith on all parts. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Can you please review this for me? Hello! When your schedule allows, I would ask if you could please review my rewrite of that thorny article on the rescue of Poland’s Jewish community during World War II. I have it checked into a sandbox linked to my account: [1]. In the proverbial nutshell: I rewrote every sentence twice to ensure there was no inappropriate paraphrasing. Links to Mark Paul’s scholarship were removed, and I reconfirmed that all remaining quotes came from notable and recognised historians and respected publishing sources (about 4-6 passages were cut when I could not determine the reliability of its source material). Where applicable, quotes are clearly cited to their sources, and all anecdotal evidence was removed. All alleged POV-pushing, as stated in the earlier discussion, was expunged and the article clearly (I think) puts this information into proper historic perspective. Please let me know if the article works now, or if further improvement is needed. Many thanks, again, for your patience and support. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Hi. :) I may not have a lot more on Wiki time (due to work situations) today, but I will certainly be happy to look it over as soon as I get a chance. Time allowing, that will be tomorrow. Otherwise, definitely tomorrow. I appreciate your rewriting the material. It's really a much easier way to ensure that copyright concerns are addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you, again! I realise this is not a pressing priority for you, so your input is greatly appreciated. As a side note, I am involved in the publishing world and I am highly cognizant of copyright and intellectual property issues. I made every effort to ensure this new version makes the grade. And I also took extra to ensure there were no "fringe" sources cited (which was a major stumbling block with some of the editors). I am very glad that you can provide assistance here. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Ha. I just noticed my typo. I meant "Time allowing, that will be today." :D Copyright issues can be a bit of a headache. I get to deal with them at my work, too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Oh, and by way of a "post script", it's not that it isn't a pressing priority for me. Copyright problems are generally listed for seven days before handling. This one is still under "new listings" at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and I ordinarily wouldn't even have looked at it yet. First thing I try to get to everyday are the ones that have come current, which have already been pending for seven days. As you can see by a glance at this, sometimes it takes quite a while to clear them! (I have good reason to hope that those two are almost resolved.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Today, tomorrow...what works for you also works for me! :) And if anything needs fixing, just point it out and I will fix it. Thank you, again! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Just in case you should happen to stop by, I'm reviewing it now. It may take a while, but I will let you know when I've finished. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Close review ←I'm not seeing any significant copyright concerns (I'm halfway through at this point and have found only one passage that I think is too close so far). Unfortunately necessary caveat: I can't sign that in blood, because that document is huge. (Not that I would anyway--seems both messy and unsanitary.) Presuming it continues so through the end, I would be comfortable moving that into article space to replace the copyright infringing version. I do have a couple of questions, though. I've gotten fairly familiar with some of that material, thanks to my recent close reading. :) Your sentence, "Chava Grinberg-Brown from Gmina Wiskitki would recall in a postwar interview that some farmers used the threat of violence against their fellow villagers if any attempt was made to betray her safety." Is there additional support for this? The pdf reports threat of violence against one person, not multiple. (page 260) "Polish-born Israeli writer and Holocaust survivor Natan Gross, in his 2001 book Who Are You, Mr. Grymek?, told of a village near Warsaw where a local Nazi collaborator was forced to flee for his life when it became known he reported the locations of hidden Jews." The pdf indicates that the farmer fled from fear of reprisal, but does not specify the type of reprisal he fled. (page 260) "In some documented cases, Polish Jews were hastily baptized as Catholics as a means of securing their communal protection. Tema Rotman-Weinstock from Lublin was publicly baptized in Kajetanówka, as was Franciszka Aronson in a village near Mińsk Mazowiecki." I'm not certain that the baptism of Rotman-Weinstock was public, although it was clearly publicized at least after the fact. I can't find any reference to Aronson having been baptized at all. (page 260) "Two decades after the end of the war, a Jewish partisan named Gustaw Alef-Bolkowiak identified the following villages in the Parczew-Ostrów Lubelski area where "almost the entire population" assisted Jews: Rudka, Jedlanka, Makoszka, Tyśmienica, Bójki, and Niedźwiada near Opole Lubleskie." Niedźwiada is not so specified in this pdf, at least. Note that at page 261 it is rather noted as a place where villagers were aware that families were being helped, but it isn't stated that the population at large assisted. "Historians would also document that similar actions took place in at least one dozen villages around Mętów near Głusk outside Lublin." This one seems to be a major misinterpretation. :) The source actually says "More than a dozen villagers in Mętów near Głusk, outside of Lublin, sheltered Jews." (page 261) This typo needs to be corrected, but the sentence should also be reworded since, as you can see, aside from the typo, from "dozen" on, it follows very closely on the source. I'm sure we agree that a dozen villagers is a very different thing from a dozen villages. :D More coming immediately. I'm saving this now rather than risk a power failure and loss of my notes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC) More. Mind you, I'm only checking against the pdf. If you have checked against the original sources and altered to meet material there, I won't know it. I should also state that though the nature of the beast here requires focusing on problems, I do appreciate the work you've put into this. :) "One confirmed case involved two Jewish men were moved from farm to farm in Zdziebórz near Wyszków, eventually ending in the Armia Krajowa (Home Army) Polish resistance." This follows very closely on the structure of the original on page 258. I would reorganize this completely, perhaps something on the order of "Farmers in Zdziebórz near Wyszków by turns sheltered two Jewish men for a time before they joined the Armia Krajowa (Home Army) Polish resistance." I'm not sure the "value added" of confirmed, or how one determines if it's confirmed? The pdf doesn't especially emphasize confirmation there. On second read, that implies the farmers joined the resistance. Hmmm. "sheltered two Jewish men who later joined..."? "Ludwika Fiszer, a survivor from a massacre at Poniatowa, recalled in a postwar interview how she was between different safe houses across a network of rural villages" I don't see anything about safe houses in the source or networked villages in the pdf. She said she roamed from place to place and "received various forms of assistance". (page 259) (Actually, I did try to verify this one, but I got a 404 Not Found.) It doesn't seem to support the topic sentence of "more than one village community collaborated on protecting the Jews, due to frequent violent raids by the Nazi death squads." Likewise, the next sentence doesn't seem to support that topic sentence. "Similarly, Faiga Rosenbluth from Kańczuga was successfully safely moved from one village during a two year period." This structure suggests she was a passive agent--"She was moved from one village". (I'm not sure what it means to move from one village? to where?) The source says she "roamed the countryside". Evidently she received assistance from peasants, but it doesn't indicate any collaboration to protect her. (page 257) I like the way you reworked Olga Lilien. Neutral and infringement free. :) I've already expressed my concerns about the rest of that paragraph. I think additional revision to distance from source could help here: "In November 1942, 20 residents of Berecz in Wołyń Voivodeship were killed by the Ukrainian SS squad for saving Jews who escaped from the ghetto in Povorsk." (see page 268). I would simply structure it, maybe something along the lines of "In November 1942, the Ukrainian SS squad executed approximately 20 people from Berecz in Wołyń Voivodeship for giving aid to Jewish escapees of the ghetto in Povorsk." (This would not only distance from source, but also address the potential inaccuracy: did they save those escapees, or were their efforts unfortunately futile?) Is "Huta Werchoducka" a typo? The source offers two spellings, but not that one. It proposes "Huta Werchobuska or Werchobudzka". (page 268) I do not know if Werchoducka is a third variant, more common, though you may, but figured I should check. "Zygmunt Srul Warszawer, who was sheltered in several locations including the village of Wielki Las "No [one ever refused to help me], not [only when asked about] food! In twenty-six months, not once." I have from the beginning been confused by the "only when asked about" food bracket. I think this is a bit unclear. I would suggest revising it so that we can do away with the bracket: Zygmunt Srul Warszawer, who was sheltered in several locations including the village of Wielki Las, was asked in interview if he had ever been refused help. When it came to food, he said, "In twenty-six months, not once." On further reflection, where does it say he was sheltered? It says he hid, but though it implies he was sometimes (when the resident was not afraid) allowed into house or barn, it seems like synthesis to say he was "sheltered." What about, Zygmunt Srul Warszawer, who survived by hiding around the areas of Łaskarzew, Sobolew, and Wilga, frequently requested assistance from farmers. Asked in interview if he had ever been refused, Warszawer indicated that though some farmers feared to allow him into their homes or barns, when it came to food, no one turned him down; "In twenty-six months, not once." That is all that I've found. Very, very little issues with close following of source remain. These should be easily addressed. You've probably already noticed that I implemented some smaller changes directly to your userpage, but those that I've proposed above seemed a little more sweeping. Just for the record, I am happy to relinquish my claim to attribution with those, so if you like my proposed wording for anything in part or entire, feel free to implement. :) Comments? Questions? Let me know. Once the few small issues with close following are addressed, we should be able to move this to article space. Issues concerning accuracy I would strongly suggest be addressed before that, given that there's more than simply infringement being contested at the article talk. Seems likely to minimize issues if we are scrupulously careful about that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Article On Curley Money Stop editing/vandalizing my article. You revisions are changing the facts in the story. There is nothing wrong with me stating the age Curley was when he became interested in Music. And the line you edited about The gold standard lable serving as home for him is not true at all. He recorded into the seventies and he only released one or two singles on the Gold Standard lable and they were some of his later releases done in the seventies, so I would hardly say that it served as home. I am tired of fighting you people about this article I have so far complied with every request that been made since I wrote it and finally re-wrote the article entirely due to an accusation of copy-right infringement and now have added references and now you are picking on me about a possible conflict of interest. If you change my article again I am going to delete it entirely from wikipedia and report you here. Sorry to be so direct but I am fed up. C.Scott Money Envelopexpress —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.92.91 (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Hi. I'm afraid that you may be misunderstanding a few things about Wikipedia. First, you may wish to see WP:VANDALISM for an explanation of what constitutes vandalism on Wikipedia. What I have twice removed now is language that you have copied from an external source. As has been explained to you, you cannot utilize material from other sources on Wikipedia without verifying that you have authorization to do so. The procedure for verifying this has been set out at Talk:Curley Money. You are welcome to follow those procedures if you wish to place verbatim text on Wikipedia. But the language that I have twice removed from this article is precisely duplicated from this source. You cannot continue placing text from that site on Wikipedia unless you prove that you have permission to do so. You do, as explained at the article's talk, have the option of simply rewording the text. If you continue placing this text without verifying permission, we will either have to protect the article to prevent it or prevent you from editing it. Since you are obviously operating in good faith, I would very much hope it does not come to that. Surely there must be some other way for you to say "continued to record well into the 1970s"?[2] Additionally, you should probably read over Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, but a collaborative encyclopedia. Anyone who contributes within policies and guidelines is welcome to contribute here and is authorized to change the article Curley Money. This is why at the bottom of every edit page there is the text "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. " My note to you about conflict of interest was to advise you how you can participate in this article in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC) thank you for your explanations re: the USS Liberty - and please help me I saw what was happening re: the USS Libery and tried to set the record straight and my comments too were edited out within minutes. I really feel that the explanation I was given made no sense. Please lay out for me - specifically - what I need to do to assure that information concerning Captain Ward Boston and the Moorer Commission in included in the USS Liberty entry?--Henrywinklestein (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Hi. I'm afraid that given the nature of Wikipedia, there is nothing that you can do to assure that. There is nothing that I could do to assure that, or any other single editor. It depends on community consensus. Essentially, you need to figure out what the objections are of the editors who are removing the information and, if you feel that they are misunderstanding the policies and guidelines they are applying, address their concerns to demonstrate to them why the material belongs. Further up the page there is a section on the matter, User_talk:Moonriddengirl#USS_Liberty, where I have advised another contributor of how to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. Basically what it boils down to is when two sides disagree on the development of an article, wider community input is sought to help decide what best fits the needs of the article within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Essentially, it starts with patient and thorough explanation at the article's talk page, inviting broader input if necessary to help resolve stalemate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Everything I've ever come across suggests that the survivors (with no exceptions atall?) believe that "the Israeli story is untrue". Survivor web-site ussliberty.com claims that this is on the record from "... Virtually every knowledgeable American official with the lone exception of Robert McNamara" - and quote Secretary of State Dean Rusk, CIA Director Richard Helms, NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby, Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, Lyndon Johnson's biographer Robert Dallek, NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella, Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Captain Ward Boston, NSA Director Army Lieutenant General William Odom, NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman, David Walsh, Captain William L. McGonagle, and Admiral Thomas Moorer. Under these circumstances it is distressing that you protected the article immediately after what appears to be a a POV revert, removing a link to the fairly authoritative (Moorer Commission of 2003, partly entitled "... and the Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government". What Henrywinklestein is trying to add is not JFK assassination or 911 conspiracy, it appears to be the overwhelming majority view. Editors we treat like this could easily lose all confidence in Wikipedia, believing that the project is in the iron grip of editors of a particular POV, and that they're backed by the heavy hand of adminstrators who cannot be unaware of what they're doing. PRtalk 09:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Please refer to Wikipedia:Protection policy. When a page is protected in an edit war, it is typically protected in whatever version it happens to be in at the time that protection becomes necessary. In the absence of clear policy violation, such as copyright infringement or libel, it is inappropriate for me to edit the page I am protecting. As an examination of the history of the article makes clear, this article had been a battleground for reversion by multiple editors, including one 3RR violation. Editors like this, just as all others, must understand the consensus process on Wikipedia and where to go to seek wider review in debates. We do not conduct arguments in article space. If you think there was anything chilling about my note explaining the situation to him at the time of protection, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC) The article doesn't need protecting from two over-excited editors each having slightly different views on the underlying narrative, between whom consensus could be reached after a "cooling-off" period. It urgently needs protection from heavy POV-pushing and complete nonsense such as this from an editor who has wiki-stalked me to an article he's never had anything to do with before. Henrywinklestein will readily understand that you cannot interfere in a content dispute - however, he will reasonably expect you to recognise disruptive editing and protect the project from it. PRtalk 12:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Did you look at the history? I'm puzzled as to your conclusion that this involves two editors. I see five: Jayjg, Henrywinklestein, Justin A Kuntz, WorldFacts, and Narson had all struggled over this material in the 24 hours prior to the single day of protection. Not unusually, the perception of who is editing disruptively seems to differ depending on which perspective is held. If any editor feels that there is disruption in the article, he or she is free to follow the procedures at WP:DE. Meanwhile, content disputes belong on article talk pages and not in article space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC) PR, I believe what Moonriddengirl was doing here was acting as an uninvolved administrator. This means not taking sides in a content dispute, which leaves one free to do things like protect a page in an impartial manner. If one side of the content dispute is clearly better and supported by the majority, then that will be evident to the editors involved; opinions of more editors can be brought in if necessary via RfC (article content). I might comment myself if I have time, but I'm rather backlogged at the moment. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC) @Coppertwig - that article is being repeatedly reverted by an editor (likely non-expert) claiming to be protecting policy. Here is a summary typical of what he includes: "read this carefully. The reasons are WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Is that clear? The Moorer report is no more an "investigation" than Cristol's book." Now, I've done an analysis of the very different treatment of Moorers report (4 top US military people in 2003 attempting a non-ideological "independent investigation") and Cristols 2002 book - the latter being (as best I understand it) one man's ideological polemic with nobody else's input. Where would you like me to post this analysis, here or at the article? Moonriddengirl's has acted (perfectly properly) as an "uninvolved administrator" - but this falls apart if, when challenged on an imbalance present in the article, she doesn't either check for it herself, or call for evidence. Rightly or wrongly, I've brought this matter to the TalkPage of the "uninvolved administrator" since matters of policy and NPOV were put squarely in the frame by the very editor whose version that Moonriddengirl has protected. On top of what I've found (documenting it takes 50 times longer than spotting the problem in the first place), further clear evidence of problems is clear from the section immediately preceeding the "protection" notice added by Moonriddengirl. The WRMEA publishes an article virtually accusing Cristol of lying, claiming that not one of the "13 US investigations" repeatedly claimed by Cristol to "exonerate Israel" do anything of the kind. WP articles are littered with "criticism" far less careful and scholarly than what O'Keefe and WRMEA have presented - why do we have the same editor claiming (again) that policy mandates excluding something so central to his previous defence of Cristol? PRtalk 14:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC) The article was protected for a single day to encourage conversation and follow up through the dispute resolution process. I placed a note on the article's talk page advising contributors how to proceed. I advised the evidently new contributor, who opened this section, personally how to proceed, since he (or she) could reasonably be expected not to know how. Protection expired at 12:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)), more than 10 hours before this contributor appeared at my page. An administrator's intervention is not needed when the page is not protected, and all editors should be amply aware at this point of where to go to invite wider community input to resolve disputes about content issues. I see no policy violation here, except the likely inadvertent violation of WP:3RR by User:WorldFacts, who was probably unaware of the policy at the time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC) @Moonriddengirl My apologies for using your TalkPage to put a question to Coppertwig. However, there is good evidence of things going really badly wrong at this article, with "policy" apparently being used to produce something that (by very simple tests) can be identified as being very distorted. While you cannot be asked to interfere in "content disputes", it is not unreasonable to ask administrators such as yourself to recognise whether policy is being followed or not. In this case, it should be relatively easy for you to discern what is going on, since particular edits are being carried out in the name of policy. @Coppertwig - please answer my question at my TalkPage instead - where do you want the evidence that the USS Liberty incident article is suffering badly from UNDUE and distortion of the material of sources? PRtalk 16:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Hi, PR. OK, I'll answer your question to me on your talk page. Here, I'll just comment in response to what you've said to Moonriddengirl. Again, there is no obligation on the part of an uninvolved administrator to become involved in content disputes. Content policies such as NPOV are enforced by editors, not especially by administrators. If Moonriddengirl wishes to become involved in a content discussion at a particular article, she is free to do so. If she doesn't have time or is not very interested in that topic, as a volunteer she is under no obligation. There are many articles at Wikipedia and there may be other articles she'd be more interested in discussing. Protecting a page is a normal administrative action and doesn't require any further action on the part of the administrator except perhaps explaining why it was done, which I think she's already done. I would like to get involved in the discussion but I'm not sure if I'm going to have time; I'm busier than usual at the moment and have some messages on my talk page I haven't answered yet. I'm sorry about that. For content disputes (for example, application of policies such as NPOV, NOR and V) you can always use RfC (article content) to get more editors to help enforce the content policies. There are also a number of noticeboards that may be helpful in particular situations for finding editors who have time to look into content disputes. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Another admin has told us (repeatedly) that the faults at this article are a failure to follow policy - I agree. Lets proceed on that basis, and not inappropriately treat it (eg by locking) as if it's a "content dispute". Henrywinklestein and other editors deserve treating as if the word and judgement of administrators can be relied upon. I'm taking this discussion to the talk-page, where you'll see that, not only has Cristol been credibly accused of basing a core claim in his book on a "pure fantasy", but worrying indications of abusing sources can be found at one of his own web-sites. Experienced editors such as yourself may or may not have opinions on this particular case, but I'm sure you'll want to support editors acting to another part of policy, the use of reliable sources. PRtalk 11:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I believe that you are an experienced contributor, but your comments here do lead me to wonder if you have misunderstood the role of administrators. Please excuse me if I over-explain, if I have misinterpreted your comment. While administrators have some additional tools to help maintain the project and are expected to be experienced contributors, we do not trump other editors when it comes to questions of content. Admins do not have additional authority in deciding whether or not a specific source is reliable according to the RS guideline. Neither do we have additional authority in deciding whether or not material represents undue weight or is neutral. There are some exceptions to this; for instance, I have some additional authority in implementing matters related to BLP (see here)But unless there's an arbcom decision with which I'm unfamiliar (always possible, given the scope of this project), admins do not have extra authority in determining what content fits at USS Liberty incident. If they did, the matter would likely have been settled with "the word and judgment" of an administrator who has been an admin for almost 3 years longer than I have, right here. Unless, of course, some other administrator or administrators have opined differently. But as Wikipedia:Administrator notes, "There is very little extra decision-making ability that goes along with adminship, and it does not add any extra voice in consensus decisions." When it comes to determining if this material belongs, my opinion would be of no more or less significance than any other, and since I have used my admin tools from the position of an uninvolved admin, I feel it would be inappropriate for me now to weigh in on the content dispute. (Though if I did, my first step would be to search google news & google books to produce additional sources, if such could be found, and also to invite further feedback, as I have repeatedly advised.) And it is a content dispute, unless WP:V and WP:NPOV explicitly address the question. They do not. If this material was being added by multiple contributors and removed by one, it would be a strong indicator of disruptive editing (though not definitive by any means), and it probably would have led to that one contributor being blocked for edit warring. That wasn't the situation here. The article was locked for 24 hours 4 days ago following a rapid span of reversions by multiple editors. The purpose was to encourage conversation on the talk page rather than edit warring in the article. As conversation is now ongoing, it seems to have succeeded. All contributors know where to seek additional input, either because they were individually notified or because there is a note now on the article's talk page with an explicit reference to DR. If very simple tests can determine whether or not this material should appropriately be included, it should be a very clear-cut matter when inviting outside input at one of those appropriate fora. Applying such tests and settling the matter is beyond my scope as an admin. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Well said, Moonriddengirl. Wise as an owl, steady as a rock. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC) U.S.S question I have posted a user submitted source question and would like your feedback. Thanks Moonriddengirl! Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC) I'll have a look to see if there's anything I can offer after I finish my current task. (Comparing a 273 page pdf to an article; a bit of a chore.) :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC) I did reply to your comment just to inform you. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Permission to restore the article? Hello again! I made every change you requested -- all edits are taken care of. I also deleted the mentions of the baptism of the two women -- that was an individual act of courage, not a communal act, and I felt it didn't belong in this article. Do I have your permission to restore the article to its page? Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Hi. :) Give me a moment to look it over. We're supposed to replace the original version by deleting it to avoid inadvertent restoration of infringement. I'll have to figure out if there are GFDL issues that will need to be addressed by crediting before finalizing it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Not a problem. Whether the article needs to be put back anew or if we can remove the copyright violation tag, I am glad that we could resolve this problem by working together. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC) PS I removed the Michal Kluk section and photo, and moved the German/Polish poster up higher in the article. Questions were raised on the execution photos, so I thought it was best to remove them all. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you very much for your work on this. I have moved the article. I know it will not put an end to all the disputes about the material, but infringement concerns are addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Oh, happy day!!! Thank you for your support, patience and kindness in this endeavour. And please accept the following as a token of my appreciation: The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar For going the extra mile, and then some! You are an asset to Wikipedia, and I am glad that we had the chance to work together! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you very much! It was my pleasure to help out. It's not uncommon that I wind up revising such material listed at WP:CP myself, and it is far more pleasant to collaborate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks! Thanks very much with all your help on the Irwin Redlener page! Take care. Kirk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkfisher (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC) I'm glad if I was able to help. And I must say that it's very impressive how quickly you've picked up on the wiki environment. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you Thank you Moonriddengirl for that reminder. Good thing you didn't delete the new article I made. It's just now that I'm learning the do's and dont's in Wikipedia. --Pampi1010 (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC) It copyvio time...maybe? I am sort of up in the air about how to handle this - Fluid Music. The article reads like a press release, according to Talk:Fluid Music it could very well be. The talk page says one thing: "This article is of public domain and has been published at http://www.fluidmusic.com/index.html". If you look the the users history for the editor who created the article there might very well be a COI issue as well. Per the notice on the talk page, I don't see where the information on the website is in PD, it actually implies just the opposite: "© 2008 Fluid Music. All rights reserved. Official Website of Fluid Music Canada, Inc". As the "About us" page of the website states "Fluid Music is the world's largest private label music aggregation and distribution company" I did a search to try and find if the company would meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB. I found a lot of trade/business press on the company ("Fluid Music Canada, Inc. To Trade On Toronto Stock Exchange";"PR USA";"Fluid Music Canada, Inc. Proposes to Acquire Somerset Entertainment Income Fund";"Fluid Music's Trusonic(R) Enhances the Crate and Barrel Brand Experience") but most of that press leads back to a marketing firm called "Marketwire Canada" ("Fluid Music Canada, Inc. Announces the Completion of Its Initial Public Offering" is one of the press releases). There is coverage, or "news" anyway, at "Business Week" that might help to establish "Notability" per Publicly traded corporations but not anything more than press releases that I could find. I am not sure in what direction to take this. Copyvio? CSD G11? Generic "clean up" and "sources" tags? AfD? I am fairly certain if I took it to AfD people would find links to Fox business news and Business week and other like sources and just use the "look at all these sources, they must be notable" argument and not really look/read them. So I am really not so sure on this one but I thought to start with you because of the possible copyvio issues. "Help me Obi-Wan Moon-ridden-Kenobie, you're my only hope". :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Hi. :D It seems that the copyvio issues were addressed by Collectonian, here. I don't at a glance see any additional infringement. If you do, placing {{subst:copyvio|url=whatevah}} will blank it. There are additional steps on that template to follow to get the copyvio ball rolling. That site might very well at one time have said it was PD, but it certainly doesn't say that now. Meanwhile, I've restored the tags that were removed by the article's creator and given him a {{uw-delete1}}. I do not believe it would be a good candidate for G11. If you think it would fail AfD, it's not a good candidate for PROD. :) If you think it's non-notable, you might go with AfD anyway and point out that you believe that the links constitute trivial coverage. If you think it's likely to be notable enough to pass AfD, you might try cleaning up the article yourself. If you'd really like wider community input on it, you might list it at WP:COIN. As with all boards, you could get crickets. Or not. You just never know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you The Helping Hand Barnstar For tirelessly and systematically going above and beyond to educate and guide new users around the pitfalls of Copyright law and policy. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. — Coren (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Well-deserved. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Reply to Misty the Cat Hi i did not realize that saving a page would overwrite the current page.Sorry if i have caused anything bad. ALIEN123456789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALIEN123456789 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Re: Image permission problem with Image:Pakistan rivers map.jpg Mam I guess I agree with you on this. I explained to User Matilda here of what I thought was right. You can surely delete it. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Hmmm..I can ask you about text copyright questions. I believe this is text copyright violations. What do you say? Article: Swaan River Taken from: this site which says here that "You are permitted to quote no more than 20 individual figures (eg. US GDP per capita, Andorran life expectancy, etc) or lines of text from this site, provided you provide a link back to a valid page at NationMaster. You may not copy graphs, maps, scatterplots, etc. "Marsa Lahminal (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Interesting wording on an image Image:Franticmantis1.jpg has an interesting wording. I was going to tag it with a {{di-no permission}} because the photo is credited to "Jonas Rosen" however the full Summary says "Photo of the band Frantic Mantis in Germany by Jonas Rosen, built and edited by Shelby Cinca." What is "Built and edited"? I took a look at the users other image upload and it is not worded the same, nor from the same photographer. Image:Divisionoflauralee1.jpg says "(David Holloway, david@onethousandwords.net)" and carries a PD license. Should I tag both of these with a {{di-no permission}}? Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Built and edited? That's a head scratcher. :) I wonder if the uploader modified the original and thinks that this gives him or her (since Shelby could go either way) some copyright control? I'd probably tag them no permission and keep an eye on them. If the reviewing admin doesn't feel they're uncontroversial enough for CSD, they could be listed at WP:PUI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Will do. And that is what I was wondering as well, modified = built and edited? Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC) SCV Well, sorry, but I haven't had any time to work on WP:SCV this week. I was going to really try to do some on the weekend, but I've been busy: I just wrote a long answer to a message on my talk page from a few days ago, and there are some other messages on my talk page I haven't answered yet. Maybe I'll find time to do some copyright work this coming week. Anyway, I guess Cool Hand Luke, MER-C, Toon05 and Sadalmelik (not to mention ClueBot II) have been keeping the backlog down to a dull roar. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC) No problem. :) Your assistance is very much appreciated when you can get to it, but User:John Reaves chipped in, too, (took out a whole day! Whoot!) and things are still well under control. Rather than consolidating, I often relist issues now, which helps. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Oh..and if you could... Another 'not sure about' issue. Roy Assaf went to Afd and the result was to keep, so some work has been done however a great portion of it was lifted from the record labels bio: "Roy Assaf & Eddy Khaimovich Quartet". There are very little sources out there and considering the article was created by a "Rassaf" Special:Contributions/Rassaf it is not surprising if this was the basis for the record labels bio. You can compare the dif for the first version of the article to the latest and it is almost verbatim now to the record labels bio. Most of the sources are press releases or "official" sites of some sort - but that is secondary to the main issue now. I would be tempted to try a copyvio CSD but considering the path the article has already taken I am not sure if that is even possible. The way the article appeared on October 30, 2008 should have sent it to CSD for copyvio and not to Afd. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I've listed it at CP. Since the article passed AfD, if it is not revised in temporary space within the one week investigation, I'll take care of it when that term expires. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC) PS - I did not see this the first time around - User talk:Royassaf warning about the issue before it went to AfD. Although the post date is July 3, 2007 the article history shows that User:Royassaf made one edit on August 14, 2008. As the current article was created December 5, 2007 maybe there was another article that was deleted for copyvio in July 2007? (or the same article?) And User:Rassaf = User:Royassaf? Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC) The article was twice deleted for copyright violation before, on June 29 2007 and July 3 2007. Persistent, this contributor. :) The connection seems clear. It could be a user who forgot his log-in and created a new account. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC) DYK nomination Hi. I've nominated Songs for a Tailor, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on November 7, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks --Bruce1eetalk 08:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you for the nomination! It's always thrilling just to know somebody has looked at it. (LOL!) I myself have trouble finding "hooks" in album articles. I thought it was fascinating that Bruce received the letter requesting he sing for the designer on the day she died--his birthday, nevertheless--but I could not conceive of a way to state that in a "hook". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Hi Moonriddengirl The Tuscan Sun Festival Hi Moonriddengirl I'm struggling a bit with getting my entry correct for The tuscan Sun Festival. I have a string of e-mails from the Permissions dept and I keep thinking I'm doing the right thing - which clearly I'm not as my article is deleted. I do most of the writing for the festival, so most other articles about it are indeed written by me and under my copyright. I've tried to take on board comments from Wilhelm Schnotz's (real name?) e-mail to me 29 October asking me to incorporate secondary sources and demonstrate why the festival is notable, which I have done. I've tried to submit the text but will do so below as well. I hope this one works!! "The Tuscan Sun Festival is an annual music and lifestyle festival that takes place in the small Tuscan hilltop town of Cortona, in the province of Arezzo. The festival attracts the highest level of international soloists, conductors and chamber orchestras who all perform in not only the intimate setting of the town’s 400-seat theatre, Teatro Signorelli, but also within town squares like Piazza Signorelli. The evening musical programme is balanced with daytime events including art exhibitions and workshops with leading visual artists, discussions with top literary figures, wellness sessions like tai-chi and culinary sessions with some of the Tuscany’s finest chefs and winemakers. The Tuscan Sun Festival was founded by Barrett Wissman, cellist Nina Kotova and writer Frances Mayes in 2003. In 2004, The Independent newspaper in the U.K. called the festival “One of the Ten Best Summer Arts Festivals in Europe”. Past festivals have included visits and performances by renowned artists such as Piotr Anderszewski, Joshua Bell, The Bolshoi Ballet, José Cura, Stéphane Denève, Lang Lang, Danielle de Niese, Andrea Marcon and the Venice Baroque Orchestra, Ana Maria Martinez, Gabrielle Montero, Anna Netrebko, Antonio Pappano, Robert Redford, Sibylle Szaggars, Giuseppe Tornatore, Barry Unsworth and Pinchas Zukerman." Tristen Hennigs --Thennigs (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Hi. We can work with this. Please give me a little while to locate & add some sourcing, and I will move it to article space. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC) In case of archival, I've responded further at the contributor's talk page, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Danyo Cummings Notable? Count Blofeld 22:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Not so far as I can see. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Republic of China national flag has the wrong color. Hi, its me again. I normally talk to user Coppertwig regarding problems on wiki, but it looks like he has been away since 8 Nov 2008, so I think I come to asking for your help to look at this urgent matter. Image talk:Flag of the Republic of China.svg, I feel that it is urgent because (1) the issue on the color was raised a few months ago, and no action was taken to rectify it. (2) The color blue was somehow changed from navy blue to dark blue(near black). No nation in the world would use BLACK on its National Flag, let alone Chinese, who normally associate Black with Death. I am pleading to you, plrase use you Admin power to have a look and rectify it as soon as possible. The deface of any nation's National Flag would be considered a national shame.Arilang1234 (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Hi. I see that you are discussing the matter now on Wikimedia Commons, which is where that file exists. I am not an admin there. However, even if it were here, I would only have authority to act on this if it were the result of vandalism. Not being extremely visual, I'm not sure what color they're going for, but it looks dark blue on my monitor. (I don't see much difference in the various versions posted in the last few weeks at wikimedia:Image:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg. I'm afraid I don't have a very discerning eye for color!) Sorry I can't help. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Hi, Arilang. I've been busy with other things, I'm sorry. I know you have some messages on my talk page, and I hope to find time to answer them today. About the flag: different computers will show colours differently. Maybe your computer shows it darker than other computers. In the discussion, please don't call it "vandalism", but give the reasons why you think it should be lighter, and listen to the reasons that other people give. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Problem solved, color is back to normal. Thanks.Arilang1234 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Peter Fox copyright issue Hi - thanks for your note. Again, the reason DUMBO Arts center has posted the same text is that I gave it to them in the form of a professional bio that accompanied my resume. It's my text, in my words. What's the best way to resolve this? I am not copying it from their website, so a GFDL-compatible license doesn't make sense. Again, it's MY text. Help? Thank you - Peterfoxny (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Replied at user's talk page in case of archival. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC) And it is all because of you... ...that the article on the rescue of Poland's Jewish during World War II has just received a DYK honour. Yes, the article is on the Wikipedia front page this morning, and I wanted to thank you once more for your invaluable help in bringing it to the project. Be well! Ecoleetage (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Congratulations, and thanks for letting me know. :D Again, it was a pleasure to collaborate with you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Re:Something you needed? I do not what Brienne-le-Château/Temp is, it may have been an article that I tagged with AWB. Other than that, I do not really care. OOODDD (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC) The Hyde School Hello! Hello! I am writing to ask for your assistance in resolving an issue with a page I am trying to create/edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hyde_School. A Wiki 'bot marked the page witrh a coptright infringement notice, refering to content that appears on: http://www.hydebronxny.org/aboutNY.htm The Hyde School in the Bronx and our school are part of the same organization. Therefore, I trust no copyright infringement exists. What is the best way to handle this situation? Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide. Gem555 (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Replying at contributor's talk in case of archival. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Tracy Dali Nope that's alright. I'll defer. I actually didn't realize you were admin. Many admins would just delete the page as a copyvio (G12). So I thought you were not an admin. Apologies. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 16:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Image:Billybunter.jpg Your message to me must have been intended for someone else. I didn't tag the image. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC) I was confused as well and I was looking that up when you sent your last message. I recall now and I had placed a message on the talk page of Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 November 7 to try to explain what I did. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Hi Moonriddengirl - thanks for your extensive comment - I rewrote the front and back ends of the text and reposted it. You can email me directly via the contact link on www.peterfox.info if you need to. Thanks so much for your attention and help! Peterfoxny (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)