::Let me have a minute to take a look. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000">Cactus</span><span style="color:#CC5500">Writer |</span>]] [[User_talk:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000"><sup>needles</sup></span>]]</span> 14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::Let me have a minute to take a look. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000">Cactus</span><span style="color:#CC5500">Writer |</span>]] [[User_talk:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000"><sup>needles</sup></span>]]</span> 14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::I have blocked Arab Cowboy for persistent edit warring. Supreme Deliciousness, I came close to blocking you as well, but I took into account you fell one edit short of 3RR, used the discussion page and finally sought advice. I have written another review of the article on the talk page with my suggestions to remove the copyright violations. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000">Cactus</span><span style="color:#CC5500">Writer |</span>]] [[User_talk:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000"><sup>needles</sup></span>]]</span> 15:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I made the Susan Hutchison page and am trying to get rid of the copyright violation, I got the two organizations to email wikipedia granting permission to use the text, yet it is still there, How can I get rid of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spamd (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Spamd. Reading Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online will give you a brief overview for getting permission to use the copyrighted text. If the organization sent permission to use their text, it doesn't appear to have been received by Wikipedia WP:OTRS. An administrator would have posted the OTRS permission on the article talk page showing that permission had been mailed. Because it wasn't there, I went ahead and removed the problematic portions and briefly rewrote the introduction. In truth, the easiest method for you to deal with copyrighted text is to rewrite the information from scratch (Simply use your own words without the benefit of looking at the original text. Then add citations for the source). If you have further problems, feel free to ask. Your efforts in dealing with this are appreciated. — CactusWriter |needles 21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good eyes. Found a better ref in the St. Petersberg Times that more fully supports the section. Very much appreciate your assist!MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Babettesfeastphoto.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Babettesfeastphoto.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deleting this old screen shot as unnecessary for film article. — CactusWriter |needles 07:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
St. Patrick's School, Liberia
Thank you for your help. As I explained to the bot father, I copied the material from another (unflagged) Wikipedia article, not from outside material. I never looked at the outside material; particularly afterward when I was afraid I would unconsciously mimic it, there being so few facts in the article anyway. I have 20,000 edits and 30 articles and am well aware of Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations. Thanks for your assistance in cleaning up this article. Student7 (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am currently talkstalking CactusWriter, I have left a note clarifying licensing issues in copying from one article to another at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops -- I had read through the talk pages, but didn't even notice that a temporary page had been created. Thanks for pointing that out to me. MLauba and Student7, you both did a much better rewrite than I did, so I'm going to delete the old version and replace it with your temp version. — CactusWriter |needles 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those temporary pages used to be easier to see before Stifle created the "don't delete this" header (which is useful enough to be worth the hassle, since before that header those pages were sometimes speedily deleted by admins who didn't understand why they were there). I've missed a few myself, so I usually try to remember to click on it even if I don't think the blue link is blue enough to suggest it's been filled out. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 10:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Good advice. I'll try to get in the habit of clicking that link as a part of the process. — CactusWriter |needles 11:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, on the copyvio template, it appears blue even when empty as soon as I place the template, at least in my two browsers of choice, so it is indeed darn easy to miss. Oh, and thanks for the kind words, CW :) MLauba (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, my eyes. You are right - there is a difference between the Really Blue and Really-Really-I'm-Not-Kidding-It-Got-Bolder Blue. But I think it's better for me just to click the link without trying to figure out which blue it is. — CactusWriter |needles 15:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I've just noticed another difference, too! :O There's an arrow when there isn't a page; there's no arrow when there is. That's probably the easiest to detect difference! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any difference :( and I know I'm not supposed to be colour blind... Perhaps drinking will help? MLauba (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now the arrow I can see. What is this -- one of those "find five differences" puzzles? And in these puzzle games, drinking probably couldn't hurt. — CactusWriter |needles 18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hahn
Cactus Writer..you seem to be taking a real interest in certain issues
For the record, Hahn has never worked for Freedom Magazine..she is a freelance writer.
Shall we conclude based on your logic that you work for Wikipedia?
Secondly, the story she wrote exposed the connection between mind control experiments and the Orphans.
The story never claimed to expose the case of the Orphans..try reading for a change
What it exposed was the connection--previously unknown--between the Orphans and mind control experiments
done in the 1950s and 1960s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshadow17 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the rules concerning verifiability -- especially on biographies of living people -- adding information to an article requires citing them with a reliable source. The article's only source states that Hahn is a "journalist with Brabant Newspapers." If you have a reference which expands on her being a freelance journalist, please add it, otherwise the information cannot be used. Additionally, as I wrote on the talk page, the text that was removed said:
It was Christine who broke the story of Duplessis Orphans scandal[1] by publishing it in Freedom magazine, a Church of Scientology publication. Later on, stories about the huge abuse and fraud case appeared in Canada TV News[2]and other major news outlets, such as the New York Times.
This was a clear misstatement since the major news stories (like this [1]) and the NY Times article appeared years previous to Hahn's. Again, it was requested that the statement be sourced or removed. It remained unsourced and was finally removed. If you have references for the above statement, please add them. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest that it be continued on the article talk page, so that other interested editors might weigh in. (By the way, you may not have realized it, but it is improper to blank or delete other editors comments from the article talk pages -- that is why I reverted your edits there.) — CactusWriter |needles 15:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grant received for research from the Fund for Investigative Journalism in Washington DC which gives grants to FREELANCE WRITERS.
Now, please remove that statement as it is NOT accurate or true. Hahn has never been employed by Freedom Magazine and has submitted stories as a freelancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshadow17 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only after the truth about the Duplessis Orphans began to emerge in the 1990s did Clarina share her story with her husband and, ultimately, with Freedom.
If the story was claiming that Freedom unearthed the Orphans story, why would it make reference to the truth emerging about the Duplessis Orphans in the 1990s?
Thus, what you have stated here is incorrect and requires correction. You are referencing an inaccurate description of the work posted by a radio host.
If you want to post information about this story, reference the story please and not a radio host's inaccurate description of it.
The story provides plenty of documentation/evidence on what was uncovered, when and by whom.
Why the sudden interest in a story published in 2005? Seems odd. Visit the Freedom Magazine website, search for The Dark Mystery of the Duplessis Orphans —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshadow17 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reference to The Fund for Investigative Journalism would be a great addition to Hahn's bio. (This link is actually a clearer mention). Although, unfortunately, Hahn is not mentioned as a recipient at the fund's website and she seems to say that the fund withdrew her grant in 2001 while she worked at W-FIVE. The real problem here is that this is supposed to be a biographical article about Hahn and yet there are almost no independent references for her. A few bi-lines and a brief interview by a fringe (and, as you say, inaccurate) radio journalist do not provide much substance for a WP:BLP article. If you can provide some good references which describe Hahn's career and background, than that would be helpful. At the moment, there doesn't appear to be enough reliable sources for an article about her. — CactusWriter |needles 07:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter
The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BEE
Can you please userfy Buereau of Energy Efficiency for me? I created that article, and I would like to re-create it and this I would like to add some details and make sure it does NOT violate any policies. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on now... I figured you were looking forward to learning all about America's first serial killer. That video was a wonderful accompaniment to my morning yogurt and muesli. (Meh, okay... who am I kidding? You didn't miss anything.) — CactusWriter |needles 17:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I've actually read a book about the guy some time back. But, no, I'd rather not see it. :) It was next on my queue to be mailed, and I removed it posthaste! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Fry
Could you please give me some examples of what seems to be biased please? I would like to get the banner removed as soon as possible. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorhobomd (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright violation banner cannot be removed until permission to use the text has been received at WP:OTRS. This can take a few days to process -- that is why we allow 7+1 days for processing -- so please be patient. On the other hand, as is mentioned on your talk page, the text can also be released by simply changing the copyright information on the website with a note that states that re-use is permitted ''under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later and Creative Commons Share Alike (CC-BY-SA), versions 3.0 or later, under CC-BY-SA, versions 3.0 or later, or that the material is released into the public domain. If we don't have permission in time, the article will be deleted. However, don't worry because the article can and will be restored if or when the permsission arrives.
Concerning sentences in the article with are not encyclopedic: here are just a few examples.
Dave’s warm and engaging stage patter, audience participation and obvious joy of performing that makes for an enjoyable evening, a veritable folk festival unto itself
Dave has excited and energized whole schools with his songwriting residencies
Dave is a wonderful entertainer of the preschool set
Dave's friendly introduction to the joys of acoustic guitar... continues to encourage beginning guitarists all over.
These all contain Peacock wording and come across as advertising copy. Equally important is that the article contains no inline citations which substantiate the text. This is a typical problem of articles which are created by the individuals themselves or family members -- and it is why WP strongly discourages editors from creating articles about themselves, family or friends. The guidelines for Neutral point of view can provide you some help on how to improve the article. Cheers. — CactusWriter |needles 08:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Locking Susan Hutchison
There have been several defamation attempts and counterfactual statements made on her page such as "She is also known locally by the nickname: "Princess Skunk Cabbage"." and "Upon the unsealing of her settled lawsuit, it was revealed that her demotion stemmed from fraudulently using sick days for a canoeing trip over the 4th of July" which were based on unchallenged and unsubstantiated rumors and were represented as fact on her wikipedia page. Though they were quickly changed by vigilant wikipedia users, we would like to request that this page is locked.
Spamd (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the edit history for Susan Hutchison. There have been very few edits in the past month and only two recent instances of blatant vandalism [2][3] -- and both were reverted within one minute. The edits by the other IP are not vandalism but rather constitute a disagreement about content. For example, this edit was a correct attempt to neutralize the language (following WP:NPOV policy) as well as a poor attempt to add information about a dispute (biased and poorly sourced). But these are content disputes and should be discussed on the talk page. I notice there has been no attempt to engage in discussion and would encourage the editors to do so. At the moment, there is no reason for protecting the page -- but I'll keep it watch listed in case there are future problems.. (The Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection helps explain when semi-protection might be considered.)
Now, as far as the content dispute goes: a quick google news search shows Hutchison's dismissal from KIRO, her subsequent lawsuit and the recent court order about sealed information are significant events. These are not rumors, but are reported in the large metropolitan newspapers [4], [5]. Yet, her WP bio doesn't mention these events at all. Biographies of living persons should include both criticism and praise when it is significant. I think a couple of sentences about these events, written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, should be added to this article. — CactusWriter |needles 07:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William Coaker
Thank you very much for reverting the article to pre-copyvio status. I should become more familiar with the type of tools you use such that I can apply some corrective measures to the 4,700+ articles I monitor. Again thanks for your help, --HJKeats (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for keeping such a watchful eye. Or eyes. 4700+? You must be a busy bee. Cheers. — CactusWriter |needles 12:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so bad, all the articles I keep a keen eye on (whenever I can now mind ya) are of a common theme "Everything Newfoundland" :-) --HJKeats (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. 4700 Newfoundland articles! I didn't realize that. Cool. — CactusWriter |needles 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You answered it already. I was just in the middle of researching a response to that one. Glad to see it was a lot easier than I thought. (I actually found a PD text that the contributor could use to fix it). Oh, well. Learn somethin' new... — CactusWriter |needles 13:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with proposing that, too. I see that the contributor has recently usurped an account at the Spanish Wikipedia. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Hi CactusWriter! I just wanted to let you know that I reused your "close paraphrasing" message here. I hope you don't mind. By the way, I noticed that you live in Denmark. Kan du prata svenska? :) Theleftorium 22:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Feel free to use it. ...Og, nej, det kan jeg ikke. Desværre. Jeg kan kun snakke Dansk -- med en utrolig voldsom Amerikansk udtale. — CactusWriter |needles 04:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No bother at all. I appreciate you asking. In this case, the bot wasn't wrong because the text was copied -- however, it appears to be in the public domain. The website shows the source as Source - A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion by Frederick H. Dyer. It's a book published in 1908 which places it in the PD. Here's the online version at the US Park Service. It appears most every Civil War website uses the same source. So its use is okay. — CactusWriter |needles 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't see that. Thanks for taking a look! :) Theleftorium 15:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re:User
User Hemant17 keeps removing stuff from my talk page and user page and despite warnings, he says he has full right to do whatever he feels with his contributions. Please Comment.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am sorry that you have had problems with this editor -- especially after you tried to help him. I see that he hasn't reverted any edits or touched your user page since your last message to him. I have had a discussion with him today. It is probable that it all stems from his rough introduction to article writing, which has been a series of problems and deletions - and appears to have left him frustrated. I'll keep a watch and take action if there is any return to uncivil behavior. — CactusWriter |needles 19:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much..
CactusWriter, Rsrikanth05 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you, Rsrikanth05. I appreciate the nice thought. I'm glad you're having a better day, too. — CactusWriter |needles 15:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NO problems at all. Have a happy Day... :D --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atrash clan
This is ridiculous. Nothing in those sources say that there is a branch of the Atrash clan in Egypt, he have made it up himself. The only thing it says is about Alia fleeing Syria with her children to Egypt, this is not a branch nor has it ever been a branch. These people are dead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read, each of the sources appear to support the claims as written in the text of the article -- that some members of a Druze family named Atrash emigrated to Egypt. You will need to refute those sources. As I said in the edit summary, take the discussion to the talk page. I have no interest in the matter other that to see an end to the edit war. — CactusWriter |needles 20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they do not support the claims he have written, there is no branch, nothing in the sources say its a branch, one mother and her 3 children (all of them dead) is not a branch of a clan consisting of thousands of people. Listen, me and this guy have been arguing over the Asmahan article for almost half a year (thats right) we have been through 3 mediators (him not listening to the first two and going against what the third mediator/administrator has said on several issues) and rfcs, I'm not gonna take it to the talkpage cause he doesn't listen to common sense or other peoples opinions, only engaging in edit warring. I was the one that told him several times that he couldn't plagiarize in the Asmahan article and he didn't listen. So I would really appreciate it if you yourself do not want to get involved in this at the talkpage and mediate, that you do not interfere when I remove this false information from the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to end the edit war you should lock the article at its original state at 2 August.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I see is an article which has been entirely unreferenced since its creation. Now that one editor is adding some sourced information for the article, your only contributions have been blanket deletions. If you actually want to improve the article -- than get some references. If you have problems with the language (like the word "branch") -- than reword it. Your blanket reversions are outside of process and your persistence in doing so is edit warring (After your previous block, I would expect you to be familiar with this.) I am peripherally familiar with the long-running disputes and litany of complaints between you and the other editor. It appears to me that this continued petty bickering and POV-pushing from both sides is becoming disruptive and may require a topic ban for each of you. My advice is: learn to cooperate or find some other articles to edit. — CactusWriter |needles 07:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original line in article mediator had written was: "Later in life when Asmahan spoke about her childhood in Suwayda, she remembered it as a happy and carefree period, although she did not spend much time in the Jabal, it was what she saw as her "home" rather then Lebanon or Turkey"
Although this is close to what the source is, user Arab Cowboy changed it so it resembled the source even more : "Later in life, Asmahan told Muhammad al-Tabaʿi about her childhood in the Jabal. She remembered it as a happy and carefree period. Although she did not spend much time in the Jabal and she might have recalled visits in the early 1920s, it was what she saw as her "home" rather than her residences in Lebanon and Turkey."
Source: Asmahans Secrets p 36: "In her late twenties, Asmahan told her friend and admirer al-Tab`i about her childhood in the mountains of the Druze. She remembered a happy and carfree period. She did not actually spend much time in the Jabal itself and probably remembered visits in early 1920s. Still, it was the Jabal Druze that had imprinted itself as "home" on her consciousness, rather than her family's residences in Turkey and in Beirut.
and also the sentence "The other side of her patriotism belonged to Egypt." in the source it says "The other side of her patriotism was to her adopted country, Egypt" Third section under "Syrian or Egyptian?" part http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exzuhasp.html --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing these further examples to attention. I created a section on the article talk page Talk:Asmahan#Plagiarism issues where these can be listed. This will allow any other administrator from WP:CV to visit the page and see that there are other violations. — CactusWriter |needles 06:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you will not do anything about this? like you did with the WW2 section? You want me to ad this text to the talkpage?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go ahead and add it to the talk page. I will deal with it as soon as I get a chance. At the moment, I am a bit swamped. (Note that we allow 7+1 days after notification for involved editors to rectify copyright violations before taking administrative action). — CactusWriter |needles 07:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed some things as you said, replaced the consciousness sentence, I don't think the early life section (excluding emigration to Egypt) have any more plagiarism issues, please say if they do. I removed the "awkward POV statement" about her patriotism and removed the parenthetical insertion in the quote, and some other fixes, but I still believe there are a lot of plagiarism in that section and also elsewhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=309225253&oldid=308686775 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Susan
Cactus,
I understand that the page does not belong to Susan Hutchison but the labeling of her as a conservative in a non-partisan election is not only dirty politics but common among her opponents to do so. Please do not block me from wikipedia for correcting an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toljin (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your blanket deletions were not simply correcting a minor error, but resulted in the removal of portions of text and references. If you have a disagreement with single items of text, please use the article talk page to discuss them with other editors. — CactusWriter |needles 21:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, you wrote on User:Hemant 17's talk page: "There are many experienced editors here who have been trying to help. I must now insist that you heed the warnings, listen to other editors' advice, and discuss any changes in the article." I have to ask you, seriously—do you think he's listened to your advice? In particular, this page appears to have the same issues as this page, which you deleted just last week.
Given that he still isn't using preview or edit summaries or talk pages, I'm having enough trouble assuming good faith that I've given up trying to help him. And when I see that it appears he has multiple accounts (see below), has been on Wikipedia over five years (based on on this talk page) and appears to have been using at least two accounts simultaneously less than three weeks ago, well, I gotta say this is a job for an admin.
Dori, Yikes, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I should have looked into this deeper. I was completely unaware that this user had a previous history with copyright violations on Wikipedia. Let me look into this. — CactusWriter |needles 05:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have indefinitely blocked Hemant 17 for the copyright violations. The sockpuppetry case seems pretty open and shut. If you can, please list the sockpuppetry case at WP:SPI. I'll add my commeents there. Thanks. — CactusWriter |needles 05:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I added my comments there. I wasn't certain about two of the users -- but including them as you did is fine. The clerks and admins at SPI can make the call. Thanks for following though on this. — CactusWriter |needles 06:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Trixt. Off-hand, I am hesitant to call either photo a blatant copyright violation. Although this photo appears on their website, there is an assertion that the contributor owns the original rights to the photo. He asserts the same thing on the other photo, which I can't find outside of WP. However, I must say that I am not very familiar with copyright issues for images. I would recommend that you list your concerns at WP:PUI where the editors are much more knowledgeable about photos. Sorry that I couldn't be of more help to you. — CactusWriter |needles 13:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch for removing copyvio! Spent last week in a schizophrenic state being accused of violating my own copyright ;-) But it made me improving the article, too. Everything's good that ends good. oxana (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And other European projects
Hello, I think it is great that the NorduGrid page is now readable again, as is the SOA4All page. But you did not yet release AssessGrid and several others. I think these pages should not have been put on the speedy delition list in the first place because:
These articles' copyright are perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:DCM. The orginal contributers are part of the project, as can be easily verified. The webpages mentioned is owned by the project described. Hence one should assume the content was put on Wikipedia under Wikipedia style of copyright license as stated in Wikipedia:DCM. If there are doubts, this could be discussed with the contributors or on the article's discussion page. But I do not see evidence of either. So putting these articles on a list for speedy deletion is not correct.
These articles should not have been put on the list for speedy deletion because of possible copyright violation. See Wikipedia:CSD non-criterium 10
Could you please comment in this. It would really save time to everyone if we know what to do on beforehand. Because now dozens of pages get unnecessary blocked which takes a lot of time of the contributors and the admins.
Ademmen (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ademmen. I rechecked the article histories and can find no sign that any of these articles was ever marked for Speedy deletion. I believe you may have a misunderstanding here. The process for Non-blatant copyright violation is not a speedy deletion, but rather provides 7+1 days for the article to be revised or cleared for use before being checked by an administrator.
For the articles you mention: the sources for NorduGrid were determined to be in the public domain and the source for SOA4All indicated a proper release by Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 -- so they were cleared for use. The source website for AssessGrid shows no copyright release. However, this talk page comment shows the contributor was following through on instructions for dealing with the problem, which were left on the user talk page at the time the article was tagged. Given that the contributor stated that an e-mail was sent to WP:OTRS, I relisted the page rather than delete it, giving them an additional 7 days for OTRS to process the request. (Note that even if the article is deleted and then OTRS permission is received, there is no problem with undeleting the original article - and a message noting that is also left on the user page).
As I am sure you can appreciate, WP takes the problem of copyright violation very seriously. The thorough checking of all articles submitted to the encyclopedia is deemed necessary. This protects not only Wikipedia, but also all the hard work of people who are creating the publications and websites which are sourced here. With thousands of new pages submitted to WP every day, it takes time for the volunteer staff to process it all. I know that it's certainly frustrating at times. But it is important that it be done. And it often requires a little extra patience on all our parts. I hope this answers your questions. Cheers. — CactusWriter |needles 08:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CactusWriter,
Thanks for your answer. It clarifies a lot, but I still have one question. When I understand the procedure correctly the copyright violation banner blocking text should only be placed when there are doubts whether the material put on the Wikipedia page was - on the Wikipedia page - not released under the Open Source license. However if you are sure that it is, the fact alone that there are other places were the texts are published under different licenses is not enough reason to block the page. Because it is OK to have material published under different licenses as long as the Wikipedia text is released under the correct Open Source License. If you see that the contributors are the same as the people that contributed to the website, you can assume they know what they are doing and did release the material on Wikipedia under the right license. If you think they may not know what they are doing, for what ever reason, ask them. And if they do not answer, satisfactorily or within in a reasonable amount of time then put out the copyright violation banner. But do not put on a banner if you are absolutely sure the contributors to Wikipedia did know what they are doing. Is that interpretation correct?
A suggestion: If these projects when they write texts on Wikipedia that they also publish elswere, as most of them do, tell this on the Article's Talk page? Something like: "Some texts I did contribute to this article are also published elswere under different copyright schemes. However, I did put these texts on Wikipedia under the Wikipedia Open Source License scheme, and I am entitled to do so." would that be enough so that they do no risk of getting a copyright violation banner on their website? Probably that whould save a lot of people a lot of time.
Of course I agree with you it is important to respect all the copyrights. I am looking for a way to prevent a lot of, I think needless, work by many people. Just trying to help to make the process a bit more efficient. Ademmen (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ademen, making the process more efficient is always a great goal. And any suggestions or improvements would be appreciated. However, the very openness of the Wikipedia editing process (its founding principle) is the very thing which will always cause some slowdown of the procedures, including checking for copyright violations. First, anyone can register on WP and claim to be anyone else. Someone can claim to be the owner of a website or a book or anything, and claim to release those materials for use, without actually being that person. (It happens a lot). So it is not possible to know the identity of any editor on WP simply from their own or any other editor's claims. Only by going through the OTRS office can someone's identity be verified. This is the basis for WP:DCM procedures. It is not simply to obtain permission, but also to verify that the individual is who they say they are and has the authority to release the copyrighted material.
Second, legal statutes require that WP makes a good faith effort to avoid any copyright infringement. This means that we must attempt to examine every article. With thousands of new articles daily, this requires hundreds of volunteers checking these articles. And not just the new articles, many additions to existing articles are quick copy-pastes from online sites. So now there are tens of thousands of articles which require checking daily. There is no way that each of these volunteers should be expected to examine every detail about a article and the article's creator -- most checks are cursory: a simple search for copied text, etc. Many of the copyright violations are found by bot programs which scan Wikipedia for language matches. Blatant and obvious violations are marked, then quickly checked by an admin and deleted if correct. Uncertain copyright status pages are tagged and listed at WP:CV. Editors who create an article with uncertain copyright status, receive a message outlining the procedure for addressing the issues. And an attempt is made to process every non-speedy tagged article within 7 days. The law requires that we make diligent efforts.
Like other people here, I personally check hundreds of copyright violation complaints everyday -- this involves examining text, checking sources, reading article histories, investigating contributors, discussing procedures, rewriting articles to make them compliant and pursuing follow-ups. I think the temporary templates on a few articles is only a small inconvenience for allowing a free encyclopedia of more than 3 million articles to remain open to anyone to edit. After all, that's why we all make the effort.
Short and to the point, there are two ways to speed up the process: either release the source material under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and never worry about it again, or send the permission mail to OTRS proactively right when you post the article, and immediately note that you have done so on the new article's talk page. MLauba (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, nice suggestion -- but then they wouldn't get to read all my whine and blather. — CactusWriter |needles 14:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. A net loss, undoubtedly. Or worse, my dry and patronizing prose if it was CSB who picked the violation. MLauba (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear MLauba I see your point. I did assume that if you publish something on WP you are bound to the rules and regulations of WP. Who you are can always be traced back later. So if you do something illegal that can be corrected the moment you do something illegal and action can be undertaken. But also volunteers that check also can do something illegal. So that is why this permission mail to OTRS has been designed. (Probably there are more reasons.) I can see some potential problems with that too, but I first look at that page again. If my idea does not work, then I think the best advise to the projects that now write these pages that are marked with possible copyright violation banners would be to be not so lazy as to copy from their existing material but write something new for WP. A little more work for the projects, but less work for the admins, better articles in WP, which again is better for the projects. Thanks again to you and CactusWriter for taking the time to answer my questions. This is really appreciated.
Hello CactusWriter. Is the OTRS template on Talk:J. John Mann correct? It was added by the author of the article. Theleftorium 19:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can this be used on Wikipedia? "Limited copyright is granted for you to use and/or republish any story on this site for any legitimate media purpose as long as you reference 7thSpace and any source mentioned in the story above." Theleftorium 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the same question to User:Stifle, I suddenly completely forgot that CactusWriter is OTRS too :). To answer the second question, no, it allows reuse, but not derivatives, that's incompatible with copyleft in general. MLauba (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, I am not a member of OTRS. You should definitely ask someone there first -- Stifle is a good choice. It appears the contributor is adding the same ticket to a dozen pages he has created about doctors. I am assuming it will show permission to use info from [New York State Psychiatric Institute] website. We will need to know how specific the ticket is. — CactusWriter |needles 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just got word on the OTRS ticket from Keegan -- it all checks out correctly for that editor. — CactusWriter |needles 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. I'll remove it from WP:SCV. Theleftorium 20:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this article needs help -- I deleted his first version as it was almost all copyvio, then, after he insulted me a couple of times, felt pity on him and reinstated the article with a couple of sentences. He was pretty clear that he had copied the stuff and said he was 'rewriting' it, but it was still going to be copyvio no matter what he did given how much he'd copied straight from one particular writer. He's now gone back to copy and paste from the web (his own writing is pretty bad by the way, any time you see good English from him....). I've been discussing it as has one other editor, but as we are both editors who would have been watching an article like this carefully anyway due to its content, a 3rd party comment to him might help him if in fact he can grasp the problem (and I'm not sure he can, he seems to think just re-arranging some words is enough). Thanks Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my. That is a rough one. Seems to be a lot of misplaced "passion" on that editor's part. I'll try to lend another neutral voice. — CactusWriter |needles 13:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, that was a very good reply you made. I'm not optimistic, but we should try to keep an editor who is at least keen. Hopefully other editors will add to the article anyway. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain to me why you tagged Asmahan with "copyright infringement"? what specific statements do you see as being a copyright violation? And, why did you tag the "Role in WWII" section in particular and not the rest of the article? If you think that sentences in this section are CV, then the whole article is CV. User: Supreme Deliciousness has only raised CV concerns about sentences that do not suit his agenda. I have, as such, tagged the whole article until further review.
Hi, Arab Cowboy. You can find my reasons posted on August 18 on the article's talk page under "Plagiarism issues". A lengthy discussion with explanations followed. Please read Talk:Asmahanand feel free to respond there. — CactusWriter |needles 11:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cactus: Thank you for your reply. I had already read the discussion. The issue is that the whole article is written in the same way. SD had alerted you only to sentences that do not suit his agenda, but if you apply the same standards to the whole article, then it should all be tagged or deleted. Tagging just the one section and removing statements that SD does not like is selective. So, what do you suggest. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved your comment to article talk page and responded there. — CactusWriter |needles 11:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh
Maybe I shouldn't get involved in dealing with copyright violations, esp. image ones. A while back I blocked Bottracker (talk·contribs), who I blocked for copyright violations and personal attacks but mainly to get him to enter into a dialogue which he was refusing to do, just deleting all the notices. 2 other Admins declined an unblock request, a 3rd blocked his user page and mentioned that his username was problematic, and now he's been unblocked and given a 'sincere apology' and advised that his block wasn't justified. The discussion (which I think should be on ANI) is here. This came to the unblocking Admin's attention because the 3rd Admin, who locked his talk page, had blocked several people for username problems, although this was not a factor in my original block. Sure, I could have tried to get him to stop deleting warnings and discuss, but that seemed very unlikely unless it was made clear to him that he couldn't just continue to delete warnings. My own take on indef blocks is that they can be lifted and should be lifted at any time, even within minutes, once the user shows a desire to understand the reasons and change their behavior. I don't know if you feel you have the time or inclination to comment, but I feel the blocked editor has now been told his behavior was acceptable. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cactus
User Arab Cowboy have blanked the whole Asmahan article although I have told him repeatedly that the first part of the early life section is not plagiarism, there was one sentence there that you commented on and I changed it to your suggestion, and thats it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated on the Talk page of the article, I demand a review of the whole article. Do not blank one section in deference of the others. Until that happens, the whole article should be blanked, not just one section of it. Plagiarism standards should apply equivocally to all sentences in the article. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked Arab Cowboy for persistent edit warring. Supreme Deliciousness, I came close to blocking you as well, but I took into account you fell one edit short of 3RR, used the discussion page and finally sought advice. I have written another review of the article on the talk page with my suggestions to remove the copyright violations. — CactusWriter |needles 15:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
