User talk:Moonriddengirl

edit count | edit summary usage Wikipedia ads file info – #178 Welcome If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer. While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account. To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here. Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it. Hours of Operation In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 05:40, 12 July 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now. Deletion review for Country mile An editor has asked for a deletion review of Country mile. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dweller (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC) NB the lack of criticism of the closing admin - I think you played the hand you were dealt. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Hi. :) This one seems to have played out in my absence. :) For the record, I have no problem with a new article on that subject, either. I also don't see any problem with restoring the history if the old content would be of use to you in creating a new article. As you know, there wasn't much there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC) I knew this would happen. I do use dweller as part of one of my email addresses, but I'm not dweller here. But it's nice to hear from you anyway. Dougweller (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Image and a copyright question Hi Moonriddengirl, I have a small image to upload which is an extremely simple self-portrait by a cartoonist for whom there is an article already. The cartoonist has given me his verbal agreement to release the image as free use for all, but what do I do next? Do I need a written agreement, an email from the artist releasing it? And if so who do I send that to? And do I do that before I upload the image, or what? Thanks for any help you can give me with this, best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Hi. :) Yes, you do need a written agreement. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission contains the basic process. Once you get his license (I really recommend asking him specifically to use Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries—it makes processing so much easier, though if he is unfamiliar with copyleft licenses you may need to fill it out for him yourself and ask him to paste it back into an e-mail), you can forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. (I'm presuming you will place this image on Commons, since you have permission for it.) Alternatively, you can ask him to mail it directly. Once you have the written consent (or he is ready to send it himself), you should upload the image. It's very helpful to the OTRS responder to have the url to that image int he e-mail of permission. :) Add {{OTRS pending}} to the image upload page to guard against premature deletion. Permission should process within about a week. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks so much MRG, that is a tremendous help! Good luck with everything! Invertzoo (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Quick question about copyright Would the book listed here be out of copyright in the US? The article Christian Klengenberg has been created and if the book is no longer under copyright then it could be linked to and the images added. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 08:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Not automatically, though it could be. I really like books published in 1922, because as far as Wikipedia is concerned the answer then is "Yes." :D I'll see what I can find out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry for the delay. Real life stuff called me. Stupid real life. :P The big question here seems to be whether it was published in the US as well and, if so, when. If it was published in the US within 30 days of its original publication, we may be able to use it. Otherwise, I think we can't. Summarizing (for the benefit of any friendly stalkers who may like to help out :)): this is an autobiography by a man who died in 1931. The book was published in 1932. It was originally published in London, where it is now PD as the author has been dead more than 70 years, but the United States does not recognize the rule of shorter term. It may protect material even if it is pd in its own country. (Thanks a lot, United States.) According to Cornell's handy chart, a pivotal question is whether this material was PD in its home country on 1 January, 1996. In many cases, it would then PD in the US as well. But I figure it PD in the UK 1 January 2002, if the UK also dates to the beginning of the year following expiration term. So under US law it would be under copyright for 95 years from publication if it meets any one of these conditions: (a) “published in compliance with all US formalities” including notice & renewal; (b) solely published in the UK; (c) also published in the US but “more than 30 days after publication abroad.” If it was published “less than 30 days after publication abroad” we use the US chart, at which point the condition of publication becomes pivotal. If it was published in that span in the US, it is public domain if it was (a) published without copyright notice or registration of copyright within five years of publication, or (b) published with notice but no renewal of copyright (I searched [1] and [2] and found no evidence of renewal, fwiw). Otherwise, it is protected for 95 years from publication. I never had much to do with these gray areas prior to coming to Wikipedia, so I'll see if User:Jayvdb has time to weigh in, because he is an absolute whiz at this kind of thing. I bet he knows how to find out if and when it was published in the US. And he should certainly be able to correct my summary if I am misunderstanding anything. And in the meantime, maybe a friendly stalker will help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I don't think that replying a few hours after I asked is any sort of delay. I really didn't expect anything back for several days. I'll ask Rosiestep what publication data is in her copy and will go and check the copy my ex has to see if there is anymore information. Thanks again. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Well, it would have been a good hour earlier if real life had not interfered. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC) I checked and it has the same publication information. 1932, Cape, London and Toronto. However, I thought of another possible problem. None of the pictures are dated or credited. So if the picture of Klengenberg had been taken by Diamond Jenness or one of his kids, most of whom died less than 70 years ago, would it not still be under copyright? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Good point. The PD situation on the text and the images may well be different. I so much prefer uncomplicated situations. :/ Anyway, I've left a note for John, and maybe he can shed some light on any US edition. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC) The permanent link to the book I used while writing the Klengenberg article is: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu:80/record=b14848431~S1 . Unfortunately, I don't have the book anymore -- only had it over the long weekend. My stepson is returning it to his school library. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) The images are not a problem any more. Rosiestep jogged my memory and I went and looked through Archives Canada and was able to find a PD image that I uploaded. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Ah sorry the picture had the wrong names on. I guess we might need to know if the pictures are OK. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Okay. I'm talking to John about this, but have nothing definitive yet, and I haven't even asked him how to go about checking the images. About to do so. I may need to find a Commons admin. I don't think this is promising, tho. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Several days into it, and my answer is still vague. John points out that the editor is Canadian, which might mean Toronto was the original point of publication, and not London. This could be good news, since Canada has a shorter term (life + 50), and material authored by Klengenberg that was first published in Toronto would be PD in the US as having been PD in originating country in 1996. However, the editor (Tom MacInnes) died in 1951. If his contributions were significant enough to give him a copyright claim to the text, then it still isn't PD. The status of the images still depends on who owns the copyright to them, and if the photographers are not identified, figuring that out isn't going to be easy by any means. :/ I'm not that familiar with image copyright laws and so will seek feedback from User:Dcoetzee, but as I understand it, if the book was first published in London and the photographer is unknown, it would be PD in the UK "70 years from end of year taken, or made available to the public if within 70 years of creation", according to [3], which would miss the 1996 cut off. If Canadian copyright applies, I believe that the photographs will be PD either 50 years following publication or 75 years after the photograph was taken, whichever comes first (according to Commons). I'll check with Derrick. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC) For images first published in a book, without any indication of image authorship, there is a rebuttable presumption that the author of the images is the same as the author of the book. That means that any claimant on the copyright would have to prove that they were the photographer, and not the author of the book. Our normal practice is to presume authorship in the absence of any indication to the contrary, so that would mean that the images have the same copyright status as the text (one of the many reasons why we insist on accurate sourcing of images). I don't think it is wise to claim them as "of unknown authorship", given that they have been published in a work under an obvious author name. I have to agree with Moonriddengirl that it is more than likely that the text and images are under copyright in the U.S., and this for two reasons. Firstly, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, we have to assume that the work was simultaneously published in the UK and Canada: as such it has simultaneous copyright in the two countries, and the UK copyright would trigger a restored U.S. copyright under the URAA. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the author is Danish, and so there is also a Danish copyright to consider. I've checked with the Danish Copyright Act (No. 395 of 14 June 1995), and it includes both the rebuttable presumption of authorship and the necessary extension of copyright term. In other words, even if there were not a U.S. copyright from the British publication, there would be one from the nationality of the author. Physchim62 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. That's very helpful. Not good news, but very helpful. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I am not certain the author (Klengenberg) was a Danish citizen at the time the book was published. He became an American citizen before 1925, and in 1925, rescinded his U.S. citizenship to become a Canadian citizen. I don't know if he retained dual (Danish) citizenship. Though I dug around for legal citizenship documents, U.S. or Canadian, so far at least, I didn't locate them. I'll check with CambridgeBayWeather who may have some local resources that could answer this. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry I've been busy and not been able to spend as much time here as I would like. I'll check with Heritage Society later and see what they have. I'd like to thank all those who have spent so much time in trying to solve this. I did notice that a free image has been added to the article which came from here and the copyright information is at Library and Archives. Thanks again. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 10:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Wow. Klengenberg moved around. I've got feedback from User:Dcoetzee here. He seems to think a case could be made for use with the tag "commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA" and one of the appropriate licenses he recommends, but he also says, "I wouldn't recommend it unless you have some really compelling reason to." It might be better to wait until the dust clears on the debate over how to handle these situations on Commons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Garside Hi, as you were the main contributer.. I am happy to manually archive the talkpage, is there some kind of general agreement that we are more or less happy that what is left is fair enough settled on? Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Hi. Evidently, we are editing across each other. :) I responded to this at BLPN, and I imagine you've seen that note, since you've already archived up to the point that I requested remain open pending further discussion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Confusion over speedy Dear Moonriddengirl, I am really confused over this. I use TW for tagging articles for speedy deletion and TW automatically notified the article creator. If the editor in question wasn't the article creator then TW must have errored. Can you help tracking down the issue? Basket of Puppies 18:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Hi. No, there was no error in that notification on TW's part or yours, but this was just an unfortunately complicated situation. As far as I can tell, the article was not created a second time, but restored. You tagged it quite properly on October 30th for a copyvio. It was deleted at 20:34, 31 October 2009 under G12. It was then restored on 09:55, 19 November 2009 by MLauba, who believed the copyright issue had been cleared. BobbyGH never edited the article again after its first deletion. I'm all for notification, especially with copyright issues, but under the circumstances felt that a second tag for deleting the same content would be a bit bitey, especially since he has evidently attempted to comply with licensing requirements. I don't think there was any intentional biting on your part there. It's simply under the circumstances that essentially he has gotten two warnings for one action (sort of like a redundant vandalism tag). For the second tag, though, I do think it would have been courteous for you to discuss your concerns about the article with User:MLauba. As I'm sure you know, CSD is typically for uncontroversial deletions. Personally, I am greatly appreciative of your efforts to keep an eye out for copyright violations. It saves a lot of time and grief if we can nip that in the bud, and even when a contributor may be able to verify it's best to get that taken care of early, while we may still be able to get in touch with him or her. But I think under the circumstances it probably would have been a good idea for you to explain to him why you felt his closure of the CP listing was incorrect rather than to tag it for G12, which tag is not meant to be used for "Unambiguous copyright infringement." If there is even a "dubious assertion of permission", as there was here, CP is better for it, and the admins who work CP are generally open to conversation if there is disagreement about our conclusions. We're human, and we may make mistakes or even just interpret evidence differently. :) If you encounter this situation again, no matter what admin has removed the tag, I would really recommend you just put the {{copyvio}} tag back on the article, explain why on the talk page, and leave a note of explanation for the admin who removed the tag. I've done that myself, when I've disagreed with another admin's conclusions about a CP matter, and it's a good way I think to avoid publishing potentially problematic content while the matter is under dispute. Since you are not an admin, I understand that you may be hesitant to replace the {{copyvio}} tag if an admin has removed it. You are welcome to come by my talk page if I'm around for assistance in such a situation. Even when I'm not here, there are generally a few copyvio admins who are. And I'm pretty sure, having worked with MLauba, that he would have been okay with its restoration with an explanation of why. Again, I do appreciate your keeping an eye out for copyright issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Moonriddengirl, I think I completely understand what you're describing- both the technical restoration and the social/BITEy aspect of it. I am glad to take the path you have suggested! Thanks for the substantial and thoughtful reply. Basket of Puppies 18:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC) The Avery Coonley School Can you help with a question, a User as just added large parts of the The Avery Coonley School article most appears to be a direct copy of the school website http://www.averycoonley.org/ the website only has a general copyright statement from the hosting company. Without checking every single edit (over 20) made today should they all be rolled back as potential copyright violations on the assumption that the website doesnt mention public domain or do we need to check all the edits. Any advise appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Hi. I'll come take a look in just a few minutes. I've got a dog soaking in oatmeal. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Oi. I've blanked both articles for now, as I found duplicated text in both. Meanwhile, some of the images may also be an issue. With File:SCPA Historical Marker.PNG, I've got to remember how things landed the last time historical markers came up. There's no source given for this watermarked image. This, this, this and this may be PD, but there's no sources for them, either. (With the last, I can't read what it is.) File:Schools of To-morrow.jpg is being clearly misused. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) I am the user in question, and while I understand the concern, I do not understand the procedure. As a brand new editor, I admit I find the rules and review processes confusing and a bit frustrating. My intent was not to copy the school website -- which I did not do -- but to selectively edit material from the site when the site was the best (or only) source for that material. My plan had been to edit and properly source that text, a task I was working on even as the conflict forced me to stop. In other words, it was a work in progress. I admit this may not be the most efficient way to make major revisions, but again, I am new at this. All I really wanted to do was improve the article from the stub that it was to something more useful. At this point I do not know what to do. As you will see, I've been at it a while. So if it is possible to get some guidance as to how I can fairly use the public site content and continue working on it, I might do that. Right now, all my work appears to be lost and I am not certain I have it in me to start over, nor would I know how to do that without leaning heavily on the school site for much of the information. Vaughanchris (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC) I did not realize until now that you had blanked my SCPA article, as well. I believed I sourced the Old Woodward image when I uploaded it to Michael Husman. But again, I am happy to correct any issues given the chance to do so. If the SCPA article is a do over, too, I probably just do not have the stomach for Wikipedia. How exactly does this confilict process work?Vaughanchris (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Please clarify what this review process entails. How do you make the determination on what is deleted, and what is my opportunity to participate in this discussion? I would argue that the vast majority of the SCPA piece is my own, with minor inclusions from the schools FAQ (including the Mission Statment, which should I think be verbatim), that could be quickly fixed by stronger citations. Likewise, there are changes to the Avery Coonley piece (the infobox, the lead, etc.) that are clearly my own. Are these automatically deleted? Are all of my changes deleted? It is less disheartening to be told there is a problem than to be told that there is nothing I can do about it. I really does make it very difficult to participate. Vaughanchris (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation. Given what you've said, I would prefer, if possible, to just roll back everything I did to the Avery Coonley page. It will be far easier to recreate what I think is mine than explain it. And I imagine easier for you, as well. Clearly, my work-in-progress approach to editing is not going to work here. If you have suggestions on how others do it, I'm listening. With regard to the SCPA page, I do think the problems pointed out on the talk page are minor and I would prefer to fix them. If those are not the only issues to be dealt with, please let me know that. I will follow your suggestions and post my comments in the appropriate place. Finally, I have no problem with you handling the review. I have no complaints. I am just confused.Vaughanchris (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC) I've reviewed your comments on the SCPA talk page, and do not know if it is best to reply here or there, but I will post here since I am really asking your advice. I am happy to revise the sections you indicate, but I have two questions about it: The first regards procedure: How do I make the changes, given that the page is blanked right now? Should I make edits on the page anyway? Will you automatically be aware of them for approval? The second question is about policy: Given that some of the material is just facts and rules (admissions, creative review, mission statement, etc.), what is the best way to include this information legitimately? Should I quote (or block quote) the sections verbatim and footnote them specifically? Or do my best to paraphrase. For example, there are only so many ways to say that 90% of the kids go to college, or that you have to audition in all majors. Thanks. And thanks for rolling back the Avery Coonley post. That was a rookie mistake on my part.Vaughanchris (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Just to say thanks to Moonriddengirl for looking at this issue. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC) A nice fresh snowball I have a feeling this probably was not so much of a "guy thing" as an "oh-my-god, Christmas-already?, jingles-on-the-brain, gotta-buy-gifts, days-are-short, when-will-I-find-the-time?, my-mind-is-plum-pudding, bah-humbug, holiday-panic-irritability" kind of a thing. At least for me... this lasts until the first snowball smacks my face and then a short sharp shot of Aquavit. Or a post by Moonriddengirl. Same difference. Same refreshing result. — CactusWriter | needles 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks, and I very much hope that all will be well. :) This job can bury us if we're not careful. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Good morning... ...I know, we should stop meeting like this. Can you take a look at Charles Anthony Pearson and this source? I think the efforts are good faith but clearly copyvio. Would appreciate a "best course" pointer.  Frank  |  talk  13:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Considering that we're usually meeting over copyright problems, it would be very nice if we could stop meeting like this. :D I would much rather meet in better circumstances. Yes, it's a clear copyvio. I would tag it {{copyvio}} and either give the contributor the standard no-thanks template it generates (which is designed to be newcomer friendly) or give him that and a personal note underneath it. I frequently add something under the template like ":Thank you for your contribution here, but unfortunately unless you can verify permission this article will need to be rewritten or deleted. We can't use or [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing|closely paraphrase]] copyrighted text. Please let me know if you'd like to discuss steps in addressing this.". That may help ease the sting a bit. Just let me know if you'd like to take point on this one. (But let me know soon if you'd like me to do it, as I've got a long meeting I can't duck in about 20 minutes. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Done, thanks!  Frank  |  talk  13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Any comment on the note at Talk:Charles Anthony Pearson and my talk page from the originating editor? I'm not sure what to do; the text at the source site does seem to have changed.  Frank  |  talk  12:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC) I've responded there. I've seen this happen once or twice. The problem is that changing the external site doesn't clear the copyright protection on the original content, and we need to verify that we had it first. I hope it'll be a simple matter to clear up. It should be, if the Wikipedia contributor is in contact with the webmaster (or is the webmaster him or herself!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I checked at www.archive.org but it wasn't archived often enough to make a determination one way or the other; in fact it does appear possible the text could have appeared here first. Thanks for your input on this matter!  Frank  |  talk  13:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Amelia Island Plantation Greetings, MRG: Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. I've finished a new article that I've been working off and on for a few weeks. No big hurry. Mgreason (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I did, thanks. Hope you did also. :) I'll try to get to the article tomorrow. I've got a good bit of daily CP stuff still facing me, and work to catch up on post holiday. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Another question on a cartoonist's image? Sorry to bother you again MRG, but never having done this before, I hope I am understanding the process properly. I assume that I get the cartoonist to write the following text in an email. But when they say he should sign off with his name and "details", well is email address enough details, or should he include a phone number too? His address? And before he sends it, I will upload the image to Commons (adding the OTRS pending tag to the image upload page), have him add the Commons page link to his email message, have him send the email, and then wait about a week before adding the image to the appropriate Wikipedia page. Right? Thanks for taking this time to look this over. Invertzoo (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC) ............... To the staff of Wikipedia and Wikimedia: I hereby affirm that I am Edward J. Subitzky, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of “small self-portrait” located online at: Here give the link to the Commons page I agree to publish that work under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, as detailed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Edward J. Subitzky, New York City, I guess to include his email address and what else as "details" here? Copyright holder Date: December xxth 2009 And send the email to: permissions-commons AT wikimedia.org That should work just fine. The only complication will be if he has published this online before, in which case we need to be sure that the e-mail address is clearly associated with the point of first publication. Let me know when this is sent, and I'll intercept it for quicker handling. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Thx Thanks so much for the shiny, seasonal bauble :) Hope you had a good Turkey Day and that your dog's skin condition is better. So at first I thought I'd do Fasciolopsis, but a couple sentences in and... mah smelling salts... must call doctor... obvious symptoms... Short articles that are clearly notable and lots of reliable sources pop up - I'll try to keep my eye on candidates. Best, Novickas (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC) LOL! Don't develop symptoms. That would be no good. :) That one turned out to be mostly copyvio clear, anyway, as the CDC published it first. But it's great to have you on board even for short articles, clearly notable, lots of sources. I hate deleting 'em. :) (Dog is decidedly less itchy today.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Perhaps you could reply To that. In a week the assignments should be over; till then I am trying to help the students address those issues as much as possible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I can't recall Would you mind giving a quick reply about to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#who's copying whom? about Wikipedia's stance on reverse copyvios? (For my benefit, too.) Somewhere in the recesses of my brain, I seem to recall you answering me about it way back when -- but, for the life of me, I can't remember where, when or what was said. — CactusWriter | needles 16:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Sure. Right there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you. — CactusWriter | needles 16:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Deleted item "Extended PMRL" I understand and think it's great that you have deleted the article that is in question, because you find it to be a copyright violation of some type, obviously because someone has contacted you, or there is no reference for the information, and you can't find any permission that was given by the contributor of the information. However, is it possible for you, once you have deleted to the item to have a reference to the location where the information came from in the first place, if you have it? Like if it was actually copyrighted information from the Encyclopedia Britannica, maybe leave that reference there, so that we can actually go to that source and find the the information? Because you've obviously done the research to find out where it came from to validate that it is a violation, so you know where the information came from, so, if it is a publicly accessible source, maybe provide their name, or the name of the book, or website where it came from. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.30.162 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Hi. There are rules against creating "articles" that consist only of external links. I don't find any sign that we've ever had an article called "Extended PMRL" (with or without quotation marks). I've had a glance at the last 1,000 articles I've deleted, and I don't see the words "Extended" or "PMRL" in them. You may be able to find out the source yourself. When you are at the article title, click "what links here" in the toolbox on the side of the page. If it was listed at the copyright problems board, the listing will be included in those links. Take, for example, the article Shultz tables. The links lead to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 August 31, which gives you more information including the source from which material seems to have been taken. If you can give me the precise title of the article, I'd be happy to give you more information about its deletion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Time waits for no man... ... but computers are not men :-) J.delanoygabsadds 18:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC) LOL! Too true. I've also noticed that computers have an amazing ability to suck time out of the real world, the way you sit down for a moment at the keyboard and stand up dazed five hours later. Maybe it's saving the time it steals for these moments of suspension? :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC) My suggestions on how to improve copyvio template You'll probably see it anyway, but here it is. Based on my recent experiences and discussions with my students. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your help I hope you still remember me, but if not, I was the one who asked you about recreating Warriors characters list pages. I'd like to thank you for your help in showing me specific articles that helped me do things better, like the copied template for example. So once again, thank you! Brambleclawx (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I do remember, though I tend to get fuzzy about details after two or three days. :D I'm glad if I was helpful to you. Please feel free to stop by any time you think I may be of use. If I can, I will. :) Good luck with it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Palm, meet face [4] Banhammer time for Matthew06 87 I think. MER-C 05:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Indeffed. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Need your help asap Others might get involved before you get a chance, but we need some comments on copyright here [5]. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Still sleepy, but will do my best. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Good gracious. Opined, with lots of parentheses. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Photo Copyright Hello Moonriddengirl, There were some photo copyright issues earlier with the Jonas Salk page on two photos. Apparently it's been resolved, but I was wondering how does an issue come up in the first place? Is there a Wikipedia program that automatically checks for copyright against a published list? There's so much wikipedia to learn. Also, the deletion notices are still up on these photos on the Salk page despite someone telling me the issue had been resolved. How do I go about getting this deletion notice removed so that the photos aren't deleted in error? Thanks for your help, :) Malke 2010 (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Hi. :) There isn't a Wikipedia program that checks for copyright against a published list, but there is a bot that trawls the internet looking for matches for newly published text. Off the top of my head, I would estimate that this finds about 3/4ths of the copyright problems we deal with on Wikipedia. Most of the rest are found by vigilant contributors who either notice similarity or suspect copyvio based on certain circumstances of the text/image in question. A very small number are reported by the copyright holders themselves, upon their discovery of their content on Wikipedia. Looking at the images on the Jonas Salk page, I see several with deletion notices. File:Salk Carter 77.jpg is tagged for lack of evidence of permission on Commons. It was tagged on November 18th, and it waits a Commons admin to review it and either decline or delete. The ones that I imagine concern you are File:Salk test tubes.jpg, File:Salk March of Dimes poster.jpg, File:Roosevelt OConnor.jpg, and File:Salk Thank You.jpg. Each of these is under an ongoing deletion debate on Commons (Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salk test tubes.jpg; Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salk March of Dimes poster.jpg; Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roosevelt OConnor.jpg; Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salk Thank You.jpg) and will also have to wait a Commons admin to review and close. From what I understand, Commons has quite a backlog on deletion debates, so this could take a while. (They go back as far as May, if I'm reading this correctly!) You may be able to request an admin to go ahead and close it at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, but I don't really know if that's within "protocol" at Commons. It's a very different environment than Wikipedia. You might want to find a familiar face in the list of Commons admins at Commons:Commons:Administrators and just ask if that would be considered appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, I understand things a lot better now. Appreciate the list of admins, also. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Re: Richard Restak, "eponymously" My use of the word "eponymously" it the context that I used it may have been in error, however it is a "word". It's an adverb. "Eponymously" is used in many other wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=eponymously&go=Go It is listed in the dictionary eponymous <snip copied text> And it is listed in wikitionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eponymously http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/EPONYMOUS 7mike5000 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Hi. Eponymously is a word, yes. "Epomymously" is not a word. It was a typo, I presume; I myself have made some doozies (you have to look in the edit summary for my jaw-dropping one there). :) (I've removed the definition you placed above as non-free text. You can certainly copy from Wiktionary.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I didn't realize I misspelled it. Shouldn't have used it in the first place. Thanks 7mike5000 (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC) No problem, and my apologies. On rereading it, I can see that my edit summary must have sounded snarky. It truly wasn't intended to. "People who live in glass houses..." as they say. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Food Power Reposts I started putting the new information on the temp site...thanks ShaqSmith (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Hey Thanks for the help...I will have everything reposted by 5 AM tomorrow EST. Thank you and can I have ur email? ShaqSmith (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Hi back Zidane tribal has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chololately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Hi dear Moonriddengirl and thank you so much for stopping by, i read your message at work in the morning and got me really happy and active, a great way to begin a day. i`ve around assessing, but these have been slow months i took it easy when i broke the 27000 barrier on unassessed articles left, but i`m back on track and is really nice having my mentor watching over me, specially if she is dressed in opals and rags, feathers and torn taffeta. Thanks again. (I hope you like chocolate) Zidane tribal (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Catch--22 Plot summary appears lifted almost entirely (a word or two here or there out of hundreds) from sparknotes. Sparknotes clearly declares a copyright on the page, so I assume it's our bad.[6] "©2009 SparkNotes LLC, All Rights Reserved" Is it possible they copied ours? Seems unlikely.... --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Good catch and thanks for reverting to the previous non-copyvio version! There's no question about the copyright violation. Wikipedia's version was this wholesale addition on May 1 2009. Sparknotes version goes back to at least 2000 including this version from August 2008. Mrg (good morning), I've added a cclean template on the talk page. — CactusWriter | needles 09:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, as usual, to Moonriddengirl and her stalkers. I know it's not a wikipedia synopsis because it hit a few major points and wikipedia plot overviews usually miss all major points because they are OR rather than taken from literary critiques. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Man, I was tired when I got up this morning! I didn't even notice this section up here (hooray for stalkers :)). Thanks for cleaning it, IP69.226.103.13, and thanks for ccleaning it, CactusWriter. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Admit it, your stalkers are as good as you are. Sorry I abuse your page, by the way, but even you might admit it's fast and doesn't tend to leave loose ends. ;) --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC) I'm not inclined to see it as abuse. If so, I'd have to judge myself very harshly. There are a few people I run to routinely. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Added Food Power Sorry to bother you so much but I added the edits. How do i add quotations around a few sentences of texts. ShaqSmith (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Re: Food Aid and Food Power ok Thank you...Please keep me updated as you update the main article and remove the copyright infringement signs. I am also removing the entire section on "Europe" as it is not important toward the project and the topic. THANK YOU! We need the copyright infrigments removed so that my group and I could work on the project, we only have a few days... If there is STILL something in need to fix, let me know on my talk page and/or my email at: shaq444@gmail.com ShaqSmith (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Punishment Approach I am so sorry to bother you so many times (truly I am). Could you find out who from my group added the section on the punishment approach because it was not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaqSmith (talk • ShaqSmith (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Could you please send User:Nikzen another message please...I will contact her ASAP. ShaqSmith (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Hello It seems that you are not active nower days Ramesh vyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh vyas (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Hi. I am, although I have unfortunately a lot of work to do today. I've answered most of the above comments at the talk page of the user who left them. :) Are you in need of assistance? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Once the educational assignment cleanup is done Would you mind writing up your thoughts on your experiences with it? I am collecting feedback from students, but I'd also like to get feedback from the other side - the Wikipedia helpers :) Hopefully, once we put those two together, we can figure out what to improve (like streamlining the copyvio template and such). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Hello, still having trouble figuring out how to work wikipedia but realized today that I had a copyright problem that you posted on my talk page. I have rewritten the section (for the article on Food Power). Can I post it in the food power article, or should it go somehwere else? Thanks for the help, and sorry about any inconveniences. Nikzen (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)