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 08:17, 16 September 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now. Daniel Gajski I noticed you just cleaned this article and had a question. The creator mentioned that they were emailing OTRS. Does that just mean that the content can be restored if/when you get usable permission, or is there something else going on that I'm unaware of? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Yes. :) I searched OTRS to see if there was a mail in the system about it and did not find one. (I didn't expect to. We recently caught up the En-wiki permission list. Yay! Commons, on the other hand, yikes.... But sometimes e-mails are sent to the wrong address.) If he had forgotten to send it but does so now, it can be restored after. I didn't leave him {{cup}} because the article wasn't deleted, just the one limited passage. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I guessed it might be something like that, but I just wanted to double check since I had been talking to him. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC) FYI, it's come in now. The OTRS agent who handled it is evidently new (? or at least maybe new to it on Enwiki), as he didn't restore the text, but he did reassign the ticket to me, so I've handled it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Great, and thanks for the follow up. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you... ...for your time and effort in closing the RfC at WT:ACTOR. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you. :) I'm sure it won't be universally popular, and I appreciate that my first comment is a positive one. It was hard going! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Rather than adding a new thank you message, I'll comment here. I would also like to thank you for the time and thought that you brought to your closing of that discussion. There was a lot to wade through, and I have to admire anyone who was willing to take on such a task. You say above that you think it won't be universally popular, but I think you gave about the fairest summary of opinions that could be given and reading through your sandbox was also helpful in seeing how you thought it through. I very much appreciate what you did. Rossrs (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I really do appreciate that. :) I did my best to fairly weigh consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Filmographies I'm a little confused by one of the findings. That was for bulleted lists vs. tables. I do not see that the use of bulleted lists was widely supported, in fact, the only editors I could find who did support it was Jack Merridew, MichaelQSchmidt and Josette. Could you please clarify it further for me? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Certainly, and fwiw, you can see all of the notes I made on this at my sandbox, User:Moonriddengirl/sandbox, between 11:35, 19 April 2010 and 16:10, 19 April 2010. Mind you, any notes I've made there are preliminary. :) But in addition to the ones you note, bulleted lists are supported by User:Pablo X ("Michael Q Schmidt makes a valid point about the use of text rather than tables, perhaps it would be best to simplify."), Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 ("Jack makes a good argument for forgoing tables altogether in favor of lists for filmographies"), and User:Erik (as part of his either/or), referenced in the closure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks, and thanks for taking this on. Another administrator started to take it on and then didn't. I guess I don't see that it's that clear on the list vs. table and I find it interesting that the majority of editors who weren't supportive of tables also don't work with filmographies. The only regular actor editor was MQS, who has a fairly unique POV on the issue vs. the others, who do. And I was fairly sure Pinkadelica was squarely in favor of them, since so much of her work has been in developing them and she said "Agree with HJ Mitchell. I can't believe this is still an issue. It's a filmography chart people." I'm certain User:HJ Mitchell was in favor since he favored the lightsteelblue header. It would seem that GentlemanGhost was in favor of tables since he favored the template and later said to Jack Merridew: "I understand your preference for bulleted lists, although that is not my preference." . I'm sorry to be such a schmudge, I just want to be clear. Thanks so much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I'll just wait until you let me know you're finished to reply. I've edit conflicted with you several times. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC) And I'm really sorry about that e/c. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC) No problem, but I thought I'd let you know because otherwise I might not answer when you are finished, at least not as quickly as I should. I realize you may need time to gather your thoughts, so just let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Since I'm about dead on my daybed and I think I covered the points, I'm done. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC) All right. Give me a minute, and I'll reply. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Okay, first, you are welcome to discuss your concerns with me, no apology needed. think your passion is admirable, and while I know that might sound condescending I don’t mean it that way. There are certain things on Wikipedia to which I’ve shackled myself, so I can imagine being in your position. I understand and completely respect that this is important to you, and if I were in your position, I would want my concerns to be heard. (Just as an aside, I don't blame the other administrator for not taking it on. By hour two I was questioning my own sanity, but I had committed by then. :)) As far as my notes are concerned, there are several factors here. First, some people explained themselves and some did not; second, some people clearly weighed in on one issue, but did not weigh in clearly on others. With regards to that, I think you have to be careful not to overread people’s responses in a conversation this sprawling. If anything, I think I skirted a bit close in counting Himilayan Explorer under "color" and "table", since arguably his response related only to font size. (I felt like his "if they look like this" was explicit enough for me to presume both color and style of presentation met with his approval, as well as the larger size.) With one response I couldn't peg (an explanation was offered, but I couldn't understand it), I tracked the contributor down to ask for clarification (here), but otherwise if opinion was not clear, I didn’t list it under that header. Too, as you know, consensus is not formed merely by "head count", but by the strength and nature of arguments (which is why my notes are not just a list of editors who feel one way or another). It matters why a person supports or doesn’t support something, although a "per JohnSmith" counts (as it incorporates his arguments by reference). My lists reflect the reasons given; they aren’t formulated with # for that reason: to help me remember that it isn’t about numbers. By my reading of the debate, "lists" received substantial, reasoned support (as did "tables"), and even if Pinkadelica had explicitly said she supported tables over lists, it probably wouldn’t have made a difference to my closure. (Now, if she had a strong policy-based argument, that could be a different matter.) What I'm really not empowered to do, I think, is evaluate the contributors who are weighing in. I mean, obviously, I can discount socks or clearly unqualified contributors (please don't ask me to define that; it'll take me another hour to find the right words!), but I can't base my reading on who actually works in the area. I can see why that might matter to you; you probably feel like the people who work in the area are more experienced there and better able to judge the needs of the articles. But until we establish more official departments of some kind, my "uninvolved admin" thing means weighing all good faith contributors in good standing equally and focusing only on the strength of their arguments. You say, "I guess I don't see that it's that clear on the list vs. table": I didn't see it as that clear, either; in fact, it still looks like a very muddy issue. As I see it, discontinuing the tables is obviously not supported even though several would prefer it, but neither is the rejection of all bulleted lists. This is why I suggest that your project might want to figure out some guidelines for when each is to be preferred. A conversation focusing more specifically on such circumstances might be productive. Anyway, I understand that you are likely to be unhappy with my conclusion, and I am sorry. Generally, I prefer it when nobody has to be unhappy, but RfCs don't often work out that way. :/ I do hope that seeing my reasoning is helpful. I think I have judged the consensus in the conversation correctly; certainly, I did try. And I hope you didn't take that "Give me a minute" literally, because my abilities to assess how long it will take me to do something are obviously sadly lacking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Hello Moonriddengirl, thanks for all your work closing this RfC. While I agree with your conclusions on the tables versus lists issue in the context of this recent RfC, I'd like to point out to everyone that we already have an official MOS guideline for filmograpies (something I should have pointed out during the RfC) that prefers the use of bulleted lists. It's at WP:Filmographies/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Filmographies It does contain a link to the WikiProject for actors page, but that was added by Wildhartlivie after the page achieved guideline status and without any discussion on the talk page. Thanks again for your efforts. - Josette (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC) That's good to know; if there's going to be conversation going forward about the use of tables vs. lists and how and when, a note at that talk page would probably be a good idea. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC) And I see no huge issue with adding a link to what was described as an example of a style used. There was nothing said that mandated or suggested it as a preferred style. That it's been there without question for 14 months doesn't seem to indicate that anyone had issue with listing an example. I'd note the same page has a link to a failed style guideline for discographies. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Wildhartlivie, you might not see the issue but others might have - especially if they had realized your intentions were to replace every bulleted list in thousands of actor bios with a table. Moonriddengirl, this is an ongoing issue on WT:ACTOR and your input would be helpful there. - Josette (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Hi. I've read through it, and if I need to come clarify my reading of consensus I will. I'm not sure at this point if it's necessary. For the record, here, I'll just restate that as I read it, there is support in the RfC for both tables (if prepared with templates) and lists. Given that there is consensus to exclude neither, it seems that conversation at this point should be on what guidance if any is appropriate for when to use which. With this new information, it would be a good idea per Wikipedia:Consensus to notify at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works) as well. Use of both is not out of keeping with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Tables, which may offer some assistance in the decision of when to use which. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Well done! The Barnstar of Diligence To Moonriddengirl, for putting so much time and effort into the filmographies RfC at WT:ACTOR. On behalf of Wikipedia, I feel obliged to present you this for your trouble. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much! I appreciate it. I reviewed it for about an hour before deciding I could probably close it. I had no idea how long it was going to take. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Well the discussion was massive. Having read through it all as it progressed, I don't envy you, but I'm sure everyone appreciates your efforts and the superbly thorough rationale you provided, regardless of their opinion on the end result. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking this on. Your close seems to touch all the bases, and appropriately reflects the degree of unanimity of the participants. Do you think the header of that RfC section might be changed from 'Filmography' to 'Filmography RfC', to simplify finding it and referring to it in the future? Admins ought to be diligent in closing RfCs when it is requested, but you were the one who actually went forward and did the work. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Sure, okay. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC) My thanks, too. I'm going to start an implementation discussion and seek technical input on the template implementation and have just dropped Xeno a note about a bot-pass. As to the closed RFC itself, I'm thinking that moving it to a subpage would be the best place for it to live. Prolly not yet, though; there are a lot of inbound links. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I missed your note here with everything else going on on my page today! Must have slipped in under somebody else's. Probably a subpage would be good; it's pretty long. And I agree, give it a few days to let everybody read through it and begin to figure out where to go. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Lots of Orange Bars, today? I'm thinking the implementation discussion will run a few days and then the bot work might take a while. WHL said some time ago that there were 32,000 articles involved but that may just be a count of category members. I do know that a whole lot of actor bios use bulleted lists and that the conversion to tables has largely focused on the high profile celebrities. Xeno may be able to offer some stats on what was actually found. Once all that's done and dusted would be the time to file everything to a subpage. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Thank heavens for bots! And, yes, quite a few moments of "you've got mail." :) And to think, I was at ANI and thought, "Oh, this looks like something I could do before starting the copyright work...." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I'll be running a bot one of these days, I've just not had the time to get up to speed on it. I've just stepped through your sandbox. While I don't really get what some of the steps were about, I assume it worked for you. I loved the bit about putting a hat on it. I do appreciate the time you took to read that 164kb. I expect about half of what's in there are my posts. I'm a developer; that's probably obvious. I've also a ton of "user interface" design experience. And I've done professional lighting design, which has a large 'color' aspect to it. I'll be following up on the wider question of color from a site-wide perspective, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC) p.s. I edited your user page and talk editnotice ;) I'd be really interested to know specifically what bot tasks are under consideration, since Jack has been going about instituting his vision of what he thinks the tables should look like and he also inquired about removing tables from the bot owner. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Jack. :) I'm sure they were a mess. Wildhartlivie, I think there's conversation about this kind of thing at the project talk page. Maybe the answer will be there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Hi Hi Moonriddengirl. Just two questions. 1) I was wondering, when you go on the commons, you see some images which are said to be not in the public doman, like this [1]. Apparently, since there is the freedom of panorama in the US, they are fine for uploading in the US, yet I was wondering, would they be fine for the UK? 2) Regarding that page that got deleted twice, I totally still disagree with it. As a matter of fact, there's a page which is exact in format to that one and cites the same source, which is this. According to wikipedia, you cannot copyright facts. Well, all I did was I gave the statistics for each region which were the same to that source, which is obvious. Yet, it was said that, you can only copyright expressions. Looking at that page, it does not seem a copyright problem because it only has the same figures, not expressions or formats. Thus, it should not be a copyvio. Oh, by the way, when you asked me about all my copyright problems, this may not be one, but I had one case of accidentally including a non-free image onto user sandbox space, which was later deleted. Please reply--Theologiae (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Hi. Thanks for the "bump". As soon as I finish the note I'm writing, I'll get back with you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC) (1) Freedom of Panorama laws vary by country, and they can become very complicated. See the explanation at Commons. I am not allowed to give you legal advice, which means I'm probably not going to tell you that you can use an image under "Freedom of Panorama" in the UK, because that would be irresponsible of me. If I'm wrong, you'd be the one getting in trouble. In general, based on the way I understand it, the UK's "Freedom of Panorama" laws are more liberal than the US laws; they let you do more. In the United States, you can't take a picture in public of a copyright statue and release the picture under "Freedom of Panorama", but I think that in the UK you can. You can't release pictures of copyrighted paintings or posters or signs or wall murals. (2) Sometimes pages are deleted as copyright problems under a mistaken understanding of copyright. I haven't looked at that page, but if you think the admin who deleted it (either of them) made a mistake, you can ask them to reconsider it. Explain politely why you think they are wrong. If they disagree, you can ask for additional review at deletion review. I will not review it myself, because I think that would be wrong for me to do after our past conversations. You'd have to take it through the proper procedures at this point. Please let me know if any of this is hard to follow. I remember that you are a child. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC) That's all fine. Just one q. I was wondering, I've read the commons story, but it's awfully confusing. Can a public domain work of art be uploaded (I don't mean actually uploading it onto the commons or wikipedia, I mean just using it on an article, like when one adds pictures). So, does that mean that works of art cannot be added as pics? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC) If a work of art is public domain and you took the photograph, you can use it. Otherwise, the photograph has to be public domain, too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I need your help please.... Hi, My name is Jan Irwin, and I am in the employ of John L. Notter. We recently had our PR company add Mr. Notter on to Wikipedia. His page was recently deleted due to the same information that he has on the Hilton Website being an infringement. I personally wrote his bio for him to be posted on both, as he is on the Board of Directors of Hilton, and they wanted his bio posted on their website as well. I give my authorization to please reinstate his page on Wikipedia using the same bio. I would have responded sooner, but I thought our PR company was handling this matter. Please call me directly at <redacted> and let me know when this has been done. Thanking you in advance for your help. Regards, 207.212.166.226 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Hello. I'm sorry, but I do not conduct Wikipedia business over the telephone. If you wish to reinstate the bio, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure. Before doing so, though, I do recommend that you read over our guideline on conflict of interest editing. Once the content is licensed, it will be reviewed by other contributors to ensure that it meets the policies and guidelines discussed in that article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Please move my article into my sandbox space Hello! I am here in reference to my article that is currently been relisted. You too have commented on it. I wanted to know if I can work on the article in my stub area and what happens if the article gets deleted? If my article gets deleted, can I never attempt to rewrite the article again. I am a technical person and have just started writing. I have worked hard on the content. I am confident of the content from technical point of view. I had read the rules thoroughly. This is my first wiki article and thus my ride is very bumpy. Please help me by moving my article into my sandbox space. I would be happy to work on it again. PCJain (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Hi. Thank you for your note, and I'm sorry for the bumpy ride you've been having. Wikipedia has a learning curve, and starting right off by creating new articles can be difficult. I can't move it to your sandbox right now, because it's under consideration for deletion. If the article is deleted, you can attempt to create a new version, but you will need to make doubly sure that the content is neutral and that there are enough reliable sources cited to verify that the content is notable. Actually, you can probably save it by doing the same thing right now. You may have noticed that the template message now on the article's face links to a temporary subpage ([2]). You do not have to wait until the AfD closes to work on rewriting the article. You can start right now. First, be very careful to eliminate all copyright concerns. You can see a listing of what these are at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 April 11. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is the four sentence run that seems to be copied from [3], but even the single sentence copied from [4] is a problem under our copyright policy. We request that you use your own, original language when adding content to Wikipedia, although you may use limited, clearly marked quotations. I know from your note that you were under the impression that the whitepage in question was public domain. This seems to have been a misunderstanding. For guidance on what actually is public domain under U.S. copyright laws, we have Wikipedia:Public domain. Other policies and guidelines of use here include Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Non-free content, Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Since I am handling the copyright concerns, I have not joined in the argument of the article's merits. I am remaining neutral on the merits of content, but looking at the history of the article it seems that the nominator feels you used quite a few self-published sources as well as many that don't actually mention the subject by name. You would do well at this point to look for more sources that specifically discuss "Mobility-as-a-Service" by name that are not produced by Fiberlink Communications. These will help to satisfy verifiability and notability. Once that is done, you may consider further neutralizing the language. Sentences such as "It is the hybrid combination of infrastructure elements, operations tools, security applications and other components that can work together to deploy, manage and monitor mobile devices, data and users", "Companies today are strategically connecting to partners, suppliers and customers around the world to optimize efficiency and reduce business costs" and "The MaaS platform provides IT administrators a simple and user friendly administration of a global connectivity infrastructure" sound more in keeping for a brochure than a Wikipedia article. We are here to neutrally summarize what reliable sources have said about notable subjects. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Re: Donna J. Stone Hi. As you recommended, here's a copy of the response and follow-up question I posted on my page earlier today. I can't imagine how difficult it must be, keeping an eye on so many pages! If my idea wouldn't provide sufficient protection of the article from future deletion, then I should take you up on your offer to help navigate the Wikimedia Foundation email system, and ask Dr. Stone to send an email from his website. As I noted below, since most of the text on his site did not come from my article or Wikipedia, I can't see asking him to attribute his whole site to me. Perhaps as a contributor to the information, though. But please let me know if you think that adding a second link, on the front page of his site, to the Wikipedia article would suffice. (As I mentioned, he already linked his mother's name to the Wiki article at the top of the biography page.) I'll stop typing now, hopefully giving you a tiny bit less to read.... My original response is copied below from my talk page. Thanks again for your expertise here! There's so much to learn! --Mah Jong (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks so much for your help! Most of the text on Dr. Stone's site was not based on my article, only part of it -- mainly the summary on the first page. So I'm not sure about asking him to list me as the origin of the material. He does link Ms. Stone's name to the Wikipedia article at the beginning of the main biography page, which I took as acknowledgment. Do you think it would be enough if I asked him to link to the article on the first page, as well? This would link the summary I mentioned above directly to the Wikipedia article. --Mah Jong (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you! Answering at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Are US originating texts for wikipedia? Hello Moonriddengirl, I understand, that images with licenses http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-no_notice or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-not_renewed can be used on wikipedia. Can be also used such texts on wikipedia also? If yes, are there any limitations (for example author's death)? If yes, are there some examples of using such texts in wikipedia? If no, when there will be such texts possible to use in wikipedia? I have read Wikipedia:Public domain#When does copyright expire? and its later section, but I can not decide. Example 1: published in 1926 in the USA by an author (died 1957 = at least 50 years ago) without copyright notice. Example 2: published in 1953 in the USA by an author (died 1957 = at least 50 years ago) with copyright notice, but not renewed. Example 3: published in 1976 in the USA by an author (still living) without copyright notice. Example 4: published in 1976 in the USA by an author (still living) with copyright notice, but not renewed. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Can they be? Yes. Are they a pain in the neck? Yes. It can be hard to prove a negative, and verifying that copyright was not renewed is difficult for that reason. If we can't be sure, this material is usually replaced in accordance with the WP:C admonition to "If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." I'm afraid that I can't link to any specific examples, though I remember a few conversations--and I mean, a very few. I've been through this less than a handful of times in my nearly two years of full time copyright work here. Usually, we can't be sure, so it doesn't stick around (as per WP:PD: "the necessary conditions are hard to verify"). With respect to your specific examples: Example 1: Yes, because no notice. Example 2: Yes, because not renewed. Example 3: Yes, because no notice. Example 4: No; copyrighted for 95 years after first publication. Renewal is not required for works published in 1976. There are also a couple of exceptions to the "no notice" exclusion that may make a work copyrighted even if published without notice. If the copyright holder licensed the material for publication to a publisher and the publisher failed to provide proper copyright notice, the work may still be under copyright. The case to consider here is Fantastic Fakes v. Pickwick International Strauss v. Penn Printing & Publishing Co. found that copyright was not surrendered if by mechanical failure copyright notice was left off of a limited run of a work. Proving PD can be a challenge. I myself would not attempt it unless a reliable source says that the copyright has expired. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC) So I have taken a challenge and I have "written" (copied and adapted for wikipedia) article Strobilopsidae as an example without copyright notice. --Snek01 (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC) How do you know it was published without copyright notice? Your link to [5] is not helpful, I'm afraid, as it is not to the proper volume. Your link is to Volume 1, which is published in 1881. This volume was published 1927-1935, and [6] does not mention copyright status. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm asking how you know. The absence of the copyright notice in the scanned version of the book is not sufficient, as the law is clear that the absence of the copyright notice doesn't count if it was removed from the book. If the page is missing, it might well have been tagged. This is what makes it challenging to incorporate text under these conditions and why WP:PD cautions that "the necessary conditions are hard to verify". Proving a negative is always hard. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC) In this particular case, OCLC 176806699 shows two physical copies of that issue extant in German university libraries at Frankfurt and at Gottingen. Help might be available through local wikipedians if a request was made politely and clearly. The copy at the University of Frankfurt is shown as available for loan, but also as "reading room only". Good luck, User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Oi. Thanks very much, User:LeadSongDog. I hate old stuff, and this is exactly why. :/ A lot of it is public domain, but proving it is a major hassle. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC) (Volume link is fine, there is only one external link in the article). Hmmm... this is the most easy case as possible. The book is available scanned on the internet so people can see, that the material really comes from this book. The scanned book is provided by quite renowned organizations such as Internet Archive/Biodiversity Heritage Library. This certain scan comes from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. I do not know if somebody removed copyright notice from that book, but I presume, that no. I even do not believe, that information provided in the "Possible copyright status:" by these service are reliable, because I know, that there are always some errors (I use these services for a long time for images). But I believe that books are scanned in the whole extent. The more difficult cases will come: books with copyright notice but not renewed; books that are unavailable to wikipedians to verify what is inside them, and so on. There is no power in this world to provide information about every book. What will happen if somebody will provide some text, that we will not be able to verify? What institutions we will trust in and what in not? What wikipedians we will trust in and what in not? Can we trust to wikipedians that will loan the book from University of Frankfurt or can we trust directly to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution? Because there is no example of incorporation similar text into wikipedia, I have written this article, so this can became an (negative or positive) example for the guideline. --Snek01 (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I don't expect it'll get incorporated into the guideline at all; I imagine it will be simply another of the handful of cases the details of which I forget. :) I'm glad it doesn't come up very often, because, again it's a pain in the neck. There was one case that was tagged at CP by a bureaucrat shortly after I first arrived; since I could not positively verify that the copyright was expired and could not bring myself to delete it if it was not, I wound up rewriting the article myself. This is already policy: "If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." This is why I would not incorporate PD expired text unless I could point to something authoritative to show that it is expired. Policy says, "You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain." And this is hard. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately the public portal on the WorldCat server for the WHOI Marine Biological Library does not show the specific volume, though it has some other works by that author. It is not an entirely accessible library, though I'm sure with some hunting it would be possible to find a Wikipedian who has access to the full catalog there. There is no assurance that they retained their physical copy after scanning it. It may even have been destroyed in the process of scanning. The Library of Congress Authorities File shows the author's birth but not his death. The LOC catalog does not show the volume. Still, it seems like a reasonable, good-faith assumption that the dates of origin shown at page (ii) of the scanned image are correct unless there is evidence to the contrary. It seems extremely unlikely that the WHOI MBL librarians or the scanning operator would have cause to falsify the image. Hence, for Parts 109 to 112 the respective dates shown are Nov 1927, Apr 1931, Jun 14 1934 and Nov 1935. The archive.org page also has a "due diligence" link which leads indirectly to The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. In their library catalog is this entry for the work. Note on line 500 of the MARC display that they claim explicitly that vol 28 was published by the Conchological Department of their academy. Is that conclusive enough? User:LeadSongDog come howl 20:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC) LeadSongDog, I have knew all this your informations and I do not understand how they can be useful. We can expect, that we will find no information that the book is public domain and if so, anybody can challenge every source as unreliable. --Snek01 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Moonriddengirl, are you in doubts? Because I am not in doubts. Do you really have intentions to rewrite this article by yourself? Because if you will rewrite it, it did not fulfilled its purpose. Feel free to mark the article with {{copyvio}} If I will see that it is the case to deletion, I can delete if myself and wait for verification if necessary. My purpose is not to bring more difficulties neither to wikipedians nor to wikipedia. Alternatively move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. I will bring more cases to get more precise answers to my questions. We should be suspicious to unreliable informations but not to go inside paranoia. --Snek01 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC) No, I don't want to rewrite it. I suspect that it is public domain for precisely the reason you set forth. I just don't know if I would be able to verify that, and being able to verify it is generally required as per WP:C policy. When stuff like this comes up at WP:CP, I usually curse my bad luck and track down a Wikisource admin, unless I can find proof of PD all on my own. If no Wikipedia Sources admin can verify PD, then I have to rewrite it. Unless somebody else does...and they usually don't. Snek01, if you're planning on uploading content that is probably (but not provably) PD to see what WP:PD allows, we could wind up with a fairly tangled mess, I'm afraid. Again, I personally wouldn't upload material under this provision unless I could verify that it is PD, as per WP:C. I don't think this is paranoia, but prudence; usually, it's no great hardship to rewrite content so that no possible copyright problem exists, and it eliminates the risk of error. If you are interested in testing the limits of WP:PD, I think it better to do so at a more public fora than this--probably not the copyright cleanup project, but perhaps WP:VPP or WT:C. Older material is by no means my specialty, which is why I'm not on Wikisource.:) User:LeadSongDog, thanks for the sleuthing. Certainly, everything suggests this is PD. I'm not feeling a need to pursue this one; I just hope it doesn't cross WP:CP on my watch. :) At that point, if I'm handling admin, somebody is saying, "You: personally stand behind this material or don't." If I can't prove it's public domain, I'm not removing the {{copyvio}} tag, because at that point I personally could become liable for contributory infringement if I'm wrong. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010 News and notes: Berlin WikiConference, Brooklyn Museum & Google.org collaborations, review backlog removed, 1 billion edits In the news: Study of featured article quality, Facebook's integration of Wikipedia, and more! WikiProject report: WikiProject Environment Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Please advise as to the protocol for banning a user Hello, A user, killgoret, has added numerous false, inaccurate, inflammatory and just vulgar statements to the ACE Adventure Resort page, on which you at one time commented. I'm just looking for some guidance as to whom I should contact about this trespass. Thanks. WELDwiki (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Vandalism. (Part of his actions were straightforward copyright violation, in that he copied [7] into the article.) The thing to do when somebody vandalizes an article is to revert them and to provide an appropriate level warning. Occasionally, vandalism is severe enough to warrant immediate blocking, but most administrators turn away listings at the vandalism noticeboard unless there are clear warnings to the contributor and unless the behavior is likely to continue. A registered account that has vandalized multiple times is more likely to be blocked than an IP if the behavior is not actively occurring, because IPs rotate. But even with registered accounts, there generally must be a proper warning. I'm sorry to say that this kind of thing happens quite regularly. While there are quite a few contributors who log many hours on vandalism patrol, not everything is swiftly detected and cleaned. I will caution him about this edit. If he returns, escalation of warnings and WP:AIV would be the proper route. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, I was just looking into this. His edit was partially sheer vandalism, and although some of the material he added about the deaths I could source to a newspaper article, some of the other, including the negative commentary, I could only source to two blogs. I've added the article to my watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Doug. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Roman888 CCI Hi there - thanks for looking after my userpage overnight! I'm just dropping you a note to say that Roman888's CCI is done. It was all fairly straightforward except perhaps for the first two items on the list: International reaction to the 2008 Chinese milk scandal. For reasons explained at the CCI, I just redirected this article rather than cleaned it of copyvios. If no-one objects to the redirect discussed here I suggest it could be protected. Najib Tun Razak. This is a heavily edited article and Roman888 had 140 edits to it. Rather than trawl through the 140 edits - nearly all of which were been superseded by other edits - I instead went through the article itself to look for Roman888 copyvios. I hope this approach is ok. There were a few other articles with 100+ Roman888 edits and I went through those diffs individually. I won't be at all put out if you or anyone else wants to check any of the work I've done on the CCI. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Shortest day ever? 1 entry on CP + CSB failure: did we ever get so little? :) MLauba (Talk) 12:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I know! I even checked the history to see if the page had been vandalized. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC) My 3000th edit For you. :) SilverserenC 22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you. :) And congratulations! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Re: Malaysian Ceylonese Congress I don’t really understand the possible incorrectnesses of removing a copyvio template if results a lot of content taken without permission (applying CSD-G12), obvious promotion or spam (CSD-G11) or lack of relevance or importance (CSD-G7); thus offering practical solutions and easing maintenance tasks for admins. If the user shows intentions to spread useful copyrighted information from his/her website and doesn’t how to donating it to our CC license, copyvio template’s purpose would be correct. With regard to Malaysian Ceylonese Congress article, I was only removing those sections when copyright infringements are found, leaving an stub article, but without kind of copyright issues. Neo Yee Pan‎, Italian America Magazine‎, Little Sisters of the Holy Family‎ and Muar State Railway‎ are articles which are only paraphrasing content roughly identical to its original source despite of complying article’s structure standards. By the way, I’ll see the resources featured on WP:CCP as useful and instructive for my tasks. Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 23:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for explain me how are you dealing here with copyright infringements and it seems to work well; just I must get used to current policies. I’m acquainted to Spanish Wikipedia guidelines, where both new pages and RC patrollers and admins prefer to follow a deletionist trend, due to lack of users able to modify article’s content, without deleting it. Going off-topic, I’ve another question: What occurs if a biography of living persons article is perfect, but there are undeniable evidences that the featured person has personal interests in promote him/herself? It would apply a CSD, a proposal deletion or discuss deletion on AfD? I ask this because there is an article about an Peruvian singer, I want to propose its immediate deletion. That stub seems to be valid, but that singer has her own promotional purposes, because of comments she has said from March 29 to April 7 on her Facebook profile (Spanish only) declaring to be very interested on promoting her biography and career, breaking with CSD-G11 criteria. Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 01:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC) The article on the young Peruvian is certainly not G11, and would probably be kept at an AFD discussion. Our notability guidelines for musicians are at WP:MUSIC, and the very first one states "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." The current stub shows this sort of external interest. Physchim62 (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Re: Donna J. Stone Hi. Thanks for the welcome mat, it is quite helpful. I heard back from Dr. Stone, and he rewrote the home page to Wielder of Words. I looked at the page and the text has been completely revised, no longer resembling the Wikipedia article I wrote. Didn't expect him to do that, but does that solve the copyright problem? --Mah Jong (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Your advice sought Hi Mrg :) Quick question for you (or one of your informed talk-page watchers!) Where do we stand regarding WP:NFC for a third party photograph found on e-bay of a hard-to-find book cover for the first edition of the book (printed 1949)? Thanks, EyeSerenetalk 09:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Occasionally informed talk-page stalker here! The fact that it is a third-party photograph is of little or no consequence to WP:NFCC. File:PicassoGuernica.jpg is from a third-party source, after all. Official sources are preferred, because they link back to the original copyright holder, but they are not obligatory, and would be impossible in your case. Don't forget to give details about the original publication: publisher, date and place of publication. Physchim62 (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC) That makes sense, thanks very much :) My concerns were (i) because the photo is on e-bay it makes crediting the source difficult, and (ii) can the photographer claim copyright on the photo (although clearly not on the book cover it depicts). I'll pass your advice along. EyeSerenetalk 14:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Hi. Sorry for my absence this morning, and thanks for weighing in Physchim62. :) Crazy busy work morning. :P (I'm going on a two-week vacation in the middle of May (woohoo!), and it's getting close enough that I think people are starting to pile on with stuff they want done before then.) In answering your points (i) and (ii), I'm going backwards. :) A derivative work qualifies for new copyright only to the extent that it is significantly different from the original. To oversimplify this to the extreme, I could photocopy a magazine cover, but I would have no copyright ownership of the results. If somebody published my photocopy, I would have absolutely no right to prosecute them for copyright infringement, although I might well be joined with them in an infringement suit by the actual copyright owner. :) If the photograph of the book cover is an uncreative reproduction of the original, then there's not likely any copyright issues with the photographer. If the book is an artistically arranged triptych around a floral display, well.... Only if point (ii) is satisfied is point (i) really required. Going back to the photocopy oversimplification, I don't deserve credit for mechanical reproduction. That said, Wikipedia likes all the details you can provide. When I upload album covers, I typically note where I found them, even though Allmusic (my usual source) isn't the copyright owner, either. It helps to verify that I didn't photoshop them into existence. :) If you aren't sure if there's creativity in the imagery, you might ask at WP:MCQ. I'm not as keyed in to visual originality as I am textual. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much for the additional explanation. The image is here; it's just a straightforward reproduction with no artistic originality. EyeSerenetalk 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Talk:Mycle Schneider There is some disagreement about what should be included in Schneider's bio, and I wonder if you could help out with it please... Johnfos (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I had better not weigh in myself to avoid a seeming of bias, since you asked me. :) But I see that it only involves the two of you, so I will post a WP:3O request and see if somebody else can come by and help out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Hi (2) Hi, long time no hear. I was lulled into complacency. I know you said this copyright investigation could take months, but I checked from time to time and saw no new vios. I know you're incredibly busy, anyway. I am sorry I messed up with Jeff Glor, Elise Kemp and Jacqueline Tyrwhitt. The latter two mean a lot to me and I will rewrite them in the future to avoid any copyright issues, but I can't right now. Thanks for saving a few articles. I have to remember to ingeniously rewrite text, but sometimes I think if it's a directly attributed, sourced quote then there is no need. There's a lot more gray, for me anyway, than black and white. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. - I think you can remove your personalized greeting to me. It's a lovely shade of green but not really needed anymore. Cheers. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC) It's not really personalized for you; it's just sneaky that way. :) It displays the name of whatever user who is typing. Right now, it says, "Welcome, Moonriddengirl." :) I'm sorry that you were lulled into complacency. I try to cycle through and get to everything in good order, but there's always more work to be done than hours in the day. The good news is that, unless somebody else comes along to volunteer to work on it, it'll be dormant again probably for a few weeks. And I'm starting at the top, which means that the most difficult ones will get out of the way first. I know that you were working with the best of intentions. I haven't forgotten our conversation. When reworking any content, feel free to come by and talk to me. It is a gray area for a lot of people, really, but I may be able to help nudge it a bit more towards clarity for you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Hi, again. Thanks for your kind words and for pointing out that the message is not just for me. I always felt a tad embarrassed. Very ingenious tailoring, but I am a Luddite and couldn't tell if/what the difference is between HTML and ethernet if my life depended on it. :) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC) This is evidently something we have in common. :D I didn't know how to do it, either, but I asked User:Amalthea how it was done, and he hooked me up. One thing it occurs to me that you may not realize: when an article is cleared, it will be marked N. (You already know that it's marked Y when a problem is found.) That keeps us from checking the same articles over and over again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Donna J. Stone Hi. Received word that Dr. Stone sent the email today. Did it do the trick? --Mah Jong (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Just wanted to drop a note here, too, thanking you for all your help in resolving this issue. I'll let Dr. Stone know that his mother's page is back up, and I'm sure he'll be equally grateful. Seriously, many thanks. --Mah Jong (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Another q. I was wondering, Moonriddengirl, something. If there's information which one does not know to be a copyvio (i.e., you see an article which is a copyvio, but you don't know it is since there's no tag or anything), and you edit it, are you too responsible for the violation? Since, there was some info on the page Florence which I don't know whether it was a copyvio or not (since looking at it now, it might be a copyvio, but I'm not sure). This is the info [8]. Ever since, I've edited it, and now it's been merged and changed in the page, but I'm not sure if it's an infringement (this is because when it was written, there were no wikilinks, the language was informal and chatty, and it was all in one block)--Theologiae (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Probably not. A court would have to be convinced that you did know or had good reason to know, and I don't think they'd do that with text like this. But good eye for recognizing now that it probably was a problem, because it is. :) It was copied from [9], and there's no doubt that they had it before we did. The good news is that we can fix the copyright problem just by giving them credit, which I'll go do. Similar to copying within Wikipedia, we have to attribute when we copy from other CC-By-SA sources, and the IP that pasted it here didn't do that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I had a feeling it was a copyvio, since it just seemed like one. Just another q. about paraprhasing copyright info. Can you paraphrase info from books and sources, keeping a similar layout, with attribution, provided that it is properly paraphrased. Thus, would this sort of "paraphrasing" be acceptable: Original, made-up source: There are several interesting places in Europe. The main capitals of this continent include Paris, London, Rome, Berlin, Madrid, Athens, Vienna, Brussels, Moscow and Lisbon. Paris is known for its shops and romantic, bohemian, atmoshpere; London for its classical monuments and funky feeling; Rome for its impressive buildings and picturesque roads; Berlin for its youthful and soulful feel; Madrid for its sophisticated, aristocratically classical look; Athens for its long and turbulent history; Vienna for its elegance and imperial appearance; Brussels for its ancient character and new business-like buildings; Moscow for its grandiose architecture; and Lisbon, for its winding alleways, and steep hills. Paraphrased version. In Europe, one can find numerous places of interest. There are important cities, such as Paris, London, Rome, Berlin, Madrid, Athens, Vienna, Brussels, Moscow and Lisbon, which are in this continent. Cities such as Paris are known to be artsy and romantic; London is known for its cool fashion and interesting sites; Rome for its beautiful roads and majestic palaces; Berlin is known to be ultimately a la mode; Madrid maintains a classical and elegant feel; Athens is incredibly ancient and has a long past; Vienna keeps its Habsburg-era dominance and beauty; Brussels has both the feel of a modern business capital, yet maintaining an ancient character; Moscow has grand buildings; and Lisbon is highly picturesque. Would the paraphrased version be different enough (I've made them up, so the content is not relevant). Reply--Theologiae (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC) You're walking into a gray area. The way the courts in the United States figure this out is to get somebody (not an expert) to read both passages. Then they ask the non-expert: "Is the second version too close to the first?" If the non-expert says yes, then there's a pretty good chance the courts would find copyright infringement. (I'm not good at simplifying! I'm leaving a lot out in view of your age, but I keep wanting to explain it all. This is the "nutshell".) If I found that paraphrase, I would at least tag it with {{close paraphrase}} and would probably blank it for rewrite, depending on how much more there was in the article and how closely it also followed. Some people might think it's worse than I do; some people might think it's not as bad. But I'm afraid that a lot of people would look at text like that and say, "Yes, the second version is too close to the first." Learning to paraphrase properly is hard. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing has some suggestions for rewriting. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also has some suggestions for reusing material from other sources, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". A lot of colleges also have tutorials on this, like [10]. It's something that gets easier with practice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC) If the way a paragraph is written is totally different, yet the layout (i.e., the order in which facts are presented) are the same as another source, would that be too close? Because, even though I'm not sure, there might be info I paraphrased in the past which was a bit close. What should I do in this case? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Structure can be too close. It depends: are they common facts presented in an order everybody would use? For example, a biography might start by mentioning where somebody was born, then go on to talk about where they went to school and what kind of job they got. This is a natural arrangement. You don't have to reorganize facts for something like that. If it has unusual facts (say, where he was born is followed by the age and location when he lost his first tooth, which is followed by an explanation of how this affected his performance in the first grade Christmas play) or it has ordinary facts arranged in an unusual way, you could have a problem. In the example above, having the facts arranged in the same way could be a problem, even if the language is changed. There are a lot of different ways to describe and cluster the major cities of Europe, so there's not such a defensible reason for having it the same as a source. If you think you have paraphrased too closely, the solution is pretty simple: rewrite it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Is close para. a copyvio?--Theologiae (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC) It depends. When I said above that the courts ask a reader "Is the second version too close to the first?", that's what I was talking about. If the reader says yes, it probably is. At that point, the courts look at other factors to see if it is excused or not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Article restoration question I've received a question about restoring a deleted page and I wanted to run it by you to make sure I've got the process correct so I don't give them the wrong answer. As I understand it, the process is basically once OTRS receives and verifies the permission, then they will restore the page (or whatever portion of the page we get appropriate permission for). Is that basically correct or have I got something mixed up? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC) That's what I do. :) That's what we're supposed to do. But we don't have great central communication at OTRS, so sometimes things go wrong. If by any chance anybody should ever tell you that they wrote OTRS and it wasn't restored, I'll be happy to follow up on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Works for me, thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Crazy day, huh? sighs* Today has been certifiably wacky. I'm tired already and there's still hours to go until I head for bed. SilverserenC 22:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC) LOL! Yes, some days are like that. :) Hope you have some time to relax. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Yeah, i'm probably going to go out and see Kick-Ass tonight. That should help me relax. :3 SilverserenC 23:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Hope you enjoy it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Clipbucket Clipbucket deletion: This is unfair. www.w3reports.com is an independent webmaster news site. It is not related to clipbucket in any ways. Same goes for www.hostreview.com. Must it be on cnn? You not knowing w3reports.com does not mean it isn't a reliable source. It is a very reliable trustworthy site. Don't be unfair. mini4me 23:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC) I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Please why is PHPmotion still here? I do not see any notable link there and it's direct clipbucket competitor. This is unfair. What other sites and sources provide "news" except press websites? Host review site has also been provided for notability and still it's not been accepted. What's wrong? Google search shows over 200,000 search results and still you reject. What really??mini4me 23:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC) I find some things here disturbing. Aren't those sites PRESS websites? How many articles have links to nyt? Also clipbucket is not owned by an American, it is owned by a Pakistani while PHPmotion is owned by an American therefor I find the policies here discriminatory if an identical article from a particular country could stand and the other from a less known country wouldn't. I've given 3 trustworthy notable links that you may not have known and you're saying they are not reliable. You are now quoting an American press website. Well what can I do. You have the admin.mini4me 23:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "The news media refers to the section of the mass media that focuses on presenting current news to the public. These include print media (newspapers, magazines); broadcast media (radio stations, television stations, television networks), and increasingly Internet-based media (World Wide Web pages, weblogs)" This is what I see that article as, unless the description of news media here is wrong. Say if yahoo news release the same item, would you say it is a press release or a news media? Also I don't see how the article was just made by the company when there are quotes from different source.mini4me 00:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Ok thank you for the information and please be fair by deleting phpmotion which has no notable link or source. Thank you.mini4me 00:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)