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 01:27, 17 September 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now. fyi re ACTORcolours The post RFC discussion has remained split and entangled. The current discussion is at: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The use of colors in filmographies Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, the ugly lingering question of colors. :/ I hope the broader RfC takes place and brings some resolution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I'm ok with another RfC. I will object to a straight blue vs gray poll, though. This is complex question and many other concerns are connected. First off, my core concern is about crappy coding practices; all the hard coded styling out there. And there's also the view that these should not be tables at all, which moots the color question. While moving to class="wikitable filmography" would allow all sorts of styling, it would also invite a thousand new groups to the table. class="wikitable buffyverse" and such. You've seen my older comments; see the new bit at VPP about MedaiWiki stripping out all colours in a few years as this is a job for skins. I would support high-level abstractions on top of wikitable, but not fandom-specific ones. I proposed one for zebra striping: MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 12#CSS_striped for .wikitable (down a bit) For what it's worth, I think you're a good choice to pitch a next-RfC. Be good if someone monitored the tone of things and kept the structure of the discussion in-hand, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Oh, I meant to drop a few examples of similar-but-different code-messes: Meredith Baxteroldid (note the awards table, too) The Girl with Something Extraoldid (not an actor, but note that the awards table has that blue in it coloring the header row... except that the individual cells then override the row to specify a grey) On ANI, WHL referred to "blank tabling", which seems to indicate a view that they should typically be coloured at some local level; this is the main route to "Skittlepedia". Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Hi. Jack, I would be happy to help monitor an RfC on the issue (I'd guess; I've never tried that before). I'm not sure I can pitch it, though, because even the word "coding" tends to cause a knee-jerk wince in me. If perhaps a spokesperson for each side could succinctly explain the issues as they see them, I might be able to collapse into a succinct nutshell, though. I think I grok the basic outlines, but until closing the last RfC I had no idea that "Skittlepedia" would be regarded as an undesirable destination. I'm sure you've noticed I've got a shiny orange skittle on my user page. No doubt I copied the code from some article or Wikipedia page somewhere and just blithely imposed my own color choice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, I'd not noticed your skittle; I tweaked it a bit and commented in the edit summary. I do lot of this stuff; I'm a developer. I'd be glad to put together a précis of some sort; mebbe WHL will do the same and you can extract a nutshell from it all. Mebbe you, she, I, Chicken Monkey and, say, Rossrs for balance can have a cup of tea somewhere and discuss the issues. WP:DR says to talk and I believe that's what's needed here, not attacks. Glancing just below, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, although I do believe some issues are strongly coupled to the colour issue. Not sure who Bob is, though ;) @Malke; templates code is not human-readable in a lot of cases; it is for developers and machines to read. See: here, for a recent example (and avoid the save button;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Bob? Your uncle! :D (I have no legitimate claim to the phrase, being American and all. A friend of mine used to use it all the time, and it grew on me.) I'm happy to help reach some resolution on this in any way that I can. I like all the participants in the debate that I know and would be quite pleased if I could help avert some tension. :) Malke said below that he would run it by me before any action, and I'm sure he will. We've talked about a variety of things in the past. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I liked the Dickens connection mentioned; I'm a thespian, too. You've not commented at VPP; care to nudge the RfC idea along, there? I figure that I wrote a high percentage of the quarter meg RfC at WT:ACTOR, so I guess I'm up for a bit more. I've no idea who Malke is, but did see his "run it by you" comment. He says WHL's friendly, so they're acquainted, too. I'm thinking a week-long round of tea and a mutually agreed-upon RfC launch. nb: Timing's poor, for me, as I'll have some days I'm not editing in the next few weeks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Hi Moonriddengirl, how do we get the broader RfC started on the color issue. Also, would making the template easier to read be a point that could be considered?Malke2010 14:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Hi, Malke. I would strongly suggest (oh, so strongly) that any RfC be strictly limited to color issues and that all deviating points be immediately and cheerfully squelched, as though voiced by an unruly dormouse. :) Mainly I suggest this based on the last RfC, which sprawled to the point of almost derailing itself. Secondarily, because really this question is larger than the template itself. Or the project. It deals with the basic question (so far as I can tell) of when and how it is permissible to deviate from standard style. Some far reaching implications there! I suspect that the RFC should take part at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (accessibility). What's needed is for somebody to craft a succinct, neutral summary of the issues and place it at whatever appropriate home, apply an RFC tag to it and publicize it further at various appropriate points. VPP is already involved, as are ANI. Just notifying that it's live there would be sufficient. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion would be good. Since it started there, a notice at this specific Wikiproject would also be good, but it's important to avoid the seeming of canvassing so I'd probably not try to notify each and every project. The biggest challenge: the succinct, neutral summary. The open of an RfC is not meant to be persuasive; arguments take place beneath it. Frequently somebody places a "PRO" statement and somebody else a "CON" statement. Then people sign in to agree or disagree and add their own points in follow-up. If the summary is too complex, people won't read it. If it's non-neutral, people will cry foul. It should be as much as possible specific to the issue and avoid all distractions. There is a "tool" to help with this at [1]. Once it's ready, put the {{RfC}} template on it, and Bob's your uncle. Readability of the template should really be discussed among project members, since it is specific. Unless I'm misunderstanding you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for that. I'll write something up and run it by you. Malke2010 19:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I would urge that no one seek a first-mover advantage by launching a hasty RfC. Any next RfC should be well-formed, neutral and at an appropriate venue. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Bob's Your Uncle! I know that expression, MRG. Good advice :DMalke2010 00:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I, too, would like to express my agreement that this -- holding a centralized, well-thought out, neutrally begun RFC -- is a good idea and my enjoyment of the expression "Bob's your uncle".  Chickenmonkey  00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Question, how would editors be notified if an RFC were to be started? Without abusing canvassing, I'm sure there are quite a few editors who would like to be informed on both sides of this issue. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Since this point has been argued about for quite some time I'd place pointers on WP:CENT, WP:VPP, WP:VPM, WP:VPR, WT:MOS, WT:ACCESS, and WT:ACTOR, from the top of my head. Personally I'm no fan of bot-notes to all users previously involved in the discussion; it's practically impossible to do with a fuzzy discussion like this that was held all over the place anyway. Amalthea 13:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Some points I had not considered. :) I had thought to notify WP:ANI as well, since the question had been raised there. But it might depend on how long it takes to put together. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Good ideas, thanks for taking the time to answer me. I like the sections picked to notify. I agree with AN/i too if the case last long enough or gets enough outsiders to remember it. If not, the others are enough to get a lot of opinions. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Taking action I have started a subpage for the RfC at User:Moonriddengirl/RfC and begun by creating a first draft opening sentence and a bit of background. I have opened a question about the direction of those contents at the talk page, and I would very much appreciate (calm) conversation about it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC) BTW, I've notified everybody who has commented in this section. I hope. If I missed you, please excuse. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you, message received and page is now on my watchlist. Again, thank you for letting me know. I hope it ends with a consensus this time around. ;) On a different note, how are you feeling today? I know how painful this infection can be, never mind how exhausted you get. I hope the antibiotics have started working their magic on you and that you are feeling a lot better. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Consensus would be nice. :) I'm feeling a bit better, thanks, but still tired and struggling with the whole "breathing air" thing. :/ I go back to my doctor on Monday for a follow-up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC) This is just to help until you can get to your dr. When you have trouble breathing sit up and bend over with your elbows on your knees. It helps you get the oxygen thus you can breathe easier. They actually had me doing this in the hospital until the pulmonary people could come to my aide. I hope this helps. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the tip. I am guardedly optimistic at the moment - feeling so much better this morning! - but I'll keep it in mind. Being guardedly optimistic, I'm not discounting that I may need it yet. :/ I'll be glad when I can stop doing these breathing exercises. They sound deceptively simple. Smack your chest; breathe deeply; cough. Nobody mentions step 3.a: prepare for the fires of Gehenna. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I let Wildhartlivie [2] know about the set up starting for the RFC since she wasn't involved in this conversation here but has been very involved in conversations about this elsewhere. I hope this was alright with you. Is there anyone else that should be notified? I'd be more than happy to help out with notifying editors since you are not feeling too well. Let me know if I can help, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, she's a good one to include, I think. I wasn't publicizing this one too widely as it's in the brainstorming phase, but she is familiar with the background and can probably be quite helpful in making sure it covers all bases. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Janis Joplin Hi Moonriddengirl, I think this photo on the Janis Joplin page was originally a fair use for the article on the album. Is it okay for it to be uploaded to her article? [3]. Thanks for checking, :DMalke2010 15:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I would say no. There is a free image of Joplin already in the article. Seeing her singing into a microphone (from around the same time period no less) doesn't help understand her article any better. So I believe it fails #1 of WP:NFC" No free equivalent" and #8: "Contextual significance." However, I don't do that much with image work. I'll run it by an image admin. User:J Milburn is one of my usual go-to guys for non-free image questions. :) Ordinarily, I'd send you to WP:NFCR, but that page is a bit of a dead end at the moment (even though I've been very impressed to note User:VernoWhitney cleaning up a bit around there). Ultimately, you might wind up at WP:FfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC) This is a funny one. At first glance, neither of the non-free images (the single cover or the portrait) should be used. We already have a free portrait in the article, and the non-free one shows nothing that needs to be shown, and while the single is of great importance and worth discussing, there is no pressing need to show the cover. However, the lead image does not actually seem to be free (at least not for the reasons claimed); it certainly won't be licensed under the CC license, though could possibly be PD (though I doubt it). At this time, I am going to remove the two non-free images and look into the lead image. That may, ultimately, be deemed to be non-free, meaning that, if no other free image could be found (and as one could not be created for obvious reasons) a non-free image would be acceptable in the infobox, if sourced accurately and given a solid rationale on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC) After a little digging, I've gone ahead and nominated the "free" image for deletion. The Common's process is slow- if it is free, hopefully someone will step up to defend it, but I certainly can't see why it would be. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you, and how bizarre! I noted that the image was on Commons and (sheepish admission) just presumed it was okay. I'm rather surprised to see that it was accepted as freely licensed just because some community photo site said it was. Her passport picture? And uploaded by a long-term admin. Color me confused.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you so much Moonriddengirl and JMilburn. I appreciate that. I had no idea that the lead photo was also not available. I was only aware of the album cover because of the album article. I do hope it works out that we can keep the image in the infobox. Malke2010 23:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Then my reply must have been confusing to you. :) In spite of your mention of the album article, I thought you were talking about the face shot! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC) No, I meant the photo that someone had added from the album article. I thought it might have problems being posted on her article. That's funny. Well, it worked out anyway. Thanks again.Malke2010 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC) FYI The better icon for this one comes from {{subst:SCV|cu}} which gets you Cut and paste move fixed by investigator or others. --~~~~ I suppose it's really the same icon, but whatever. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Ah! Thanks. I can never remember the SCV icons. I don't even remember all the CP ones! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I worked up a combined template to pull double duty, but with 15 options it's hard to keep track of them all. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC) 15! Wow. Who knew our work was so diverse? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Yeah, make it 16 if you add in close paraphrase (which I've done now since I use it every once in a while at SCV when they're really borderline). Speaking of SCV, you can expect a nice drought coming up since CSBot has been down since early on the 3rd. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Oh, my goodness gracious. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks :D The Admin's Barnstar Thanks for all the great advice and help in the last year Malke2010 00:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much! :) I'm always happy to help when I can. And sometimes to try when I can't. :/ But I prefer to focus on the good times. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Copyrighted lists redux So I came across 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up today and recalled that you had been involved in a discussion at Talk:Forbes list of billionaires regarding just how much of a list was allowable under WP:NFC. I was wondering if you had any general rules or guidelines on reproducing portions of creative lists. While looking for your old conversation I also found List of Forbes Celebrity 100 and List of members of the Forbes 400 (2008). I'm pretty certain that all of these need to be trimmed, but the question is how much. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I went ahead and bodly trimmed List of Forbes Celebrity 100 since it's pretty much abandoned and it looks like you're MIA. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry. :) I am unwell. Wasted the morning in the doctor's office. :P I've gone ahead and trimmed the Child Stars article. There's no specific rule, but I'm personally inclined to think that the top 10 is probably permissible. I'll take a look at Forbes 400, but I'm not sure what the criteria are. If I can't tell clearly whether the list is creative or not, I may leave it for a healthier time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I didn't see anything at Forbes 400 to indicate it was any different than the worlwide list of billionaires. I hope you feel better. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I see you're not feeling well. Take the day off from here and get some rest. It's allowed you know. :) Seriously, hurry and get well. I hope it's not anything serious. Take care of yourself, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you both. :) This so-called cold has evidently led to some kind of lung infection. I prefer my medical professionals and diagnoses crisp and clear. :/ I'm planning to take it a bit easy today, though don't be surprised to see me surreptitiously poking at the copyright problems board. Verno, I concluded the same thing about the Forbes 400. Fortunately, we already hashed that one out. I like my list copyright issues crisp and clear as well. No reason to complicate things. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Hey don't play with a lung infection, seriously. I had one that felt like a heart attack in the middle of the night (Mar. 2, 2010) requiring a 911 call. My Crohn's and the infection collided and with the nerve damage I have to my left arm the ER people thought so too. The infection started to get into my blood stream at the hospital so they slammed me hard with antibiotics. So take care of yourself. You definitely don't want to eat the food in hosptials. :) I just thought I would share since I didn't take my infection seriously enough and didn't start the antibiotics like I should have. Be well and soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Oooh. Not something I want to happen. :/ I last had surgery in August (my basic underlying disorder is neurological), and hospitals are so not my favorite place to be. I will rest and treat it properly and try not to be too irritable with medical professionals. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Should you feel up to it, I just noticed that there's another half to one of the lists I pointed you at: List of members of the Forbes 400 (204-400). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Done with it. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Ian Venables Why isn't Ian Venables listed on WP:Copyright problems anymore? The article is still tagged. 74.227.52.21 (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC) (talk page stalker) That would be one that slipped by this morning, it's listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 May 30. Someone will take a look at it shortly. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Oops. Sorry. I overlooked it; while we have a bot that finds those on the occasion that it happens and restores their listing, there's no reason for this one to cycle through again. I've restored the last presumably clean version of the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC) DumbBot (sectioned from above) Now that that's taken care of, is there a bot which finds them and recycles them through? I know DumbBOT finds them when they're blanked and never listed, but I don't remember seeing one that finds old issues that have been missed and putting them anywhere. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, I'm almost sure, although I can't remember specifically a case to prove it. We could run a test, but I believe that DumbBOT lists them if they are tagged but aren't at the main WP:CP page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Yup, section 5 here. :) Smart bot, that DumbBOT. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I saw that section too, but then I thought, if that was all that it did what happened with Tony Taggart (which I mentioned above) that sat blanked for a month and a half? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Hmm. Evidently, I broke it. :/ In this series of edits, I changed the hidden cat to distinguish it from other articles in the Possible Copyright Violations category. I've put it back for now. At some point, it may be worth asking Tizio to also compare Category:Articles tagged for copyright problems. Then they can be separated again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Now that you've got me looking at it, I really don't know what's going on with DumbBOT or the distinction between the copyvio categories. Looking at Category:Possible copyright violations I see that the current contents are a copy of Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided, so presumably DumbBOT should also be (and should have been) listing them at WP:CP and it would really make sense for the blanked pages to stay in their own sub-category (Category:Articles tagged for copyright problems) I would think. There's also User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedCopyvio which seems to be somehow related... something to poke into later I guess. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Urgh. More pending stuff. :/ BTW, there's been just a little bit of movement on that Russian OTRS ticket. The missing ticket has been located,and it is over 200 e-mails long! But it's still in Russian. I asked the mailing list what it was permitting, precisely, and so far I've gotten crickets. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Well, at least that's some news on the Russian Front. I also see the DumbBOT list has added some other old blanked cases since your update yesterday (in particular Kambakkht Ishq which was marked as clean but people have apparently been reverting and reinstating the copyvio content AND the blanking, and Rahul Sankrityayan which was blanked but never listed), so you must've solved that problem - of course if you don't mind waiting another day we can see if DumbBOT actually does anything with them besides list them at User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedCopyvio. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Good idea to see what it does. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC) So DumbBOT didn't do anything but update the list... maybe that task is broken? I'll go through by hand later today and list the older blanked files it found. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Hmm. Tizio is a good guy. If we can figure out the parameters of the problem and let him know, he'll probably help fix it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Girl band / All Female Band Not our usual copyright stuff but I just tagged Girl band with a PROD but I am wondering if it could be speedied as a duplicate. For some reason it was a redirect to the All-female band article until January when an I.P cut and pasted that and put it here/there. If you think it can be speedied (Using A10) please remove the prod and do it. I see no reason why the duplicate article was actually created in the first place, and why nobody noticed it before. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I G6'ed it, though A10 would probably have worked. It was an unattributed fork, and there had been no meaningful later content to merge. It probably also would have been appropriate simply to restore the redirect to the top, but deletion seemed more likely to avoid future forking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010 From the team: Changes to the Signpost News and notes: "Pending changes" trial, Chief hires, British Museum prizes, Interwiki debate, and more In the news: Cancer coverage, cognitive surplus, Wikipedia monarchy, and more Free Travel-Shirts: "Free Travel-Shirts" signed by Jimmy Wales and others purchasable WikiProject report: WikiProject Comedy Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC) An equally dry response You left a message at my talk page here claiming that I was out of line. I appreciate your concern and more so your voicing that concern to me. I was not aware that removing a copyright template that was placed without explanation was considered a violation of any kind. The template in question, at least on the date it was placed, read that the user placing the template has also put a notice on that article's talk page explaining the copyright dispute. The user who placed the template did not. After waiting an ample amount of time for that user to do so, I removed the template deeming it was placed in error or abuse. The content zeroed out by the template was misformatted cruft that I on any other day would have simply deleted as it was all trivial and, as I pointed out, badly formatted and unreadable. I left it in place to avoid confrontation from a member of a WikiProject I was not associated with. Your edits have dealt with the cruft and made my concerns moot. Thank you for doing something about it. However, your message on my talk page seems over the top and if you have misgivings about my efforts here on Wikipedia in the future I would appreciate it if you would speak to me as a human instead of using what looks like a legal boilerplate. Again, thank you and good day to you. ^_^  æronphonehome  14:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC) The template does say that the copyright dispute must be clarified, however it's not a hidden comment. Check the template itself. "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it may be deleted one week after the time of its listing." My mistake was that I missed the part about the week. But as it says, you can't just walk past an article and stick the template there without doing anything else about it. If this goes against the policy of Wikipedia I'd recommend having the template edited so there isn't any confusion in the future. In all fairness two days had already passed after CosmicJake placed the template and I doubted he was going to return three to six days later and amend the talk page with an explanation. I'm also aware that you didn't actually stamp my talk page with a form letter, my response was a jab in good humour, but since Wikipedia is a community of users and not a business or government you should speak to someone in less formal tones. It goes a long way, in my case especially, in getting people to relate to you. As if it feels to me like I'm conversing with a typewriter I'm not likely to take whomever I'm talking to anymore seriously than one.  æronphonehome  15:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Alright, alright. I see what the sentence is saying now. It was a misunderstanding, as is I think what we're saying to each other. You don't need to tell me for the third time that I blew it in your eyes, please try to assume positive intent instead of treating me like a problem. This is Wikipedia, try to enjoy yourself here.  æronphonehome  16:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Lib3rtarian Hi, Moonriddengirl. We had an edit conflict on the editor's talk page: I was also trying to direct him to WP:CONSENT and to make clear whose permission he needs. I'm not quite sure why I was bothering, though, because I suspect he has a strong case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and that the problem will simply recur. The secondary problem is that his plan to contact Facco and Fidenato only bolsters the impression that he has an association with them, in which case he shouldn't be creating and editing articles about them or their organization in the first place. I discovered in the course of the research prep prior to the Movimento Libertario AfD that he writes for the organization's website, but if it's proving nearly impossible to get him to pay attention to copyright, good luck getting him to abide by WP:COI. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC) There seems to be some suggestion at ANI that an indef-block would be appropriate for the copyright concerns alone. I'm not going to act on that, but I would not object if somebody else did. COI is a little outside of my usual area, though eventually you dabble everywhere. :) Has there been a COIN notice about him? If the copyright issue resolves, that may be the next step in dealing with the somewhat more complex issue of COI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC) He now appears to be socking from an IP, as he did while blocked at Italian WP. I opened an SPI case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lib3rtarian -- Rrburke (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Misread timestamps. Withdrawn, with apologies. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Just as well I overlooked it, then! It evidently came in while I was working on a note in another section, so my "new messages" banner was not triggered. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Well, that didn't take long (see response 11). Evidently you're a "censor" (were you aware?) and we're all wikifascists ("fasciowikipediani"). -- Rrburke (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Oh, yes, I'm very well aware of that. :) Working in copyright problems as I do, I am reminded of this periodically. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC) re Brett Livingstone Strong Hi your disputes re mr livingstone strong dont seem to make sense ive bought some of the surfboards in question they are magnificent? ive seen one of the monuments found it breathtaking ive followed this guys career since i was 12 and aside of micheal jacksons comments i cant see what u mean its 95% factual you have created huge damage with this as journalists in australia will now not print anything thats disputed can you please enlighten me where its wrong? im really struggling with this are you an aggreived person thx luke u can ph me australia <contact information redacted> and ill ph u back whatever its very important to me thanks in advance luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastalstyle (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Hi. I'm happy to discuss this with you within Wikipedia. Please note that all colored text in my reply are "links" to other pages that help explain further. The problem is with the article, not Brett-Livingstone Strong. And it is not simply my dispute; I added one tag to the article. The others were added by other contributors to highlight problems. It seems that it may not conform to any of our core policies. First, information should be verifiable with inline citations to reliable sources that are not connected to Strong. (For example, newspaper articles, magazine pieces, books & reliable industry websites that are not affiliated with Strong.) Second, it should not include any information which has not been previously published. Inline citations can help clarify if the article does not contain this; for instance, how do we know that "the artist’s intention was for her to be a symbol of light cutting through the darkness"? Is that printed somewhere? Finally, all information within it should be neutral in presentation. Any text that is not neutral must reflect the published opinion of a reliable source, and it must be attributed. I left some examples of non-neutral text at Talk:Brett-Livingstone Strong when I tagged that issue a year ago. I'm not sure how this has impact on journalists in Australia. They should already be aware that Wikipedia's articles are of varying quality and require fact-checking. In fact, inline citations are preferred for precisely that reason: so that our readers can easily check to see whether the content is accurate. You are welcome to repair the article such that the tags no longer apply. To start with, this would require correcting the sourcing and either neutralizing or attributing the language. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Picture of the Year Hi, I saw you are eligible to vote for Picture of the Year. You should participate and support your favorite, to show that there's interest in high quality contributions that are no copyright violations ;) Hekerui (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Oh! Challenging! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC) RfC on color Hi Moonriddengirl, Thanks for setting up that page. I have got a few ideas and I will put them up on the page. I'm just trying to get the wording just right so we don't end up with another problem like with the last one. Hope you are feeling better. I did not know you were ill.  :/Malke2010 14:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Good idea. It's important. :) Thanks for the well wishes. I'm not dealing with anything chronic (knock wood); just some opportunistic bacteria. The antibiotics and I will show them. :P Still and all, my natural Pollyanna tendencies always find plenty to be chipper about, though my mantra is more "Could be worse!" than "The Glad Game." :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Input requested—from you and your watchers! I know you don't really get into image copyright issues, but given your massive number of talk page watchers, I figured this is another good place to post for me to spam my plea(I hope you don't mind too much): your input is requested at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Non-free magazine covers. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Interesting question, and I don't mind. Hope you get good response. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC) The New Confessions Hello, You deleted an article I did on this William Boyd novel and I would be interested to know on what grounds you did this? As far as I recall, the article was written based on my third reading of the novel so I hope it was not deleted on the basis of copyright infringement? Ivan KinsmanIvankinsman (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, I'm afraid it was. The article was blanked and listed on February 3rd as part of the investigation at your Contributor Copyright Investigation. A week after its listing, it was deleted. As the policy at Wikipedia:Copyright violations makes clear, "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." While we seldom resort to that and have been slowly evaluating all of your contributions, I'm afraid that on occasion copyright status cannot be determined. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Any chance the plot could be shortened? As the article currently stands with a page and a half of plot, I'm fairly certain it exceeds the guidelines at WP:How to write a plot summary#Length and Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works#Avoiding violating copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I believe that the plot must be shortened, as I think this is a real problem under Twin Peaks v. Publications International (and our WP:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works). :/ Ivankinsman, I see you've been given a warning by an admin about it at your talk page. I agree that this needs to truncated. Otherwise, I think we may need some community involvement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I answered at WT:C, but I think everyone else started the weekend early...or got scared off... ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks! And great response. I particularly like the practical suggestion for word count. Maybe people will wake up or stop by or something. :) And perhaps we should consider flying the word count as a rough guideline for a maximum somewhere? Ivan's note at the AfD suggests that this is an aspect of copyright law with which he has been previously unfamiliar. If you get a chance, would you take a look at my explanation to him there and let me know if you think it makes sense? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC) I think your explanation makes sense, I imagine it will require some more discussion if it hasn't occurred to him before now, but that would certainly explain some of the copyright issues he's been creating. As far as making it a rough guideline, I certainly like the idea, maybe it could be incorporated into WP:PLAGIARISM or WP:PARAPHRASE (which should really be a guideline too, whether on its own or merged into plagiarism). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Copyright? On Alex Zunger, I found what appeared to be copyright vio, copypasted from websites; I removed the copyvio with this edit after using a Google search. Was this copyvio, or did I delete good material? Brambleclawx 22:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Hi. You were right to delete simply on the basis that it is not remotely encyclopedic. :) The material that was on the nrel website is probably okay from a copyright standpoint. Most material that originates on US federal government (not state!) websites is going to be clear of copyright because the U.S. federal government does not claim copyright on works prepared by its employees in the execution of their duties. (Most national governments do claim copyright.) The stuff from the program Gutenberg .pdf we would need permission to use, so, yes, that material was a copyvio under our policies (as unverified content). Good call! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Notice of response Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Crohnie's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Question Hi. I don't mean to bug you but I was just curious about something (it regards copyright). If I wanted to upload a picture to post on an article and I wasn't sure who owns the rights to it, can I still do it? The picture has been published on websites and in various books through the years. http://www2.netdoor.com/~campbab/kong/kkfrank.jpg Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Hi, you're quite welcome to stop by, but I'm afraid I can't give you a definitive response. Probably not. Unless you can prove that the image is clearly public domain by age (which seems tricky), you can't verify that it isn't under copyright. But if I had a picture I wanted to run, I'd be tempted to run it by WP:MCQ. Though that's not exactly what they're there for, those folks are very savvy about pictures and might be able to find the origin for you. Alternatively, some of the research people at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment might be able to puzzle it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your response. I'll give the WP:MCQ a shot and see what they say. I'm not getting my hopes up, but its worth a try.Giantdevilfish (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Quotation opinion You may want to give your expert opinion for this MCQ quotes related post WP:MCQ#Paul Legrand, with longish cites from an 1854 book. OK?. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Hi. :) Having invested a couple of hours in an article, I'm checking my page now and am coming right over. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC) CCI header I hope you don't mind this. I cheekily considered changing "he" to "she" as in practice "he or she" seems to almost always be "she"! --Mkativerata (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Friendly notice You are invited to make a comment at Wikiquette Alerts under Removing vandalism [[4]]. PYRRHON  talk   01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Al-Muthanna_club (June 2010) Dear, as you might notice, I don't have too much time (/experience) on wikipedia, please see the current version of al-Muthanna club (June 2010), and tell me if its OK.Sallese (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)