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 20:21, 6 November 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now. Wikicommons photo upload copyright issue Hi Moonriddengirl. I wonder if I can impose on your time. I was referred to you by user Invertzoo as the resident expert on all things copyright. I have a question regarding uploads to wikicommons that I can't seem to find a definitive answer for on the help pages. Forgive me if I have missed it. For a seaslug article I created over at the gastropod project, I came across a great set of photos on an external seaslug forum website, submitted by a member of the public which would be of great value to the article. I emailed the owner and asked him whether he would consider releasing them to CC so they could be included on wikipedia. He said he was very happy to do so and would send me whichever photos I liked. However taking a look over at wikicommons I noticed that it isn't just that easy and I can't necessarily do it on his behalf. I don't know that he would want to go to the effort of doing it himself either. Is there a way around this? Have you encountered this problem before yourself? Best wishes, Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Hi. :) You are welcome to come by at any time that I may be able to help you. As it happens, I may be able to offer some assistance in this case, as I do work with the OTRS volunteer team that processes permission letters for images and text imported from others. You can indeed upload the images if you have his permission, but his permission needs to take the proper form and may need to be submitted to the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm not sure from your note whether the website is owned by the person who took the photos. If so, he can most easily verify the permission by placing a licensing statement on the website. For instance, he might say: The images Title, Title and Title on this website are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. Attribution must be provided to [Whatever name he pleases]. If he does that, you can upload the images and under "Permission" copy what it says on the website. Let me know, and I'll come by and take a look to verify the release, simply in case the website ever disappears. I'm not a Commons admin, but as an OTRS agent my word added to yours might be helpful. Alternatively, if he is not the website owner or would rather not have that license displayed on the website, he can mail us the consent form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. In that case, you'd upload the images first, put {{OTRS pending}} next to permission and make sure that he names the images as they are uploaded on Commons. He will need to e-mail from an address that is clearly associated with the domain where they're currently published or to ask that webmaster to temporarily list his e-mail address there. Unless he doesn't want to, in which case we have another layer of difficulty in getting that webmaster to confirm that the images came from his account. But it's not impossible. :) If you can give me more details, I'm happy to help you navigate through the process! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC) copyright issue Hi Moonriddengirl,if you have time would you please commentList_of_English_Electoral_Wards_by_Constituency,this AFD There are claims of copy vio. Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Hi. :) Thanks, Rob. I have commented there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC) That is a very informative comment, respect and thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Happy if I can help. :) List articles are complex. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC) FYI, mentioned you in an off-hand comment here. –xenotalk 14:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC) OTRS plea Can you take a look and see if you ever received permission or anything for Livernois vehicle or from User talk:Shilaski? It's been repeatedly deleted under G12 but they claim they sent an email. A related article (Livernois Vehicle Development) came up at SCV again today which appears to be the same situation. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Sure! I'll go search the system now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, we did; ticket:2010042810032861. The recipient declined to restore it for other concerns. Let me go look into this some more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Okay, the release is not exactly kosher. The contributor specifically licenses Livernois vehicle, but does not mention Livernois Vehicle Development. I'll take over the content (that is: the e-mail :)) and contact the contributor about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Just remembered, the copied material is also at User:Shilaski/Livernois vehicle and User talk:Shilaski. Does that material just get left alone or does it need to be deleted? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC) It should be hidden until the OTRS completes. I'll take care of that. I can't imagine that there will be any problems with clearance; the connection to the source is obvious. The only problem is that the contributor didn't authorize copying from the source, but rather authorized Livernois vehicle. In WP:CONSENT, instead of listing the source url where it says "SPECIFY THE WORK HERE", the contributor named the article. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC) E-mail You've Got Mail (<-- I love that film!). Theleftorium (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Permission Email Sent Re: Content Copyrighted by the College of Mount St. Joseph Hi, Our Web Editor, Rob Schroeder, has sent the permissions e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. Hoping we could take you up on your offer to expedite the permissions process and restoration of deleted copyrighted material. Thanks very much! Cliffwjenkins (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Images Hi, thanks for your help. Yes, the images such as File:Ziv Art Building.jpg are all copyrighted and owned by the College, and would be released to the Wikimedia Foundation per today's permissions e-mail. Cliffwjenkins (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Taking the plunge So I decided to see if OTRS still needs a hand and dropped my application off at meta:OTRS/volunteering#User:VernoWhitney. You asked me to let you know if I did, so here I am. :) VernoWhitney (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Commented. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Possible close paraphrases? Since I know you aren't busy dealing with other, larger, copyright matters <hah> could you take a look and see if LakeT (talk · contribs)'s recent contributions to the copyright articles are problematic close paraphrases or not? I ran into them before while you were away, so I keep seeing the similarities and would like someone else to take a look at it (and nobody else was very interested in checking it the first time around). See for example this diff compared to the source. The contributions are better than they were a month ago, but I can't tell if they're clean enough. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC) People lack interest in evaluating copyright issues? Never happen! <hah!> I'll come take a look in just a little bit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Hmm. I had rather forgotten that. I should have watchlisted public domain. His response to me there is a bit problematic. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC) So far, I'm seeing more to concern me with respect to WP:V. Here, he writes: Copyright law was created by statute and all works created and published before copyright law was first established are in the public domain. In this historical context Paul Torremans describes copyright as a "little coral reef of private right jutting up from the ocean of the public domain." In fact Torremans, here disputes this interpretation, saying, "the respective domains of author and public seem to have been much less clearly marked. If we stick with the aquatic landscapes, we might say that the realm of copyright was a shoreline of uncertain contours." I don't know about you, but I read that quite differently. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Oh, I had completely forgotten that I had already asked you to jump in. Oops. After reading the source passage I'd agree that there's a problem, particularly given the "In fact, ..." which preceds your quoted segment. From the looks of it, though, quite a few pages of reading might be required to be really sure of what the author is getting at. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC) More alarmingly, I had forgotten you had, too. :) My forgettery works quite well, but usually not that well. This comes a bit uncomfortably close to [1] and [2] for me. And there's a few passages here that seem to draw heavily from this. This one, otoh, seems just flat over the line to me. Compare: "The Lords had traditionally been hostile to the booksellers' monopoly and were aware of how the doctrine of common law copyright, promoted by the booksellers, was used...." with [3]: "The Lords had traditionally been hostile to the booksellers' monopoly and were aware of how the newly promoted doctrine of common law right was being manipulated...." Compare: "...strike a more appropriate balance between the interests of the author and the wider social good" with [4], "...strike a more appropriate balance between the interests of the author and the wider social good." Talk page stalkers? Your input would be welcome here. I plan to speak to this contributor further about revising, but would appreciate additional eyes. Otherwise, I'll have to track somebody down. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010 Sister projects: Picture of the Year results declared on Wikimedia Commons News and notes: Collaboration with the British Museum and in Serbia, Interaction with researchers, and more In the news: Wikipedia better than Britannica, Pending changes as a victory of tradition, and more WikiProject report: WikiProject U2 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) 19:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Advice sought over possible WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYLINK issues My apologies for seeking help here, since I have the ever-so-slight impression you may well be a smidgen busy, but I've got lost trying to find an appropriate forum for asking general advice on copyright problems. (Re-directing me to such a forum would be a much appreciated response.) If you have the time, I have two queries: one about the WP:COPYLINK guidelines, and the other about licensing of people's own work There are a lot of links on Wikipedia to resources on muslimphilosophy.com such as scanned books and electronic encyclopaedia articles that is clearly still in copyright. I am slowly deleting such links and replacing them by legal (if often paywalled) versions. But would links to other pages on the site be problematic, given that there are then links to such material on those pages? Hkettani (talk · contribs) has uploaded to Wikipedia a PDF of one of his own journal articles as File:IJESD2010.pdf. This seems to be a copy of the article as published by the following journal: International Journal of Environmental Science and Development (IJESD). By uploading it here I assume he will have to have released it under some such licence as CC-BY-SA; but this seems to be the journal's own PDF, and thus may well not be his to release. I notice that it has already been tagged as {{di-no license}} by a bot. I reported this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#COI and COPYVIO issues with User:Hkettani? but my impression is that it was not a very useful place to ask for any help on this. What is the best action for me to take if I notice something like this? All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Hello, and you are very welcome to come by if you think I can help you. :) I do tend to be busy, but I enjoy interacting with people. So.... The forum for your first question is probably Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. You could get good feedback there, and I would recommend asking. My own personal opinion is, as with most stuff on Wikipedia, situational. :) In general, I would avoid linking to a website that has rampant copyvios on it unless there are very special circumstances to justify its inclusion. With your second question, that's an odd one. First, even if he does license it, we'd need verification that he is the author and still has the right to license it (that he has not granted exclusive license to the journal). He'd need to verify his identity through the procedure at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If I encountered a situation like that, I'd explain to him what we need to verify permission, and I'd then tag the image {{npd}}, to give him time to do so. I might also list it at WP:PUF. With the latter situation, let me know if you'd like assistance. Meanwhile, I'm signing off for the night. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Many thanks for the advice and for taking the time to reply. I've asked about the first issue on the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard as you suggested. As for the second issue, the Image Screening Bot has now templated his talk page and the uploaded PDF will be deleted within a few days. Judging from this editor's contribution history, they will not be logging in again for a few months, so perhaps it's best just to let the paper get deleted and wait for some response when they do return. If the publisher ever hosts a copy of the paper, I'll link to that; in the meantime, if the paper doesn't get rescued, I'll remove the article links. All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC) ANI There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Continued Problems Malke 2010: What to do?]. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Moonriddengirl, do please go to this noticeboard. This thread is getting out of control. Toddst1 is canvassing admins to ban me from Wikipedia. He's not providing any diffs to support his claims.Malke2010 01:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Hi. I'm pretty much wiped out, but I have left a note at ANI. Sorry about all this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks, appreciate it.Malke2010 01:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC) In case you weren't aware, Malke has been blocked for a month. She has asked for you at User talk:Malke 2010#Message for Moonriddengirl. AniMate 05:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC) In response to your statement on ANI: ... Talk of failed mentoring has been bandied about; has Malke been mentored? She says she has not. Others may have tried to advise her - I've done so myself - but mentoring is a collaborative arrangement that requires acceptance on both parts. ... I agree 100% - it is a collaborative arrangement that requires acceptance on both sides, and usually looks something like this. Toddst1 (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC) The problem with off-Wiki communication is an inability to know what, if anything, was communicated. It seems that Malke 2010 was open to a relationship; did it happen? How far did it progress? I don't believe conversation has been exhausted here, particularly when User:LessHeard vanU and User:R Jordan had already suggested other actions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I am thoroughly impressed with the valiant effort you are making here. I hope it works out. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry to barge in like this but this latest edit (especially her trademark of leaving snide remarks in the edit summary box: "please don't come to my talk page ever again", directed towards Gwen) by her is hardly confidence inspiring for us. On another note, I sincerely wish you all the best in your endeavour in trying to mentor her. Regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 15:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you. I know that it's asking a lot, since basically I am hoping to change Malke's general approach to working with others. Naturally, it would be great if her first response to my epic note had been an, "Oh, I see," and an immediate switch to my way of thinking (which, being mine, must be right :)), but I understand that it's not reasonable to expect that immediately, particularly as she's likely to be upset at the moment. I'm glad to see she restored Gwen's note, which I think was helpful. Perhaps she's calming down. If a mentorship position is accepted, maybe it'll work; if it doesn't, she'll certainly have been given every chance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC) MRG, I gather that it is going to be a conditional parole, for lack of a better word, for Malke if she is to be unblocked following the discussion on ANI. IMO, she needs to sit out at least a week of the block to cool down and reflect on herself first before her editing privileges are reinstated. But that's just me, the other guys will decide her fate from hereon. All the best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 20:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC) People other than me will decide that, too. :) I've offered to mentor, which I hope will work out, but I won't make the move to unblock, since I don't consider myself uninvolved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Help with an image Hi Moonriddengirl, sorry to bother you as I'm sure that you are busy. I'm currently putting an article I wrote through a military history A class review. The article is No. 6 Commando and the ACR can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 6 Commando. In response to a request for some more relevant images, I have uploaded this one to Commons: [5]. To be honest I'm not sure if I've licenced it appropriately and have a bad feeling that I might have committed some horrible copyright breach. At the ACR they suggested contacting you for some advice on copyright tags. Would you mind taking a quick look at the Commons description page and letting me know if you think I've licenced it correctly or not? If I haven't, then it should probably be deleted and you have my humblest apologies. The background story to the image is that I scanned it from a book published in 1996, but the photograph is attributed in the book to the Imperial War Museum collection and was taken in April 1942. Thus I have licenced it PD-BritishGov. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Judging from the template (which is usally accurate at commons), it may very well pass criteria #1 and be PD if it was created by the government, and judging from the military context it almost certainly was, but I'm not finiding it at the Imperial War Museum online search, so I can't confirm it 100%. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks, VernoWhitney. It's been a busier than usual morning for me. :) I've had a look, and it seems to me that Verno is probably right. Just to be on the safe side, I'll see if I can get feedback from a friendly Commons admin. Since you're going for A class, I'm sure you'd like it settled! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks both of you for your help. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I'm reasonably certain this image is PD, provided it was taken by an employee of the UK Government, which it appears to be. Should be good to go. Dcoetzee 08:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your help. I appreciate it. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC) List of tallest buildings in Dayton I have noticed that in the above Featured List, that the notes column for some buildings (KeyBank Tower (2), Liberty Tower (6), Centre City Building (8), Landing Apartments (9) and Schuster Performing Arts Center(11)) contains details which have been taken word-for-word from their respective pages on the Emporis.com website. If you have a spare minute could you take a look or point me in the direction of the correct venue to deal with this. --88.111.59.90 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Looks like a widespread problem. Compare, for example, b.a. Sweetie Candy Company Inc. with http://sweetiescandy.com/history.html National Center for Medical Readiness with http://www.flyernews.com/articles/volume/57/issue/2/id/4998/category/news Wright State University and Premier Health Partners Neuroscience Institute at Miami Valley Hospital with http://www.med.wright.edu/ni/overview.html Grandview Medical Center with http://www.kmcnetwork.org/grandview/history.cfm Liberty Savings Bank with http://www.nationjob.com/company/LICI I hate to say it but I think a contributor copyright investigation is needed. :/ Theleftorium (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I concur. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Yikes. Get a little busy elsewhere and come back to another CCI! Oi. Let me see what's up further up the page, and I'll see if this has been listed yet. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I've put in the formal request. I stole your list of examples. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I'm already looking into the formal request. I see that issues were discovered a year ago ([6]), but no formal notice was given. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC) The article, List of tallest buildings in Dayton just (today) passed a two week long scrutiny by at least four administrators on Wikipedia's featured list candidates. Please see the closed archive for this nomination here: [7]. I am really confused that out of all of the people listed here, that they wouldn't have found the problems. And if this was such a big deal, then why did it pass the nomination as a FL? Thanks! Texas141 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I have not yet looked at that one, but unfortunately it wouldn't be the first time that an article had made it to featured status with copied content. Sometimes, in evaluating other factors, copying is missed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I'm sure the copying was missed by the reviewers. I've notified FLC director User:The Rambling Man of the problem. Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, thanks for the notification. I agree that the probably copyright violations were not deliberately ignored, more likely just not double/triple-checked. This is a problem. However, before I move to delist the article, could I get some idea as to the perceived magnitude of the problem? It may be that the issues can be solved relatively quickly and easily, without reverting to a delisting. However, if that needs to happen, it will, along with the problematic text being removed entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC) It can probably be rewritten quite easily. I'll try to do it later today. Theleftorium (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC) CCI etiquette I was looking through the CCI I just opened for Chewygum, and there appears to be a significant overlap of articles with more recent user LightAj (talk · contribs) who was indef-blocked for copyvios a few weeks ago. See this history for example. Should I just make a general note for reviewers to make sure to check if copyvio has been reintroduced or should I run them through the contribution surveyor so I can make a note by the particular articles they worked on too? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Yikes! The copyright problems are interbreeding! I've had that nightmare with the Paknur CCI, since he edited under multiple usernames and often revisited his articles. :/ Chewygum, fortunately, has a rather short contrib history; a cross-comparison might not be too burdensome. If it seems like it would be, the general note would probably be sufficient. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Well, I just ran the survey for LightAj, and they only edited 32 articles including minor edits, so it still shouldn't be too bad. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC) FYI, it was me who raised the alarm about LightAj (talk · contribs)'s blatant copyvios (his latest incarnation being JackHannen (talk · contribs), spotted by me and blocked by Tim Song (talk · contribs)) on the article page of Philippine Air Force and the admin Nick-D (talk · contribs) was the one who blocked him when LightAj chose not to answer my queries about the legitimacy of those image files he had uploaded for use on Phil related military articles. Problem is, despite having removed them from English WP, LightAj went a step ahead by uploading it to commons where I can't tag it for copyvio as easily as compared to here but the admin MilborneOne (talk · contribs) was notified by me to assist, LightAj has since been blocked indef by a commons administrator MartinH for his flippant disregard of copyrights violation. Hence, VW is not alone to suspect that there might be more fishes outside the net cast. Actually, looking through Chewy's edits, methinks that now would be a good time to ask Tim Song (talk · contribs) for help to WP:RFCU again. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 19:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Good for you for finding him! :) Copyright violating sockpuppets are miserable. :P I have a hard time understanding why people want to work that hard to violate copyright. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not seeing any other copyvio contributors showing up on a regular basis in the articles I'm skipping though, but I just started this afternoon and I don't deal with socks very often, so I may be missing some indicators. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC) VW, I see that you've hit the first jackpot on PAF. Great work! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 21:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Heh, oddly enough it wasn't even placed there by either of the two users I ran reports on. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC) You misspelled "sadly". HTH. ;) (sigh) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I thought I would reserve that for: Sadly, we now have 28 open CCIs... VernoWhitney (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Dave1185 has asked me to comment on this. I've watchlisted many articles on the Philippino military for the last few years to protect them against a couple of persistent vandals, so have a degree of familiarity with these edits. While checkuser may very well prove otherwise, Chewygum and LightAj have somewhat different editing styles - copyvios aside, LightAj's textual edits were more productive. Articles on the Philippino military suffer from a high degree of vandalism, and I suspect that most of the editors who work on them are young and don't have a good grasp of the English-language. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks. :) That meshes with my theories of why we see so many copyright problems in articles related to the Philippines in general. I see quite a few of those pass through, along with articles related to Pakistan, India and Malaysia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Good faith edits Thank you for showing me where I went wrong. All of these edits were made out of Wikipedia:Good faith and I did not understand what the issue was until you brought it to light for me. I will (from now on) be sure to watch the copyrights of material before I proceed to use editing purposes and I will take care to keep Wikipedia's copyright policy's more carefully when I edit. Thank you again for bringing this issue to light. I will now be a more productive editor as well as a more careful one. Texas141 (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC) thanks :D Thank you. You always know the right thing to say and you always make the most sense of anybody anywhere. Of course I've brought you these flowers: [8], but after such a long day, you need a good laugh. I found this on recent changes patrol and he is my favorite vandal. Notice the name of the article. I can just imagine this kid sitting at his computer screen, chomping on a potato chip as he does this: [9]. Thanks again. See ya on the mentor page.Malke2010 00:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you, Malke. :) I have good hopes that we'll be able to work through things just fine. And funny vandal. Sometimes I think they do it just to see if they can. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC) You're welcome. And the vandal would make the edit, then revert himself, then make the edit again. Like Boom Boom Boom. Hilarious.Malke2010 01:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Oh, that is funny. I was passing through last night and didn't check the history, only the diff. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC) User notification I saw you just blanked George Clark (American football coach) and relisted it under today's CP page, and it reminded me of some questions regarding user notification I had (some of which I also posted earlier this morning at WT:COPYCLEAN). Since the article was created in Dec '06 and the copyvio introduced then, does it really matter if we notify them or not? Also something I just noticed this morning about my own edits, I haven't been notifying users when I blank the page once they've placed an OTRS pending tag or otherwise asserted permission. Should I be? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Well, actually, I would have relisted it because it hadn't been blanked. If it had been blanked and the contributor not notified, I would probably have processed it and left them an explanation, since they haven't been here in quite a while. At one time, I would have just blindly relisted because them's the rules. :) That article has active watchers and contributors, though, who may very well react with shock to find it disappeared or stripped to its bare essentials. The blanking template gives them an opportunity to do with it what they will before an admin comes in to mop up. It isn't always received that way, but I tend to think it's a courtesy to contributors. Whether you notify or not when blanking following an OTRS pending might depend on the circumstances. I will sometimes drop a note at the talk page thanking them for following up and explaining that the content will be restored; I will sometimes leave a note at their talk pages telling them the same thing. Sometimes I just put a note in the edit summary. I try to base it on level of clue (though sometimes I'm sure it's on no more noble a reason than how much I've got to do at a given moment), but a friendly word can soften the blow of a lot of bureaucracy. :) (P.S. Level of clue: if the contributor seems to have grasped it all, I am less likely to leave a note of explanation than if he seems befuddled; if he seems to know how to use edit summaries, too.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Hrmmm... I'm still trying to work out the details for when VWBot should notify someone, and am just trying to think of different scenarios, and it's kinda hard for a bot to judge clue :(. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is. VWBot won't be able to tell if somebody has left a personal note, either, I guess? What about a disclaimer somewhere on the bottom? Something like: This notice has been provided as a courtesy. You are welcome to remove it. Please forgive redundancy if you are already aware of the situation.? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Well, the plan is for it to see if a) the tagger has edited the contributor's talk page or b) the contributor has edited the article, article talk page, or temp page any time after the page was blanked. If that happens I figured it could safely assume that there a) a personal note was left or b) the user has read the template which provides the same info. I like the idea of a disclaimer though, I hadn't thought of that yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Well, that's a very sensible plan. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Of course figuring out just who is the actual contributor is the part that I've been putting off for now and trying to think of circumstances where it could either assume that the original creator would still be the one who cares or assume that it's been so long since the copyvio was added and it's not worth notifying anyone, since looking through the history can be processor intensive (see wikiblame). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC) What about notifying the creator with a specialized template that says something along the lines of, "An article you created has been tagged for copyright problems. This may be because of text contributed by you or by a later editor. blahblahblah"? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC) That would make it easy. Of course the copyvio template says to notify the contributor which also helps us to later spot repeat offenders, but if you think it's reasonable to have it just notify the creator no matter how old the article is then that saves a whole bunch of extra queries and logic loops I've been working through. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Well, the bot is not meant to replace the notification request on the template, so I think that notifying the creator is better than not notifying anybody, and it will not infrequently be the same person. But I know that I routinely look to see where the copyvio entered, and I routinely check to see if the contributor has been notified. Maybe we should strengthen the recommendation of that in the advice for admins. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC) I was intending it to be a backup for people who aren't familiar with how to blank pages or just forget, so let me ask you this: Under what circumstances would you not bother relisting even when the contributor wasn't notified? If it was placed by an IP? If it was placed years ago? Both? Any other circumstances besides a CCI? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Certainly if it was placed by an IP. If it was placed by a now-inactive registered contributor some time ago and if I would have G12ed it when it was created, I may delete without notification, leaving User:Moonriddengirl/carticle behind. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Jack Lord#Filmography Hi. Care to review this? There are threads related to it on the article talk page, User talk:Viriditas, User talk:Maile66, and User talk:Wildhartlivie. Jack Merridew 18:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)