Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks to clean the [[Bina Nusantara University]] article. I'm really appreciate it, but it appears that someone with IP 202.58.180.58 is doing major addition to the article. Could you help again to recheck the article for possible copyright violation? If the additional text is not an infringement, I will proofread and clean-up the Wiki markup in that article. Thanks before. Oh yeah after resolving that IP address, it actually an IP from Bina Nusantara University (but, university's IP can be used by anyone inside the university, so further checking to the article is very needed) [[User:Ivan Akira|Ivan Akira]] ([[User talk:Ivan Akira|talk]]) 10:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks to clean the [[Bina Nusantara University]] article. I'm really appreciate it, but it appears that someone with IP 202.58.180.58 is doing major addition to the article. Could you help again to recheck the article for possible copyright violation? If the additional text is not an infringement, I will proofread and clean-up the Wiki markup in that article. Thanks before. Oh yeah after resolving that IP address, it actually an IP from Bina Nusantara University (but, university's IP can be used by anyone inside the university, so further checking to the article is very needed) [[User:Ivan Akira|Ivan Akira]] ([[User talk:Ivan Akira|talk]]) 10:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you very much for bringing that to my attention! :) Some of the content they've added seems okay, but a good bit of it was pasted direclty from the university's facebook account. I've reverted that part. I'm not sure that all of the other material they added is usable, but I'll leave it for regular contributors of the article to determine what should be retained. I've left them the standard copyright notice, which does include a link to [[Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission]]. If they're able to verify permission, they can follow up and the content can be restored. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 11:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you very much for bringing that to my attention! :) Some of the content they've added seems okay, but a good bit of it was pasted direclty from the university's facebook account. I've reverted that part. I'm not sure that all of the other material they added is usable, but I'll leave it for regular contributors of the article to determine what should be retained. I've left them the standard copyright notice, which does include a link to [[Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission]]. If they're able to verify permission, they can follow up and the content can be restored. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 11:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
::I'm personally don't think that person who just copy-paste will really concern about the notice in their [[User talk:202.58.180.58|discussion page]], but it is the best thing that we can do in Wikipedia, I think. Okay then, now I think it safe for me to wikify the rest of the text. Thank you very much for your hard work! [[User:Ivan Akira|Ivan Akira]] ([[User talk:Ivan Akira|talk]]) 07:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
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.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
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 22:47, 2 September 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
David Croft (rugby union)
Hi Moonriddengirl, I extended the article after your "cleaning", could you please check for the spelling? English is not my mother tongue so it's very likely you'll find either some mistakes or typos. Greetings from Italy :-) -- SERGIOaka the Black Cat13:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) No spelling errors, although I turned a comma into a period and changed the usage of a preposition. The only real question I have is what you mean by "He retired from professional rugby in 2008 aged 28, and definitely in late 2009, aged 30." Do you mean that he still played rugby non-professional between 2008 and 2009? --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Actually Southern Emisphere rugby union is structured in clubs and franchises. The clubs are mostly non-professional and sort of tank for the franchises that are professional. Croft stopped playing professional rugby union in 2008, still aged 28 (he would be turning 29 in December, but the professional season ends in May in the Southern Emisphere). Then he went on playing for his amateur side for the rest of 2008 and the whole 2009 season that ends in December. Hope it helps to clarify. :-) Regards -- SERGIOaka the Black Cat17:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Item you deleted
Hello,
We need to retrieve information from a insertion you deleted, according to the site. The article was regardign author Gary Alan Wassner. How do we retrieve the information? Thank you. 96.232.208.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Would you mind investigating whether Central place theory is plagiarized or not? I came across a report on the talk page that it might be, but I don't have time to properly investigate. I saw this while demo-ing Wikipedia for a class for the Public Policy Initiative, so it would be nice to report back to the class that we did something about it! :) Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whew, that was a bit of a slog. :) I'd say "unlikely" and I've commented at the article talk page. I'd need to see more sources to be really sure, but I think the structure is the standard way anyone would describe the theory. The ordering and development of the concepts look subtly different as you read farther down, if someone was being lazy, they weren't being lazy enough. :) The original publication of the theory would be of great interest, but it's likely in German anyway. Franamax (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to convey my gratitude to you for putting so much effort into a project like Wikipedia. Lord Bless you and I hope you always remain happy and that you receive the recognition that you well deserve.
41.239.83.166 (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you had once suggested that its better to make a seperate page Rajesh Khanna Filmography.
iam not aware as to how it should be made or edited.if the page is created i can definitely help you update the filmography.
it would be better if Rajesh Khanna Filmography is created seperately with 6 columns Year,Film,Role,Actress,Director,Other Notes.
the reason being that many things about khanna is missing from the wikipedia article right now, but if information is added then page will look longer so seperate page of filmography is the need of hour.
Hi. I'm not intending to make a filmography for this individual, but good luck to you should you choose to do so. If you have not yet found a mentor, as I've suggested in the past, a mentor might be able to help you with formatting. Alternatively, you can visit the help desk. I'm afraid I still do not have time for taking on new duties at this point. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:33, 14 zSeptember 2010 (UTC)
atleast tell me how should i create tht page in such a way that it does appear in that link under R to the world.i cn fill up all those six columns viz. Year,Film,Role,Actress,Director,Other Notes. by myself but only if iam able to create that page.Shrik88music (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have crrated a seperate page Rajesh Khanna Filmography.
iam not aware as to how it should be edited that there would be 6 columns Year,Film,Role,Actress,Director,Other Notes.
i wil by myself manage to fill up all details if u dont have time but just create that page with those 6 columns atleast.
if you would be able to fill up the columns actresses,year,role with help of the already created filmography by me at present it would be great. gradually i will fill the columns roles,other notes,director.Shrik88music (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to be unhelpful, but I'm afraid that I don't even have time to do the work that I need to do. I have suggested mentorship would be helpful for you. If you don't want to seek mentorship, that's fine, but we do have a help desk with volunteers who do have time to help you and will be happy to do so. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry – I've sorted it. I'm sure you've got enough on your plate with the Darius Dhlomo work. I really admire all the hard work you put in. Best regards — Hebrides (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i by myself keep taking help from few selected people as they seem to be intelligent and not biased fans....rajesh khanna article must be made semi protected i feel as those who have not got themselves registered are editing rajesh khana articleShrik88music (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, MRG!
I have finally come to a stopping point on the rewrite of this article, which had close paraphrasing.
It is located at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 2, and I'd appreciate another set of eyes reviewing it.
I'm not in a big hurry, but if you expect to be unavailable for a week or more, I will make other arrangements.
Thanks! Mgrē@sŏn03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have no such expectations. :) I've put it on my mental "to do" list, but this morning has been crazy already. If I should lose that list, as I sometimes do, please give me a nudge. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIKIHOUNDING
Hi, sometime ago we talked and you suggested that I should no longer look at the mentorship page you had for Malke, given that I noticed that you had asked her to stop following me. I respected that request for keeping that page semi-private and have not looked there, but Malke wants a reference to that discussion. Instead of looking on there for a diff, could you please comment on User_talk:Malke_2010#WP:WIKIHOUND_warning. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I didn't mean at all to suggest that you shouldn't look at the page. I've only requested that others keep their comments to her main page. That said, I'll follow your link. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ORTS
Hi there, If possible please look in to ORTS tickets for following files File:NH 45 Ulundurpet Padalur.JPG and File:Udaipur_highway.jpg. I already sent mail to ORTS today. Thanks KuwarOnlineTalk09:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'll be happy to take a look once I've caught up with on Wikipedia stuff, probably within a few hours. If it has not been handled before then and I find it, I'll process it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrasing
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at CeeGee's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Moonriddengirl. I wonder if you could take a look at what this user is saying on their talkpage? They posted a bunch of ozone related articles, two of which are copyright violations (one from an UNEP site, the other of a news article which the user asserts is itself a copyvio of original UNEP text). He/she is saying that they are trying to create the pages and are the original owner, and that they will edit out the copyright violations. I was thinking of offering to move them to userspace for them to work on them, but really my understanding is G12 applies over all namespaces.
Have you had any more communication with Thirdaccount through OTRS about permissions? Looks like another person in his/her office has started OAs Initiatives which is copyright violation from http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/about/mf.htm (and nocontext to boot, in that if I didn't know what it was about at this point it would be hard to tie the article to the name). I didn't want to act on it in case you had been getting emails from Thirdaccount. Syrthiss (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boo, this is really troubling. Not only are they creating copyright violations that would be so easy to fix, but all of this leaves a bad taste of using wikipedia for advertising for their initiative. :( Syrthiss (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There's a clear COI. Would you consider filing a notice about this at the COI noticeboard? I've got so much copyright work to do and so little time to do it. :/ Given how little ground I made on the copyright problem with them, I'm loathe to even try to explain WP:COI and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine - your restoration was completely proper, especially since you were directly referring to it. The important bit is that you told me after, which is exactly right. No worries, and hope it all works out. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okely dokely
Here is a "good" question for you. What to do in the case of many possible image copyvios from one user? If it were only a few of them I would just tag them as I did File:64 Eric Pinkett.jpg and not bother you. However as I started to look over the users image uploads I began to notice they were mostly marked the same - "Own photograph"/"own photo". Some are marked as "own artwork" and only one is/was marked as "This is my own personal photograph taken in 1964". So I dug deeper and the user runs a website about "players from the Eric Pinkett era" of the Leicestershire Schools Symphony Orchestra. Now here comes the bigger copyright issue - while the website states No permission is required to download or print any of the items. it also gives gratitude and thanks to all former players who made contributions to the Photo Gallery, and particularly to Nigel Pinkett for the 'Special Collections' section. Wikipedia has no proof that any of the actual photographers signed over their copyright to the uploader so they could license them here via {{PD-self}}. Aside from that there may also be a COI concern (Ok, well there *is* a COI concern) because since October 2009 the uploader (Most likely also I.P 86.144.118.211) has been the main contributor to the Peter G. Fletcher article, which they are mentioned in, and, since May 2007, the main contributor to the Leicestershire Schools Symphony Orchestra. (Possible to also be I.P 86.130.109.46, I.P 86.144.118.45 and I.P 6.130.118.93) There is also some WP:OWN going on as well it seems - "My article has been somewhat decimated."
So where to start? Is there a protocol in place for dealing with this many images or do I just start tagging them all {{di-no permission}} and ask for OTRS's to be sent in for each image on the users talk page? Or should send all the unused ones to PUI and tagged the used ones with {{di-no permission}}? Advice welcome. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good place to start: talking to the guy. Is he still active? If so, drop a note on his talk page politely letting him know your concerns and that if he has uploaded content to Wikipedia from other photographers we need verification of their license. I'd recommend being very friendly at this stage; he's likely to be dismayed by the situation, and a spoonful of sugar surely helps. When the contributor is working on good faith, this is always a good approach to telling somebody, "Hi, you may have created a major problem!"
If he asserts that he is the photographer of all of the images, and you feel you have good reason to doubt him, I think you basically have two options: WP:PuF or WP:FfD. I would not go the {{di-no permission}} process unless he akcnowledges that he is not the photographer but does not within reasonable time verify permission through OTRS. The COI concern is a separate issue, and I would leave it to resolve for after resolving the copyright concern. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what to say about this one. :/ I think she's acting in good faith but confusion on the copyright issue, but the whole situation with the ANI report has just gotten out of hand, and it was so unnecessary. :( (massively discouraged) --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I thought your summary in the ANI thread was insightful and highlighted the same things I'd observed. Unfortunately, things appear to have flared up after I went to bed. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your advice at your talk page was also spot on. I hope that these two can come to some accord in their work, if they are going to continue working on the same article types. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
Your efforts on copyright problems are greatly appreciated!
I wanted to say thank you for the incredible amount of effort you have put in on keeping Wikipedia's copyright problem under control. It's not always well appreciated work, but it's important, and it means a lot to me that you've been so diligent and involved.
Thank you, so much. Today is a perfect day for it, too. :) (Sometimes it seems a bit overwhelming.) I try, and I'm always encouraged by how many Wikipedians are willing to pitch in to help. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, we have to reupload the picture and delete it for that to happen. We had a recent request through OTRS for similar, and revdeletion did no good with the images. Can you reupload with proper attribution? If so, I'll delete. And if that doesn't work, I'll run to User:Avraham for help, because he's the one who fixed the problem the last time. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look at the logs for the first image and see if that worked? If the identifying information is still visible in the logs, I'll ask Avi to help. (It's still visible to me, but I don't know if that's just because I'm an admin.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I hadn't rolled back yet since I keep finding earlier and earlier copyvio and have been trying to figure out if anything in that article is clean. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered that. I ran it through the Earwig checked and spot-checked a couple but didn't find matches, but I wouldn't be surprised if you find a source for quite a lot of that. Often, people return to the copyrighted text pool because they can't generate their own content. :/ (If you have a mo', can you tell me: does this post from me make sense?) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far I've found sources for everything I've looked for, it's just been taking me time to look through sources I know Dalbster copied from and I just haven't made it back to the beginning of the articles yet and I'd rather not have to remove all of the plot summaries. <sigh> Anyways, I think your post there makes sense. It (to me at least) does a good job of explaining why we have to take action like we (try to) do when copyright problems are brought to light. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good ol' pile of 'stars
Thank you for your incredible work on copyrights... I will never have your determination, but you will always have my admiration. (Did that rhyme by any chance?) Renata (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75.62.2.105 (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think that the task explanation should stick to just that: the explanation of what the task being performed is. We don't need a "How can you help?" section. I suggest refactoring what's already there and placing it into the "Why this is happening" and "What happens next" sections. Uncle G (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a slightly more businesslike opening than "Welcome to the CCI Bot-assisted copyright cleanup of September 2010." :) It sounds very like a community rock festival or something, and I'm not sure that it's going to strike the right tone for the dismayed and angry, of which we will encounter plenty. (Voice of experience here. People do shoot the messenger.) I wonder if we could remove Darius Dhlomo's name from the header of any versions, while I'm at it. Those who choose to contributor can read the specifics further down. Those who just want to know why the article is blanked don't need to. I see, Uncle G, that Darius has been subject to some abuse. :( I like the "What is happening" explanation; it's thorough and it suggests the WP:AGFC. I think from there, though, that I prefer the original's brevity of just going straight into "Where this was discussed" and "What happens next." Those who want to help can follow the instructions. I'd incorporate some of "How many and which of those articles actually infringe?" into "What happens next." --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not to say, of course, that there's nothing there that I like. On the contrary, I like the short and long factual answers. I also like the idea of greater flow. Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to MRG about the rock festival issue and will try to make a change. I agree about removing DD's name from the header, and in general about not plastering it around more than necessary. I think we need to address several types of readers, maybe by splitting the page out to two or more separate documents:
Readers who come across one of those articles while looking for info, see that template, and wonder what's going on but probably won't get involved in review/cleanup
Editors involved in athletics articles / copyright cleanup / general maintenance, who might want to help with reviewing
Non-Wikipedians who hear about the incident on (kidding I hope) CNN, probably in some distorted form (the WP Signpost article already had problems) and think WP is a nest of copyright pirates. So the idea is to have some kind of FAQ explaining the overall situation to the best of our knowledge, and what we are doing about it.
The bot is likely to cause considerable disruption and get people asking questions, so before we launch it, I think it's worth our while to create some reasonably complete and well-organized writeups to point people to. So that's what I was trying to start in on. Obviously there's a ways to go. I'd much appreciate any further thoughts. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable point about that split in the exec summary, but I think the need for an overview is not addressed by what is listed there. The idea is to have a completed document or two (that are editable like anything else, but that organize the info and present it in finished form) rather than pointing into the middle of discussions that sprawl all over the place. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some merger of the two documents would seem good to me. I'd like to keep the lead businesslike, myself. But we need to get whatever we're going to use drawn together quickly, I think, as we've already publicized this. Delay in implementation is only going to further add to the confusion, I fear. But I would like to see some explicit mention in this document that only contributors with no history of copyright problems should help out. We've already had one problem related to that, and it's best to make sure that everyone is aware of that up front. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to edit or merge/transfer anything I wrote as you see fit. I can probably spend some more time on it tonight but have other stuff to do between now and then. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cleanup instructions look like (I'm guessing) standard CCI instructions and as such they seem ok to me. More to the point, the CCI pages are directed at people involved in cleaning up articles. This is going to be such a disruptive operation that I'm thinking we need a FAQ-like document geared mostly towards folks who just want a quick understanding of what's going on, but probably don't wan't to get involved themselves. Does that make any sense? That's part of what I was aiming at in the sandbox text linked above. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then please work on the new section of that page that I've just started. ☺ This is, after all, the main CCI case page. I've put it at the top of all of the navigation boxes. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit of intro to the overview. I'm quite uncomfortable writing about how to assess the legal status of anything so I'm going to leave the cleanup section alone. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Franamax
Moved from previous section by 67.119.14.196 (talk); I hope nobody minds
Just stalking here, but as a matter of principle I frown on asking BAG to make these kind of decisions. Requesting the bot flag is essentially saying "I m going to make thousands of edits without really looking at any of them and I want the special bit that lets me do this without any recentchanges patrollers seeing it (even though it will flood individual people's watchlists and the most common response of bot operators is to steadfastly deny they ever did a single thing wrong, I'm not like that and anyway it's too late to go back once I've run the bot)". Now, I'm philosophically opposed to simple blanking of articles created with a copyvio, because I feel it devalues the subsequent work of many others and paints much to broad of a stroke, so maybe you should ignore me. And I realize my alternative of examining each case and dealing with it appropriately is very time-consuming and I haven't done my share, ao again, maybe you should ignore me. I'd rather see a much more tightly defined task though, like if the article was created with 10 bytes of content and is now 100Kbytes by other editors, will it still get blanked? Franamax (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Franamax, the best place to bring up points like that is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI, where wider discussion of this operation is happening. I think the point of the BRFA is to get technical feedback about the bot operation itself, rather than to get a bot flag (a separate decision). Re your question about a 10-byte article with 100k of later contributions, yes it would still get blanked, but then anyone looking at the edit history could see what had happened and unblank it. In practice most of these articles have little substantial editing by anyone other than Darius. 75.62.2.105 (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Picking up with User:Franamax, this isn't my ideal solution, either, but we currently have hundreds of thousands of articles that require review at CCI, with over 20,000 alone in this CCI. The listing already excludes anything below the "minimum" threshhold by this creator (100 bytes, I believe). We have CCIs over a year old. Leaving them unblanked does nobody any favors, either, as contributors who build derivative works off of unusable bases will have completely wasted their time. At least with this method, they are informed. I'd much rather find the article I want to work on blanked and know I have to start over than put hours into something that will later be deleted, especially if I'm then told, "Oh, yes, we knew last year that all of his stuff was going to have to go, but we didn't get around to it in time to keep you from wasting your effort." :/ Beyond that, the operations of bots and their capacities are well beyond me, so I leave that one to people who understand them. ;) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CorenSearchBot
Maybe the CorenBot could be programmed to identify copyrighted text added to existing articles so that this fiasco doesn't happen again? Dr.Blofeld15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand (and I am not a bot person, by a long shot!) this is not really possible because of the amount of material added to existing articles and the workload it would place and because of the prevalence of Wikimedia mirrors. Coren's got a pretty good ratio of actual problems/false positives, but I suspect that would tank if he tried this. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have a backup copy of CorenSearchBot's code running I've been thinking about playing with it to try and do just this, since we won't really know how feasible it is until it actually runs, but other things keep climbing ahead of it on my todo list. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chances are, you'll drown in false positives unless you manage to have and maintain a list of mirrors and (legitimate) copies of Wikipedia articles. I tried running version 3 of the code over recent changes, with a trigger that it needed to be a substantial addition (IIRC, > 300 words or so) and even then it had trouble doing the web searches fast enough, and it was buried in hits.
Mind you, if you did the search on the added text as opposed to resulting article, you might have better success — but diffs aren't very good to determine what is addition or not since it's newline (i.e. paragraph) based. — Coren(talk)16:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, of course, there's the problem of the search engine that the 'bot uses. Yahoo doesn't pick up, at least from the search strings that I used, the copyright violation at Maurizio Damilano that Dr. Blofeld was talking about earlier, for example. Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That too; though it's fairly simple to switch search engines. (Indeed, it already has the code to use Google instead — which gave better results — but whose license did not allow that use) — Coren(talk)18:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In these Darius articles there's lots of text that's obviously copied from somewhere (because Darius doesn't write like that), but gets no search hits, so all we can do is blank it and rewrite it. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coren, if you're still here, can you program CorenSearchBot to pick up any edits that remove an article from Category:Articles tagged for CCI copyright problems? That gives at least a slight re-check of articles that editors un-blank from Uncle G's bot sweep. At least one person has already re-introduced copyvios by restoring insufficiently checked stuff from Uncle G's initial test run, and CorenSearchBot has at least some hope of picking up on that. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this new editor has created a number of questionable articles. You have initiated a review of some of the work, but the article Action on Methyl Bromide is very strange also. We would normally include such content in Methyl bromide. I recomend that Iop23's entire inventory of new articles be considered for deletion. Thanks,--Smokefoot (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way thanks for your handling of the issues. You were so effective and fair that I think you should copyright your style somehow, if not trademark it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sentence too closely paraphrases its source. While parts are in quotation marks, the parts that are not are also taken from there. By itself, this would be a "de minimis" situation under U.S. law, almost surely, but our policies do require that we either rewrite content completely or quote it (in limited amounts). We don't push that boundary. I don't know if the warning is necessary, however, since the text addition predates his CCI and the ANI conversation about him. I would most certainly take note if you run into material like that after 3 August, but he may know better now than he did in July. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I first removed this which was not CV. But I thought it was undue weight because an individual murder case should not belong to the section unless it was really a notable big case. Then I checked his past addition. It seems to me that he has a general tendency to emphasize the Chinese Muslim and Hui people on his edits. Not that I think they are not important, but some of his additions look like undue weight. I think he needs to learn some more to edit on WP. Oda Mari (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear MRG, if you're not too busy, can you perhaps give your opinion about a question I asked at Commons, here? You know all this stuff, and I don't, and it seems there isn't a very clear consensus. Thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that they're right; if the images are not public domain in the United States (and it seems like they aren't), they can't be hosted on Commons. The U.S. has much more narrow laws about copyright, and Commons and en Wiki both have to comply. :/ Unless you can find something free or validate something under NFC, you may be out of luck on that one.
Wikipedia:PD#Country-specific rules helps explain a bit why: "being in the public domain in its home country does not automatically mean that the work was also in the public domain in the U.S. because the U.S. does not follow the "rule of shorter term". Commons:Public domain#Country-specific laws also suggests how complex it can be: "Images uploaded to Commons, unless uploaded from the United States, involve the interaction of two or more copyright jurisdictions. Generally, the policy applied on Commons is to only allow images that can be used in all (or at least most) countries"; "Also apply the copyright laws of the country you are in and the copyright laws of any web server you got the work off. In the case of a French painting uploaded to Commons from a French web server by someone living in the UK three copyright jurisdictions would apply: France, UK and US." Mmm, okay. Complex much? (Understandably complex, but still, what a nightmare!) As far as the U.S. is concerned, a somewhat oversimplified list of considerations is offered at WP:PD (reproduced with minimal modification here):
If the work was published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the U.S.(With a caveat for works published without copyright notice, see footnote 1.)
If the work was published 1923 to 1995 (inclusive) and not copyrighted in its countries of origin in 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S.
Otherwise, if the work was published before 1978, it is copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years since the original publication (i.e. at least until 1923 + 95 = 2018), and if it was published 1978 or later, the work is copyrighted until 70 years after the (last surviving) author's death.
Hi. I have not been a party to anything that has gone before in the current editing block of Malke 2010, but I would like to chime in here as a "character witness", and plead for assistance in lifting/shortening of this block. How can I help in this situation? Malke was a very calming influence in a couple of contentious situations I encountered in the past with other editors. When I was ready to throw in the towell in the face of irrational argument, she drew me back to the table. When I became a little overbeariung, she restrained me. I have only ever known her to deal in good faith, and I believe that whatever this situation is, she IS dealing in good faith. Eastcote (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a placeholder, I'll note that I'll come take a look at this pretty soon. I'm fresh up this morning and need a little more clarity before wading in to what is obviously an escalation of the last I knew. --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies
Hi MRG, To my horror, I discovered this edit when I checked my contributions this morning. I must have hit the stupid rollback button by mistake. Head now suitably hanging in shame. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you doing your typical "Copyright removal" work today! Anyway, may I request you to rev-delete some edits on the Beaver Creek Camp page please? The content that was added by User:NAKANA were copyright infringements. I reverted most of their edits and gave NAKANA a warning. [2]Minimac (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's back! On one of his old IP's. He used an edit summary this time, but I disagree. I've put it up for discussion as you know, so unless he makes the effort to get involved. Can he be blocked again or page be protected? I don't want to revert until action has been taken. Thanks for your help as always :). Jayy008 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Edit summary is progress. :) Why don't you try to invite some other editors to achieve consensus? You might revert (not as vandalism) with a note that you are reverting per WP:BRD pending consensus and a pointer to the talk page (I'd put this in edit summary and at the latest IP talk page) and then ask for feedback at Talk:One Tree Hill (TV series) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Make your question neutral, something like, "Conversation about formatting and inclusion of characters blahblah." :) If he's going to make an effort to talk, we should encourage more of it. If other editors weigh in (knock wood) and clear consensus emerges, he might learn to work within Wikipedia's consensus model. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good plan! By the way, it is vandalism because the format he uses ruins other pages. When you don't use the equals sign in headling characters it prevents direct linking to the page. Like for expample one of the characters of One Tree Hill has had their page redirected, it can't re-direct to the exact character in the current format because the name is only bolded and not equals sign. Hope I'm clear. Jayy008 (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding you correctly, that may be wrong, but not necessarily vandalism. Vandalism happens when a contributor is deliberately trying to mess things up. We sometimes have to block people who mess things up accidentally (and won't stop), but that's a different problem. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. Jayy, this isn't exactly what I had in mind. :) It reads a bit confrontational. Maybe you could change it a bit so it sounds more like, "Hi, thanks for explaining what you're going for! I'm afraid, though, that it may not really work for us because....(explanation) Please come by the article's talk page to talk about it more." We want to be friendly, even if he's been a bit difficult to deal with in the past. :D Who knows? He could wind up being a great contributor. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...as an aside that I appreciate the tone of your conversation and your willingness to consider the matter more fully. Essential qualities in a Wikipedian. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and no worries.
I will say that more tha once I've felt the slight irony that in the cci discussion, I was (at least for a bit) being seen as the "hardliner". (Though in the case of CV, I believe we pretty much have to be cold as ice about it, compared to FU which is pretty subjective at times.)
Yeah, the whole FU thing baffles me. Why can we have pictures of living actors in articles about characters they've played, but not in the articles about the actors? And how is an album cover in an infobox not decorative? I just throw up my hands over the whole thing and leave that to others to work out. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you ever have an issue, I've found user:J Greb very helpful. He's usually who I go to regarding the various infoboxes and images thereof, when I have questions : )
And speaking of going to other people, jut out of transparency, in case you didn't see it, see user talk:xeno. I thought a 3PO might be a good idea (and I think he's capable of neutrality even when he has a personal opinion - at least just to give me advice : ) - and I feel he helped. - jc3701:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of a Wikipedia article about me
I was wondering why the Wikipedia article on myself, Michael Korolenko, was deleted. There was nothing false in the article and nothing copyrighted in the article. I myself did not write the original article (it was pretty much taken word for word from my biography in one of my online classes). It has been on Wikipedia for a while and I edited it a year or so ago if I remember correctly to simply update it. I see no reason why it should have been deleted. If you could reinstate the article I would appreciate it.
Thank you, Verno. Mr. Korolenko, it wasn't deleted because anything it was false, but because it was copied from your website, which bears a clear copyright reservation notice. Even if it did not bear that notice, it would be copyrighted under U.S. law (as copyright is automatically bestowed). It would need to bear an explicit release for us to retain it. I see from my colleague's note that you have already written to the Wikimedia Foundation. Once you have responded to their note with a licensing statement that we are able to use, the article can be restored. Alternatively, if you decide to verify permission on the website, please just drop be a note here telling me that you have done so, and I can restore the article. --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that WP biographies have to be written from published sources that are independent of the subject. Citing a fact or two to the subject's website is one thing, but if most of it is copied from there (even with permission) there may be neutrality problems. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's simply text from the person's CV, then it shouldn't be a problem. CVs are almost always self-published and it's hard to find the info from anywhere else. In such cases, we can WP:AGF I think. Offliner (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I meant was that using a self-published CV as a source should be OK. Naturally, the subject would still need coverage in reliable third-party sources to be notable. Offliner (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
text copyright question
Hi I saw you did some work on the copyright project-page regarding text. Is this a copyvio?
"After the 1970–71 season the Inter Cities Fairs Cup was taken over by UEFA. A match was played between the first ever Fairs Cup winners, FC Barcelona, and the last winners, Leeds United, to decide who would get to keep the old Fairs Cup trophy permanently."
a copyright violation of this:
"After the 1970-71 season the organisation of the Fairs Cup was taken over by UEFA. The competition was renamed the UEFA Cup with a new trophy being introduced. A match was played between the first ever Fairs Cup winners, FC Barcelona, and the last winners, Leeds United, to decide who would get to keep the old Fairs Cup trophy permanently. These two teams also had the best overall playing record in the competition since it's inception in 1955. "
Yes, in the sense that it is a problem under our copyright policy. :) We require that content either be (a) reproduced precisely (in limited quantity) in quotation format with attribution or (b) rewritten completely. Stuff like that should be more fully rewritten. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a doubt
I am checking into P. Niyogi's contributions and have a doubt. Niyogi has created content sourced to many offline books published locally and not available in gbooks. What to do in such cases where there is no way of checking the text?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you so much for looking into this! I'm extremely sorry to say that we usually presume they are a copyright violation and remove or rewrite them. In this case, it may be valuable to get a better sense of where he has violated copyright. Sometimes we can begin to recognize a pattern in a contributor's work so we can recognize his own language patterns and see where his language differs. If you can point out a specific source that seems to be heavily used in any given article, I might be able to find somebody who can dig it up for comparison and that could help us. If we identify a major problem in one specific text, it makes it more likely that there are major problems in other inaccessible texts. If the content is copyright clear, we may be able to act less aggressively. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An OTRS question
On the commons I nominated this stamp for deletion because Australian stamps are copyright for 50 years per Public domain stamp templates because I disputed the validity of the attached OTRS ticket. Túrelio declined the nomination and left this comment on my talk page saying that the OTRS permission obviously came from Australia Post but when I questioned him he cannot confirm the ticket as he is not an OTRS volunteer. Would you kindly have a look at it for me as I have never heard of a postal administration giving a free licence for any of its stamps other than press and media use, which is essentially fair-use? TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Communication is from the Australian Post, but I'm not entirely sure about the license. In his first letter (not to us; he is speaking with an intermediary), the copyright holder says, "There's no fee for educational use." His correspondent is very good at seeking to clarify that, noting among other points that the content may be reused by "commercial entities", and his correspondent responds (among other things), "All fine." This seems like he's quite comfortable with commercial reuse, but I'd like to write directly to the licensor to ask him to explicitly confirm the terms of release. I'll get back with you on it, and if I should forget (oh, that never happens), please nudge me. :D Seriously, if I write a letter and he doesn't respond, I may well forget to follow up. There are always ten billion things going on, it seems. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG! Could I get you to help me at T:TDYK with this nomination? As I stated in my review of it:
Reading Town Hall appears to be copied in wording, style and tone from the first reference, and not re-written from scratch as required by WP:COPYVIO. Am concerned about putting a potential copyright violation (not saying it necessarily is one, but it's subjective) on the main page.
I suspect that my actions at the article speak for themselves. :/ I've left examples at the article's talk page. Thanks so much for keeping an eye out for this! --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some guidance. I believe I recognize File:Arecibo naic big.gif because of its similarity to a photo that has been hanging in my office (without a copyright notice). The photo was taken in order to document the 1974 upgrade of the telescope to an aluminum dish. I can tell by the antenna that the photo certainly predates 1998 (the date claimed by the uploader). The person uploading the photo claimed it was the work of NASA because he found it on a NASA website. I then put a {{puf}} tag on the photo page and on the Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 17 page. However, a robot correctly noted the image in on Commons and not on Wikipedia.
The uploader claims that this is a NASA image. However it comes from APOD which in turn states, "Specific rights apply." The subpage states, "All the images on the APOD page are credited to the owner or institution where they originated. Some of the images are copyrighted and to use these pictures publicly or commercially one must write to the owners for permission. For the copyrighted images, the copyright owner is identified in the APOD credit line (please see the caption under the image), along with a hyperlink to the owner's location." In this case, Cornell University. The NAIC website gallary says, "Note to the media.... You are welcome to download these images for non-profit / non-commercial use. For permissions and credit policies see our "media services and support" page. Please credit all photos with: "courtesy of the NAIC - Arecibo Observatory, a facility of the NSF"
I could not find a puf page on Commons, so I changed the attribution to {{PD-US-no notice}} even though I cannot prove that this is the 1974 photo. Could you please resolve this or forward it to someone who can resolve it. The photo is currently available under a "no commercial use" license. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Good sleuthing! Since I'm not an admin on Commons (or that heavily involved with images), I'll dig one up who might have time to help work this one out. There are a couple I turn to routinely. I appreciate your following through with your concerns! --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G: I am not advocating the deletion of the file, I just want the problem solved in whatever way is appropriate and I don't want to be the judge of what is required. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it certainly seems that you should be. Commons doesn't take images with such licences, and you are certainly making a case that it has that licence. So deletion from Commons is one step to be taken, here. A normal, non-speedy, deletion nomination is where to put that case, and have it discussed by multiple people. It's not as if Commons is a stranger to this issue. It's come up many times over the years. They do have some familiarity with addressing it, You simply need to go there and start the ball rolling. Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response
Once I hear from the powers that be at Wikipedia, I will give them permission to use the article. And thank you again for the quick response.
Michael Korolenko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.81.187 (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks to clean the Bina Nusantara University article. I'm really appreciate it, but it appears that someone with IP 202.58.180.58 is doing major addition to the article. Could you help again to recheck the article for possible copyright violation? If the additional text is not an infringement, I will proofread and clean-up the Wiki markup in that article. Thanks before. Oh yeah after resolving that IP address, it actually an IP from Bina Nusantara University (but, university's IP can be used by anyone inside the university, so further checking to the article is very needed) Ivan Akira (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for bringing that to my attention! :) Some of the content they've added seems okay, but a good bit of it was pasted direclty from the university's facebook account. I've reverted that part. I'm not sure that all of the other material they added is usable, but I'll leave it for regular contributors of the article to determine what should be retained. I've left them the standard copyright notice, which does include a link to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If they're able to verify permission, they can follow up and the content can be restored. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally don't think that person who just copy-paste will really concern about the notice in their discussion page, but it is the best thing that we can do in Wikipedia, I think. Okay then, now I think it safe for me to wikify the rest of the text. Thank you very much for your hard work! Ivan Akira (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have given him a final warning. If he continues, we will have no choice but to block. I think he means well; I note he is requesting permission for the last article you blanked, but his piecemeal copying continues. We've barely scratched the surface of his already opened CCI, and now it looks like we need to expand it. If you should see further problems, please let me know in case I don't notice. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even remember there was a CCI, apparently there're too many to keep track of. <long dramatic sigh> Maybe more people will help out with them given the recent hoopla and upcoming mass-blanking. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
Thanks for blocking the user. I was really hoping he/she was going to change when I saw the edit summary. But the user just put the same edit summary for the edit again. I don't think there's any hope. May I revert the edits? Or was there a reason you left them? Jayy008 (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left them because I am uninvolved. :) It's up to you and any other contributors to the article to revert them if they are inappropriate. (Have you gotten any response to your request for input from others? It would be helpful to have other eyes here.) If they are returned while the contributor is blocked, I will revert them as block evasion. If the contributor is not blocked, it's a content dispute unless there's obvious vandalism. I blocked him for continued disruption, as he is continuing to edit war and not making any effort to follow the consensus process. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got ya :). Right, no I haven't, as of yet. When the user first made the edits I had a feeling he wasn't going to give up so I kept an eye on the page. At the time, 2 other users reverted his/her edits as well, but it's just been me ever since. I've really tried explaning myself, the discussion is still open as well. I'm really happy to discuss it but there are certain things that can't be done as I've explained it ruins re-directs to the page. Jayy008 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saul Hertz
I'm trying to track down the possible copyright violation for the Saul Hertz page from August 2010. I'd like to re-post the article, but with the appropriate changes. Jabrody24 (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see that you were not given the requisite notice. I'm sorry about; the contributor who tagged the article should have copied it to your talk page, and I should have noticed that he or she did not. The problem with the article is that from its inception it followed too closely on [3]. For one brief example, the article as you created it said:
On November 12, 1936 Dr. Karl Compton, president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology spoke at a luncheon lecture at Harvard Medical School. His topic was "What Physics can do for Biology and Medicine". After the presentation, Dr. Hertz asked Dr. Compton "could iodine be made artificially radioactive?"
That website says:
On November 12, 1936 Dr. Karl Compton, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke at a luncheon lecture. His topic was What Physics can do for Biology and Medicine. After the presentation Dr. Hertz asked Dr. Compton, "Could iodine be made artificially radioactive?"
Other content, too, followed too closely.
While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. So that our articles do not constitute derivative works (which require permission from the copyright holders), we must write them completely in our own language, except that we may use brief quotations if they are clearly marked and used in accordance with non-free content guidelines. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".
Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be public domain or permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution.
I reverted the edits you referred to in your last comment on my talk page (User:Maharshi Balmiki). It's definitely an old sock who edits articles on the Hungry generation and has created pages on many marginally notable poets related to that movement. Most of his recent edits seem to be copy pasted from somewhere, perhaps a wiki mirror or some old version of the page.
BTW, you might be interested in this, where yet another new incarnation of a banned editor commented on you (and a few other admins) who deleted his own or his favorite NN poet autobiographies. (his last incarnation I assume was Bineeto Pathok (talk·contribs), banned after a large scale vandalism spree). --Ragib (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](http://www.flowerstochennai.com/images/flowers/50white.jpg){kind=link}
