:Nobody has to explain to you what's wrong with the article. By contrast, if they enter content that is problematic, you can address that. But you cannot simply revert because you liked the way it used to be. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 12:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
:Nobody has to explain to you what's wrong with the article. By contrast, if they enter content that is problematic, you can address that. But you cannot simply revert because you liked the way it used to be. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 12:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, I really do not want to get into a dispute with you over this, but frankly, no changes to this article are warranted. Can you explain why this article needs to be changed at all? Please note that on 19th November, just 3 days ago, the article was fine and since then aggressive changes took place, that we do not agree with. We know who is doing it and we intend to protect the reputation of this living person, Robert Garside. Wikipedia has a policy on living person and with regards to the article itself, there has been a long history of personal attacks against Robert Garside, I think you know this.
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 11:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time, less frequently between 19:00 and 22:00. When you loaded this page, it was 10:52, 29 August 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
I guess i'm done
I've withdrawn from NaNoWriMo. I'm just too far behind and, with finals coming up, I just don't have the time to write. I'm sad about it, but there's nothing I can do. I'll just have to make sure to actually finish my novel in December after the semester ends. I mean, if I still finish the novel, then it's a net win, right? ;) Anyways, could you go ahead and remove the Wikibreak Enforcer from my account? I'd appreciate it. (Silver seren) 165.91.173.45 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, Silver seren, if you happen to be a member of Sigma Tau Delta, one of the chapters in the Southern region, we have a competition related to NaNoWriMo, with cash prizes! Get back to writing: 50,000 words! Drmies (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure where/how to continue. If I am posting in the wrong area, please move it back or whatever is proper.
So, I found the license you spoke of and added it to my wiki. It is located in the footer and the link sends you here. I believe this is kinda what you were driving at. I will need to go into each file I've imported and write a note in the Summary and that will take a bit of time, but I want to make sure I am on track. It's never been so much about the legalese and such, more of a belief that there is right and wrong in the world; the military drove that in my head! :) I want to make sure I get stuff right and acceptable to folks both on Wikipedia and at large as I hope to set an example with others who visit to my site; to show that there is a proper way to use other folks' materials. Thanx! --Foreclosurepedia (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) You are welcome here; it is certainly much more convenient for me. :D As I said earlier in our conversation, I can't give you legal advice, but as far as our view of the matter, you are in the right as long as you (a) continue the license and (b) attribute your source. For some reason, I can't get your website to load by following your links, by pasting it in directly or even by looking it up through Google. I even tried switching from Mozilla Firefox to Internet Explorer, but still couldn't get in. Maybe there's a temporary glitch? :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, everything has been corrected now. I had a final question and then won't bother you anymore. I have the license fixed and will go into the edit sections and place the hyperlinks as you suggested (here is an example of doing that which I believe is what you are talking about). It will take a bit to go back into each file and do this, but I am fast tracking it. To the question: I am bringing over images from ya'lls pages to populate the imported pages. What do I do here? I mean as I am giving credit and such for the importation and the image is embedded in the imported page is the license/edit page entry sufficient? Or am I just sweating small details? Thanx! --Coffeehound (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For you! has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
We have been in discussion on a number of occasions in the past about the Wikipedia page for Sassy Pandez. In the light of some recent negative feedback from potential clients, it seems that older material on the Sassy Pandez page is having a detrimental effect on her career, and is potentially jeopardising her future work and income. This seems wholly unfair, especially given that the original page was posted some years ago by a unconnected third party. I wanted to discuss with you again about making some alterations to the page, along the lines that we have discussed previously. If you feel that this is in fact not possible, because it does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, then it would in fact be better for the page to be deleted from Wikipedia so that no further damage is done to Sassy Pandez and her career. As it stands, the potential benefits of being included in Wikipedia are currently very much outweighed by the negative effect of some of the older material in the article and associated references.
In an ideal world, it would be great to have an article that is just about Sassy Pandez, and does not include references to the earlier work, since this does have associated legal issues, as I have mentioned before. If this is not possible, then we would have to consider deletion of the page as a last resort.
I look forward to your feedback on the above. Thanks for your time.
AquilaUK (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have mentioned in the past, there are legal issues associated with the older material which it is not appropriate to discuss in an open forum like this. There have been discussions in the past about deletion of this article, and it's continued inclusion was deemed marginal at the time. It seems wrong to me that an individual has no rights over the material about them on Wikipedia, especially when posted by a third party, and when such information is proving to be detrimental to the career of the subject. What grounds would be considered acceptable for deletion of this article? I have looked through the two links you suggested but I am still unsure of how best to proceed from here. AquilaUK (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article would be deleted if Sassy Pandez was insufficiently notable for inclusion. Wikipedia does not include articles on private individuals, of course. We excluded her real name on your request based on her marginal notability. However, last time the conversation of her notability was raised, she was deemed notable enough based on reliable sources to retain the article. I suspect that as there are even more sources now, the article on her would not be deleted. If there are private concerns, you can communicate them to the volunteers who work the e-mail addresses linked at both of those pages. They will protect your privacy, but you will need to tell them specifically what your concern is and why in order for them to help you. Please especially read Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for the best means of approaching them about your concerns. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the info. I need to think about this and work out the best way to proceed, but maybe an email like you suggest would be the next step. AquilaUK (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking more about this issue since yesterday, and I had an idea for an alternative solution that could work for all parties. The concept is simple - split the existing page into two - or rather, unlink the old DJ Sassy page from Sassy Pandez, and include on each page only the material that is relevant to each name. Then the older references would all be on the DJ Sassy page and the newer references would be on the Sassy Pandez page. This addresses the biggest issue that we have with the current page (for legal reaons) which is the link between the older and newer references. And the DJ Sassy page should also incude references to the various other DJs around the world who also use that name (I know of at least two, one in the US and one in the Far East). I would appreciate your feedback on this. AquilaUK (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I doubt that this would be deemed acceptable. We don't usually fork articles; although we may split out articles that become too large, even then we leave a summary of the contents of the split in the main article. An encyclopedic article on one person generally covers all notable aspects of their careers. I think your best bet at this point is probably to write to the OTRS team to explain to them what kind of private concerns there are that make the contents of the article a problem. As far as the DJ Sassy redirect, if Wikipedia gets other articles on individuals known by that name, we might create a "disambiguation" page, but we wouldn't do this until there are at least two people of equal notability. Generally, we use "disambiguation" pages when we have three articles to which a title might point. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Since the pages tagged by CorenSearchBot are listed at a Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations subpage you don't have to report them, only notify the contributor like you did. You can mark what action you've taken on the article (we even have {{SCV}} for common actions), but if you don't someone else working through the list can do that (I just did it in this case). You can look at the patrol log to see who marked it patrolled, but you'd have to ask them why they didn't follow up on the possible copyvio tag. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for some guidance
Hi, I'm looking for some guidance in an area where I know you have expertise. An editor asked for feedback at Requests for feedback, specifically, with this request
I note that a number of the photographs (possibly all, I just checked a few), are identified as coming from "Alberto Terrile's personal archive".
One possibility is that the article has been written by the subject, which would raise COI issues. While the main editor is User:Drwho72, which doesn't settle the question, the feedback question was signed by Claudio Castellini.
Anyone can type anything on the internet, so I don't that Castellini is or is not a real name, the same person as Terrile or not, and if a different person, whether Castellini has the authority to posy Terrile's work.
Obviously, I can ask, but I'd like to be delicate about this.
I'm no expert photographer, but to my untrained eye, the work looks quite good. My understanding is that if a copyright holder releases their work under a CC-SA license, they cannot revoke that license. If my understanding is correct, I think we ought to have a duty to ensure that the person releasing the rights understands what they are doing, but I don't know to what WP policy has to say on this issue, if anything. I know I have released my rights on many photographs, and no one warned me, but then again, if you look at my work, no one is beating down my door offering to pay for it.
Even if the rule is that Terrile can release it as CC-SA, it appears that some other person is uploading the photos. Do we need to request OTRS confirmation?
I'll also note the existence of what I assume is an Italian version of the page, raising different issues. I have no experience in cross-language issues, but I assume we have guidelines when one article is a translation of another.
MRG, I'm not looking to dump this in your lap; I'm interested in taking the next steps (although I will be other of town until Friday) but I think you can see that there are several issues to be addressed, and I'd like us to sound like we know what we are talking about. We are already starting on the wrong foot because there was an original request on 4 October, which we didn't get to.
I'm tentatively considering a quick response, something like, "My initial reaction tot he article is quite positive. However, there are some issues raised. I want to get some feedback from other editors with more experience in certain areas. It may take a couple days, but I've added this article to my list of things to do, so it won't fall through the cracks this time."
(talk page stalker) Since it's not clear that the uploader is the same as the copyright holder and especially since they've used a different name, we need OTRS permission from the copyright holder for the images. The template (WP:CONSENT) that we ask people to send in to grant permission is pretty explicit about what the license entails.
The article at it:Alberto Terrile was created after the one here and by the same editor, so there aren't any attribution issues, and even if there were they would be at itwiki, and I don't really know how the procedure works there. If it was written there and then translated here we have {{Translated page}} to handle that situation.
Thanks VW. I'll take care of the specifc feedback on the article content. I know you are one of our image experts, so I'll look at how you tag the images and learn. Do you plan on placing a note at the editors talk page urging them to check the images to address the issues, or will that happen automatically?--SPhilbrickT19:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of their images were on commons, so I tagged them there and that's where the notification messages were left (not automatically, although there's a gadget which bundles it with the tagging). I'm also going to leave a short message here directing them to commons for the details. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I completed my feedback, and left a note at the editors talk page. My feedback mentioned that there were permission issues to be addressed separately.SPhilbrickT20:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, if you have time, would you mind looking at the above? Lilian Govey is a one-paragraph article, with all but one sentence paraphrased from Richard Dalby's The Golden Age of Children's Book Illustration (1991). Not sure whether it's close enough to count as a copyvio; or whether the words would be considered ordinary enough so that a degree of similarity was inevitable. The editor was not pleased by recent similar inquiries, so I thought I ought to check it with you, and ask what the procedure is (re: tagging, removing, deleting).
Dalby: "She illustrated several books for Harrap, Wells Gardner & Darton (under the pseudonym 'JL Gilmour', following a disagreement with this company), Dean (Dean's Happy Common Series; The Book of Happy Gnomes), Nelson (The Old Fairy Tales), and especially Humphrey Milford (The Rose Fairy Book; Nursery Rhymes from Animal Lands) who also employed her talents in several playbooks, Christmas annuals, and the 'Postcards for the Little Ones' Series."
"She spent most of her adult life in a remote Sussex cottage, where she where she became devoted to the study of local history, folk lore and spiritualism."
Wikipedia: "She illustrated for the publishers Harrap, Wells Gardner & Dean (using the pseudonym J.L. Gilmour), Dean, Nelson, and Humphrey Milford. Books include Dean's Happy Christmas Series, The Book of Happy Gnomes, The Old Fairy Tales, The Rose Fairy Book, and Nursery Rhymes from Animal Lands. For Humphrey Milford she illustrated several playbooks, Christmas annuals, and the Postcards for the Little Ones series. Govey passed most of her adult life in a remote Sussex cottage studying folklore, spiritualism, and local history."
Margaret Tarrant has two such paragraphs. The sources are this article by Denise Ortakales, and Richard Dalby's The Golden Age of Children's Book Illustration.
Dalby, p. 134: Besides her many children's books, Margaret Tarrant's postcards, calendars and silhouette designs were enormously popular. The plates in her edition of Nursery Rhymes (1914) were reissued as 48 bestselling postcards. Reproductions of her best-known painting, 'The Piper of Dreams', sold by the thousand to decorate sitting-rooms around the land. Her religious paintings achieved a great following in the 1920s and 1930s, especially 'He Prayeth Best', depicting a shepherd boy kneeling on a hilltop.
Wikipedia, citing Dalby: Besides her children's books, Tarrant's postcards, calendars, and silhouettes were extremely popular. Reproductions of The Piper of Dreams sold in the thousands, and the 48 plates from her best-selling Nursery Rhymes of 1914 were issued as sets of postcards. Her religious paintings of the 1920s and 1930s were extremely popular, especially He Prayeth Best, a depiction of a praying shepherd boy.
Ortakales: She has exhibited at the Royal Academy and the Royal Society of Artists in Birmingham. By 1953, her health and eyesight was deteriorating. Within a few years, she gave up her house in Peaslake to live with her friend Molly Brett in Cornwall. She died on 28 July 1959. She left her pictures to her friends and her estate to twelve charities.
Wikipedia, citing Dalby and Ortakales: She exhibited at the Royal Academy and the Royal Society of Artists in Birmingham. In the early 1950s, her health and eyesight deteriorated, and, within a few years, she left her house in Peaslake to join her friend Molly Brett in Cornwall. She died on 28 July 1959, leaving her pictures to friends and her estate to twelve charities.
Hi, Slim. :) Lilian Govey is a particular problem, as there's no question that we are doing anything transformative with the material. I believe that both of them need to be rewritten. Ordinarily, I would blank them and address my concerns with the contributor, but (in a case of "can you believe the timing") while you were leaving me this note, I was making this one. :/ I will add reference to this matter to the CCI listing. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Timing indeed. I've not really dealt with this kind of thing before (except for one-off copyvios I've spotted occasionally), so your guidance is much appreciated. If more problems appear, should we place them directly on the CCI page, rather than removing the material? Or both? SlimVirgintalk|contribs22:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your attention to it. :) Once a CCI is opened, we generally clean the material directly, if we can. Since this contributor so far hasn't shown a lot of interest in rewriting these problems, that seems like the best approach anyway. If we can't, we do block and hope that somebody rewrites it before it comes due for closure in a week. When I can, I save them, if nobody else does. The solution for the longer article is probably to stub it for now. The shorter one needs rewriting. --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You may wish to pay attention to the edits from Susanne2009NYC (talk·contribs); not only does this fit in with same plagiaristic pattern, I have suspicion to believe that this is a returned sock of a banned user. I am going to investigate into this, likely with CU. –MuZemike22:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in here. Reading the above set my antennae twitching re the article Ruth K. MacDonald. If you scroll down Susanne2009NYC (talk·contribs)'s Talk page history (sorry, haven't figured out how to provide diffs), you will see a short interchange between us on 8 November re a possible close paraphrasing of a book bio (which I still intend to fix - just haven't got round to it yet). Seemed innocent enough (if a bit careless) at the time. Now I'm wondering...Might be nothing to this but I thought worth mentioning --Plad2 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I initiated a deletion review Wikipedia:DRV#User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives.
It was closed early by an administrator who chose not to take a stand on whether it was a copyright violation.
That admin emailed me a tiny rump of the of the original page -- entirely worthless.
I left a message on their talk page not long afterwards, with what I intended to be some good faith questions about where to get the copyright issue resolved.
But they haven't been online in almost a week, and haven't responded.
I have however subsequently been emailed the full source.
I'd be very grateful if you would look at the deleted page.
Am I correct that the first of the three tables, the one on pages 69 through 84 of the original source is not copyrightable, because it is a list of facts, as per Feith v. Rural?
I acknowledge pages 85 through 90 contain some sentence fragments that contain interpretations, and that are not facts.
Do you think they are long enough to pass de minimus?
If they would pass de minimus, do you think a version of those tables where those handful of sentence fragments had been replaced, or rewritten would be no longer be a problem?
Another administrator who looked at the deleted page suggested that, even if the pages had a sprinkly of original text on it, they were so brief and so infrequent they would be includeable unde fair use. I acknowledge I am not satisfied with my current level of understanding of fair use. Does this make sense to you?
In your opinion, if material once lapsed from a policy, but is subsequently fixed, so it does comply, when is an administrator authorized to delete it, based on their concern over the earlier version?
I have done a lot of work on the Guantanamo captives habeas corpus cases -- probably hundreds of hours. This page, or a version of it, would be very useful to me as an
aid to correlating which captives were included in which habeas corpus petitions. I have doubts over whether the original deleting administrator's action was firmly based in policy.
But, if, for the sake of argument it was. A stripped down version of the page, that still allowed me to correlate the habeas petitions with the captives, would remain extremely useful to me.
(TPS) Geo Swan, keep in mind that whatever the outcome here, now that you have a copy of the text you are always free to keep it on your own computer with a utility program such as Notepad. You can copy-paste the text into an edit window and use Preview, all the links will work, you can update and re-save to your own PC and no-one in the world can stop you doing it. So long as you don't actually commit the edit to Wikipedia, no-one will even know you are doing it. It's not as convenient as actually keeping a page on the WMF server, but it does get the job done. Now back to our regular programming... Franamax (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) My opinions on this, of course, are just my opinions. That said, lists are only copyrightable to the extent that they are creative. If this list is, as it purports to be, a comprehensive list of individuals who were verifiably released or transferred from Guantanamo, the elements of the list should not be copyrightable. If different people compiling such a list would come up with different results (say, because what data to include is subjective) it would be. It looks uncreative to me, but I am not familiar with the standards applied. If the contents aren't creative, the only concern would be in the creativity of presentation. That the table is reproduced in the same format and with some of the same verbiage could be an issue if that format and verbiage are not standard. The inclusion of sentence fragments may lead to a greater interpretation of novelty there.
There are a lot of factors that go into determining if content is substantial and, if so, if use is fair. In determining if the the content is substantial, a court might examine how central the content is to their document and also how central it is to yours. If they decide that the content is substantial (either because the content is sizeable or central) to either, they might then determine a fair use defense. In both, your best bet is to use the content transformatively. It helps to make sure that you are not superseding the original, but that you are adding something new to scholarship by your use of it. I myself would feel far more comfortable using such information as part of a larger whole, whether that be critical analysis of the document or a greater review of the circumstances the document discusses.
If I wanted to use that information on Wikipedia, presuming I am confident that the selection of elements in the list do not represent creative selection, I would not reproduce their list structure, but would format the information differently, and I would enlarge the article with either sourced commentary about the document itself or other sourced commentary about the situation. Doing so increases the probability that the little bits of copyrighted content you do use will not be "substantial" and that, if they are found to be substantial, they would be excused as fair use. Rather than advising you to create a stripped down version, I would suggest plumping it up. :)
In terms of personal access to what there is, Franamax's advice is good. I actually did that very thing to review the deleted article: previewed it in my sandbox. :)
On the question of what to do with articles that have copyright problems in history but not in current version, typically these days we "rev delete" the infringing versions. I have to admit that this is a questionable practice. If the copyright infringement is effaced through gradual evolution, then we may well wind up with a derivative work. If you take the Mona Lisa and paint a bit here and paint a bit there, you may eventually wind up with a painting that looks very different than the Mona Lisa, but which can still be shown to have the Mona Lisa as its base. There are some who would argue that all subsequent edits to the infringement are akin to "fruit of the poisonous tree" and that we should replace such articles with complete rewrites. Currently, though, this is not the way policy on Wikipedia is written. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl, you state that "If different people compiling such a list would come up with different results (say, because what data to include is subjective) it would be." (copyrightable, that is). Considering that the list as copied was divided into three sections, "CERTAIN", "IMPERFECT DOCUMENTATION" and "LIMITED DOCUMENTATION – TENTATIVE CONCLUSION", it looked and looks to me as if other people researching the same data may well reach different conclusions, certainly with regards to sections 2 and 3. Things like a "tentative conclusion" are by definition subjective and uncertain. Fram (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. Since the page numbers did not correspond to the document I'm looking at (69 begins with "Rukniddin Fayziddinovich"), when he asked about the "first of these three tables" I thought he meant the one marked "Certain" in the first appendix, with the others considered separate tables. That's why I referred to a comprehensive list of individuals who were verifiably released or transferred from Guantanamo. Most certainly the "tentative conclusion" would be a subjective compilation. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl,
I'm looking to find out if Wikipedia has any images of paintings by Jacob Lawrence or other African American painters for an article I'm rewriting. Don't remember what I did with that search link you gave me a while back. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Malke. :) The place to look for images is Commons. There, they are categorized just as articles are categorized here. I start by putting "category:Jacob Lawrence" into the search menu, and, voila: Commons:Category:Jacob Lawrence. You can then see at the bottom of the page that it is part of a parent category of Commons:Category:African American artists. I checked for a cat for African American painters, but there isn't one. You can browse through the artists category to see what you come up with. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was doing the right thing but apparently it was "too close paraphrasing". I looked at the case page (or whatever it is) and didn't understand it. It looks all too complicated for me. I'm willing to cooperate but I don't know what you want me to do. It's impossible for me to go back and clean this stuff up. Just blank the pages. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ILT
MRG, this is going to be one awfully big CCI.
I'm going to be traveling Thursday, preparing tomorrow, but I've started:
The most amazing piece is that some reviewers are still disgruntled that I demand source checks, and am asking for a COPYVIO check on every nominator. There is such a thing as a library still, right ? :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sandy. I'll take a look at it. I've got a lot to do today I'm sure to make up for yesterday's absence and to prepare for tomorrow's planned absence, but I plan to try to poke into it a bit while I can. The actual CCI is now listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Susanne2009NYC. The good news is that as CCIs go, there aren't that many articles. The bad news is that the contributor's content is quite enmeshed. I would hope that this case would help bring more attention to bear on the problem. Now that we've confirmed socking here, we see that this contributor has violated copyright under other accounts. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the other accounts yet, is this going to have to be expanded to every confirmed and suspected sock or has anyone else checked yet? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verno, I'm sorry I can't be of more help. I've only checked Kathyrncelestewright (talk·contribs). Many of the other accounts were only used to harass FA reviewers, so the copyvio may be confined to only a few accounts. In my absence, you all can do whatever you need with that subpage of mine, but I suspect that if you go through all the socks and pick out the GAs first, those will be the hardest ones to tackle. Lots of DYKs, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'll be going through all of them today and expanding the CCI whenever I come across any substantial contributions by other (suspected) socks so that we don't miss any. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where to report this since the ILT stuff is all over the place now, but you may know how to deal with this. I found this image File:Old Mr. Prickly Pin.JPG which was uploaded by Susanne2009NYC and by now has been moved to commons, even though it shouldn't have been since none of Potter's illustrations are PD in the UK. She has several more uploaded pics at commons too:[1]Siawase (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl - a quick update. The Story of Miss Moppet is getting a good scrubbing; some editors from Wikiproject novels have stepped forward to offer help; and I'll continue to chip away at these articles - moving on to the GAs next. I haven't updated the CCI yet (actually don't know how) and don't want to until I know Miss Moppet is entirely clear - hopefully by tomorrow. Am busy workwise for the next few days, but will get in as much night work as I can. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too often great editors like you are overlooked and not given the credit deserved for all their great contributions. So I am awarding you this barnstar to let you know I greatly appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, and please keep up the outstanding work!!CTJF83chat03:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost a week ago a message appeared on my talk page regarding possible copy violations with the Wikipedia article on Jenny Morris (musician), I indicated to User:124.176.58.238 that the article's talk page was a more appropriate venue for the discussion. I transferred the material there and also posted the concerns, as I understood them, at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 November 11 but have received no response. Since that time, User:124.176.58.238 has repeatedly deleted a segment of the article (and sources) which has been reverted by myself and by two other editors. Subsequent edits by User:124.176.58.238 have added the claim that the information is "taken from my bio". I believe this is information which is independently verifiable and that no copy violation has occurred.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Articles listed for copyright review are not typically examined by an administrator until after seven days, to give contributors an opportunity to address them, as by obtaining permission or rewriting. This is why nobody has looked at it yet. But I'll go take a look now; just let me quickly scan my talk page to make sure there aren't any emergencies waiting this morning. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your cool and conciliatory tone is a pleasure. Thanks for the expanding the details on copyright. I thought the IP was representing Jenny Morris, at first, and couldn't understand where there was a problem.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Internet Archive
Hi again MRG, if you have time (and there's no rush), I was wondering if I could ask you about using the Internet Archive when checking for copyvios.
I tagged Wanda Gág as a copyvio today because several paragraphs are identical to this webpage, which seems no longer to be online, but which I found on the Internet Archive.
I want to be certain that it was Wikipedia copying the website and not the other way round. The material was added to Wikipedia in November 2006 in this edit. So far as I can tell that material has been on the website since before November 2006. There is an Internet Archive log of the website's pages here, and if you go into, say, the March 2004 version, you can click through to a list of illustrators here (which has the year 2004 in its URL), and from there to the page our article seems to copy from.
I have one small concern, and that is that the actual webpage for Wanda Gág does not have its own URL. That is, to get to (what I assume is) the March 2004 version, I have to click on the list of illustratrators for that month, and then click on Wanda Gág, but the URL doesn't change. So I'm not sure how I can be 100 percent certain that some of the Gág material is not from a later date. I'm wondering if there's a way to nail it down, i.e. to date that particular webpage.
Yes, I am being an idiot. There is indeed a way to get a URL for the webpage that contains the dates going all the way back. Sorry to trouble you! This is what happens when I try to do anything even slightly technical. :) SlimVirgintalk|contribs15:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'd already noticed you'd tagged it and have already deleted it. :) It's another one of those cases where, just because one version was a copyvio, doesn't mean the other was clean. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could you take a look at East Indians, was tagged as copyvio a while back, and then I went on wikation and someone removed the tag. I don't see an OTRS note and the site doesn't seem to have a release note either, the article history has the tags etc. It popped up on my watchlist now and I remembered! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff21:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, I had asked Iridescent to look over an article that I had worked on some time ago Edward M. Cotter (fireboat) for copyright/plagerism problems and she suggested I contact you. I want to be sure that I'm not holding too close to my sources and if changes should be made. I realize that you're busy but if you could look at the SS Canadiana article for similar problems. I have also printed and read the pdf about plagiarism and it is helpful. Thanks Shinerunner(talk)22:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I'm glad you found it useful! I appreciate your attention to these concerns, and I'm happy to give an opinion. I probably won't be able to get it done today, though, as my Wikipdia time is pretty much over. :) Did you cite all the sources you used? --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there has been some activity today on the Sassy Pandez page, and some additional references have been added as a result. You may remember that when we first can discussing this page a couple of years we requested that my clients full name was removed from the page for personal safety reasons, but the new references that have been added today include this name, which again raises a very real personal safety issue. Please can we discuss this further, ideally on my Talk page. Thanks. AquilaUK (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been sometime since we last talked. I noticed that you closed Eastern chipmunk because of suspected copyright violations. Frankly, I think your action was overkill. I tried to find the sentence you gave as an example but could not find it anywhere in the article. I also noticed that many reputable editors have been contributing to the article and now their efforts have been lost. Can you clarify what parts of the article are violations? It is not obvious in such a long and well edited article. This is a rather important article since it is a well known, well loved, and common animal. It should not be blanked out for long. Cheers. DGERobertson01:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The article has been blanked for evaluation. It will be addressed in a week. As I said at the talk page, it has been heavily edited by a banned serial copyright infringer who has both pasted content wholesale from copyrighted sources and minimally altered copyrighted content. All the content she has added will need to be evaluated or presumptively removed. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime for a few examples. If you would prefer, we can revert back to this version until we can separate out her content for review.
Thanks for the prompt response. I fixed my signature problem. I did check out this user's status. It is an odd case. Most of the edits that were made by the user were pretty harmless. It is going to be very difficult to cut out the copyright violations from the good edits and the good edits by reputable contributors. Dger (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the sig. :) It is going to be difficult, I agree. The challenge is going to be that she used book sources and we can't access them all. Given her history, if we can't find the sources and compare and clear, we have to presume that they are a problem. There are some contributors looking into her fiction-related articles who have access to her sources. I don't suppose you'd have access to the sources she used on animals, would you? :) I can see some of the book mentioned here through Google preview, but many of the books she's used are snippet view only or not even that. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing the signature problem. No I don't have her book sources. I would need to check a library. Right now I am too busy to deal with this case. Prehaps in a few weeks. Dger (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fair use
Hi Moonriddengirl. Could you have a quick look at this fair use rational being claimed for the infobox of a living person, seems a bit weak to me, I have nominated it at files for deletion here - seems like a very weak excuse for fair use to me .. thoughts? No hurry, no worry. Off2riorob (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rob. :) I'm afraid that one's beyond me. I find our non-free rules on people puzzling. There is an exception made for "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance" where "a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career", but when you look at that deeply, you have to ask: how do we know that we can't acquire a picture taken during their career? For that matter, how do we know that we can't acquire a free picture taken during the lifetime of a dead person? There is an additional complicating factor here that I don't really know how we take into account: personality rights. Japan is keen on those. See this, for instance. That might certainly affect our likelihood of getting a free image. But is that a factor to be considered? I don't know. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the mystery deepens, thanks Moon for the comments, I'm grateful for your experience. Lets see, what others there think, I would say the fair use on that pic is only to represent her in that movie and not to represent her overall appearance in the infobox, if the rationale is acceptable then , thousands of fair use pictures could be claimed in a similar manner .. retired, likes their privacy . seems a bit of a weak claim to me, lets see, regards. That link is interesting to the Japan portrait rights, but I doubt if wiki using USA law would comply with that, personality rights is another matter, I will have to have at some detail as to how that affects usage, seems to me that it is being used as a kind of disclaimer, add the template and at least you posted the warning for people wanting to reuse the pic and the same rational as us. Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no. We don't comply with that; we have a template on Commons specifically about personality rights. The point is simply that obtaining a free picture of Japanese celebrities is challenging, because you cannot simply snap a shot of them legally in Japan. But, again, I don't know if that's factored in at all. I agree with you that the rationale is weak, but that's why I'm puzzled by our rules on non-free images of people. :) I have a hard time understanding how, for example, a musician's notability could rest on his visual appearance. I don't understand why we can use images of actors in roles (Bella Swan, for example) in articles about those characters when the notability of the character does not rest in the appearance. (Do we need a non-free image of the actress to understand "teenage girl"?) But we can't use non-free images in the articles about the actors. Why can we use non-free images of actors in articles about soap opera characters when those actors often periodically change? I myself wrote FURS several years back for a couple of pictures of dead people that showed up at WP:CP, before we stopped listing them there. One of those images was subsequently deleted as an NFC problem at what was then IfD. The other one, listed at WP:NFCR, was kept. I could see absolutely no difference in their usage. From that point, I've sought clarification a couple of times, but have never received it to my satisfaction. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is happening a bit willy nilly, and on a personal basis, loose interpretation of the policy, many users want to use more non free pictures. I see this as going against the mission of the foundation in regard to non free usage foundation licencing policy is the resolution on which our non free use policy rests. - Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the discussion supports their right to have that non free picture then would they be able to add any non free picture they like to the infobox, and also to the infoboxs of any Japanese retired porno model or sex worker or the like that we have no commons compatible licensed picture for using the same rational.
I'm familiar with it, but I'm afraid that I can't really spread myself too thin here. With over 40 CCIs and a constant rotating copyright problem list, I'm afraid I can't even keep up with the work I have. :/ I would love to see some clear and consistent approach for NFC images, but getting one ironed out is beyond me at this point. Since I've never worked with image issues outside of Wikipedia, I've chosen to focus on the area with which I am familiar: text. Anyway, hopefully a clear, policy-derived consensus will emerge. If consensus emerges that is not consistent with policy, I hope the admin who closes it will recognize that. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so also. Many thanks Moon, I was kinda bouncing some thought of you. As usual it has been beneficial. I am seeking Vernon's assistance as well in another matter, I though, seeing as I voted in his RFA. hehe. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your future's so bright I gotta wear shades!
The Barnstar of Awesomeness
Please accept a belated (but very sincere) "Thank You" for the time and effort you put into writing those two Copyright articles for The Bugle. I believe I've also managed to find an award you haven't actually got yet. EyeSerenetalk13:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, this barnstar was hand-drawn by a University of British Columbia student during the FA-Team's first mission... and is unofficially the coolest (and officially the least tasteful) barnstar on the 'pedia. Enjoy :) EyeSerenetalk13:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WhooT! Thank you very much! :D I was pleased by the opportunity, and you're right: I've never had that one. I need to update my barnstars subpage soon, so I can put it in my permanent display! --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And another one
The Barnstar of Diligence
Presented with many thanks for your hard work in explaining and fixing copyright violations, for raising awareness of the pitfalls, and for helping to keep Wikipedians on the side of the angels. SlimVirgintalk|contribs13:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this contains some added info and corrections.
do guard it ..i mean u may check it and ensure if at all some idiots make wrong chnages u will revert to my version ..Shrik88music (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to read over it or to guard it. (Which wouldn't be appropriate anyway.) Hopefully, other interested contributors will pitch in. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moonriddengirl. I'm in contact with the people who sent the message with the permission. May I ask you what's missing there? Is it the correct license? I'd like to let them know, as they're quite confused (they know very little about copyright policy of Wikipedia, and my explanation (I wrote them an e-mail) was perhaps unclear.) Thanks for any hints. Kind regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) It is a specific license and a clear connection between the letter and the website. They may by this point have received their response, which I hope will make the situation clear. They have not yet replied. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please help - I have letters of authority and need to submit proof to Wikipedia for usage of Pictures
Hi Moonriddengirl, I have made a few posts on my talk but have not received any feedback from Administrators so I'm communicating directly with you as you helped me previously. I now have three letters of authorisation to use pictures on the 44 Parachute Brigade (South Africa) article and would like to know how I can proceed from here. Can you please reply and give me guidance?
MRG, I'm going through Indian actor cats to eliminate copyvio images (finished Category:Tamil actors so far), and I came across this image. I have no reason to not believe that the editor who uploaded this is the painter, but his website seems to be selling this image through a third party site with a certain copyright policy. I don't see an OTRS ticket either. The editor is not active currently, so I'm not sure leaving a talk page message would help. What should be done here? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff17:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tag it with {{npd}} on both projects. (I always put a brief note explaining why, such as "Published here; need to verify identity.) It would be a shame to lose it! Hope he follows through. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be verifiable ID. For most of the world, that means a passport; most countries don't have ID cards or photographic driving licences. – iridescent13:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They don't, really? :O </clueless American> It's funny the things you take for granted. I was just thinking a few days ago about how built-in furniture is the norm in these parts in kitchens, but nowhere else. (Unless you count closets, which are a kind of permanent wardrobe.) Why not use freestanding furniture in kitchens so that they can also be rearranged? (Excepting plumbing pieces, of course.) Or why not use built-in furniture elsewhere? --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of countries have them, but it's a case of where they're distributed. Canada, Ireland, Australia and the UK all don't have ID cards (the UK briefly experimented with optional ID cards a couple of years ago but they've since been abolished); since—the US aside—those countries represent the vast majority of Wikipedia's editor base, it leaves passports as the only practical form of ID for most non-US users. If you really want to lose the will to live, there's a full list of which countries do and don't have ID cards at List of national identity card policies by country. Britain recently introduced photographic driving licences, but they're for new applicants only and not retrospective; my UK driving licence is just a sheet of green paper with my name and a list of vehicle classes I'm permitted to drive. I believe the situation is similar in most other countries. – iridescent14:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the reason i put it was to indicate that semi protection is needed....to notify it i have even given a written statementShrik88music (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thanks for what u did now .. this is the same thing i had asked for....there are very few people like u , hebrides and e ripley who edit articles fruitfully other wise there are some who just dont want to contribute fruitfullyShrik88music (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you did some work removing copyvios from this terribly written article, and archived part of the talk page. I had already archived it and it looks like you might have archived my archive (nested archives??) but that's not what I'm here about. On the archive that I created, I left in a section that was a blatant copyvio so I could review it and possibly rewrite it, but I never got around to it. And I shouldn't have left it in the first place. I've removed the "introductory text" bit from the archive page, but you may want to go further and remove it from the page history, which I can't do. Ivanvector (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. :) It is a terribly written article, isn't it? I considered trying to fix it up while cleaning the copyright concerns, but alas I've got too much copyright work outstanding and it would take me some time to figure it all out. I just lack the background. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, I'm a professional accountant and I can't make sense of what the editors are trying to say. Needs a complete rewrite. I've considered doing it myself a number of times. Ivanvector (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text you are TAGGING as copyvio has been altered thus complying with the set of Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA 3.0 policy. Yes, the article was once tagged as copyvio although it has now been altered or changed. You may just be saying that a article may be deleted if it had any copyvio a year ago. It is in the history but you must understand it has been changed! Thank you. Jaime07099620:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed your post here, and saw the backwards copy vio template at the top of the page. Of course it's a great idea to tag articles in that way, but I wonder if it would be even more useful if instead of (or as well as) posting your comments to the talk page, as you did, the template could be altered to have a "show/hide" section in which your comments could be pasted. That way a future editor who comes across the apparently copyvioed text would be able to see the results of your work and not have to wonder whether you made a mistake. Do you think this would be useful? Mike Christie(talk)13:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look here; Geometry guy has implemented a test version. I think it looks fine. If you like it, I'll let him know to move it over the current template; or do you think some discussion is needed there first? I don't think it's necessary myself -- it seems an unexceptionable improvement. Mike Christie(talk)16:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was feeling moderately pleased with the idea myself when I came here to say thanks, but then I noticed that I apparently linked "here" to here, rather than Geometry guy's talk page, in my post above, which cancels out any sense of cleverness I might have had. Oh, well. Perhaps I can blame wikEd, which I'm still getting used to. Anyway, glad it worked out, and thanks for the barnstar! Mike Christie(talk)18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hello i have been observing the comments posted in shrik88music talk page .
thier some of the users kept on telling him that wiki wants exactly the same things as written in the source.i would hve modified like how shrik has been doing.
now its getting absolutely confusing as to what is needed.
why a double stance is being taken . there is bound to be copyright issue if directly scenetnce is copied so why not modify the words?
as far as links are concerned they are authentic and info needs to be added .
why dont you help in incorporating the info i had copy pasted?Quicklight (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i will wait for a day and see whether the so called editors who opposed are genuinely interested in contributing to the article.
i would modify the words and sentences and ensure the info i had pasted comes in separate para. can u recommend me some like minded individuals..who can help in modifying the sentences.
info was vital to make all wiki readers of future to understand that he formed "popular on screen" or hit pairs with those 7 actresses in particular.Quicklight (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rajesh Khanna redux
Hi Moonriddengirl, sorry to bother you with this, but if you have a minute, could you take a look at Talk:Rajesh Khanna and comment on the text I've suggested there, in the section Talk:Rajesh_Khanna#whats_the_issue? I'm a little worried about the words "popular on-screen pairs" which is the same wording as in this source; there may be a better way of phrasing it so we can avoid it altogether, but perhaps a three-word noun phrase wouldn't constitute a copyright problem? After all, there is a limited number of ways you can express the concept, and I imagine that if "popular on-screen pairs" is a copyright problem, then e.g. "popular pairs on the screen" would also be problematic. Quoting the source verbatim might conceivably work, of course, but there are already quite a lot of direct citations in the article. (I think I may have spent too much time reading about this, today, and my brain is shutting down. There are probably ten obvious rephrasings that would remove the problem altogether :-) ) Anyway, I'd appreciate it tremendously if you could weigh in on this particular issue. --bonadeacontributionstalk19:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly be a trifle too small to worry about at worst, but if you want clear separation, what about "Also popular were his pairings in the 1980s with yada yada yada"? If you retain what you have, I don't think there's an issue, but you're welcome to use that approach if you like, with no need to attribute me. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Garside
Moonriddengirl, In 2007 Mr. Garside got his world record which is WHY this person became an editor in 2007. They drove this article into an edit war because they are an opponent of Mr. Garside. They have, on and off, been edit warring with Mr. Garside for years under different names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 11:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For one, Mr. Garside has the world record and here, the weighting is wrong. We have been into this before with Wikipedia UK (legal) and I will not revisit the same discussion as was discussed in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 12:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to answer you, stop writing on my page and wait for me to do so, please. I cannot reply if you are changing the page as I am typing.
Yes, we've been into this before. UK Legal has no authority, period. It doesn't matter what they think or say.
There's little point in pretending that you have no connection to Mr. Garside; either you are Mr. Garside or you work for him, as you claim copyright of File:India Gate Monument Start.jpg and you are solely interested in his article. By contrast, this user has thousands of contributions stretching back years and has edited this article for the first time on November 20, 2010. Are you really suggesting that he registered three years ago and put in all those edits just so that they can edit this article on one day? Edit warring on material like this? --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No tangible reason to change the article as it stood on 19th November has been asserted. Therefore one assumes that the edit that is negative towards Mr. Garside has been conducted by the same detractors who did this in 2007 and 2009. We cannot allow this kind of harrassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 12:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, YOU own the article do you? Negative and unwarranted edits are not acceptable. We have been through this before, for years. What was wrong with the article as it stood on 19th November 2010? Do explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dromeaz (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of harrassment? Are you honestly asserting that because User:UnicornTapestry made changes like this:
"Guinness World Records certified that The first fully-authenticated run around the world record" to "Guinness World Records certified the first fully-authenticated run around the world record"[3]
that he must secreetly be affiliated with somebody who dislikes Mr. Garside and hence cannot be permitted to edit the article?
Nobody has to explain to you what's wrong with the article. By contrast, if they enter content that is problematic, you can address that. But you cannot simply revert because you liked the way it used to be. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl, I really do not want to get into a dispute with you over this, but frankly, no changes to this article are warranted. Can you explain why this article needs to be changed at all? Please note that on 19th November, just 3 days ago, the article was fine and since then aggressive changes took place, that we do not agree with. We know who is doing it and we intend to protect the reputation of this living person, Robert Garside. Wikipedia has a policy on living person and with regards to the article itself, there has been a long history of personal attacks against Robert Garside, I think you know this.
