:::::Thanks for the help. Don't know what happened there. On the other thing, [[Content fork]] seems to be the thing on these AfD's. I guess you could say POV content fork, but looking over the article it's really a duplication of about 14 other Mary articles. A lot of it is verbatim, too. :/ [[User:Malke 2010|Malke 2010]] ([[User talk:Malke 2010|talk]]) 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for the help. Don't know what happened there. On the other thing, [[Content fork]] seems to be the thing on these AfD's. I guess you could say POV content fork, but looking over the article it's really a duplication of about 14 other Mary articles. A lot of it is verbatim, too. :/ [[User:Malke 2010|Malke 2010]] ([[User talk:Malke 2010|talk]]) 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::As a general rule of thumb, you should presume that the people who look at the AfD will have no familiarity whatsoever with articles on Mary. The "regulars" may know what's going on, but those who just happen upon the listing at AfD will see the situation as set out there. For that reason, it's a good idea to be very clear and explicit at AfD about what it is that makes an article undesirable. I don't do a lot at AfD (can't remember the last article I nominated), but I generally think it's a good idea to point out the policy and what it is about the article that makes it out of line. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::As a general rule of thumb, you should presume that the people who look at the AfD will have no familiarity whatsoever with articles on Mary. The "regulars" may know what's going on, but those who just happen upon the listing at AfD will see the situation as set out there. For that reason, it's a good idea to be very clear and explicit at AfD about what it is that makes an article undesirable. I don't do a lot at AfD (can't remember the last article I nominated), but I generally think it's a good idea to point out the policy and what it is about the article that makes it out of line. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
== Deleted Page ==
Hello Moonriddengirl!
I was the admin for a page you deleted, and I hate to admit, but as I'm new to wikipedia I can't even seem to get logged back in.
17:01, 25 October 2010 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) deleted "Automotive Fleet & Leasing Association (AFLA)" (Listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over seven days)
There shouldn't be any copyright problems on that page, as we are the holder of the copyrighted materials. Were there just additional references that were needed? This page was a lot of work and is linked to by the Association and our Publications. Can you please assist me in bringing this page back up, or advising what I need to do to bring it back?? My boss will kill me that it's down.
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 22:40, 4 October 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
I'm confused. :/ What did he do, sew one himself and take a picture of it? Take a picture of one at a museum somewhere? I'm not sure if the emblem itself is creative enough to generate copyright protection; I'll get some feedback on that question. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not need to sew one myself or need to visit a museum. I have a number of such Polish forced worker patches in my collection of Polish WWII artifacts that either belonged to my family or similar Polish familes whose members were deported to Germany as forced workers during WWII. So the original
belongs to me from my perosnal collection and I took a photograph of one particular version which was a better image than the image I replaced.
Hope this clears up any confusion in a satisfactory manner?
Krgds Sjam2004 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It clarifies where you got the image, thanks, but it does not clarify the underlying question of whether the emblem itself is copyrightable, I'm afraid. Owning the object does not give you copyright of it; for example, you may own a modern painting, but you cannot take pictures of it and license them to the public. As I said, I'm not sure if the emblem is creative enough to generate copyright protection, and I have sought feedback. If it is not, then your using your own picture is perfectly acceptable. If it is, then there are complications. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I think you will find you are wrong re modern art. The purchaser does own the copyright to the painting after the sale not the artist, and as a conseqeunce reproductions of the painting are the copyright of the artwork owner not the artist, it is the same with an original photographic positive or transparency (however not for an original print from an original negative as the photographer usually retains copyright in negative images but not positives sold to clients). But you are correct I do not own the copyright to the
emblem itself which is in the public domain as are most design works produced by state authorites, I only copyright entitlement to the photographic image of the emblem.
Krgds Sjam2004 (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, absolutely I am not wrong about that. Owning a piece of art does not give you copyright ownership of it, any more than owning a DVD gives you copyright ownership of the movie or owning a book gives you copyright ownership of the content. Don't confuse ownership of the item with ownership of the intellectual property, which requires a transfer by law. Most designs produced by state authorities are actually not public domain; see Wikipedia:Public domain for a little more information on that. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good for Poland! Would that all governments were so generous. :/ Do you have any idea about the basic question of the degree of creativity? Images are not my area, really, and while I am myself inclined to think that this emblem lacks sufficient creativity for copyright protection, I really don't want to be wrong there. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't german copyright law apply here instead of Polish? I personally think it lacks creativity. Whatever the decision, it should also apply to the yellow badge. Yoenit (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this would be German copyright law. I may just trot this off to one of the Commons help boards. They consider it quite a lot, and if there is a free image available of this item, it should be placed there anyway so that it can be accessed from all projects. For now, I've got to get a cake! --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I think there is some confusion between copyright (IP) ownership of an orignal work and a replication or a reproduction of an copy of an original where there is no transfer of absloute title as used in the example bewteen a DVD copy of a movie and the absolute title of ownership of an original painting. Or is the contention that if a living artist were to die their heirs would have claim to the copyright to pictures in my collection at some point in the future? Od course I could not claim the creative work was my own but I am able to claim copyright to the reproduction of the original image which is why most artworks held in collections when published are attributed as " Reproduced courtesy of the xxxx collection" whether it is the a private or institutional collection etc. However this is a long way away from the simple 'P' patch photo I used in the Forced Labour articles. Of course I am happy for you to ammend any copyright details for it to be entirely copyright free which is what I thought I had done apart from commericial usage? But if this is an obstacle then please feel free to ammned the copyright notice :-)Sjam2004 (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the heirs may have claim to the copyright of pictures which you own. When you buy a picture, you own the item, but you can't legally make copies of the item you own unless in addition to purchasing the art work you have also purchased the copyright or a license permitting you to do so. See [2] for a brief explanation: "Unlike a car, a work of art has two separate and divisible property rights: the actual work itself and the copyright therein. An artist can sell, give away, or otherwise transfer the actual physical work of art, yet he/she still maintains ownership of the copyright, unless stated otherwise in writing." As it notes, among the exclusive rights of the artist is the right to make copies. How long they maintain that exclusive right varies by country. In the United States, the law runs for 75 years after the death of the artist, during which time copyright ownership is indeed in his heirs. The originals of images reproduced "courtesy of" are generally copyright expired, though I'm sure there are some cases where rights have been conveyed or where the "courtesy" is afforded to the copyright owner.
In the matter of this image, I'd been waiting for feedback, as I said, on whether the image was creative enough for the copyright in the original to even be a concern. I asked a Commons admin, since this is more within their scope of work, and he also doesn't think that its copyrightable. As the underlying image is uncreative, there should be no problem with your taking a photograph of it and releasing it under any license you please. In fact, it looks like this really should be on Commons, where it is available to even more people. :) I would suggest that you add more information into the "source" description. The image is even more powerful knowing that it is not a reproduction. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news. I've added the move-to-commons template, and barring any objections, I'll move it myself in a few days (but if anybody wants to do it earlier, please go ahead). I'd also suggest that this discussion is copied to or linked from the image's talk page (so that if anybody in the future raises questions about the applicable copyright, they can read this exchange). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blow molding
Thank you for cleaning up the copywrite violations of Blow Molding. However, you blanked out all of the edits for a long time. Some of these are deletions are valid and should be added again. We cannot view the past edits to reconsider them. Please let us look at the deleted edits for us to restore valid ones. Thank you. Pkgx (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have temporarily restored the hidden edits from 13:03, 27 February 2009 to give you an opportunity to mine any usable content. Please be sure that you don't resurrect anything placed by User:Aikshahchaodannanajia or anything added by subsequent contributors that interacted with that user's content in a way that would constitute a derivative work. The safest way to avoid creating a new copyright problem is to extract information but rewrite it from scratch, as the template formerly blanking the article recommended. I'll list the article again at WP:CP so that those edits may be redeleted in about a week. Thanks for your interest in helping to clean up this copyright problem. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient permission?
While editing the Hal Abelson article I saw a note at the bottom of the page stating that the article contained information from the subject's personal website and that permission was granted to use the material. I went to the talk page to confirm (via OTRS ticket or somesuch) and there is a copy of an email posted wherein it appears that permission was indeed granted, however I'm doubtful that a cut and paste of the purported permission is sufficient to meet Wikipedia's copyright policies. Do you have any advice as to how to proceed? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots19:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Since I can't really look at it at the moment, here's what I'd do: if the content is brief, remove it for now and ask the contributor to confirm via the processes at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. I'd place the {{cclean}} at the article's talk, as it includes instructions for verifying. If it is extensive and cannot be easily extracted, replace the page or section with {{copyvio}} and list it at CP, giving the contributor the generated notice with a little extra added telling him that while you see he says he has permission, he does need to verify this through the requisite procedures. Thanks for following up; you're quite right that a cut and paste e-mail on a talk page doesn't meet those requirements! --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Context for the travellers: The statement of permission, in the form of an e-mail reproduced on the talk page, was added in 2003, before OTRS, and looking at the copyvio note posted back in the day, in accordance with what was then practice. Obviously since OTRS our standards but also means to verify have risen dramatically. Which begs the question what we do with the old stuff.
We have two choices, either accept the old permission as valid and leave it at this (until and unless the owner complains), or edit out / go back to the owner and ask them for a better permission. The latter is a bit of a slippery slope though - if every time we change our permissions system we need to get back and re-request permission, you can figure where that leads.
An argument could be made that contrary to OTRS, the old system didn't guarantee that the permission was genuine, and while it's a fair point, challenging that automatically assumes bad faith from every contributor who conformed to the practice of pre-OTRS days. In my unqualified opinion, I suggest that we edit out what can be remedied but otherwise accept those old statements of permission as valid until challenged. MLauba(Talk)13:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! This is a tough one. :/ The permission given wouldn't pass muster today, of course, because it's specific to Wikipedia. Maybe I'll ask the OTRS list? I'd usually shoot this one by our attorney, but we don't have a regular one at the moment. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've written just to see if there's a precedent that I don't know about. :) I have to note that the permission even at the time shouldn't have been usable. Prior to the placement of that note, copyright policy was already clear that permission had to be "to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license", and there's no suggestion that our license was ever even mentioned to this guy. I think regardless of standard practice, we're going to have to go route 2 with this one. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another (talk page stalker) comment. I think this is exactly the type of quesiton that needs a much wider community input. My slant is that "back in the day" Wikipedia allowed a lot of things which are no longer allowed without very explicit information about. This thread relates to text but for images it seems there was a bit more of a specific stance taken when Jimbo finally made the announcement that Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted in May of 2005. I don't see where any such statement was ever made about text. Although this in one of those "common sense" items that does not seem work in reverse. Most editors/admins would agree that use of full text from, say, a book is a clear copyvio and would be fairly silly to accept a non specific comment of "Sure go ahead" as permission to reprint everything. With files (images in particular) many editors/admins don't have any problem with using a full image and saying that "sure go ahead" is permission enough. Some don't even need that much, feeling a "self" license tag with zero other information is fine. And this is seen with current files, not just pre-2005 ones. I agree that "the old system didn't guarantee that the permission was genuine" but due to 2010 policies and growth of users I don't feel that "challenging that automatically assumes bad faith from every contributor who conformed to the practice of pre-OTRS days." But I know for a fact both Moonriddengirl and myself have been questioned and "attacked" when challenging some of these older "permissions". I don't believe there is any sort of blanket "grandfathering" for these permissions. It does need a wider audience I feel - at a foundation level would be great, but I don;t see that happening much anymore. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recent IP editor at her article and talkpage could be a banned sockpuppeteer. Consider name at bottom of Jenny Morris - Bio website. IP acknowledged this was their site, not the official jennymorris.com
Hi. :) I'm traveling so I'm afraid I can't really look very deeply into this at the moment, but I've tagged the IP as a suspected sock. It seems quite likely. If the other "accounts" used to access Wikipedia were also IPs, I'm not sure if there's much use in digging those up, even if we could (since he may have moved on), but certainly if there are other named accounts it would be good to get those tagged! --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CCI bot
Following discussion above I've started work on a CCI bot (my first bot) and have it reading from CCI pages quite happily and assessing some of the diffs. I may have gone a bit mad in what I'm currently thinking of getting this bot to do - see User:Dpmuk/DpmukBOT. Any comments (from Moonriddengirl or any talk page stalkers) on the relevant talk page would be much appreciated. Dpmuk (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I like some of the ideas there quite a lot. Automated opening of CCIs seems like a good time-saver to me, if we can do things like determine parameters of how many articles can be listed on a given page. With regards to the different sections, would the bot be the one to move those articles around? If so, that could work quite well. :) I am confused, though: why did the bot say this edit is okay? Did it do a mechanical scan for copying? If so, I'd prefer some other method of noting that it didn't find matches than strikethrough, because that's exactly the kind of thing that needs human evaluation. A glance at [3], I see the following text:
In the middle of the picture the cracks tend to run parallel to the short sides. They spread from the middle towards the stressed locked edges, while the cracks starting at the short sides curl round as shown in the diagram.
In the edit, I see:
In the middle of the picture the cracks tend to run parallel to the short sides. They spread from the middle towards the stressed locked edges, while the cracks starting at the short sides curl round. The stress at the corners is more than double that of the center.
Don't know if there's more than that, but I suspect that content could use review. :)
Yep, random diffs to show an example! Sorry, should have made that clearer. I do intend to post a proper example but I want to do a bit more testing and tinkering myself first. Hope to have an example in the next few days but am currently rather tired after a Scout training weekend so won't be doing any tonight. Obviously even then getting an up and running bot will still be some way off. Dpmuk (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and yes, the bot would move things around in the lists depend on {{y}} and {{n}} tags (from the little bit of CCI work I've done trying to see which articles have been checked and which haven't is irritatingly difficult). I'm currently intending to have a full mock up working in the Bot's user pages for comments before letting it anywhere near the real thing. Dpmuk (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am just wondering why the information about William H. Young, 17th President of The National Association of Letter Carriers, was deleted. I know this may sound silly but he is my husband of over 25 years and every now and then I like to look at the page and remember some of his wonderful accomplishments. I understand that there are probably not many people who would be concerned about someones page being deleted, but it was to me,a testiment to his 40 years of contributions to labor and the working men and women of this great country..and as if you couldn't tell, I'm very proud of him. Anyway, just wanted to ask.
Hi MRG. As you can see, the red link has just turned blue (although it's now a redirect). I've rewritten the article as a stub using other sources, but will expand it a bit more later today. I really should stop lurking at your talk page, I end up writing articles on some of the most arcane subjects (at least to me). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you should absolutely not stop lurking at my talk page. :D I appreciate your taking the time. I had thought to look into doing something about this myself once I catch up on the copyright backlog from my vacation, but, alas, I know all too well that new copyright issues can derail me. :/ It's a stellar replacement. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blog-sourced BLP mostly copyvio
Hello again. Alex Abella, a BLP, is sourced mostly to a blog. Please do NOT click on any other links when you are at the blog, as it also locked up and crashed my browser when I went looking to source the remainder of the article. It is slightly rewritten, phrased moved to front or back, but it's a copyvio, the first 3 paragraphs, and, if it had not crashed my system, maybe the rest. Can you please remove the copyvio material from the history? As usual, many thanks for your valuable contributions to wikipedia. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I'll be happy to take a look at that, but since I'm away from home will have to wait until I get back. If I lose my connection, I may not get back on! Maybe a friendly talk page stalking admin will take a look in the meantime. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, it's in the edit history for now, and I've rewritten as much of the article as I can while not neglecting my precious microbes. Your stalkers are among the best, also, but may be mostly Americans on vacation this weekend. --Kleopatra (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then how come everyone was on vacation? Usually the stalkers are much faster.
Not too much of a hurry on this one, as it was a bio plagiarized largely from the subject. If it had been an urgent one I would have read the instructions. I swear I will one day....
As usual, thanks for the great contribution to wikipedia, Moonriddengirl, Kudpung, and everyone who takes care of copyvios. We can write our own. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anderton, Lancashire
For information the history of the deleted copyvio Listed buildings and structures in Anderton still exists in the Anderton Lancashire article. It was moved to a separate page on 15th October.--92.41.186.57 (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I'm looking at this second one, but I can't find any duplicated content. Either I'm tired enough to be missing the obvious (plausible! yesterday was a lot of travel), or they've changed the website. Wayback isn't giving me any help here; I keep getting "server errors". :/ I ran the article as it is through several mechanical detectors, but didn't pick up anything. If it's the former, if you can point out some of the duplicated content, I'll be happy to rev delete it. I'll take a look at the other one now. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you get a moment, could you sniff around the contributions of the AUE (talk·contribs)? One of his article got csd-tagged for copyright violations, but its been here for so long that I am concerned the other articles he's created may also be of the copy/paste variety. Since I know this happens to be your area of expertise I wonder if you could look into the matter or pass this info along to some one who can follow up on it to make sure whatever else s/he put up here is in fact from a free source. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank god. I always hate to hear about those article that are copyvio's that somehow manage to survive 3-4 years on here without anyone actually picking up on there true origins. At least this isn't going to be one such instance of that occurrence. Thanks for the help, I appreciate it.
Amazing how long stuff can get by. :/ I've seen some blatant copypastes in my time that have gone unaddressed for years in spite of obvious tell-tale signs like use of first person plural pronouns. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I happened by Wikipedia today, and tried to check on the status of my contribution, Cold War Legacies, but frankly I have obsoleted myself, and need to ask for your help, if any is needed. Because of an unrelated book I'm writing at the moment, I just don't have time to attend to this; in fact, I have no idea where the matter stands and I find the related Talk pages overwhelming.
As I mentioned before, I am the copyright holder for both Nuclear Shadowboxing and Nuclear Insights; so please help by taking care of the issues. Because I don't have any time to track the talk pages, any inquiries will have to be sent to me directly at waterfoxg@gmail.com
Sorry, but that's the best I can do. The Wikipedia relearning curve is too steep and time-consuming, and I admire those of you who have the time to persist. In fact, I'm a inveterate Wikipedia user/absorber for the unrelated book that I mentioned.
Hi MRG. You A7'd Genticity way back in 2007 and somehow it crept back. They've just posted Customer1 which is the same company again. I've A7'd them both, and if you get there before anyone else does or before the creator removes the tags it would be good. Perhaps also salt. Up to you. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) It's changed a good bit since its early days. Last time it was here, it was three sentences long. It's got an assertion of significance this go-around. I'm not sure if the claim that "Customer1 has also been a finalist for the Microsoft Impact Award for three straight years." would clear WP:ORG (especially since it is sourced to a press release by the company!), but I think it clears WP:CSD#A7 this time. Let me take a deeper look here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've merged them both into Customer1, and I've done a bit of expansion. I think it may be notable. They've been discussed multiple times in Call Center Magazine. It's a pretty specialized industry. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MRG, can you please take a look at File:Reema Khan.jpg and some other files from the same uploader, I had to delete a lot under F9 before but don't have the time to look through these currently. Also, I tagged B. M. Sreenivasaiah College of Engineering for copyvio clean up, it's a little tricky because different parts of it appear to have come from different edits, would've cleaned it up myself, but again, no wikitime currently. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff08:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having verified that one of his new batch was a blatant copyvio, I have indeffed him and invoked Wikipedia:Copyright violations to delete all of the images he uploaded under claim of his own copyright. I don't doubt that matches could have been found for many, if not all, but with a serial copyright infringer like that, it's a waste of community resources. He obviously either could not understand or did not care to follow our copyright rules. :/ I'll look at B. M. Sreenivasaiah College of Engineering when it pops up at CP. Maybe a regular contributor will work on it in the meantime. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you just check this quickly please?
I am pretty sure that this edit, which is still in the article, is copyvio from [5]. I know that the bit about the snake goddess fetish is unsourceable elsewhere. Thanks. I'd delete it now but I'm dealing with one of those editors.... Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Founders Intent has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}
LOL! Thanks. Kittens are always a lovely surprise. :D FWIW, I'm not upset about this issue, and I realize you didn't write the message. I really had just hoped to talk about the approach with respect to audience. Certainly, it's all to the good for us to pull together for the project. It's just a matter of working out the best way to do that. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have finished the main merge items, but the History of Mariology still needs spelling fixes, some link touch ups and further checks, but nothing major. But as you know historians do not really have a sense of time. So it can wait another day, although your help in fixing the copyright items will be appreciated. On that note the people I have seen that have no sense of time are the archeologists - for them a decade means nothing, and century is but an hour.... but that is another story. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. Also the reason for deletion is content fork, and the category should be Christianity and any category that is related to Catholicism.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just used the text that you had. So far as I know, we don't have a specific Christianity cateogry, but I'm sure that somebody will fix it if I'm wrong. :) You can edit your deletion rationale if you like so long as you do so before anybody else replies. "content fork" is a bit vague. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. Don't know what happened there. On the other thing, Content fork seems to be the thing on these AfD's. I guess you could say POV content fork, but looking over the article it's really a duplication of about 14 other Mary articles. A lot of it is verbatim, too. :/ Malke 2010 (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule of thumb, you should presume that the people who look at the AfD will have no familiarity whatsoever with articles on Mary. The "regulars" may know what's going on, but those who just happen upon the listing at AfD will see the situation as set out there. For that reason, it's a good idea to be very clear and explicit at AfD about what it is that makes an article undesirable. I don't do a lot at AfD (can't remember the last article I nominated), but I generally think it's a good idea to point out the policy and what it is about the article that makes it out of line. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Page
Hello Moonriddengirl!
I was the admin for a page you deleted, and I hate to admit, but as I'm new to wikipedia I can't even seem to get logged back in.
17:01, 25 October 2010 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) deleted "Automotive Fleet & Leasing Association (AFLA)" (Listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over seven days)
There shouldn't be any copyright problems on that page, as we are the holder of the copyrighted materials. Were there just additional references that were needed? This page was a lot of work and is linked to by the Association and our Publications. Can you please assist me in bringing this page back up, or advising what I need to do to bring it back?? My boss will kill me that it's down.
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APolenabzeichen.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=398648366&oldid=397315218){kind=link}
