Hey Moon. I ran across a new article on Feb 1st and removed a speedy deletion tag as I felt that there was a claim of notability (satisfying point 1 of WP:ACADEMIC as the subject was part of group that discovered [[Posttraumatic stress disorder|PTSD]]). Throughout this process, the author [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harvey_D._Strassman&diff=411515169&oldid=411513860 identified himself] as the subject's son. At least one other editor and I believed that this was an obituary as it seems fairly obvious but were unable to find where the text was previously published. Recently, another user has found that the text was published by The Sacramento Bee on [http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sacbee/obituary.aspx?n=harvey-daniel-strassman&pid=148363295 February 6th, 2011] but the text appeared on WP [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvey_D._Strassman&oldid=411397859 five days before] that. It seems obvious that someone in the family, most likely the son and author, either wrote the obituary published by the Sacramento Bee or the Bee gave the subject's son a copy of the obit before it was published and he posted it here. Regardless, I have no idea how to proceed and thought you might have a suggestion. Thanks for your time. [[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 19:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey Moon. I ran across a new article on Feb 1st and removed a speedy deletion tag as I felt that there was a claim of notability (satisfying point 1 of WP:ACADEMIC as the subject was part of group that discovered [[Posttraumatic stress disorder|PTSD]]). Throughout this process, the author [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harvey_D._Strassman&diff=411515169&oldid=411513860 identified himself] as the subject's son. At least one other editor and I believed that this was an obituary as it seems fairly obvious but were unable to find where the text was previously published. Recently, another user has found that the text was published by The Sacramento Bee on [http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sacbee/obituary.aspx?n=harvey-daniel-strassman&pid=148363295 February 6th, 2011] but the text appeared on WP [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvey_D._Strassman&oldid=411397859 five days before] that. It seems obvious that someone in the family, most likely the son and author, either wrote the obituary published by the Sacramento Bee or the Bee gave the subject's son a copy of the obit before it was published and he posted it here. Regardless, I have no idea how to proceed and thought you might have a suggestion. Thanks for your time. [[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 19:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
==[[Talk:Netball/GA1]]==
I am back with the understanding that I am submitting my main page prose to a monitor for a prior review before posting in article space. Hence, I am devoting more time this month to clearing out the GA backlog than to article creation. An editor involved in this review has left this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANetball%2FGA1&action=historysubmit&diff=420197524&oldid=420196981 remark] questioning my ability to spot copyright violations. Perhaps it would be best if I put forward the name of another expert to review the article for copyright / close paraphrasing problems, which I subjectively feel are present:
<blockquote>The Goal Shooter's main role is to shoot goals.[38] Players in this position can move within the attacking goal third, including the shooting circle.[34][39] This player is often defended by the opposing team's Goal Keeper. The Goal Shooter works closely with Goal Attack in the shooting circle, and work to position themselves to receive passes from the feeding midcourt players.[38]</blockquote> comes from:
<blockquote>This player must get past the Goal Keeper of the other team. He or she can move within the "attacking" goal third, including the shooting circle.</blockquote>
I recommended quotation from the rulebook over close paraphrase. Please let me know if I can put foward you or another expert to take a look. Thanks, [[User:Racepacket|Racepacket]] ([[User talk:Racepacket|talk]]) 20:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 11:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time, less frequently between 19:00 and 22:00. When you loaded this page, it was 13:52, 11 July 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Please?
Would you please? It's not like any of us are advocating for an unblock, we're just asking that the user be allowed talk page access, as there is no expressed reason for them to currently not have it, as they have not abused it at all. SilverserenC12:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm sorry, but I really don't think I can help here. :( It's not something I would ordinarily do, as I don't work that kind of issue, and I'm afraid that the way I found out about it would make me even more uncomfortable stepping in. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what I can do then? It seems like admins are just avoiding responding to the discussion (which is rather unprofessional, IMO). SilverserenC22:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry! I didn't mean to leave you hanging. :( Admins avoid responding when they don't have anything to say. There are some cases where it just doesn't seem worth the fight or others where they may tacitly agree. And sometimes they just don't notice. I respond at ANI often, but I don't read every section. I'm more inclined to read sections with headers that suggest they are of interest to me or which look to me as though they have no admin response at all. On days when I'm experiencing serious copyright burnout, I read more; I can go days without even looking. :)
What I would do in your situation, once it becomes obvious that nobody is going to respond, is either (a) tag the section {{unresolved}}, so that others don't assume it's closed, or (b) create a new subsection. It's a whole lot easier for people to see in a subsection with a single note that something needs an answer. You can even do both. The section is probably closed by now, but you can ask again.
However, you know, asking again doesn't mean that anybody will ever do anything. Sometimes stuff just goes unresolved. I have made requests that have gone without response at several different noticeboards. It's always disappointing, but there's not always anything you can do. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Helping out with copyright issues
Hi Moonriddengirl. I noticed you mention on the village pump that you have difficulty recruiting admins to help out with copyright and was wondering if there was anything I could do as an editor (I was under the impression that most of the work was meant to be handled by admins). I'm fairly busy at the moment, with a couple of bits of mentoring that I'm doing, but I do see that dying off over the next few weeks and if there's anything I can do to help out after that, then let me know. WormTT· (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gosh, yes. :) We (by which I mean I) would be very grateful! :D There are a couple of jobs that are open to anybody: editor, admin. I'd say the areas of greatest need, depending on what you like to do:
WP:SCV, which holds all of the articles tagged by CorenSearchBot. These need to be looked at and, frequently, tagged for further action. Sometimes they are cleared. This list is updated every day.
WP:CCI, which holds all of the editors listed for complete content evaluation. We have thousands of articles awaiting review there. Each CCI contains instructions. The earlier ones are usually more confusing, because the process was still new. If you want to help out there, you can start anywhere--newest, oldest, middle. It doesn't matter. :)
WP:CP, where the articles tagged for problems are listed. Theoretically, this does require an admin to close, but there's a lot of work for non-admins, too. For articles blanked, you can offer clean rewrites if writing is your thing. For articles tagged {{copy-paste}}, you can see if you can find a source (if one isn't given) or, if it is, if the copyvio can be rewritten or needs to be deleted. (Sometimes the source is PD or something and attribution just needs to be given.) For articles tagged {{close paraphrase}}, frequently some rewriting is all that's needed. Listings aren't closed until at least a week after they are tagged, but this kind of attention can be done at any point.
Yikes! Ok. Well, I've just got to nip to a meeting for a couple of hours, but I'll have a look through it all when I get back - I'm sure I can help out a bit :D WormTT· (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Back from the meeting. I've looked at WP:SCV, am I right in thinking the CSBot has found similar text elsewhere online, and all that needs to be done is that it is evaluated to see if it is a copyright violation? I'm pretty sure I could do that, though it'd be good to get help on the right procedure. WP:CCI seems a little daunting - evaluating another person's work like that... Might have a go after working on WP:SCV for a bit. WP:CP, I might be good at. I've done a fair amount of article writing and I think I could cope.
I'm a little unsure about close paraphrasing though, some sentences I've seen brought up as a close paraphrase seemed impossible to re-write. For example, if a source says "Kate Winslet won the 1997 Best Actress Oscar for her work in Titanic", Kate Winslet, 1997 and Titanic are proper nouns, and I don't see how they could be subsituted. Would something like "In 1997, Kate Winslet was awarded the Acadamy Award for Best Actress for her Titanic role" be close paraphrasing? The problem is, there's only so many ways you can express some sentences. (I'm sure I should have been taught this at university... but I went and did a maths degree and they neglected to mention essay writing skills!)
Assuming what I've written will is acceptable, I'm pretty sure I could help out on close paraphrases and re-writing. So looks like I might be able to help - even if it's a small amount every so often. WormTT· (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, SCV is simply that straightforward. :) There are occasional complications; sometimes, it'll link to a mirror site. What's usually happened there is that they've done a copy & paste from another Wikipedia article. Sometimes the mirrors are just really fast. Sometimes it'll be a Wikipedia mirror that shows that the prior article was deleted, and an admin will need to check to see what can be done. If articles have been PRODded, I usually just restore the history for attribution. The other big thing to keep an eye out for is repeat offenders. Sometimes people get a string of SCV notices or G12s and nobody seems to realize that they are doing it over and over again. When that happens, we might need to take further action.
WP:CCI is not quite as daunting as it seems; it's generally just boring. By the time a contributor has a CCI, we aren't wondering if there's a problem; we know there is. It's all out in the open, and it's actually less confrontational from that point than some of the other issues. Once in a while, though, there are exceptions. We've had some CCI subjects that are very difficult to work with, even though the majority of the ones that are still active contributors are really very open to the process.
Close Paraphrasing, like a lot of things, is somewhat subjective and is generally a matter of scale. The larger the stretch of content that follows closely, the more likely it is to rise to the level of copyright problem. Copyright covers both language and other creative elements such as structure. Even following the arrangement of a source can be an issue, unless it is completely formulaic. Your rewrite on Kate Winslet seems fine, since it is a low-creativity sentence and the information is free for use. But, again, it's a matter of context. If that's the only passage closely followed, it probably wouldn't be tagged at all. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. I'll see what I can do tomorrow, you've certainly given me a little more confidence to help out. I did read the Cv101 before, but it was in relation to a CV I'd found - and guess who helped me out ;) WormTT· (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi moonriddengirl. Thanks for the message. It happens sometimes that I forget to rewrite passages. Normally, I gather as much info I can find and copy it in a document before recombining and rewriting the content. Sometimes though, I think I have rewritten it all, but forgot a section. I always thought the bot was a handy way of pointing that out, but it seems that is generating a lot of work for others. I will try to watch more carefully in future...! Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasnt trying to give the impression I wrote these texts.. I thought the reference would be enough to make clear the text is from that document, but it seems I need to put in a template. Will go back and add it to the articles right away!Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you posted a copyvio on my Talk page rather than the actual offending editor's
Re: Radu Marian: You posted a copyvio notice on my Talk page. I did not do a copy & paste from another site, but it appears that a later editor, User:Maria Markova, has. Could you please remove the copyvio notice from my Talk page and place it on hers? Thanks. I haven't edited the article in 6 months. While I did take some info from his official site at that time, it was not wholesale copy & paste like that editor has done, as I'm very aware of copyvio issues. Softlavender (talk)
I'm a little confused by your response. What does this mean: "and it indicated it was not functional at the time. It'll come back. Since you did the site page, we know it existed first." What will come back? What was not functional at the time? I "did" what site page? What does "did" mean? What existed first?
Also, the two sentences that you quoted as from the site are mainly where he has appeared: a list of locations and theatres. There's no way for me to edit that to be dissimilar. If you would like the first sentence to be re-worded, let me know and I will. Are these two sentences the only offending text? That hardly constitutes a copyvio, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those two sentences are the only two direct quotes from the site which I personally made. One of the sentences is a list of venues which cannot be changed. Why then am I being given a copyvio notice? I did not copy and paste anything else from the site. Meanwhile, User:Maria Markova has wholesale copied and pasted an entire page of text, overriding all of my edits. I agree that the article as of February 1, 2011 is a blatant copy and paste, however this is definitely not of my doing and the copyvio notice should not be on my Talk page, unless you consider one sentence (11 words) grounds for a copyvio notice. Softlavender (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are saying the 11 words "is a regular guest at some of the most prestigious European music festivals" constitutes a copyright violation? How would you have imparted that information into the article without quoting it exactly? As it is, I had already sourced the info the the site. And why is it so threatening to the original site? If you want me to get permission to use those 11 words, I will be happy to. Softlavender (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Masrawy
Hi Moonriddengirl, seriously, can you read the language on the website? Can you verify that it's a legitimate news source by Wiki standards? USchick (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I asked another WP:OTRS agent via e-mail; I can't tell you who. His answer included a strong indication that he had no desire whatsoever to be involved for political reasons. Masrawy seems to be a standard web portal, with a mix of news and various other offerings, such as Yahoo, AOL, and Road Runner. I don't know anything about the author of the piece, whose name translates "Ahmed Ahmed", but the purpose of the article is to aggregate what was being said about Saaed elsewhere. I believe that in conjunction with the Facebook profile it is easy to verify that the image is authentic. The primary purpose of the "prior publication" requirement is to ensure that we are not unfairly competing with a marketable property prior to its release by the person who is legitimately able to profit from it; the copyright holder has more than satisfied the requirement of publication, so far as I can determine. I'm satisfied that the image meets all 10 points of WP:NFCC and that its use is specifically governed under WP:NFCI. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned you found a Saeed AP photo. Do you have a link? I'm keeping a collection of where the image comes up in RS. Not sure how much longer this should go on. Better to continue addressing every point or let an admin make the call? Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ys; I linked it there, but given how ridiculously bloated that conversation is I'm not surprised you didn't see it. :) It's actually included in one of the links you found: [1]. Look to the posters being carried by protesters. Better to continue addressing every point? I think not. Consensus does not require that every one be satisfied. If you feel you cannot convince somebody, leave it to consensus. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this version it's very clear that this originated as a copy and paste from [3]. I would say that normally this wouldn't be a problem as it's a US government work but the fact that it's got NATO branding all over it may make this more complicated. Hence only commenting here on what I found and leaving it up to people that know more about the law to decide how to deal with it. Dpmuk (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, it looks like a paper prepared by employees of the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute; if so, it would be PD. I'm checking to see if I can verify. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roman888 and Kitchen Nighmares/Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares
Some time back, you were involved in a series of sockpuppet cases and a CCI case involving Roman888 and his rather sizeable sockfarm. At the same time this was going on, he had a side project disrupting Kitchen Nightmares and Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares by pushing inclusion of updates regarding the status of restaurants long after we had consensus to exclude them (the discussions are archived now.) There's a new IP hopper who popped up on Kitchen Nightmares pushing much the same agenda; he's now moved on to Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares and is doing the same thing. When he got there, I began to notice some patterns in his writing that seemed familiar, and made me wonder if this might be Roman888 back again. He's editing from the same ISP (Telstra) and hopping between Sydney and Brisbane, AUS thus far; we know he did something similar between Victoria and at least one other city (Melbourne?) previously. Another admin has already semi-protected Kitchen Nighmares, and I've given him a heads up about RKN, but I thought it would be well to let you know what I've noticed given you were very involved in that earlier case. I've also dropped a note on the talk page of the editor who initiated the sockpuppet investigation. Drmargi (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. :/ I'll have to look more into this one tomorrow, when I hope to have a bit more time, but I'm not sure how much we can do. I did a range block previously that wound up causing more collateral damage than I had intended. We may have to rely on semiprotection for the most part here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your busy (said she who should be grading projects even as I write), so no rush. It might be useful to give him enough rope to hang himself. I'm watching for an editorial "tell" that will support our case, so giving him a few days to try to push this might actually help our case. In the meantime, when time allows, check out [[4]]; Mkativerata and I are collaborating on a little evidence gathering to see if we might have a case for a new SPI or a site block. Drmargi (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum-- and as you can see below, he's busy again, already having hopped to two new IPs in under 30 minutes. It's never dull. Drmargi (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand he's back again, with a new IP 121.222.16.89 where he's edited on both a Malaysia article and RKN/RKN talk, still going in circles about a so-called lack of consensus for a specific type of update he wants in the article, but still not denying he's Roman888. It's amusing, if annoying, reading.
Ideally, an uninvolved admin will close the AN. If it archives without any uninvolved admin doing so and without any objections, I'll just note it at the ban list. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the page protection! He's a tough one to deal with, and seems so dedicated to carrying an ancient grudge; I'd tried doing something similar today, until he simmers down at least. The silly thing is, had he actually decided to discuss one particular update he wanted, he might have been able to make a case, but he never tried. Why is it that so often, these problems have at their core the need to win by one editor or another? (Rhetorical question.) I'm looking forward to the ban, once the case has run its course. Drmargi (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I'll be happy to take a look at this one, but it may be sometime tomorrow before I get enough time. I'm just popping in for a minute to check on a few conversations in process and then back to my deadline. :P --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that has to be manually removed. :) Here's what I would recommend: either (a) talk to the contributor who placed the tag to ask him if he thinks your changes have made enough difference for the tag to be removed. If he does, you can remove the tag. He's still active and can be reached at User talk:JHP. Or (b) ask for opinions of others at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, explaining that you don't want to remove the tag without first making sure it is no longer needed, because of your involvement. Either way, if they don't believe it should be removed, you may have to leave it until there are more references. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
THANKS A LOT once again, dearest Moon Ridden Girl!
Hey :) so I have created this sandbox: User:AJona1992/Sandbox7 and turned it a worthy article, that contains 7 stub album articles and 5 deleted articles (because they contained the same info) into one. Do you think this was a good idea and can be merged? or will it be tagged deleted (once all the other 7 stub articles are merged to this one)? Thanks! AJona1992 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) It depends on whether the albums meet WP:MUSIC or not. I don't know why they were deleted. One problem you may encounter with merging the stubs is that you might not be able to keep the covers. It's generally agreed that an album article can display a picture of the album's cover, but that discographies can't. When you have multiple albums in one page, you may not be able to display the covers of each. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about having it as a collage since I have the albums as part of my collection. They never charted nor gained any certifications however, they currently have articles. AJona1992 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, though, that the covers are copyrighted. :/ Even if you own the albums, somebody else owns the rights for the covers. We can only use them in accordance with WP:NFC. A collage usually wouldn't make it, although you can ask at WT:NFC. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently Drmargi has been leading you to a wild goose chase while stirring up trouble for editors who want to create or contribute to the articles. He has been trying to block any edits at Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares (UK) and Kitchen Nightmares (US)that have been to do with the closures of the restaurants shown during the broadcast of the show. If you would have seen the shows themselves you would know that the closures mentioned have nothing to do with the consensus that he is talking about. Trying to say that the consensus includes all closures is wrong and the onus is on him to provide the information or proof that previous discussion includes closures of restaurants shouldn't be included. You can find the discussions here - Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares#Restaurant_updates.2C_next_round121.214.195.123 (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another copyright question
Sorry to bother you again but since you have all the experience perhaps you can figure this one out better than I can. Recently I noticed a user adding this text to the article on Lithuanian Armed Forces:
"The Lithuanian National Defence Volunteer Forces (NDVF) is an important part of Lithuanian Land Force. The Commander of the NDVF is appointed by the Minister of National Defence and is subordinate to the Commander of the Armed Forces. The NDVF is organised along administrative boundaries. It is composed of companies organised into battalions within territorial defence brigades. Each NDVF unit down to battalion level contains regular army officers and a skeletal cadre that directs training and administrative functions. The rest of the NDVF personnel are volunteers who serve with no pay. The volunteers have already successfully participated in international operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. The NDVF consists of five territorial units and Lithuanian Grand Duke Butigeidis Dragoon Training Battalion."
It read very "formulaic" to me so I copy pasted the passage into google and came up with this [5] where one of the links was to wn.com (world news something) - the link however led to a video [6]. I'm assuming that the text is in one of the subpages. Since this was added in recently I'm wondering if it isn't a copy/paste from that page.
(Update: I wrote this earlier today but decided to put off asking you before I did some more searching. Then got busy and stuff. Just now, I found that portions of the text are copied from the Nato website [7] - I don't know if that's copyrighted or not). Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh! I'll look into this tomorrow. I wrapped my work project today (at least all I can really do until after the other party reviews it), so tomorrow I hope to be able to churn some major time into Wikipedia. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right; I've removed the content and explained the situation to the contributor. Just as a general rule of thumb, any time content is taken from other publications without noting that it is copied, we have some problem. If the content is copyrighted, it's a problem of WP:C. Either way, it's a problem under Wikipedia:Plagiarism. wn.com is a news aggregator, so I frequently encounter Wikipedia text on them, but if they have it before an article does, that's still obviously an issue that needs investigating. Sometimes it's a matter of somebody copying content from one article to another without attribution, which is only okay if they are the sole author of that content in the other article. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Here's another one I think, same user: Air defence battalion (Lithuania) from [8]. There's a copyright at the bottom of the page - in this cases where it's pretty clear that it's a copyright infringement can I just go ahead and remove the text myself, and leave a note such as the one you leave? That way I wouldn't have to bother you every time I stumble across something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. You may want to list this at WP:CCI. :/ He does not seem to have ever been warned about this before, which is unfortunate because it seems that this may have been a persistent point of confusion for him. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Antonietta (name)
Please help me. We already discussed this in emails. I sent you the emails from the website confirming that it is allowed and that where they obtain their information. You have allowed the entries on the French meaning Antoinette (which as evidenced are somewhat similar). Why are you preventing these entries to further elaborate on the Italian meaning Antonietta? Please assit me with making the proper enteries. I greatly appreciate all your assitance. I cannot and do not understand this site. It is very time consuming to figure out and navigate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourbabynamer (talk • contribs) 14:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you get time!
I have my doubts about most of the prose in Postage stamps and postal history of Nepal that is there since the first edit but unfortunately I don't have access to the given source and that editor is not active. It appears the prose may be a verbatim, or plagarised, copy of the source. I will see if one of my philatelic friends can check it but Nepal collectors are a scarce breed. The book is available from Nepal for $60, per a recent Postal Himal book review that states: … It is then followed by the postal history, which is very detailed and I must say that describes the article's prose rather well. Should I just wait and see or take action now? TIA ww2censor (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oi. This is a tough one! I would agree with you that the odds are great that this is a copyright issue, but we don't have any way to check that without access to the book and there's no behavioral clues from the user for us to assess, since the user only made this one article. Years ago, when I first started working CP, a far more experienced admin had blanked an article as a copyvio on an article for which the book was inaccessible. The situation was a fair bit like this one. I tried to get a copy of the book, but couldn't. I asked him (not confrontationally :D) how I was supposed to process it in that case, and he pointed out the language of WP:C: "If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." Made sense to me; I was in substantial doubt, so that's what I did. What I would recommend here is asking your philatelic friends, first. If they cannot help, it would probably be best to blank the article with the copyvio template with a note at the talk page explaining why. That will give readers of the article an opportunity to help out also. If after the listing period we can't verify that the content is clear, I'll rewrite it.
Just to clarify for anybody else who may come upon this, I don't advocate rewriting or blanking every article in case of doubt. :) We have other tags for that situation. But the red flags here are very strong; a huge dump of text with attribution especially at top such as would suggest the content was an excerpt. Given the language, this seems very likely. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh! Right now, WP:CP. I had a heavy work deadline late this week, and it's backed up at the moment. Admin tools are also very useful at WP:SCV, since many of those articles are G12able. But with more regular help at CP, I would be able to put more time into WP:CCI, which is our biggest text copyright backlog. I'd be very grateful for your help, be it a little or a lot. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are your ears burning?
So I stumbled onto something today that might be helpful for copyvio work and thought of you - see the bit at the end of Wikipedia talk:Credo accounts#Suggested criteria. I'm afraid it's not the tool you've been asking for forever to compare two different webpages, though. Maybe someone will be able to make the time to code that up for you soon. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opined. :) FWIW, I agree; that redirect has already been overturned several times. Unless we delete the history of the article, we can't guarantee that the content won't reappear. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I must admit I am a bit worried about the repercussions of this. It basically makes pages immune to deletion if you have merged/copied content somewhere else, unless that content is revdeleted from the history. Yoenit (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, there is an alternative; you can make a list of the contributors and permanently store it. Prior to rev deletion, I did this more than once with copyvio articles where I wanted to retain some of the content contributed later by others. We could also rev delete the text in the attribution copy, but I think we'd need community consensus to add such a standard. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yeah that would work, but still require the admin pays attention. Perhaps the simplest and most fool proof solution would be to make part of the history of all deleted articles visible (only the contributor names), but I expect it will be snowing in hell before such a proposal gains consensus. Yoenit (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding use of revdel to undo copies, I doubt that there will be much support. In a case last year, Valhalla Vineyards was merged into North Fork of Roanoke AVA, followed by discussion at WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 6. Despite wide agreement that information on that single winery was inappropriate for the AVA article (and had been immediately removed), the DRV's closer declined to use revdel to remove the attribution dependency. (According to others' research presented at the DRV, Valhalla is near – but not in – that AVA, but I see that a new source was added a few days ago.) Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. I was wondering why Moonriddengirl showed up at DRV. I have long been cognizant of the wide implications and have taken steps, such as WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58#Merging during live AfD, to rein in potentially disruptive behavior. Attribution requirements are fixed, but editing that deliberately manufactures dependencies can be managed. I have been pleased by the steady adoption of WP:Copying within Wikipedia and {{Copied}}, and I think that more familiarity means more users who will tell a wayward editor, "Hey, don't mess around with this." Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MLauba, fixed that issue (fortunately, before I got Toolserver IP blocked :-P). The tool already works with old revisions of articles (and in fact any webpage you can give it), and you can also compare two revisions of the same article. The links above are using this. However it will not look back in time for a better-matching revision automatically. Dcoetzee16:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me remove the "Possible copyright infringement" the article was written and used is in the public domain, and is already under a license suitable for Wikipedia. I am a memeberof the potiical party, it was translated from a foriegn language and was provided to all interested parties to publish on any of the sites including http://afghanmellat.eu.
You can always write to them and confirm my statment to fahim.wardag@afghanmellat.eu
The Afghan Mellat UK Jerga would be delighted if the content is published on Wikipedia to world about this great man.
Congratulations! As for being a great and helpful contributor to this project, you have been identified as a hero or heroine of Wikipedia. Thanks alot for all your good and helpful work to this project. You are an awesome Wikipedian to the project.
Barnstars in general have lost their value through inflation but sometimes they still mean something. I do have to say that this one is more than deserved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you take a look at the Wiki page of - JS Group
It is continuously being vandalised with copyright infringed material, please can you revert it to previous versions which are fully cited. You have pointed this out before, but this continues to be done, thanks.
Thanks much for pointing that out. I've restored to the last clean version I could find before the warring copyvios (pro and anti) and semi-protected. I'm also watchlisting it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on getting a tool - application to Banglapedia CCI
Great news, many thanks to Dcoetzee. Maybe we could use this to help clear one of the outstanding CCIs, which still has hundreds of entries, I think.
Would it be OK there to put a check mark with a notation 'no matches to the corresponding Banglapedia article that exceeded five words, per this tool'. This doesn't exclude the possibility that article text was copy/pasted from somewhere else; that inhibits some of us from describing it as clear. But would it pass muster for that CCI? Novickas (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Moon. I ran across a new article on Feb 1st and removed a speedy deletion tag as I felt that there was a claim of notability (satisfying point 1 of WP:ACADEMIC as the subject was part of group that discovered PTSD). Throughout this process, the author identified himself as the subject's son. At least one other editor and I believed that this was an obituary as it seems fairly obvious but were unable to find where the text was previously published. Recently, another user has found that the text was published by The Sacramento Bee on February 6th, 2011 but the text appeared on WP five days before that. It seems obvious that someone in the family, most likely the son and author, either wrote the obituary published by the Sacramento Bee or the Bee gave the subject's son a copy of the obit before it was published and he posted it here. Regardless, I have no idea how to proceed and thought you might have a suggestion. Thanks for your time. OlYellerTalktome19:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am back with the understanding that I am submitting my main page prose to a monitor for a prior review before posting in article space. Hence, I am devoting more time this month to clearing out the GA backlog than to article creation. An editor involved in this review has left this remark questioning my ability to spot copyright violations. Perhaps it would be best if I put forward the name of another expert to review the article for copyright / close paraphrasing problems, which I subjectively feel are present:
The Goal Shooter's main role is to shoot goals.[38] Players in this position can move within the attacking goal third, including the shooting circle.[34][39] This player is often defended by the opposing team's Goal Keeper. The Goal Shooter works closely with Goal Attack in the shooting circle, and work to position themselves to receive passes from the feeding midcourt players.[38]
comes from:
This player must get past the Goal Keeper of the other team. He or she can move within the "attacking" goal third, including the shooting circle.
I recommended quotation from the rulebook over close paraphrase. Please let me know if I can put foward you or another expert to take a look. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
