User talk:Moonriddengirl

edit count | edit summary usage Wikipedia ads file info – #178 Welcome If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer. While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account. To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here. Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it. Hours of Operation In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 11:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time, less frequently between 19:00 and 22:00. When you loaded this page, it was 16:56, 11 July 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now. A question which may become more common (if it hasn't already been asked...!) Hey Moonriddengirl. First of all, I hope all is well with you and as ever, my best to you for all the good you do around here. I have a specific question, and then a general one, both relating to copyright of images and fair use. Neither are urgent in any way, but would certainly help my understanding of fair use! Firstly, I'm interested in expanding Terry Butcher. Perhaps not well known to you but he is very famous for his "blood-soaked headband" (see a simple Google image search), so much so that he has it on the front cover of his autobiography. This injury has been often written about, (to put it into context, he smashed his head to bits, got patched up, bled on throughout the remainder of the match, and hence the famous photos) but there are, as far as I know, no free images available. Do you think it would be fair use, when discussing this iconic image, to use a low-res fair use-licenced image? Secondly, and on a related but different note, I was wondering about the "impossible to re-create" stuff I've read in fair use rationales for some images. When Diego Maradona scored his "hand of God" goal against England in 1986 (see here for examples), it became perhaps the most iconic photo in modern soccer history. Now this cannot be recreated either, well not as far as I can tell. Can a low-res image of this be used under fair use? I do apologise in advance if I'm asking the wrong question of the wrong person that perhaps has been asked far too many times, but I've always wondered about this fair use "cannot be recreated" (my words) get-out clause. As ever, thanks for your time and energy here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Hi. :) I'm only the wrong person for the question, really, in that it has less to do with my area han you might think. Text is where I'm at home; I still poke about at images, particularly because our non-free content policies are not always obvious to me. The thing about fair use, of course, is that only a court can decide if you've got it...and sometimes one court isn't good enough. Lower courts make judgments; lawyers appeal; higher courts wind up arguing about it and reaching some consensus, perhaps even with dissenting opinions. This is probably one of the reasons why WP:NFC is written somewhat conservatively; when the line is not clearly defined, you don't want to be pushing boundaries. Being wrong on this one can be a serious issue. I suspect you could make a good fair use claim for both of these images, considering other factors (particularly the origin of the image, the amount of supporting text, the overall purpose and scope of the article). But the real question is whether these images are usable under WP:NFC. I have to admit that I find the application of that a bit confusing and inconsistent. For instance, we accept non-free images of dead people, but not living people...unless it would not be possible to replace the image with a free one or for the individual's "notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance", but they are retired/disbanded. (Ala WP:NFC#UUI). And so Bella Swan can use a non-free image of Kristen Stewart, but Kristen Stewart cannot....even though I personally find it hard to defend the position that we need a non-free picture of an actress to demonstrate the concept of a normal teenage girl. And we have a non-free image in Heart (band) showing the band ca. 1970, even though the band's appearance is immaterial to their notability (unlike, say, Gwar). It really doesn't make much sense to me. If I wanted to use these images, I'd focus on (a) the possibility of re-creation or free image existing and (b) the quality of sources that support a reading of the image as iconic. I suspect that you have a stronger case with (b) of the "hand of God" (just based on the above) because it was a single moment from a specific angle. The "blood-soaked headband" (yuck!) seems to have been carried through much of the match, so there are possibilities of free images floating about. At least I'd guess, presuming they allow photography. Once you've gathered some links to sources that talk about them, I'd take it to WT:NFC and get some preliminary feedback from the editors there as to whether your usage is likely to mesh with community view of the issue. If you get strong support, you can certainly give it a go. But that won't mean that you won't wind up on WP:NFCR with a community finding of "unusable." :/ In that case, I really think you'd just have to remember that this isn't at all akin to the bald-faced copyvio of, say, claiming rights over somebody else's image or blatantly ignoring guideline. There's a lot of room for interpretation and good faith differences, and finding out that you're on the more liberal side of the fence than the community at large is not a crime. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks so much for your considered and detailed response. The "moment in time" question has bugged me for some years, in particular the "hand of God" incident. It really is entirely beyond reasonable recreation and generally these shots are beyond those expected of free use image potential. Still feels like a minefield, but thanks for your help! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Are you aware of File:Hand of God goal.jpg? It has been here for years. Yoenit (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC) I wasn't, but I was thinking in general terms for "moments in footballing history". I guess they are all on a case-by-case basis, like Jeremy Goss scoring against Bayern Munich, the first and only time the Germans lost at home, or Gazza getting nut-crushed by Vinnie or Zidane loses the plot. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Mark Nauseef Left a note at Talk:Mark Nauseef regarding content permission. Adrignola (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks. :) I've restored the content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 28 March 2011 News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify Features and admins: Featured list milestone Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us? Technology report: UploadWizard release; code review – should MediaWiki move to Git?; brief news Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC) GfK Retail and Technology TEMAX Hi, Please can you hlep me add this information to wikipedia, I work for GfK Retail and Technology and hold the international copyright for this product. I dont want to promote the product, just explain what it is. Please find the text below. Thanks Will Morrison International Marketing (Digital Media) GfK Retail and Technology Tel. +49 911 395 2319 Fax +49 911 395 4046 william.morrison@gfk.com GfK Retail and Technology Global: http://www.gfkrt.com GfK TEMAX (Technical Market Index): http://www.gfktemax.com "GfK TEMAX (Technical Market Index) GfK Retail and Technology’s index tracks technical consumer goods markets in 34 countries worldwide. GfK TEMAX (Technical Market Index) is designed to support decision makers from Industry and Retail in obtaining substantiated facts about their markets. GfK Retail and Technology is the world's leading market researcher tracking technical consumer goods in more than 80 countries. Reports and press releases are published on a quarterly basis in February, May, August and November at macro level for the following markets: Consumer Electronics Imaging/ Photo Major Domestic Appliances Small Domestic Appliances Information Technology Telecom Office Equipment/ Consumables Like-for-like comparisons with corresponding periods in previous years reveal fundamental developments in the technical consumer goods market and also identify trends and volumes specific to particular market segments. Explanatory background information, such as the impact of major trade fairs, international sporting events or significant changes in tax policy, is also provided. Statistics are produced in both tabular and diagram form. Starting with full year 2008 data, GfK TEMAX reports are available for selected countries together with corresponding press releases in English and local languages on this website. GfK TEMAX findings are based on the retail panel surveys of GfK Retail and Technology which are carried out continuously in over 80 countries worldwide." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfkrt (talk • contribs) 14:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC) "Co-ordinated organisations", test page in my User:GillesAuriault/Sandbox Bonjour Moonriddengirl, I would like to recreate this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Co-ordinated_organisations&action=edit&redlink=1 which was deleted by User talk: MLauba on 23 February 2010 for CopyVio. I have put the new proposal in my Sandbox, it is a translation of a page of the French Wikipedia, and I hope there is no CopyVio this time - although, of course, I used some web data which I quote in the text and in the footnotes (inter alia, EU web, and OECD) in addition to my knowledge of these institutions, and of recent news. Unfortunately, MLauba is on "indefinite Wikibreak" (which is a pity for the Wiki community I think..), so could you have a look at my proposal or indicate a way to have it checked for acceptability? Thanks in advance for your time and help, User:GillesAuriault Gilles 21:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your note; I'll reply at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Wjemather Just a courtesy note to let you know I closed the interaction ban on Wjemather last night, and added your idea of him contacting you directly with CCI concerns. I'd have checked if this was OK with you before closing, but it you did volunteer (:P) and it seems non-contentious. Let me know if there are any issues :) -Errant (chat!) 08:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC) LOL! No, no contention. :D Thanks for the heads up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Did I do a bad thing? Hi Moonriddengirl! I copied the full text of a USA Today article that appears not to be available without cost online to a talk page, in collapsed form. The subject area is so contentious that I thought citing to a behind-a-paywall source would evoke suspicion, but perhaps I did wrong? You can see the USA Today source, in collapsed format, in this section on the talk page. Please feel free to revert this edit if I've been bad, or just let me know here, if you'd prefer, and I'll do so myself, if I've violated fair use. I've never met a Queen of Malapropisms, before: very cool! I'm no good at those, I regret to say. But you might enjoy knowing that while I was rummaging in our refrigerator I once said to my girlfriend, "Didn't we have some veg-over leftables?" This seems especially charming to me because (to be candid) I said it ... but also because I just learned it might appropriately be categorized as a kniferism and forkerism, which seems very apt! Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Oh, and then there was the really adorable nine-year old kid from next door that we took to lunch at KFC one afternoon, and who, while we were there, earnestly and repeatedly insisted we were dining at "KenFriarTucky Chicken". He had and his brother had just seen a Robin Hood movie, and acting out its scenes had become a favorite bit of play. When he finally was able to grok what he was saying he had had the giggles for about an hour over it. Too cute!  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Hi. :) Yes, I'm afraid you've done a bad thing. :/ Our Terms of Use allow us to copy only brief excerpts of copyrighted text; this applies to any space on Wikipedia. The fact that the text is tucked behind a paywall actually makes fair use harder to claim, since in this case the only reason to copy the whole thing is that we're trying to bypass their rights to commercially exploit their contents. I've rev-deleted it to avoid its being exploited by others for that very reason. Thanks for second-guessing yourself and following up. Veg-over leftables. Cute. :D I would much rather be the Queen of Spoonerisms than the Queen of Malapropisms. Spoonerisms are charming; people think you're absent-minded. Malapropisms? People think you're an idiot. :) My problem is that my brain and my fingers do not always communicate well. I generally get my words right in speech, but when typing or writing they all to often go their separate ways. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. You can, of course, briefly quote from it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC) That part I knew, but for the rest ... Sorry! Perhaps those were pangs of conscience that I was feeling when I posted that, not just an empty tummy. I'll restrict myself to soggy veg-over leftables for a week as punishment. I appreciate your reverting, and for explaining, too. Only an idiot could possibly think you're an idiot though. Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC) LOL! I think that would be an overly strict consequence. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Seek better understanding Hello Moonriddengirl. I am encouraged by your declarations of good intent on your user page to approach you, after some months of consideration, about a post by you at WP:ANI that seems to me to contain an egregious lapse in judgement. Can we seek a better understanding here? The subject is my exchange with user APL here. It must be apparent that I asked a question then APL responds with a question about my honesty. It must also be accepted that I may give a factual and civil reply to a question. To "Are you confused about my meaning...?" I replied "I can guess what you tried....to write", which is simply true and relevant to the question whether I am somehow pretending dishonestly not to understand. That was never the case. (I don't object to the question having being asked.) The sensitive issue is that a minor punctuation error really had been made. APL agrees that error was made. It was unquestionably a failure to follow the grammatical rules of English. English is the language of this Wikipedia and its rules are also documented in Wikipedia using reliable sources. Almost everyone including myself make such occasional errors and it would be indefensible for someone's pride to get in the way of editing out such errors in Wikipedia articles (done voluntarily) or paper publications (done by copy editors who are paid for their work), or even pointing to such an error as is the case here. I read with incredulity your judgement "I can guess what you tried and failed to write in English". This is absolutely unacceptable. I am hopeful that you will reply constructively here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Hello. I've reviewed your conversation at the link provided and reread the ANI ([1]), and I'm afraid that my opinion about your words is unchanged. "I can guess what you tried and failed to write in English but one should not have to" is a belittling comment. I can see that APL's question to you may have seemed provocative, but so, too, is your question to APL that inspired his response. If there is some issue that makes it difficult for you to understand meaning from context, you may wish to clarify that so that such questions do not seem pointed. Based on what you said later in that conversation ([2]), it seems that the issue was not actually that you could not understand him but that you believe that "questioners to the Ref. Desk should not be answered in substandard English." If this is the case, the proper approach is to attempt to change policy or guidelines, not to make statements to good faith contributors that seem to uninvolved reviewers intended to cause shame. If it was not your intent to cause shame, then you may wish to reconsider your approach. Obviously, I'm not the only one who read it as problematic. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your answer. I see it as so obvious that "questioners to the Ref. Desk should not be answered in substandard English." that enshrining that axiom as a guideline would be superfluous and doing it a waste of everyone's time. If an answer contains a mistake then the options for others are 1) ignore what one sees, 2) add corrected information to the responses, 3) mention the error at the Ref. Desk talk page, or 4) mention the error to the poster on their own page. These are the only options because to edit another's answer is interdicted (unless it is both one's own post and no subsequent comment is marginalised by the correction). I suggest that 4) is a diplomatic choice that one makes not to cause shame or exposure. The receiver can do whatever they want with the message, including discussing, deleting or ignoring it. But if one cannot stand hearing about a mistake one has made then one has no business working on this project where every edit window tells one "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." That is because we deal with verifiable information without insulating anyone from feeling belittled because their post needs an edit. In the conversation[3] that you have looked at, my first question[4] offers alternative answers. You may call that clarity "pointed" but I beg you never to invoke the WP:POINT guideline (as you did by link) irresponsibly unless you are certain that someone is disrupting Wikipedia. APL never answered the question. There is no "issue that makes it difficult for (me) to understand meaning from context" that I am aware of. Questioners at the Ref. Desks can have such difficulty, sometimes their communication skills are poor, hence the need to answer carefully. That is my approach. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC) I don't have any interest in debating whether or not its/it's errors are a serious matter of concern at the reference desk. However, there is a difference between mentioning an error to a poster on his own page (which might begin, for instance, "Pardon me, but I noticed that in this post you....") and the approach you took. If there is no issue that makes it difficult for you to understanding meaning from context, then surely you were not seriously confused by what the other user had written. A straightforward note might have received a different response than the question you left. On the other hand, that ANI conversation notes that others had objected to the scrutiny at the reference desk talk page, so perhaps not. You acknowledge that you regard this as a "sensitive issue". Sensitive issues require sensitive handling. Sometimes, the polite thing to do when others make errors is to overlook it. It seems that has been the consensus of others at the reference desk. But, in any case, if you attempt to approach someone on a "sensitive issue" and offend him, the civil thing to do is apologize for your first attempt, not escalate matters into belittling comments. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Have you ever failed to write something in English? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Of course, as have you. As you say above, "Almost everyone including myself make such occasional errors...." In informal discourse, I don't generally proofread as carefully as I should, and I am forever typing "pubish" when I mean "publish." But that's beside the point; the issue here is approaching others respectfully and courteously...assuming, of course, that the community believes you should be approaching them about this at all. It is a widely agreed-upon standard that errors in articles should be corrected and that errors in talk pages should not. I know you're aware of that, because I know that you've been pointed to the guideline. You acknowledge above that you should not correct them yourself, but you may have overlooked the reason for this: "It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." The spirit of this guideline seems fairly obvious given that; consensus is that it is better to allow an error to stand in a discussion than to irritate the person who made the error. If you believe that public discussion boards such as the reference desk should be handled more like articles, then you should really pursue a change to guideline. An approach that irritates others violates the spirit of that guideline. When it crosses the line into belittling them, it violates Wikipedia:Civility. If it becomes a repeated annoyance, it is Wikipedia:Harassment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I meant in English words but "pubish" is not an English word. You don't have to tell me about typos which are mechanical errors that may show up one's typing skill and attention to proofreading but they do not reflect on one's literacy. Having clarified that, I return to my question. Have you ever failed to write something in English? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid I don't find that much clearer. Are you asking if I've ever made a grammatical error? Undoubtedly, many. In fact, I'm sure I've made an it's/its error a time or ten in my life, although I know the difference. But I'm not sure if that would qualify as failing "to write something in English" in your definition, as it's inattention to proofreading rather than a reflection of my actual knowledge. But this seems unrelated, unless you're satisfied on the point of civility and just generally curious now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC) I meant wanting to say something but actually saying something else still in English words. I don't mean an error that, say, a spelling checker would flag down. The word grammar covers a host of things but I don't mean errors of conjugation like "I is curious", "Jim stealed my pencil" or "Jim picked five flower for you". Having clarified that I ask: Have you ever failed to write something in English? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC) If you're talking about using the wrong words, then, yes. My user page documents some of my favorites. If I'm still not following you, then we may as well drop it. I'm not sure I see the urgency of the question, and I don't doubt we've both got better things to do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Please specify what you refer to on your user page because it is long. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC) See User:Moonriddengirl#What I do elsewhere --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you for answering. I can guess you meant to write "Given large influx of copyvio material (hopefully all reworded)" but failed when you typed "rewarded" instead of "reworded". I agree it's amusing but Wikipedia readers shouldn't have to guess at a writer's malapropisms. Is also this post belittling or unacceptable? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Template:Dupdet FYI I've added a template {{dupdet}} that makes it easy to link to Duplication Detector reports, like this: {{dupdet|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Silard|http://arh.pub.ro/mcristea/Silardcv.htm}} produces Template:Dupdet Thought you might find it handy. :-) I was pondering if I should have a bot add links like this to CP to streamline things further. Dcoetzee 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Hi! I was just thinking about you, given that I'm giving your Duplication Detector quite a workout at the moment. :D In fact, I took it with me to France (well, the French Wikipedia). Certainly, it wouldn't hurt. I'd say I'm using the tool for about 50% of the listings. Some of them are just flat obvious. But that's still quite a lot. I bet Verno could add it to his bot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Cool, that'd be great if he could. :-) I just made the template a little briefer, it can take page titles as well as URLs for the first parameter: {{dupdet|Andrei Silard|http://arh.pub.ro/mcristea/Silardcv.htm}} produces Template:Dupdet Like that. :-) Dcoetzee 21:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC) I could certainly add it to most of the listings that VWBot posts but it should probably be worked in somehow to {{Copyviocore}} (or maybe {{subst:article-cv}} somehow?) so that manually-added listings include it too. The html comment for daily CP pages should also be tweaked - again not a problem to set up VWBot to do that (and set it to pick up after Zorglbot should that ever get its act together and be unblocked) once we know what we want it to look like. Oh, and I put the source up at User:VWBot/source, so you can link to it from wikigit. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC) I added it to {{copyviocore}} so that the copyvio notice will now include a dupdet link and also include the markup for a link in the wikitext to copy-paste for WP:CP. Take a look and see if you like. :-) Dcoetzee 22:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Folling your example there and on {{Close paraphrasing}} and the Csb tags I added it to {{Copypaste}}, so that should be all of the actual copyvio tags in use. This seems to be an easier option than placing it on the daily CP page (and hopefully not too much more work for the reviewer). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I'm going to leave you guys to talk about that one, but I wanted to ask for feedback: is this a good announcement? Am I not mentioning something that I should or mentioning something that I shouldn't? I want to post this at various points where people might find the tool useful, and then I'm going to add it to WP:Cv101 etc. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Looks good to me. :-) Of course talk page notices will eventually scroll away so if possible I'd like to also get something a little more permanent on project pages. I think it'll help a lot though now that it's in the copyvio template. Dcoetzee 22:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Oh, yes, I'll do that, too. I just wanted to put it on talk pages first since I think people might see it there. I was thinking about WT:DYK, WT:GA, etc. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Regarding the Diablada Could you please revert the Diablada article to the version which was agreed upon between me and User:Erebedhel (Proof: [5])? Which would be this one: [6]. As stated before, User:Erios30 is coming over from the Spanish WP with the goal to do in the English WP what the admins and users in the Spanish WP did not allow him. By protecting the article under his version, you're giving the guy wings to keep his plans in motion. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 12:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I don't believe I can do this and remain within policy. In content disputes, I am required to protect it as I found it, unless there are clear policy violations such as copyright or libel. The discussion you link to is a year old; consensus can change, so I cannot see it as a clear point for restoration. The protection is for three days, but it can be lifted sooner if a clear consensus emerges or if contributors agree not to edit the article until it does. The best thing to do here is to reach out to others in the community who can help determine how to handle the article. Once sufficient input is achieved to establish how the article should be developed, it will be much simpler to see if somebody is disrupting the article to press their preference. At that point, administrator intervention with the specific contributor will be a far simpler matter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC) (BTW, I see you've listed it at WP:3O. That's a good place to take it at this point; if somebody takes it up swiftly, the matter may be resolved soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)) I understand your position, thank you for the explanation. Yes, I am following your advice and going for the third opinion on the subject. In retrospect, protecting the article from further edits is certainly one of the better options at this time. Thank you once again. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Would you mind having a look at Alix Strauss? filed 3/23, needed to be re-tagged 3/30 as original author removed the tag. page history. The author is still trying to tinker with the article despite the template. With the need to re-tag the article, it's possible it got caught in the shuffle. Thanks, We hope (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Oh, thank you for bringing that to my attention! The error was all mine, I'm afraid. I must have glanced at the page, seen the indented comment and thought that the matter had been resolved. I'll go take care of it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks again! We hope (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC) The only copying that I found really was from that one source; I've removed it and a small amount taken from another. I suspect there is a COI here. I've added a few tags and cautioned the creator. Please let me know if you believe I've overlooked anything. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC) To me, it seems to be an SPA dedicated to the promotion of the subject of the article. Saw the YouTube, Facebook and Twitter links be removed by others and re-added (still there) by the original author. Actually backed into this copyvio because of an uploaded file (non free, subject living) for the article. When I went to tag the image, I started reading and doing some comparing. We hope (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Neat one for you to answer I was at the 04/01 SPI for Jimbo when I noticed the section just above had a copyright question I think you would be perfect to consider answering. I am curiously interested based on the premise. If you are able, and as always, much appreciation. My76Strat (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Good morning. :) I'll be there in just a minute; I have to give my dog his breakfast. (Demanding little thing.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC) It's a WP:LINKVIO. :) Given that, we needn't concern ourselves with the question of privacy. If the image were public domain, I would advocate hosting it locally and modifying it to obscure the personal information. (I've explained the policy issue there.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Sources Hi. Congrats for your recent the contributions on Russ Nelson. I just wanted to ask you to be cautious with the use of self published sources, specially those published by Mr. Nelson himself and people close to him. There's a lot of self-promotion among those celebrity-programmers. Of course his weblog is an acceptable source for simple information like his father's name, but we need an independent reference for all self-serving information he promotes about himself. That said, I want to repeat that your work there is great an much appreciated. --Damiens.rf 17:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks. :) I'm conscious of WP:SELFPUB so would be careful to avoid promotional content. I'm bemoaning the shortcomings of Google books. I can see some very tantalyzing snippets, but I just can't get at them. :/ For example, "An important force behind the development of the packet drivers has been a man named Russell Nelson and staff members at Clarkson University. Following FTP Software's specification, Nelson created a skeleton packet driver....." is somewhere in PC magazine guide to linking LANs. Alas. I can't use it without access to it, and I can see no more than that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Horsies and such Hi Moonriddengirl! Just wanted to let you know that if you find any copyvio problems on any article with a WPEQ tag, we are pretty active over there, so please feel free to ask us to fix any problems that come to your attention. Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (talk page stalker) I don't know about identified problems at the moment, but as far as probable issues go there are 3 related articles left at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime#Buttermilk1950 which haven't been checked yet (you appear to have already checked the rest of those articles last year ). VernoWhitney (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Got too twitchy, had PTSD from the sockpuppet bust, which after I endured considerable abuse from the sock, I had a significant role in bringing to the attention of those who could act! LOL! The three left happen to be big ones worthy of being kept, so will be some work to sort out the wheat from the chaff. But thanks for the reminder. Montanabw(talk) 20:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC) We don't see a lot of animal articles. :) But, oi, Lassie. :/ I'm trying to work through Paknur right now, and it feels like those CCIs just go on forever. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (talk page stalker) May have something to do with the fact that all Paknur articles are still crappy 2 line stubs 5 years after creation. At least I almost done with page 8. Yoenit (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Isn't it amazing? I'm finding copyvios untouched since 2006. :O --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Another (talk page stalker) - on a related note - would you would be willing to add your voice in support of this proposal to add confirmed copyvio notices to Article Alerts? Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Feature_requests#Copyvio.2Fproject_intersect. Project members may be willing and able to act before coreopsis sets in. Novickas (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, certainly. I think we've had it there before, though I'm fuzzy on the details. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks :) I'm sure they're overworked, but it's important... OK so I tried the dupe tool on a Banglapedia CCI article. It was vastly easier than before. (But could you review what I did? [7], [8]) And does this CCI require identifying and notifying the editor(s) who added the material? Whenever you have time. Novickas (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Looks great. :) Generally everything except the N; we use Y when we find sufficient issue to require addressing. It's not a serious issue, though. And, I'd say that, no, that particular editor probably does not; the problem dates to 2007, it is relatively minor, and he has more recently been advised. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I guess what I'm looking for is some sort of rule of thumb about identifying and notifying the contributors. The thing is, I enjoy parts of copyvio cleanup, in this case learning about unfamiliar topics like Bangladesh and chipping away at its CCI, but the ID followed by notification part sometimes leads to angry confrontations. So I'm sort of looking for a more gnomish path. Would it be OK to note, in a Bpedia CCI entry with a yes, 'contributor not identified'? Novickas (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Here's my thinking on when to notify: I notify when either (a) notification will advise the contributor a policy that they may not understand and help prevent future issues or (b) notification will help establish a pattern of repeated issues that may lead to a CCI or sanctions. In this particular case, the contributor who placed the content has been notified of copyright policies, so (a) is not necessary. It's relatively minor, and I didn't see a history in talk page to suggest that (b) is going to be necessary. That said, looking at it in more depth now, I do notice another issue. We may need to double-check some of the ones he's marked cleared to make sure that his marking them wasn't based on the same misunderstanding that led to his placing the content here. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Sorry to hear that. Well, how about for this CCI, if a yes, note the contributor (that looks to have been done in the diff you cite), that way someone going over the CCI can get a feel for when notification is needed? Novickas (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC) New fair-use template Could you please cast your experienced eyes over this MCQ thread? The new template may be 100% legal and correct for all I know, but it could be seriously damaging to leave an incorrect fair-use template lying around. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks. I'm not comfortable with it. :) It's at TfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Frédéric Lemoine Hi, thanks a lot for [9] + [10]- I delete - Our french is better than my english - Have a good day - --Lomita (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Ahmadinejad at Natanz.jpg Hi - would appreciate your input with respect to this discussion, notably the image's fair use in the Stuxnet article. Thanks in advance. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Hi. :) I've weighed in on the question of Non-US copyright, but the question of whether it meets WP:NFC is less a bright line than a matter of community application and interpretation of rules. I suggested listing it at WP:NFCR for additional feedback, but I see it is already at WP:FfD. If the image is retained, you might want to follow up at WP:NFCR to get consensus on application in individual articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks very much for that. WP:NFCR looks the business, however the fair use template was removed just before the image was nominated for FfD, so I'm not sure where the opportunity would have arisen to have had this discussion if the FfD now precludes it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC) We don't really have a strong sense of which takes precedence in these cases: FfD or NFCR. :) My personal thought is that FfD may determine that the image is not usable under any circumstances, while NFCR determines if it is usable in a given circumstance. If I wanted to list an article for review, that's probably the principle that I'd use. Once it's listed at one, I'd be inclined to let it run its course, as the other may not be necessary. In this case, if the FfD finds strong consensus for use in Stuxnet, then there's no need for the NFCR. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)