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 22:57, 10 July 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now. 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) It depends on whether you have been repeatedly trying to elicit examples of my failures simply so that you can declare them inappropriate. In that case, you would be attempting to goad me, which would be unacceptable. I'm not bothered. I am, however, actually engaged in improving Wikipedia, so I'll be getting back to that now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC) We know that is not the case. It's been one question, one answer, and I have not characterized the failure except to agree with your characterization of it. Having clarified that, I return to my question. Is the post belittling or unacceptable? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, but this conversation doesn't feel productive. I tend to be fairly busy on Wikipedia, and while I'm always willing to stop to talk about issues where I can see the importance, this one seems to have wandered. I've reviewed, on your request, that ANI conversation and the events leading up to it of half a year ago and still feel as I felt then, as I've explained above. But as this is beginning to feel very circular and the point of it is unclear, I won't be responding any further, unless you can somehow convince me that this conversation will be of sufficient benefit to you to take me away from other work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Apology accepted. We need a better understanding, as the section title says. and I am not asking you to go back on your opinion that I assume was honestly held at the time. I am asking for your opinion, of the kind that you have been willing to volunteer here and to other admins, solely of this post whose background you know. Is that post to you belittling or unacceptable? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Maybe I can help with an answer here CA3. Yes that post is unacceptable. You have been over this same ground again and again with your thesis that every single sentence appearing anywhere on Wikipedia simply must be grammatically and typographically perfect, else you shall stand as the defender of English. And you've been told over and over that for articles, yes indeed, but on talk pages, not especially necessary. You've harped on this so much at the RefDesks that now there is not even a glimmer of support for your thesis, when you raise it repeatedly, editors just say "oh please, not a-fucking-gain". You have been blocked for this activity. I've given you a direct blocx threat for creating a hostile environment for other editors. It looks to me like you're now here at the talk page of another very hard-working editor, badgering them about the exact same issue. You need to let this drop. I applaud you for seeking Moonriddengirl's advice, as she's the very best editor there is. But she gave you her advice way back up there in this thread, and she's now said there's nothing more to be said. So drop it. I won't hat this thread since it's not my talk page, but please do take that as a warning. Franamax (talk) 12:44, 5 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? [5], [6]) 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) Sorry for the delay; I lost track of the horsies. :D I suspect that nobody will ever look at the individual listings at that CCI, other than to note that they're done. What I would recommend for you, if you're willing, is just to drop the contributor a note if you identify them and think that notice may be needed. I've created a template for the purpose at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Banglapedia (source)/Note. If you like it, all you'd have to do is add {{subst:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Banglapedia (source)/Note|article}}, substituting in (of course) the name of the article. If you like it, I'll note it at the CCI page. If you don't like it but like the idea, let's talk about how to make it better. :) The language is straight off the top of my head. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC) S'ok, you look busy. (Dog bites man.) The template is fine by me - but how about if, for record-keeping, when infringement is found, I make a note like 'added during this entry (diff)' - that way, if one of us wants to go over things, it'd be relatively easy to find and we could discuss the issues of multiple, possibly persistent infringements by individual editors on the CCI talk page? To be followed by notification if it seems warranted? Regards, Novickas (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC) That's extra work for you, but that would be great. It would help us see if there are patterns of problems. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Sounds good :) Novickas (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Sami Yusuf Hello Moonriddengirl. Like you, I have been trying to keep the Sami Yusuf page accurate, balanced, neutral and reliably sourced. I find it rather difficult at the moment because of the flood of subjective fan-like edits by user:Turquoise21. I am at a loss as to how to get rid of his peacock sentences and weazel words without painstakingly going through the entire page sentence-by-sentence again. I have tried to remove the peacock sentences by undoing his latest edits, but the peacock template seems to stop me from doing this via the "undo" facility. Any ideas? RegardsGorgeCustersSabre (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Hi. :) You could go back to the last edit before he started and restore that; you won't be undoing anything substantive of mine. I just added the tags. Oh, but do be aware that he's right about the Iranian nationality thing. We can't include that because being born in Iran doesn't make him Iranian; this would be the one to revert to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Hi again, Moonriddengirl. Thank you very kindly for your advice. I am grateful to you. I suspect that I'll have to watch the Yusuf page very carefully. My regards, GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC) :) User:Vrghs jacob Hi MRG, been a while. I've been off and come back to see that it looks like we have a reincarnation of User:Vrghs jacob -- Chindia (China-India) (talk · contribs). His last unblock request stated that if he wasn't going to be unblocked he's going to come back and do the same stuff under a new account. Same articles, same behavior (especially at commons where he's been uploading images from the same flickr account -- copyvios from Vrghs jacob's flickr!!), see Central Secretariat Service as an example. Do you think this is ducky enough? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, though there are "beans" reasons for me not to explain further why. The evidence you present is more than quacky enough. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for taking care of it. I'll let the folks at Commons know too, since he's doing the same with the new account there. I'll take a look on the new copyvios over the next couple of weeks. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC) No worries there; I ran a mini-CCI on him already and reverted or cleaned everything I saw that looked like a concern. Yes, though, we do need to let Commons know, especially since he's "flickr washing". I've confirmed socking via CU and evidently he's doing plenty as an IP; see Jpgordon's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Conversations with Eternity The additions by Ernetti (talk · contribs) look like clear copyvio; google indicates they existed on websites prior to the addition. So, I reverted to the prior version. I think, probably, the intermediate revisions should be deleted? If you agree, could you do so? There's little other editing, so this one seems quite simple, I think. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  13:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)  Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Tyvm. An easy one, for once. Yay.  Chzz  ►  02:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you Dear Moonriddengirl, many thanks on fixing copyvios made by the (currently) blocked user on Rajiv Gandhi. I was getting suspicious when I saw the Flickr image having Vrghs Jacob's name, but fell short on reporting; Looks like SpacemanSpiff has done the honours. Thanks again! Regards, Yes Michael? •Talk 13:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks. :) It's discouraging that his behavior has continued unchanged. :/ He's still copying & pasting material from news outlets and other websites. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC) A clarification needed: I've noticed your clean up on Sonia Gandhi and Subramanian Swamy, two articles which I am closely monitoring. You have reverted all edits made by the blocked user there. If a user is blocked for copyvios, is it necessary that all his contribs be reverted? Kindly enlighten me on this :). Yes Michael? •Talk 13:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC) No, and generally, they're not. :) We have the WP:CCI process to avoid that. But in this case he is a serial infringer who is violating a block to begin with. We took him through a CCI, and before he'd even finished the CCI had to update it with more copyright violations. I've confirmed (and see you've already cleaned!) copyvios from this incarnation, too. I'm afraid that his English may not be up to the task of much composition. :/ Per WP:CV, "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." But I leave the CCI notice at the talk page if I am not sure there are issues so that other contributors can check and, if they think it's okay, restore the content. If you run a google check on his text and don't find duplication, then it's probably safe to revert me. :) If there's a long string of text, though, and it shows familiarity especially with idiomatic English, I'd be careful. His English is a far sight better than I could manage in his native tongue, but he still authors content like "I however to this, regret my bad talks and conversation with Moonriddengirl who was allowing me to learn from what I did. I am grateful that she has been kind enough to overlook through my mistake and answered to all questions, email I had sent to her in regards to this misdemeanor." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC) I can see Shakespeare turning in his grave there; Hope his English improves next time around! Anyway, thanks for the clarification. :) I never knew WP:CCI even existed! Hope to see you around :) Regards, Yes Michael? •Talk 14:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Right up your street This post at MCQ re a quotation on Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear which is probably right up your street if you don't watch the page. ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks. :) I do, but not closely, so I probably would have missed it. I'll be right there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Template Non-free book scan now unused Hi, I changed the license template of File:Pasteur_Model.jpg to Template:Non-free fair use in. I think this resolves the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Template:Non-free book scan. Template:Non-free book scan is therefore no longer used and thus (as far as I know) suitable for deletion. I copied the Wiki-Markup of the template to a subpage in my userspace to preserve it for possible future use, should consensus ever be reached to allow its use. I apologize for any trouble this template has caused. I still think the template does neither break US law, nor Wikipedia policy. It was never my intention to stimulate misleading beliefs of the usability of non-free content on Wikipedia. Sincerely, Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Hi. :) Thanks for letting me know. There's nothing to apologize for, to be sure! As I said at the TfD, I felt like your creation of it was done in all good faith; I just disagree that we should have it. It's not at all meant to imply that you've done anything wrong; it's just a difference of opinion. I'm sorry if it came across personally; truly, it wasn't meant to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC) I am fine with that, thanks. Is there anything more to do with the template right now or will a bot handle it? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Well, it's still got a few more days to go. Consensus can always surprise us. Whichever admin closes the TfDs for the day will attend to it and delete, if consensus lands that way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Lets see what happens then. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC) All righty. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 4 April 2011 News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news In the news: Academic contributions; Jimmy Wales weighs in on murder trial controversy; brief news Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation? WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System Features and admins: The best of the week Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC) FSQL Hello, I'm an Algerian PhD student and I work on Fuzzy SQL queries with a French university laboratory. I was surprised to see that the FSQL article has been deleted. I understand now the reasons of that deletion but I was wondering: are you aware that the user User:PepeGalindo is the creator of the FSQL language? Just check the name of the author of the main reference: José Galindo a.k.a. Pepe Galindo (also check the URL: http://www.lcc.uma.es/~ppgg/FSQL/ and the title of the page http://www.lcc.uma.es/~ppgg/ : did you notice the "~ppgg"?) the deletion request and the message you sent to Mr Galindo occurred a long time after the article was created and after his last contribution and I guess he may not have the time to check his messages in Wikipedia did you try to contact José Galindo to ask him if he was the author of the article in Wikipedia? see on bottom of http://www.lcc.uma.es/~ppgg/ for e-mail, telephone number, fax, etc... I see that the Spanish Wikipedia didn't delete the es:FSQL article but I'm not very comfortable with Spanish. --Amine Brikci N (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Hi. I assume that you're using the plural sense of "you", since I never left a message for User:PepeGalindo. I'm the administrator who closed the listing, but not the user who tagged it. Under that assumption, I do not know if that person or anyone else tried to contact Mr. Galindo other than leaving the standard notice at his talk page. While Wikipedians are encouraged to attempt to make effort to contact the copyright holders at Wikipedia:CP#Instructions (under "Alternatives to Deletion"), it is not required. What is required is that the article remain blanked for a week with a note cautioning that it will be deleted if the contents are not permitted or the article not rewritten. You can see the template that formerly blanked the article, as it appeared then, here. Unfortunately, no one rewrote the article and permission was not provided. That said, it's not too late. You are very welcome to use any of the methods of contacting the copyright owner that you like to invite him to address these concerns, even belatedly, and the material will be restored. You are also welcome, if you'd like, to write a new article on the subject in original language. I can't say at this point, nearly a year later, whether I noticed the connection or not; unfortunately, I typically evaluate a dozen or so of these articles every day, and I'm unlikely to remember them unless they are unusual in some way. But it isn't uncommon for us to delete content placed by somebody whose name seems to suggest that they may be able to provide permission, if they do not. Since we have no means of verifying identity on account creation, we cannot presume that anyone is the copyright holder of previously published content. This must be verified. And we lack the resources to adopt a policy of attempting to track people down just in case. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Hill Place You state that you have a "catch and release" philosophy to copyright, yet you are still haunting me. I created a page for Hill Place using a précis of available material, with the permission of the copyright owner. This then created an ongoing battle which has left me in the position of not really feeling like I can contribute without every edit I make being criticised for copyright. Whilst I understand your position, I don’t agree with the actions you have taken. Perhaps you wish to explain as I have read your talk page. Hennahairgel (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Hi. I'm afraid that you've misread my user page. My "catch and release" philosophy has to do with articles on which I work as an editor, not on articles I work as an administrator with copyright concerns. Beyond that, it's really little to do with me, since I am not the contributor whose note you are removing. I'm sorry if you feel haunted, but I am watching the article, as I frequently do prior copyright problems, not you. I had not remembered that I had reverted you in the past for removing the notice, although I did recall reverting an IP. As the note I left you at your talk page this time explains, removing such content from talk pages isn't in line with guidelines. You are, however, welcome to remove notes from your own user talk page. I'm sorry I failed to notify you of that the first time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Deletion of page on Fr. Michael Scanlan, TOR Hello Moodriddengirl, Can you tell me why the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scanlan was deleted? Many thanks, John Flaherty Grand Island, NE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.23.209 (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Hi. Yes, it was tagged by an editor on 24 June 2010, who noted its resemblance to http://secure.franciscan.edu/home2/Content/news/main.aspx?id=258, a website published under copyright reservation by the Franciscan University of Steubenville. I'm sorry to say that the webpage in question is no longer functional, and while internet archives have preserved some content, they did not record that one. The article was blanked and the creator notified, although unfortunately since the creator was an IP it's very likely that he would not have seen it. However, during the investigation period, the article included instructions for how to address the copyright concerns, either by rewriting it or by verifying permission. Since neither step was taken during the week that it remained listed, it was deleted for those concerns. It's not impossible for the article to be restored, but we would need verification of license from the Franciscan University of Steubenville. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedures; if you can arrange that donation, I'm very happy to help you with it. Alternatively, an interested contributor can write a new article for Fr. Scanlan. Even without that verification of license, the bibliography could be restored from the older version of the article as well as some of the "Wikipedia markup", including navigational categories. New text content would need to be generated, however. If you're interested in doing that, please let me know; I'd be happy to restore what I can, but I would want to be sure that you were able to work on it at that time. Articles that have little to no content are also routinely deleted. Just let me know if I can help. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Svea Orden I understand that you are the go-to girl on copyright issues. Svea Orden is an automatic translation of the official webpage of this society. I pointed this out to the page creator nearly two months ago, but there has been no reaction since (see User talk:Alla7). He/she has only created a few pages, all with similar problems. --Hegvald (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Hi. :) That's not good. :/ I've verified the problem and deleted the article. Let me take a look at other contributions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Hmm. My Swedish is pretty rudimentary (although one of my best friends lives in Stockholm :D). If you can tell what pages are being copied there, could you mark them and list them at WP:CP? This isn't too complicated, if you haven't done it before. It involves placing {{subst:copyvio|url=http://....}} on the article. Once that's done, it generates its own templates for listing at WP:CP and notifying the contributor. I'll be happy to help, if you like, but I'd need you to please give me the precise URLs that are being machine translated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, the other two articles, Christian Clausen and Solresor were mainly problematic in being automatic translations, but those two both originate in the corresponding articles in the Swedish Wikipedia. That should probably have been indicated in the first edit, but it seems to be less of an issue than when something is copied from outside Wikipedia. Both articles have later been cleaned up by others. Personally, I think deletion is better both for auto-translations from other Wikipedias and for copyright violations/plagiarism, but some people get fanatic about "cleaning up" such articles rather than just letting them go and starting a new article from a clean slate. I looked at one of the copyright pages at some point and found the procedure rather complicated, but then noticed someone else reporting something to you, or saw you commenting in a discussion somewhere or whatever it was. I'll try to get the hang of it. --Hegvald (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Oh, yes, looking at it I see the attribution at the article talk for Solresor. So that's okay, from a copyright perspective. :) You are welcome to come by any time that you think I may be of assistance. I'm happy to help! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Found a volunteer yet? Just checking in. Things are getting a bit tense over the issue. Obviously, the editor does not agree that close paraphrasing is a problem because she check with one of her professors who used the "John Smith was born on July 1, 1940." example as permissible. In this case, the article paraphrases websites which explain the rules of a game. In my opinion, such content is copyrightable and not mere facts without literary expression. She has now gone to a dozen places claiming "I've been unfairly accused of plagiarism," even though I am careful not to use that word and not to attribute the problem text to any particular editor. I have zero credibility with her and her friends. So we really need an expert well-versed in Wikipedia policy to take a look. I've cited WP:PARAPHRASE and she has cited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What_is_not_plagiarism because she feels that the website's presentation of the rules is "the simplest and most obvious way to present information." I have recommended putting quotation marks around the text, but she rejects that. On a somewhat related issue, who is the best person to consult regarding on-wiki Trademark infringement problems? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Oh, I'm sorry. Several people had declined; I thought I had found one via e-mail who might help, but his "I'll get back with you" slipped into "...or maybe I won't" and I'm afraid that it slipped my mind. I see that quite a lot has gone on with this in the meanwhile. :/ Let me catch up here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Started before my dentist appointment, but wasn't able to save it before. I've weighed in at the RfC/U, here. I'm sorry that I missed your last note about it. :/ I don't know if I could have helped avert the level of distress that followed, but I should have at least tried. To your other question, I don't know that we really have an on-wiki Trademark infringement specialist. I've dealt with situations a couple of times. If you can give me details, I can either try to help out myself or point you to somebody, even if that somebody winds up being a noticeboard. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC) By the way, thank you for your RFC/U comments. They were very evenly phrased. The trademark question is given that §110 of the U.S. Amateur Sports Act gives the USOC exclusive rights to word "Olympic" and that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that "The protection granted to the USOC's use of the Olympic words and symbols differs from the normal trademark protection in two respects: the USOC need not prove that a contested use is likely to cause confusion, and an unauthorized user of the word does not have available the normal statutory [Lanham Act] defenses."[7] at 531. The USOC has granted a license to the public to use the trademarks.[8] My concern (which frankly caused my break with a certain editor) is that calling a sport an "Olympic sport" or "Olympic recognized sport" suggests more of an association with the Olympics than is permitted under the license. If the organizers and promoters of a sport and its tournaments cannot say "Olympic", I don't see how Wikipedia can use "Olympic" to describe those activities either. It is a contributory trademark infringement problem. Also, since this is a "special" statute, do we have any safe harbors as exist for the DMCA? This may be above both of our pay grades, but you wanted to know the question. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, that's above my pay grade, but I can check with our attorney. :) Before I do, is there any reliable source to substantiate the use of the world "Olympic"? Full information would be helpful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC) The IFNA website, which is probably translated into English says "In 1995 Netball became a "recognized" Olympic sport and one of IFNAs objectives is to ensure this status is retained and encourage the International Olympic Committee to include Netball in the Olympic Games Programme in the future." Someone gave a speech in the Parliament of New South Wales (primary source) saying, "Honourable members may be unaware that technically, at least, netball is an Olympic sport. It was recognised as such in 1995, but it is not included in the summer Olympics program." Taylor's paper is cited at page 68, which says, "Adding to its enhanced status, and some twenty years after lodging its first application, netball was recognised by the International Olympic Committee allowing national association access to membership of their country's National Olympic Committee in 1993." I don't have access to the Smartt, Pam; Chalmers, David (29 January 2009). "Obstructing the goal? Hospitalisation for netball injury in New Zealand 2000–2005". The New Zealand Medical Journal 122 (1288) paper which is also cited, but I question whether a medical journal is reliable on Olympic matters. The Association of IOC Recognised International Sports Federations website has a letter from the President of the IOC which uses the phrase "looks at the IOC-recognised sports to evaluate their potential contribution to the future Games." The IOC website lists sports as "official sports" or "recognized sports". If I could find a reliable secondary source that said that "netball is an Olympic sport" or said that the IOC endorses the terminology "Olympic recognised sport", I would have drop this a long time ago during the GA Review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Hmm. Being an avowed enemy to organized team sports, I may be missing some nuances. :) But a 1996 issue of The Bulletin ([9], alas only viewable in snippet) says, "Australia - winner of seven of the nine world championships since 1963 - is still the dominant force in netball, which has now been recognised as an Olympic sport, although it lacks the vital ingredient of a politically aggressive..." something. I don't know; the snippet cuts off there (see the quote at [10]). The BBC said, in January of this year, "The International Olympic Committee approved netball as an Olympic sport in 1995, but it has still failed to gain classification as a participation sport at the games, and lost out to rugby sevens and golf for Rio 2016."<[11]> Just a week or so ago, The Voice online wrote, "The International Olympic Committee (IOC) approved netball as an Olympic sport in 1995 but it has never gained classification as a participation sport at the Games."[12]. The Olympics website clarifies that "To make it onto the Olympic programme, a sport first has to be recognised: it must be administered by an International Federation which ensures that the sport's activities follow the Olympic Charter. If it is widely practised around the world and meets a number of criteria established by the IOC session, a recognised sport may be added to the Olympic programme on the recommendation of the IOC's Olympic Programme Commission." 2006's Historical Dictionary of the Olympic Movement says, "Netball has never been contested at the Olympic Games, even as a demonstration sport. However, it's governing body, the International Federation of Netball Associations (IFNA), is recognized by the International Olympics Committee.(Mallon, Bill; Ian Buchanan (2006). Historical dictionary of the Olympic movement. Scarecrow Press. p. 189. ISBN 9780810855748. Retrieved 7 April 2011., bolding in original) Based on that, it seems that netball has cleared recognition and its administering body has been recognized, but it has not yet become a participation sport? I'm not really sure about approaching the attorney on this one. I try to do that only when we're absolutely against a wall, and in this case we have reliable sources that do seem to use the term "Olympic sport" in reference to this game. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you for looking in to it. There is probably a lot of sloppy terminology being used. Netball's IFNA became an IOC-recognized federation in 1995. (Like sumo wrestling, chess and the bridge card game.) The sport will not be admitted to the Olympic program until it is played in a specified number of countries and meets other criteria, but I have called the issue to someone's attention and my duty has been discharged. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, all due diligence on your part. :) You shouldn't have to worry about it. Your sloppy terminology conclusion seems likely, but I'm not sure if the trademark concern is ours if we are citing published sources. Still, I'll invite additional review to see if I seem to need to invite attorney overview. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Netball became an Olympic recongnized sport in 1995 because it met all the criterea, including being played in the required number of countries. It is therefore eligible to be included in the programme schedule of a future games, but a vote is required. Netball organisations including IFNA always describe the sport as an Olympic sport, which they are legally entitled to do, and recieve funding from the government and the IOC on this basis. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Template talk:Did you know#Post-detection policies Hi Moonriddengirl. Would you take a look at Template talk:Did you know#Post-detection policies? At issue here is whether the content at Post-detection policies#IAA SETI Declaration of Principles is a copyright violation. I think the attribution is sufficient (the {{blockquote}} template), though I believe such a large quote may violate WP:NFCC. Would you advise new user Boonefrog (talk · contribs) and myself about what to do? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Hi. I've weighed in there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your insight! Cunard (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Policy question Content can be fully and perfectly attributed, but still follow too closely on the source to meet our mandate to write content from scratch (except for brief excerpts). Can you elaborate on this for me? I was under the impression that it was acceptable to lift text from one of my articles and place it into another. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Sure, it is. It's also acceptable to copy from public domain and compatibly licensed sources, as long as Wikipedia:Plagiarism is met (including the necessary attribution). Sorry if I wasn't clear; I thought it was understood that we were talking about copyrighted content. If you think I need to clarify that, I'll be happy to add something. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC) clan of xymox edits Dear Moonridden girl. I am not an experienced editor but like to contribute to a better bio of the band. So far it is not really that good, it kinda rattles. Also the history is actually wrong: Ronny Moorings and Anke Wolbert started the band in Nijmegen in 1983 . The other 2 Nooten and Weyzig only joined the band in 1984 AFTER the release of the said Sunsequent Pleasures EP. I base this on the numerous interviews and bios you can find all over the web. "Funny" that only WIki makes this mistake. I ask you to look into this as I saw a lot of confusion going on with this. I added some quotes just to spice a dull summing up of releases and quoting some phrases as was allowed with the negative Best of Clan Of Xymox review or Nootens " "To be honest I never listen to pop music" | which I find irrelevant.. Apart from that I thank you for keeping an eye on the page. If you want I can submit edit suggestions to you and you can approve them or not..or I am willing to argue some point (when I have time :) 567fuall (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Copyright Problem Hello Moonriddengirl, I am attempting to solve a copyright problem on our page: [[13]]. I believe we need to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? Is this correct? I have prepared the following email to be addressed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I hereby affirm that I, Paul Rogers am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of LogZilla, LLC and all of the content published at www.logzilla.pro. I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Paul Rogers, CEO of LogZilla, LLC I have the full authority of LogZilla, LLC to enter into this agreement. April 7, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogZilla Would this clear up our issues? Any guidance or comment you may provide is most appreciated. Thank you, Paul Rogers Paulrogerslogzilla (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC) (talk page stalker) It should be sent to permissions-enwikimedia.org, but other than that it looks good. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks. :) I see that's all resolved! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Article tagged for deletion under G12 criteria. Your specialty Could you please delete the article David Lee Smith. It was proposed for deletion but that simply isnt enough. it is infringing on this website. Thanks MRG. You rock. Jessy (talk) (contribs) • 22:01, April 7, 2011 (UTC) Thanks, but I don't think I deserve the praise for a straightforward G12. :D What content there was, all of it was copied. Thanks for catching the issue! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Questioning Neutrality copied from the talk page at the The Fiscal Times entry. I'm at least relieved that the editing is now serious. The above history has not been professional and this current shift is a welcome one after the previous back and forth edits. However as for neutrality, I beg to differ. Were it I to stop this dispute by contacting Wikipedia 'authorities', the balance would have had to be against the recent pro-fiscal times edit, and thus neutrality would have been for example to reinstate a clear criticism section, albeit with certain 'correcting'. I am not a professional news person, nor am I being paid for this crusade. Jackieleo and the other anonymous ips are associated with the Fiscal Times. I do not have their resources, so when I'm not familiar with Wikipedia procedures (technically a 'bureaucracy', however benign), and I see my edits as reactions to a self-interested entry, I see it appropriate to work as an automat and not to begin a new process. The Fiscal Times have employees that can do this. As result, this recent edit would be more welcome for Fiscal Times than it should be with people concerned with the proper use of Wikipedia as an independent community tool. Businesses creating, embellishing and protecting their own controversial entries are not native members of this community. They are interested parties. As long as an entry can clearly be shown to have been dominated by an interested party (jackieleo), any subsequent edit that comes as a direct response is completely appropriate. When texts have been copied without reference from the their website, it is justified to have criticism that answers directly to claims of non-partisanship (copied word for word from fiscaltimes.com) by contrasting it with existing arguments saying the publication is part of an advocacy network. As long as you go to great lengths to resolve this dispute, by actually rewriting many of the sections, or recontextualizing by way of removal, then please pay mind to the fact that there probably could have still been a "criticism" section without hurting the 'structure' or integrity of the entry. News sources linking this publication which runs a "debt watch" section with other Peterson funded advocacy operations dealing specifically with national debt could be quoted as arguing that advocacy is taking place, not just bias. Wikipedia itself is in spirit meant to work as a balance to institutional and interested information sources. It has become perhaps the most important such balance. When it becomes clear that now interested parties manage their own entries, it is the role of the community to make sure every such entry is equipped with an unmovable criticism section. A criticism section gives voice to controversiality. Not having one, or contextualizing criticism within 'history', whitewashes criticisms into noncontroversial sections. Just think of the Environmental Record section on the ExxonMobil entry being under History, with a neutralizing view to each point. You should look into the fallacy of "neutrality" in the sciences. Sometimes neutrality is achieved through balancing an inherently imbalanced situation. Regarding calling out people on self-editing, please take a look at WikiScanner#Wikipedia_reaction. I recall that at the time these self edits were mentioned in criticism sections. Checking now, it is disturbing to see that the Pepsico entry doesn't even have a criticism section. More to the point perhaps is the Conrad_Burns#Untoward_editing_of_Wikipedia section. Wikinews is the qouted source here, and it is part of the Wikimedia Foundation. Is it the foundation's policy to view Wikipedia manipulations by politicians more "wikinews" worthy than manipulation by self-legitimized news sources? I see your point of needing an external source, but where is the balance for the real-life editor of the Fiscal Times acting also as the main wikipedia editor for the fiscal times, in obvious conflict of interest? in handing them back their entry to play with? joeav Joeav (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC) I have replied at the article's talk page, although I may not have covered all of your points, since you have expanded this in the meantime. If there are outstanding questions, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC) For the third year in a row Happy Birthday MoonRiddenGirl I lack words in English to express how important you are for this project, and how much you have encouraged me in working hard and good, so i`ll keep it simple: Happy Wikibirthday to our beloved Girl. Zidane tribal (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Ah! It's my birthday! I almost missed it! Thank you so much for the reminder and the birthday wishes. You are very kind. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Happy wiki-bday MRG! You continue to be one of the awesomest Wikipedians around here =) Here's to another four years! –xenotalk 18:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC) A fine Irish pint You will need something to drink with that! happy day. ww2censor (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC) (ec) Seconded, thirded, fourthed... Tillykke med din Wiki fødselsdag!!!! — CactusWriter (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Whoot! It's a proper party! Thank you all very much. :D I had no idea when I registered four years ago how much of my free time this hobby was going to consume! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Me Too; thanks for all the help whenever I bug ask you stuff :) Happy Wiki-Birthday! --Errant (chat!) 22:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, happy wiki birthday, MRG. Jessy (talk) (contribs) •22:35, April 8, 2011 (UTC)