|
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.
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 11:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time, less frequently between 19:00 and 22:00. When you loaded this page, it was 23:13, 18 November 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Someone started a PROD but not posted any notice in my talk page. And it was deleted. But in fact he is a notable player, and if lack of content, just simply notify me to rewrite it, instead of silently deleted. Would you like to restore the history and i will rewrite it. Matthew_hk tc 10:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry that you weren't notified. Personally, I think that should be a requirement, especially when the contributor is still active. But WP:PROD is rather tepid about that: "The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message...." (sigh) PRODded articles can be overturned on request. I can userfy it for you...or I can just bring it back in article space, where you can do whatever improvements you see fit. After it is restored, it cannot be PRODded again, per policy, although it may be nominated for AfD. Which would you prefer? You want me to userfy it or put it back in article space? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer article space. Matthew_hk tc 06:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been restored. You may want to expand it quickly, as there is a chance it will be nominated for AfD. The {{ProdContested}} notice given to the PROD nominator mentions that option. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a BLP almost three years ago with only an infobox and a one liner intro and only making a total of three other (minor) edits on the page then complaining about it over two months later after it was PRODed? Even if it was done "silently"? Hmmm... You would've expected a little more in the article by now as well, especially since Matthew all of a sudden says "he could rewrite it." But that's another thing, as you would be able to see in the revision history of the page, I've contributed to it and would've contributed more if there was actual coverage. But there's none except for stats sites which also contradict each other. Anyway, if it floats Matthew's boat to restore it, good for him right? I'll walk away. Banana Fingers (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand a little. Banana, you can discuss notability somewhere or request someone to expand the "article" which without content in WP:Footy, but not silently delete it. You did not notify WP:footy nor myself. Matthew_hk tc 10:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I received OTRS permission from Mary Lou Greenberg of ontheissuesmagazine.com for the text content in File:Merle Hoffman.pdf that was removed from this article in ticket 2011042610025067. – Adrignola talk 14:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That one's a bit old. :) Give me a second to catch up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, duly restored and tagged, though it was a bit of a challenge since it's not the usual model. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a bunch! – Adrignola talk 16:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Sorry to bother you, but I noticed that you revdel'd the copyvio in the Chamblee, Georgia article which I had reverted to a non-copyvio state. Should I list any more copyvios I fix at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/RD1 Requests? I asked about this (amongst other things) in this thread and from the response, I thought it was only for material likely to be re-introduced. I am not trying to change anything I just want to know if what I am doing is correct?
regards,
ascidian | talk-to-me 21:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) Everything you did was correct. The article had been listed at WP:CP by bot before you cleaned it, which is what drew me to it. I don't rev delete them all, but I tend to rev delete when the content is extensive and there seems to be a risk of its being inadvertently restored (...or advertently, for that matter). To give you one extreme example (sadly, I can't remember the name of the article), I once reverted a copyvio back to the last version before it had been introduced without even realizing that the content I had reverted to contained a substantial copyvio of a different source; it had been detected and cleaned at some point after the second vio's introduction. The more content there is and the longer it's there, the graver the risk that someone may take it from history without knowing that it was removed for a policy-based reason. I am also likely to rev delete extensive vios that have only been in the article for an edit or two. The real gray area comes with less extensive content that is intermingled with useful changes. The history of articles is valuable; there are all kinds of reasons why they should remain easily accessible (not the least so we can investigate other content concerns). It's a matter of balancing risk vs. benefit.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying (and for the speedy response). I'll bear that in mind. I know i'm not the most prolific user around here, but I do enjoy working in this area. If there is anything else I can do to help the project or improve, please let me know. regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 22:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the longer term, I'd like to explore this question further. MRG and I have discussed this previously and I've planned for a while to ssk the question of WMF legal counsel, if we have someone in place now and familiar with the issues. Of course they will reply "it all depends..." but maybe what follows the ellipsis will be informative. The question is whether we have a strict duty to "permanently" remove all instances of copyright violation when we find them, or whether our duty is to remove them from the current article. My interpretation is based on something I read on this site long ago, whether the violating material is "on public display". For an analogy, if I photocopy parts of a newspaper someone else bought and take them home for my own personal use, I likely have no copyright problem. If I tape those copies up on the windows of my house so that any passerby can read them as random information (not exercising my right to free speech on an issue, just putting the articles in the window), I will likely have more of a problem, and someone may tell me to take the pages off my window. But what if I put them in a big stack of papers piled on my front porch, and give no indication that you can get a free copy of a news article if you paw through all that paper? When anyone, admin or not, removes a copyvio from an article, it is still "available to the public" but IMO no longer "on public display" - it is in the history, but (I believe) a vanishingly small proportion of redaers are aware of that. Especially with web sources, to me it seems sufficient to note in a subsequent history revision "removed copyvio of <website>", so we neither hide nor perpetuate wrongdoing. This fine point matters to me for a few reasons: first, because I'm concerned whether my own approach (generally, just to remove the copyvios with an edit summary) may, theoretically or not, put the project at risk; second, because my doubts on this prevent me from spending much time on copycleaning, as I'm genuinely uncertain on this; and third because I recently urged an editor (NP) to just jump into a CCI and start doing. From my standpoint, I would tell any editor at all, if you see a copyvio, remove it. You will almost certainly have full backing if someone wants to restore it, probably the quickest response possible on this wiki. Serial and repeat copyviolators get shut down. The vexed question of whether each contributor in the copypatrolling area needs to either be, or refer cases to, an administrator - well, it's a vexed question... Franamax (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Franamax. I too was intrigued to read MRG's answer. Mostly to find out if anything has changed. I've considered your "vexed question" in the past. (Usually after an angry editor demanded that I revdel all copyvios). And I worried that we would eventually need to delete out all those old copyvio histories. Ugh. What a daunting task. But I found this statement atHelp:Page history#Copyright status of old page revisions which links to US Code Title 17.1.108. It seems that, essentially, we are okay if the copyrighted material is used for archival purposes only (i.e. our history pages). I feel that most critical issue with copyright infringement is the required demonstration that we are making a concerted effort to remove it -- which means having editors remove it on sight is our most important concern. The revdel of the history can remain a case-by-case issue. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoot. It's a party. :D I agree with CactusWriter that, from a legal standpoint, we have no issues. WMF actually goes above and beyond the call of OCILLA, and good on them for caring. Revdeletion is not about legal compliance; it's about protecting the articles from returning to former problems. This saves a lot of wasted time for copyright cleaners and for editors who may invest work in a tainted version of an article that can't be retained. It also protects our downstream reusers, to the best of our ability, who may not be able to easily remove content (say if they publish it in print). Any contributor who removes a copyright problem from an article is doing a good thing, whether the copyright problem in history is revdeleted or not. (In addition to edit summary, a note at the talk page is also a good idea, I think, in demonstrating our diligence.)
- Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins (which in current version is largely written by me and CactusWriter. :)) says, with respect to restoring older versions of articles, "It may be a good idea to use Wikipedia:Revision deletion on the versions that contain the copyright infringement to help avoid inadvertent restoration in the future if the copyrighted content is extensive. Otherwise, so long as the infringing text is removed from the public face of the article, it may not need to be removed/deleted permanently unless the copyright holder complains via OTRS or unless other contributors persist in restoring it." (I don't remember which of us wrote that; could have been all him, could have been all me, could have been a combo. I'm too lazy to look. or to include markup. :D) In the days before rev deletion, we often "selectively deleted" the content. Before I got to it, the document said, "If the text in question is a minor part of the article, like a paragraph or a list: * Remove the text in question from the article and use an appropriate edit summary to explain. * A note on the article's talk page would also be helpful so other editors will not revert or add the text back to the article. If there are clean revisions in the history: * Delete the article, then use the undelete function to restore the untainted versions. * If the article has undergone significant expansion after the copyrighted text was inserted, you could edit the article after its restoration to add the appropriate text or images so the article will be up to date." The only difference, really, in then handling between now and then is that it is much easier than it was. With rev deletion, we keep the list of contributors, so we don't have to painstakingly attribute anymore. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I... have.... no... recollection of ever writing on that page. None. Zip. Zilch. In fact, I had half a mind to correct you until I looked at the history. (I must have edited it back when I still had a whole mind). Suffice it say, you wrote all the substance -- I added a couple of "the"s and "and"s, for effect. But it's nice to know that advice is still good. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It probably wasn't that big a deal to you, but it was to me. :) I really appreciated your assistance there. If I remember you as having done more than you actually did and you a bit less, that's probably why. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recently large blocks of text have been added to Sonny Barger and duly reverted as likely copyvios but this edit appears to confirm the suspicion as correct. The isbn # that was removed is for the book Hell's Angel: the life and times of Sonny Barger and the Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club coauthored by Sonny Barger. Two additions have been by Dracula08 and more recently by an anonIP, which could of course be Dracula08. Is there any point in any form of protection or blocking, or shall we just keep watching? ww2censor (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand your concerns, given the history of copyright issues of Dracula08. There are definitely issues with the use of quotes without page numbers, but I'm not sure if the rest of the text is problematic. It seems to be summary, and I don't know if it closely paraphrases the book or not. The main issue here, I think, is encouraging him to talk about it. I've left notes for him at both the IP and the registered username. I don't think protection or blocking is necessary at this point. I would be more inclined to protect the article if it persists so that he knows that he must discuss it than to block on the unconfirmed suspicion of copying. Could you please let me know if he persists without attempting to address concerns? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Moonriddengirl....
Please see this request on my talk page. I'm going to punt this to you and let you make the call. I have no opinion. - Philippe 05:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It expired a few hours ago. :D FWIW, I think the protection went very well there. I have myself been inclined to protect "short", but in this case I've been able to observe that the time allowed for de-escalation and then the beginnings of what look like very productive discussion. I'm optimistic. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Expired a few hours ago? Way to reward my slacker behavior in not noticing the talk page request. :P I'm glad it worked... I don't frequently protect for a long period, but I thought in this case (or hoped, actually, not thought) that it would do as you say it might have. Win. - Philippe 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - This was a particularly good comment from you. I appreciated the support you gave, even though you didn't totally agree with the action. Very collegial. - Philippe 01:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Collegiality is important. Beyond that, I trust your judgment. :D I can't say, though, that I didn't toally agree with the action even though the length of the protection was a surprise, because I had not really given much thought to how long a protection might need to be. Since I was there with my editor hat on, it wouldn't have been my call. :) I've tried to untangle content disputes before (I used to work WP:3O regularly but now just pitch in there occasionally), but, as you know, the copyright department is where you'll generally find me. That's a whole different set of complications. It was actually really eye-opening for me to see how well the approach is working. There are some admins who prefer to block contributors rather than lock an article, but for reasons I explained in the link earlier in this post, I don't think that's always a good idea. Neither is allowing the situation to escalate to the point where the conflict blossoms into a full-on edit war. Better that people unite in a common goal than that they keep pulling further apart. I'll do what I can to keep that happening. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I noticed that the content on the Incitec Pivot site that my colleague Ltbaxter created in April last year has been deleted because it has been labelled possible copyright infringement. The text was taken from the Incite Pivot website on the behalf of the company itself. Can you please advise on the appropriate way for our company to go about posting information? We're interested in keeping our page as up-to-date as possible.
Thank you very much for your help.
--JenZim (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)JenZim[reply]
- Hello, and thank you for your note. As the talk page of the article advises, the way to clear the copyright concerns if you are affiliated with the company is to follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If your company chooses to send an e-mail (one of the options mentioned on that page), the content will be restored as soon the e-mail is received and logged. If there are any concerns with the e-mail, the agent who receives it will request clarification. Generally, this process takes about a week. Alternatively, if you place a release on the official website, we can restore it more quickly, but you would need to let us know. Once the content has been removed (a week after notice to your colleague, here), it does require an administrator to restore it. If you place a note here telling me where we can find that release on your website, I can bring the material back swiftly.
- Please let me know if you have any questions about the process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you stumbled across this on your own or not, but I wanted to make sure you saw the AN/I thread regarding that article's creator; the copyvio problems appear pervasive across his contributions. postdlf (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. :) I did see it; I'm evaluating to see if we need a CCI. It looks likely at this point (I've just verified another), though his contributions are blessedly few. We're talking less than 100 articles, not upwards of 10,000. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying to lend a hand with this one. Just saw that you declared Incident at Map Grid 36-80 clean, but I'm not so certain. In the critical reception section, the passage "The Soviets are seen as brave and selfless, and heroically save the day." is lifted directly from page 114 of its cited source. The citation to Shaw doesn't appear to be a copyright violation, but I don't think it's supported by the text either (page 11 notes the films discussed in the work are "not necessarily the most representative"). Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, thanks for finding that! Please wipe up the remainder. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. I pulled that copyvio (and OR) in favor of some sustainable text. This editor clearly had a strong tendency to copy-paste text, sometimes even single sentences from sources. I find tracking down at least blurb views of pretty much everything cited is sadly necessary (and slow). Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at the contribs in the now collapsed section, I have begun to suspect that everything with professional level English is going to be a problem. While certainly far more fluent in English than I am in any language save the one I was born to, it's obvious in certain syntax errors that he is not a native speaker. What I would and probably will do here once I catch up a bit more at WP:CP is identify what I can and then, on the basis of the pattern established there, begin to consider whether presumptive tags are necessary where copyright problems cannot be identified. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly suspect, from my interactions with him at AFD and DRV, that anything with professional level English is absolutely a problem. Unfortunately, those aren't the only problems. Quite a few of these articles are sourced to Russian-language material. Unfortunately, many of those sources don't seem available online. Also, there's the small problem wherein I don't speak Russian! But even a dodgy machine translator like Google Translate makes it clear that there's a good bit of word-for-word copyright issues (or at least attempts at it) from these Russian sources, too. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, issues like this are the reason why the copyright violation policy says, "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." :/ In those cases, we'll probably wind up having to place {{subst:copyvio|url=see talk}} on the article's face and {{subst:CCId|name=20110429}} on the article's talk page. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While trying to check the validity (and copyright status) of one of this user's edits, I took a spin through the Russian Wikipedia. On the basis of edits that are precisely identical (except for translation), this en-editor is ru:Участник:Георгий Сердечный, who has been warned more than a few times for copyright violation, and sports blocks for disruptive editing and repeated copyright infringement (aside: they do really short blocks over there!). At this point, I'm regrettably treating passages sourced to Russian-language material that cannot be easily confirmed as clean to be presumptively flawed. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. That would be worth bringing up at the ANI report, I think, so that others can consider that in determining what to do going forward. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. Although, Thehelpfulbot should get all the credit really for adding it to the pages you voted on! :D
The Helpful One 16:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks for your tireless work on copyright in Wikipedia. I happened upon a law firm that has appropriated Wikipedia articles in putting together its own commercial site: [1] is verbatim from Wikipedia's Contract circa 2010-10-24. There's no mention of Wikipedia (although they have kept the wikilinks!) and the only copyright information is "Copyright 2011. All rights reserved." The other pages in their "Practice Areas" sidebar aren't obviously from Wikipedia. Do such things get listed as forks and mirrors, or is there a separate place for simple copyright violations? --Amble (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that's funny! And kind of appalling. I tend to list at "Mirrors and Forks" if it seems likely that somebody will find an article on their website and erroneously tag ours as a copyvio. If it's just a couple of pages, I'd use {{backwardscopy}} on the article talk pages. Was the "contract" article the only one you saw? We may just tag that. (I see that they may have borrowed from others, though: [2]. Somebody has, anyway.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the only one that obviously matched the Wikipedia page. It is indeed quite appalling. I'll add a backwardscopy template on the talk page. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please take a look at my Tronic Studio article and remove the template if it looks good? ~~DBelozersky —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBelozersky (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, triggered by a recent update on Committee on International Security and Arms Control and being a bit longer on Wikipedia, I wonder if this article has big issues with copyvio? A lot of the content seems copy/paste of the official website, although some is outdated. But I don't know if there are special copy rules for national academy websites. Can you have a look? -- SchreyP (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) If they were a federal agency, their content would be public domain, but they aren't; their website says "Copyright © 2011. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved." If recent content has been pasted from the website, it should be reverted out pending verification of permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I better clarify: if it's not recent, it's still a problem. We just generally handle it with {{copyvio}} rather than reverting. :D Let me know if you want help with that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I that case I'm afraid most of the content is copyvio :( What is the best approach here: go for deletion of this article or do a big cleaning. Anyway with the second option, I guess some iterations of this article must be deleted. Can you advice? I have not much experience yet in this matters. -- SchreyP (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If most of the article is a copyvio, it's probably going to have to be replaced. The best thing to do is probably to blank the content and replace the article with
{{subst:copyvio|url=website}} (specifying the url, of course, where I've put website :D). That will generate a big warning flag on the article which contains a couple of templates that you can paste where they need to go. One goes at today's page on WP:CP. One goes on the talk page of the contributor. They're both pretty obvious. :) It will also then link to a temporary page where, if you're feeling very generous, you can rewrite the article. :) After a week, if permission hasn't been provided, an admin (possibly me) will close the listing and replace the copyvio version of the article with the new one. If no new one is proposed, the article might just be deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, thanks. I will try your advice. Exiting doing this for the first time :) -- SchreyP (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just done. One more question: is it ok to remove also the categories on the article as I did, in this case just one, or should I have left that part? -- SchreyP (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I usually leave them because it saves the bots from noting the problem and people coming to fix them. But there's not really any set rule about it. :) Thanks for finding this, by the way, and following up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I have listed here a more in depth analysis which part from the wikipedia page is copied from which page on the official website -- SchreyP (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that's fabulous! Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd wondered why that whole section was blockquoted. I kinda figured something like that had happened. Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jkirks uploaded three photos of basketball players from the 1940s and claimed that he took the pics (with a Canon digital camera no less), and that he was "releasing" them into the public domain. The photos in question were used for the Jimmy McNatt article. After a request had been placed on them for deletion per copyvio (at my request), they were eventually deleted per consensus. CommonsDelinker removed them today, and Jkirks tried to undo the edit, thinking the photos would reappear.
I reverted that edit of his, explaining that the pics were deleted in the edit summary. Literally less than 20 minutes later, the exact same 4 photographs were re-added to the article after Jkirks had re-uploaded them, except this time under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 licensing. Will you please have these files speedily deleted, and explain to Jkirks that just because he takes a photograph of a photograph does not mean there is a transference of copyright ownership? Thank you in advance. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm not an admin on Commons, but I can point it out at their admin noticeboard. :) I certainly will explain the issue in more detail at his talk page there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just tagged all 4 for speedy deletion. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and asked User:Dcoetzee to take a look. My real question here, I guess, is what happens when people willfully reupload deleted content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer, they get blocked :-P This kind of active deception will not be tolerated. Images deleted as well. Dcoetzee 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the quick help. I feel like this situation is close to being resolved for good. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! :) There's a lot of work to do on Wikipedia, and I try to help out where I can. In terms of that, I also like to let people know that their work is appreciated. I'm always grateful when people take their time to help fix problems. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry about not responding but I don't think she got the email. Would it be possible for you to resend her the email at vivianrosenthal@tronicstudio.com? Thank you very much in advance!DBelozersky (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
