If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time and 21:00 Coordinated Universal Time, on weekdays. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 13:32, 7 August 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Congratulations!
Congratulations! Congratulations on your new job! I believe you will be an excellent liason. I would have used a fancy template for this message, but could not find anything appropriate. Instead you get some homemade Dutch apple pie, like my grandma used to make them. Yoenit (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just hope it doesn't mean too much of a drop off in your copyright work as I'd hate to think what the backlogs would be like without you. Dpmuk (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful! Well done- it's great to know someone on the staff for a change. I guess that's exactly the point of your position! J Milburn (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too. If things pan out then you may need to set archiving to, say, 30 minutes or so on that user page. I wish you well. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all! :D (mmm, apple pie!) Yes, J Milburn, I think that's the idea. It's a big job, I think, setting up systems of communication. I'll be tapping a lot of shoulders for input. :D (Dpmuk, I'm hopeful that there won't be a substantial backlog. If this proposal comes out workable, that'll help a lot. And I will still be pitching in at CP, hopefully every couple of days.) (Sitush, it's more my inbox that I'm wondering about!) --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't seen that. Haven't got time to read it all through and comment there at the moment (plus I'd have a COI as someone that would be interested in clerking) but from the quick browse it seems very sensible. Still haven't forgotten that I said I'd get a bot up and running to help with some tasks but I planned to clean out the copypaste backlog first (very nearly there now) and attempts to finish my PhD have got in the way of both as I generally don't have time to spend the longer amount of times here to do either so have generally been doing things that only require a small amount of time (checking C:CVSD among others). I have to have submitted my thesis by end September so should have more time then. Dpmuk (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your appointment! It's difficult to think of anyone better suited for this position; I look forward to seeing you in action. Kirill[talk][prof]23:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. I am in no way surprised you would be chosen for such a job! Good luck and don't worry, I won't treat you any differently now that you are staff.--NortyNort(Holla)07:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :D I'm excited about it; going to be fun figuring out how to create said "systems so that every contributor to the projects has a way to reach the Foundation if they wish and to make sure that the Foundation effectively connects the right resources with people who contact us." But I'm working on it. :) NortyNort, lol! I don't feel any different, except that I have more defined goals and more dedicated time to them. :D I kind of see myself more as a bridge with staff; I'm here to say, "This is what we need; can we do that?" I had a great time talking to the staff (I went to SF recently) about their ideas. I had no concept how passionate these people are about what we do. We have some dedicated fans. :D I'm excited about some of what they're doing, too; I've been with Wikipedia for over four years now and had no clue. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That the WMF has hired you gives me much greater confidence and respect in the WMF. They done good. (OTOH, that new username is just... kind of, I don't know... wrong. Like, who is that guy? It's gonna take some getting used to.) Congratulations and good luck, MRG. — CactusWriter (talk)22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! :D I've already changed the signature to "Maggie Dennis." I was hoping to be "User:Maggie", but, alas.... Thank you very much for the confidence. I will do my best to uphold it. (insert snappy salute) --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grats from me as well :-) I really think you're the best possible choice to be the pioneering first Wikipedian in this position. Dcoetzee23:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, I have a doozy for you. I know you don't focus on images, but could you help me with this? I recently (boldly) uploaded this picture to the Commons. It is a Photoshopped combination (i.e. derived work) of two screenshots from The Seven Year Itch's trailer, which seems to be in public domain because it was released prior to 1964 and never copyrighted separately; therefore, the chance to register it for copyright has expired (1955 + 28 = 1983). I am basing my reasoning off of a couple other The Seven Year Itch uploads by other editors and this site. Could you take a look and let me know what you think about the status of the trailer? Should it be on Commons? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. You ask very complex questions. :) It seems to me that the first thing we need to know is whether or not copyright in The Seven Year Itch was renewed. If not, and if the trailer was not copyrighted separately, then we can all go home happy without looking at the larger issues. If The Seven Year Itch is still under copyright, then we have some things to think about.
First, unless the trailer used different footage, then it is itself a derivative work of the film. (I am presuming that the film was copyrighted before the release of the trailer.) The creative compilation of the trailer may be copyright expired, but elements used from the film could remain copyrighted—which may mean any stills taken from the trailer that were originally of the film are still under copyright, especially if copyright notice of the film was displayed in the trailer. If copyright notice of the film was omitted.... I find other examples at Commons where people presume that when copyright was not renewed on the trailer, this means those images common to the trailer and the film are free of copyright. I don't know if there is legal precedent for this, whether by reusing their copyrighted content in a derivative work without registering (or renewing) separate copyright, the copyright owners of the original forfeited copyright to those elements reused. And as you've discovered at WT:C, asking questions doesn't always help. *sigh*
We could try asking at WP:MCQ. That page does draw a much more regular audience than WT:C, and they generally know their stuff. Somebody might have an actual statute or a precedent to point to. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will try asking there. At DYK we have a hook for the dress Marilyn Monroe wore, so if the image is public domain it would be a good addition to the mainpage. As for the complex questions... I have no idea why that happens. Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea. :) It's because you know your stuff and don't ask easy questions. :D Please let me know what you find out; I'm interested in where this goes. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm still somewhat unsure of myself when it comes to copyrights. I have posted the question here. Hopefully it will help. Cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended to anybody, but anyone who is "sure of themselves" when it comes to copyright has no clue what they're doing. :) Some areas are pretty obvious, but there's a whole huge mix of uncertainty in the middle. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may well. :) The thing that concerns me is this: The major argument has been that the scenes from the film itself were protected by the copyright on the complete film. However, one could argue that once you cut a clip from a film, it is a separate entity and without a complete and separate copyright and notice, it too becomes public domain by its publication. Because of this, most studio contracts have required licensees of clip material to copyright their productions so as to maintain the studio's copyright in the clip." The "one could argue" bit, though, is a bit concerning. What would be really great to know is if anyone has successfully argued that. The person behind that website seems to have some professional credits, but it would be very nice to know if he is regarded as an authority on the question. Whether it nails anything down or not, though, I am very impressed with your research abilities. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like she has earned a living with the information. I just started reading things like this and bookmarking them when I started uploading files, so I at least had some guidelines before deciding to use a file or not. :) We hope (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there is. :) Very probably the uploader thinks, mistakenly, that since the website does not indicate copyright, there is none. This is not the way copyright works; copyright is automatic. The thing to do here is tag the image {{db-f9}}, following up by giving the uploader the notice that it generates. Given that he is a WP:SPA (or seems to be, at this point), he may have permission to use this image. I don't remember what the F9 deletion warning looks like, but if it does not include a link to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, I'd recommend dropping a little note underneath the template pointing it out, in case he can verify license. Let me know if you'd like assistance with this. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. :) Now, if you haven't, just notifying the uploader with the tag generated for that purpose and drop the note in the image caption. Thanks for noticing that, by the way! --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the one that is quite obviously a copyvio.
You've given him the templates. I would say the best thing to do is to drop him a friendly personal note. I'd start with the assumption that he didn't realize there was a problem (he probably doesn't; internet culture is very unconcerned about copyright), explain to him that he can only upload content he owns, unless he can prove that it is public domain or compatibly licensed; I'd point him to Wikipedia:IUP#Copyright and licensing, and I'd work in a carefully worded block caution, something like, "If you aren't sure that an image is public domain or compatibly licensed, please get feedback at WP:MCQbefore uploading it. Wikipedia is very serious about copyright concerns; contributors who repeatedly upload copyrighted content must be blocked by policy to protect the project and its reusers, so being careful is a good idea." (That's off the top of my head, and you can have any of it you might find useful. I waive attribution requirements. :D)
Not yet. :) I'm working my way up from the bottom; good idea to draw my attention to it, though. I sometimes assume I'm done when I hit familiar text. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. :/ Well, there's two issues there. First, the sign is being used to illustrate "Foreclosure rescue scheme" which is described as a "scam". If this is a legitimate company, we have libel issues on behalf of the visibly named Perry & Associates (in Maryland, I'd guess, based on the area code). Second, if the content on the sign is judged to be creative enough, we have a derivative work. I'd take the former to WP:FfD. I'd take the latter to WP:PUF. I'm not sure what to recommend here--you might discuss both issues at FfD, but you'll get a more focused look at the copyright concerns at PuF. One or the other of those would be the place to go. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I'll try to clarify. If you think there's a problem with this image, you have two options for this kind of situation: to list the image atWP:PUF (instructions are at the top of the page) or to list it at WP:FfD (ditto). PUF is a board for specifically discussing whether images have copyright issues; FFD is, of course, for general deletion reasons. In addition to the potential copyright issues with the sign in the picture, there is another potential problem with this image--the way it is being used may be libelous as it suggests that "Perry & Associates" of Maryland is committing a scam. It's being used to illustrate an article about real estate scams. That said, you could file it at either board. Does that help? :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's the standard text for copyright concerns; it's used for instant "speedy" deletions of blatant copyvios, but also for issues that have been listed for 7 days at the copyright problems board (as this one was), to avoid inadvertent restoration down the road. Ideally, I suppose, the text would be longer to note the dual usage, but shorthand sometimes wins. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Goldie Hawn link deletion
Please note that your recent link deletion was not explained. There is a Talk page discussion on the link that is still ongoing, and has been added to ENL: Goldie Hawn link. There are two editors that were discussing it, but you simply deleted it with a rationale that is the essence of the discussion, and without any explanation. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is explained at both the talk page and the ELN discussion. I have removed this in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, and it is not to be restored until there is some consensus that it is acceptable. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A question on blocking
Gamaliel recently blocked the IP address 68.255.4.56, whose single contribution can be seen here. Obviously, this seems like a case of WP:INVOLVED. But, first, backstory time: Yes, the IP address is very likely to be a banned user, known as Victim of Censorship over on WR. Apparently, he and Gamaliel know each other in real life, where a lot of this stems from, and it's been spilling over onto both of their internet activities. There have been numerous other clashes between the two, but I really believe this is a situation where Gamaliel needs to step back and let other admins take care of it. He's only perpetuating the drama by doing things like blocking after VoC makes a rude comment on his talk page.
I just came here to get your opinion on the subject. Oh, and the WR thread about this is here, where VoC is complaining about...something. It's rather incoherent. (Any talk page stalkers, feel free to weigh in) SilverserenC21:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough of the backstory here (not reading the rant at WR due to shortage of time :D), but I have to say that I have myself blocked banned contributors who have trolled my talk page. This is because I've only interacted with them in an administrative role; their trolling me doesn't make me (in my opinion) involved. :) One month seems like a long time, unless we know that this is a stable IP for this banned user. :/ I usually just block for 3 to 24 hours and move on. But, again, I don't know the background here. If Gamaliel is really personally involved, then, sure, he should let somebody else protect him from the trolls. Have you talked to him about it? --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By thread, I assume you mean here. Um...i'll go do it. It's only proper that I do it, since I brought up the question in the first place. I just hope he doesn't get angry at me. ^_^; SilverserenC22:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This probably isn't the forum to debate any of this, but I did want to say some things for the record:
I have never had any interaction with User:Joehazelton (or whatever he is calling himself on Wikipedia Review) outside of Wikipedia. I do not know him in real life, and whomever is claiming that I do is mistaken.
In every interaction with Joehazelton, I have acted in the role of administrator, so WP:INVOLVED doesn't come into play: "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role...is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor".
He has been vandalizing and attacking for four years, so getting a little snarky after all of that isn't perpetuating anything. His obsession was already well established years ago. If I wanted to feed his obsession, I'd go "debate" him on Wikipedia Review so he could scream at me all he wanted.
Understood. The person on WR who said you knew VoC IRL must have been wrong. Sorry about that. Just remember that, as an administrator, you're supposed to be an icon for others, so even if you're dealing with a persistent troll, please try to stay away from comments like "feeble man-child" and the like. If a vandal is causing you to become too emotional about a situation, just get someone else to deal with it instead. That's always the better course of action. SilverserenC05:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot argue with you in principle, but administrators are only human, and to expect total stoicism after four years of attacks is unrealistic. Even so, this conversation has given me much to think about. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One Tree Hill - Season 9
Hi MRG, somebody has recreated the page with the capitol letter. I'm not touching it as I would ask you to take a look. I thought since you merged it only an admin could bring it back? Jayy008 (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it just left a redirect page; anybody can edit a redirect page. :) I merged again, but this time did not leave the redirect page. The problem may have been that the redirect ended in a loop, so the IP looking up information did not get any. When a redirect points to a redirect, it doesn't keep following the chain, but stops. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you may or may not have noticed, VWBot destroyed your nice new changes to this page last night. I'm still not up to speed again, so I'm not sure what's going on with clerking instructions and the like, but feel free to revert the bot - it only edits that page because Zorglbot requires it (should it ever be unblocked and run as primary again), not for any actual functional reason. I don't think I'll be home before VWBot runs again tonight, so it'll probably ruin your layout one more time before I can disable or update that part of the code. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's no big deal; it was just to help the clerks see what was pass the 5 day mark. We can fix it later, as needed. :) (Please pretend I'm Moonriddengirl. :D) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can assist in this one. In Phoenix Park an anonIP, using a few similar IP addresses, keeps adding material with an Encyclopaedia Brittanica citation that is proven to be in error but he insists on using WP:V as his reason for readding it many times. Even though there has been a full discussion on the talk page at: Talk:Phoenix Park#Europe's largest enclosed urban park he keeps up the same actions; now it is just vandalism to me or at least disruptive editing. Opposed editors have quoted alternate sources and there is a consensus not to have the inaccurate citation, even though EB is generally regarded as a WP:RS, this is an instance where its inclusion is not justified and only this one editors insists. Besides 3RR warnings and the discussion he keeps reverting or refactoring the same error. Mainly Special:Contributions/46.7.29.75, Special:Contributions/46.7.72.30 and most recently Special:Contributions/46.7.72.149. ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange. :/ I wonder why he is so intent on introducing this content against consensus? It would help if there were more people involved in the conversation to nail consensus. Strange that our WP:V policy doesn't say anything about what to do when a source is added that it is demonstrably in error; perhaps we rely on WP:IAR?
Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir again. I need your help with the following user who has logged in with the following IP addresses and user names User:71.93.75.114, User:71.93.68.103, User:70.27.13.55, User:188.135.116.29, User:Tamimomari, etc. This user keeps adding Top Shows or whatever list to the following pages: Zee TV, Sahara One, Imagine TV, STAR Plus, STAR One, Aapka Colors, etc... (either under the main page or list of prgrammes page), without any proper references. This is just personal opinion becasuse their is no such list on the Internet exists. He/she keeps adding "Citation needed" tag but not adding any reference, and I don't think that anybody can add a reference to such list because it doesn't exists. Besides, these channels have shown a lot of hit programmes, so it is hard to choose top 10 out of all the programmes they have shown. I have removed this list several times, but he/she keeps adding it back. Just to let you know that there was a user in the past who was doing the same thing. Can you please help me remove this bogus info and stop this user from making such edits. Thank you, your friend, Survir (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Survir. I'm afraid that I can't really help you directly with this one right now, but I can tell you what to do. You are welcome to remove the unsourced, personal opinion from the article—though be careful not to edit war! If it comes back too often in a 24-hour-period, get help, say from the neutral point of view noticeboard. It's hard to stop rotating IPs from doing the same thing over and over again, but you can also request page protection at the proper board (WP:RPP)if it comes back into any one article too frequently. You'd want to explain there that a shifting IP is placing unverifiable personal opinion into the article. Meanwhile, I'd also recommended placing a note at the talk page of each article where it occurs explaining why it isn't permitted and notifying the contributors at Wikipedia:WikiProject India, in case they are willing to help keep the content neutral. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abdul Majid Abdullah was proposed as a CSD G12. I reviewed it, had some questions about whether it was really unambiguous, and shared my concerns with the tagging editor. I intended to return and remove the CSD, then nominate at Copyright problems so someone with more experience could sort it out. However, it wa deleted before I remembered to follow up. I thought perhaps it would be reported to Copyright problems anyway, but it appears not to be in the list. I do see some deleted items in the list, so my first question is simply to confirm process. My guess is that tagging an article with a CSD G12 does not also list it at Copyright problems. My guess is that is someone does list it there, then concludes it is a G12, it gets deleted, but stays in the list.
I do see that some of the items in the list come from CorenSearchBot. I assume those are automatically added by the bot. I'm not sure what happens if CSB tags an article, and someone CSDs it. One possibility is that all CSB items are added to the list, and a CSD action removes it from the list. Another possibility is that CSB adds it to the list and if CSD'd, someone manually removes it from the list.
Separate form understanding the interaction between Automated duplication detectors such as Duplication Detector report or CSB and the list at Copyright problems, I'm not sure how to handle Abdul Majid Abdullah. I'd like some other eyes to look at it, to see if my suspicion about reverse copyvio is a possibility. Should I:
add it to the list, but leave it deleted? (My concern is that reviewers may skip over a deleted item, assuming it has been resolved)
add it to the list, leave it deleted, but add explanatory text, noting it should be reviewed?
Hi. :) Yes, article tagged for G12 are not listed at WP:CP. If somebody does list it and it is subsequently G12ed, though, it does stay listed. Sometimes this happens because they change their minds (and the tags). Other times it happens because a random passing admin decides it was G12able. (Sometimes I agree; sometimes I don't.) But I don't generally review redlinked articles listed at CP unless it looks like some admin might have moved the page without a redirect...that's happened. If you do list an article that's been deleted to get a second opinion, you should definitely leave a note explaining that, or it will almost certainly be passed over. In a case like that, to facilitate the work of copyright problems board clerks, I would recommend restoring and blanking it with the {{copyvio}} tag.
CSB lists the articles it finds to WP:SCV. This daily list is transcluded to CP to make sure that items do not go unaddressed. Currently, we have some very good workers at SCV, so I find most days the only SCV items are (a) items tagged for admin follow-up or (b) articles deleted by G12 and recreated between the CSB listing time and the CP closure. In the latter case, they are sometimes still copyright problems, sometimes not. Items are never supposed to be removed from SCV or CP, whether they are G12ed or not.
In this specific case, this article was not a G12 candidate. G12 is only for articles in which there is no clean version in history ("Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. ") Even if this were not a backwards copyvio, the earliest versions are clearly not copied from that page. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War
I have added the following comment to the copyright violation page and hope you will agree. I have notified User:Kirk who brought the original complaint and will notify others who have commented. I might add that this is a lengthy article or list of events with many discrete entries and many references (about 8 or 10 are most cited; many entries have more than one reference). That is why it took some time to go through it all. Also, with the 150th anniversary of the Civil War upon us, a few articles about events which took place 150 years ago needed a little attention. Thanks.: "The two editors who have worked on this article most recently have reviewed the entries and checked them against the citations; and added additional citations and a few entries. We believe there should now be no objection to restoration of this article." Donner60 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for letting me know! As I said at the entry, it's difficult as an admin to assess a situation when you can't see the books. :/ Let's give it a few more hours in case User:Kirk (who does not edit often) should show up to disagree; I'll put the temp in article space later today if he does not. (I hope. If I get swamped with work, I may not get back on Wikipedia today. But I'm noting this recommendation at CP as well in case another admin attends to it.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No rush as far as I am concerned. It's taken awhile to write and then review it. It has been in limbo for two months. So another day or two won't matter in the scheme of things. It is a long article, and is in effect a list, so I see no need to rush. I am sure our goal is to get it right and settled and make the information available to people. It is a serious subject and should be treated as such. For what it is worth, neither of the recent editors who have worked on this article created it. We found it in incomplete and rather unsatisfactory condition and expanded and tried to improve it. So we don't have a vested interest in keeping "our" article up, just in getting an improved article available for public information. Some of the books are on line but I assume some of the recent ones on which some reliance is placed are not. Most of the entries are rather brief and straightforward statements of indisputable facts so I think that they should have a sort of face value as such. By this I mean that I think many of the statements are in a form that should be at least some indication of an absence of a copyright or plagiarism problem. This should especially be so after the recent review and revisions. Another such indication might be that many entries have multiple citations for the same point. If I can be of any assistance in completing the process or helping out in some way with respect to this article, please let me know. Donner60 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! :D I can certainly pass along the suggestion. I'm already exploring with staff several ways to improve communication with the communities about what the WMF is doing (you can see a little more about that at my "other" page, User talk:Mdennis (WMF)), so this fits nicely in with that. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion not recognized by Facebook
Hey there!
My Wikipedia profile for "Trevor Wayne" was deleted over a year ago. The problem is Wikipedia created a Facebook page for "Trevor Wayne" (me) and won't delete it! Facebook keeps linking my official public page to it and calling me a "Community Created" page. That is not true. I have asked Facebook to delete the Wikipedia made Facebook page and they just don't answer. It is really messing with my actual official page. I am at my end.. is there anyway Wikipedia will delete it from their end?
Thank you so much! The URL for my Wikipedia Facebook created page is: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Trevor-Wayne/113239452022740?sk=info— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.56.207 (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very much afraid that Ed is right. :/ However, I will look into this further later today. I've made a note on my to-do list just to see if there's anything that can be done on the Wikimedia Foundation's end. I'll try to remember to update here, but if I do not, please feel free to prompt me. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MRG, I think you've got more on your plate at the moment than is good for you, so perhaps you could place this with someone else to deal with, but you're obviously my first port of call!
There's certainly duplication of material but having been involved with the article for several years I'd be pretty certain that the material added to the article during that time was assembled at the article rather than being lifted from elsewhere - the process has been too much like hand-to-hand combat for anything else. I can't speak for earlier content but for obvious reasons reflected in the fact that it wasn't until yesterday that Ratko Mladic arrived in The Hague I imagine that the earlier development of the article was a similarly organic process. I did a quick breeze through the martinfrost.ws material and it doesn't appear to mention the outcome of the the ICTY Krstic appeal findings in 2004 but does include reference to the video of the Trnovo killings which Natasa Kandic submitted to the ICTY in 2005. The lacuna suggests that it's not an authoritative original source. There's no mention of the International Court of Justice ruling in 2007 so it's presumably older than that. I'd appreciate it if someone can help check User:OpenScience's implicit copyright violation suggestion. Opbeith (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"if no one will mind". I got a good and hearty laugh out of that one. :D Thank you, NortyNort, and thank you, Opbeith, for noting the reverse copying. We have to check on duplication when it's found, but it's always very satisfying to me when we can prove that we had something first. It's very "defender of the wiki"ish. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I had a doubt about copyright stuff, but in connection with another Wikipedia project. The thing is: I have a few verses of text, which are in the public domain. Now, I want to copy that text on to Wikipedia. But, all text in Wikipedia comes under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL (if i'm not wrong). So, this being the case, is it necessary to specify explicitly that those verses (which are in the Public Domain) are under the Public Domain?
I think I've got your question properly. :) Are these verses of text written by you or by somebody else? If they're written by somebody else, and you are placing them in the article, there's not really any concern because we do not warrant that material in quotations is licensed that way...but I would still recommend putting {{PD-notice}} in your ref, especially if the verses are lengthy. That way, people won't worry that you're overdoing WP:NFC. Actually, I'd recommend that no matter who wrote the verses if they are lengthy and going into article space. If on your user page, a clarifying note might be helpful. However, we do accept PD donations from the public when they want to grant us their text, so I can't imagine any reason we should not able to accept yours. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are verses written by people who passed away more than 700 years ago, so they should be in the PD in all countries. The material in question is to be placed in the main page (of Sanskrit Wikipedia), and I really don't want to mess it up with references or something of that sort. If there is no real need to explicitly mention that it is in the PD, I won't bother. Lynch712:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They don't use references at Sanskrit Wikipedia? :O
I have to say, though, that local policies and conventions also need to be factored in. I have no idea what Sanskrit Wikipedia may require for noting "PD" text, if anything. They may have more strict requirements than ours. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is quite a small Wikipedia as of now, and I am encouraging users to use references. But what I meant was that I don't want to clutter the main page with references or anything of that sort. And there are no local policies as such there; there are only around 10 active contributors; I'm the sysop and bureaucrat, and I'm trying to take the lead in developing policies there. Thanks, I'll take your advice and mark them as being in the PD. Lynch712:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a complicated question. It is to me, at least.
So a froofraw has occurred at AN where User:Damiens.rf nominated dozens of nonfree images to be deleted for not complying with NFCC policy. I got into it because he tagged three images in articles I wrote. (These are the images: 1, 2, and 3) I feel rather certain that I fully justified the inclusion of these images based on my experience writing FAs and GAs. In fact, the third image there was included in a 2009 Featured contact Dispatch about how to write a fair use rationale. But now I get from the disjointed discussion that the issue of "transformative use" is undecided and without consensus. According to those pushing for transformative use, a historical image has to be involved in the article, which qualifies for the historical images in Birmingham campaign, which I wrote.
I'm asking you if you can shed any light on this, specifically what I need to do to keep the images in the articles, because you have in the past treated intelligent editors looking to do the right thing with respect. I'm not seeing this in the other discussions. Not that I'm surprised.
It's my contention that when other editors insist on bulky justification of images in article prose that does not reflect the weight of what sources say about the images, that that is a violation of WP:UNDUE and is a form of original research. I think--and I'm not clear about what is being asked or demanded of me--that a couple other editors are insisting that I make a section in the article about the image in order to keep it in the article. If, for example, three sources state that the image of Emmett Till's uncle is significant and they devote half a page in each book to how significant it is, but in the overall scheme of Emmett Till's story that is decreased to three sentences, would it not be OR to inflate how much prose is dedicated to the image?
Why is the issue of what qualifies as fair use in images left up to consensus? Why haven't copyright attorneys taken this over? It seems if Wikipedia is doing something illegal or extralegal that there should be no questions about what qualifies as NFCC. I think part of why I'm so confused is that the editors insisting that the images be deleted are unsure of the legal literature themselves and have replaced clarity with force, pseudo-authority, and confusing language. Not that I'm surprised.
I learned how to justify images by being schooled by User:Elcobbola, who is semi-retired. He did pop into the FfD discussion for the Stonewall riots image to say that the "transformative use" interpretation of the NFCC rule is "a profound misunderstanding and misapplication of NFCC and sourcing policies". I'm not a copyright attorney. I can't parse all this. I just don't want the articles' qualities decreased because someone went on a deletion tear when none of the rules are clear. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A necessary clarification: the quoted remarks relate solely to the belief that fair use rationales must be sourced, lest they be considered original research. "Transformative use" is an entirely separate matter and one on which I have not commented. Эlcobbolatalk23:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) It's not just a complicated question for you; it's a complicated question for anybody. I'm afraid that I am myself a bit flummoxed by our "nonfree content" approach at times, so you're kind of out ofmy area, but I'll do my best to answer you. Mind you, I don't have any easy answer. :/
Let me start with the bottom, which is the easiest: there are two basic reasons why copyright attorneys haven't taken this over. First, it would be prohibitively expensive. WMF has a very small staff which includes only two attorneys, both of whom are wonderful and very harried people. Second, WMF does not manage, maintain or oversee content on their projects, other than advisory resolutions and policies. If they began micromanaging, they would no longer be an online service provider, but a publisher, which would mean that OCILLA would no longer protect them. (Just have to make clear, though, that these basic reasons are my opinion, not something I've been told by staff. They are wonderful and harried people, though. :)) We've been left on our own to create policies that meet their exemption doctrine policy, and since we don't have any means to delegate the work to professionals in the community (who may well be loathe to take it on anyway because they realize that they might themselves be liable, if they are interpreted as offering legal advice) we kind of muddle on the best we can.
NFC is deliberately devised to be narrower than fair use allowances. As I understand it, this is not only for the benefit of our reusers (ala Wikipedia:NFC#Explanation of policy and guidelines), but also for ourselves because only a court of law can affirm that use of specific content is "fair". Keeping the parameters narrow means we don't push that boundary and find ourselves on the wrong side of the issue, or put our good faith uploaders (guided by our policies and guidelines) on the wrong side of it. The US Copyright Office itself notes that "The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined."[2]
The question of transformation in copyright law has to do with whether you are using copyrighted content to build and create something new or simply superseding the original. Stanford has a little discussion of it here. Where courts come down on this can be difficult to predict. Stanford also has an overview of some significant cases, at [3]. For a specific case dealing with a "news" photo, see [4]. As Brad Templeton notes at [5], use is more generally determined "fair" when it is talking about a copyrighted work than when it is simply appropriating one ("The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author." emphasis added) I suspect that this is the reason why "historic works" are singled out in NFC; when the article talks about the photograph, the odds of it being regarded as "fair" use are significantly higher when it is the subject of sourced commentary. How much sourced commentary? In the absence of a court decision, that comes down to consensus. :/
When it comes down to it, that's what you need to keep the images in the articles--whether that's image by image, or by clarifying policy. I can certainly see your point about not wanting to overwhelm an article by putting in more sourced commentary about the image than is justified in the overall weight of the story, but there's not really a strong policy there to override consensus (one could argue, after all, that if the weight of commentary on the image is insufficient to focus on it much, then we don't need the image). Clearly, given all the discussion that's been generated by this, we need to come up with an easily understood approach to the issue. That's not easy to do, though, when even the so-called expects (the US Copyright Office) describe it as "unclear and not easily defined". :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response in all its length. I'm not sure how that makes me feel to know that not only are Wikipedians basically clueless about this but the legal community appears to be pretty muddy about it as well. I understand your point about the very nice but harried attorneys who work for the Wikimedia Foundation, but this makes me think then that violating NFC with historical images seems a fairly low priority to Wikimedia's legal team if they leave it to the Wikipedia community to figure it out. (I mean, they've seen the way we bungle about, right? They know this is a distinct possibility that copyrighted images are being used for no good reason, yes?) But of the images that are being used for legitimate reasons, what would be the worst case scenario? That the copyright holder would sue the Wikimedia Foundation? Or pressure them to take down the image? What are the editors insisting that these images be deleted protecting or guarding against? Clearly you can't speculate on another's motivations, but I don't understand why hairs must be split this way. What's the rush and where's the fire? I'd think if it's so important to remove the images that this is an issue for Wikimedia Foundation attorneys to prioritize. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having followed NFC issues on and off for several years (I also helped out slightly with the Birmingham campaign images), I think I can answer the question about the motivation. It is less about legalities (though that is often used to raise FUD), but more about the mission to produce free content. Many of those seeking to minimise non-free use do so because they want Wikipedia to be as free as possible, and one way to do that is to take a hardline stance on non-free use. Essentially, the decision where to draw the line on various issues is a subjective one, and people bring their own interpretations to the table. It would be useful to have examples to point at, and proper community discussions on where the lines should be drawn (thus making things slightly less subjective), but things tend to be a bit chaotic in this area, so no-one has really managed that yet. User:Masem would be one person to talk to, as he has followed some of these issues for a while as well. One thought about image commentary - I had the idea that maybe commentary that would be WP:UNDUE in an article could be added to the image page. Not sure if that would fly, but it would remove some of the WP:OR accusations regarding image rationales, and would be good scholarship in any case. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth, this is not about a mission to produce free content. I produce free content, and a lot of it. If Damiens and the editors who are joining this mission are using the words "produce free content" by deleting a bunch of stuff, you know, under no definition could that be producing anything. I know and remember that you assisted with the images in Birmingham campaign, and I appreciate it. I don't know if you're on Damiens' bandwagon, but if you are, you guys need to get a better slogan--or actually start producing content. Otherwise you're going to come off sounding like Fox News' "fair and balanced" when everyone knows it's a lie. What Damiens is doing, if this is indeed his philosophy, is making the maintenance of excellent articles more difficult and quite outside the bounds of common sense. If he actually produced free content he would understand how counterproductive this is.
I have no objection to making the image summary page ridiculously detailed. I want to do the right thing by the law and the artist/originator of the images. But to force me to work more for a misguided adherent to a false objective is somewhat offensive. It should be antithetical to the community goals of Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You undoubtedly have more of a sense of NFC philosophies than I do, Carcharoth. :) I've only kind of tangentially paid attention to it in doing my text based copyright, and I haven't often participated in conversations related to developing it. Moni3, I know it would be really reassuring if there were clear-cut guidelines from the US courts, but, alas, there's not much we can do about that. :/ On a meta sense, the question plays nationally much like it does here; there are vague guidelines, and we are expected to do our best to comply with them. If these were not so vague, there'd probably be far fewer lawsuits.
In terms of the attorneys, Wikimedia has two attorneys serving every project WMF sustains--English Wikipedia is, obviously, the biggest of these, but there are over 270 other language versions in addition to the other projects (Commons, Wikiversity, Wikiquote, Wikinews, etc.). Two attorneys simply could not micromanage on such scale, but, again, that's not to address the major point that they don't want to. If WMF became a publisher rather than a service provider, the entire project would change. They would no longer be able to allow contributors to post content without screening it, because they would be directly liable for content that was placed here. I suspect it would kill the website.
That's not to say that WMF doesn't care about these issues. For instance, the Board has recently passed several image-related resolutions, based on Controversial content and Images of identifiable people.
Just as with the exemption doctrine policy, they put out the principles and trust us to work out a sensible approach within them. The community has done a really good job, I think, of working with the WMF over the years, but that's not to say it's without difficulty. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A user, User:Paul Stephen Farmer has uploaded a "self portrait", for use on an article about himself, setting aside WP:COI issues, and the fact the article is at AfD at the moment, he with this edit asserts his copyright over the file, my question is, is this allowed ? Mtking (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I got a bit distracted there; I wanted to see if I could find his books. He's allowed to upload a self-portrait (sometimes people claim studio pictures are self-portraits, but I bet this one really is), but "used with permission" is not going to cut it from a licensing standpoint. :) My guess would be that he's trying to address the licensing requirements set out at his talk page but doesn't understand them. What he needs is a friendly pointer to the proper process. Although he's unfortunately run afoul of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, it seems that this gentleman is trying to do things the right way, and whether his article is determined to be notable or not (I have a not-very-strong opinion that it may be) we don't want him leaving Wikipedia unhappy with his experiences with us.
All right; I've left him a note. It's a bit more complex than it would ordinarily be because I also need to e-mail him to verify his username, but that'll actually kill two birds with one stone: we won't have to verify that he's the copyright owner via OTRS. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My congratulations on your new role. A few months ago you very nicely recreated the Max Conrad article after it was deleted and I appreciated this. Thank you again for what you do for Wikipedia.RFD (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of my talk page stalkers (hi!), who I presume are generally interested in copyright, we're talking about revising the copyright problem template to make it more user friendly (literally). See the copyclean discussion and the mock-up at User:MLauba/Copyviocore, please, if you want to provide input. I'm hoping that we can keep it informative (it's actually more informative; the directions for cleanup have been expanded behind their little hide boxes) but make it less accusatory and officious, at the same time avoiding watering down its message or making it seem like we aren't serious about the issue. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Newbies and content
Somehow we need to raise the enthusiasm towards content shared between ourselves to being a project priority. I know it encourages me to work that bit harder if I think I'm doing something worthwhile and I have people working with me. Content is what the site is supposed to be about. And we need all the contributors we can possibly get from all around the world. Sadly 90% of new editors face drilled warnings or unwelcoming treatment which puts them off wanting to become a part of wikipedia. Of course many of the warnings are deserved but I've lost count of the times I've seen newbies definitely operating in good faith ganged up on and in the end any spark they show fizzles out and they never edit again. The issue really is getting people on board and approaching them in a way in which we can guide them without being overly condescending or scaring them off. The difficulty is often over editors who have a poor grasp of English and want to help but their edits and lack of sources make a huge cleanup needed. This is a major issue for wikipedia's future so if this is addressed to the foundation somewhere and you want me to speak up about it I'll be more than happy to. Its rare I should come across somebody who seems to have pretty much the same outlook on wikipedia as I do.Tibetan Prayer᧾13:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Congrats on the Community Liaison thingy! :) I've been working through some image backlogs today [6] and I came across File:Portrait of tommy allen.jpg. Is the copyright stuff here really correct? This doesn't seem to be right: "i have no knowledge of the author but as this is a family member we have rights of the deceased in the photo". Have a look whenever you have time! Thanks, Theleftorium(talk)14:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations
100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!
hey, I commended you to wikipedia, my account is either block or compromised, or perhaps both! sorry, I did not know how else to let you know!
Someone said I said some mean things about you, this is not true!
Again, the airrunwesker account does appear compromised!
Someone did promised me a "lifehack" and I have filed a police report against them.
I am sure you already know both I appreciate your help, and that I also use better grammar :)
