|
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. |
He's now back as Goldfinger123 (talk · contribs). This set of edits intro'd some copyvios (the section on Second admin commission is enmasse copyvio). I'll look up and clean soon, but if you get a chance to clean the rest, please feel free. Now he has three accounts on Commons for us to keep track of, though no copyvios on this one yet. —SpacemanSpiff 14:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Contribution survey:
- Indian Administrative Service:
 Y Evidently he made an effort to rewrite a copyvio; a blatant derivative work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Civil service: (1 edits, 1 major, +1579) (+1579)
- Manmohan Singh: (2 edits, 2 major, +1342) (+1342)(+156)
- Sonia Gandhi: (1 edits, 1 major, +1135) (+1135)
- Indian Civil Service: (2 edits, 2 major, +916) (+916)(+308)
- A. K. Antony: (3 edits, 3 major, +192) (+192)(+150)(+187)
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi: (1 edits, 1 major, +180) (+180)
- MER-C 04:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted two new pages he's created, both had copyvios from multiple sources starting with the first edit. I'll take a look at the rest soon. —SpacemanSpiff 06:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked all of the contribution survey above. There was clear copying in several, ironically even one that he alleged to be fixing for earlier copyvios. I've accordingly deleted everything he added of substance to any of them. I've also temporarily blocked two IPs he was using. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh, I think it's now time for us to evaluate if collateral damage is minimal compared to the level of disruption, especially given his manifesto. —SpacemanSpiff 17:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's always a good question. :) I'm going to have to leave it to you to work it out, though. I don't have quite as much time on Wikipedia as I did (which sounds really weird, under the circumstances :D) and won't be at full "volunteer level duties" until my contract expires. Putting in as much time as a sanely can on the weekends, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been offline for a while too, and my on-time isn't much, so I'll check as quickly as I can. cheers. 10:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks in particular for answering all my copyright questions and helping me learn a lot. I originally wanted to make this a 'Yoda award' but I couldn't find an image of Yoda that would pass the fair-use/license test, especially on this talk page.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! :D That's a great way to start the day. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your copyright cleanup efforts at business broker! I am frankly floored by your diligence, dedication, and hard work. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for noting the problem. :) It's important that we verify the copyright status of uncertain text. I'm very happy that we had enough evidence to draw a safe conclusion about it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know images aren't really your area but I still feel you may have something useful to add so would you mind taking a look at the conversation at User_talk:J_Milburn#Question and comment if you feel you have anything to add. (Don't worry it's not a non-free use issue). Dpmuk (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you or one of your talk page stalkers mind giving a second opinion here. I'm pretty certain about what I've said but that one phrase makes me think getting a second opinion is worthwhile as I'm still not that confident when it comes to questionable close paraphrasing issues. Dpmuk (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume a tps has done this as someone else has commented. Also apologies for not leaving the below editor a note earleir - I was most of the way through writing it when my supervisor popped round for a chat. Dpmuk (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a coffee break. :D I was going to get this one on my next coffee break. Glad to hear it's been handled! --Maggie Dennis (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Moonriddengirl,
The person himself wants it to be Joey Foster Ellis.... So I delete Joey Ellis....Sorry for the short notice, as I am new to Wikipedia... Thanks for paying attention. And I change it back!
Hope you had a nice day!
Ellen.clementia (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India. My view is that the administrator who originally removed the {{db-g12}} from the article was in error. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, removing G12 was the right thing to do, because it doesn't apply when we have unverified permission. But it needs to go a step further, with blanking with {{copyvio}} and an explanation to the contributor how to verify. I have my own template I use for this purpose: User:Moonriddengirl/vp. Unless you or a friendly talk page stalker help out with it, I'll see what I can do when I'm off work. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article blanked, listed at WP:CP, comment left at the AfD and contributor notified as to procedure. Also the same for Solid waste policy in India (except the AfD bit as it's not currently at AfD). Dpmuk (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks to you both! Voceditenore (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thank you, Dpmuk. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I was writing the above, the OTRS ticket came through. ;-). Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's sorted, then. :) The AfD can proceed without concern for copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
atleast update the list.. ready is the new highly grossing movie.. i dont know how the current list is legal.. and the list is not so useful.. dabangg is not there in the list.. atleat update the list with new grossers..User talk:Geocraze (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Under the circumstances, I don't think I should become involved in editing this list. It looks as though the effort to keep it clear of copyright is going to require that I remain uninvolved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here. → ROUX ₪ 22:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CANADIAN LINUX USER IS VANDALISING "ROBERT GARSIDE"-RELATED PAGES ON WIKIPEDIA. IN THIS CASE HE HAS DELETED AN ENTIRE ENTRY ABOUT ROBERT GARSIDE ON THIS PAGE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_run_across_Australia. Robert Garside was the first person to run around the world, including Australia. This is public knowledge and there are numerous media stories on the Internet. In this case I feel he has finally revealed his intentions against Robert Garside, as I stated in December 2010. Why is he allowed to hide behind the mask of an established editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.122.103 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. You're not supposed to be editing Wikipedia; you know that. I am willing to talk to you about issues with the Robert Garside article in spite of this, but that does not mean that you are free to edit.
- In terms of this article, I am rather appalled that content is being added and removed from List of people who have run across Australia when I was able to find verification for both Garside and Olsen having run across Australia in a matter of seconds. (Verification for the record I could not find; that needs an accessible source.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All content from User:Dromeaz is suspect as he is banned user. As per policy, it is WP:BRI, therefore I am reverting all his edits first and asking questions later as per all blocked users. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly, that's understandable, but the information seems to have been placed in the article by User:Bezza84: [1]. Admittedly, it changed quite a bit from the early edits. I can kind of see why those might have been upsetting. Best thing to do, I think, is to make sure that information is neutral and referenced. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JESPER OLSEN (RUNNER) page
Moonriddengirl, my gripe is with the Jesper Olsen (runner) page. If you look at the pattern of edits by CanadianLinuxUser, you will see that he is promoting the "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page. When I initially complained and resisted he simply tricked me into getting blocked. He made sure to elect himself as an 'established editor' first by editing other pages and then drew me into an "edit war". It was a trap that I assumed you would see through.
CanadianLinuxUser's edits are signature of who he really is and he is promoting Jesper Olsen, pure and simple. Now he appears to have complete control of the Jesper Olsen (runner) page and any other page related to the name Jesper Olsen (runner). It's a marketing campaign, that simple!
He also has a control on Robert Garside pages and regularly tries to play down Robert's success in any way he can get away with it. My only way to deal with this guy is to encourage you (Moonriddengirl) in the hope that you will ensure articles are fair. I sensed you had a strict sense of fairness and impartiality. I hope I'm right.
Is it not offensive to me that this other editor is allowed a free reign to re-write history however he chooses? Of course it is. It is propaganda. CanadianLinuxUser uses shaky references to puport the Jesper Olsen (runner) page, that should not even exist.
FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED:
1. Jesper Olsen has NO world record or Guinness World Record and he has NOT circumnavigated the world either. His distance was far too short and there is no proof that he has actually even done the distance he said, except his own web site. Propaganda.
2. Talk Archives on the Jesper Olsen (runner) page have been concealed. Is it not because that it says there that he takes taxi cabs across bridges?
3. The person protecting the Jesper Olsen (runner) page is a part of his team. Bias.
4. The Jesper Olsen (runner) page is an advert, wholly controlled by CanadianLinuxUser. Try editing it and you will see that he'll be there observing you. WHY?
- I want to be sure I'm perfectly frank here. It doesn't matter what you think about Jesper Olsen. You are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. Period. I am willing to talk to you about concerns about material related to Robert Garside, but until you negotiate an unblock of your account, you are not a part of the Wikipedia community and you have no voice in the development of any other content. Contributors who are blocked are not welcome to return under other usernames or as IPs.
- I have done my best when alerted to issues regarding Robert Garside to continue helping to make sure that your views are fairly considered, but you are endangering my ability to do this by continuing to press against User:CanadianLinuxUser and focusing on Jesper Olsen (runner). If the community tells me to stop talking to you altogether, you will be restricted to e-mailing the info mailing list to get assistance, and I know that you are aware of the limitations of that forum. If you want to be able to continue to be heard here, you really must de-escalate your behavior, no matter what you may think of CanadianLinuxUser's motivations or Jesper Olsen's achievements. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IP Block 194.153.138.23 and 135.196.122.103
Requesting block for block evasion, Edit warring and personal attacks. here here as well as here CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request for a change
Desired changed: Robert Garside, also known as "The Runningman"
References (from AP, PA to CNN and Reuters):
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/786406/British-runner-hoofs-it-in-LA-during-42000-mile-footrace.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1019897/index.htm
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/775603/Runningman-get-chased-on-bad-days.html
http://printstore.pressassociation.com/round_the_world_run_robert_garside_piccadilly_circus/print/1922323.html
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/815052/Running-Man-runs--from-Colombia.html
http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/PlanetaBizarro/0,,MUL15762-6091,00-BRITANICO+DA+A+VOLTA+AO+MUNDO+CORRENDO.html
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/53/53379_running_man_still_on_for_record.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/24/i_at.09.html
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/27403_race_to_finish_for_global_marathon_man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.153.138.23 (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not be considering changing anything that is not a clearcut violation of our biographies of living person's policy until we have resolved the issue with your flagrant ongoing violation of your block. So long as you are editing Wikipedia, I cannot help you with anything that I do not regard as an emergency. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! I uploaded a file similar to this file, because it was of a higher resolution, but the uploader keeps reverting my edits saying no guideline stipulate that all non-free images must not be in high resolution. What do I do? Appreciate your help. GaneshBhakt (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the intention. Low resolution is what we prefer. :) The higher the resolution, the more likely our use of their copyrighted work is to be seen as infringing. This is why the "fair use rationale" includes the question: "Low resolution?" It's explained a bit here. It's encoded in non-free content policy as, "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." Low resolution images are generally of acceptable quality for viewing online, but do not print out well. Since you agree that the image is not "low resolution" (in your upload summary, you answered the "low resolution?" question by saying "no"), you may wish to tag the image for deletion by using {{db-G7}}. If you think that it is still low enough, you might ask for other opinions at WP:MCQ. But in either event, you should probably request that File:The Looney Tunes Show - Characters.png be deleted, since you had uploaded the higher resolution over the original anyway and that one could simply be restored. We can't have two copies of the image hanging around. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please delete the file per this policy! GaneshBhakt (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. :) Again, if you think that the image you uploaded is not too large, you might get feedback at WP:MCQ. You can use the larger image at this name. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wandered across the images [2] and [3]. They seem to be the same, but the one on enwiki has a fair use tag, while the one on commons is licensed under free licenses. Is there something I am missing, or is there a problem with the licensing part somewhere? I also left a note on the commons helpdesk, but I've seen that you answer better and faster than helpdesks :P , so here I am. Lynch7 19:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like a copyvio to me! I'll poke at it a bit more and may tag it for deletion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its been deleted now. Thanks. Lynch7 05:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl (or a stalker). I was wondering if you could delete all revisions prior to the current one at Talk:Morotai Island Regency. An IP user wrote their email address, so I think it would fall under Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#HIDINGBEFORESIGHT. I have removed the email address, but I think it would still require oversight. Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. :) Are you contacting oversight? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try, but I'm not quite sure how.
- Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eep, there's a double request then. Normally I just redact email addreses but I found a further concern with revealing a name in somewhat non-encyclopedic and vulnerable circumstances, so I further removed content and requested oversight of the lot. I'm sure they'll sort it all out at the far end of the request(s). :) Franamax (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any harm in that; at the very least it'll get their attention. Thanks, Fran. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Thanks, both. It was a bit late for me last night, so I just trotted off to bed after the revdeletion. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you have time, and if it's not too much trouble, could you please provide some input here? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Provided. :) For my own records, I've offered to do a random spot check of recent contribs this weekend. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard for me to tell, but it looks like the copyright issues you identified[4] and deleted in 2009[5] have been restored. Could you or someone else take another look? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly raises some red flags! Investigating. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, this was the content that was previously copied. It had been a direct duplicate. It's not that now, and the duplication detector doesn't find many matches.
- So I took a random phrase and did a google search. Bingo. A 2005 blog. (Dupdet looks very different.) Checking to see when this showed up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your quick response. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MRG!
I have a French magazine (Jan 1932) and I'd like to use the cover to illustrate an article I'm working up. The reason I ask is that I've spoken to a French publisher friend about this and she says she would reproduce scaled-down images of pre-World War II book jackets, magazine covers, newspaper front pages etc without a moment's hesitation and has done so on hundreds of occasions. Any idea how this would be viewed here, given US law may be involved? Have you any idea whether this is now PD for Wikipedia purposes? Or whether it qualifies otherwise? Many thanks in advance, Roger Davies talk 11:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Roger. :D You caught me just after I "left" for work, but if one of my lovely talk page stalkers (who do truly rock) don't help with this, I'll look into it later today. I'm not familiar with the copyright laws of France, which would weigh in on their upload on Commons. They have a balance of US/local law that I haven't firmly nailed. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Roger Davies talk 12:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) I think you are out of luck, but wouldn't mind some confirmation of my reasoning: France has a life of author + 70 years as standard, so unless the creator of the cover (probably a photographer?) died in or before 1940 (and not in service to France) it is not yet PD in France. Per the Uruguay Round Agreements Act the same terms apply in the US if it was not yet published there. The only loophole I see if the cover was a "pseudonymous, anonymous or collective work", in which case copyright has expired (70 years after publication). Yoenit (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Boy, you said that so much more succinctly than I was going to. :) First, obviously I didn't get to this last night. Sorry, Roger! Family stuff came up after work.
- Like Yoenit, I don't believe that this stuff is likely to be "free" for use on Wikipedia. France is confusing (not that the U.S. has room to talk); per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, their expiration was at the time 50 years post death of the author unless the material was published in wartime or the author "died for France" (the former added a variable number of years, depending on which war; the latter added 30 years). But in April 1997, France retroactively altered these terms to 70 years after the death of the author. Our guideline doesn't mention anonymous works, but according to our article on French copyright law, Yoenit is right about that one.
- There is a possibility that these works were briefly public domain under the prior terms, but copyright retroactively restored by France's extension. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act makes all this extremely complicated, because if the content was PD in France as of January 1, 1996 (and had never been copyrighted through US formalities), it would have been PD in the US as well. If France retroactively restored copyright in 1997? I have no idea how the US would handle that. If it was not PD in France on that date and had not been copyrighted through US formalities, it will not be PD in the United States until 95 years after publication. (See [6]).
- If we can determine date of death of the creator, that could be a lot easier for us. There is a possibility that if it is PD in France but not the US, it may be uploadedable on Commons using a combination of Commons:Template:Anonymous-EU and Commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA. Frankly, I don't really know how Commons can take images that aren't PD in the U.S., but I'm looking into that with a Commons admin. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(od) Thank you both for your very helpful input. In fact, there are a run of covers about an event serialised across six issues. The subject of the article (Michel Vieuchange) died in Nov 1929 (so pictures he took are okay) but I cannot readily establish the DOD of his guide/companion (El Mahboul) who took many of the others. The route forward seems to be to rely solely on covers using images by Vieuchange until and unless the DOD of El Mahboul turns up. A further complicating factor is that some of the images themselves were taken in the Spanish Sahara (then a Spanish protectorate) and others in French Morocco (then a French protectorate). An interesting issue here, I suppose, is not the technical and theretical issue about whether copyright subsists in El Mahboul but whether in practical terms there is anyone to enforce his rights. I mention this because the pictures he took he did at Vieuchange's request, using Vieuchange's equipment and film stock, and passed to Jean Vieuchange (Michel's brother) for processing and publication. Roger Davies talk 16:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The material was published posthumous? That may complicate this further. According to French copyright law posthumously published material is protected for 25 years, but I believe that is incorrect and only goes for works published more than 70 years after the authors death (see List of countries' copyright length). With regards to the country where the pictures were taken, I am under the impression that does not matter and it is the country where the picture is published that determines copyright. Yoenit (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again! Roger Davies talk 18:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering – when using RevDel on multiple revisions for a copyvio that's been in an article for quite a long time, this may entail hiding revisions where non-infringing content which remains after the copyvio is cleaned was added. Does this cause attribution problems? January (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) It shouldn't. One of the advantages of revdel is that one can hide the content of the revisions without hiding the names of the contributors so good faith edits which end up being revdel'd are still attributed (We don't have to say who added which particular piece of text just that the person contributed in some way). Boissière (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Thanks, Boissière. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did some research on this item: NBC Parade of Stars 1947. Have located the Billboard articles that detail how the images were heavily promoted in 1947. Checked for copyright renewals for Sam Berman and National Broadcasting Company for 1975 (huge list--needed to use year of possible renewal). There was no information that the series' copyright(s) were renewed, and it's understandable as network radio had vastly changed by then.
Will be using some of these as "copyright not renewed", but see we already have quite a few of the caricatures from the portfolio on articles about the older stars. Would like to change any I find to free use, copyright not renewed. Would this be OK after I get my rationale "hammered out" :) and the images I want to use uploaded with the "not renewed" free license? Thanks, We hope (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, copyright renewal is not my strong point (I have tended to turn to some friendly Wikisource admins to help me when I run into those questions :D), so I'm not really the one to ask about whether they weren't renewed, but that's not what you're asking. :) If I follow you correctly, you want to know if you can change "non-free use rationales" on images that you believe are actually public domain. That answer I know: sure! If you have done your due diligence and have strong reason to believe they are pd, put your explanation up and convert them. I would be very thorough in explaining where you checked and why you think they are PD, perhaps at the talk page of the image. If the copyright status is ever challenged and you are not available to explain, that detail could be crucial. And I hope that you're right; those are fabulous images. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re List of highest-grossing Bollywood films - if I contact the site and ask them for permission to let us present all their data, will it be acceptable? Shahid • Talk2me 07:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) Only if you can get them to release the data under a open license such as the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). Just "permission" is not good enough. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information. Yoenit (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And if they would do that, that would be absolutely awesome. We would need them to either publish the release on their website or mail it to the Wikimedia Foundation. If you decide to ask them and need any assistance with the language of your letter or anything like that (we have some examples at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permissions), please let me know.
- If they don't, it may be best to move the article from "List of highest-grossing Bollywood films" to "Highest-grossing Bollywood films" and turn it into a discussion article instead of a list. I understand why people are expecting a list. The thing is, we can actually get more information in if we're not just reproducing their list. For a completely off-the-top-of-my-head example, if an article said:
Tracking gross income of films in Bollywood is complicated by the fact that there are no official sources to list income, although there are two prominent sources that publish estimates: IBOS Network and Box Office India.([7]) The rankings provided by the two sources do not agree, and neither source adjusts their estimates for inflation, which skews the results for recent years.([url]) The two sources can diverge widely in their estimates as well, with IBOS suggesting that top-ranking film 3 Idiots had earned 202,57,00,000 Indian rupees as of [date], while Box Office India estimates 189,38,74,729. Both lists show a tendency in recent years of [genre] to dominate the list. Among the top ten are four examples of [genre], Title 1, Title 2, Title 3 and Title 4, which combined grossed XXX to XXX, more than twice as much as the next ranking genre, [genre].
- Please remember that's off the top of my head. :) There's a tiny bit of sourced info in there, but I have no idea what genre dominates or how much more it might earn. (I've put two figures in to account for the differences in the lists.)
- Of course, the challenge with such a conversion is that we have to have sufficient text to support the information, and we couldn't possibly work in the entire list. But it seems to me that there's a lot of room for sourced conversation in an article on the subject, including on how these lists are generated. The article could talk about India's film distribution practices; [8] (for instances) talks about the limited number of screens on which 3 Idiots actually played and also the economic impact abroad (cf. [9]). Articles such as this talk about how Bollywood is expanding economically into foreign markets.
- Anyway, if they grant the lists, such a conversion wouldn't be necessary. If they don't, it might help make something useful out of what we're allowed to print. :)--Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again he has remolved the name "Robert Garside" from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumnavigation&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.153.138.23 (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I removed Robert Garside and 25 other circumnavigations (Including Jesper Olsen I might add) from that article because the list was growing too large. That is an editorial decision, one which every wikipedia editor is welcome to revert and discuss with me till we reach consensus. However, you are blocked and not allowed to edit, so your opinion will be completely ignored and everything you do reverted. Canadianlinuxuser was just enforcing the latter (unfortunate, as I asked him not do so). Had I seen it first I would have reverted it as well and I will do so with any future edits which are not both legimate concerns about the Robert Garside article and posted here on Moonriddengirls talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ROBERT GARSIDE completed the first run around the world and has an official Guinness World Record. The references are there. It has been properly cited. He also EXCEEDED the distance necessary for a circumnavigation. You have not explained *why* you would remove a foot circumnavigation. You can remove Jesper Olsen because he has not achieved the distance necessary for a circumnavigation but Robert Garside has. Please expand on your "editorial decision".
hello,
I want to copy and paste most of the text in [10] to Cal Lampley. Yes it is copyrighted, but is it possible to bypass the copyright? Should I send them an e mail? Please I need your advice. Thank you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 14:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LukeSkywalkerROTJV2Wallpaper.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LukeSkywalkerROTJV2Wallpaper_1_.jpg){kind=link}