User talk:Moonriddengirl

edit count | edit summary usage Wikipedia ads file info – #178 Welcome If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer. While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account. To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here. Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it. Hours of Operation In general, I check in with Wikipedia 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 21:29, 11 November 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now. Case for you to look at ...in case you're running out of work. :) Hi MRG! I decided to look over some recent DYK noms and on the 3rd one ran into Surajt88 (talk · contribs). It appears that basically every substantive article edit they have made is a copy-paste, with either very minimal or usually no rewriting at all. If you look at my contribs over the last day, you'll see what I've found and removed. Some questions: At Stand-alone inverter I removed one clear copy, but I'm uncomfortable with the rest. I rather suspect there is more copying, but it becomes difficult to spot as there is so much interleaving of sources, and I'm not clear on whether "slicing and dicing" as in the Features and Applications sections crosses the threshold of impermissible copying. Can you have a look? I'm not sure whether removing everything as presumptive copyvio is in order here or not. Some of their articles have been userfied, do these need to be further checked for copyvio, or blanked? Do we need a CCI? I'm basically going through their new articles one-by-one anyway, but not sure what to do about any loose ends I leave behind. And is rev deletion in order here, or is my slacker approach enough? ;) I've raised the issue on Surajt88's talk page and they haven't returned to editing yet, so I'm going to wait a while for their response. Just wanted to bring it to your attention for now. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC) I have no doubt this is a case of mass copy/pasting, but. The editor appears well meaning and a newbie, from India, where copy/pasting is a norm. Thus I felt like trying to make the author rewrite their articles, which is why userfied some of them which I immediately saw (delisted them all from DYK suggestion page). It would be a pity to lose a prolific contributor by drastic measures, thus I think a soft approach is worth trying in this case. Note that my measures were a quick reaction and are likely incomplete. Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC) I agree the editor seems well-meaning and that they may find it a great surprise that the work they are most proud of may be largely invalid. That's why I'm waiting for their response before moving ahead, There seems to be some good material there and it would be much better to keep the editor, minus the bad habit. Hopefully they will respond soon, but I vculd understand someone taking a few days off when they get that kind of news on their talk page. Franamax (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Hi, Franamax, Materialscientist. Good to see you. :D First, I really like the approach that both of you took to this contributor at his talk page. I really hope that we can convince him to stick around and conquer these issues, and I agree with you, Materialscientist, that this is a cultural problem. The question of a CCI: oi. Well, first, CCI is barely functioning. There are some contributors who keep working there (I'm sure there are more, but I regularly note and appreciate the efforts of User:Wizardman and User:MER-C) and I intend to dive in hard core once my contract ends, but it's got major limitations in getting things done. That said, it's the only option we really have if a contributor's work is too extensive for you to go through yourself or in a timely manner. (Back note: CCIs used to be something I did, unofficially, in my own userspace. Until it overwhelmed me. :)) If he's got too much to do for you to look at it, Franamax, the CCI is the best option. In terms of rev deletion, we sometimes do, sometimes don't. :) If you don't, you need to be especially clear that you're removing copyvios to prevent later inadvertent restoration. I usually do when content is extensive, because I have myself inadvertently restored copyright problems. (Contributor introduced identified copyvio in edit 12, say, of an article, and I reverted back to edit 11--not knowing that his copyvio had replaced an earlier one by somebody else.) But what really matters is just getting the stuff out of publication. The first community wide CCI we did, we didn't bother with rev deletion--we just stubbed everything the guy ever wrote. (User:GrahamBould). Just let me know if it's more than you can / want to handle alone, and I'll do the needful. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC) I have responded to the concerns in my talk page. I have asked one of the articles to be reviewed here. I would welcome your comments there. Thanks. Suraj T 11:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Hello. Please look into User:Surajt88/Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 when you can and please inform me if I can move it, so I can assure myself that I'm doing it right. Thanks. Suraj T 08:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Admin's Barnstar For your tireless work on copyright problems. :)  Obsidi♠n Soul 20:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you! And especially thank you for finding the problem. :D With CorenSearchbot not functioning at the moment, we really all need to keep a good eye out for these issues, or I'm afraid we'll be swamped. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Not merely on removing it, but the additional work on using the plagiarized sites as a source to at least leave the article a 'respectable' stub is particularly very nice of you. :) I wonder, would it help If I do things like that beforehand just so it won't be that much of a problem when it reaches the noticeboard? i.e. attempt to patch copyvio'd text with acceptable text, even if not quite at the same level of detail pre-copyvio. Not that I actively hunt copyvios though, I prefer article writing and losing my temper in discussions I really didn't care about that much anyway. LOL. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC) It's always helpful. :) I try particularly to help out in articles that experience tells me are likely to be repeated targets of copyvios. School articles fall into that category. If there's a void and people want to fill it, they're more likely to paste, particularly if they are (1) not good at expressing themselves (in English or just in general :D) or (2) part of a culture not that bothered about copyvio. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Heh gotcha. I was afraid that attempting to fix it beforehand would somehow invalidate the copyvio investigation process. Will do, cheers. :) -- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Deletion of Duane Hitchings " Captainhit" Dear Moonriddengirl, I believe I had contacted you before about my deletion of me - Duane Hitchings "Digital Hitch". I had an article on me and my history as a songwriter and musician when Wikipedia first started. Following is the first letter I sent you. Thank you. Duane Hitchings ( By the way, I no longer want "Captainhit" included in my credits. I have NO idea why Wikipedia put that on their page for me. I use that sometimes to keep my privacy and real name private on music and music business sites before "checking them out" Below is the letter I sent you. I was shocked to find out I was deleted from Wikipedia for "blatten copyright infringements". I just found out about this recently. Everything that was on my page was/is true. Example. I was a co-writer of the super hit "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" by Rod Stewart. Long story but my name was mistakenly left out as co-writer. It took forever, but my name is now listed in SOME later "best of albums". I have co-written 3 other hits with Rod – “Young Turks”, “Infatuation” and “Crazy Bout Her”. I have also written other hits and have songs for major artist's releases ( Heart, Pat Benetar, Michael Bolton, Dennis Lambert of the Temptations – my bass line and chords have been sampled on over 120 hip hop and rap artists including Tupac , Notorious Big, Snoop Dogg, Lil Wayne, N-Trance ( Europe) etc. . I am a Grammy Award winning song writer with Kim Carnes and Craig Krampf for a movie called Flashdance - "Home Where The Heart Is". I am also a well known musician/keyboard player since 1968 having recording playing/credits with Jimi Hendrix, Buddy Miles, Cactus, etc. Two notes on Rod Stewart's " Blondes Have More Fun" album - John Jarvis, a friend of mine, was not the main keyboard player on that album, I was -- AND David Foster played the Fender Piano on "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" with me playing synth and organ. I wish you would look into this ! I was sent an e-mail from you folks about where to correct this but received a e-mail telling me I had sent my info to the wrong place to your site. I truly hope we can resolve this and I can either be put back on Wikipedia as I was before or left out because the explanation why I was from your site is wrong and very embarrassing to me. I have had quite a few inquiries from friends and powerful people who are also friends that want to know why and what dod I do wrong ! As you surely know, this is the wrong business to have bad information that makes me look like a liar. I would appreciate this being resolved as I am sure you can understand OR take the note OFF Wikipedia that I preformed a dishonest act on your site. The information Wikipedia wrote and claim is blatantly wrong as I am sure you would agree if Wikipedia would REALLY look into my history. Thanks for your time Regards, Duane Hitchings 615 447-5121 Captainhit@Comcast.net Reverbnation Songwriter Institute of Nashville MySpace.com/duanehitchingsdigitalhitch Facebook If you would , Google my name and you will find many references to me. I am a very well known songwriter and musician since 1968 when I joined the Buddy Miles Express to 2010 AND just started writing for Rod Stewart once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhit (talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Hi. You did indeed contact me before, and I left a note at your user talk page in reply which includes an explanation of how to resolve this: User_talk:Captainhit. If you need assistance with that, please let me know. (It includes the address to which you should send your correspondence.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Why can't other people taking action which is liable to be interpreted as "disciplinary" be as careful, explicit and helpful as you always are? Can't you get "Be as considerate to editors as MRG" adopted as WP policy?! Opbeith (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC) You are very kind. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Certainly I'm being appreciative but it's not just fluff. This is a very serious issue at Wikipedia, and I'm not flattering you for the sake of flattery. Quite simply, you understand how things should be done in a collaborative enterprise that nevertheless has to have rules. It's appalling to me that so many other people I've come across at Wikipedia lack your intuitive sense of how to build and operate a system like Wikipedia. In a stretched voluntarist endeavour that's perhaps understandable but it's not acceptable. If a minimal amount of the effort devoted to policing "quality control" - notability, point of view, referencing, conflict of interest etc. - went into promoting "constructive engagement" with editors, Wikipedia would be a much more solid enterprise. Opbeith (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I'll put my natural bashfulness aside, then, and agree with you that we really fall down in general in treating other people decently. There are some great contributors on here who go miles to be collegial with people, and sometimes even the best of those fall down (I know without a doubt that I have on occasion in spite of my best efforts). But I admire them tremendously, because personally I hold the civility policy as right up next to copyright and BLP in my priorities. Not for the pleases and thank yous of it (though I like those, too), but for the essential philosophy that we must assume good faith (until proven otherwise) and we must create an environment that is inclusive and inviting if we are to keep Wikipedia thriving. In my personal opinion, it doesn't matter what other good work I may do for Wikipedia, if I am driving off the next "featured article" writer or arbitrator or bot programmer, I am not a net benefit. Any contributor who wants to work on Wikipedia needs to be helped to do so in the right way, and only if they cannot and will not do it in the right way should we politely show them the door. Politely. Because there's no reason to generate unnecessary ill will even amongst them, and if they cannot do it today, they may be able to do it tomorrow. All that said, I now feel terribly self-important. :) But I don't know what to do to spread that philosophy except by continuing to live it to the best of my ability. And showing appreciation to others I see doing the same. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC) The reason I commented was because I think you do "lead by example" but your example needs (much) wider dissemination. There is a structural problem, in that Wikipedia is so large and amorphous that it's hard to communicate that example widely enough. It was that concern that was at the core of my off-the-cuff comment that "Be as considerate to editors as MRG" should be adopted as WP policy. In fact I should have said "as the core of WP culture". Not everyone is as articulate, patient and reasonable as you (certainly not me). But why does someone coming onto Wikipedia very rapidly get the feeling that it's a minefield of esoteric values and determined personal opinions rather than a repository of useful information and helpful principle-based guidance? It's not simply a problem of robust individual attitudes, the dominant culture appears to be one of enforcement on the basis of affirmation. What you do is acknowledge the legitimacy of a mistaken point of view and then explain fully and adequately (over again when the nature of the issue doesn't appear to be understood) why it is mistaken in an important way and action needs to be taken, rather than simply using a Wikipedia policy reference like a brick to the back of the head. Is it possible to achieve a culture change in that direction or is it always going to be just a matter of "luck of the draw" that someone like myself ended up having my specific problem dealt with by someone as conscientious as yourself? It's nice that I'm constantly impressed by the way you deal with problems, but it's a bad sign that I am. Opbeith (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I don't know how to encourage a culture-wide change of that sort. :/ I think my own approach besides what I said above has two other major factors in it: (1) I don't believe that all policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are best practice, but I support them anyway because I believe in the consensus model (hence I recognize room for good faith disagreement :)) and (2) I am sadly aware that I myself require patient guidance in some things (even repeated patient guidance :D), and I'm all about the so-called "golden rule". But we have all kinds of policies to try to require people to treat each other well, and they don't seem to work very well. Mentorship might do better, but we don't really have a culture that supports that approach. Take adminship, for instance. While the "new admin school" has been vastly improved over the years, it's really a "sink or swim" kind of proposition. I always thought that partnering a new admin with an experienced admin would be a good idea. Many experienced admins encourage new admins to ask for help if needed, but new admins might not even know they need help. :) (Example: I remember one new admin who was closing AFDs not per consensus, but in accordance with what s/he thought best. It was a good faith misunderstanding of the admin's role there.) I guess as with anything that we have to make people care first, though. Creating a collegial environment isn't easy; it takes a lot more time (beginning, often, with biting one's lip and wiping out the first irritable reply :D). People would need to believe that it's important enough to justify the extra work. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Admin mentorship is not a bad idea, though I'm not sure new admins are necessarily the problem. In the absence of a "culture enhancement" mechanism, at least your example is effective as far as it penetrates - I'll try to remember the lip-biting recommendation! Opbeith (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC) WikiProject Images and Media Hello Moonriddengirl, I have prepared an drive yesterday to get the most images moved to the Wikimedia Commons. It is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drive Sep 2011. It will start at 13 years ago or more precisely at 00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC). There are some awards you may get. You may sign up now. We need lots of sysops too to delete the moved images. ~~Ebe123~~ talkContribs 17:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Hi. :) I'm not sure I'll have much time to help with this, but I'll try to pitch in a bit. I'm having enough trouble trying to help keep on top of the copyright issues at the moment. :D Hope it goes well, though! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Related to the above, there will soon be (hopefully) many editors moving image to Commons. What should we do about OTRS-approved images on en.wiki? Should they be moved to Commons? Is there anything special we should know or do? Someone asked about this ten months ago, but didn't receive an answer; do you know? All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC) If the license is compatible, it shouldn't matter whether OTRS permission came into OTRS through permissions-en or commons. The two queues have the same requirements for confirmation, although there is always some variance in how they're applied. :/ If I'm not mistaken, the permission templates for images are the same on projects, so the template should be copied over as well, I would think. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Okay, I'm planning to test this as soon as I can. Unfortunately the toolserver seems to be down at the moment, so I can't test until it comes back up. If there are problems, I'll let you know. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Another set of eyes needed I just came accross some strange uploads and I nominated File:Tenbyoil1996.jpg and File:Sea empress2.jpg for deletion as Copyvios. Amonst the other uploads of the user I found File:Stackpole Elidor Church Wales May 2010.jpg which has the cryptic remark WWP as author which leads me to believe that is a lifted image as well but I can't place the acronym unlike the CCW used on the two images I nominated. Also the user created a rather well written article Sea Empress oil spill in one sitting and then redirected the previously existing article MV Sea Empress as a merge It is not a cut and paste move but I have a stomach feeling that something fishy is going on. Can you have a look? Thanks Agathoclea (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Very strange. The article has a lot of red flags for copyright issues, but I don't find any text matches doing random spot checks throughout the article except Wikipedia mirrors. The merge may have been done in response to this, but this user gives every evidence of being experienced from the get-go. His first edit shows familiarity with edit summaries. There's the option of tagging the talk page of the article {{cv-unsure}}. As to the image, I haven't found a match for it anywhere. It's strange that he lists CCW as the author but indicates he took the photo himself. (Is that an autofill thing?) I'll take a look around a bit more in the morning. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I've tagged each image with {{subst:npd}} instead, because the uploader didn't provide any evidence that the copyright holder of each image had released each image under a free license. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks. :) I guess the thing to do with File:Stackpole Elidor Church Wales May 2010.jpg is put it on WP:PUF. I'll do that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first Please see Wikipedia_talk:Copyright problems#Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first and Talk:Special Forces (United States Army)#Copyright problems I have identified a book which seems to copy Wikipedia content, but the guidance in "Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first" does not seem to have any real advise on what to do once it has been identified. After reading Template:Backwardscopy/doc, I think I ought to be using Template:Backwardscopy but I would prefer to discuss it with editors who have used it, before doing so and I am not sure which talk page to use for such a discussion. What I would like to do is know if there is such a place and then to update the section "Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first" so others who travel in my footsteps know what to do and where to go. If you can help me it would be much appreciated. -- PBS (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I should have checked here first. :) I looked in at WT:CP before coming to my own talk page and have already answered it there. Does my answer there help? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks. -- PBS (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 15 August 2011 Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix News and notes: Chapter funding and what skeptics and Latter Day Saints have in common In the news: Wikipedia a "sausage fest", Chicago Wikipedians ("the people you've probably plagiarized"), and other silly season stories WikiProject report: The Oregonians Featured content: The best of the week Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC) New York Academy of Medicine copyvio problem is also a COI problem Hi Moonriddengirl, I found and reported a copyvio problem of 205.232.35.3 (talk) on New York Academy of Medicine. More details can be found in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 August 12. But checking on this IP-address I just found out that it belongs to the New York Academy of Medicine itself! So the copyvio problem becomes also a COI problem. What is the best way forward? I think we should inform this organization about it. I guess there is some standard email template we can send via OTRS? I looked up on their website an email address we can use: msandersnyam.org of Mary Sanders; she is executive assistant of their president. -- SchreyP (messages) 21:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC) OTRS does not often initiate contact, although individual volunteers have the option to do so. It may not be necessary, though. If it were a registered contributor, we'd simply leave the coi warning at their talk page. Since the IP is registered to the school and since there is a history of editing that article, that works here, too. :) On it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your updates. One question still: is there a reason why the actual revision of 205.232.35.3 on May 13th creating the copyvio is still visible in the article history? With revision diff we can still see the copyvio text. -- SchreyP (messages) 18:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Human error. I ticked the wrong box...or, more accurately, didn't tick the right one. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks, this case is closed :) -- SchreyP (messages) 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Copyvio question Hi Moonriddengirl. I recently came across an article, All-time Allsvenskan table, which I sent to AfD (see AfD) mainly on notability and NOTSTATS grounds (both of which may be fixed). The other issue was a copyvio concern. The article, which is just a table of statistics at the moment, is basically exactly the same as the article's only reference, except that it is in wiki-markup. I know that facts are not copyrightable, but it seem like a copyvio to me to just lay it out in practically the exact same format. So, is that a copyvio? If so, can anything be done to avoid it being a copyvio, or will it need to be deleted? Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Hi. :) Copyvio in lists, charts and tables can exist in several different factors. The material in the list can be copyrighted, or the arrangement of material can be copyrighted. When the material in the list is flat fact (and not selectively chosen fact), we're okay on that front, but the list/chart/table might still be copyrighted if it is arranged creatively. Looking at this chart, I have a few concerns. To start, I'm unsure if the ranking system itself is creative. It says the system gives three points to wins, for instance, and one team seems to have had points deducted one year for some reason. I'm not active in sports (much less Swedish sports :D), so I'm not sure if the "three point" win system is common or universal. If the system itself is creative, there's nothing that we can do to salvage the chart and would only be able to talk about it, not reproduce it. If the system is not creative, the next question is organization. The list seems to be organized based on the highest number of points cumulative. That's probably not creative in itself. But I don't know why the other elements are organized as they are--Seas, Pld, W, etc. I don't know what these mean, and I don't know if there is some obvious reason why they should be organized like that. Unless this, too, is a completely obvious and natural way to list elements, this may be creative. If those in the know about sports (and Swedish sports) determine that the system is not creative, the chart may be salvageable by looking at the organization of elements within it and figuring out if any of that content should be removed or reorganized. Please let me know if I'm unclear on any of this. :D It's a complex issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Hmmm. OK, at the moment, I'm thinking that it might not be arranged creatively. The three points for a win system is pretty universal in soccer, in that the large majority of leagues use that system. On the other hand, as it says in the article "It uses three points for a win even though this system was not introduced until the 1990 season", which was a choice the reference made and that was followed in the article. The three point deduction did happen, but it's also in noted in the ref. Regarding organisation, the format of W (wins), D (draws), L (losses), GF (goals for), GA (goals against), GD (goal difference—goals for minus goals against), Pts (points) is again fairly universal and used in the majority of soccer competitions (as far as I know nearly all soccer competitions have a league table formatted in a similar, if not identical, style). So, I've confused myself really :) I'm still unsure if the table is creative or not. Sorry to be a bother, but do you have any more advice? On a related note, I also found All-time Argentine Primera División table, which is similar, but I feel it is creative. The article apparently follows the refs exactly in awarding two points for some wins, while three points for other wins, two points for some draws, one point for other draws, etc. Again, sorry to bother you, but is that a copyvio then, if the table is deemed to be creative? Thanks in advance, Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Thessaloniki article on the Macedonian wikipedia Hello. I took the liberty to post this on your talk page because I saw on the Copyright Problems page that you are an active administrator. I don't know what to do exactly, but I have noticed that material from the English article on Thessaloniki (more specifically the section on Historical ethnic statistics) has been copied to the Macedonian wikipedia. Not only is the text not attributed to the original source (here and here), but there is no mention that the material has been copied from the English wikipedia. Moreover, the statistics have been changed to portray a view of Macedonian nationalism: the word "Bulgarians" was changed to "Macedonians" (see here) while the numbers are the same both in the English and the Macedonian articles, although the original source has nothing to do with Macedonians. This would be a copyright violation of work published by a user on Wikipedia, would it not? I am unsure as to how to procede from here, and I would like your opinion on this. Thanks for your consideration. --Philly boy92 (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Original contributions to Wikipedia are granted by their authors under a very permissive license which allows re-use and modification, but very definitely requires attribution to the authors of previous versions, as set out at the Copying... and Translating... sections of our guideline. To fix the attribution problem on mk:wiki, you can make a null edit to the article there and use an edit summary to note the copying (with a link to the en:wiki article) and preferably add a note to the article talk page also, giving links to the specific mk: edits where material was added amd to the en: versions where the material came from. That's one way we solve these problems here. As far as mk:wiki goes, 1) you might want to check the editor's other contributions and mark similar copying in the same way; and 2) address later changes to the text (like changing/falsifying nationalities) on the Macedonian wiki itself, as once text is copied somewhere else, so long as the source is attributed, we don't really care what happens to it. If something has been changed so that it is no longer supported by the sources, then hopefully the editors of mk:wiki will correct it very quickly. Regards from a random watcher of this talk page! Franamax (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks, Franamax. Excellent advice. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Vrghs jacob regarding your query before I disappeared -- some of the socks have been adding copyvios. Also, checking the contributions of the 59.178.xx.xx range on a regular basis would help as will protecting some of his regular articles. I don't know if adding these to the CCI is necessary right now, but noting the IP range (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vrghs jacob) might probably be needed. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Sigh. :/ We don't have the manpower to check his contributions on a regular basis. Even with Corensearchbot (and reducing the copyright work load by dozens of articles a day), we've got backlog in current copyright cleanup at WP:CP (I try to knock it down as much as I can on weekends, and there are a few people plugging away). Meanwhile, the CCI list keeps growing. Protecting some of his regular articles is probably the way to go. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I currently do that every few weeks and clean out chunks of them, I've short term protected a few articles in the past, but I think it's time for a longer term protection on some of these at least. The range is really too broad for us to do anything else. His topic area is mostly related to the Indian National Congress, Government of India, Civil Services of India and United Nations. A look at one of the /18 ranges he uses shows many other contributors. —SpacemanSpiff 12:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC) DYK for Twittering Machine Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Nice article! There are more red links you might be interested in at Wikipedia:GLAM/MoMA/Challenges and Wikipedia:GLAM/MoMA/Members, cheers. --Elekhh (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks. :) I'd love to write more; it's deeply satisfying to eliminate redlinks. :D I'll take a look at the lists. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie. Message added 05:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Hi. :) Thanks for the notice; I will try to read through it later today when I have more time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Otis Redding popular culture section hello, can you please check the "In popular culture" section in Otis Redding? It looks like a copyvio of [1], but it could be just a mirror site of Wikipedia. Thank you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 13:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC) On first glance, I think it's probably them copying us. :) The website in general has archives dating back quite some ways ([2]) but that subpage doesn't seem to be that old. I need to identify when the text entered the article and look for clues of natural evolution as well as checking the closest archive to that date. BRB. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Okay, contextual clues support the conclusion that we had it first. For instance, I looked for the phrase "Steely Dan" and found it introduced in May 2008, when much of the content of that section was already there. We find a different IP adding in another phrase in June 2008 that is also used in that external site. The next day, another IP added information on Nick Hornby. Later that same month, a registered user adds info on Dirty Dancing. It's quite unlikely that multiple users over an extended span of time copied content from that page bit by bit, so I think we can safely assume that at some point after June 2008, they copied it from us. We could narrow down exactly when by finding the point where language matches precisely, but that's too much work. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Possible copyvio A lot of Jeff Antebi seems to be copied straight from his Huffington Post bio. Possible deletion-worthy? Jrcla2 (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I bet we had it first, but I could be wrong. :) I'm looking into it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Okay, I'm even more convinced that's true. First, there's no archived version for the Huffington Post page. In July 2008, "WaxploitationWiki" started adding familiar content, with: "In 2007, the label released Causes 1, a benefit for non-profit organizations working in Darfur. The album includes songs from The Shins, Death Cab for Cutie, The Cure, Thievery Corporation, The Black Keys, Spoon, Animal Collective and others." We can see the germs in the second sentence of "The albums include songs from Diplo, Spoon, LCD Soundsystem, Animal Collective, The Shins, Devendra Banhart, The Decemberists, Death Cab for Cutie among others", but Causes 2 was not yet released. In July 2009, the language was updated by User:Tiltshift (who I suspect has personal involvement) to included Causes 2, bringing it closer in line with the external site. Further edits that brought it closer included this in December 2009. We see the entry of the "infamous Grey Album" here in February 2010 and here in April 2010 we learn that he was "the first photographer ever...." In January 2011, we learn about the destabilized Haiti. These incremental edits offer clear evidence of evolution...just as they are strongly suggestive of a potential COI. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Your request Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Zidane tribal (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Wow, now i see why he doesn`t want to use google translate, i`m afraid the translation you received indeed could be better, like this: Encontre un voluntario que traducira y estare feliz de escuchar como podemos ayudarte. Espero tu respusta. That faithfully translate your message, only thing, i wrote down "how can WE help you" hope is OK. BTW... is that your given name? M****e? If it is, cute name. Zidane tribal (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you! I'll have to run his response by you in e-mail, since that is private, but this particular note certainly isn't. :D And "how can WE help you" is much improved. And it's quite okay to call me Maggie on Wikipedia. :D Since I have a work contract with the Wikimedia Foundation, my name is public now. That said, I'm still happy with Moonriddengirl, too. I've been using that name for quite some time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Wonderful, i`ll just wait your next e-mail. Zidane tribal (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Moonriddengirl, You really deserve this. You're an outstanding contributor, have an answer to everything, and have been helping a lot of people, not to mention writing. :o) Thanks for all your contributions! NehaMich. (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar Here's another one, since they look good together--for your continued efforts to keep the place clean. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Adnan Borovic. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! joe•roet•c 07:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)