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 on weekdays. I try to check back in at least once more during the day. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 22:42, 3 October 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now. RAF Merryfield & possible copyvio I went to the RAF Merryfield article to try to add some references and found much of the text is very similar to this site. It was added to wp in 2007 (diff) but I have no idea whether wp or the other site had the text first - should I add a copyvio label?— Rod talk 21:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Hi. :) A quick search suggests that website is rather new ([1]), but that's not definitive, because it could have come from somewhere else (meaning the website - they do sometimes move. :D). Their "About Us" page suggests that may be the case, as they claim to have been around since 2001. Given that, I want to take a look at the evolution of the content to see if I can tell which came first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Okay, typo at insertion point ("to he built") suggests it was either transcribed from a book or developed here naturally. That error is not on the external site. Excellent sign minutes later with small changes such as camp->airfield and August 24->24 August. The external site uses both of them. The "Ahhot" typo is a little concerning, though, as that kind of thing usually indicates a poorly digitized source - the scanner misreads the lower line of the "b". Also note "2$" for 26 and "September &" for "September 6". Here's more of that: "Ramshury" instead of "Ramsbury". But again a change is made ("with Merryfield" becomes "with the station"). I think the source you spotted copied from us, but if I could get inside of it, I'd be looking at UK Airfields of the Ninth, the source, for matches. :/ I don't suppose you have a copy of that book, do you? I'd love to eliminate that concern. Unfortunately, the contributor who added the article does have an early history of issues (see 1 and 2, for instance. There are other CSB notices, but I'm not checking those, having verified these two). I need to make sure that the content was not copied and that, if it was, the content is PD and properly attributed per current plagiarism guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for looking. I don't have the UK Airfields of the Ninth book but did get the Berryman one out of the library - which prompted my interest in the article. Your expertise and tenaciousness in these queries is brilliant.— Rod talk 13:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I've had a lot of practice. :D I guess I'll start with WP:REX. They can sometimes help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Check back at REX, me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC) I need your help I need a small held on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._P._Yohannan . I had added a section controversies over there a few days back and based on some reputed media published articles. Some people are continuously removing that section. What should I do remove it ? Copyright concern Hi MRG! Sorry to bother you again (I'm sure you get many messages that begin with that line...) I'm currently looking at a copyright text concern for Dunstable Priory. There is some related discussion on the talk page. The editor who inserted the text asserts it is PD and it has been attributed in the article. Looking at the website in question, I'm not sure the text is PD; their FAQ's section would suggest otherwise. However, I have been known to be stupid and I would appreciate you expert opinion. Best Pol430 talk to me 15:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) “All rights reserved” is pretty clear to start with, and the FAQ specifically limits quotations to “3 or 4 lines” (while providing a contact form for requesting permission to quote more). I’m no expert in these matters, but ISTM that even if the sites’s sources are demonstrably PD, they have the right to assert copyright on any editorial work they’ve done—so IMO it would be preferable to cite the original source instead (after verifying that all the text copied from the website is indeed verbatim).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC) I agree with Odysseus here. :) As WP:PD notes, work published prior to January 1, 1923, anywhere in the world is judged to be PD in the U.S., which is our bottom line. But their alterations - if creative - may have copyrights. Their FAQ suggests that they do not emend material so that their users can "rely on our site as an exact reproduction of the original" although they may ask living authors to provide corrections. They suggest that they do permit comments in the form of "annotation in-line", so any such annotations should certainly be removed. Otherwise, I think - given that line in their FAQ - that the content is probably okay. If we can verify that through the source itself, much the better. But if this came to me at WP:CP I would not remove it for that reason as long as no in-line annotations were included. (And I, too, have been sometimes known to be stupid Pol430. :) But certainly you are not here - it's a valid concern.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks Odysseus and MRG for your advice, I'll drop a note on the article talk page. :) Pol430 talk to me 10:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Appeal for detectives Before I began to edit the florid phrase at Babur#First battle of Panipat, I think it best to check for copyvios - that old gut instinct at work again. Much of the section predates September 2007, when That very day Babur ordered Humayun to ride to Agra (Ibrahim's former capital) and secure its national treasures and resources from looting was inserted. So far, I've not been able to find a violation using Google but my gut is turning somersaults here. Has anyone got any suggestions, short of borrowing every book on Babur from a library? I rather think that there may be violations elsewhere in the article also: the standard of phrasing is far beyond what I usually see for subjects of this nature. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Hey Sitush, some of the content in that section seems to be copied from Gazetteer of Ulwur published 1878, here is a link to it. Aha! I wondered whether it might be some old PD source and I should have mentioned that. The 1911 Britannica didn't have it but, hey, this stuff should have been attributed anyway. Frankly, it should have been cited: I presume that things have moved on since but I hate seeing so many articles with just a blanket {{1911}} stuck on the end of them - it makes tracking things down a complete nightmare. As for this specific article, well, I'll be dashed, it would seem I am going to have to spend some considerable time fettling Victorian prose ;) - Sitush (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC) LOL! At least Victorian prose makes the copy-pasting instantly recognizable. :D Good sleuthing, Darkness Shines. Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Article that you deleted and is being re-loaded Hi, I created a wikipedia article a while ago (in 2010) and actually today I was about to review the text and I found out it has been deleted. The text is: 20:49, 14 June 2012 Dpmuk (talk | contribs) deleted page EUCEN (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: Also close to a G11) I am in the process to create the article again (reviewing the content as I do it). I cannot see why there should be a problem of copyright if I formally represent this association and I am writing an article in its behalf. All the links I include are links to our own webpages and make reference to our work. I am just wondering if the page was deleted because of lack of visitors or lack of updating... Maybe you can tell me. Thanks. CarmeRoyo (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) The primary reason for deletion was that it infringed copyright, presumably of the association's website or similar. I think that you should review our policy on conflicts of interest and notability if you still think that you are justified in recreating the article then you should resubmit it via Articles for Creation, using your own words or after providing us with an official disclaimer of copyright via our process for that. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Very good advice, Sitush. Thank you. :) CarmeRoyo, you can see the form you should send at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Please do keep in mind, though, that giving permission for the text does not mean that it is necessarily appropriate. Often, external sites use language that is more promotional than we can use in accordance with our policies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC) What you tell me is surreal. I write all the content for the association since July 2000 (we are only 2 members of staff anyway and I am the most senior employee, with a Directive role). It sounds very strange that you would accept the content if I bother changing words so it sounds different. What a criteria! I only wanted to make sure that EUCEN (through its staff) creates the page for EUCEN before some idiot thinks that can create a short silly entry for us. By the way, the web site that you quote was one of our conferences' websites. I asked the webmaster of that site to remove the text about EUCEN yesterday as the conference took place in Nov 2011. I hoped thus to solve this silly problem. They did so immediately. So, if you follow the link you gave me you'll see there is nothing now about EUCEN. Do I still need to go through all this bureaucratic nonsense? Thanks. CarmeRoyo (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC) It is surreal to you that Wikipedians would want evidence that some person who registered without any identification on our site actually owns rights to something already published? It makes perfect sense to me. Copyright is a matter of law; we are required to comply with it, and we need to be able to show that we've complied with it in the event of challenge. This is why external processes must be followed. I'm not sure which website you're talking about - I haven't quoted one, and I can't see that Sitush has either. Are you perhaps confusing us with some other persons? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, definitely this is surreal to me. Are you seriusly thinking that providing some online identification (that you would have to double-check, but how? so you won't check it) makes things more secure? Anyway, I suppose this is your job (I hope you get some money for doing this!). I have received the message below in parallel with yours (which I've just realise that maybe comes from someone called MadmanBot?): This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of EUCEN, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.perform.unige.it/eucen/organizers.html. You all have very imaginative and spam-looking names. Congratulations. I give my real name, by the way. I have nothing to hide. Anyway, I cannot be bother with all this, you see. If Wikipedia really believes that my EUCEN entry is dangerous or will cause problems and has to be deleted, please whoever proceed. For me Wikipedia (for entering materials) is finished. I do not have time for more. Thanks for replying anyway. CarmeRoyo (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC) This information is easily checked - for example, if you post a licensing statement on your website we can go to your website and see it. If you send an email to the volunteer response team from an email address associated with your website, we can verify your connection because of the email address you use. I understand that it may be annoying to have to follow procedures, but we do follow through with them. They exist for the legal protection of our website as well as of the copyright holders. I realize that these procedures can be confusing to people, and I do apologize for that, but I find your confrontational attitude here very strange. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC) If you knew how little time I have for this type of things, you would understand why I am annoyed. I thought I was being polite in my messages, but sorry if you do not think so. I won't do anything about copyrights because I do not have the time. If the article disappears, bad luck. As I said before, thanks for your time. I do appreciate your replies. CarmeRoyo (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC) I and my girlfriends That is a name of a film.. can you hide two edits from here after verifying if those are copyvio? --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Certainly. :) And I must say that I was wondering for a moment what this section was going to be about. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 06 May 2013 News and notes: Candidates nominating for Foundation elections; Looking ahead to Wikimania 2014 Technology report: Foundation successful in bid for larger Google subsidy Featured content: WikiCup update: full speed ahead! In the media: New Wikipedia for Schools edition; Anders Behring Breivik's Wikipedia contributions WikiProject report: Earn $100 in cash... and a button! Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe EdwardsBot (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Alasinga Perumal Could you check copyvio of second paragraph of Alasinga Perumal with this forum post. I am reluctant to think we copied from a user forum. But, the forum message was posted in 2006 and we started the Wikipedia article in 2010! --08:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Wouldn't be the first time we've copied from a forum post! Looking into it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Okay, in a case like this, this is what we look for: When material clearly predates the article elsewhere, is it properly licensed or public domain for other reason, such as age? (If yes, make sure it is properly attributed per Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If no, go on to the next question.) Is there evidence that the content was posted elsewhere on Wikipedia first, so that it may have been a reverse infringement? (If yes, make sure it is properly attributed per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and consider if you need to mark it a {{backwardscopy}}. If no, go on to the next question.) Is there reason to believe that the person who placed it here was the same person who placed it there? (For instance, does the contributor have the same username or does he claim to be that person? If yes, blank the material per Wikipedia:CP. If no, go on to the next question.) Can the content be easily removed from the article? (If yes, remove the material per Wikipedia:Copyvio and place {{cclean}} on the talk. If no, blank per Wikipedia:CP.) In all cases, communicate to the contributor if there is a problem with attribution or copyright. In this case, strongly leading to a conclusion that we copied, the forum post is copying an evidently scholarly work, as it is attributed to a professor. That makes it all the more likely that we copied from them - although not definitive, since as we know some professors do copy from us. With a four year lead on the other page and no evidence of proper internal copying (or even source for the content), we have no reason to doubt that this is a copyvio. I've handled accordingly and used a modification of {{cclean}} to communicate to the user in question (I do this often with older copyright issues). The smart thing to do now is to watch the article to see if the content comes back and to do a quick spot check to see if there are other copyright issues from the contributor that have not been addressed. I've only got a few minutes, but will take a peek. :) If you can watch the article, that would be much appreciated! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC) CCI tool seems to be down. :/ I found copying in Sanskrit and would like to look further, but i'm out of time for now! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC) John Kirkpatrick (pianist) I didn't know that my father had a Wikipedia page and when I followed the link on Charles Ives Second Piano Sonata I saw that the page had been deleted!  :-( On further investigation, it seems that there were questions about copyright infringement. I love Wikipedia and use it all the time, but know nothing about contributing. I would like to see this page restored, with different content if that was what caused problems. What, if anything, would it be appropriate for me to do about this? I appreciate your help. thank you, You can reply to me at dkirkpatrick1 at stny.rr.com Daisy Kirkpatrick 69.205.159.111 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Hello Daisy. I saw your message here and have re-created John Kirkpatrick (pianist). It would be a pity not to have an article on English Wikipedia about this distinguished pianist and scholar. The French Wikipedia has one! For now it's just a very short article, but I'll expand it over the next few days. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you, Voceditenore. That's fabulous. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Armalite AR-50 Hi there. I noticed that last month you handled all the cases at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 January 14 except for one: Armalite AR-50, which had been copied from http://azfirearms.com/index.php/rifles/all.html?dir=asc&order=name. I was wondering if perhaps you had overlooked it, or if there is some other reason why it couldn't be processed. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Just overlooked it. Fortunately, we have a bot that relists when that happens, so it's still up at WP:CP - just not processed in order. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Resolved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for that, I was the user who asked Psychonaut what was going on with this article, and I've begun to reword the article. I will probably rewrite it totally at some point in the future. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry I overlooked it the first time. :) And that sounds like a good idea! It seems like it could use some neutralizing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC) It needs major work still, but at least it doesn't quite read like it is a pure press release. The main thing now is that a 5-month-old message is gone, and the page is at least usable again. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Whitelisting Are u good at "Whitelisting" sources? If yes, the online source for Galatta.com is blacklisted even though it is notable. Pls whitelist it after seeing this discussion. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but I'm really not. :) You might have to wait for another admin to visit the discussion and assess your notes against the criteria. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Deleted article Hello, Moonriddengirl, I haven't bothered you in a while. :) I updated some statistics in the Jacksonville Bolles School article, and noticed that their football coach, Corky Rogers, was red-linked. When I checked for the article (which I created four years ago) it had been deleted by user Fastily, who has since retired from Wikipedia. His stated reason was: "I honestly don't see any reason this person could be notable and meet the guidelines." Would you restore this to my sandbox, or direct me to another admin if you don't have time? This coach has been inducted into the Florida High School Hall of Fame and has over 400 wins in his career. Thanks for your help. Mgrē@sŏn 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Hi! Good to see you and to see that you're still working. :D That one was deleted via WP:PROD, so it can be restored simply on request. It does not have to be userfied but certainly can be, if you think you can improve notability. Since the article has been deleted for almost two years, I think it would be uncontroversial. I've restored it in article space, and would appreciate it if you would let me know if you're intending to userfy. If not, I will need to courtesy notify the PROD tagger that the PROD has been contested in case he wishes to consider WP:AFD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your assistance. I intend to expand the stub to a full article, if that is what "userfy" means... Mgrē@sŏn 19:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC) A technical question re the art resale royalties entry. The entry states "The artist retains the copyright unless the artist is commissioned, or is an employee as with magazine illustrators or book cover artists when the publisher is assigned the ownership of the copyright". ARR is 'normally' viewed as a inalienable economic right, and as best as I can understand it, being the owner of copyright in a artwork is not necessarily the same as being entitled to a right to resale royalties on that artwork.... can you help me on how to phrase this in normal legal copyright terms? Thanks