|
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia 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 10:58, 26 August 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Check back at REX, me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey there. I saw this discussion as I've still got Skinny's page watchlisted. I have got Airfields of the Ninth, and I'm afraid to say that when I was using it for work purposes a few months ago, I noticed that of the ones I looked at, almost every article on airfields that are in that book, contains copyvios of varying sizes (RAF Thruxton and RAF Stoney Cross are memorable, plus a dozen others). The book is at work, but I'll check it tomorrow and give you some examples. Sorry, I only just remembered this issue - it's quite big, but was of low priority when I was reading the book as the work came first! Seeing this thread has just reminded me... Ranger Steve Talk 13:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. Be warned though that there's dozens of airfields in the book. I'll probably do it on a county basis, as the book does, and it may take a while. Ranger Steve Talk 14:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. If anyone else has a copy of the book, it might be handy. By the way, something weird with your sig datestamps above (March 2014?). Ranger Steve Talk 14:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. :) I was hoping not to forget this one. Thanks, Crisco, for pointing out the activity - as focused on the little copyright investigation as I've been, I think I would have missed it altogether. One thing I might suggest, @Ranger Steve:, if you don't mind - can you check to see if there's a pattern in who added the problematic content? If so, we can do this as a regular WP:CCI. If it's been copied by multiple people (the way Banglapedia has been), it's a far different problem. If it's one person and there's at least five problematic articles, I would open a CCI for him. If you would prefer, if you can just list for me maybe 5-10 articles that are clearly copied from that source, I'll be happy to do the investigation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. I'll shove it all in a sandbox and then you can decide where best to put it. Looking above, I think you've already identified the main source of the problem, but I'll confirm this more definitively tomorrow. Ranger Steve Talk 16:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi both. I've started a summary of one article at User:Ranger Steve/Sandbox3, to give a flavour of the issues. There are 62 articles in Airfields of the Ninth; I've randomly looked at a few and made some comments. I'm afraid that's all I've got time for today. I fear it may take some time to ascertain how deep this issue goes; it might be worth contacting the editor in question directly and seeing if he'll take on the work... Ranger Steve Talk 07:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much, Ranger Steve. I've done so, leaving him a note in the existing section for copyright concerns on his talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to give scope here, I have gone ahead and run the CCI: User:Moonriddengirl/CCI sandbox. I randomly spot-checked the first article on the top of the fourth page. It was an article on a song, and it was copied from a website but cleaned long ago. I popped in on an article midway down page 7, Jamie Colby, and find the following passage added to the article (among others):
While waiting to take the Bar Examination, she was asked to fill in at a television station for an anchor who was on maternity leave. She enjoyed it so much that she decided to seek a future in Journalism, although she did later take and pass the bar....
Since the passage cites IMDB, I checked IMBD, where i find:
While waiting to take the Bar (to become a lawyer), she was asked to fill in at a television station for an anchor who was on maternity leave. She enjoyed it so much that she decided to seek a future in Journalism, although she did later take and pass the bar.
This was added in December 2011. I haven't checked the other sources for copying. That's about all I have time for right now. @Wizardman:, I already pinged you on his talk page, but your thoughts here would be welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh. And. Uuuuggh. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch. I was going to list all the airfields in my sandbox and start summarising the extent of copyvio in each, but I suspect it might not be necessary? Anyway, I've taken a random airfield again; RAF Balderton. Again, whilst its not a direct copy and paste, a lot of content is very very similar. A summary will appear in my sandbox shortly. Also, I have a concern about the black and white images used in most of these airfield articles. The photos themselves, most of which were taken by the RAF between 1942 and 1946, are presumably out of copyright. However, notice the runway numbers and north arrow? They're exactly as they appear in the book and are most likely modern annotations. Would they therefore be copyright of the author/publisher? Milhist would hate to lose these images, but I thought I'd better mention it. Ranger Steve Talk 14:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooh, images. This is where I prove a little more useful than just pinging people. Based on my look, it's probable that the numbers at File:Balderton-18apr44.jpg, for instance, would not pass the threshhold of originality needed to claim a new copyright (although I note that the UK does have a lower threshhold than the US, so at worse this would have to be hosted on Wikipedia). Doubt the directional arrow would be PD, though, unless it was in the original. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've opened it at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819. He's been actively working on cleanup, I'm happy to say, and I'm going to go in and annotate which articles he's cleaned, but, @Ranger Steve:, it would be really helpful if you could first take a look at a couple of them to see if the cleanup has addressed the problem. Maybe [2], [3], [4] and [5]? If those four are okay, then I think I can generalize that the cleanup is going well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can do tomorrow (been out of the office today). Ranger Steve Talk 16:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, been hectic for a few days and I won't be around for another ten days. Looking at those 4, they seem to be fine now. I haven't read all 4 in minute detail, but I can't see any evidence of block passages. I have noted that the cleanup has been quite blunt on some other articles, basically hacking almost all of the content out, which might include other, non-copyvio, contributions. I'll have to check later. Ranger Steve Talk 11:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From London
[[
File:St Paul's Cathedral, London - geograph.org.uk - 674462 cropped.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|St. Paul's Cathedral...
Merry Christmas, MRG, and a very happy new year! Voceditenore]]
Hi MRG - I hope you have been having a lovely holiday season, full of whatever weather and food you may prefer :) (I'm a snow and cheesecake sort of girl, but maybe that's just me...) I'm back with one of those "the CCI is down to the last article and I don't know what to do with it" situations. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20131014b has one left - the contributor added a fairly massive amount of text, and copyvio was found in most of his other large contributions, but I can't find the source for this one, and there have been a lot of edits in the intervening few years. Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would love some snow! I haven't seen it in years. I like cheesecake, but if I'm getting the food of my preference it's always going to be pizza. :D Let me take a look at that article. BRB. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he took this from youtube. I think what I'll do is go through the article later and just see what's still there from what he added. If it's creative, I'll rewrite it or remove it and explain why at the talk page. Alas, no time now. :/ If I don't do it in the next day or two, can somebody please politely poke at me? (I hope to do it later today.)
- And I hope your holidays have been lovely as well. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Some progress. Loads more to go. I want to look at this range next (including an IP that evidence suggests was probably the same guy). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done. Still working on it. :) It doesn't help that this clearly crucial article is such a mess! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't archive, section. I'm still working on this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See [6]. I also think it's too long in general, but the editor insists it all has to be in the article. Thanks. Hope you had a good break during the holidays! Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it very probably is too long. :) I note he says in edit summary that there was no response to his note on the talk page - it might be helpful to talk to him about the value of combining paraphrase and quotation. Generally, if somebody is willing to enter into dialogue about it, I think it's a really good idea to join them so that they move forward with a better understanding of the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been distracted - an ArbCom case naming me, just now a sock/stalker, etc. I will do that though. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, dear! That would distract me, too. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks both, I've posted to his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, MRG, I would like some advice. I noticed a fair amount of copyrighted material at Society for Scholarly Publishing. (much of its content appears to have been pasted from the org's website by one of its volunteers.) There is some seemingly non-infringing content, but it is too promotional/unsourced to be useful, in my opinion. Given that I don't think there is much worth keeping, I would like to delete the article in order to expunge the history and then recreate a new article about the subject. I've done something similar to an article about the org's blog, Scholarly Kitchen, which had very little non-infringing content, but Society for Scholarly Publishing doesn't seem to meet G12 as clearly, so as far as I can tell it might not be ok for me to delete this one. I've listed the article at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014_January_8, but I'm wondering if there's a quicker solution. What would you advise? Delete and start a new page? revdel everything prior to now and start a new page? Wait for the copyright investigation? Undo everything I've done because I'm way out in the weeds? I'd love to get the page for this subject back in business. Thanks for any input, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, maybe get Draft:Society_for_Scholarly_Publishing up to snuff and move it over the current page? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead with the draft; I also noted my actions at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems. Please let me know if I've done anything inappropriate here. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, User talk:ErikHaugen. :) Generally, what I'd do is just write it right over the top. You can always rev-delete the history if you're worried that the text will come back. In this case, though, what you've done seems perfectly fine. The copyvio text was there from the beginning. If the article had come up at WP:CP and you had placed your proposed rewrite in the "temp" space, I'd have just done the work for you of replacing the original. :D
- The benefit to WP:CP instead of instant fixing is really in two areas: (1) where permission is plausible and the content is worth keeping, and (2) where contributors may dispute the issue or simply need time to fix it. In the first case, offering people the red tape of verifying license for content is pointless when the content isn't what we would publish anyway. The second case is best where the original content may be temporarily useful in finding sources and making sure that the new rewrite is the best it can be or when somebody is going to pull a Hail Mary pass and prove at the last minute that the contents can't be copyrighted because [insert brilliant, persuasive reason here]. None of that is likely to be the case with an article like that one. So, thanks for being all proactive. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, after sleeping on it I felt like I must be misusing the copyvio template/process, for the reasons you say, and wanted to get an article up faster. Like you say, I should have just replaced the content with my new version and dealt with the histories later; that would have been much less disruptive. Sorry about that; and thanks for taking a look. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, ErikHaugen, I didn't mean that as any kind of criticism. :) Using the CP tag where content could just be rewritten is very common; I've done it myself plenty of times. Sometimes, to allow others a chance to do the rewrite and others to just soften the blow. People can be very taken aback to come in and find an article completely changed. Giving them a chance to see the issue and address it themselves first, if they choose, seems like a good thing to me in many cases. Anyway, my thanks were genuine. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the note; I didn't take it the wrong way, it's just that some associated with the page were pretty upset after I replaced the page with the CP template, and I should have realized they would be and was just trying to think about what I could have done differently to avoid getting everyone riled up. But you have a good point, if I had replaced the old page with the new one I made that might have riled them up just as much! Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please look over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bienvenido_%E2%80%9CBones%E2%80%9D_Banez,_Jr.
I have removed all references to the "close connection" immonuclear, one of the contributors of the entry except in the reviews and publications section (should I remove this, too?).
Thank you.
Cblanglois (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, Cblanglois. It seems to be much improved, although I have done a little further editing so that content that seemed biased or out of touch with our policies is removed. I've also removed the critique of a writer that at this point does not have an article on Wikipedia because the community judged him not notable enough for inclusion at that time. If that changes, his perspective may be included. Generally, we try to write in such a way that we do not imply anything about the material we are including. :) For instance, it is a fact that he is published in a German encyclopedia, but writing that he is the only Filipino surreal artist who "has made it to" the Lexikon der phantastischen Künstler suggests that this is a fiercely competitive publication, and we don't know if this is true. I've tried for a more neutral presentation of the fact.
- What the article most needs now is inline sourcing. The whole section on life & work has only one source, and it seems to be to a specific point. If you can, please add inline citations to that section to support the content. I've specifically asked for a source to support that "Edades was one of the pillars of the institution, along with the school's founder Aida Rivera-Ford", but that's only because that one is a "point of view" that especially needs such a source. The rest of the section needs sourcing, too. :)
- The publications should be fine. I have not checked the reviews, but they should really be looked at carefully to ensure that they all conform to our reliable source guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Moonriddengirl, thank you, I'm working on the citations in the Work and Life section although I have already found one re Aida Rivera Ford and Victorio Edades. I have revised the Themes section, moved the sentence about Satan giving color to the world and added a citation. Also added another sentence with a citation. Re reviews, I have deleted two which I realized were not reviews but mere announcements to an exhibit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cblanglois (talk • contribs) 04:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Moonriddengirl,when you have the time, kindly please look over the article again so we can finalize. Let me know what needs to be deleted, if needed, as the ones I have posted are the only verifiable references or citations that I could find. Thanks a lot! Cblanglois (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
what the what? Honestly, I think it all needs to go away. Tell me what you think. Dlohcierekim 16:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That one really confused me for a minute. :) I've reverted the copy & paste move and semi-protected the redirect.
- I don't really know. Looks like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Joseph Posner closed as no consensus. So unless there's a more successful AFD, it's not going anywhere. :D But the edit war going on there is pretty strange - do you think semi-protection would be appropriate, User:Dlohcierekim? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I did and undid. I am recusing myself as I cannot be objective. I thought 170 was another Lawline sock, but I think it's just a wikignome that walked into the mess unawares. The other IP stopped after I blocked him long enough to take a breath. (the quacking was hurting my ears.) Dlohcierekim 16:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! He asked for a move on the article, and it seems like a sensible request, so I moved it. Not a total wikignome, though, given this. But I really don't know much about the subject, so i don't know if it should be included or not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Burbles, shaking head, staggering from the scene of the calamity. Dlohcierekim 16:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside for a moment the whole sock puppetry thing (both the 108 and 170 IP editors are pretty well implicated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lawline), the move seems to have messed up a couple of links. Talk:Louis_J._Posner - the Talk page for the newly renamed page - redirects to the article; and in addition does not carry over the (fairly extensive) discussion that existed at the Talk page under the prior article name, Talk:Louis_Joseph_Posner. There is also much older discussion material in the history at Talk:Louis_J._Posner. I don't know what needs to be done, but it seems to be something! Otherwise, the move is fine with me; what's really stunning is how by dint of sheer persistence and puppetry, this blocked editor seems to be able to muck things up enough that he's able to restore several articles to his preferred versions! JohnInDC (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As an immediate (& provisional) fix, I redirected Talk:Louis J. Posner back to the active and still remaining page at Talk:Louis Joseph Posner. It's clumsy, and it really doesn't do to have a Talk page with a different name than the article, but it seemed like a better short term solution than letting new discussion take hold and fork off on the old, and obsolete Louis J. Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, JohnInDC. Your immediate & provisional fix worked. I've now moved the page - it didn't happen automatically because there had been content at the former page. Another alternative (also provisional) would have been to copy the content over to the new talk page. Either way, as long as conversation continues uninterrupted, there's no issue. :)
- The older discussion at Talk:Louis_J._Posner was already copied over to the new page, so it's all still there. But I've done a history merge anyway. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG, I reverted this edit earlier today as I think it may be in contravention of our WP:LINKVIO policies. Can you let me know if I've taken the right course here, or if I'm justified in the revert? Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great - many thanks! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MRG, Happy New Year! Sorry to bother you yet again. I came here to say three things, but I see that JohnInDC has already said one of them, about the Posner talkpage.
I posted here a while ago about what appeared to be a copyvio at Carlos Lopes (Guinea Bissau) and Atameru. I've just removed what is (I think) more or less the same copyvio screed from that article for the second time; Crisco 1492 dealt with it the time before that. Two questions: should the user be discouraged in some way from continuing to add the same sort of stuff? And do you think that it is likely that the copyvio is in fact foundational, that this version was copied from here or an earlier version thereof?
In case that isn't enough, could I ask you or one of the faithful watchers to take a look at Academy of Art University? It seems to me very probable that this edit in 2006 was copied from here rather than vice versa, but I can't prove it through archive.org. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Justlettersandnumbers, and Happy New Year to you as well. :D Always happy to hear from you. I've indefinitely blocked Atameru. I would prefer a limited block, but when the user returns so infrequently indef is generally our only option. It should catch his attention enough to at least engage on the issue, but there's also the chance that the article will next need semi-protection. The oldest form of the UN bio I've found, which was cited at creation is [7]. It looks to me like it's probably a close paraphrase of this. I've tossed in a basic rewrite, and i'm out of time. I'll have to save your last question for later and hope somebody else gets it first. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I trawled a little further through her contribs and came upon this. (see this for instance.) I have no doubt that she is a representative of the school adding content to the article from their materials.
- I can show that the content on the external site would have had to have been copied (if it were) from our website within a month of its addition. See [8]. Note that our article was changed to read "His tenure" rather than "His vision". The original still says "His vision."
- Given that Wayback cautions that there may be a 6 month gap before pages are archived and that they can't help at all when sites are rearranged (if it has a different domain pagename), we can't use lack of earlier archival to exclude copying. So, what we have is:
- Duplication of content at the original site (strongly indicative that they had it first)
- Inappropriate content for Wikipedia (strongly indicative that it was written for another purpose)
- Early changes to the content on our site predating the archive are not reflected on the site (indicating the content is older than the archive indicates)
- Policy at WP:C requires caution with copyright. Those three factors lend to removal of the material. Justlettersandnumbers, would you like to do the honors? And I don't suppose you've ever put any thought into being a Wikipedia:Copyright clerk? :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm constantly amazed at how good you are at this, thank you for making it seem so easy. I've done something at Academy of Art University, no idea if it was the right thing or not, criticism welcome. As for your last question, that really took me by surprise! No, I hadn't thought about it, particularly as I seem to be out of my depth here most of the time; but now, if I may, I will read and think about it a bit, and reply later. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for helping improve the article. Would you be open to considering restoring the external link to the blacklisted webpage. The webpage is only used in the 'External links' section of the article. In my view the webpage provides a highly educational, informative and insightful practical example of the Abilene paradox. This practical example is also fun and entertaining to read. In my view, restoring the external link would not damage the article in any way, and would only help improve and strengthen the article. Thanks and warm regards, IjonTichy (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, User:IjonTichyIjonTichy. :) I don't know why the site was blacklisted, but the thing to do in that case is request whitelisting for either the website or the specific page. I'm afraid I don't do that much with blacklisting - but it seems that it was added to the global blacklist by User:Vituzzu here in late December. According to the log, he says it's widely spammed. Directions for requesting whitelisting are here: Template:Blacklisted-links#What_to_do_next. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Turning up yet again. When, if ever, you have a moment, could I ask you to look (again!) at St. Michael's Choir School, where you cleared out FreshCorp619's stuff a while ago. Because it looks to me as if there are older problems there, which perhaps at that time you were not looking for? Specifically, I can't see how this could have got there if it wasn't copied from here. I'm also bothered by this block of non-encyclopaedic content, and by the resemblance of this to this. Some of that stuff is still in the article today. Or am I tilting at windmills? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
