With good will, I tried to put on wikipedia the beginning two personalities profiles , William Mandeville AUSTIN and John Alfred Hipple. The systhem swept this effort, I am sorry. Please accept, Madam, my respectful greetings. Pierre-Francois Puech <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PUECH P.-F.|PUECH P.-F.]] ([[User talk:PUECH P.-F.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PUECH P.-F.|contribs]]) 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
With good will, I tried to put on wikipedia the beginning two personalities profiles , William Mandeville AUSTIN and John Alfred Hipple. The systhem swept this effort, I am sorry. Please accept, Madam, my respectful greetings. Pierre-Francois Puech <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PUECH P.-F.|PUECH P.-F.]] ([[User talk:PUECH P.-F.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PUECH P.-F.|contribs]]) 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Hi Moonriddengirl:
I am informed by Lars Curfs of WIKIPEDIA that you have edited the article on me. If you indeed are responsible putting this article into shape I would ask you please to consider four corrections:
1. On page 1 under MAIN INTERESTS the article lists aesthetics. This is ironic because while I have written extensively on every other area of philosophy I have done virtually nothing with aesthetics. Instead, the field that should be lists is EPISTEMOLOGY (or, if one prefers, Theory of Knowledge), where I have done a great deal of work.
2. The entry CAREER says I began my career as an academic at Lehigh University in 1957. Actually, my first teaching appointment was as an Instructor in Philosophy at Princeton for the 1951-1952 academic year.
3. The entry PHILOSOPHY speaks in line 7 of “medieval and late Arabic logic.” The expression “and late” should be deleted. All the texts I dealt with were medieval.
4. The entry PHILOSOPHY speaks in the last line of model syllogistic. This, however, should read MODAL syllogistic with an A in place of E.
That’s it as far as correction goes. Many thanks for attending to these points.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Rescher
P.S. As regards that entry “Notable Ideas” at the outset of the article, it is not really for me to say. But if someone did ask me I would myself list primarily two items:
* the theory of logarithmic returns (in scientometrics)
* the conception of vagrant predicates (in epistemology)
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time 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 17:26, 4 November 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?— Rodtalk21:49, 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.— Rodtalk13:34, 1 March 2013 (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 SteveTalk13:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ranger. When you have a chance, could you make a list of the articles that need looking at? Also, Pinging MRG, Pinging MRG, cleanup on Aisle 3. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 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 SteveTalk14:00, 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 SteveTalk16:48, 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 SteveTalk07:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ranger Steve. I note you indicate that the editor in question has a concerning propensity for unattributed cross-article copying. Not good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 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.
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 SteveTalk14:42, 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]
If the CCI has that many issues we're finding already, we probably don't have a choice other than to open it, although the sheer number means it will probably never be resolved :/ Wizardman16:59, 19 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 SteveTalk11:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waffly on that one, Dougweller - most of the deletions seem to be orphaned non-free content. Given his recent justified rant on AN, I'm going to ping User:MER-C. Thoughts?
And thanks for the updated re: the RSN. I think more eyes on this situation is important, and I appreciate your seasoned approach to these issues. :) I don't often have to deal with this kind of thing - it's really just not much of an issue in most of the articles I babysit. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking a user script edit to show a dialog box on the upload form might be in order. As pointed out above, most of the deletions are for orphaned fair use and only some of these are problematic. MER-C02:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, User:Dougweller. :( I am barely familiar with range blocks - I have only done or two, and with great fear and trembling. There used to be a tool that would help you determine collateral damage, but I can't seem to find it now. I can see if anybody who can take a look at the ANI listing on IRC. It looks like you're taking about 187.14.224.110 through 187.15.73.173, is that right? Organizing it from least to highest will make it easier for a blocker to assess the range. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dave. :) Well the licensing tag there is clearly inapplicable - fair use screenshots are only permitted to illustrate the software, and the licensing tag says as much. The image isn't used in the Google Street View article at all, but in Eland Mk7. The image isn't historically significant, so there'd be no reason to use a non-free image from Google Street View of the tank in the tank's article. But I don't honestly know that much about Google Street View. [8] indicates there are restrictions on reproduction, but I don't know if Google Street View images are copyrightable. If I were you, I'd ask about that one at WP:MCQ. --18:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Dave, I would be 100% astonished if Google Street View images were not copyrightable, as essentially the rig is still controlled by a human, with the ability for creative input which would affect the final image (i.e. speed to drive, how high to post the cameras, what angles to position the cameras, etc.). For this particular case, we definitely need a free image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wiki article on the famous organist Diane Meredith Belcher, and I would like to create one.
In starting to do so, I came across this info:
"22:01, 17 December 2007 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) deleted page Diane Meredith Belcher (CSD G12: Blatant Copyright infringement)"
I'm wondering if this is pertinent to the article I want to write.
Hi, User:Giovanni. :) Given the highly specific name, it seems pretty likely it's the same individual. However, the fact that we once had an article on the individual that was deleted as a copyright problem does not prevent you creating a new one. In these cases the problem is not with the subject, but only with the content we had. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I only now got your recommendations regarding the article "European Commodity Clearing (ECC) I wrote and which you deleted because of copyright problems you were assuming. In fact there is no copyright problem because I wrote the original text myself. I know you can't verify that. That's why I placed a release on the external website the text was taken from (http://www.marketswiki.com/mwiki/European_Commodity_Clearing_AG_(ECC). On the bottom you can find the copyright guideline. Now that I did this, I would like to write the article again. Do I have to write the article again or is it stored somewhere? I hope there won't be any further mistakes.
Alright, I see the problem. Our problem is that the content was provided by one person that was logged in with different accounts. But it's no use to tell you that because I totally understand your point - I will rewrite the article. Do I have to create a new article or can I use the page that I already created? Thank you for your effort. Ursula Goetze (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By any chance do you know about non-Wikimedia copyright issue?
Hello,
By any chance do you know about non-Wikimedia copyright issue?
My this post was entirely copied by someone here. Firstly I posted at their comment section and asked them to remove the post. They gave one of the weirdest reply I have ever heard I will not remove because I have written the URL from where I copied (please check comment section of the second link) Now I tried to follow the second option, reporting to the host, i. e. Wordpress. There I need to file a formal DMCA notice. Here is the DMCA form. There in the form I must provide my full residential address, phone number. But the surprising thing is, at the end of the form they are asking to me to acknowledge I acknowledge that a copy of this infringement notice, including any contact information I provided above (address, telephone number, and email address), will be forwarded to the user who uploaded the content at issue.. Now, why should I share my full contact details with that pirate? I'm stumped. --Tito☸Dutta20:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I'm sorry to hear about that situation, User:Titodutta. The law requires that you give sufficient information for the person to contact you in case of legal challenge to your takedown. I can't give you legal advice, but I can offer you a relevant link: [10]. He's sharing his own approach, and it sounds to me like a good one. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're never a pain, User:Dougweller. :) Which doesn't mean you don't find tricky stuff sometimes. But I'm always happy to try to help.
You didn't actually link to the page the content is copied from, but I'm doing a spot check through the article. :) There's clear plagiarism off the bat from [13]. That source is PD, so that can be fixed.
There's a ton of direct copying from the book itself, as reproduced at [14], but with a publication date of 1913 that's PD, too. More plagiarism. What I'm seeing in that article at this point looks like plagiarism, not copyvio. But if you've found something that is copied from a modern source, that changes the landscape. Off to look at the other article. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More plagiarism - [15] gives us the whole section beginning "In man divine powers are latent...."
I removed a massive blockquote. The article says the letters were published in 1941, and so they cannot be presumed to be out of copyright. We'd need to verify.
So what I'm seeing at this point is a massive issue of not understanding Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I do see the copyvio in the history of the second article, but it looks like he corrected it after your removal. That said, it's a wall of text, so it's not impossible I missed something substantial. :/
I'm happy to talk to him about how to avoid plagiarism issues, if you'd like. And if you think I missed copying from a copyrighted source, please let me know! --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Doug. They say the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is copyrighted, but transcribing an article verbatim from the Catholic Encyclopedia and publishing it online doesn't constitute originality. :) We have literally thousands of articles copying from that source: (see); it is attributed with {{Catholic}}. That content should be okay with attribution.
A 1931 book would be iffy. It depends on where it was published and under what conditions whether it's copyrighted in the U.S. as well as whether content is copied from the original or the revised version. But the Atkinson material was actually published earlier than that - 1904, 1903.
No argument about the articles not being very good - they're a mess of pov, if nothing else.
Thanks, I just discovered he'd used the original edition in any case. But we need to change New Advent if it's not copyright, as we imply it is by the wording in the article. What always bothers me about attribution is that the reader doesn't know what exactly is being attributed. And I had a nasty experience when I put fact tags on an article that I didn't realise was copy and paste from the Jewish Encyclopedia and had them removed on the grounds that it was sourced. This is a pain. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not to be done anyway without attribution. :) But I've left a personal note supplemental to your earlier one explaining the specific issues of plagiarism and licensing violations. Let's see if he fixes the content. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
April 2014
Thank you for your contributions. Please note in Wikipedia we follow some Manual of Style guidelines to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Unfortunately some of your edits did not follow MoS guidelines. According to WP:OVERLINK— A link should appear only once or twice in a page. You should not link every time.
But I have noticed every time you sign your posts, you link your user page and talk page. The worstly affected page is your own talk page, there you have linked your user page and talk page in your every message. I think it is a clear violation of WP:OVERLINK. --Tito☸Dutta15:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: For clarification, it was a joke, do not take it seriously. Source: Original creation.
LOL! --~~~~
Please do not blank out harvington school page
Dear Moonriddengirl, please do not blank out harvington school. There is no copyright infringement.
If you have any queries, please contact the school.
RE: Harvington School
Dear Moonriddengirl,
Please can you restore Harvington School. 1> There is no 'copyright' on the page and 2> I have been acting as an agent thereof.
I have left messages on the talk page, but have not heard anything back. If in doubt please contact admin@harvingtonschool.com, aevans@harvingtonschoo.com or tweet @harvingtonprep
Article regarding a US federal court opinion flagged as infringing
Hi, I'd like to point out this discussion of a recent article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014_March_24
As explained in that thread by both me (law student) and user Brianwc (law professor), the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Hemi_Group_LLC) was incorrectly flagged as infringing copyright. The article is about a federal court opinion, which is not copyrightable. Furthermore, there was already correct attribution and citation. I'm having a hard time convincing Justlettersandnumbers that the article is beyond simply fair use -- it CANNOT be infringement when all federal court opinions are not copyrightable and hence in the public domain, which means it can be freely copied, even without attribution, anywhere at any time, no matter who hosts the text.
Hello, User:Bundaberger. :) It's processed. As a matter of future reference, when you copy or closely paraphrase content onto Wikipedia from a public domain source, we request that you acknowledge the duplication either through explicit quotation or through the use of an attribution template. I've added one to this article - {{PD-notice}} placed next to the reference tells people that the source is public domain and that substantial content is duplicated or closely followed from it.
We do sometimes run into situations like this, where a website hosts public domain content but their own copyright reservation tag confuses editors as to the specific page. FindLaw is an excellent service, but unfortunately they don't offer much clarity to the public there. :/ I've scanned through their Terms of Service and Disclaimers looking for anything that explains that they do not in spite of their published tag claim copyright over the court judgments they publish. Maybe it's buried somewhere, but it's unfortunate that they don't make that obvious.
Hello Moonriddengirl. You deleted a part of the article K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater. I’m sorry, it is wrong. Author of the first Letter Kuthumi gave a permit on free using all his Letters. He wrote in Letter XXXIX (Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom, First Series, Adyar, Madras: Theosophical Publishing House, p. 106) that "everyone can take free something, the whole pages, from any my copied letter." Make undo please. Thank you. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More Whoniverse fun
User:G S Palmer's desire to push his OR POV returns, reverting twice(so far) a valid template [19], [20]. (This after he deleted all the tags such as "citation needed" for totally unsourced OR sentences! I brought this up on the discussion page..[21]. But fear not, because there is a WP:MEAT at hand...[22]!
Hi. That's not "meat", per se - that's what we call canvassing. It's not appropriate. I'll have a word with User:G S Palmer.
That said, aren't those tags redundant? :/ Are there "inappropriate or misinterpreted citations" that are different from the "original research" tag, or "unpublished synthesis", "unverifiable speculation and unjustified claims" that are? Is there actually speculation about future events, or is that just more concerns about original research? I'd encourage you to be selective about which claims best represent the dispute and stick to those. Multiplying them won't help - it will likely just muddy the waters and turn away uninvolved editors who might otherwise be willing to help resolve the concerns because it looks like overkill. If you think each of those tags is a clearly distinct issue, I'd recommend explaining how they are distinct problems on the talk page. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to respectfully disagree. User:Mezigue has been an almost constant element of the discussion over there. "Appropriate notification" is defined as: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article AND/OR Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". My notification of Mezigue fell well within both of those categories. G S Palmer (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
proposed profiles William Mandeville AUSTIN and John Alfred HIPPLE
Dear Madam,
With good will, I tried to put on wikipedia the beginning two personalities profiles , William Mandeville AUSTIN and John Alfred Hipple. The systhem swept this effort, I am sorry. Please accept, Madam, my respectful greetings. Pierre-Francois Puech — Preceding unsigned comment added by PUECH P.-F. (talk • contribs) 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl:
I am informed by Lars Curfs of WIKIPEDIA that you have edited the article on me. If you indeed are responsible putting this article into shape I would ask you please to consider four corrections:
1. On page 1 under MAIN INTERESTS the article lists aesthetics. This is ironic because while I have written extensively on every other area of philosophy I have done virtually nothing with aesthetics. Instead, the field that should be lists is EPISTEMOLOGY (or, if one prefers, Theory of Knowledge), where I have done a great deal of work.
2. The entry CAREER says I began my career as an academic at Lehigh University in 1957. Actually, my first teaching appointment was as an Instructor in Philosophy at Princeton for the 1951-1952 academic year.
3. The entry PHILOSOPHY speaks in line 7 of “medieval and late Arabic logic.” The expression “and late” should be deleted. All the texts I dealt with were medieval.
4. The entry PHILOSOPHY speaks in the last line of model syllogistic. This, however, should read MODAL syllogistic with an A in place of E.
That’s it as far as correction goes. Many thanks for attending to these points.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Rescher
P.S. As regards that entry “Notable Ideas” at the outset of the article, it is not really for me to say. But if someone did ask me I would myself list primarily two items:
the theory of logarithmic returns (in scientometrics)
the conception of vagrant predicates (in epistemology)
