Jump to content

User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Moonriddengirl

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by JPxG (talk | contribs) at 00:46, 2 August 2023 (Repair several decades-old busted links (via WP:JWB)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 45←Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55

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)

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)

For later, I'm out of time. Contribution surveyor participated briefly. :/ But i can't get the wikitext, so no diffs.

  • N Indian aesthetics: Green tickY Unattributed pasting from other articles, now repaired. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Vishishtadvaita: Green tickY Copyvio just removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • B. R. Ambedkar: Red XN No issues found. (first contrib was removed long ago, though, as a suspected copyvio) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • N List of institutions which have Sanskrit phrases as their mottoes: (1 edits, 1 major, +2722) (+2722)
  • Sanskrit: Green tickY Already addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • N Shatavadhani Ganesh: (6 edits, 6 major, +2195) (+2195)(+387)(+508)(+237)(+199)(+259)
  • N Tirumalarya: Green tickY Unattributed pasting from other articles, now repaired. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • N Srivaishnava Urdhva Pundra: (3 edits, 3 major, +1679) (+1679)(+1640)(+456)
  • Anuṣṭubh: (1 edits, 1 major, +1559) (+1559)
  • Karma yoga: (2 edits, 2 major, +1362) (+1362)(+780)
  • N Ky Fan: (1 edits, 1 major, +1265) (+1265)
  • Sikha: (1 edits, 1 major, +1250) (+1250)
  • N Alasinga Perumal: Green tickY Already cleaned. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Mahmud of Ghazni: (1 edits, 1 major, +1186) (+1186)
  • N N. S. Ramanuja Tatacharya: Red XN No issues found. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Samskrita Bharati: (5 edits, 5 major, +1075) (+215)(+180)(+255)(+529)(+1075)
  • N Thiruvenkatachari Parthasarathy: (1 edits, 1 major, +1056) (+1056)
  • Tirumalai Krishnamacharya: (12 edits, 12 major, +1045) (+605)(+585)(+342)(+155)(+1045)(+434)(+378)(+559)(+259)(+246)(+348)(+776)
  • B. K. S. Iyengar: (3 edits, 3 major, +927) (+927)(+489)(+327)
  • Devanagari: (1 edits, 1 major, +917) (+917)
  • Tipu Sultan: (1 edits, 1 major, +894) (+894)
  • Gayatri Mantra: (3 edits, 3 major, +807) (+807)(+474)(+445)
  • Vedanta Desika: (1 edits, 1 major, +799) (+799)
  • Kudumi: (1 edits, 1 major, +774) (+774)
  • Chikkupadhyaya: (1 edits, 1 major, +769) (+769)
  • U. G. Krishnamurti: (1 edits, 1 major, +750) (+750)
  • N Srinivasacharya Raghavan: (1 edits, 1 major, +746) (+746)
  • Srivatsa: (1 edits, 1 major, +743) (+743)
  • Bhavishya Purana: (1 edits, 1 major, +737) (+737)
  • Sanskrit revival: (1 edits, 1 major, +684) (+684)
  • Iyengar Tamil of Karnataka: (2 edits, 2 major, +682) (+682)(+314)
  • N K. R. Parthasarathy (probabilist): (1 edits, 1 major, +626) (+626)
  • Khusro Khan: (1 edits, 1 major, +612) (+612)
  • N International Association for Statistical Computing: (1 edits, 1 major, +603) (+603)
  • Ramanandi Sampradaya: (2 edits, 2 major, +577) (+577)(+373)
  • Chandra: (1 edits, 1 major, +573) (+573)
  • N Conversion of non-Christian places of worship into churches: (3 edits, 3 major, +538) (+411)(+229)(+538)
  • N M. S. Raghunathan: (1 edits, 1 major, +529) (+529)
  • N Aurava: (1 edits, 1 major, +526) (+526)
  • N Charu Deva Shastri: (1 edits, 1 major, +513) (+513)

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)
I didn't expect a smile from you :( ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Really? I smile quite a lot. It may not be my resting expression, but it's a very common one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 17 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)
(talk page stalker) To “userfy“ an article is to move it from mainspace into a user sub-page for editing out of the public view.–Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Odysseus. :) Sorry, Mgreason. I didn't mean to use jargon you weren't familiar with! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing request

Would you mind giving your expert assessment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright_violations_by_User:Danish_Expert? I feel that the examples I've provided are pretty clear-cut, but this has been disputed. Thanks! TDL (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast reply, and post of good advice. This is just to notify you, that I have posted a brief follow-up question to your reply. Oh...and just for the record...The broad attack TDL fired against me 19:43 15 May 2013 was not done as the last step in process, where he first had showed/discussed all of the 5 new WP:PLAG examples he has posted his concern about together with me. Problem 1+3 was not disputed by me in anyway, but actually was fixed by me during the course of yesterday (prior of TDL's report on 19:43). Problem 1+2+4+5 was for the first time presented to me by TDL yesterday on 19:43 (of which problem 1 was something I solved by myself 45min before TDL alerted me). When notified about the additional issues, I believe already also to have fixed problem 2+4 by upload of a new formulation today. While in principle I only now dispute that problem 5 was a real issue, which I can read from your reply also is a border-line case not being significant enough in your opinion to be classified as a copyright-violation. Please let me know by reply at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, if you think my uploaded fix for problem 2+4 is sufficient. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Sanjay Dutt

If you have some time from you busy schedule, could you check if there is any copyvio in this article (specially Sanjay_Dutt#Illegal_possession_of_arms section? Seeing the numerous basic fmt errors and writing style, I have a doubt that some portion have close paraphrasing or some other issue. In addition, the article is a super busy article right now. Dutt is going to surrender to jail today, so even if you find issues, (if possible) don't hide with investigationCCI template! --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If I find issues, I only have two choices: hide it, or take it out. :) (At least if they're major issues - with smaller concerns, I'm comfortable flagging them.) In any event, i'm afraid that I won't have time this morning. :/ It would probably be tomorrow before I could take a look, if my morning schedule then is more relaxed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed apparently! --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I want this photo for an article I am writing on the Women of Sierra Leone. Can you tell me if I can use in under fair use? I have no idea who took it, nor when they died so do not know if it is PD. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Subject died in 1960. If you don't have any other option (I have used CCSearch but there is no free image) you can use it under fair use! Or, you can choose another image where you know information about the photographer and the time (year) it was taken! --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Tito, fair use is good enough for me, she was an important part of the history of the nation especially regarding women's rights. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, do you want to use it in Adelaide Casely-Hayford or User:Darkness Shines/Women in Sierra Leone? If it is the second one, then you have slightly limited chance than the previous one since the article is not directly on the subject! --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Erm, both Darkness Shines (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright, just for information (although I hope you already knew it), if you want to use the image in more than one article, you may mention it in the rationale or better write separate rationales. See File:Charulata1.jpg for an example.! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, but damn I should be a detective The image is PD as it was taken at her wedding in 1903. An African Victorian Feminist: The Life and Times of Adelaide Smith Casely Hayford 1848-1960 Has it down as taken then. That makes it PD right? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Not really! It should be published before 1923! It might be a family photo too, recently published! But, it seems to be a PD image. It'll be very helpful if you can find the year when it was published (I know it is a very difficult task). Or, let use see what the best information we have at this moment to prove that the image is in public domain. In case you have uploaded it to Wikipedia already, the license can be changed later or it can be moved to Commons too! The website is not opening for me for some reason right now. But, last time when I saw it (right after your first post), I felt the information below the image could be helpful. See if the web article opens for you. --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
But it was taken in 1903 according to the book I just mentioned. Same clothes and everything, it is her on her wedding day. As it would have been her personal property at that time does that not make it PD? As when it was published is basicly when it would have been given to her? I have not uploaded it as yet, I want to be sure of copyright before I do. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Got it (I hope). First printed in Freetown, 12 June 1920[1] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Congrats, go ahead! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I need your help

Looking for some help from an experienced wiki contributor, please write on my talk page if you have some time to provide some advice and answer some questions concerning wikipedia guidelines. Cheers Galadedrid Damodred (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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 ?

Greetings Moonriddengirl

Would you consider the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright concerns regarding User:USchick, I am keenly curious as to your guidance in its regard. Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Goodness. That's a lot of reading at this point. I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
First content I've spot-checked is a copy-paste issue. In this edit content is at least copied without attribution from Divine Adoratrice of Amun, while this edit includes at least content from Yab-Yum and Maithuna. I have not checked to see if content is copied from any other pages or what remains. In another article, this edit at least includes content from this article, possibly others, without attribution. I haven't checked outside sources having found some copying. This article was created with content from at least this article ("the highlands are characterized....") without attribution. In this one, we see content from this article without attribution and [2]. There could be other sources. This content was copied at least in part from at least this article. I have not found in my spot-check copying from external sources, but evidently others have, and I have found obviously in a short period of time substantial copyright issues. I have no reason to doubt they were made in good faith, but they need repair. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I was not aware of this Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and I can repair it. USchick (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you Moonriddengirl, you are amazing. I think for me it was the thought of this as a mistake in good faith that brought me to seek your advice. You've been so helpful and kind to me, I'd like to know how I could be of assistance to you? My76Strat (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
It is poetic irony that after posting the userbox for Copyright Cleanup I find myself listed directly after you. I will be dedicating some of my time to this effort from here; regularly. —My76Strat (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fantastic. :) Thank you so much! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeking your wisdom

Hi Moonriddengirl, you come highly recommended and I would like to seek your counsel. I had a minor editing dispute with another editor and he refused to discuss it on the talk page. He threatened to take me to ANI, like that's supposed to solve something, and now I'm afraid we reached the same impasse there as well, since the original dispute was never resolved on the talk page. Would you be interested in getting involved? You can follow the links from my talk page to the ANI dispute. USchick (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I probably just did get involved. :) Another user asked me to look at the ANI listing in the section immediately above this one, and I'm afraid that I find considerably issues of copying from one Wikipedia article to another that need to be addressed. I understand that you probably did not realize that Wikipedia's content is copyrighted (it's not an uncommon mistake), but I'm afraid that it is and there are legal requirements that you must follow to move material from one page to another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with following policy and I understand about copyright. I received a warning and I accept it. I have a bigger issue with the person who was unwilling to cooperate, threatened to take me to ANI, and is still unwilling to cooperate. I accepted my warning, I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do. USchick (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
You should fix the problems. I'd be very happy to give you a list of the articles you've worked on substantially for you to check as I did t see where you got the text. If it came from another Wikipedia article, you can repair it as described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. With those articles, at least, the copyright problem will be repaired once attribution is provided. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the problem was fixed when he reverted my edit. USchick (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I'm afraid you have not read my note at ANI. I am unsure how many still exist, but I found multiple articles where you seem to have copied content from one article to another without providing the legally required attribution. We need to make sure that all such articles where you may have moved content like this are checked and repaired. On rereading, though, I think you were probably asking me what to do about the person who was unwilling to cooperate and not about the outstanding copyright issues. In what area do you find cooperation lacking? Can you tell me what precisely you are hoping he will do? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know about copying within Wikipedia, and I'm prepared to work on that to resolve any issues. USchick (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Certainly, that's understandable. It's not an uncommon area of confusion, and it's not that hard to fix. It's just a matter of making sure your source is listed where it needs to be. I very seldom find this to be a situation of "bad faith" - just a mistake that can be corrected. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
How all this started. I was editing this article 2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting and another user was adamant about wanting to delete it, so he was reverting my edits without any discussion, claiming the edits did not reflect what the sources said. When I submitted new edits with exactly what the sources said, he claimed copyright violation and also claimed that he wasn't edit warring since copyright was exempt. He refused to collaborate on the talk page (you can see it there) and threatened to take me to ANI. His edit history shows lots of bullying and very little collaboration, and even at ANI he refuses any attempt at cooperation, violating the basic premise of Wikipedia. I don't mind fixing my errors, but I really think that his underhanded editing style of bullying, threatening, entrapment, creating a problem and then claiming no responsibility needs to be addressed. USchick (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
They closed the dispute and said that "both sides finally understand each other" which is far from the truth, but oh well. Ok, I'm going to read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and see what i'm supposed to do now. USchick (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl I need your help since I heard that you are known as the copyright expert around here. I took a picture of my iPod U2 Special edition and I want to upload it for future uses (in the U2 article or iPod's article). What liscence should I upload it under?? I don't mean to do wrong things so that's why I am asking. Cheers! PS: reply at my talk page Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I just popped in to add a note below. There shouldn't be any problems with it but http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk will help you upload your picture with the correct licenses etc. If you upload it to commons then other languages can use it. Make sure you are logged in over there or your IP will show up.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Canoe. Miss Bono, images are not really my area of work, so I will defer. :) In general, I recommend asking at WP:MCQ but of course also recommend uploading to Commons if free license is possible. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no access to Commons. Miss Bono (zootalk) 19:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You should be able to log in with the same username unless that system isn't complete yet. See: Wikipedia:Unified login which may be still in effect.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
What I was trying to say is that I have a very poor internet access and I only can be at Wikipedia. Not the other Wikis :'( Miss Bono (zootalk) 19:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I see. Try Special:Upload or Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. The first one is easier and if you make mistakes we can fix after upload. Once you get the file uploaded we can tag it for a bot to move to commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I will upload it now. under iPod u2 name Miss Bono (zootalk) 20:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Done. Miss Bono (zootalk) 20:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You need to add a license. Template:Cc-by-3.0 is a common one. Category:Creative Commons copyright templates has more.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sculptor OTRS

You may wish to peek at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Canoe1967/Sculptors I am told it should be a good thing if we can get it working. It is copyright stuff so I thought I would spam your page with it. Mr. Wales' talk page may be next.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it would be a good idea. :) And, by the way, I got an update from the legal team yesterday about your outstanding question - they hope to have a response completed by the end of the week. Monday is a holiday, so if it's not in by Friday, it may be Tuesday or so before I can get it to you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I support the idea.
However, have you considered how blanket permission should be worded? I started a discussion at the OTRS cafe, but I didn't feel all the questions were answered.
If a sculptor asks how the permission should be worded, I think we should have some specific recommendations.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I can't log in at the cafe. That page is actually a project page in my sandbox still. Feel free to edit it or create your own versions. Once we have consensus on a version then we can move it to main space so sculptors can link to it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that, wasn't thinking. I added some comments.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, could you help with Circle of Life - Collaborate Masterpiece, and suggest the best way to proceed? User doesn't get copyright or original research guidelines. Thank you, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) I have left him a note at User talk:Lifes Answer#Some information about Wikipedia. Hopefully, this will help clarify any lingering confusion he may have. I'll try to keep an eye on things, but if you notice issues please feel free to drop by and update me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I get beyond disgusted by the prevalence of vanity articles and promotional abuse of the site. Then I read a correspondence like the note you left to Lifes Answer, which transcends the expectations of WP:CIVILITY. To say more would be construed as shameless flattery. Thank you and best wishes, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You make me blush, really. :) I appreciate that. I try to be kind whenever possible, although sometimes life does get in the way of that. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

Anna Frodesiak's possible RfA

Dear Moonriddengirl,

Long time. Do you remember me? You gave me my first barnstar ever. Thanks for that. It really encouraged me to go forward.

I've been asked to run for RfA for quite some time. Now, someone just nominated me. I was just chatting with My76Strat at IRC about nominators, and he suggested that I talk to you. He said that you are one of the most respected admins, and I ought to ask you what you think of my qualifications. I agreed because I too value your opinion.

Please feel free to opt out. If you do comment, please be perfectly frank. Sorry to impose upon you. I know you're always busy.

Please see: User:Anna Frodesiak/Gold sandbox for the IRC discussion.

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Anna, hi. :) Of course I remember you, and I'm delighted that I encouraged you to go forward. I've always been impressed by you, and I'm happy to review your qualifications. In fact, I'll get on that now. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Ordinarily, I'd do all this annotation separately and then put it in a nice little package, but I'm going to do this more transparently. I'll revise as I go, most likely. What I'm looking for:
  • Content contributions: Impressed with the level you go to to get images. Red palm mite - nice! I didn't have doubts in this section to begin with and looking at your contrib list cements my comfort. You've made substantial (= not minor; not reversion) edits to 2,594 different articles. I suspect your edit count (which is perfectly respectable) is considerably lower than it would be for many, as evidence suggests you do the work you want and update the article without a lot of subsequent fussing.
  • Level of interaction with other contributors: This is above and beyond. Nice. I like your apology for snippiness (even though it was minor) here. Going back to the beginning of the year (and a tad bit before), I find this page contains the best examples of sustained conversation on a subject.
  • Familiarity with maintenance areas: Even at a glance, I can see that you are a hard worker here. I see participation at RSN, requested images, graphics lab, as well as some light participation in SPI and AFD.
  • Familiarity with policies: Probably a good idea for you to familiarize yourself with WP:NFC (if you haven't) as questions like this are likely to be common, given your image work. :) (I agree with this change; I could be wrong, but I don't think it was a "unique historic image" as described at WP:NFCI. Images are not my major area, though.) Good newcomer and ESL explanation of consensus here. GNG knowledge. Weight of quotations, plus I like the way you put that.
  • Judgment in discussions (closures, for instance - not ordinary interaction levels): Glengarry Glen Ross. Although you proposed the merge, your closure was sound given the time and unanimous support, and I like your follow-through when the merger was later questioned. I like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IMPraveen/Archive. :) I also like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/松山 - while you didn't exactly reach a conclusion, I like that you continued to think about it after your !vote and acknowledged your emerging uncertainty. I also like that you considered other people's argument and were even open to persuasion here. I think a good many people participate at AFD superficially, dropping their !vote and not coming back.
Stopping for now because I am very solidly out of time. :) So far, I'm liking your conversational style. Besides making me laugh, you seem generally to be able to keep the tone light, which is helpful in avoiding things becoming fraught. I have only just begun to look at user talk page contributions, though, beyond your own. I have pulled up a list of your text contributions but only dipped a toe in the heaviest. That said, I had no doubts about that area going in, and your survey (useful little tool, that) just cements my impression. The articles I've spot-checked are stellar examples of "value added". :) I need to dig around still in your "Wikipedia" namespace contributions to get a better idea of your familiarity with maintenance areas and policies and potentially your judgment in discussions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to unhat this yesterday! So, I've completed my review, although I didn't go quite as deeply as I generally do. :) I'm confident that you have tremendous good sense, and I like the way you relate to others. Your content contributions seem stellar. If I were assessing an RFA for you, what I would do now is look at the areas where you indicate that you plan to use the tools and then consider what I've seen - have you demonstrated facility in those areas? If not, are they areas that I should assume your tremendous good sense will come into play, or do you need practice in a "prep" area? For instance, I see some good speedy tags in your deleted contribs, but if speedy deletion were going to be a major focus of yours, I might advise doing a bit of new page patrol so you encounter a wider variety of speedy types.
In any event, I think you would be an excellent admin, and I hope that this is something you will pursue. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, thank you. What you say about non-free is bang on. I have since read up. I will take a hard look at what tools I may need, start to learn, and watch admins in that area.
When I am ready, I will bug Dennis Brown and hopefully he will nominate me.
I am eternally grateful, but have now become awfully proud an arrogant. At home, when asked "Could you make me some eggs?", I reply "Me??? Do you know who you are talking to?? Hmmpffff!! Now give me a foot massage lest I smite you with my scepter!"
Thank you again. :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
LOL! Let me know if that works for you, and I'll try it. :D (Probably, I can pick up a scepter next time I go grocery shopping.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Well this is unfair. I want my grocery store to have scepters in stock. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
If they don't have scepters, try frozen leg of beast. They are often much heavier, so be careful not to oversmite. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Less entertaining, though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yet again ...

I'm realIy sorry, but I can't work it out: Maud Tindal Atkinson. I think it needs your detective skills. I'm pretty sure the stuff has not evolved in normal article fashion, but I can't put my finger on it. This diff looks suspect; could it be taken from a book? This blog may be relevant in view of the contributions of the creator of the article. Or am I just plain wrong again? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) Your first diff has some very polished language in it, but I am reassured by the signs of actual editing as well. For example, these sentences was already in the article when the IP showed up: "She exhibited paintings at the Royal Academy from 1906 to 1937. She exhibited 15 works, but these are not reproduced in the catalogues4 ." The IP changed these to read, "She exhibited fifteen paintings at the Royal Academy from 1906 to 1937, but, like most work of the period, these are not reproduced in the catalogues.4" (I'm guessing he or she didn't know what to do with the 4 and so assumed it was a footnote.) With a copy-paste situation, they generally replace what's already there or add to the end of it, not modify it. It could be copied from a book, but I do not find text matches on a spot-check, and the footnoting suggests our editor may simply have been an academician. The blog post-dates and is certainly a backwardscopy, since it includes text that was already there as well as the text altered here. However, concerningly, the same IP seems to have behaved far more typically of a copy-paster here immediately after this edit. But I can't find text matches for that, either. In a case like this, {{cv-unsure}} may be the right path to take, linking to the diff when the content was first added. OTOH, it's hardly WP:NPOV: "it is a strikingly eroticised portrayal unintentionally reminiscent of soft pornography of the Edwardian era, and indicates that the Judge's glamorous daughter was by no means hidebound by Edwardian convention". It's probably due a good copy-edit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look and to reply. I'll see what I can do. The images of her paintings also seem to be in copyright, a matter I have raised on commons. Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Dutt

A good part of This edit from this article was directly copied, reverted! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. :) (I recommend either {{uw-copyright-new}} or {{uw-copyright}}, depending on if they're new or not. Those templates contain the requisite block warning. :) I especially like the first one for newcomers, because it's friendly - I try to use the latter mostly for people who are repeat offenders.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, ok, I meant, does the edit need to be hidden? --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see. :) In my opinion, it depends largely on the risk of return and the substantiality of the issue. I would not usually rev-delete something of that limited scope. I do for larger runs of text or for material that keeps coming back. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Wyvren

Hello, I recently noticed an edit that I think is from User:Wyvren. I do not know the procedure to check sockpuppetry and am contacting you given your signature on the user block talk page of Wyvern. The account I suspect is user:Solntsa90. The edit that alerted mr is this. revisiting a favorite subject of Wyvern. I noticed that user:Solntsa90 is doing a great deal of edits on antisemitism, and I think this extract on a users talk page may also help to link the two acconts:

I just Googled one of the recently added sentences added by Wyvren: "Other instances of its use occur in the early records of Scotland where the surname is seen to have undergone a variety of transformations in spelling, accounting for the many variant forms of the name still seen today". It turned up a crest badge for sale on Ebay by a user called "master_baphomet" from Jasper, Alabama [20]. The photo is the exact one uploaded by Wyvren, whose IP address is from Jasper, Alabama [21].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Bingo. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Further bingo: the user Wyvren has now taken to editing the Stormfront (website) piece [22]. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Sherlock! Congradulations on mastering the Google search feature. So, what does my position as a White Rights advocate and an anti Semitic Supremacy activist have to do with editing here on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvren (talk • contribs) 16:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Asks the man who removed 21 references from an article about a white supremacist website, without a single comment or edit summary in explanation.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

note also this

Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm sorry, but I'm really not that familiar with sock puppetry myself. :/ My block of Wyvren was solely based on my investigation of an ANI complaint. I only respond to sock puppetry issues where I feel the case is very clear, and this one is, I'm afraid, not to me. The only common article I see is the Stormfront website edit ([3]), although the overlap with Scottish clans is an interesting one. I would recommend that you take up your concerns at WP:SPI, where people with far more experience in sock puppetry can take a look. If you need guidance with it, I bet that one of the clerks at that board (Wikipedia:SPI/C#List_of_clerks) would be willing and able to help you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thanks for those links, I read the guidlines and think I am probably overeacting. There are strange similarities between the two editors, but could be coincidence. Yours ever Czar Brodie (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It's probably good to be conscious of it. :) I'm afraid that I'm generally oblivious to sockpuppetry. There are a few individuals I've managed to work out may be coming back, but most of the time I'm taken by complete surprise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your advice again

Hi Moonriddengirl, I've contacted DaDoc540 (talk · contribs) re: their history of edits, some of which feature text identical to that found at the NBA website cited as the source. Before I start removing them lock, stock and barrel I wanted to check with you. Some of this [4] has been cut and pasted from another Wiki article by the same editor [5]. As well, the NBA site is copyright 2013, so I want to be sure we know which came first. But overall the prose is fanzine, which is what raised my suspicions to begin with. Thanks in advance for taking the trouble, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sadly, that's just a standard website footer and not really indicative of the date. :/ We know this for two reasons - first (and a nice indication that the contributor meant well) is that the editor cited the source when he first placed the material and acknowledged the date of access. Beyond that, the website is archived all the way back to 2004. This doesn't look good. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you're good. I'm having trouble finding a barnstar you haven't already received, and you've merited them all. Thank you, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
LOL! Well, I was fooled by this one. When I went to leave a note about it, I realized the book was published in November of that year. Also, there are some typographical errors in the first text of that article that suggest he may have composed it on the fly: "hard-nosed, defensively strong, fundimentally-sound". It's possible that we're dealing with a journalist here, and I hope he's a journalist who works for the NBA! Still looking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Fundimentally? I've got to give more credit to journalists, even if spelling correctly doesn't constitute an acid test. Still....I once came across his bio, while, it turned out, his daughter was revising it with text he'd written. I ended up corresponding with him, found out we had mutual interests and acquaintances, etc. Then I rewrote it to Wiki standards, which I suspect wasn't appreciated. Say la vee. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It's easier to believe a journalist could make a typo here than that one made one elsewhere that our user copied. :) His editing without response is not a good sign, but who knows? Maybe he's busily arranging verification from his publisher. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:30, 24 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedestrian1957 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) It's easiest to do that when I see your sources. Can you link me to the sources you're using? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The 'phrasing'(and source) problem I have is that; whilst normal Copyright and ARR 'overlap' in application they are also in important ways antithetical? in operation.

I have changed the Wikki entry I quoted above to this: The situation as to how ARR applies in situations where an art work is physically made by a person or persons who are not the 'name artist' who first exhibits and sells the work is not clear. In particular whilst ARR is inalienable it seems conceivable that in cases where the copyright on a artwork is transferred/sold, prior to the first sale of an artwork, the inalienable ARR right is also effectively sold transferred.

I know it sounds a bit like the quantum particle that is at the same time.. its anti-particle. :-) What do you think?Pedestrian1957 (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Bangladesh India WikiProjects dispute resolution

You asked to participate in dispute resolution noticeboard. I thought to make our Wikipedia is a Teamwork own! Joking, not serious. But, the topic of the message IS serious. You don't need to read the whole discussion, read only first two messages here. Now, as far as I know, an initiative to resolve all disputes and attempt to strengthen relationship between two country's WikiProjects is not a common act in Wikipedia.

Now, in case you have some time I want you to lead/govern the initiative, for the following reasons a) we want a neutral editor (non Indian, non Bangladesh) to draw conclusions b) the editor should be experienced and should be aware of Wiki rules and policies c) the editor should have the power to ban/block editors (in short "admin")!

Consider this as a request from the initiative's front, nothing forced or mandatory! You can surely reject the request. --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC) --Tito Dutta (contact) 00:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

CCI update

--Wizardman 15:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Linkvio vs. News aggregators

Hi again MRG! There's an ongoing "puzzlement" (as the King of Siam would have had it) that I thought you'd have some perspective on. Organizations often put out press releases such as this which are in due order picked up by news aggregators in cases such as this. I think you'll agree that there is very little doubt about where the creative content lies, but I'm not sure whether the latter link would constitute a genuine linkvio, inasmuchas there is an implicit intent in the press release. Of course the PhysOrg bit does (in this case) credit the Max Planck Institute, but they are often even less rigorous. It's a pity, because they often are the easiest way to find half-decent coverage on physics developments, but they are regularly popping up in rather dicey areas too. Some editors are now trying to use their coverage of the Energy catalyzer in that article... Ideas on how to address this? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think with press releases we can probably rely on the material being hosted under "fair use" on the sites to which we link. :) It's not a linkvio to link up fair use content, as long as we don't strip it of context. I would feel okay with this, I think, on a case-by-case basis, but it's better to link to the original when possible. :) (Apologies for late and brief response! I am traveling.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Requesting admin bit back

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I have put in a request for the admin bit back on WP:BN. Please express your thoughts on the matter there if you wish. If you object, I will understand. I just figured it was worth a try to see if there was an easy path back to adminship. Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Never mind... the feedback was that the admin bit was given up "under a cloud" and therefore should go through a new RfA. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Richard. I'm traveling and forgot to update my talk page. :/ I'm sorry I'm so long in getting your note! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

NatureSam (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Many thanks

NatureSam (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)just a quick thank you for bringing my page in to the fold, I am very grateful for all that you have contributed behind the scenes to get this page looking right. I am so proud of the house so really do appreciate your patience. Yours somewhat of a novice contributor NatureSam

I'm very happy that you persisted in spite of the challenges! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate use of quote?

At 2013 Woolwich attack, the Islamic militant who murdered an off-duty soldier made a speech justifying his actions on video to an amateur. The entire transcript has been copied verbatim into the article. Only one online source has the speech transcribed accurately, although the video can be seen freely but its copyright status isn't clear. Most non-tabloid media and news broadcasts have published excerpts only. I had/have concerns that this may constitute excessive use of quotation and may be in violation of WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:COPYVIO. I trimmed it but was met with objections. I just wanted your view as to whether the use of the entire text can be considered "reasonable". In any event, it's been reinstated and I won't be reverting. For more information, kindly visit 2013 Woolwich attack#The entire rant. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 07:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) This one is a little complex. Ownership of copyright in interviews is not fully established, so it's hard to say who the copyright holder is - the person who said the words, or the person who recorded him saying them. (You can read a little background on that here and here.) For us, though, I guess all that really matters is whether our taking is "fair" and fits in WP:NFC. If it's being used to represent the point of view and it is part of a well-developed article, it might be appropriate under NFC. I'm afraid it's hard to give a hard-and-fast opinion on that, in context. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your considered response. Have a good day! -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Buster7's talk page.
Message added 22:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Don't know if Jalexander is active in Wikipedia! Tito Dutta (contact) 22:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kittybrewster ☎ 21:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Another question

Hi Moonriddengirl, if you're up for some sleuthing, I have a question re: The Three M's, which I've prodded for deletion. I can not find a source, but I'm wondering if much of the content was copied from elsewhere--certainly the phrasing suggests either it's a copyvio or the product of a professional scribe, though too slang-pitched for an encyclopedia by half. Thank you and cheers, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) I am in the middle of doing an impromptu CCI (User:Moonriddengirl/sandbox) whilst sitting in an airport, but I have time to investigate that. :D I'll get back with you on it probably in just a few minutes (wifi willing). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the early stuff is original. I spot-checked including on Google books and found a place where the contributor altered a word (helpful, because you can review the original text and cut down reverse copying false positives). At this point, probably in an effort to add sources, he copied a little from Jayne Mansfield, but most of that seems original, too. It looks to me like we probably have an essayist. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, and while in transit, no less! Happy travels, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
It proved to be a good way to pass time. :) Hooray for wireless in airports. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if I used the data here to make a map of Cotton Production by US state, would that be considered a derivative work or would that be allowable here if I released it as CC-BY-SA or as fair use? Thanks.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) With the usual "I am not a lawyer and can't give you legal advice; this is just my opinion based on my own experiences with copyright" disclaimer, I would feel perfectly comfortable making a map using that data. :) I believe that's strictly factual, and facts are not protected by copyright in the U.S. (It would be different if you used the same table, in which case there might be some creativity in presentation...although maybe not even that.) Wikipedia:Copyright in lists explains a bit more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh ok, thank you for your help . --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, the user Expatkiwi is having trouble understanding copyright issues with regards to some images he has added to articles. He is getting quite frustrated and seems to feel the entire mission of other editors is to thwart his edits by wrapping him in red tape. I'll be up front, he has lashed out at other editors, opened an issue at WP:3RR (declined) and been reported at WP:ANI. I've tried to add calming and encouraging words to his talk page. Might you review his article space contributions and use your copyright policy expertise to explain with a minimum of jargon and maximum of patience how he may be able to find some acceptable images for the pages he's concentrating on? Thank you. JanetteDoe (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can do any better than User:KoshVorlon did. :( In fact, after looking at his history, I'm not sure that simple discussion is going to do much good. I'll explain why at ANI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh my. Well, thank you for looking at the situation. JanetteDoe (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


Thank you

Got your message. Thank you ! (Like I said, I had a lot of problems with NFCC (I'm still shaky about it, so I avoid adding any image unless I created it  :) ).

Listen though, about Expatwiki (no, he didn't me to talk to you, and I have no dogs in the fight in the flags article he edited, I'm an American, not an Aussie ). I can see how he'd be confused, as there's already a list on the page with flag icons, he seems to have been adding flags to that list. I'd want to say that his additions constitute a valid exception to NFCC in that the flags have no free equivalent, it's used in that article only and as a small image, and thus fullfilling NFCC exception #2 and #3, it's previously published in Australia (exception #4 ) Seems to meet #5 as well , just as the other images in that article do. Seems to meet #6 as well, it was intended to be used in one article so it meets # 7 , # 8 , #9 and #10.

Don't worry, I won't put them back in myself, but it looks like it meets those exceptions, what do you think ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  12:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I feel about NFC in part like you do, and I steer clear most of the time. :) However, I think Wikipedia:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLE both have bearing here, and the most recent edit-warring he was doing over images was done at List of Australian Police flags, in an article he created after all this messiness started, using (at least some) non-free images he himself had uploaded for other articles and for which he added no new non-free use rationale. User:Expatkiwi has been told by multiple people over many years about the restrictions of non-free images in lists. He's been told repeatedly about the need for non-free use rationales (and did add them for the original usage), and he certainly knew that the use of the flags in list articles was disputed when he made the article (he had taken the issue to WP:NFCR himself days before and been told by somebody else that the use wasn't acceptable (here). This looks like classic refusal to engage in consensus building and long-term disregarding of community input. :/ When you're doing something and other people say "Stop," you really need to stop and work out why, even if it doesn't make sense to you. If they have consensus behind them, you need to see if you can change the policy or practice around it, appropriately, and not just keep doing it.
I realize you aren't defending his behavior. I'm just explaining that there seems to me to be more than confusion going on here. All of this suggests to me that he is intending to do what he wants, regardless of what others say. But I really appreciate it when people give troubled editors the benefit of the doubt, and you and User:JanetteDoe are walking the good walk here, so I will give talking to him another go. Wish me luck! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh

Congrats on making the 550,000,000th edit a few weeks ago! — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Woohoo. :D I wish it hadn't been a template! But at least it wasn't an error or something. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sister Gargi

I was expanding Sister Gargi, it seems a part of the article was copied from this article. Can you start a check please? --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 04:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It was added by the initial contributor. I've flagged the section and notified the contributor. If you can, please keep an eye on the article to make sure that the tag is not removed without repair to the issue. :) Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Help!

Hi, I just signed up, absolute newbie. My name is apparently wrong as it has my workplace title in, so my (unbiased) content about Artrix Arts Centre on the Bromsgrove page have been deleted. I went to the 'change name' page but it was completely impenetrable. Can you help? I'd like to repost the content under a new name or whatever I have to do. I understand you might be able to retrieve the content? I'd appreciate any input. Hope this works ArtrixChick (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Answered on ArtrixChick's talk page. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Moonriddengirl. I hate to bother you with this, but since I know enough to know that I do not know how to handle and or deal with every problem here I figure its best to let those in the know deal with their area of expertise, and you happen to be the person I know to deals best with copyright issues, so here I am. I've been on a music kick since I am out of town and the laptop I have is - well lets just say it doesn't run anything released recently at gamestop :). While looking for information on the song Inama Nushif (its a pretty song by the way, if oyu haven't heard it I would recommend listening to it once) I was led to the page Azam Ali, but the page didn't feel right to me so I checked the external links and sure enough whats there in the article now is lifted (looks like verbatim) from here. Like I said, I know enough to know that I do not know what to do, so I like to bother people who do know what they are doing so things get fixed correctly the first time around, and in this case you're the person I know I can count on to look into copyright matters, so I'll leave this in your hands (or tps hands, if they are watching) and let you handle this. Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused, and thanks in advance for the help. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No inconvenience at all, TomStar81. :) Good find. I see that this contributor was previously warned about pasting content into that article and did it again, so he or she is currently indefinitely blocked and the image they uploaded (declared as public domain because, I guess, of its publication on facebook) has been tagged for deletion on Commons as well. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Please help!

Does anyone here have time to take a look at WT:CP section Help needed on how to properly paraphrase dense science/technology description? I have come here after Demiurge1000 told me on my talk page to ask for advice here. Please reply either at WT:CP or at my talk page section May 2013. Your advice/suggestions will be a lot helpful. Thank You and Regards. - Jayadevp13 03:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Without even looking i'd like to pretend I didn't see this. But that wouldn't be fair. :D I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
New message at my talk page. - Jayadevp13 14:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My identity on wikipedia

HI There My name is Azam Ali and I am an artist. A profile along with photos has been created on Wikipedia on my behalf with totally wrong information. Months ago I created a user account under the name "Beggar's hut", in order to fix this problem. I've uploaded correct information and photos of myself(which I own), but someone at Wikipedia keeps deleting it and telling me I am violating copyright laws. If I am not mistaken you may be this person.

How is it possible that someone else has the right over my identity and information on Wikipedia? How can I get control of my own identity & information on your site? Do you guys not have a way to verify content? PLEASE help me to fix this. As it has been going on for too long and it is extremely upsetting.

Azam

Moonriddengirl: If you are busy, I would be happy to handle this. Azam: Would that be okay with you? And don't worry. I'm sure we can sort this out. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Anna, I would be absolutely delighted if you can help. :) I hope to be able to do some more volunteering tomorrow, but after getting back from SF got to deal with a sick (and contagious!) kid. :P I am just beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! Can you help?

Hi, I was referred to you from User:Orangemike- nice to meet you... I edit biographies of musicians, negotiate photos for upload to Commons and work in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles. I frequently run into articles that are either just self-promotion from the subject of the article, stubs that contain no more than two or three sentences, etc. I don't want to dump all of these on Orangemike's virtual doorstep, or those of a few others. Would it be OK with you if I occasionally bring up one to you, here? Today I'm doubtful about Viswanatha Sastri-- I question it's notability. There seem to have been dozens of hands in that pie, producing... what? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) It depends on what you want done with them, really. :) I'm generally happy to help but am not really sure what you'd like me to do to assist? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I was hoping for your evaluation of the notability of an article like that. If I was the type to be an Admin., I'd still be sitting on the fence, with one part of me saying, leave it alone, and the other part saying, delete this thing! I should have made that clear, I guess, since Mike mentioned you after deleting a different kind of article. Don't worry about it, sorry. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, okay. :) Yes, I focus on copyright issues and not as much on notability. That said, I have certainly done a lot of work in years past on music related articles (and would love to do so now, but the copyright problems board is practically dead. :(). I am generally more forgiving of international musicians due to danger of WP:SYSTEMIC, and at least with that one we aren't facing somebody trying to promote their "garage band" since the guy has undoubtedly been dead for some time. So, in case like this, I'd head straight to Google books and see if I get any hits on the guy. Odds of a Tamil composer who was born over a century ago getting much on Google news seems slim. I check there, and at the bottom of the page I see a book called Music As History in Tamilnadu which includes on page 87 the following: "Some important ones are listed: (a) S. Subramania Sastri ëVenkatamakin and his twelve notesí (Journal of Music Academy), 1931, (b) T.R. Viswanatha Sastri, ëThe Katapayadi Chakram and Melakarta ragas: Some of the inconsistenciesí (JMA". This suggests notability, but I can't be sure it's even the same guy. Fortunately, there's a Preview, so I take a closer look, and good thing - it may or may not be the same guy, but it doesn't help his notability as a composer, if it is. It's about a paper Sastri wrote.
On the second page, though, I find this:

Mayuram Viswanatha Sastri, composer of the popular Jayati jayati Bhaiata Mata, had set the verses of Tirukkural to tune in kriti ... G.T. Sastri, the then Station Director invited Viswanatha Sastri to teach them to some artists he would engage.

That's only available as a snippet from this source - and that's an archive of what looks to me to be a reliable source.
Moving on to the next page, I find this source, which is more accessible, and which has some substantial coverage of the man, claiming that the song he wrote is "popular among all South Indian Classical singers." That sounds like a notable composition to me, and that clears him under WP:COMPOSER. So, having found this, I will now add that source to the article. :)
Had I not found this, I would have repeated the search using the title of the song and then (if that was not fruitful) the native spelling of his name. If I did not find suggestion of significance there, I might have nominated the article for AFD, explaining what steps I had taken and that I had found nothing. Or I might have gone to a relevant Wikiproject and asked them first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Which operating system and browser you are using?

Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I use multiple computers with different operating systems and browsers. The answer changes depending where I am when editing. :) Can I ask why this information will be helpful to you? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you use:

...for your Wikipedia editing? I use:

  • Ubuntu with Firefox, Chrome
  • Mac OS X with Safari, Chrome
  • Android with Firefox, Chrome and the OS's default browser in older versions
  • iOS with Safari, Chrome.

Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) Can I ask why this information will be helpful to you? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am just surveying the operating system and browser that Wikipedians use. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. :) In terms of browsers, I prefer Firefox and Chrome and may use either, although I also use Safari occasionally. I work on both PC and Mac. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK Care of Sir Copyvio

Recently one of my DYK has been removed from queue and DYK credit has been taken back from my talk page. Very embarrassing. The two most important issues they mentioned— a) the hook did not cover real-world topic (that's not entirely nominator's fault, I suggested ALT, reviewer and closer too did not notice too) b) copyvio issue, I have tried to talk to editor, please see if you can add some good advices here: User_talk:Bubaikumar#Care_of_Sir --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 06:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. It's not your fault, of course - if you're reviewing a GA or something and don't notice a copyvio, then you might not have looked carefully enough (or maybe you did - depends on circumstances), but there's no requirement to check everything somebody adds to articles, even articles we work on. I have a pretty finely tuned copyvio radar, and even I don't do that. :) You made a good start with the editor; I went a little further. I will watchlist his page, but can you please let me know if he has questions for me that I overlook? It may be a busy week for me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Delhi School of Economics

See this. I already tagged it for copy vio but nobody seems noticing! Note: I already removed chunks of promotional material. Solomon7968 08:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) I appreciate your keeping an eye out for copyright issues. Unfortunately, there's just a huge backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I'm afraid that while you tagged that in June, we are not yet finished working on articles tagged in April. :/ That one is going to be hard for me to do anything about, though, because I can't see that book. I'm afraid that it may require some more work on your part, if you are interested and able in helping to clear the problem up. Can you identify some specific phrases on the talk page that are duplicated in the book? Or point out passages that are copied? Are you able to simply remove the copied text, or even revert it to an earlier version like this one? If you can do that and point out some problematic passages on the talk page, that would speed the processing of this tremendously. Otherwise, it may sit for months, and it may not be cleanable then if nobody can see the content. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
History section copied from this and the Department of Sociology from this. You can see this difference. Solomon7968 11:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Coats of Arms

My attention has been drawn to an editor - Flags33 (talk · contribs) - who has added descriptions of coats of arms and blazons of various organisations, which may be exact copies of published descriptions and thus possible copyright violations. You have had some contact with this editor before. They appear to argue that such descriptions must follow a precise formula and that copyright does not apply. Please see the discussion at my talk page and give me your insight on this.-gadfium 20:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) My dealings with him were of a somewhat different nature - he copied a large passage from the Dictionary of Canadian Biography into an article and, when it was blanked for copyright investigation, restored it. I temporarily blocked him for repeating the copyright violation after notice and explained to him why we could not accept his subsequently offered defense that the Dictionary had copied from him. In terms of heraldry, it is generally asserted on Wikipedia that blazons are not copyrighted (see Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems) as being uncreative, somewhat in that regard like recipes, I would say. I have to say it might depend on the actual description he is using. If he is putting forth an interpretation of a flag as its blazon, for instance, then he may be moving into copyrightable territory. But it would be really helpful to see the sources he's copying, if you can find them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

New signature

This is my new signature. I was looking for a good place to use it for the first time. I firstly wanted to post it at "WikiProject India Noticeboard" — my favourite place, but actually there is nothing to post at this moment. If you see the code of my signature, you'll find there is an unnecessary otit;. That is actually my name written from reverse tito>>otit. Last year I created a nice signature and later I found at least 10—12 people copying and using that. This time I am a bit more careful. --Tito ↂ Dutta 20:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes we/you may need this as a reference to compare colours India Tito ↂ Dutta 20:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Very striking. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Baton Rouge

Hi Moonriddengirl, perhaps you can have a look at this when you have the time: I've reverted all edits by a COI account, because many of them were copyright violations. Along the way I surely removed some constructive edits, but I couldn't imagine picking through each revision individually. If you can recommend a better approach I'm all ears. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Cheers, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That's one of the potential approaches recommended at WP:CV. It seems like a fair one under the circumstances, but I would really recommend adding {{cclean}} to the article's talk page, to make it clear why you've done what you did. :) When articles are heavily edited by multiple people, I would sometimes recommend blanking and explaining rather than simply reverting, but in this case there's really not much other activity there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Done. Never seen that template before--thank you very much. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Moonriddden girl.

Thanks for the message about the Jacques Duphly article. Buy the way I didn't initiate that article, I just revised it as lots was missing. It's so long ago now that I don't recall what I did - sorry. I probably won't have much time to revise it so if you want to remove or re-do stuff, just go ahead. Sorry if my additions caused any problems. It was one I did early on in my Wiki life, so wasn't totally au fait with procedures etc.

Ian (Juvancis)

wise words

I stated in a recent copyvio issue about this diff, "The text transformation is not cut and paste."  An admin who seeks an adversarial relationship with me (diffs on request) replied, "...this is blatant copy-pasting..."  In the 2nd diff already provided I asked four questions that I thought would help clarify the matter, but the admin characterized these four questions as going off on a vector.  Without analysis, the admin concludes that the usage is, "violation of copyright", which appears to me to be an unsupportable legal opinion.  The word "blatant" is used repeatedly without being defined.  The OP opines that the words of the admin are "wise".  Please review and advise.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(tps) I checked this as someone outside of this, and honestly Unscintillating, I'm shocked that you do not consider that to be a copyright violation. The article had the phrase "organises and supports a wide range of cultural events to present German culture abroad and foster intercultural exchange in Indonesia." while the source had the phrase "organises and supports a wide range of cultural events to present German culture abroad and foster intercultural exchange in Jakarta." The only change on that sentence was Indonesia changed to Jakarta, so that sentence, with that one exception, was clearly copypasted from the source. The phrase "as the regional institute for southeast asia australia and new zealand the goethe institut jakarta increasingly exploits the potential of the regional relationship networks" was evident on both the page and the source as well. There's never a need to have that much ripped right from a source. If Gunkarta's copyright issues are as bad as that one, then we will have to open up a copyright violation. Crisco's already noted this example over at ANI, and that is a rather serious violation. Also, you say that the admin seeks an adversarial relationship with you, but you seem to be the one going off on him when he's the one that found a serious issue. I ask that you disengage, and I would imagine MRG would tell you the same if you honestly see no issue. Wizardman 23:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I spend a couple of hours preparing analysis and I get a reply in nine minutes that uses the escalatory language "shocked" and "going off", repeats without support a legal opinion, and contains attitude.  Are you a copyright attorney?  If so, then you should also be able to provide level-headed analysis as to how this violates fair use and rises to the level of copyright violation.  I have to consider the possibility here that you don't know the difference between wp:copyvio and copyright violation.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The term "copyright violation" has two potential meanings. One is a specific legal term and means a violation of copyright law. The other is a Wikipedia term, and means violation of our copyright policy. The terms may be used imperfectly, and it is likely some editors use the term loosely, without clearly distinguishing which they mean (or even that there is a difference). In many cases, it is clear in context, but as a general rule, it would be wise to assume that an editor using the term is referring to a violation of copyright policy. Most editors are not lawyers, and even most of the editors that happen to be lawyers do not specialize in copyright. And even if they do, it is highly unlikely they are providing legal advice unless they specifically indicate otherwise, so uses of the term to mean the legal concept by editors in a discussion will be rare.
Copyright policy is deliberately constructed to be somewhat conservative, meaning, if it is a violation of copyright in the legal sense it is definitely prohibited, but that in some gray areas, we deliberately choose to be cautious, and may remove items that might not fail the legal test. The reasons for this should be obvious, but I'll be happy to elaborate if not.
I am not a copyright lawyer, and do not know if the string of 19 identical words in that phrase would be deemed a copyright violation in a court. But I do know that a string of that length is grounds for taking action per our copyright policy, so if I were doing a copyright review, I would remove that or reword it.
Does this help?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Helps me, enormously. I was going to say essentially the same thing. In terms of our use of language, Unscintillating, it has long been my opinion (as I stated here in 2010) that there is some confusion about what "copyright violation" means - as I said then, I believe that "On Wikipedia, "copyright violations" are, literally, violations of Wikipedia:Copyrights." We're talking about the violation of a local policy rather than judging the violation of a law. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Crisco and myself have each been unaware that there are two meanings of "copyright violation" used on en.Wikipedia. [note that Crisco below stipulates that he knew that there were two definitions]
  • Crisco is not a copyright attorney.
  • The text transformation as a whole is not a copy and paste.
  • The text transformation contains a mix of fragments that are individually copy and paste, and the copy and paste of two fragments, one 19 words and one 24 words, rises to the level of wp:copyvio.
  • "Blatant" is undefined as technical terminology.  It is used to appeal to the emotions and constitutes a WP:NPA issue.
  • As for Copyright#Fair use point 4, there is no basis to conclude that the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work has been impacted.
Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This last would only have to do with a legal question, and is largely irrelevant to WP’s copyright policy. AIUI all non-free material here—where permitted at all—must be identified and properly attributed, regardless of how little harm could be caused by not so doing. See SPhilbrick’s middle paragraph above.—Odysseus1479 01:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is my synopsis. The text is an unacceptably close paraphrase in parts and openly copy-pasted in others. In whole, it is unacceptable on Wikipedia. As Odysseus1479 points out, Copyright#Fair use point 4 is irrelevant. :) We judge text against WP:C and WP:NFC. WP:NFC says "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, or a similar method." In the absence of such marks, copying sentences and sentence fragments violates policy. (Beyond that, close paraphrase may literally and legally constitute copyright infringement - it does not require straightforward copy-paste for a court to find infringement.) It may be true that Crisco is not a copyright attorney, but it doesn't matter if Crisco is a copyright attorney, so long as he is familiar with our copyright policies and practices. That he is. I disagree with your assessment of "blatant" - calling someone a "blatant liar" is a personal attack; calling something a "blatant copyvio" is not. "Blatant" has more nuance than that - hence dictionary.com uses "blatant error." It's not an assignment of blame. It means "obvious", "unmistakable." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • MRG has a way of shedding light without heat, maybe I'll have more time to respond tomorrow.  To your citation needed tag, are you saying that you knew that the phrase has two meanings?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding “blatant“, IMO it’s fairly strong language, less neutral than either “obvious“ or “unmistakable“, but falls well short of what I’d consider inflammatory—“flagrant“ would be a step further in that direction, beginning to suggest intent to be obvious as per WP:POINT.—Odysseus1479 03:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • MRG's point regarding the dictionary.com definition of "blatant" seems to be that blatant does not always convey an emotional component.
www.m-w.com gives this definition for "blatant":
2: completely obvious, conspicuous, or obtrusive especially in a crass or offensive manner : brazen <blatant disregard for the rules>
Brazen continues:
3: marked by contemptuous boldness
Here is a link to "crass".
1c: —used as a pejorative intensifier <crass flattery> <crass propaganda>
The range of meaning at m-w.com for "blatant" is never as subdued as "obvious".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
And yet at dictionary.com, it is, thereby demonstrating that words have nuance. :) Even at m-w.com, it permits for "completely obvious" and only modifies this with "especially". There's a helpful usage note from American Heritage at [6] that reminds people not to confuse "blatant" and "flagrant" and notes "Blatant is sometimes used to mean simply 'obvious'" (it does mark this usage as an error). On the same page, Collins thesaurus offers "obvious" as the first synonym for blatant, along with such others as "clear", "plain", "patent", "evident", "noticeable", "conspicuous" and "indisputable" (some of the many have overtones of blame and some do not - my choices intended merely to represent that a strict interpretation is out of step with common usage). My Shorter OED helpfully explores how it evolved from meaning "loud" (in reference to the original, the Blatant Beast) to meaning noisy and conspicious and unashamed (I guess because that Blatant Beast was a talker). Looking more into that American Heritage thing, they repeat that its usage without overtones of blame is an error in their 2005 edition of The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style but also note at p. 62 that its usage without immediate connection to human behavior (and hence no overtones of wrongdoing at all) was accepted by 42% of the usage experts they assembled for their panel. That's a pretty hefty minority. Common Errors in English (2003) agrees at p.27 that it is in error but notes "many people nowadays think that 'blatant' simply means 'obvious' and use it in a positive sense, as in 'Kim wrote a blatantly brilliant paper'." A more recent language resource, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2011) discusses at length the distinction between "blatant" and "flagrant" at p.111 and is quite willing to concede propriety to its use to mean "obvious", indicating with respect to the phrase 'blatant necessity' that "blatant here [is] taking on its nonpejorative meaning 'completely obvious or strikingly conspicious'."
Ah, the joys of a living language. :/ It's a good reminder of the perils of assuming that everyone means what we think they mean or even that we ourselves are saying what we mean to say. :/ Clearly the word was not the best chosen, because it does have negative connotations for many or even most readers; it's also equally clearly not universally interpreted that way. This is how we wind up with a word that once meant "full of awe" more commonly meaning "terrible" so that phrases like "awful majesty" become very confusing to modern students of poetry. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding "blatant copyvio" I read it as meaning "obvious". We often deal with close calls, where different editors, even those with experience, might reach different conclusions. But sometimes it isn't a close call. It is not uncommon to use the phrase "blatant copyvio" to distinguish it from cases where it might be helpful or necessary to get multiple editors to reach a consensus. That said, the term "blatant" can have a pejorative sense, and we might be wise to consider whether a different term would be better.
Regarding Moonriddengirl, I couldn't agree more. She specializes in an area that is inherently gray, thus prone to strong disagreements, yet manages to make points forcefully, without being disagreeable. I wish we could clone her.
Regarding the two meanings of copyvio, as MRG has so clearly pointed out, we do have the two meanings. However, if we did a survey of editors, I fear that many would not know this. If presented with the evidence, it may not surprise them, but I doubt many have even given it thought. Furthermore, we have walls of text on copyright issues. I glanced at a few recently with this distinction in might, and did not find it easy to know which was which based upon a casual reading. As a project, we ought to add to our to-do list, to review out language and add more clarity.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
It looks like this is a new topic, that "copyvio" is ambiguous.  North8000 suggested a while back the use of "wp:notability" in notability discussion to identify instances whose meaning was that in WP:N.  Thus, "wp:copyvio" is suggested.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • One of the rules of hermeneutics is to interpret according to the intended meaning of the author.  One of the points raised above is the theory that "blatant copyvio" is used to mean "obvious copyvio".  Why would either of the two authors choose an outlier definition which doesn't exist in m-w.com?  The idea that "blatant copyvio" is "not uncommon" led to my finding [7].  Here, the idea of "blatant copyvio" is used to show concern that fair use has been exceeded.  If the intended meaning was "obvious copyvio", why not use the phrase "obvious copyvio" or one of the several words shown from Collins thesaurus?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If you are citing hermeneutics, then you should be familiar with the concept that a natural language is organic and develops at its own rate, as used by its own speakers, and the proscriptive efforts are often not big successes. That being said, "blatant" as a synonym of "obvious" is pretty clear to me from the context in which it was used on ANI. If we were discussing language used in a piece of academic writing, I'd agree with your assessment. However, referring Roman Jakobson's functions of language model, you would be proscribing a purely referential style of writing uncommon in day-to-day interactions, whilst the actual language used was more expressive.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The admin says that "blatant" was used in a sense that was "more expressive" than "referential" and cites Jakobson's functions of language that notates, "The Expressive (alternatively called "emotive" or "affective") Function".  This assessment is not far from my analysis that "blatant" was "undefined as technical terminology" and an "appeal to the emotions".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The third bullet there states, "There is no credible assertion of...fair use..."  Again we see the association of "blatant" with "fair use".  This returns to my question to the OP, "Point 4 of Copyright#Fair use mentions 'the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work'.  Have you developed an opinion about the change in the potential market value of the copyrighted work?"  Unscintillating (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I don't really have as much time for volunteering on Wikipedia at this point as I used to. :) Is this simply at this point a disagreement over the evolution of the word "blatant" to mean "obvious" for many English speakers? Or do you have an ongoing question about our copyright policies? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I asked the OP, "What criteria did you apply to determine that it was 'blatant'?"  If the usage was a misnomer or a neologism with the meaning "obvious" as you again suggest, the OP had the opportunity to so state.  Instead, the OP reacts by stating, "...paint me as the bad one.", which is consistent with emotional content.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The OP has done nothing about the existing plagiarism, so the OP appears to attach no moral stigma to plagiarism.  I expect that an analysis would show that the majority by byte-count of the articles contributed by this editor to Wikipedia are plagiarized.  Our article on plagiarism states, "Plagiarism is not a crime per se but in academia and industry it is a serious ethical offense".  What do you think the media will see if they look at this discussion?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
As much as I love to talk, I am a pretty practical person, so I ask you: what difference does it make if there is emotional content from the OP, if the usage was a blatant (as in obvious - a usage which has clearly become widespread) violation of our policies? If a problem was found and addressed, then we have improved the encyclopedia - which is what we are here to do. What purpose does it serve us to try to determine how the OP felt about it?
In terms of existing plagiarism, if there are attribution issues then, yes, they need to be corrected. I do not understand your choosing to address it in a section discussing somebody else's copyright issues. Was it your position that improperly attributed text moves from one editor ameliorated copyright issues from another? Or do you think that people who notice problems in one area must have clean hands in all others, or at least tangentially related issues? I believe that the outcome of your observation there demonstrates pretty clearly why it's a good idea to address one issue at a time. If you raise a legitimate concern about something unrelated, it may be overlooked in discussing the actual issue. I will mention that this repair has evidently not been done, but would appreciate your staying out of that conversation. I am not as concerned with motivation as you seem to be, and I am afraid that your interest in that motivation would not be helpful to the point of getting the task done.
"What do you think the media will see if they look at this discussion?" - This discussion? I think they would find us fascinatingly (hopefully not tediously) pedantic. :) When we start comparing reference works to work out in minute detail if a word can mean what it was used to mean, or if its use betrays some deeper psychological significance, we are leaving the realm of ordinary discourse. Of course, we are encyclopedists. Pedantry is built into the gene pool, I imagine - I'm sure it's in mine. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Participate in Wikimania 2013, will you?

Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You are a talk page stalker. I will add the stalker userbox onto your user page. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't.

Sorry, but I am not on the attendance list. :) Expensive, moving all those people internationally. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Psssst....

I just wanted to say Hi! I haven't had reliable Internet access for 3+ years, but never have forgotten you, (although I may have been forgotten!) just wanted to drop you a note saying hi, glad to see you still here and being awesome, as always! Hugs! Ariel♥Gold 08:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ariel! You most certainly have not been forgotten. :) Not only do I remember you, but have spoken about you many times - one of the first things I did after starting work with the WMF was to tell them about your tests with ways to make templates for newcomers less daunting. You still have considerable influence here. :D It's so nice to see you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio on short plot summaries

Just to be quite certain, am I right that the "Plot" section of this, copied from here, is too long (especially as being a major part of the article) to be an acceptable quote for copyvio purposes? There is a series article at Dark Shadows (audio drama) which contained them all, and they have been removed from that: I am considering nominating all the individual episode articles for deletion, because with the plot summaries gone there is nothing left worth having individual articles for. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(tps)I agree it is a problem. At a minimum it is plagiarism, so if is isn't too long to put in quotes with a reference, at a minimum we need quotes and a reference. I glanced, and I saw the article was started by a non-newbie, but I looked closer, and see the plot was added by an editor with only three edits, so they probably don't know. However, it is my opinion that we shouldn't allow the phrase even with quotes and a reference. There are times it is difficult to say something in an original way and not lose the exact meaning, there are times when a phrasing is so good, it may be appropriate to use it with proper credit, but neither apply here. I think it should be cut back to the earlier brief summary, then if some editor wants to watch the show and write a longer one, they can do so. (I understand you may want to hear from the uber-expert herself, but she seems quite busy at the moment, so I thought I'd share my concurrence with your instincts.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've done as you suggest, and explained to the new editor who added the copyvios. MRG, no need to add anything. I'm happy with your TPS's advice. JohnCD (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad, and not at all surprised. :) Sphilbrick is pretty awesome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Hello Moonriddengirl, As you appear to be an expert regarding Copyright Violations could you please have a look at the above page when you get a chance, your views are most welcome.

Hello. I've left a note there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Mirror or Copyvio

Can you say if they are copying us Mahaakshay Chakraborty or the vice versa? --Tito☸Dutta 12:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) I think we had it first. We can trace signs of natural evolution, especially in edits like this: [8] (much of the current content was added then, but some of it is already there). [9]; [10]; [11]. Do you want to {{backwardscopy}} to the article talk page? If not, just let me know, and I can do it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Process when reveling article with non trivial intervening edits

I investigated Interpublic Group of Companies and reverted to the last clean version. I've done this before, and usually check to see what is affected in the intervening edits. In most cases, there are some maintenance type edits, which if tweaking the copyvio text, aren't needed anyway. In this case, I think there was some legitimate additions of content that are now gone. I'm reluctant to ask what you think standard practice should be, I fear you will say that all intervening edits should be checked, and restored by the editor doing the cleaning. I took a lazier approach, identifying the larger contributors, notifying them and offering to help (as they cannot see the revdeled diffs, they may not remember what they added, so I can tell them).

If that is an acceptable course of action, I noticed one thing worth mentioned. I thought it would make sense to check the article history and uses the contributors option to identify the main contributors,especially those editing after the last clean version. I did that, and came up empty. I think what happens is that the contributor option does not check revdeled edits, which seems plausible, so I should have checked the contributions before doing the revdel.

How do you handle situations like this?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I won't say that. :) I have done that, but honestly it depends - what's possible is not always the same as what is practical. I think your lazier approach is a good one, and you always have the option of revdeleting after they have resurrected the usable content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Good point. It means I have to add it to a future to-do list, but that shouldn't be hard.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A plate of Chital Macher Mutha for you

A plate of Chital Macher Muitha for you

Here is a plate of Chital Macher Muitha! Chital Macher muitha is a Bengali dish and is made of Chital Maach — Clown Knifefish — Chitala chitala.

Prepare in real life

If you want to prepare this dish in real life, follow this recipe.
Thank you.
Tito☸Dutta 13:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

David R. Craig and User:Liberty444

I've got it on my watchlist, any suggestions on how to work with the article and User:Liberty444?

Well, I wasn't sure if he or she would see the notes left because the large notification system doesn't work anymore. But I suspect by the next time they log in, they will. If they persist in violating copyvio, they're going to have to be blocked. :/ If they keep adding promotional content, that might wind up happening as well. But let's hope they listen to the talk page messages. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's hope. The sad thing is that Lieutenant Governor Brown (the declared Democratic Candidate for Maryland Governor) is three times as long and has a lot of Press Releases as references. I'd like someone else to take a crack at that one as I am a Maryland Democrat and don't trust myself for NPOV.Naraht (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

O. John Rogge

Invitation to visit WikiProject India's kitchen

Namaste, you are invited to visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India where you'll find many delicious Indian cuisines to have yourself or to share with others. Thank you. Tito☸Dutta 01:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for the dish above. :) It looks delicious, but alas I would probably have to enjoy it in a restaurant. My cooking is sadly rudimentary. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

TV episode summaries: Copyvio question

Hi MRG! I'm sorry to bother you with what is probably a simple copyvio misunderstanding on my part, but I have read through various policies and did not find the answer I was looking for. There was a question posed on the WikiProject:TV talk page (Can official TV episode loglines be used on Wikipedia under the umbrella of fair use?) about what is allowed for television episode summaries which are copied from elsewhere. Part of the answer given was "One or two lines of text, with citation, is not a copyright violation, it is simply a fair use quotation." Also, it was stated that if an episode summary is copy/pasted from elsewhere, it needs a citation, otherwise it is a copyvio. I truly did not think this was allowed. (Other choices given where to strip it, or reword, both of which I understand.) I was always under the impression that a copyvio was a copyvio, regardless of whether an editor cites where it was copied from. What am I missing here? Can you clarify this for me? When can "fair-use" be claimed? One or two lines of text can lead to an awful lot which is allowed copied. Again, sorry to bother you, but like I said, I wasn't able to find any definitive answer when searching various guidelines myself. Thanks in advance. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding a citation does nothing to impact whether or not content is a copyright violation under U.S. law. Attribution affects some definitions of plagiarism, but not copyright. :) NOLO can be helpful here, with their "Rule 3" which starts "Giving the Author Credit Doesn't Let You Off the Hook."
We have the benefit of worrying less about whether our usage is fair and more about if it is compliant with WP:NFC. If it's copied from a copyrighted source, it needs to be a brief attributed quote, used with good reasons such as the ones spelled out there. With a plot summary, there is seldom going to be good reason to copy what somebody else has to say - you don't need to attribute a point of view (as you do, say, in quoting a critics reaction to a television show) or illustrate a point (as when you make a claim and quote from the source to demonstrate it). In those cases, we are generally just appropriating somebody else's creativity - their explanation of the plot - for our own. Usually, these should be rewritten with our own description of what happened. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I feel better now, and I can go on with my copyvio-fighting without worrying I didn't quite understand the quidelines (and screwed something up). Much appreciated! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

commons:File:Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.jpg

The original version of this file on Wikimedia Commons is not copyright violation (the Android OS is licensed under the Apache License). Please restore it. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As I'm not an administrator on Commons, I can't undelete anything there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reuploaded the original version, at a higher resolution. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If the software is licensed appropriately that shouldn't be any issue. :) If you want the original restored, you'd need to talk to an admin on Commons- maybe the one who deleted it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about deletion

Hi -

As per your instructions, I'm posting a note here. Please see private message sent to Md.. at wikimedia.org.

Thanks!

--JayKay999 (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ricky Ian Gordon

Hi Moonriddengirl, you once helped clean this bio of promotional content and copyright violations--it's a pressrelease again, with all the deleted content re-added. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Hi. I need your help regarding possible copyvio or close paraphrasing. Recently, I came across few articles which are developed and pushed for GA/FA. The articles have more than 50 references and its painstaking to check each of them with dup detector. Is there any tool which can help in identifying such possible copyvio or close paraphrasing? Thanks in advance. :) - Vivvt (Talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid not - not really. :/ There are a variety of tools that can help you check the article against the internet in general - this one has served me really well - but nothing that I know of that checks against citations. If you find one, please let me know, because it would make my life a lot easier, too! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Lazy question

Hi Moonriddengirl, this is a question that I suspect I just haven't dug deep enough myself for an answer, so please tell me to go do so if the answer is accessible for a wan body like mine with a bit more effort. I'm working on my own website, on which I'd like to include images that I've uploaded to Commons myself and the images of others, but I'm unclear about the necessary attribution method, or rather the necessary access to attribution for the end-user. I see three options, in the order I'd prefer as a graphic–web designer:

  • 1) an attribution to Commons with mention of the CC-SA3.0 license (these are the only images I would use) that appears on mouseover without links to the original file or to the license;
  • 2) an entry on the copyright and usage page of my site for each image (including the local address(es) on which it is used) with a link to the files' Commons page and to the CC-SA3.0 license;
or
  • 3) an attribution in a constantly visible caption with a link to the file's page on Commons and mention of the CC-SA3.0 license.

Any guidance you could offer will be much appreciated, including the guidance to keep on reading through our documentation myself.  davidiad { t } 03:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Also, I and my servers are in the USA. Thanks again for any help, and please enjoy whatever trip you're on—I just saw your inactivity notice—no hurry on any response. Yours,  davidiad { t } 03:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. :) First I have to clarify that I am not a lawyer and even if I were I would not be allowed to give you legal advice. If you have serious concerns, your best bet is to consult an intellectual property lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.
That aside, I would if I were in your position myself probably rely on Commons:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. Based on the advice there, I would probably attribute with a credit line like the ones recommended here according to which license is in use. I think I'd feel most comfortable doing it that way myself. :) Good luck! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks much for the reply. As best I can see there is no guideline on where the credit and license info is given, so I'll assume that as long as that is provided in its entirety a good faith effort to make it accessible will suffice. Thanks again,  davidiad { t } 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Chemistry copyvios

Hi MRG, hope you enjoyed your time off. I recently came across the leavings of User:Nuklear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a now-indeffed sock interested in synthetic chemistry who seems to have been a chronic copyright violator. The former puppetmaster has been inactive for some months, but is not blocked. Also left numerous contribs on commons and wikibooks, often with a bogus "minor edit" flag. Any chance you could use some of your superpowers to help sort out the mess left (assuming you haven't already done so)? I'll be out of regular circulation for a while by the time you return, but will try to check in. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) I need to just clarify which account you ran into. Nuklear has been blocked since 2009. Is this a sock that continued running around? And is it a copyright check that you believe is still needed? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if one was ever done on the old contribs. (Perhaps I'm a bit paranoid about it, please use your own judgement.) The sock was blocked as a sock, so I wanted to ensure its copyvios hadn't slipped through the cracks. A look at the user talkpage is still instructive. Thank you for any time you can spare on this. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-free file needs to be undeleted.

Can you please assist me in bringing back an SVG file to Wikipedia. The issue is the article Arms of Canada. For years we have had a highly detailed accurate SVG of the image under the name File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg here on Wikipedia under a non-free use rationale. Then last night it was replaced with a horrible version from Commons, and the SVG got deleted for not being in use. Naturally that Commons file was not accepted because of it's lower quality and inaccuracies, but because the SVG was deleted, now the article is using a blury PNG version of the image which you can see there now. Please use your admin powers to restore the SVG under it's non-free use rationale. I previously asked Bbb23, however he felt you would be more the more appropriate person to ask. I can absolutely assure you this was simple a matter of not being in use that caused it to be deleted, it had nothing to do with copyright or the Non-free use rationale, as it had been here for several years. Fry1989 eh? 01:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm sorry, but I'm really not all that comfortable with WP:NFC images. I would really recommend that you speak to the admin who deleted the content: User:Diannaa. When you disagree with a deletion, that is usually the best place to start, and I think you will find her approachable and sensible. :) Hopefully, she will also be knowledgeable about when having a really good non-free image is acceptable even though there's a really low quality free version available. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fry1989. Someone has uploaded a new image at File:Royal arms of Canada.png which is a little paler than the one I deleted but otherwise looks very much the same. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Oops, my bad, I should've looked to see who deleted the image and sent Fry to Diannaa in the first place.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Diannaa, you shouldn't have deleted the SVG in the first place and replaced it with a Commons file that looks nothing like it. Please undelete it, it has been here for many many years without a problem and it wasn't right to unilaterally just delete it without a discussion of any sort. Fry1989 eh? 19:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It was incorrectly tagged as {{Db-f8}}. The image does not qualify for deletion under that criterion as the image on the Commons is not identical. Sorry about the mistake. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for directing me here, and for replacing the image. The image that I had made as a (far inferior) replacement is now up for deletion. trackratte (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Lionhead99

Lionhead99 (talk · contribs)'s edits seem to be mainly copy and paste from the web. He is creating articles on Australian subjects by copying from government sources, which is legal if attributed correctly[12] but a lot of his other edits are just straight copyvio. His talk page shows a lot of image copyvio problems, and he seems to have never responded on his talk page to anyone. I've just warned him and told him I may block him. Cleanup will be necessary I'm afraid. I ran into him earlier today removing some fringe stuff which included some minor copyvio and then found a lot more when I took a quick look at his edits. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

He is now reverting me and replacing the copyvio material. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Took him to WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Just have to note that the Australian government sources are not usable here - this is their licensing statement: "Where OEH is the owner, you may copy, distribute, display, download and otherwise freely deal with web content for educational and non-commercial purposes, on the condition that you include the copyright notice '© State of New South Wales through the Office of Environment and Heritage' or otherwise source the content appropriately." This is not compatible with CC-By-SA. We cannot restrict reuse in this fashion - our content is reusable commercially and even for non-educational purposes. :/ I'll come check out the ANI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. I've worked on a few more of his articles but it looks as though he's been doing this for a while. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

LadyofShalott suggested I ask you this question regarding the practical interpretation of Adelman v. Christy as it applies to WP:WikiProject Bibliographies. Any comments you'd care to add would be appreciated.

Best,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for opinions

I cannot see the sources but the additions in this set of diffs concern me. The phrasing, especially in an Indic-related article, just scream "copyright violation" to me. I'd appreciate comments from yourself and stalkers. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It seems to be copied, with one or two trifling changes, from the second column of this page. Deor (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Reverted, cautioned. :) Thanks, both! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Osro Cobb

Hi-I started an article about Osro Cobb. I noticed you deleted an article about Osro Cobb that a banned editor had started. Cobb served in the Arkansas House of Representatives and was on the Arkansas Supreme Court and is notable. There was 6-7 redlinks for Osro Cobb so the article had to be started. I wanted to let you know. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The article was not deleted because the subject was not notable, but because it was created by a serial copyright infringer editing in defiance of a ban. :) A new article without the potential issues of the old is very welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comment.RFD (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Skylanders

Hi MRG. I just did a major clean up of a very crufty fictional characters list, List of Skylanders characters, but everything I cut away was descriptions from the official game site Skylanders.com. They can be found by clicking the characters tab and then the story button for each character. The article has only been around for a couple months, and the descriptions were in from the beginning. Would this require nuking all previous versions, or is there another way to handle this? Thanks! —Torchiest talkedits 13:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yikes! That's a lot of copy-paste. :/ Are all the character descriptions original now? My thought is that revdeletion may be appropriate with copying as extensive as that, but perhaps best to wait until the AFD closes. I've left a note to the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I can tell now, the descriptions are basic factual information that doesn't seem to be directly swiped from anywhere else. There is a bit more detail in some of the lower sections, but I don't think they're copied from anywhere, because as far as I can tell there aren't official descriptions for non-playable characters. —Torchiest talkedits 15:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this. I really appreciate how helpful you always are with such things. :) —Torchiest talkedits 13:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Skylanders Characters

My apologies, friend. I was not the one who plagiarized, I merely took a massive section from the page List of Spyro the Dragon characters and created a separate page for it, cutting and pasting the text there wholesale. I had no idea any of it was taken from official sources, and would not have left said text intact if I had known. Master Deusoma (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I verified the split by looking at the cross-page diff. The official biographies were inserted in two edits (1, not sure if adequately paraphrased; 2) in February 2012. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but I didn't just copy the text from one Wikipedia page to another, I cut the text out of one and pasted it into another one in order to create a new article. Just wanted to be clear. But thank you for setting everything in order, regardless. :-) Master Deusoma (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

To be even more precise in Wikipedia terms, WP:Splitting is what you did. (The opposite is WP:Merging.) Think of cutting as copying + removing the old. The copy triggers WP:Copying within Wikipedia, but the removal can be reverted easily. MRG used {{Copied}} because it supports more detailed parameters than {{Split from}}/{{Split to}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Good news

The Kraken has finally been vanquished :) Wizardman 19:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well done to everyone involved. It seems the impossible is indeed possible, and you are to be congratulated. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow! You are, indeed. :) That's fantastic news! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Impressive! Well done. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Lionhead99 back

as Catface00 (talk · contribs) - obvious sock - I@d hoped the original block of Lionhead, which blocked the IP, would do it, but obviously not. Anyway, I saw no need for an SPI so have blocked. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And 121.218.74.238 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
We're in whack-a-mole phase. It's pretty normal in these cases. :/ I'll help keep an eye on things once VisualEditor rollout is complete, but right now I'm barely finding time to breathe. 15 hours yesterday; similar the day before. Oi. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Avialae (talk · contribs) is also an obvious Lionhead99 WP:Sockpuppet. Flyer22 (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see you blocked that account at the same time I posted about it here. Flyer22 (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Please do feel free to update on this. I just thought I would check really quickly before diving back into VE. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sister Gargi

Tito☸Dutta 00:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Hi - I think your input is needed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch Isfahan

Dear Maggie, Hello, I hope you are well. If you remember I had an article on "Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch Isfahan" which its license was confirmed by you. But Unfortunately despite of many times changing, editing and reducing the text but it rejected by different Wikipedia admins. I checked some Universities on Wikipedia which has promotive words .But I dont know why mine is not confirmed as I think my article is just informative and neutral. Please guide me if its possible for you. Thanks for your time and kind attention. Mehrnazar (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Mehrnazar

(talk page stalker) Sorted now. Someone from AfC finally moved it into article space. I've added the OTRS ticket to the talk page and updated Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 March 8. The article still needs a lot of work though. Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just sent you an email

AnOpenMedium (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Spartak Makovsky

I really hate to bring these things here, but don't know best how to handle this. It seems to have been copied wholesale from Celebrities, then edited a bit (which it sorely needed!). I removed the bulk of the text and the reference, which is obviously unreliable. The author has now restored it as hidden text. Does it matter? Do we care? I've also tagged the article for deletion as non-notable, btw. I'd like some advice, so here I am asking probably the busiest person on the whole wiki to take a look at it. Or maybe some kind watcher? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Which someone has done, whether as a result of this plea or not I don't know. Either way, many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
'Twas me. I'm a notorious stalker of MRG's talk page. :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Voceditenore. Stalking is very much appreciated. :) Between family obligations, the WP:VE rollout and the logo selection procedure for Wikivoyage starting tomorrow, my time is pretty constrained right now. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure! I don't know how you do it, frankly. I've seen the madhouse at the VE feedback page. Checking copyvio seems positively delightful in comparison to answering the posters there. I must say though, I'm mighty glad they've left the source editor available. The VE is a vastly inferior tool for anyone who knows Wiki markup or is willing to learn it. Funny how the old version never seemed to inhibit the vandals. A potential bonus of the VE is that it is so buggy and slow in comparison, it might actual deter miscreants. :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University/Temp

Can you please check: Talk:Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University/Temp? --Tito☸Dutta 06:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It looks OK to me, well done!. I've updated Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 June 6, so any other administrator can move the temp page into the article. Note that I recommended there a complete deletion of the article and replacement with the version at Talk:Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University/Temp. Some form of pasting from the university's website appears to be foundational. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks to both of you! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Copying from one article to another

Hi Moonriddengirl, I've just noticed that a lot of text from Brothers Grimm was copied directly to Grimms' Fairy Tales in in this series of edits. I added a copied from template to the talk page, [13], but in the end decided it's not really optimal to have both articles with portions of the exact same text so I've reverted to a previous version, [14]. Not sure what the policy is now in terms of the template: the copied text still lives in history but is no longer on the page. Do we need it or not? Not in rush btw - I know you are very busy. Thanks in advance. TK/Victoria (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). It's better to have the attribution template, even if the text has now been removed. It's still in the history + someone else might re-add it or bits of it in the future. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I would agree. :) I would only remove the template myself if the material were revision deleted, to prevent inadvertent restoration, and I don't think revision deleted would be supported for that in most cases. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree and thought that was the right course of action, but then second guessed myself. I've not ever seen an article on my watchlist copied to such an extent to another page. It's a huge reminder to get the Grimms' Fairy Tales article written! Anyway, thanks MRG for responding, and to Voceditenore too. Victoria (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with leaving the tag. Admins are very reluctant to use WP:Revision deletion in these cases, even when deletion causes a violation of WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. See WT:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 20 for an odd case – a participant pasted the entire article to the DRV, and the article was redeleted. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Izaak Walton Cottage

I came across the article Izaak Walton Cottage, which was created on June 21 and the text of which matches text from the fifth paragraph of this blog post, dated March 22, 2012. I have a feeling that the latter is not, however, the original source, but rather that both our article and that page are copied from some third source. I'm not really sure how to tag it for speedy deletion with an explanation of that; would you please deal with the article as you see fit? Deor (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The regular copyvio template works well for that. :) Given this person's user name, permission seems likely, although it's complicated to identify the first point of publication and clear that. But I've started the process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue on the page of Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Can you review the talk section on the above page (Pádraig Mac Lochlainn). I understand that the copyright issue has now been addressed. Thanks Atticus Maycomb (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So it has. :) Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Another Lionhead99 sockpuppet

I'm pretty sure that Batte Mann is another Lionhead99 sockpuppet; see, for example, here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

And this has some WP:BLP violations; Michelle Rodriguez, for example, has never publicly stated that she is bisexual. Having "sexually experimented" with both sexes does not automatically make someone bisexual. That fact, and because of not wanting to publicly identify as lesbian or bisexual, is also why Amber Heard is not placed in Category:Lesbians or Category:Bisexual women. Lionhead99 listing living people as bisexual when they have not publicly stated that they are is no different than violating WP:BLPCAT to me. I don't even like that he's listed James Dean as bisexual, given that Dean never confirmed that he is; there are claims that he was heterosexual, gay or bisexual, and all of that is addressed in the James Dean article. It appears that Lionhead99's editing is problematic in several ways, some of which I've observed before, not just when it comes to copyright violations. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Blocked; reverted all of his substantial edits. Regardless of the BLP issues, he is editing in violation of a block, and he is a serial copyright infringer - removing all of his edits is standard process. Thanks for finding him. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. He couldn't be any more obvious; for another example, here and here. I should probably start creating WP:Sockpuppet investigations about him, but, considering that he obviously will not stop socking, that would mean repeatedly subjecting myself to wasting time...in a way. That's not any different than reporting him to you, except that, because of your familiarity with his edits, you block him faster than an administrator would via a sockpuppet investigation when the evidence isn't as obvious as it could be, and I at least wouldn't be repeatedly bothering you with this. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Hi -- do you have time to answer a copyright question? I would like to use cover images of the magazine Fantastic Novels in that article, so I checked the copyright renewals per the instructions here. The first five issues (1940 and 1941) were renewed, but I found nothing under the individual year renewals for the second series (1948-1951) (e.g. this page would show a renewal if one existed).

However, a search in the post-1977 database finds what appear to be mass renewals, in 1990, of multiple titles, including Fantastic Novels. Can I ignore these as invalid? Or do they actually count as renewals?

Thanks for any help -- and if you're too busy, no problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not about my being busy, but my general inexperience with images that causes me to suggest you ask at WP:MCQ. :) They should have a much better idea than I do how such things are handled. Sorry for the delay! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link -- I've asked there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Arnold L. Punaro

Hi Moonriddengirl, I have a question re: the content of this article, much of which appears to have been copied from a defense department page [15]; are such government pages unfettered by copyright restrictions? The article probably has other issues as well, but the issue of copied text needs to be addressed first. Thank you, 76.248.144.216 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks identical to this page [16]; perhaps you can tell which came first. Thanks, 76.248.144.216 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I had look at this because MRG is up to her eyeballs at the moment over at the VE feedback page. The original pasted-in chunk on 15 April 2013 [17], was simply a verbatim but slightly updated version of this US government bio, which was in place on 11 February 2013. Since that's a government site, it is public domain, but the text must be attributed to the source to comply with our copyright requirements. My impression is that the three two of the editors involved in that article are closely associated with the subject and probably employees of his consulting firm who have been tasked with updating his biographies in tandem. The headings were added to Wikipedia, and then the article on his consulting firm website was updated to match it, rather than the other way around. Note this version of their website on 17 June 2013. However, I'm going to leave a note about all this on the talk page of the article, and remind the editors about our COI and copyright guidelines. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you--that's exceedingly helpful, and addresses the copyright issue as it applies to the government site, as well as the chronology of similar content added to several web sites. Very much appreciated, 76.248.144.216 (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you had time to look

at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations which also raises some clearly copyvio issues. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Doug. I have not. :( Work has been crazy - I've been eating many of my meals at my desk, even. I'll try to take a look later today, although at a glance it seems like there's some clued in conversation going on there. (My general thought is along the line that we should use free versions where possible and only use non-free versions if we are specifically needing to talk about the differences.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

Best wishes on a happy day

This is a day worth celebrating! I hope that you have a very happy birthday and remember how glad we all are that you were born and came into our wiki-lives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, happy birthday, Moonriddengirl. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Rainbow Cake

Oh, let me contribute! Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you. The rest of the song may be copyrighted, so I'll just whistle for you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all! And lol! It's been a very hectic time, but the birthday was nice, and the birthday wishes are very much appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A Happy Birthday cupcake for you!

Sorry to be belated! Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I am late in getting here to see it. :D Thank you very much! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

If you have the time, what with VE and everything, could you ask legal to look into whether minors could be legally considered competent to release contributions under an irrevocable CC license? I brought up this possibility at this mess of a deletion request in response to some particularly hard-line "tough luck, its irrevocable" votes, and considering the possible implications if such a possibility were a reality... it would be nice to have a firm answer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Good question since minors have no legal rights.PumpkinSky talk 01:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Grrr. Has this finally become an issue. I know Moonriddengirl and I briefly discussed this, hypothetically, some time back and if memory serves me correct we were unsure of the answer, didn't like where it may lead, and so decide not to pursue it further, and bother legal, until it become a problem. Dpmuk (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It could, in theory, become an issue depending on how Commons treats its young uploaders; "tough luck, its irrevocable" is not a stand to take when a minor who, not understanding the license they released the image with and possibly not competent enough to understand it, asks for an image to be deleted. I admit though, I don't like where it would lead very much either. I'm seeing credit cards as proof of age or something very stupid like that, to ensure editors are legally competent to edit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • We knew it could become an issue - we hoped it wouldn't. Seems like it might now be. At least with an image it's reasonably easy to delete. I don't like trying to untangle the mess if text has been in an article for years and we have to try to remove it. And then of course there's the issue, as you state, of how we'd prove age. Could be a very big mess if legal does decide it's an issue. Dpmuk (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

UNESCO

UNESCO content is not pd/free license, right? So I think that the lead UNESCO para at Zamość is copyvio'd - too much taken verbatim from the UNESCO page used a source. Would you agree? (for warning/educating purposes, this content was added with those diffs) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The page it's taken from is clearly marked © UNESCO World Heritage Centre 1992-2013. The quote is over 200 words. This alone makes it exceed the permissible criterion of "brief quotation", normally assumed in practice to be at most a couple of sentences, and even then there needs to be a good reason for quoting verbatim rather than writing the material in your own words. In my view, a one-sentence quote used to attribute UNESCO's opinion of the site (why they named it a World Heritage site) would be OK, e.g.
"Zamość is a unique example of a Renaissance town in Central Europe, consistently designed and built in accordance with the Italian theories of the 'ideal town' [...]"
But the rest should be removed. Any of the facts in the quote can be incorporated lower down in the article (if they're not already there) and referenced to the UNESCO page. Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review copyvio action

Hello again. I have removed some copyvio from Ehrenberg Castle, taken from this page. Please review the change and hide the revisions skipped in this diff (previous OK --> my update) if you agree. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I know you are very busy at present. I have added Copyvio-revdel and Cclean to the article and talk page, so you don't need to worry about this. Now I know about them I won't need to bother you here! --Mirokado (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-retiring

I'm semi-retiring. My reasons are on my user page but given the timing I suspect one of the reasons won't be too much of a surprise given the number of complaints it seems to have generated. As the person I've interacted most with here I wanted to let you know and thank you for your help over the years. Dpmuk (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) Smooth sailing, wherever it may take you. I can't blame you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • ( Note at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
      In reply to your note, I thought that particular diff may well have been wrong, but that's not my real concern. The fact that someone was confused enough to make that mistake is a symptom of my real concern - the near complete lack of discussion between the devs and the users. If there was more communication that mistake could never have been made. Most editors are aware that we may not represent the views of the readers (our users) and try to take that into account. However the devs don't seem to care what the editors want (the dev's users). At the moment we seem to be in the odd situation where software changes are forced upon us whether we want them or not and without any input from us. It's there that my problems lies. As I see it there's two solution - a) we have the right to reject changes the devs make (and I can see why the WMF wouldn't want this) or b) editors are involved in deciding what those changes are, how they're implemented etc. At the moment we're in the absurd situation where devs can come up with an idea that is terrible for us trying to maintain the encyclopaedia and we have to just put up with it - we don't get input at the planning or development stages (that's a terrible idea, don't do it) nor do we get to reject it (that's terrible, we're not going to use it). Indeed when we have tried telling the devs something's buggy and not worth it we get fobbed off with we'll delay more deployment by a week (or some similar small timescale). If there was real respect for editors that would instead be "we'll delay more deployment until the bugs are fixed and it's working properly when ever that will be". It seems probable to me that devs measure performance by when they release something not how good it is. I hope I'm wrong if that but even if I am the fact that I'm thinking that shows, to me at least, how terrible communication from the devs is. Sorry for that rant, I know you've got a lot on your plate as it is but I wanted to reply. That said I don't think you should, in you WMF role, by dealing so directly with VE feedback as IMO that's too much working at the coal face. I believe you (or at least someone at the WMF) should be looking at the bigger picture and seeing how we got into that mess in the first place and how we can avoid it happening again.
      All that said I'm going to keep an eye on things and if things change for the better I'll probably be back. I'm definitely aware of a growing concern amongst experienced editors with Arbcom so hopefully something will happen there soon. When it comes to software I'd like to think that the VE debacle will lead to changes. So I am somewhat hopeful I will return. Dpmuk (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Editintro for fiction articles?

I have proposed a means of preventing copyvio plot summaries that requires changing the site-wide Javascript. Your feedback is appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Editintro for fiction articles?, before I take this to a wider audience. MER-C 06:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Vertical sound localization

I appreciate your efforts trying to check on copyright issues in the article Vertical sound localization. That's hard and thankless work, so you deserve a "thank you" for it! I did not post the original cv tag, but I have noted on that article's Talk page that, copyrighted or not, most of the content is covered in the more general article on Sound localization (where it appears as "Sound localization in the median plane"). I have suggested merging the two pages, and would welcome your reaction to that idea, if you care to weigh in on the topic.

Let me also just add that I admire the philosophy you advocate ("Presume good intentions and treat others with respect until they force you to think otherwise"). I know that the assumption of good faith is WP policy, but it may be the most-frequently-forgotten of WP guidelines. Thanks for keeping the flag of civil discourse flying. Brazzit (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Another for the banhammer

In June, you blocked User:Salora for copyvios. Since then, [18] was copied from [19] and [20] was copied from [21]. I've opened a CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Salora. On a related note, Jayantabhai Ki Luv Story needs a history purge. MER-C 14:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Sigh. :( Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It almost seems like there's no way to keep plot/episode copyvios at bay. No idea how you guys lasted handling copyright issues for so long, I'm about at my wit's end on cv's at this point, knowing it's never going to stop and 98+% of users either don't know or don't care about the seriousness... Wizardman 15:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to retire from WP:CP. I haven't written an article in forever, but with the backlog we have there, I just have to keep plugging. I really don't know the answer to this. And I'd be really sorry to lose you from copyvio work, but can hardly blame you. It is a never-ending task that few people seem to care about. It's easy to say "Oh, it's too hard for most people to do", but it's just not true. One of the copyvio listings I closed today from last April I was thinking about that very thing - a clear cut copy-paste. All I had to do was go, "Yup, copy-paste" and revert two edits back. That's it. It took me a couple of seconds, and it's been waiting for almost three months for somebody to do it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Sadly I think you hit on the main problem. I started working there because I want to, now I feel like I have to because people have that feel about the issues. There have been areas of the site where after I left them alone they became abandoned, so I would hate to see that happen at a place where abandonment could mean the death of the site. Wizardman 16:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree, I think I kept plugging for too long and the resulting burnout is what started my period of inactivity. I hate seeing the backlog but currently have no desire to work there. Since my burn out other things have happened to make me semi-retire but the two are related in some ways. The WMF seems to want to spend all it's efforts on getting new users to wikipedia and the VE while seemingly ignoring areas of, arguably, greater importance such as these copyright issues, or indeed in keeping the senior editors that work in these areas. All this effort over VE and yet we still rely on volunteer bots for stuff like detecting copvios, vandalism etc. That seems very wrong to me. There are definitely technological ways the job at WP:CP could be made easier but there seems to be no desire from the WMF or developers to help in this area. As an example that might help in this area - we currently have a bot that checks new pages and lists them. It seems to me that it might be possible for that check to be done on the fly and if a possible copyvio is detected the user given a confirm dialog with a warning about copyright and being blocked etc. This would obviously require developer help. Is it possible? I'm not sure, but I certainly think so. Would it be effective? Again not sure. Do I know where to raise the idea with the right people. No. Do I think in the current environment the WMF or developers would look into either of those questions, also no. Got a bit ranty there. Sorry about that. Dpmuk (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I second your comments about the WMF: an unhealthy emphasis on new editors and Facebook bullshit (ArticleFeedback, MoodBar, Echo and Flow). If there are any talk page stalkers who are familiar with the edit filter, implementing Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Plot summary copyvios will go some way towards slowing the relentless tide of copyvios. MER-C 13:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. Like Wizardman, I started in CP because I wanted to. On occasion, the chance to sharpen one's detective skills is fun, but, frankly, like most admin tasks, I do it because I want to help (generically) and this is one aspect I think I can do, and find less boring than closing AfDs. I figure if I do enough file deletions and CP reviews, no one will guilt me into more AfD closures. However, there are days I go to the page, and it doesn't feel like some mildly boring task, but much more negative. Then I wonder how MRG does her Energizer bunny imitation. I've take a bit of a break, and hope to get back at it, but the mountain is huge. Sometimes, like MRG notes, it can be done in seconds, but sometimes not. I just deleted an article that I think MRG would have pared back to the stub preceding the copyvio, and rewritten, but I deleted it, because there wasn't enough to salvage without a fair amount of work, and I feel a little guilty about it. But now I'm drifting, and want to get back to the main theme. There's too much to do for the few who volunteer to do it, and while I know our efforts are appreciated, it sure would be nice to find a magic bullet to increase the number of volunteers, or find a better way to cut down the backlog.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
SPhilbrick, if you're doing copyright work, I think you have nothing to feel guilty for. :) (Me, I feel guilty when I'm not. :/) In terms of what the WMF does, this is an uncomfortable mixing of hats, but it's worth pointing out that two of the five mandates that the WMF is required to work on involve attracting new editors - generally and female specifically. This isn't the only work going on, although I imagine it's more visible to people here than this major milestone, for instance. :) Or the ongoing work with mobile providers in third world nations to ensure that Wikipedia is accessible to their clients free of charge.
The WMF has certainly dedicated some resources to copyright work - for instance, last time I checked, it was footing the bill for our copyvio bots because of a change in the licensing terms of Yahoo! (I literally mean "last time I checked" - I do not know if that status has changed.) But it's true that there are limited developer resources and very specific, Board-mandated assignments for those developers to be working on.
There are a couple of ways to get involved with the way things are being run, if you don't like the focus. First: vote. The Board is instrumental in determining what the WMF works on, and five of the Board are community-selected. (Those five people and Jimmy, who is permanent, come together to choose four others.) Three candidates were elected earlier this summer, along with people to serve on two other important committees - the Funds Dissemination Committee that sets aside budgets for movement work, and the ombudsman committee that oversees them. Considering that this election was movement-wide, the turnout was pretty dismal.
Second, become active in movement discussions. These are often but not always held on Meta. The current strategy the WMF is tasked with implementing (including the attraction of new editors) followed movement-wide community consultation. It's a five year strategy, but that doesn't mean that there isn't refinement ongoing and room for talking about how to achieve those goals. For instance, when Sue wanted to talk to the Board about whether the WMF's activities were too broad to meet its core goals, she brainstormed publicly, there: m:User:Sue Gardner/Narrowing focus. Staff and some board members engaged in the talk page, so it was definitely a place where community could make their opinions heard. The new Terms of Use were negotiated on Meta following months of community consultation. There is a current discussion on trademark practices and more in the pipeline.
Finally, I suspect that as a crowd-sourced project, there is always going to be an element of {{sofixit}} in the way things are done. If somebody isn't already doing the work, it remains possible to find people who can (if you can't yourself). The hard part is knowing where to find the folks who can fix it. Basically, Wikipedia seems to me to be like a microcosm of the larger Wikimedia world - we have specialized areas, and if you need to collaborate with somebody in another area, you basically need to figure out where they are. :) (And hope you're lucky enough to find somebody willing and able.) There are all kinds of resources available to people - developers over on mw:MediaWiki who may be able to create tools; chapters that might be interested in backing ideas that serve their communities and others (like the highly successful WikiLovesMonuments). There's money from the Funds Dissemination Comittee and the Individual Engagement Grants (which among other projects is currently working on Ocaasi's expansion of free research materials for editors).
I'm getting rambly, but what I hope the takeaway from this would be is that we are not passive consumers. We can vote; we can voice our opinions; we can do stuff ourselves or collaborate with (or even just support, as with voicing approval of grant proposals) others who can. Did I understand all this before I started working at the WMF? No. I mean, sure I knew some of it. But I barely ever dipped a toe in Meta. :) The WMF certainly can and should improve, and I do not mean here to deny that things can be better, but I think there is a danger of developing tunnel vision and not recognizing the scope of what is being done...and certainly not understanding who sets its agenda and why. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Underage editors and competence

Just a heads up, can of worms just got a lot bigger. Jimbo's weighed in and discussion started at Commons (as Jimbo said he was going to contact legal, you may already know of this development... just think it would have been a smaller can of worms if they had entertained such possibilities before Jimbo's involvement). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw a note upthread somewhere, I think, about the generic issue - can minors contribute to WP. Someone claimed or assumed that if there were a problem, legal would have already addressed it. I'm not so sure. While it is indeed, a major can of worms, I don't see how a minor can enter into a contract (without parental or legal guardian involvement), so unless the lawyers can see something I cannot always a possibility), this will have far-reaching consequences. Arctic Kangaroo is trying to distinguish text from images, but I'm not seeing any reason for such a distinction. (If anything, I would be more inclined to allow images from a minor than text).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm... I've posted on the issue before, here, though it was more of a question about if Legal had looked into it. I don't think we can differentiate between text and images either — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, it didn't take long to find an exception, in WP, where else, Capacity in English law. It is recognised however that minors, and those who are deemed mentally incapacitated, may need to be able to create binding agreements, when acquiring essential items for living, or for employment. Doesn't seem to cover editing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We knew it would probably have to be settled eventually. :/ I haven't heard about Jimmy talking to legal, but I've been focused heavily on other areas. Not just VisualEditor - last week, there was a lot more going on with the Wikivoyage logo...though if not for User:Rillke, I can't imagine having accomplished anything at all. <3. Oi. One to watch. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


Multiple Unresolved Issues

Moonriddengirl, I am reaching out to you because talk page of Parsons Paris (2013) has not been responded to. There are several inaccuracies associated with the Parsons page versus Paris College of Art that I am attempting to correct but have continuously run into trouble. I have tried to reach out to other editors but have not heard back. Let me know what you think about the changes I have proposed on the Parsons Paris talk page and if you need any clarification on the proof of the validity of the proposed edits or the history of Parsons Paris itself (or direct me to a more appropriate editor). Thank you. Mickey Lukens 13:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If you're talking to an editor on a talk page and he stops responding, odds are good that he is not watching that page and has not seen your notes. :) If I were you, I would leave a note on User talk:Orangemike, pointing out that you have questions for him outstanding on that page. If he does not respond, it may mean he does not care enough to engage - you might consider asking at Wikipedia:Teahouse if any of the people who work there can assist you in understanding Wikipedia's conventions regarding these things. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Timmy43

Hey, Moon. Last November, you blocked Timmy43 for copyright violations. I think you also stubbed an article that was started as a copyright violation by the same user (I can't seem to find it but I went through at least 15 articles that Timmy43 created). You can see at the bottom of his talk page, it hasn't stopped.

I tried to start a discussion on their talk page but given that the user has never spoken to anyone in the two years that they've been editing, I doubt that I will receive a response. I'm not sure what else to do than ask for another block to get their attention so that we can start a discussion.

On a side note, it looks like Timmy is publishing these articles first on various Wikias then on WP. Wikia, as I'm sure you know, has a compatible license but there's no attribution being given. OlYeller21Talktome 20:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thought I should leave this here to save some time: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Timmy43. OlYeller21Talktome 22:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I've recycled the CCI. MER-C 11:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I've indefinitely blocked. :/ I realize he has not edited since you left your notes for him, but he's been blocked before and is still doing it...there's no reason to think your note will make any more difference than the previous block did. If he returns to edit and finds he can't, perhaps he'll take the time to talk about it and learn the reasons why. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Second-hand copyvio at Thomas Hanbury?

OK, me again, once again in search of advice from MRG or the faithful watchers. it:Thomas Hanbury was created in 2008 by an (apparently) serial copyright violator; like some of his other copyvios, the content was probably lifted from here. Recently Thomas Hanbury was created here by copy-pasting the it.wiki content. What I don't know: should the article here be deleted to allow a fresh start, or just cleaned up? And should some sort of investigation be started on it.wiki? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) I did a rev delete on the issue in history. Thanks so much for taking care of that. I'm not sure what the Italian processes might be for serial infringement - since each project is different, you might want to talk to the admin who deleted the history of the article there for advice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for that. I left a note on the page of the creator of the article to try to explain why I had trashed his work. I'll see if I can work out what if anything the Italian admins want to do. Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
That seems to have been dealt with on it.wp. But ... I may have messed up at Andrew Groves. Would some kind watcher please take a look? Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

ADHD - Question about possible copyright issue

Hi Moonriddengirl, I'm reviewing the GA nomination for Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In one part the article here duplicates in full a list of symptoms found here, which is a publication produced by the National Institute of Mental Health, an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Quite a bit of text is quoted. This text is hard to paraphrase without losing the specific medical meanings. My understanding is that work produced by employees of the US Government in the course of their public duties is public domain and can be quoted at length with attribution. Is what the article is doing OK to do as long as it's attributed? I took a quick look at your copyright advice and didn't see this addressed, so asking you here, hope that's OK. Thanks... Zad68

Yup, that's fine. :) Near the bottom of the source page, it says, "NIMH publications are in the public domain and may be reproduced or copied without permission. " --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! Zad68 15:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You've go mail!

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Bill william comptonTalk 16:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Get well soon

Level 99 coconut of health
MRG has gained 5000 HP. She is revitalized!

Oh, if only life were so easy.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And how! Instant HPs would be awesome. What I'd really like is a save point I can restore. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Andrea Sala

May i request to move the page title back to Andrea Sala (footballer). I was going to translate it:Andrea Sala as the volleyball player seems far more notable than the footballer. Matthew_hk tc 19:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matthew hk. Sorry for my delay in response. It looks like you did already and it was successful. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Long time no see, MRG. Hope you are well.

Drmies (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, kitty! Thanks. :) I am feeling considerably better, but the kitten makes a good ending to the "weak as a...." line. :/ Health issues ought to be more considerate and submit to scheduling. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I just saw your were out sick. Hope your feeling better soon. The project needs you! Kumioko (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. :) I'm recovering. Yesterday I pushed a bit too hard on the Wikivoyage logo process, but it's hard to take it easy when there are deadlines! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

For reasons that I will not try to explain

I just ended up at your several discussions at User talk:82.18.121.77. discussing his/her edits around Art Garfunkel and I was amazed and impressed by the patient and persistent way that you dealt with that editor. It is way too late for me to try and figure out how to give you an award, but pick the one you'd most like to get for some edits that you did years ago and wear it with pride. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Carptrash@. :) That was a puzzling episode. :/ And your kind words are more than enough. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A request for an outside opinion

Greetings, MRG! Do you remember me? We worked together on copyright-cleanup concerns several times a couple years ago. Anyway, I have been reviewing a FAC nomination for Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, and I found issues of close paraphrasing from the sources. The nominator has attempted to address these concerns, but I was hoping to get an outside opinion. In particular, the final paragraph of the "Administration" section is sourced from the first full paragraph in page 172 in this book (and that page is available for preview). The article's paragraph no longer uses the same wording as the source, but it arguably has many of the same ideas in the same order.

So my questions are: Is this still a close-paraphrasing concern, or has the issue been fixed? And is the level of rewriting sufficient (in your opinion) for the quality we expect in featured articles?

Thanks so much for your time! – Quadell (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, @Quadell:. :) Of course, I do remember you! I have to say that if I encountered this in a standard article, I would think, "Eh, not a copyvio issue, but could be improved," and I would modify it. For featured article status, given the rigorous demands of featured articles, I would recommend modification. For me, the key sentence is this: "The shooting of some Volksdeutsche by Hungarian forces during the initial occupation created tensions, to the extent that the issue came to the attention of Adolf Hitler." If that were changed, I think that the issue would basically evaporate, as the final sentence is a cited summary of fact. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks much! I think that feedback will be very useful to the nominator. I hope Wikipedia is being good to you! – Quadell (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

Malek Jandali

Hello, MRG! I'd like to ask if you or one of the faithful watchers could find time for a quick look at Malek Jandali, where I had, after some consideration, placed a copyvio tag even though our article appeared (ready-made) five weeks before the more extensive published version. My thought was that a common but unidentified earlier source was the probable explanation; a common author would also explain it. The tag has now been removed and replaced a number of times, and I'm not sure what, if anything, should be done about that. Thanks yet again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Happy if I can help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio from June 12

Hi MG, can you help by implementing a copyvio solution that has been agreed to by the tagger? It's an old archived CP discussion, and I don't know if admins are looking at those so I'm reaching out to you on this Talk page. Here is the discussion: WP:Copyright_problems/2013_June_12. Thanks if you can help. Sincerely, -- Softlavender (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. Dpmuk (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I'm going to try to hit a bit of the backlog there this morning. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

You are wrong dear

I'm sometimes glad I don't have a girly username like you. I don't get called "dear" as often! [22] Bishonen | talk 20:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

LOL! At least I'm not getting asked out as often as I used to. :) I added reference to my husband to my user page specifically to put a stop to that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Didn't stop Drmies . BTW, I had a gift I wanted to leave with Maryana/Accedie for you, but I didn't run into her on the third day of the conference when I had it with me. Sorry! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Synagogues and stuff

OK, I had a quick look at what I did about contributions by User:Blakeblakeblake12345. There are quite a lot of edits, with some very evident copyvios, and I think it would presumptuous in the extreme for me to claim that I "got them all". I remember that I looked at some new articles with suspiciously complete text, such as Bet Israel Synagogue (Izmir), History of the Jews in southern Florida, Pletzel, Prune compote and Antakya Synagogue. I think I probably cleaned those up OK. Obviously I couldn't revdelete as I believe you might have done in those cases. I'm afraid that someone a lot cleverer than me should probably cast an eye over them and over the rest of his edits. As I recall, I certainly suspected but did not either confirm or tag History of the Jews in New York City.

A question: is there some standard way that I don't know about for non-admins to request revdeletion after a cleanup? If there isn't, might it be possible to have something like a maintenance template that when added to the article would make it automatically appear in, say, Category:Articles requiring revdeletion, which admins could then be asked to keep an eye on? And perhaps even take action on from time to time? And might that be useful? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Quick response to your second question - there's {{copyvio-revdel}} although I don't know how often admins look at the resulting category. Dpmuk (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Dpmuk. :) User:Justlettersandnumbers, I appreciate your looking into it. I'll look a bit more deeply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The list, blessedly brief
Brief and apparently already gone through! I was just looking at a couple of them, came back here and they were already ticked off. Many thanks, and to User:Dpmuk also. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

May I send you an email?

May I send I an email with a question type confession which I am unable to discuss here for someone else's privacy and personally I might require later? --Tito☸Dutta 02:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 07:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Received and replied. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In case you miss it

Check out section #1 above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Want deleted article in my user space

Hi! You are one of the very few admins i know from the Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles and hence thought of requesting you. May i have the article List of songs recorded by Abhijeet Bhattacharya which is deleted post Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Abhijeet Bhattacharya moved to my user space? Something like User:Dharmadhyaksha/List of songs recorded by Abhijeet Bhattacharya would be fine. Or choose a name which suits you or the usual norms. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! And i did not notice your name in the category before or else would have bothered you directly. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Crisco. :) That's a weird result, but I stay away from list articles for precisely that reason. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (jumping in as I needed an excuse to post on MRGs tp on my return) The problem here isn't the list itself but the main issue that NSONG doesn't work well in the Indian context. The subsidiary point is that WP:SAL is not something that is uniformly enforced, and it's easier to get these things out. Seeing the current deletion reqs, I'm really surprised to see Rafi's list out there, though I can understand that there's really no sourcing available for most (film song literature isn't available online for that era), it's equivalent to s list of Louis Armstrong songs at the least! —SpacemanSpiff 13:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
@Crisco: There are a few similar AfDs in progress and i would not waste my time until they are closed. DR can wait till then.
@SS: Sourcing can be made available to many entries. But most of the sources would not qualify our RS requirements. A better source would be a audio/video link also. But that would fail on various levels like: you are giving links to copyvio material through refs, how do you exactly know its Rafi and not someone else imitating his voice (Example of why first hand knowledge is important than just Googling skills). Nevertheless i have used youtube videos as refs in List of songs by Lata Mangeshkar. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
@SS: Albums can be used as well. Check out some of those featured lists I've linked to; a lot of albums there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
@Crisco, the problem as far as the non-Hindustani/Carnatic music scene goes is that it's linked almost entirely to films (with the exception of the past decade) and there wasn't a charting mechanism until a few years after the arrival of MTV, and even that has covered pretty much post-90s music. Therefore, there aren't exactly "albums" that we could reference, though one would expect the movie notes to cover this specific aspect, but there lies the problem, until around the 80s, crediting of singers was done only on screen (if at all) and not on promotional literature etc, and at this point, for a large proportion of these songs getting an original copy is way too difficult compared to finding one on Youtube! There's no doubt that a lot of these can be sourced from old copies of Illustrated Weekly, Filmfare, Times of India, The Hindu and a variety of vernacular newspapers, the problem is that none of that is available online or even easily accessible in print form (one would actually have to go to one of the four depository libraries in India to be assured of access to these, and even then spend ages finding the sources, or in the case of non-defunct publications going to their archives is an option). This is just one topic that faces this problem of sourcing, but it's an unfortunate situation. I can understand the issues on both sides, so I just leave these out right now, there's too much time wasted on non-productive things! As an example, I've for long tried to rewrite M. S. Subbulakshmi, but the paucity of online sources for someone as notable as her is just mind boggling, compare that to North West and it's a shocker! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
O. M. G. You should have seen my eyes pop while reading that lede. I feel your pain, trust me. My current area of focus (1930s/40s Indonesian films) is just as poorly covered, and we don't have much documentation of the songs that were included in the films (so I couldn't compile a list there :-(). I was lucky with Chrisye; his songs were mostly in albums, and almost all of his albums were reissued in 2004. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


  • The following post is more personal frustration what the editor has experienced so far. Or, the reason is— it is an Indian article. I have thoroughly faced this problem to prove notability of some of very notable Indians. Right now, I have given up and decided to let it be as it is. Abhijeet's songs are non-notable (as said in the AFD)? Whoosh! --Tito☸Dutta 14:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
(Same pinch Tito. Glad you said it. Now its kinda safe for me to nod in agreement.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, people will search in Google News (which does not crawl Indian newspapers properly and does not store articles before 2000 or so) and the moment they'll not find sources, they will tag the subject as non-notable. I am once again strongly recommending to create an "Indian article saviour task force". We have this search engine which helps for Indian News articles. But, do we have enough volunteers? In the Abhijeet AFD they told, the songs are non-notable, but, a simple check in Wikipedia could show them, a good number of songs were film scores (i.e. sang for/used in films) and the films' soundtracks were commercially and critically (very/) successful (even some of our Wikipedia films' articles "soundtrack" section mention it). --Tito☸Dutta 14:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The following post is more personal frustration what the editor has experienced so far. I just resisted myself from giving a vote like Delete: Please delete, not only this article, but, every WikIProject India article. India, the country herself is non-notable. So, there should not be any Indian article in Wikipedia. I know, being a long-time editor, I should not post like this, but, sometimes it is very frustrating. --Tito☸Dutta 14:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Deleting admin here: let me know if you want anything else undeleted and userfied or if you think something was wrongly deleted, I'm usually willing to do so if someone wants to make an attempt to improve them. Also, deletion review is fine with me if you think the deletion discussion was fatally flawed. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Although I haven't really been involved much in the discussion above, I'll note that I don't think you did anything wrong, Mark. :) I think the problem is inconsistent/unclear standards in the community. The reason I stopped messing around with list articles many years ago is that I was involved in two deletion debates that were, as best as I can recall, pretty much identical in purpose. (List of Iranian women; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian women. One stayed, one didn't. We made categories for them, and then those categories were nominated for deletion. I couldn't make any sense of it, so I figured it was an area I'd best stay out of. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've offered an opinion above, but if I were to close that AfD, I don't think I'd have closed it in any other way. The main problem is as MRG said -- our list and category definitions are often interpreted in numerous ways, sometimes as if they are prescriptive, sometimes as if they are descriptive, sometimes as if they are suggestions, and sometimes as if they don't exist. I've often seen lists kept on the rationale "it's better to keep this as a list than as individual articles", so it's the tremendous inconsistency in participation that drives this problem. —SpacemanSpiff 18:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

One more attempt to repair the damage?

See WP:INDAFD, consider contributing there

We are children of Nachiketa and followers of Phoenix. Following Swami Vivekananda, it is like that very old palace, where you go and start repairing one portion expecting to save the palace and when you finish your works, you find, meanwhile, few other portions of the big palace have gone to same condition and are going to be shattered to dust if they are not repaired immediately. This goes on forever. Yet, I suggest to create a page like Wikipedia:Points to note while debating in WikIProject India related AFDs and add the most common points like (don't count Google News hits, don't solely rely on Google News, please search in local Indian language too etc). If such an article is created we can ask to add the link of the article with every WP:India AFD discussion. Anyone wants to start writing? --Tito☸Dutta 14:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem there is WP:BURDEN. The things should really be sourced at the outset and while AfD can and does turn up sources, it is not the primary function. Really, we can't hang around for six years or whatever while waiting for someone to find verification in a library or other archive - it makes a mockery of WP:OR. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Your expertise would be appreciated

Hi, Moonriddengirl. Would you please help me out with the mess described at Talk:Treblinka extermination camp#Wholesale stealing of copyrighted article from the internet? I don't even know where to start. You have the experience, so please take a look. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 16:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller

I believe Dougweller is nitpicking too much on my content (the ad hominem thing also applies - he is judging my character and not what I'm doing). If he continues reverting my content, I would do so too. He seems to be picking on my edits a little too much. Nothing on the Kariong, New South Wales page is copyrighted (sure, maybe a word or two - that's enough I guess). If the 'Egyptian glyph' section is a fringe theory, then why was the early version of the paragraph at Kariong there the whole time? All I did was source it and expand it.

Did Doug to go to Batman with my month old edit and revert it whilst slamming it as 'copyright'?

If you are top contributor or the manager of this, please look into it. I have the right to fight back and it's unfair if I, a regular contributor, get blocked.

Thank you.(talk) 10:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Protection appeal to stalkers

If there are any admin stalkers here then please could you fully protect Aam Aadmi Party pending a result at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Multiple_non-free_logos_for_same_organisation. I could take this to WP:RFPP but there has already been a lot of warring about one particular image (the election symbol), which was deleted from Commons a few days ago. I've mentioned the NFR discussion on the article talk page, where I have explained the copyright exception to 3RR. - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected, Sitush, because it seems like IPs are responsible for the logo usage. If registered users take up the battle, it may be necessary to escalate the protection, but please try to get them on the talk page first. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, it was not just IPs but there'll be no problem from the registered person who was involved because they were a party (sic) to the Commons deletions. Alas, the almost messianic status of thi new organisation means that the article gets a lot of poor contributions from anons. Thanks for doing the deed and I do hope that the NFR backlog won't impact too greatly on a speedy outcome. - Sitush (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sikh Muslim stuff

Coasttrip has started a complaint at AN and an SPI against another editor related to this issue. You might be interested. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk page copyvios

Hey MRG, is there a bot or tool to check talk page additions for copyvios? While I was gone walkabout a lot of copyvio was added to Talk:History of India (though some could be reverse copies from mirrors I removed most of them) and I'm sure there must be others -- especially in these topics where people want to push one version over another. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Something like earwig’s Copvio Detector on Toolserver? It understands page-names with the “Talk:” prefix, anyway, as well as ‘bare‘ article names.—Odysseus1479 07:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Odysseus1479. :) User:SpacemanSpiff, I don't know of anything other than that. Honestly, I haven't spent much time looking for copyvios on talk pages. With those, I'm far more likely to act simply on strong suspicion. Backwards copyvio is far less likely there, since people tend to mirror the articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. I don't look at TPs for copyvio either, but apparently about 4x50K copyvio sections were added over the past few months on this and I noticed it when I accidentally went by the talk page for a different discussion. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The United Nations?

Dear Moonriddengirl, please excuse me for invading your talkpage yet again. Perhaps one of the watchers will pick this up? Question: how likely is it that the United Nations copies its bios from us? Please compare Dr. Carlos Lopes with Carlos Lopes Carlos Lopes (Guinea Bissau). The UN website is not archived on archive.org before 2 May 2013. My inclination is to revert to this version, but I'm hesitating because of lack of proof, and because it isn't word-for-word. Can you, or perhaps someone else, advise? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  • That's a blatant copyvio: text dump of over 8000 characters, single purpose account, clearly promotional wording similar to the UN's official biography. Web Archive takes a while to scrawl, so it's not too surprising that it came late to the show. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Oops, yeah, that most definitely is what I mean! And thanks for the confirmation of copyvio. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Crisco 1492, User:Justlettersandnumbers. :) Wayback estimates up to 6 months lag, and there can be many reasons for it not to work beyond that...for instance, if a page was once published under a different title on their domain. When Wayback doesn't confirm, I look for other clues. In those case, I don't see any classic tells in the editor's subsequent fiddling with the article, but there's a pretty strong indicator in the fact that the gentleman has been with the UN since 2005. It seems quite likely that his official bio has moved around with his job. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, dear Moonriddengirl

I saw it fitting to share a belated LOL with you; courtesy of Bishonen's insightful regards above. I am certain however, that I did not require the metaphoric contrast to hold you endeared. Make no mistake; your girly username has no claim to your reputation; deservedly earning my highest esteem, and unfettered admiration. I feel no disadvantage endeavoring to emulate your example, for being male—nor, dare I say, an inkling of curious thought to imagine us on "a date". Nevertheless, I have considered asking the band, Dishwalla to stop "Counting Blue Cars" so they could hear my thoughts on God. :) John Cline (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Awww. :) Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Truan article

I will check the Truan article and rewrite it with new sources, etc., in the next day or so. I was unaware of following too closely from another article. You can depend on me to present good quality articles without following the words of others. Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio problems with an editor

Most contributions and articles created by Hadden (talk · contribs) seem to be either straight copyvio or quotations. Some of his quotations far exceed what we allow. Nagash painting for instance is almost all quotations although probably not to the extent that we would call it copyvio, but others are far over the number of words.[23] I've removed a lot of copyvio at King Abdulaziz Public Library. He didn't respond to earlier comments on copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oi. Thanks, Doug. I'll take a look at it tomorrow, I hope, when I'm a bit more awake. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, it seems like nobody has ever explained to him our approach to the use of quotations. I've opened that dialogue with {{uw-copyvio-new}} (although he's not new). The only notes before yours that I see about copyright are bot notes, and since he explicitly quoted in those articles, he may not have understood the issue. :) We'll see how it goes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. He created Arab archery today at 15:13, 24 August 2013‎, over an hour after your message on his talk page. A quick look: "Two hadith from the 8th century mention Arab bows, which are mostly thought to be composite bows." is from one of his favorite sources.[24] and "The right handed Oriental or Moslem archer holds the bow in his left hand, and must place the arrow on the right side of the bow" Saracen archery: an English version and exposition of a Mameluke ... - Page xxv

W. F. Paterson, ?T.aybugha- - 1970 "In this connexion it is worth noting that the Muslim horse-archer was not merely a bowman; his prowess also ... The right-handed Oriental archer, who holds the bow in his left hand, must set the arrow on the right-hand side of the bow." [25]. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've blanked it, Doug. This is the first I've seen where he's copied content outside of quotation marks. Are you familiar with more like that? Can you try to talk to the guy? For whatever reason, he's really not much into conversation, but there's no doubt that English is his native language, based on his deleted history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
See [26] where I removed a lot of straight copyvio. And [27]. That's beside the copyvio in using large quotes. I've added another note on this talk page asking him to start discussion and pointing out that we might have to block him to prevent more copyio. It's ironic considering he's an author himself. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I probably won't be able to watch him myself, but I am interested in helping out. He doesn't have an extensive edit history, so if this winds up at CCI it will not be the terror that the last one I ran was (in terms of numbers merely). I suspect it will - stuff like Camp Page needs addressing. :/ Considering that he's evidently comfortable creating articles out of strings of quotes, to be honest, I'm baffled why he would ever have simply copy-pasted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_52&oldid=1168305258"