|
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 16:37, 8 August 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
I have a real quick question about if I can copy and paste this table here directly into my article as an image or if I have to change it and make my own which I would need some guidance. Thank You Tuna12 (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would the book listed here be out of copyright in the US? The article Christian Klengenberg has been created and if the book is no longer under copyright then it could be linked to and the images added. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 08:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not automatically, though it could be. I really like books published in 1922, because as far as Wikipedia is concerned the answer then is "Yes." :D I'll see what I can find out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay. Real life stuff called me. Stupid real life. :P
- The big question here seems to be whether it was published in the US as well and, if so, when. If it was published in the US within 30 days of its original publication, we may be able to use it. Otherwise, I think we can't.
- Summarizing (for the benefit of any friendly stalkers who may like to help out :)): this is an autobiography by a man who died in 1931. The book was published in 1932. It was originally published in London, where it is now PD as the author has been dead more than 70 years, but the United States does not recognize the rule of shorter term. It may protect material even if it is pd in its own country. (Thanks a lot, United States.)
- According to Cornell's handy chart, a pivotal question is whether this material was PD in its home country on 1 January, 1996. In many cases, it would then PD in the US as well. But I figure it PD in the UK 1 January 2002, if the UK also dates to the beginning of the year following expiration term. So under US law it would be under copyright for 95 years from publication if it meets any one of these conditions: (a) “published in compliance with all US formalities” including notice & renewal; (b) solely published in the UK; (c) also published in the US but “more than 30 days after publication abroad.”
- If it was published “less than 30 days after publication abroad” we use the US chart, at which point the condition of publication becomes pivotal. If it was published in that span in the US, it is public domain if it was (a) published without copyright notice or registration of copyright within five years of publication, or (b) published with notice but no renewal of copyright (I searched [1] and [2] and found no evidence of renewal, fwiw). Otherwise, it is protected for 95 years from publication.
- I never had much to do with these gray areas prior to coming to Wikipedia, so I'll see if User:Jayvdb has time to weigh in, because he is an absolute whiz at this kind of thing. I bet he knows how to find out if and when it was published in the US. And he should certainly be able to correct my summary if I am misunderstanding anything. And in the meantime, maybe a friendly stalker will help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I don't think that replying a few hours after I asked is any sort of delay. I really didn't expect anything back for several days. I'll ask Rosiestep what publication data is in her copy and will go and check the copy my ex has to see if there is anymore information. Thanks again. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it would have been a good hour earlier if real life had not interfered. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked and it has the same publication information. 1932, Cape, London and Toronto. However, I thought of another possible problem. None of the pictures are dated or credited. So if the picture of Klengenberg had been taken by Diamond Jenness or one of his kids, most of whom died less than 70 years ago, would it not still be under copyright? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. The PD situation on the text and the images may well be different. I so much prefer uncomplicated situations. :/ Anyway, I've left a note for John, and maybe he can shed some light on any US edition. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The permanent link to the book I used while writing the Klengenberg article is: http://oskicat.berkeley.edu:80/record=b14848431~S1 . Unfortunately, I don't have the book anymore -- only had it over the long weekend. My stepson is returning it to his school library. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The images are not a problem any more. Rosiestep jogged my memory and I went and looked through Archives Canada and was able to find a PD image that I uploaded. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah sorry the picture had the wrong names on. I guess we might need to know if the pictures are OK. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I'm talking to John about this, but have nothing definitive yet, and I haven't even asked him how to go about checking the images. About to do so. I may need to find a Commons admin. I don't think this is promising, tho. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Several days into it, and my answer is still vague. John points out that the editor is Canadian, which might mean Toronto was the original point of publication, and not London. This could be good news, since Canada has a shorter term (life + 50), and material authored by Klengenberg that was first published in Toronto would be PD in the US as having been PD in originating country in 1996. However, the editor (Tom MacInnes) died in 1951. If his contributions were significant enough to give him a copyright claim to the text, then it still isn't PD. The status of the images still depends on who owns the copyright to them, and if the photographers are not identified, figuring that out isn't going to be easy by any means. :/ I'm not that familiar with image copyright laws and so will seek feedback from User:Dcoetzee, but as I understand it, if the book was first published in London and the photographer is unknown, it would be PD in the UK "70 years from end of year taken, or made available to the public if within 70 years of creation", according to [3], which would miss the 1996 cut off. If Canadian copyright applies, I believe that the photographs will be PD either 50 years following publication or 75 years after the photograph was taken, whichever comes first (according to Commons). I'll check with Derrick. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For images first published in a book, without any indication of image authorship, there is a rebuttable presumption that the author of the images is the same as the author of the book. That means that any claimant on the copyright would have to prove that they were the photographer, and not the author of the book. Our normal practice is to presume authorship in the absence of any indication to the contrary, so that would mean that the images have the same copyright status as the text (one of the many reasons why we insist on accurate sourcing of images). I don't think it is wise to claim them as "of unknown authorship", given that they have been published in a work under an obvious author name.
- I have to agree with Moonriddengirl that it is more than likely that the text and images are under copyright in the U.S., and this for two reasons. Firstly, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, we have to assume that the work was simultaneously published in the UK and Canada: as such it has simultaneous copyright in the two countries, and the UK copyright would trigger a restored U.S. copyright under the URAA. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the author is Danish, and so there is also a Danish copyright to consider. I've checked with the Danish Copyright Act (No. 395 of 14 June 1995), and it includes both the rebuttable presumption of authorship and the necessary extension of copyright term. In other words, even if there were not a U.S. copyright from the British publication, there would be one from the nationality of the author. Physchim62 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. That's very helpful. Not good news, but very helpful. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not certain the author (Klengenberg) was a Danish citizen at the time the book was published. He became an American citizen before 1925, and in 1925, rescinded his U.S. citizenship to become a Canadian citizen. I don't know if he retained dual (Danish) citizenship. Though I dug around for legal citizenship documents, U.S. or Canadian, so far at least, I didn't locate them. I'll check with CambridgeBayWeather who may have some local resources that could answer this. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I've been busy and not been able to spend as much time here as I would like. I'll check with Heritage Society later and see what they have. I'd like to thank all those who have spent so much time in trying to solve this. I did notice that a free image has been added to the article which came from here and the copyright information is at Library and Archives. Thanks again. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 10:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Klengenberg moved around. I've got feedback from User:Dcoetzee here. He seems to think a case could be made for use with the tag "commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA" and one of the appropriate licenses he recommends, but he also says, "I wouldn't recommend it unless you have some really compelling reason to." It might be better to wait until the dust clears on the debate over how to handle these situations on Commons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you still remember me, but if not, I was the one who asked you about recreating Warriors characters list pages.
I'd like to thank you for your help in showing me specific articles that helped me do things better, like the copied template for example.
So once again, thank you!
Brambleclawx (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do remember, though I tend to get fuzzy about details after two or three days. :D I'm glad if I was helpful to you. Please feel free to stop by any time you think I may be of use. If I can, I will. :) Good luck with it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is something I'd like to ask for: according to this, you have access to deleted pages. I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a copy of the previously deleted pages: List of ThunderClan Cats, List of RiverClan Cats, List of WindClan Cats, List of ShadowClan cats and List of SkyClan Cats. (all case sensitive)
I would like to make sure that the new pages are different enough that they will not be considered a violation of Wikipedia:CSD#G4. I am quite sure that the edits during the past two years have added enough significant information, and the addition of citations, has improved to it the point where it can no longer be realistically considered "sufficiently identical and unimproved", but I would still like to be completely sure.
Thanks,
Brambleclawx (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That was very helpful. It appears that the old versions were basically splits, without using the {{copied}} template, and done quite poorly. The new versions that I made are currently in the mainspace, and since they are still a work in progress, requiring a bit of extra citation, I've put the {{newpage}} template on them. I along with another user are at present working on adding even more citations. And yes, I have given credit to the original page through the use of the {{copied}} template
Brambleclawx (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit summary is the really crucial part, and a check of this suggests you've got that covered. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm worried about is that previous version have been deleted over issues involving WP:N and WP:FICT, and the fact that most pages mainly site the books they are about, author chats, wands and worlds, and amazon. The apparent problem is that although popular, Warriors still has not gained much public notice, so there are very few if any independent sources which can be cited. A search on Google will not give any results besides book stores, and fan sites. After reading WP:N, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.", I personally question that as a "general" definition, since there are so many things that could be considered "notable", yet not receive much attention. Any suggestions on what I can do in terms of citations, and these issues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brambleclawx (talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Oops, forgot to sign again. Brambleclawx (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a reasonable thing to be worried about. :/ That's why I had suggested that you get consensus for the split at a neutral, but interested location like Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels or Wikipedia:Content noticeboard before splitting. If you can point to that consensus (even if you get it now), G4 is much less likely. You have a bit of an uphill battle here. The only other tip I can offer is the one I follow myself: slog through google news and google books and consider a trip to the library if the sources aren't accessible to you. I find some stuff at [4], but I don't know how much is useful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried getting consensus for the split. I waited 1 weeks. The only response i got was {{User talk:Brambleclawx#Warriors|this]]. Even now, after 2 weeks minus a day, no one has responded. I suppose one reason is that many Wikipedians are disappearing (See the article I have on my user page for more info). And yes, Google news is something I hadn't ever even explored before. Very helpful.
Brambleclawx (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summary appears lifted almost entirely (a word or two here or there out of hundreds) from sparknotes. Sparknotes clearly declares a copyright on the page, so I assume it's our bad.[5] "©2009 SparkNotes LLC, All Rights Reserved" Is it possible they copied ours? Seems unlikely....
--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch and thanks for reverting to the previous non-copyvio version! There's no question about the copyright violation. Wikipedia's version was this wholesale addition on May 1 2009. Sparknotes version goes back to at least 2000 including this version from August 2008. Mrg (good morning), I've added a cclean template on the talk page. — CactusWriter | needles 09:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, as usual, to Moonriddengirl and her stalkers. I know it's not a wikipedia synopsis because it hit a few major points and wikipedia plot overviews usually miss all major points because they are OR rather than taken from literary critiques. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Man, I was tired when I got up this morning! I didn't even notice this section up here (hooray for stalkers :)). Thanks for cleaning it, IP69.226.103.13, and thanks for ccleaning it, CactusWriter. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Admit it, your stalkers are as good as you are. Sorry I abuse your page, by the way, but even you might admit it's fast and doesn't tend to leave loose ends. ;) --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not inclined to see it as abuse. If so, I'd have to judge myself very harshly. There are a few people I run to routinely. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry to bother you so many times (truly I am). Could you find out who from my group added the section on the punishment approach because it was not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaqSmith (talk • ShaqSmith (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
[reply] Could you please send User:Nikzen another message please...I will contact her ASAP. ShaqSmith (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
It seems that you are not active nower days
Ramesh vyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh vyas (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I am, although I have unfortunately a lot of work to do today. I've answered most of the above comments at the talk page of the user who left them. :) Are you in need of assistance? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind writing up your thoughts on your experiences with it? I am collecting feedback from students, but I'd also like to get feedback from the other side - the Wikipedia helpers :) Hopefully, once we put those two together, we can figure out what to improve (like streamlining the copyvio template and such). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, still having trouble figuring out how to work wikipedia but realized today that I had a copyright problem that you posted on my talk page. I have rewritten the section (for the article on Food Power). Can I post it in the food power article, or should it go somehwere else? Thanks for the help, and sorry about any inconveniences.
Nikzen (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are really a hyper active person.
Ramesh vyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh vyas (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, I came across this note on a talk page here [6] just now. The note dates from April of this year, and that IP address user appears not to have been active recently but a bunch of edits to the article were made a few days later in April by User:Goldstar 353, possibly as a response to the talk page note. I was not sure what should be done now (if anything) so I am asking you to take a look. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go check it out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem to be a copyright problem. Perhaps the copyright holder just felt poorly represented. :) I've left further instructions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks for checking, I couldn't work out what was going on really but I am glad you took a look at it all... very best wishes to you as always, Invertzoo (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you with this again but I think you'll recall that I found it very difficult to understand the area of copyright and when extensive quotations breached copyright. Are extensive quotations stored in user space and on talk pages acceptable? See User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar and Talk:Gibraltar. I only ask because tempers have got frayed in mediation and I don't want to raise it as in issue if it isn't one. 01:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just as with other WP:NFC questions related to text, there is no clear cut answer to that. :) Wikipedia has developed policies against the fair use allowance of images outside of article space, but a different standard exists for text. We frequently discuss the meaning of quotations on article talk pages and other project spaces. I use them all the time in demonstrating copyright concerns. They are also typically permitted for "decorative" purposes, so long as very brief. I have never seen anyone object to a brief quote from a song on a userpage or from a favorite poem or book. I think the community view is that these kinds of uses are harmless, and so long as the material is brief I suspect that they probably are.
- All that said, I would not myself be comfortable with text of the sort at User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar being stored in that way. It does not accord with the usage at WP:NFC, and it is not brief enough to be presumptively harmless, the way two lines from a pop song would likely be. I note, though, that the page is newly created. It's possible that this is part of a note-taking process that this contributor is using to build article content. I suspect the community would allow a little latitude for that. It's also possible (I venture, since I don't know the substance of the dispute) that he is placing them there to reference in a debate over article content, not wishing to burden whatever forum page that conversation is occurring on. I would imagine that the community would grant some latitude there, too, though I hope it would not remain long.
- Talk:Gibralter is a scary 437 kb long, and I'm trying to finish some article work before I have to get off (which I should have done two hours ago :D). Rather than look through to pick out the ones that might concern you, I'd suggest that you might mildly mention at arbitration your concerns with the quantity of non-free content there. Presuming that the conversations that used them are stale, you might refactor to remove the content as long as you have announced your decision to whomever is mediating this and you know that it will not be seen as disruptive. Sometimes, discussing copyright concerns requires me to use more non-free content than I am comfortable replicating, to demonstrate my concerns. I will routinely delete the text as soon as its purpose is served.
- In other words, I think it's a valid point to raise. But in all cases, I'd encourage bringing it up calmly, with an assumption of good faith, and an air towards collaboratively protecting the project. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the advice, you can see what I mean about the discussions. ;-). Justin talk 01:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind repeating that advice as my comments appear to have been ignored. Thanks. Justin talk 11:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have spoken to Ecemaml. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This looks about nine months old. I find this source which is attributed to another copyrighted source (apparently with permission). Should we just revert to the version before that edit and continue along with the article from there? Frank | talk 05:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, although I also added in the new content that didn't build off of old material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. That one was a real bummer; I went to it expecting information and it took me very little time to think "this MUST be a copyvio!" But to discover it was in for so long was really just disappointing. Thanks again.
- I'm starting to recognize what looks like templated wording in your responses to these things...do you have a template you subst in? I really could do this myself, especially if, as it seems, I keep finding more of it... Frank | talk 13:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yes. The one at the talk page of that article is {{cclean}}. There's a compendium of copyright maintenance templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Resources#Copyright maintenance templates. I have a few more personal ones that I use stored at User:Moonriddengirl/frequently used templates#Copyright concerns. I also have a couple of "form letters" for situations that I either haven't encountered often enough for a template (but have encountered often enough to have grown tired of typing it) or haven't gotten around to turning into a template: User:Moonriddengirl/form letters. Because I lag sometimes, some of these have been turned into templates. This one isn't needed anymore, because we have {{Uw-copying}} now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a comment on your closure of the copyvio investigation of this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RGM-89 Jegan (2nd nomination) in case you would like to comment. SpinningSpark 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Aiman abmajid CCI appears to be incomplete. I was looking for the two copyvios ([7] [8]) I found when deciding to accept the case to mark them off and they weren't there, even on the original creation of the page. Hmmm. Would you mind running the contribution surveyor again? MER-C 02:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's disturbing. :/ I have an older, slower version of the software. I'll run it and see if it picks up more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's running. When it's done, I'll compare the results. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...still running. Scary, huh? :O --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...still running. Even more so. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...still.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Finished! Hope I don't break Wikipedia trying to post it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the emoticon that you use to express your emotions on reading this? "ERROR: The text you have submitted is 3,114 kilobytes long, which is longer than the maximum of 2,000 kilobytes. It cannot be saved." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, we had an exchange of communications quite a while ago following my efforts to try and get a page set up which had the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MolecEpidemiolFan/E-century_publishing_corporation) which still had work to do - personal events overcame me not allowing me to follow that up for a while (I became a Dad!). However in the interim the need for this page has now been superceded so please can you remove this page for me? I have looked to see how I could do it myself but I cannot remember my password details for my (old) "MolecEpidemiolFan" account and thus I have a new account unimaginatively called "MolecEpidemiolFan2"! Can you help with this deletion? Sorry for the inconvenience but also thanks for your assistance with this in the past too--MolecEpidemiolFan2 (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, thank you for your kind message. I'll try to explain tonight (I don't have much time right now). It's really amusing to acknowledge that there's a complain about one of my subpages and not having received a direct request in my talk page (I do not read the whole of the Gibraltar talk page; it's too long to focus on more than one issue at the time). However, you've summarized above very well the rationale behind those provisional "long quotations". Mind that the quotations applies to an ongoing mediation process where the sources themselves are challenged (with frequent mutilation of quotations to make them say what they don't actually say). Best regards and, again, thank you for the tone of the message (it's really gratifying to know that most of wikipedians assumes good faith) --Ecemaml (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Moonriddengirl, I've left a note as introduction of the page. As I express there, if you think that, anyway, there's an actual problem, don't hesitate to go back and talk to me (possibly if you think that the note is not as self-explanatory as I intended). I cannot be but committed to Wikipedia spirit and therefore no harm is purposed with such a page. Best regards and, again, thank you for your trust. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again. You've been very helpful. I'll delete them when the issues are over. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This problem - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Contributor_copyright_investigation_notice - looks too big for even the copyvio team's dedication to handle. How would you and the other team people feel about a posting to Mr. JW's page about it? I don't really have any ideas in the way of solutions. Clearly you and the other members of the copyvio team have put a lot of effort into rewriting rather than deleting - but maybe it's time to consider just excising these texts (via tools) in some cases - and asking for some $$ to be spent on copyvio tools when the task clearly exceeds the capabilities of mortals. The request could be a joint composition. Novickas (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if Jimbo is in position to help with everything else in his bucket, but if you feel like publicizing the issue of CCIs by all means please do. :) This one is a bit daunting, I'll admit. I'm not sure if it's as many numbers as User:GrahamBould, but in terms of quantity of edits? Oi. My jaw fairly dropped when I saw how long the list was. It took many hours to populate. :( We've got 17 open CCIs at the moment, though I'm pretty close to closing out one. They do keep coming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there is a conversation going on at Talk:Ted Bundy about a long quote that has been added as being a copyright breach. We could really use your expertise to resolve the situation. The quote is by a judge stated in this section. One of the citations Ann Rule I found the info about the judge and typed it directly from the book and posting on the talk page the quote and the page number. The second ref I can't find the judges comments at all though I could have missed it. I typed in the quote so I don't know if it's a copyright violation or not since the book is used as a ref but I want to be sure I didn't do anything wrong here. Originally a quote was added that was taken from youtube.com which I knew was not acceptable plus it seemed incorrect. We really could use your experience and knowledge about this before things get out of hand. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'll come take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your quick reply, very much appreciated. Your response should definitely take care of the issues that are going on there. Again thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy if I can help. :) Sometimes a quick outside opinion is all the traction that's needed to get things moving forward again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Moonriddengirl. Seemingly you are an expert in copyright concerns. That's why I am here, although my question is not really a copyright concern but one related to wikimedia commons policies.
Here's a link to the picture I am dubious about. Please look at the comments section, where we can read other_versions=High res version available for money. Are advertisings of this kind allowed? Thanks! Cremallera (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm not that up on Wikimedia Commons policies, but I'll take a look in just a few minutes to see if I can help. If not, I'll refer you to a Commons admin. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. How on earth did you stumble onto a comment that was removed over a year ago? It took me a few minutes to figure out where that comment was visible. :) [9]. I suspect that the removal of that comment was appropriate, and it doesn't seem to be under contention. If somebody is disputing it, then I'll be happy to ask a Commons admin if there is precedent. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I really had no idea that the comment was removed already. I just read the link in a talk page, as given by Gibnews himself and saw the advertisement. Sorry to waste your time (and Gibnews' as well, because I've directed him to this notice in his talk page). Will it be visible always in the file history, then? Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries about my time. I was just very curious where you saw it. :) Yes, the comment will always be visible in the file history, but it should not be currently visible on a casual glance. I just can't fathom how it was visible for you when it's been gone for so long. Maybe some technical thing? Would you like me to ask somebody with more technical expertise to see if they can figure it out, because this is beyond me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it something unusual? Cremallera (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Got distracted by some copyvio stuff. :) Yes, it shouldn't be showing in to the comments for you unless you were looking at an old version. It doesn't show for me, which is why it took me a few minutes to figure out what you meant. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry then, there are issues better left unresolved, like velcro or magnetism :) Thanks for your time! Cremallera (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! Okay, then. I'll continue with my copyvio work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:Mjroots here - not logged in as this isn't my pooter - what is the problem with the article on Charles Fryatt. The citation was Crown Copyright but that is expired (50 years). The article had been approved for a DYK and was in the queue. I've not looked at the queue to see whether it is still there but it affects my SS Brussels hook too. I'll be back on my own pooter within the hour so please would you leave a message on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to fix the problem ASAP. 82.27.234.184 (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Immediate panic over! I was getting confused with the Gordon Bastian article, which involves the SS Empire Bowman article in a double hook. I'll have a go at writing a non copyvio version of the Charles Fryatt article later. Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my input to the CF article was pretty minor, a bit of wikilinking to the SS Brussels article, adding a cat and an image etc. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, the cartoonist's image is uploaded here: [10] and the permission letter was sent this morning. Thanks for any help you can give. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I'll go see if it's arrived. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I've located the letter. There's a technicality we'll need to clear up, but if the gentleman is willing that should take next to no time. :) I'll let you know when things progress. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I put it up on the template. Hope this one is better. Thanks.
|
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sr_bt.jpg&diff=next&oldid=15265591){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ed_Subitzky_drawing.png){kind=link}