If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 22:46, 13 July 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Latest problem
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]
I don't think I'd have the time/dedication to follow thru on publicising and follow-up; it just seems a lot to ask of the humans. Later, Novickas (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question about copyright concerns
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, --CrohnieGalTalk12:01, 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, --CrohnieGalTalk12:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but we could use your help still at the Ted Bundy talk page. The discussions under 'in film' and 'Judges comments' are still under way. Two editors are still arguing to keep the youtube edit in saying your comments are just your opinions. An Ip pulled up a fair use comment about how it is supposedly allowed. Another editor is saying it's just opinions, this editor has volunteerly accepted a ban from editing the article directly due to breaking 3RR so no other sanctions would happen. It's going around in circles and personally it's past ridiculous in my opinion since the quote out of Ann Rule's book would be a good allowable ref. Rule is used throughout the article but all of a sudden it is being said that her words are inaccurate, incomplete. So to fix this supposed error, the editor took the words down from youtube and the words from the book and smooshed it together saying it's not synthesis violation. Not sure how it's not because it's taking two refs and coming to a comclusion. Anyways, if you have time, and are willing, we sure could use more of your input to hopefully put this to rest. I'm about to just put the Ann Rule quote in with her book name and the page number and just try to be done with it but I don't think it will stick. This seems silly to me but hey I guess we can go a little longer and see if we can come to a conclusion already. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk10:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for responding. I hope this time it takes and we can move forward. I made some suggestions about how to move forward so I'll wait for the others to respond. One last question, the syntheses violation in the article should it be removed immediately? I really don't know policy on this and since this is a BLP, well he's deceased now so not sure if those rules apply anymore (still learning about BLP, sorry) would it be better to remove the quote and replace it even if it's only temporary with the quote from Rule or just removing it all together which the last is fine by me. Thank you again, --CrohnieGalTalk13:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that it's so much a WP:BLP issue here as, really, a problem with WP:NFC. I would allow it a couple of days before addressing it, since I don't think it's urgent. Both sources are provided, more or less, although the citations are rather incomplete. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I agree with what you say. I think your last comments helped to finally put an end to the major problem which was the merging of the two refs. I'll wait a few more days or longer to make sure there is an agreement with everyone before fixing up the area. Thanks again, your help was very valuable to allow the conversations to move forward and to stop the esculation that was happening. --CrohnieGalTalk12:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image uploaded & permission letter sent
Hi Moonriddengirl, the cartoonist's image is uploaded here: [1] 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]
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]
OK, just let me know whatever it is that needs doing, whenever you are ready to explain it to me, and I will go ahead and explain to him what he needs to do. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the problem might be that people think that the website mentioned in his email was the actual source for the image. In fact the website image and the image he sent in to Wikimedia are both from the same original source, which was a small, full-length self-portrait he drew in 1992 for his business card. That was scanned in and made into a digital image several years ago, used for his little one page website about 3 years ago, and then now used to send in here. Let me know if there is something the artist can say in another email to make this clearer. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It doesn't matter to the Wikimedia Foundation whether he published it at that website first or elsewhere first. We know the website predates us, so if the website is his, he can easily verify by connecting it to his e-mail account through one of the methods recommended. If it isn't his or he can't, I'm afraid it could be more complex. :/ We need some tangible way to verify that this is his address in accordance with Foundation practice. Is he unable to connect the accounts? I haven't received a response from him to my letter of 12/09. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible copyvio?
I happened upon this new article (because it mentions snails): Heterophyes heterophyes. I fixed the title of it. I was going to go ahead and clean it up and Wikify it, but, right now it looks as though it may be copied verbatim from somewhere so I thought I should temporarily leave it as it is. It's probably not copied from an online source as I cannot find it by googling, but as another editor said on Ashleymont's talk page, maybe it's copied from the book that is used as a ref? I was not sure how to tackle this, so I am asking you. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I would handle this in one of several ways. One would be to tag it with {{copyvio}}, placing "see talk" in the url parameter and list it at CP. On the talk page, I'd explain concerns in a way that clearly assumes good faith (almost automatically wikilinked that, and while I'm thinking about it, please forgive me if I wikilink something so basic that it's insulting. I talk to a lot of newcomers, and my fingers have a mind of their own!) while also setting out that confirmation is needed. Then I'd hie myself off to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange and ask if somebody there can access and compare with this book. That sometimes pays off, and it sometimes doesn't. :) I'd explain my follow up at CP.
The second approach would be to tag the article's talk page {{Cv-unsure}}. This asks future contributors to verify, but is obviously far less likely to result in action being taken.
Hi. Your nose belongs pretty much all over Wikipedia, I think. :) My nose is not that often seen on Commons, as images are not my main thing, but I'll take a look and see what insight I can offer. If I have none, I have peeps with whom I regularly confer. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. As always, I'm prepared to be wrong and just want a fair and even-handed approach - which you'll no doubt provide! –xenotalk16:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gracious. I think you are quite right to pull your nose out of User talk:Rama#File:Chicago Spire.jpg, as it looks like we have an admin on a crusade (and I don't mean you). I don't believe that I'm in position to prove you wrong, because I agree with you...but I can't prove you right, either. For a question of this sort, I would personally approach a user who is an admin on Wikipedia and Commons and also puts a lot of time into non-free content issues here. My first choice would be User:J Milburn. Any objections to my asking him to take a look? --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to strongly disagree with Rama. Either his creation is a derivative work, and therefore non-free, or it is not a derivative work, and therefore useless as an illustration. I will chip in at the various discussions. (As an aside- cool! I'm someone's contact!) J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you check again quickly on copyright issues on Food Power. My group members and I added alot of stuff and I wanted to make sure no one palgarized as we have learned our lesson on that issue.ShaqSmith (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume this is an automated notice? I kind of hope so, because I'm not sure it's helpful to notify everybody who has ever edited an article of a proposed deletion...and if you aren't notifying everybody, I'm not at all sure why you chose to tell me. :) My entire contribution to this article was to remove a biased statement and to add unsourced and notability tags. If this is an automated notice, can you tell me what you were using? I'd like to address it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think generally it's a very good idea to notify the creator of the article and it's probably a nice courtesy to notify others who seem to have invested a lot of time and energy into it. I would not notify individuals who have done a drive-by editing, such as templating problems or correcting vandalism. I couldn't even re3member what this article was when I got the notice. :) I may have only visited it a few days ago, but it was part of the routine processing of matters listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 30. I think as a general rule, I'd be inclined to notify only those contributors who've added significant actual text to an article. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some photos
Hi there MRG, I was hoping I could get some quick - and hopefully easy for you! - advice on some photos I've taken and want to upload to wikipedia for the Lionel Queripel article. I volunteer at the Eastbourne Redoubt where Queripel's sword and medals are kept, and today with the assistance of the assistant curator I took some pictures of the sword and medals. As I have taken the photographs, with the assent of the assistant curator, does that mean I can upload them as PD-Self (or whatever the Self justification/copyright tag is) or do I still need to get the curator to email permission to OTRS for the images? There would be about three or four of them in total. Many thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to images, little is easy. :D I would imagine the question concerns the basic copyright of the medals and sword. (The sword may not be copyrightable, if it is completely utilitarian, but most sword designer include some flourishes.) I'm going to run this by one of the Commons admins with whom I consult, because I don't want to steer you wrong. But specifics on the medals could be helpful. I see that he received the Victoria Cross, which according to File:Victoria Cross Medal Ribbon & Bar.png, anyway, is out of copyright. Are the other medals? Do you have any idea the origin of the sword? Is it decorative? --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I didn't think this would be so complex :( The sword is decorative and has various fancy inscriptions on it - I believe he used it before his death upon graduating Sandhurst, and it was then revamped as such after his death. The medals consist of the Victoria Cross, the France and Germany Star, the Africa Star and the 939-1945 Defence Medal. They are on a dark background, and I've cropped the photo to get rid of anything else that was in the original photograph. I hope this helps, many thanks. Skinny87 (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. :) The first question with releasing photographs is whether the stuff you're photographing can be legally released or if a photograph of it constitutes a derivative work. (See especially Commons:Commons:Derivative works) The sword may be a problem, unless we can pinpoint an origin. Swords can be utilitarian objects, or they can be works of art—and it sounds like this one falls into the latter category. Since the sword is the focus of the photo, its use is not de minimis. Do you have any idea the date of the sword or its creator? That could help. :)
With the medals, I believe France and Germany Star and Defence Medal (United Kingdom) should be out of Crown Copyright in accordance with [2]. Order of the African Star seems to have been Belgian. I'm not familiar with Belgium's copyright laws, and we don't have an article on it, but [3] tells me that the Belgian government does reserve copyright. Commons:Commons:Licensing says that for anonymous work, copyright expires 70 years after publication. Since that medal was established in 1888, you should be free and clear on that as well.
One question raised by your latest note: "the original photograph." Do you mean that your photograph of these medals is a photo of a photo? If so, then, yes, we will need verification of permission from the curator. :) While the museum does not own the copyright to the medals or the sword, it would own the copyright to a photograph it has made compiling the medals, as the placement of the medals in the photos is copyrightable creativity. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no, sorry about the confustion. I took the photograph of the medals, then cropped it a bit, but I didn't open a new file or anything. I think you've also got the wrong medal - it's actually the Africa Star and is not a Belgian decoration - sorry for the confusion. I'll try and find out who made the sword, but to be honest this seems like a dead end. I just wanted to illustrate Queripel's article, but I think we'll have to do with a few photos of the Battle of Arnhem at this rate. And I don't think I'd want to try for fair-use or anything. Maybe if I can find out about the sword and who made it I can get their permission, but given that the assistant curator is extremely busy, I was lucky that he took the time out to let me take the photos. Skinny87 (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Delforn
He's on my watchlist, so I noticed your block and declined it, but I can't get the template wrong, I'm no good with templates! Can you tell me what to do to fix it? I'll fix it myself if you tell me what to to. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. First, your decline replaces his unblock request. :) That removes him from the active request list. Second, the directions on that are very wonky. I've tested it, and the only way that I can get it to work is to replace {{subst:Decline reason here}} with the reason for the decline. I tested it here. It includes your signature in quotation marks, which is odd. But I think this is the way it works. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that removing it was probably a good idea, since the whole article is not tainted and since there is an ongoing AfD. I would suggest you make a note there explaining that you've removed text that constitutes a critical issue. While the material has been altered some, there's no doubt that it remains derivative, with some identical passages. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost, but I'm afraid I don't think it is. It could in my opinion just as plausibly mean "We didn't violate any copyright writing this biography" and "We don't want you to violate our copyright on this biography" as "This biography is not protected by copyright." If we wound up going to court over it, it wouldn't do us much good to say, "Well, we thought it meant it was copyright free." :) I would blank and relist it as "permission plausible" and ask the contributor with a personal note to have the website altered to be specific. For example, if it says, "This biography is released into public domain," we have no issues. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Thanks for letting me know. I thought that the "On Commons" division meant they had been tagged there. :) I've deleted the versions on Wikipedia, but they're going to have be tagged for a Commons admin, perhaps through their deletion debate process, which takes forever. --Moonriddengirl(talk)03:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thanks. There was a cry for help on WikiProject Wales for someone to have another crack at the article, this time without a cut and paste job. I'm still adding to the article, and have a nice little book which I can reference to, so hopefully by the end of the day all parties will be happy with the situation. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moonriddengirl,
Hello, It seems you have found my page of SanHaung PaoChui and I sincerly appreciate your assistance. I would like to give my appologies for the copyright issues that you have currently stated for I actually did not nowtice myself. I have changed the wording and paragraph structure to be able to give as much information as possible without the issue of copyright infringement. This is actually the first time I have attempted to write on Wikipedia for my Computer lecture so please excuse me "noobie" matters. Thank you! I am not too sure what steps else to take, Although I did rewrite the paragraph you quoted.
- Ranoishiki Night
- New Paragraph -
Revisions -
Around the time of Ming and Qing dynasties, there was a monk by the name of Puzhao whom climbed Mount Emei in the Sichuan province. Upon arrival he met a Daoist priest whom taught him the first style of Pao Chui. Years later, he finally mastered the art and returned back to teach it to Qiao Sanxiu and Gan Fengchi during Qing emperors Kangxi and Yong Zheng's ruling.
He taught Qiao to learn soft fluid motions as the core of his form but strength and power as the outward application. On the other hand he taught Gan to learn strength and power but instead use a supple soft motion as his output.
The Gan-Style focused on maintaining a positive life with strong health. Both mental and physical vitality. During 1736-1795, the Emperor Qian Long, Qiao Sanxiu passed what he has learned from Mount Emei to his disciple Qiao Heling. The disciples of Gan Fengchi are unknown to this day.
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ed_Subitzky_drawing.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}