|
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 09:08, 14 August 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Thanks a lot for following up on this. As a couple of points to make:
- I've just worked my way though 20 of the edits in the CCI and found copyvios in about half of them; this is clearly a systematic problem. The only edits they've made to articles about recent events which don't appear to have been copyvios are those in which they added or changed the infobox or added references as external links.
- I've blocked several other editors in the past year or so for similar behavior (albeit on a less serious scale) and warned a few others. This appears to be a serious problem with articles covering ongoing warfare and terrorist attacks. The mixed response to my post reporting that this editor had been blocked at Wikipedia talk:In the news#Copyvios suggests that some editors active in these kind of articles aren't aware of the potential ramifications of copying and pasting text from news stories (though the overall response was positive). There appears to be a culture among editors who focus on on recent events articles to produce as many articles as quickly as possible and update them continuously as news develops, and this obviously encourages copyright violations. I'm not sure what can be done about this.
Anyway, thanks again, and I hope that my point 2 isn't too depressing for you! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm so sorry about this one, and I appreciate your work there! I also appreciate your generally keeping an eye out on things. Sadly, I am very well aware of the challenges we face with keeping copyvios off the project. The only thing I know to do is keep spreading the word. Too, I think as people see cleanup of this sort happening, they will begin to realize that Wikipedia really is serious about copyright and they may stop...or begin to take efforts to address it themselves. It doesn't help anybody when a collaborative article gets taken down because somebody pasted too much into it for us to use it. I'm working on an essay for the Military History newsletter (draft at User:Moonriddengirl/Milhist). I've been thinking about Signpost. I have on occasion even considered proposing a temporary edit notice for some articles warning against pasting for articles under attack. I'm all open for brainstorming, if you have any fresh ideas. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is looking excellent. An edit notice somewhere in the scope of 'In the news' would be helpful to discourage this, and the admins who work on updating the ITN section of the main page and current events portal need to keep an eye out - most of the copyvios I've found here have been blatant and fairly obvious (and sourced!) so it probably shouldn't have taken this long. Nick-D (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am a sysop on Malayalam Wikipedia. A couple of editors with good standing there have complained that they have been blocked from editing English Wikipedia due to an IP block. It seems that your 1 month range block of 117.254.0.0/16 is the culprit. That range is of BSNL, the broadband service provider that most people in India use (Just do an IPLocate on any of these IPs). So I believe that there would be a lot more people affected. User:LIC Habeeb and User:Netha Hussain are editors of good standing on Malayalam wikipedia and have been IP blocked here.
So please consider reversing the rangeblock as it would just shut out a lot of innocent users, perhaps newcomers from editing Wikipedia. Or at least try to give the two users I have mentioned an IP block exempt (I have already asked them to request for it on their respective talk pages)
If you have any queries regarding this, please contact me on my home wiki talk page. Thank you for your time. Best wishes
--Raziman T V (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Repaired and replied at your talk. So sorry for my error to anyone affected! I thought I had set it for anonymous only. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the prompt action. One of the users has told me that she is able to edit now --Raziman T V (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why, either. I checked the account with autoblock finder and didn't find anything (the standard "No autoblocks were found, be sure you spelled the user's name correctly and that the name has the correct case", but I pasted the username, so it should have been right) and the block settings do seem appropriate. If the contributor still has a problem, I'll see if I can scrounge up somebody who does more range blocks than I do (this being my first and only :)) to see if they can figure out why. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, sorry about the above editors tone of note. I believe to have taken care of the Antonio Paoli situation. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, hope you had a lovely summer. I've sent you an email.Malke2010 01:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thank you for your mail. I have sent an e-mail regarding the permission for the usage of File:Hahlogo.jpg. I also would like to know how we can incorporate related historical photos for Hameed Al Husseinie College, Colombo 12, Sri Lanka.
Your assistance in this regard is highly appreciated.
Thank you
Sirajul Anam J. A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankaman7777 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you dealt with the copyvio on Hemachandra (singer) once already, I thought I'd let you know I found the little remaining content there also seemed to be a copyright violation; I was looking for sources and found an interview that appeared to be copied almost word-for-word into the article. I've reflagged the article and opened a new ticket.
I don't know if you're interested in this, but seeing as you've dealt with the article once already, I thought I'd let you know.
Cheers!
--me_and (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! No reason to run it through another seven days; it got no attention in the first seven. :/ That's a very good find on your part. I appreciate your flagging it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved, congratulations :) EyeSerenetalk 09:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WOW! I've been working on my talk page (I go from the bottom up) for almost an hour and had no idea this was waiting for me! Thank you. That's quite a day brightener. And I trust you know that I hold you and your project in great esteem. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What a lovely, thoughtful award. Congrats, Moonriddengirl.Malke2010 12:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, well deserved indeed. Just so you know, you were considered for this award once before, but you did not have the prerequisite for it at the time. You are:
- One of only 41 people to have been honored with this award,
- One of approximately 5 people to have been honored with this award who were not strictly speaking members of milhist,
- One of only 3 people (yourself included) to have every been granted the award on a renomination, and
- The first ever renominated awardee to have not been a Military history Project coordinator.
- How's that for perspective? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 18:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stunning and humbling. Thank you for the perspective. I will treasure it all the more. And it's things like this and people like you that keep me going when it all gets to seeming totally overwhelming. (And now I'm all choked up.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh :) Tom's spot on though, and the pleasure is genuinely all ours. We're (notoriously) stingy with our most prestigious award, but it's times like these, when we can acknowledge in this small way the incredible contributions made by editors who give so freely and with no thought of material reward, that make it all worthwhile. It's very satisfying to know that the Chevrons with Oak Leaves have found another good home :) EyeSerenetalk 20:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, and you have choked me up all over again. I will not finish my copy-editing if I have to keep blowing my nose. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what ES said. We're stingy with it, but when it is awarded to someone, it means all the more. Congratulations; you deserved this ten times over. Thanks for your dedication and persistence! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you look at Talk:Jennifer L. Lawless/Temp and double-check if it's clean compared to this source? I think it is, but I'm kinda out of sorts tonight. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and on a completely different topic, I still haven't listed all of the contributions for our newest CCI - just the created pages. I'm still working on cutting all of those created articles out of the Contribution Surveyor results. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ay carumba. :/ I've proposed a very specific cleanup task for the subject. Since I'm still working up the talk page this morning, I haven't checked to see if he's responded. Meanwhile, I'm off to look at the temp. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I'm getting a "The page cannot be found" error and Wayback is laughing at me. Let me see if I can find a Google archive. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Found another version here. Now checking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's good. Cleared. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! VernoWhitney (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Moonriddengirl! I'm currently posting from my mobile phone so am hampered. Could you take a look at Larry Rosen (producer) please? It's been deleted for copyvio twice before, most recently in July; much of the text on the current article, while wikilinked and some paraphrased, is still taken almost word-for-word from the site listed i the deletion logs. Could you check? Thanks! Strange Passerby (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They've released the site under CC-By-SA. Guess they got tired of it being deleted. :D I'll tag it for cleanup and make sure it's attributed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed User talk:MLauba#Milhist thing and made a small fix to your draft, since it would have been more difficult to point it out. I hope you don't mind.
Regarding free flowchart software, I found OpenOffice.org Draw and a wikiHow primer. I haven't used it, but I've heard good things about OpenOffice in general. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I use OpenOffice and can readily recommend it (not so much re the database Access equivalent, but certainly in most other MS Office equivalent areas). EyeSerenetalk 09:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I never mind people helping me out. :D Thank you very much! If you have other input, Flatscan, I'd be grateful. I'll visit OpenOffice and see what I can cobble together. A nice flow-chart would visually punch it up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It covers the basics well, and I learned something new – WP:Copyrights versus copyright infringement. I added a permanent link to one of the footnotes. In case you need it, I found another OO Draw guide. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How to implement public domain in Wikipedia and other projects? Please Give me instructions. Are there any village pump for meta or foundation wikis?
I have mistakenly thought all wikipedians prefer copy left. Thank you again.
Please inform other admins about this village pump threads.
Are village pump threads properly implemented?
Please help me to make Wikipedia public domain.
- There is no evidence that the community wishes public domain to be implemented on Wikipedia or other projects. The overwhelming majority of responders to your listing at Village Pump are opposed to your proposal, including me. If you wish to make a meta proposal, you take it to meta:Meta:Requests and proposals. However, your proposal isn't likely to be any better received there than it was here. I would suggest you make your proposal succinct if you wish it to have a chance to succeed and avoid the impassioned rhetoric. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey MRG - if you get a chance (not urgent) could you have a look at Latham appliance? I listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 September 1 and have since been told that it was a split from Cleft lip and palate. Looking at that article, I can see that the text was added in 2006, which I'm pretty sure was earlier than the external website. In this situation, is it ok for me just to remove the listing at WP:CP and leave a note on the article talkpage? I wasn't sure... Also, is Latham appliance ok as it is, or would it need to be recreated with proper attribution? Or given how small it is, maybe it should just be redirected back to Cleft lip and palate? So many questions! Your advice/help, as always, would be appreciated! --BelovedFreak 09:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good sleuthing. :) The article at the external source was created by "Spuds". I can't access it at Wayback (either because its wonky at the moment or because it's not there), but "Spuds" has only been a member of that site for three years. That means he was not there in 2006, and in 2006, much of the content he's using was in the source article: [1]; http://hubpages.com/hub/about_cleft_palate. Hence, Spuds is being naughty. :/
- Rather than removing it from the CP listing, I would recommend you just drop a {{y}} in front of the comment noting how it was resolved. That way, if we ever need to track down what happened, we have the listing and the note to refer to. You can also revert your own {{copyvio}} without any worry about process; you tagged it, if you are fully convinced there is no problem, you can remove it. :)
- The attribution from Latham appliance's creation is sufficient. If there were any chance at all of the source article's being deleted, I'd drop a {{copied}} on the talk page of the source article, but I don't think it's going to go anywhere. :) I've put it on the newer article's talk page, though, just to make things easier.
- Now I'm going to put a {{backwardscopyvio}} tag on each page so that future reviewers can easily determine that this has been investigated and that we haven't done anything wrong to Spuds...but the other way around.
- (All that said, it may very well need to be redirected back to the original article. It hasn't expanded in over two years, and there's not really enough there to stand alone at the moment.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for sorting that out. I've put a note at the CP listing. I feel a bit more confident about finishing the job myself now, so thanks! :) --BelovedFreak 08:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Moonriddengirl, thanks a lot for Your fast response. Many greetings to You across the ocean :-) Redlinux···→ 10:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found another apparently unwatched talk page with a copyvio concern: Talk:International Peace Bureau. The article has not been changed significantly since then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find! I very recently altered Wikipedia:Copyright violations to hopefully help address this kind of thing, here. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. Of course, the chances that a new editor (IP...) will be familiar even with the existence of a copyvio policy, not to mention realize there are specific places to report, is... sigh. Ha, even I just report stuff to your page (sorry! :D). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a note on the talk page of the editor who added the problematic content; he is inactive - and there is another copyvio note above mine (User_talk:Odengatan#Copyright_problem:_OnSpot). I wonder if this may not indicate a larger problem? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, and congrats to your latest award by MILHIST :) I've just come across a rather promotional and professional bio that looks like it was copied straight away from some source text, especially with all the tabs, indents and line breaks in the early versions. I can't find anything online though, but it might have come from a page written in Flash or from an e-book PDF. Anyhow, if you can spare some time, you might want to have a look for evaluation. I was first inclined to tag it with db-spam anyway but then went for the softer option. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! :D And sure thing! Let me wrap the thought I've got going right now, and I'll come right over and take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI - I just
tagged the article and the talk page for possible COI and warned the creator of the article as well about COI and usernames. (Sorry about the first part - that was someone else talk and article page I tagged) I am sure the fact the mainspace article and creators username both are the exact same is no coincidence. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This one's pretty clearly COIish, yup. :/ I can't find a source for this content, but I share your concerns, De728631. I'll look a bit more later, but it's possible that this bit of promotional content belongs all to us. If nothing else, it's ripe for stubbing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an update in case you didn't notice - mainspace article deleted and user blocked. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work. I don't know why they're so insistent sometimes. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I invited Sandstein to take a look at this, but am thinking a third set of admin eyes might be helpful...
See: Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities
Somewhat problematic user Communicat (talk · contribs) has been credibly accused of having misrepresented a source rather badly. I am waiting on a detailed response, but I wanted to see if you could review the situation and comment there if you have some time.
If you want to wait a while to let him reply and explain his reasoning, that's fine. This is early and he really hasn't had time yet to respond appropriately (just some grumpy throwaways, but not substantiatively as of yet). Nothing needs rushing here.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Talk: History of South Africa is not the only place where Communicat has been shown to be posting things not supported by the sources he lists. This was also discussed on Talk: World War II where another user shows Communicat has similar problems in their edits of other pages.[2] Thank you. Edward321 (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfounded WP:NPA struck out. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep this discussion centralized at User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Communicat 2 or at Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities. I have struck out the WP:NPA above. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see he's now replied. I'll go see if I can offer any input. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see he's replied several times over. Sorry! I've been distracted by our brand new monster CCI. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, someone on Wikipedia has a life? When did that happen? ^_^ Thank you for taking the time to look at this. Edward321 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I wouldn't go that far. :) I'm afraid that my delay isn't going to make me any more useful here. :/ I don't have access to the books, so I can't address his use of them with any authority, I'm afraid. Is it perhaps time for an WP:RfC/U? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you checked Googlebooks links I provided? They are enough to show Communicat posted things that were not supported by that work or in some cases were contradicted by the work. What does a WP:RfC/U involve? Edward321 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, and I agree that there seems to be a problem, but I don't have the book, so I can't personally verify that. It seems that User:Petri Kohn does and might be in position to help determine the extent of the problem.
- Basically, it comes down to this: if a user is creating hoaxes that can be verified to be hoaxes, then you may have a case for immediate admin action via WP:ANI. If it's more complex than that, then you have a much harder road ahead. You need to be able to demonstrate misuse of sources (intentionally or otherwise), demonstrate that you have tried to work with the contributor to address the problem, and demonstrate that your efforts have not remedied the problem. For an WP:RFC/U, you need two people who are able to say that they have attempted to address the problem. And you need to propose a solution: what is necessary to put an end to the problem? That the contributor avoid certain types of contributions? Certain topics? The community will evaluate your arguments and discuss. If consensus supports a certain action to address the problem and the contributor ignores that, sanctions may be necessary.
- If you haven't reached that point yet, you may need to get wider input first. I'm not quite sure the best place to get wider input for a question like this. :/ I guess Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, but I don't recall ever having posted anything there. This is a little bit out of my usual neighborhood. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your advice. User:Petri Kohn has been heavily involved and very opinionated. The IP on World War II will be getting the book, but he is involved as well. This needs someone totally uninvolved before this can be resolved. Would the MilHistory group be a better group to initially contact? Edward321 (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the scope of the articles is military, that may be an excellent place to get feedback. They're an active and conscientious project, so I suspect that they would give your concerns a fair hearing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not been "heavily involved". I have only commented on the issue after you asked for comments at User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Communicat 2 and Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities. I have also edited the article in an effort to find a compromise version that I could verify was supported by the sources.
- Now, there are several things in your actions I do not like:
- It is not my personal opinion, it is fact which I have provided multiple links for. Edward321 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not Georgewilliamherbert. Are you accusing us of being sockpuppets? Edward321 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have removed my comments from talk pages here, here and on this page here.
- -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing further proof of your level of involvement. I have removed your accusations from my talk page three times so far. I am fully within my rights to do so. Edward321 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Are you using the "collective you" there? If so, you may want to let Georgewilliamherbert know that you object to his bringing this discussion here, as I'm not sure if he is watchlisting this talk page. If not, I believe that Edward321 may have done the same thing you've done: noticed it was here and stopped by. Edward321, I noted you had disagreed with the strike-out. I did not note that Petri Krohn had left another comment, which you removed. That should not be done per Wikipedia:TALK#Others' comments. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Naturally I do not object to Georgewilliamherbert asking you to join the discussion. However I do not think the discussion needs to happen at four different locations at the same time, especially with the WP:NPA issues I pointed to. It feels like forum shopping – repeating the same claims or requests on multiple fora until someone agrees with you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moonriddengirl, thanks for pointing out the mistake I made on your talk page. I have self-reverted to restore Petri's accusations against me, which I accidentally removed when I was undoing his striking my comments. Edward321 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MRG, I know that Kamboj sikh is a copy paste from somewhere, but try as much as I can, I can't seem to figure out from where. Would you be able to wave your magic wand? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [3] is substantially identical in the opening... Courcelles 04:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Courcelles, I went to that site, but somehow I missed these pages (the one you linked and a couple of others that were elsewhere on the site), kinda like going on vacation and coming back and finding that you don't popup on my watchlists (I now know why)! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good morning! :) Thanks, Courcelles, for finding and thanks both of you for taking care of it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus here seems to be that we'd like to run the editorial over two editions, if that's okay with you. We'd then like to purloin it for our Academy - with your permission! I'm aware this is a further imposition on your time and goodwill, so if you'd like us to do the editing to split the editorial into two parts please say so. Once again, thank you for everything :) EyeSerenetalk 09:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's perfectly fine with me, and you are welcome to put it in your Academy if you please. :) You had mentioned that when you brought it up. Please do not concern yourself with my time or goodwill; I am dedicated to copyright cleanup and thrilled to have the opportunity to spread the word. That said, I am willing to retool the material as seems suitable to you to fit your Academy or as an editorial, but am also open to your direct input. I can collaborate. :D What's important to me here is the message; my ego doesn't get in the way of that. (To which end, I remain completely open to input about the clarity of that message. I work with that stuff a lot, and it can be hard for me to imagine myself not knowing it. User:MLauba helpfully pointed out to me that one section had been unclear, so I tried to rework it. If you see anything that seems muddy or poorly explained, please let me know. I'd be grateful, promise.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So late last night I found us a new editor worthy of a CCI whose modus operandi after material is removed/marked as a copyvio is apparently to replace it with different copyvio material. See the histories of David Beckham Soccer after I cleaned it once and Barbie Super Sports after CSBot tagged it. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad you caught that one early. It could have been a huge mess further down the road. I've given him a temporary block to emphasize the importance of this and left him a personal note suggesting he seek guidance if he doesn't know how to do it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and hooray for CSBot tagging one of their articles ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, I've noticed that you've been keeping an eye on the edits of User:Zooaction who is clearly Jordan Schaul. I've gone through his edits and now find that not a single page edited or created by this user is not in some way connected to Mr. Schaul. (I also suspect that he has the sock-puppet 66.230.109.117 and, perhaps, 209.112.219.57--both IPs in Alaska.) The level of self-promotion and end-running around policy (by deletion of COI tags, etc.) exhibited by this user is truly unacceptable. I am not an active or even experienced user and wonder if you, as an admin, might be willing to take some further action regarding Zooaction? Yours, P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I think unless he persists from this point, there's not much we can or need to do. I did restore the COI tag to Jordan Schaul. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for looking at this. You know best. Yours, P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MRG, I've left a question on our page.Malke2010 20:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In doing what I do I am thinking having a "Researcher" level might be good. However I can't find anything on this and who to ask/who grants it. Do you have any information than what is found here? Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, none, I'm afraid. Maybe somebody at WP:HELP will know something about it. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through so many that I'm losing the ability to spell {{copyvio}}. Here are ones that I found too complex to deal with quickly, that you might want to give more in depth consideration to:
Uncle G (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for helping out there. :) Let me take a look at thoseto see what I can find. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, with the first one, even though archive doesn't confirm the second source predated, the contributor linked to it when adding the content, so we know which came first. Purged. With the second, it predates. Darius listed it as the first reference when the article was created. :) Purged, but did not rev delete. The third one almost certainly predates. She was inducted in 1986, which is likely when they wrote the text. We may never be sure on that one, but this is where the contributor's reputation seals the deal. When I find duplication with a guy like that, unless I can prove they copied from us, I assume he's the one in the wrong. He has been, demonstrably, so many times. :/ I'll remove it with appropriate tags. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to the above issue but with regards to the CCI, I'm trying to get the created articles sorted in order of size per a request at the talk page, but it's giving me some troubles, so it may be a little bit this morning before I get it straightened out again. :( VernoWhitney (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okey dokey. :) We need to get some of that on subpages as soon as possible, though. I added a note to explain the issues, and it choked my computer! I won't try to help split it up, because I don't want to disrupt what you're doing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll split it into smaller ubpages while I'm at it. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the subpages for their created articles are all straightened out and all entries that were marked as clear are marked as clear again...now I'll finally get around to adding another 14 subpages of their additions to other articles! :/ VernoWhitney (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A class of articles that I'm finding non-trivial to determine is those that match entries in the Beach Volleyball Database. Which came first, the BVB entries or the Wikipedia article? Try Vassiliki Arvaniti versus this for one of many examples. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see what I can figure out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, one might presume that we came first, since the website was launched in 2009. But so far they don't seem to have copied from Wikipedia articles by other contributors: Eugenio Amore, [4]; Riccardo Lione, [5]; Paolo Nicolai, [6]; Nicole Branagh, [7]. I'll poke for a few more minutes, but if I don't find even one other case of them copying from us, I think we have to presume either he copied from an earlier copy of their information or that they've both copied from the same source. Again, this is based on his history. We can't presume in his favor, under the circumstances. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now here's interesting. I might have picked a random example that solves my problem. BVB article from 2007 as recorded by the Wayback Machine. Wikipedia article as created in July 2008. That seems conclusive. I wonder why I had WBM difficulties with the other ones that I tried. Uncle G (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for butting in; I didn't want to make a new thread over a related topic. I just went through these and I wanted you to do a quick check to see if I got the clerking/CCI-check procedure done right. I realized afterward that I was supposed to remove the diff links; is that a big deal, or can I just leave them there (it's faster that way)? I might have some extra time this week, so instead of trying to achieve my impossibly long list of writing goals, I can try to sift through a couple hundred diffs or so and clear off the non-cv ones to save time for others later (I'm still trying to figure out what to do if there actually is a cv in a diff, but I haven't seen one yet). Thanks, —fetch·comms 04:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I almost missed this up here. :/ CCI is very much IAR territory. We usually remove the diffs just because in some CCIs pages are looong. Removing the diffs makes them shorter and easier to edit. Once an article is cleared, they aren't really needed anymore. But leaving them in harms nothing. As long as you mark that an article is cleared so that others know there's no copyvio, it's all good. :)
- If you actually find a cv in a diff, you remove it and just mark at the CCI page that you found an issue and cleaned it. If it's enough of a vio to kill the article (not leaving enough to survive), we either stub with new content or (usually) tag for deletion with {{subst:copyvio}}. With this one, it may be better to delete it more expeditiously in that case. An approach here is still evolving at ANI. :/ (And, by the way, I really appreciate your pitching in. Anything you can offer, we can use! :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, thanks! Labor Day in the US means sitting on the couch watching the Jerry Lewis MDA telethon, so I needed to do something useful anyway :P —fetch·comms 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am not an admin, I thought I would bring to your attention the above articles with image issues. I am trying to improve their quality and since that includes the legality of their content, I was wondering if you can remove the unfair-use images found in them. Thanks!--Gniniv (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. You don't have to be an admin to challenge fair use images. :) If any editor feels a non-free image does not meet the non-free content guidelines, including because there are too many of them in a single article, he can take action by removing them from the article (orphaned non-free images are deleted after a certain time, in case others dispute the removal) or bringing them up for community review at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. (I'd try the former first, unless you think the action is likely to be controversial.) You'd probably want to explain at the article's talk page why you think the use is excessive and why you've chosen to remove the ones that you have. If you want to approach it conservatively, you can begin with an explanation at the article's talk page of why you think there's a problem, adding {{non-free}} to the article's front. If there are no objections, you can go ahead and prune the ones that seem unnecessary.
- I myself do not do much with images, so I would not be comfortable assessing the relatively use and value of these, but if you don't want to act on them yourself I'd be happy to ask a contributor who does more with them to take a look and take action if they feel there are issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Maggie Roswell.jpg was promoted. Can you let the photographer know? :) Thanks, Theleftorium (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, congratulations! I will indeed. :) Please let me know if it's ever the day's featured photograph, and I'll tell him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have passed on the word. I'm sure he'll be very pleased. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First I found User talk:Kamol Kamoltrakul - the talk page being the only edit, and then [8] which seems to be in part at least the same thing, a paper by Kamol K. - a real person, see [9]. I'm thinking that without evidence to the contrary, both of these are copyvio. Not much compared to what you're currently working on, but do you agree? I'll blitz them if you do. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, wholeheartedly. Unless we get permission, it's a problem under [10], [11], [12] and [13] at least. There are very probably more. Beyond that, though, even if we get permission, I can't think what we'd do with it. :/ It's clearly political speech. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, done. Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:1935 205 jpg.ashx.jpg is sourced to www.fotofinders.com, tagged di-no permission on April 9, 2009 and Says an OTRS was sent/received on April 10, 2009. Tagged using {{OTRS received}}. No other activity since that tag was placed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the last tag, that probably means we've heard no more since. I'll double check. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted it; the last communication concluded that permission was unlikely to be forthcoming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you kindly. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. :) We really do need a bot that picks up these lingering tags. I've dropped a few myself, I'm afraid. If there's been no update within a couple of weeks, we really need to figure out why. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, MRG. I hope you don't think this is out of line, but this is the space I thought might be most appropriate for bringing up concerns regarding Malke_2010's post-block behavior, as a condition of his/her return was apparently your mentorship. It seems he/she spurred a little bit of a kerfuffle on the Tea Party Movement page pretty much immediately after his/her return. Though I don't think anything happened worth reporting to ANI, Malke_2010 does seem very aggressive with enforcing his/her own opinions over those of others, and is very quick to make huge changes and delete entire sections he/she doesn't agree with. Malke_2010 made multiple attempts to delete the same large chunk of established material in an apparent disregard of BRD. When multiple editors confronted him/her on the talk page, he/she seemed to slow down, but by then the page ended up getting completely locked due to the edit warring.
I realize there are a lot of different stances amongst editors, but as his/her actions have caused problems at TPm (and apparently have in the past as well), I just think Malke_2010 might benefit from a little help explaining that especially in controversial political articles like this, it can often be best to tread lightly and that it is especially important to respect other people's opinions and the work of other editors as much as possible. Thank you for any help or guidance in this regard. 67.58.153.46 (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not true.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good morning. I had been aware of the exchange there before logging off last night. Malke is not under any editing restrictions with regards to articles. If Malke's edits don't meet with consensus, other editors have all the options of responding that Malke does, which begin with polite conservation. It's too bad that the conversation didn't start with this, which seems like a reasonable note (whether it itself represents the consensus view or not), rather than this edit summary, which to a bystander seems provocative. (This is true even if by "vandalized" you meant that you had also corrected actually vandalized content from others; in that case, it probably would be better not to address them in aggregate, as there is undeniable implication that it is Malke you are accusing of vandalism, problematic per policy.) When I had first seen the conversation emerging on her talk page, I was concerned that Malke's tone might seem unnecessarily tense, but once I saw that edit summary, I revised my opinion. As to your point that "...especially in controversial political articles like this, it can often be best to tread lightly and that it is especially important to respect other people's opinions and the work of other editors as much as possible", I do agree. I would hope that all editors would follow that approach. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The IP also repeatedly came to my talk page despite my asking him to keep his comments at the article talk page. His tone seemed provocative to me also, with the edit summary as it was. And he seemed to confirm that by not respecting my request and continuing to post on my talk page, including interrupting a conversation I was having with an editor from the help desk: [14]. Another editor saw this comment and deleted it. I know it is preferable not to ask editors to comment on talk pages, but in this case, I felt it was wise to do so in order to keep the conversation about the article. I have mentioned this on Toddst1's talk page since he is the one who protected the article when the IP got to 3RR.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent you an email. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) Let me check my watchlist and see if any fires have sprung up during the night, and then I'll log in and see what's up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hi, I have a problem with the article Mehdi Hosseini,as I was writing for so long time for this page and all information i shared to other sites later after Wikipedia, just now we need a helper to decide this problem as I am not also professional WIKI UESR!
Thank you for help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexey-spb (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you have a look at the Simon Harris article? It seems to me to be a direct lift from the bio on the subject's website which has a (c) 2010 tag on it. But since the Wikipedia article appears to have been edited several times over the years, I'm wondering whether the copying is actually the other way round. On the face of it, it looks as though I should blank the entire page as a copyvio but that seems rather drastic unless I'm certain and so I'm seeking your advice. The article is also unreferenced and I'm coming up blank on sourcing it with anything reliable (it's in the the current focus month for the UBLP Rescue Project, which is how I came across it). I can carry on trying to find sources for the content but there doesn't seem to be a lot of point if what it really needs is to be stubbed.--Plad2 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Let me take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Before it was where it is now, it was published at his old website. See this and this. Content entered in March 2007 seems to very closely paraphrase from those sources.
- Based on editing patterns, I would not be surprised if this individual has a connection to the subject, so it's possible that permission will be upcoming. There are two options at this point: blanking to give the contributor time to provide permission or going ahead and replacing the content with something usable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking at this so quickly. So (just so I get this right),if I blank the text and tag the article as a possible copyvio and leave a message for User:Megalaser on his/her Talk page and the article talk page suggesting that he/she gets permission for the copyright content pronto, that would be an acceptable course of action? If so, I guess it would be an opportunity to suggest that the editor provides the missing references as well.--Plad2 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would be the right thing to do, and asking for the missing refs would be a great thing to do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning article Mehdi Hosseini
20:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Alexey-spb (talk) Hi, I am trying to explain but as I am not a good user as you who knows so good wikipedia, I can not do so well that is why i am writing directly to you as you could help me to support this page. thank you so much for all.
Just i wanted to mention you somthing concerning Mehdi Hosseini's article by following:
you are bringing this site as a source:
http://www.classical-composers.org/comp/hosseini
ok, that is my work and if you see under this page you can see one source is wikipedia there, before I created that page. please check it. thank you.
second address is: http://www.compozitor.spb.ru/eng/our_authors_engl/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=19695
if you read the text all provided recently in 2010 and Mehdi Hosseini's article is created before this one. even there is some others sources which from Times about Mehdi Hosseini, all of the them are from this year.
again thank you if you help and direct me always as I need your help!20:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Alexey-spb (talk)
Saw this a while ago. [15].Malke 2010 (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's uncivil, but I would recommend ignoring it if it does not repeat. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just wondered if the copyright holder ever responded to the email request that you put through the OTRS system. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, sadly, they have not. :/ Another agent wrote them again on September 3rd, but they haven't responded to that second e-mail, either. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to upload and use the cover of Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass for the said article's infobox, but I don't know what the copyright is for images of non-fiction works. Is there some sort of static policy for such images that would allow me to use it? SilverserenC 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, book covers are permitted om articles about the book under WP:NFC. You want to keep it low resolution, and when you upload it place {{Non-free book cover}} for the license and for the file summary use Template:Book cover fur. The first one is just a matter of pasting; the second one has to be filled out. There are instructions for doing that at the template page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's useful. Thanks! What exactly would count as low resolution though, how do I tell? I mean, among a search like this, what would count as low resolution? SilverserenC 22:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're asking the wrong girl there. :D The album Wikiproject recommends not going over 300 px. per side. I usually figure that if a book is that or less, we're okay. This one I uploaded is a bit bigger than that, but not by much, and I am graphically challenged. This may be better, but it has white space around it. This one seems to be just right. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Maybe this one? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Is this good? SilverserenC 23:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And your opinion is all that matters to me. :D SilverserenC 23:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alexey-spb (talk)hi, please check this new article [[16]] if it dosent have a problem I will workit over. thanksAlexey-spb (talk)
|
.jpg){kind=link}
