|
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 12:07, 8 August 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
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]
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.[1] 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 twice 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]
- FYI, I'm "the IP" and I believe I'm uninvolved. I stopped by Talk:World War II to try to help with the Communicat situation after Communicat's premature arb filing a few days earlier.[2] I engaged Communicat in some discussion intended to help sort out his confusion about Wikipedia DR and sourcing expectations, and ended up checking a particular diff of his which I felt did not come up to our standards. While on the talk page I also made some general suggestions about the article, but I've never edited the article (it's semi-protected so I can't). Communicat then moved to History of South Africa and I made a few further comments on that article's talk page. If Petri Krohn has the Angelo del Boca book, IMHO the best next step with regard to verifying it is if Petri could scan the relevant pages for GWH or someone else to look at. I haven't attempted to get hold of it myself (I merely said that I could ask my library to get it through interlibrary loan if it came to that). As an unregistered user I don't have access to Wikipedia's email system so I'm not the ideal person to take that on. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 00:55, 8 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, [3]; Riccardo Lione, [4]; Paolo Nicolai, [5]; Nicole Branagh, [6]. 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]
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. [7].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 [[8]] if it dosent have a problem I will workit over. thanksAlexey-spb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I've been bold and divided your article into two sections (one per each edition) and pasted the first across into the newsletter. I hope this isn't too presumptuous of me - please feel free to alter anything you don't like up to and including a complete rv! If you're fairly happy though, would you be able to give this month's edition a final look over before it goes out? Thank you! EyeSerenetalk 08:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not too presumptuous at all. :) I appreciate it; I'm behind on WP:CP courtesy of our latest CCI and the resultant sturm und drang (which is a good thing, even though the chaos of it all has me a bit confused...people are caring! and helping! whoot!), so your input is tremendously helpful. As soon as I get enough caffeine in me to be sure I'm making sense, I'll go have a read through part 1. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the editorial—it was highly informative, yet easy to read. I'm not sure how many people will see it right away, but the cool thing about having this written down is that I (and others) will link to it whenever we are trying to explain copyrights to an editor. It's much easier to point them at your article then trying to type it all myself. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just saw your editorial in the Bugle, too, and I must say it's a beautiful contribution: clear, concise, cogent, ... um "cozy", just to have a fourth "c" word? ;-) Thanks, it's very nice work, indeed. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both! I am seldom credited with concision. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Hi. as it; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexey-spb/Mehdi_Hosseini# already has a new version and I hope that it dose not have a problem with copyright and etc. any way you can add or recommend me how to change it if you think that it has a problem with copyright.thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexey-spb (talk • contribs) 08:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Alexey-spb (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have joined the effort, but don't know where to begin. The associated page shows some investigations by I don't understand the process and steps to get involved. Thx. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 18:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, and you are very welcome. :) Are you talking about the copyright investigation du jour, here? If so, that one is a little bit complex because we're trying to work out the best way to handle it, but it like other CCIs will still come down to the typical copyright cleanup: we look at the linked "diff" to see what the contributor added. In this case, if what he added looks like creative prose, it's probably better to replace it. Very, very basic information should be clear of concern (though the threshold of originality is pretty low in the U.S. law that governs us), but if it's more than a sentence or two or seems very creative, we're better safe than sorry. If there's a lot of creative text, it may be a good idea to find the source if you can, since we're still trying to figure out really how widespread this copying is. If you find a source, you put a note on the investigation page with a
{{y}} You should add whether you cleaned it or blanked it if you can, but the important thing is to note that you investigated it and confirmed copying. If you clean it up presumptively, we usually put a {{?}} Presumptive removal tag next to it. If there's no creative content or you're very sure it isn't a problem, the thing to put is {{n}}, and your signature.
- Does that answer your question? If not, please let me know what more I can do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all good info, but I still don't know where to find work to do, and how to go about doing it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 18:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I'm sorry; I'm jumping ahead. :) I presumed you were talking about the copyright cleanup effort that's getting talked about at various points around Wikipedia.
- There are all kinds of ways and places to pitch in with copyright work on Wikipedia. I went ahead and updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/How to clean copyright infringements, as it has a number of suggestions for areas that need assistance. We could use it in any of them, but I expect that the place we need it most is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We are running in circles here. I'm saying I do not know what to do. I've been to the page you recommended, but I don't know how to do the work. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 01:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You said above, "I still don't know where to find work to do, and how to go about doing it." You know where to find work, then, at this point, as you've visited the page. Tell me what work you want to do from the work that is available, and I will try to help you figure out how to do it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Concerning this entry I'd like to inform you that after having sent an email to the website owners, the content was removed from their website after about 4 weeks. As the situation is no longer current, is there any need to keep the entry in the Mirrors & Forks page? If the entry is removed, will a copy of the issue be stored for reference? Amsaim (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) We can remove it if they have taken the copied content down. Are you comfortable that they have it all? These things remain in the histories, but it wouldn't be easily visible for future reference. That said, the backwardscopy tag will still remain at the individual articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The copied content has been taken off the website, yes. There is no saying however, if at some point in future the person who previously copied the content won't do the same thing again. Now that the copied content is off their site, what is the usual Wikipedia procedure in such a case? Would a notice in this entry suffice stating that the issue has been resolved? Apart from this how is it with the issue of the site no longer being a reliable source as stated in WP:MF? The site is the official page of The African Movie Academy Awards, and unfortunately the page hasn't been operated professionally. At what point will the site be considered a reliable source, or will it remain unreliable due to the previous content copying? Amsaim (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't really have a usual procedure for this case; I can add a note saying that the issue is resolved for now. I'll do so. As to the reliability of the source, that one is well beyond my usual work. :) I would probably raise that one at the reliable sources noticeboard to see what other contributors think. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thank you for your assistance. Amsaim (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moonriddengirl,
I want to preface this by saying this is my first article submission and I am new to this so if I am or have done anything outside of the correct protocol I apologize up front.
I am trying or was trying to submit the article for George Sernack. I am not sure if what I wrote has been completely deleted and I need to start over or if it is still available in an archive somewhere. I could have sworn I read that I had until the 9th of September to make changes.
My first question is in regards to references. George Sernackis again a Martial artist who currently competes in Brazilian Jui Jistu Tournaments as well as an Instructor and Martial Arts School owner. I handle marketing for Mr. Sernack. Aside from the organizations and Associations that put on the tournaments, there are not really any other sites I or he can reference. You or anyone else from Wikipeida are welcome to contact George directly at the school to verify the information. What would an appropriate reference be for someone like Mr. Sernack?
My second question is, am I overlooking something? Is there something obvious that I could have included that would have satisfied the criteria?
Lastly, would it just be easier for George to submit this bio himself?
Again, I apologize if these questions are somewhat insipid but trying to figure out an appropriate reference for Mr. Sernack has me a bit confused. By the way, I am not sure if your name showed up somewhere in your directions. I could not find it so that is why I addressed this to Moonriddengirl.
Thank you,
Rich Serpa
PS. I hope I can find your response. My email by the way is rserpa621@gmail.com. I hope I am doing this right and you are seeing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rserpa621 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MRG, I tagged File:NammaMetro.jpg under {{db-nopermission}} because the source link still says "All rights reserved" and the copyright logo and "All rights reserved" are also included in the image caption on flickr. However, in the comments section of the flickr image the editor who uploaded the file on to WP has asked the photographer if they can upload it to Wikipedia under the sharealike license and the photographer has responded "ok". I take that to mean, ok, I'm open to that, but something that the photographer hasn't followed through with. What's the verdict on this one? There are some more images like this that may have to be tagged suitably if my interpretation is correct. The conversation is at User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#File:NammaMetro.jpg. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's a problem, and I've explained more fully at your talk page. Nice lab. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the info, image deletions was one area that I was going to actively avoid, but I've been sucked into it for {{WP India}} pages as there seem to be a lot of problem images on there. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoot! It's a win for image work! :D (They need you, terribly. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must thank you for this editorial. Despite being a fairly experienced editor, I have not really been aware of or really cared for avoiding copyvios. I guess I thought close paraphrasing did the trick. Now my eyes have opened and I shall be more careful and also revisit my edits.
I found this advice in the essay you recommended especially useful :
The right way to use this source would be to read it, read other sources about cats, internalize the information, and then write original content without looking at the structure of the sources... The sources should also, of course, be attributed.
Thank you for this valuable public service.
Regards, AshLin (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, thank you. :) I'm glad if it proves useful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment here. It would be perfectly possible to write something which would revert every article someone edited but didn't create to the version immediately before they touched it. This could also be fed to the same kind of parameters as Contribution Surveyor uses to ignore small changes and probable reverts. Since this would involve checking every edit it would also have the side effect of being able to generate a list of created pages (just like toolserver, but it could immediately post it on-wiki) which it of course couldn't roll back, but they'd be handy to ensure that "nuking" hit them all, since I assume that mass-rollback would only be used if the collateral damage was deemed acceptable. I could start working on this if you think it'll actually be worth using in some cases.
What other copyright cleanup tools have you been dying to have? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the first tool under discussion here would be used only very rarely.
If When Who am I kidding? User:Siddiqui launches another sock, for instance, it would be nice. I would not launch it in your run of the mill CCI, because the risk of collateral damage is too great. I worry about bystanders. :/
- The tool for which I've been pining the longest is this one, evidently abandoned by TheEarWig: "You are also welcome to try the URL Intersection tool, which compares an article (or previous version of an article) with a specific URL and runs a more in-depth copyvio check." Something that could highlight text matches between URLs could assist in determining whether copyvio is reverse and also whether copyvios have been fully removed. (I'd love it if that URL Intersection tool could compare an article with a specific earlier version of an article.) It could also help us find where in a lengthy page copying begins and ends. I've stared at many a listing at CP wondering just where the copying is, when a specific section is not blanked and the copying is not wholesale.
- How about a tool that will scan a user's talk page history for matches to the word "copyvio" or "copyright"? That way, we could easily determine who has been warned before and when.
- There've been a few others about which I've spoken with Dcoetzee, but I can't recall specifics right now. Either of these two would make a grand start. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where to ask for an assessment on the genre article Neo soul, so can u refer me to where or assess yourself? Dan56 (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Dan. I've never done a genre assessment before. I'll take a look a little later, and if I can't figure out their criteria will see who I can track down! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -
yes, I used the material also in Amalia Paoli and maybe nowhere else since it only seemed applicable to those articles. Anyway, I went to Amalia Paoli already and fixed it in a way that I believe makes it compliant. If I am not doing it correctly, tell me and maybe Marine can work on that one too, although I'd like to learn how to fix this problem by myself.
Is it is possible that I could myself try to fix this Casa Paoli article that you blanked the way Tony The Marine fixed the other article (Antonio Paoli)? Maybe you could tell me which was the last version that seemed good like you did before and give me a TEMP folder like you did Marine. Thank you, Mercy11 (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Just let me know if you'd rather I roll it back now or if you would prefer to rewrite it first." Well, which way did Marine choose? I prefer to do it that way. Just tell me whcih one, do your rollback or whatever thing it is you'd need to do, and then I will work on the article. Is that fair? Also, did the Amalia Paoli pass your review? So I start budgeting my time for that one also if it still didn't pass and you had to blank it too. Thank you, Mercy11 (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, I think I have enough info now. I will work on it from that version forward. Thanks you, Mercy11 (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I had just "gathered my energy" to start working on those two CR-violation articles (Casa Paoli and Amalia Paoli) when I went in I realized you had touched up the latter apparently just enough to pass the necessary review. This was truly a huge relief as I can now concentrate on the other one (on Casa Paoli). I wanted to thank you. And going over to the fixing the problems with Casa Paoli, it seems that a lot of the in-violation stuff I added was about Antonio Paoli and not the house itself,,, so I expect to be able to produce rather quickly a version that does not violate CR. My POA is to take the last acceptable version and work on it offline, make CR-acceptable additions, etc, and then present it to you for approval. Would such plan be acceptable? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I am done. Hope it looks at least half decent. Check it HERE. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, I hope that the new version takes care of the issues involved. Happy editing everyone. Mercy11 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I clearly am going to have to spend a lot more time crafting this. I don't want to do it wrong and then have it be harder for mr. Sernack to have his article be approved. There seeems to be a lot of ways i could screw this up. Some of the options may be difficult. For example, waiting till someone has written an article about him. He is a very humble person. Too humble I think sometimes. His school has been featured in Gracie Magazine many times but whenever he is asked for a quote or is quotes, he is only too quick to heap praise on his students and I can't say I ever recall him talking about himself or his many achievemnets in the sport. The information I had used from his website is all factual and again I have permission to use it. Would it help if perhaps I paraphrased it to some extent?
Thank you again for taking the time to provide me all those links and references. As I said, I am going to have to spend some time and try and develop an article that will hopefully pass the criteria.
PS: I love the user name Moonriddengirl and I tottaly understand why you would want to keep yourself anonymous. I imagine you get all types and you probably run into some very big egos.
Rich ( Ps, that is my real name and I am sure you can make out my last name as well : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rserpa621 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I answered at your talk page again. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This guy seems to have changed tactics somewhat. He is now editing as an IP here, but uploading images to Commons and re-adding them to the articles edited by him here on WP previously. He currently seems to edit as User:80.191.41.237. This IP consistently goes through the articles where immediately preceding edits were by User:Amir.Hossein.7055's socks, e.g. Jafar Sharif-Emami, Gholam-Reza Azhari, Shapour Bakhtiar, Mohammad-Javad Bahonar, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, List of Prime Ministers of Iran, etc. He often adds images that he has uploaded to Commons under the same usernames as his socks user here on WP, eg. this edit[9] and this image[10]. I don't know if some sort of a rangeblock is feasible for the IP range that he is using, maybe you could look into that? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having recently implemented (badly) my first range block, I may be up for this. But I'd need to identify his range. :) Let me see what I can figure out, based on previously SPI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks. I see that he has jumped to another IP, User:85.198.7.95 - this IP has started re-adding the images that User:80.191.41.237 tried to add earlier today, e.g. see here[11][12]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet another one User:85.198.7.37. The guy is persistent. Nsk92 (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Too bad; the last range block didn't cause much damage. Let me see how widespread this one would be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't block the entire range, as it would potentially block 134,217,728 users. I've done another narrow range block and can expand it incrementally as necessary. But I note that you also talked to User:Tnxman307 about this. If you talk to more than one admin at a time about handling a problem, you may cause redundant efforts. I really appreciate your being so diligent about this sockmaster, but do please make sure you let people know when you're asking about something at more than one place to help avoid that. Range blocks are time consuming for me, because I'm not used to them. I don't mind doing it, but I'd be a bit disgruntled to investigate it only to find out somebody else had already handled it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks and thanks, I will definitely follow your advice. Nsk92 (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! And thanks again for keeping such a careful eye out for him. My first rangeblock was for a similar situation: a copyright infringer sockmaster who would not take "no" for answer. Let's hope we've knocked him off stride for a bit; if not, we'll keep trying with smaller ranges. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check OTRS Ticket:2010090210007829 and see if the wording is ok. My concern follows a similar concern you had/have with the geo website. The photographers copyright information on the website says written permission is needed for any use of the images. My concern is the OTRS may have been "written permission" giving Wikipedia only permission - or that the photographer thinks they are only giving Wikipedia permission and OTRS thinks it is the "world". I just want to clarify because of the copyright informaiton on the website. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good morning, and sure: let me go take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have two separate permissions being negotiated in that chain. The first is for a single image, [13], and that one is all in order. His first release was not usable, but he clarified. Another, still ongoing, is negotiating permission for additional images from his website. The agent is well on top of this one and in his last letter wrote specifically, "I would - just to avoid any possibility of a misunderstanding - like to make clear that your release of your photos under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license extends to the whole world, not just to Wikipedia." The agent has not yet responded to the last communication from the licensor, but in my opinion will find it perfectly acceptable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so the first one is an OTRS
from about Jan Tschichold, the photographer subject of one photo, and the rest fall under a separate one. Ok, good - and as I type this I see the OTRS agent just told me the same thing - but I didn't realize they were the agent, I thought they were just asking/commenting on the images. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, I extended the article after your "cleaning", could you please check for the spelling? English is not my mother tongue so it's very likely you'll find either some mistakes or typos. Greetings from Italy :-) -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 13:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) No spelling errors, although I turned a comma into a period and changed the usage of a preposition. The only real question I have is what you mean by "He retired from professional rugby in 2008 aged 28, and definitely in late 2009, aged 30." Do you mean that he still played rugby non-professional between 2008 and 2009? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry to bother you, but can you check to see if the first sentence in this article created by User:Darius Dhlomo is a copyright infringement. I traced the sentence to this site, but I can't tell if the site copied WP or if it wrote the sentence. By the way, it isn't currently on the list of mirrors and forks, so...
Thanks. Guoguo12--Talk-- 20:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) It's no bother at all; you are very welcome! In this case, I think we can safely conclude reverse infringement. One good tip here is that they have copied other content contributed by another Wikipedian: FC Zwolle in the national cup; [14] and Pro Evolution Soccer; [15], for instance. Websites like that seem to take our text to drive up their presence in search engines. :/ Darius might have copied it from somebody, but not from those guys. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks. Guoguo12--Talk-- 21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to the above, but still regarding the CCI: Your opinion on the copyrightable on the information presented in a table is requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI#Cyclist tables. (I feel like we just reviewed this general idea yesterday :P ) VernoWhitney (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! And over and over again. Stupid lists. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to take on 10 articles to shepherd to "clean" - or is that not the way the winds are blowing? I checked WikiStalk and determined that DD hasn't contaminated any of the articles I've worked on. --Lexein (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I'm not entirely sure where the winds are blowing at this point. The CCI is running atypically. As I understand it, a bot is shortly going to blank the articles he's created, but my intention is to go through the articles once they've been tagged and restore those which have already been checked and cleared. As long as you log your findings at the CCI subpage, I'll make sure your efforts aren't wasted. They're very much appreciated! We can use all the help we can get. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A 48 hour block is rather lenient. I would disagree with an indefinite since indefinite usually means permanent. Consider 7 days. Anything up to 30 days would be ok with me. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ali_Daie.jpg){kind=link}