If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 11:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time, less frequently between 19:00 and 22:00. When you loaded this page, it was 14:17, 19 November 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Part II of your article for the Bugle
Hi :) Just a reminder that it's that time again! I'm not sure if you had any further tweaks to make to the second part of your article, though it looks great to me. I've posted it up here - please feel free to make any amendments necessary. On past form it'll be a week or so before we get the newsletter out. Best, EyeSerenetalk10:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I tried to make a flowchart, but I'm afraid I am abyssmal with such things and everything I came up with looked stupid. :/ I'll go read it over again. I'll have fresh eyes now that a good enough period of time has passed, so I'll be able to see if where I'm being obtuse and fix it. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only ones I still have were hand drawn, and they're just as stupid looking as the drafts I abandoned. :/ (Well, that's not entirely true; I still have one of my Microsoft Word versions (incomplete), in which I used a template that is incompatibly licensed...and so can't publish. But it was just as bad, because the template wouldn't allow me to point multiple boxes at the same answer.) The flowchart was probably going to be pretty huge anyway if I had managed to pull it together, because I can't write short. I was looking at MLauba's concise CV101 (User:MLauba/Cv101), and it's still pretty hefty. :) I've just moved the blue box down; it adds some visual punch. If I could think of an image to toss in, I would, but there aren't exactly tons of images at Commons to illustrate the concept of OCILLA or Due Diligence. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did download the second one and give it a go, but I couldn't make it produce anything usable. :/ It is important to remember here, though, that I am challenged by programming my remote control. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You would be most welcome to join us. :) I've spent a bit of time reading through Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/How to clean copyright infringements to make sure that the directions are up to date. They are, although we're currently in transition with revision deletion and they may need to be updated to address that soon. But it goes over various ways to help out with text and image copyright concerns, depending on what interests you. Most contributors who are interested in addressing text start out at WP:SCV. Directions for helping there are at the top of the page. Two special things to watch out for there are duplication of uncopyrightable content and unusable rewrites. The former happens when content is copied from PD sources or when what's copied lacks creativity (track lists for albums, for instance). The latter all too frequently happens when contributors try to write content in their own words but fall short.
One thing I would caution you about: since you have had issues with copyright yourself in the past, I would recommend that you proceed carefully before clearing any content of copyright concern. Restoring copyrighted content may be seen as contributory copyright infringement (can you believe that's just a redirect? must fix that!), both legally and by others in the Wikipedia community. I'd agree with Rob that you can be a quality contributor, and I wouldn't want you to wind up in hot water inadvertently. :) If you are in any doubt whether something is copyrightable or if it has been completely rewritten, I would recommend leaving that for somebody else to handle. There are plenty enough obvious cases for you to find work to do while getting the hang of things. :) Because you are yourself the subject of a CCI (one of these days, somebody will finish Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100506! Stupid backlog), you should most definitely stay out of CCI work. We have had some subjects of CCIs who I feel quite confident could help there, but it's a good general policy that they not. If Wikipedia's diligence is ever challenged with respect to cleaning up after repeat infringers, it will not help us to show that other repeat infringers were doing the evaluation. While CCI is where we have the most need, there is (sadly) plenty enough to do in other areas as well.
So i have come by already :) Just a question, does the CSBot often get url`s wrong? I ask as it flagged this article as having content from chawz.com but the actual copyvio was from chawzmovie.com your page is on my watchlist now btw mark nutley (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will get odd false positives like that when either the article or the webpage is really short - since in either case it's easy for a high-percentage match when you only have a few words. It usually hits a few of each of those types of false positive a week unless an editor is on a stub-creating spree in which case there're more. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, another question. I just went to an article Ana M. Briongos which has Official biography from her website under creative commons license (by NC-ND) What does one do about this? The website has noting about the content being free [1] so i have subst:copyvio|url=source used this tag to blank the page. I asked on the article talk page as well about this. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the right thing to do when a free license is claimed but not verified. :) Please be sure, though, that you give the proper notice to the uploader (the template generates the notice). In this case, I'd add a personal note beneath the template explaining the issue further. Even if the NC-ND license was mentioned on the page, the article would need to be blanked, though, because that's not compatible with our license. See a limited table at the copyright FAQ. We can only accept content that can be used commercially and modified. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, but one thing that the template does that your note does not is tell them how to fix it. :) Maybe you should add a note telling them that the article has been blanked and they can see the face of the article for the steps necessary to verify permission? Of course, it the article is A7ed, it won't matter.:/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I had a question about WP:COPYVIOs of television episode summaries and decided I should check with you before I proceed. I recently removed summaries from Grey's Anatomy (season 7), Grey's Anatomy (season 6) and Grey's Anatomy (season 5), which were copied word-for-word from press releases. (I just happened to visit one of these pages which repairing disambig links.) I must admit I was surprised that a popular show like Grey's would have copyvios, (I figured someone would have caught it!) but I started deleting. Then I got to thinking... is there a point when (like after so many years) the press releases become like public domain? Was I wrong to remove these? Maybe this is actually allowed? I figured I'd ask before I do anymore deleting. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Press releases only become public domain at the same time any other creative work does, which for US press releases is likely 95 years after publication (per United States copyright law#Duration of copyright). No, you were not wrong to remove them and no, it is not allowed. It is sadly a rampant problem with plot summaries, and so there's even a template you can place on article talk pages as a reminder to others that this a no-no: {{Plot2}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by 2 pence: I see more copyright vios in showbiz articles, by far, leaps and bounds, than in any other area. Even worse, they're often slap-dash cut 'n paste copyvios from the dodgiest sources one can think of. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it for that reason too (just like cclean, short but not very descriptive), I just wasn't sure what other people's thoughts would be and I imagined most people who use the template watch this page. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and always. :) If you've sent me something I haven't responded to or if I said I'd do something and I've forgotten, please remind me there. :) Between the conference last weekend and the usual on Wikipedia, last week was pretty crazy. (If you've sent me something since the weekend, I haven't gotten it; may have been lost in delivery?) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright/image uploading help
There's a new user over at the user's talkpage who is developing a military history article on a South African parachute brigade. He's uploaded a few images but, as a new user, is unsure which copyright tags to use. Could you pop over and give it a look over? I think he has permission to use most of the images, so it might just be a case of getting OTRS permission. But I can't explain it very well as I'm not au fait with all of the intricacies of images. Thanks for any help you could give. Skinny87 (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks so much for the succinct reply. Hopefully he'll be able to get permission for all of the images, but until then I imagine they'll have to be removed. I have the talkpage on my watchlist, and I'll let you know if Smikect has any more issues. Thanks again. Skinny87 (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey MRG. The user has just had the images he kept on wikipedia (I think he can use them himself - for example one image is of a badge that is his own) tagged as FUR and copyright undecided/unknown. I'd like to help him more, but I'm unsure of what the procedure is here - the entire concept is a minefield. Would it be possible for you to go over to his talkpage again and see what is going on? I'd be grateful if you could. Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My evil plot succeeds.... :D (Lately, I wouldn't wish being me on anybody. Things are calming down, but last week's copyright chaos and the chaos of getting ready for a conference had me wandering around half confused constantly. :/) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Seems to have been resolved, but it's useful to have those discussions once in a while. Just off the top of your head, is anything in the essay also in our policy? Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not specifically. WP:C says this: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely. (See our Copyright FAQ for more on how much reformulation may be necessary as well as the distinction between summary and abridgment.)" Our copyright FAQ says a little more, but not much. It could probably use reformulation. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the WP:C reference is a good start. Probably it's the FAQ we need to expand a bit more. Although the essay can be more expansive, we should include more information in it. I may draft something and propose it. (Not that anybody will ever notice it; there's a proposal to slightly overhaul the FAQ at its talk page already, but I think hardly anybody watches that page but me. :D) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can run an image list although it'll have to wait for a few hours until I'm at my home computer to do it. Eventually I'll try to get it stable enough to put online like the contribution surveyor so anyone can run it. As to the older request, I just haven't spent a lot of time on it, but in a quick spot-check I didn't run into more copyvios, so I was reluctant to open it. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Would you have time to please assist me in sorting out this redirect? I created a redirect page here, and for some strange reason the title of the page appeared with quotation marks. Then I moved that page to the same title name without the quotation marks. The redirect page with the quotation marks however is still around. Could you maybe delete these redirect so that I can recreate a fresh redirect page without the quotation marks? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it had been deleted and then reuploaded with the same problems. :/ Given that, I've deleted immediately. Presumably if he could have addressed the problems, he would have done. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To look at the text copied from Burker's peerage to my talk page and to Talk:Anwyl of Tywyn Family in good faith by an editor (who thinks I'm victimising him - see my comments on the bottom of that page for background, thus the need for someone else to look at this and remove if necessary). I appreciate why he's done this, but is it copyvio? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the bit starting with this Doug? See A to Z of Heraldic Terms If so then i`d say that is a copyviolation. Is`nt there a way to hide such on a talk page? I recall Cla doing it for me when he was digging out sources for an article. I hatted it for now but it probably needs to be removed. mark nutley (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mark. I have revision deleted the content from your talk page, since it seems to be taken from a 1999 publication. We should do the same to the article's talk page, but permit the contributor an opportunity first to verify that it is PD or compatibly licensed. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl. On the article Catholic Church, I think the 'Barry' citation is the same one I'm familiar with, Colman J. Barry, Readings in Church History, and several other titles by him, but I couldn't find the actual book being used on that article, just his last name and page numbers. It might be that the article has been redone so many times something has been dropped. And, I was really impressed you found that error in my cites. Whoa.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG, VdT here. During the course of the rather acrimonious AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't (It's the title of a book), the self-identified author of said book, 72.234.207.192, posted large chunks of verbatim articles about himself, etc. to the discussion as evidence of his notability. I moved them to the talk page as they had taken up half the discussion page, but they probably ought to be deleted from the talk page. There's also a small chunk that he later posted to the actual discussion page. It's after the "arbitrary break" somewhere.
I would do it myself, but I'm leaving for the US tomorrow and more importantly, following these delightful messages from him on my talk page (and similar ones in the AfD), it's better if someone else deletes them. Also, the original article has now been deleted and userfied at User:Lew Loot/What Men Know that Women Don't. When it was first created, I had to remove a big chunk of copyvio from it [2]. I've explained several times to the article's creator about basic copyright issues at his talk page and at the AfD. But let's just say that there was a lot of "I didn't hear that" going on. So you (or one of your faithful minions) might want to keep that userfied page on watch. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I've deleted the talk page, but now that I know the author's views I may ask a man to keep an eye on this. Any fellows around who work copyright who can watch for extensive non-free content here? :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True that. I doubt we're going to have to deal with it long. :D But in terms of copyvio, this is a more complex matter. We're allowed to quote from non-free sources, but we can't quote extensively and we have to quote for good reasons such as those set out at WP:NFC. We can't just take somebody else's words because we like them. :) He copied whole articles into the AfD; we can't do that. If you use too much non-free content, it's not "fair use" anymore. To watch out for here are extensive quotes, it seems. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, M. Nutley is possibly more at risk than you are, Moonriddengirl. This person's M.O. is more to make personal attacks upon male editors, as you can see from the extensive (some deleted) contributions histories. This may have been a copyright and permissions issue in 2007 (see User talk:Garion96/Archive 9#Deletion copyright problem???? et seq.), but it's a behavioural one by now. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! "Wikipedia does not have 'balls,' because it is a web site, and not an animal or person." Ah, FisherQueen. :D I am a fan. That said, wow. I'm surprised he's attacking men, since his book seems very much concerned with freeing them from their shallow, unintuitive, love-crushing, war-mongering feminine overlords (overladies?) Has he no compassion for the oppressed? :/ Sorry if I lead you into conflict, Mark. I've watchlisted him too and will add some estrogen to the conversation if needed. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editors at Commons are denying me my moral rights over my images that I have uploaded at Commons. The CC license states that my moral rights are not affected by the license, and I have added a statement in the permission section of my images that makes it clear I am exerting my moral rights. I have seen my images used without any attribution to me, which the license requires, and I have decided that along with attribution it would be wise to assert my moral rights because the images are being spread around somewhat. I do not wish to loose any protections I have a right to because I have not asserted them.
The whole thing was brought to an ANI at commons, and nothing came of it. However, some editors continue to remove and deny my moral rights nonetheless, citing that the discussion had no decision so it was not decided they can't remove my moral rights. One admin that continues to remove my moral rights even blocked me on Commons because of the conflict.
(talk page stalker) Hi Xanderliptak, could you please link to the relevant pages and discussions on Commons? You can use the following link syntax: e.g. [[:commons:Main Page]] -> commons:Main page. You are correct that if you live in a country where you have moral rights by law, they cannot be removed, regardless of whether you assert them or not, but I'd like to know more about the conflict. Dcoetzee20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is on my talk page here, another here and the ANI on Commons is here.
I have found a couple of websites that have used my images without attributing me, against the CC license they are under, and if the images spread around like this I could loose some of my rights. So I added text to my images that asserts my moral rights and describing what is required with attribution. Editors are arguing against inclusion of my moral rights either on the basis that I lost them when I uploaded the images or because moral rights go against the CC because they are too restrictive. I have tried to explain and even linked to where moral rights are covered by the CC, but it seems this is simply ignored.
The ANI lead nowhere, jsut circular arguments. Some editors, despite the failed ANI, took it upon temselves to continue to remove the moral rights from my images. Justass is one of them and has blocked me for it. His argument is basically while I may have such rights, I can not assert them. [tk]XANDERLIPTAK21:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dcoetzee is probably in better position to help with this than I am, since he is an admin on Commons. Moral rights are not a major concept in US copyright law as regards text, which is the area where I am experienced. I have no idea how the Visual Artists Rights Act guarantee of "right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation" interacts with CC's right to modify or how rigid the US courts are in determining when "distortion, mutilation, or modification...prejudice[s] the author's honor or reputation" I'm afraid. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also relevant to this issue are this, Xanderliptak's attempt to delete my alteration of his original image, under spurious ground, this, a talk page discussion on Theodore Roosevelt (which is very long), which explans why I created the alteration, this, a discussion on DrKiernan's talk page on the same subject (DrKiernan is the editor who actually inserted my altered image into the TR article in place of Xanderliptak's original, which was found to have OR elements in it), this AN/I discussion, and this, in which Xanderliptak asks the same questions asked here of Xeno.
In each of these discussions, Xanderliptak displays excessive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, with overtones of WP:COMPETENCE. He is told the same thing over and over my multiple editors, and refuses to accept what they say, then misrepresents their opinions and the consensus of the discussion in subsequent discussions. The "problem" here is not anything wrong with Commons, or Wikipedia, policies or normal procedures, the problem here is Xanderliptak, who seems to believe he can ignore consensus, Creative Commons licensing and everyone and everything who disagrees with his idees fixe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop stalking me, Beyond My Ken. And this has nothing to do with you. You are upset about a content dispute from a week ago, and you do not need to bring yourself into every discussion of mine. And yeah, I asked Xeno the same question; she was the one who told me to ask Moonriddengirl. If you are still upset over the dispute, I am sorry, but it was not personal. But again, please stop following me around and harassing me. [tk]XANDERLIPTAK05:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on an issue of interest to me -- that became of interest to me through your actions -- isn't "stalking", but I will, indeed, bring to light in every discussion you raise about this issue your behavioral problems. As I said a few days ago, they have passed the point where they are disruptive.
You have been wrong straight down the board about Wikipedia policies since the beginning of this issue, and you have behaved atrociously, resulted in a 24 hour block here, and a 2 hour attention-getting block on Commons. You need to learn to accept consensus when it is brought out, and not act as if anything you think of must be correct.
The main points you refuse to accept are (1) that any embellishments to a coat of arms which are not covered by the blazon or another reliable source showing that the subject accepted and used them, are, as far as Wikipedia is concerned original research, and cannot be used here, and (2) that once you have uploaded an image to the Commons, you cannot change the conditions under which you uploaded it.
Those are pretty simple and straght-forward concepts, which have been confirmed here and there by a clear consensus. That you disagree with them is your right, but you nevertheless must accept them, and act as if they were in force. Going to admin after admin looking for someone who will tell you otherwise is not acceptable behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, consensus at Commons tells you you can't change the license retroactively (and yes, "retroactively" is the correct word), an admin undoes your changes, you revert the admins edits, so the admin give you an attention-getting "Stop now!" 2-hour block... and your response is to revert the admin's edits again -- and you have the nerve to come running to admins here trying to get one to take up your cause? Simply fucking amazing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop lying and stop harassing me. I don't know how to hack Wikipedia to change anything retroactively. You have no reason to follow my edits here and Commons becuase you are upset over a content dispute. You are harassing me, just stop it. It is creepy. [tk]XANDERLIPTAK06:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Xanderliptak: I dearly hope this is the last time I have to explain this: when you change the terms of something now that you already agreed to in the past, that is a retroactive change. It doesn't matter that you want the change to be applied only in the future, your change is retoactive, even if the terms are for this time forward. See?
in any event, it's irrelevant, because the consensus at Commons is you can't do it, and in any case the language you're trying to insert is not compatible with the license you already agreed to.
I would really, really love it if this is the last time we have to interact. I'd enjoy so much seeing you in my rear view mirror and not having to deal with you anymore, but for that to happen, you've gotta stop misbehaving! You've got to stop ignoring consensus and believing only what you want to believe, you've gotta stop edit warring, and you need to play nice with others. If you can do those things, you and I can be quits. I'm certain you'd like that, and I know I sure as hell would too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, really, what are you talking about me misbehaving? You're creepy and weird, are you trying to be my mother? Have the crap you are talking about isn't even happening, so I don't know what is wrong with you. Again, just stop it and let it go. It was just a simple discussion about heraldry, you said you don't even know anything about heraldry, so I do not know why you are making it a big deal. Stop already. [tk]XANDERLIPTAK06:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid personal attacks, especially on a third party's talk page. I understand that you're frustrated by some third parties not attributing your work properly, but the specific wording that you added to your licenses ("All adaptations [...] are permitted so long as they do not meet with disapproval of the original artist and do not defame, demean or in any other manner reflect negatively upon the original author or his work") does not accurately reflect your legal rights. Moral rights typically protect a work from modifications that are "prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation," and this does not extend to any use that meets your disapproval, which could be any use at all; whether a use constitutes a violation of moral rights is a matter for the courts to decide based on a variety of factors.
There are additional reasons that we don't, as a matter of convention, include these details in the template. The default wording of the CC license template is carefully written to briefly summarize its terms in all nations, with a link to the full text for more details, and leaves out a number of important exceptions and details; reusers are expected to click the link to learn their full obligations (the template is not itself a license or contract). Additionally, although various forms of moral rights exist in many nations, the precise rights that they give the author vary from place to place; characterizing them accurately would require knowing the nation of the author.
If it's important to you that the license reflect your moral rights, I recommend you (with the help of a user familiar with IP law) create a new CC-BY-SA template for your particular nation that briefly summarizes the author's moral rights, and then request feedback on it before using it.
However, for what it's worth, I don't believe this would be effective in encouraging reusers to credit you correctly; the template is already quite clear about attribution. There are other effective tactics for this, such as including a "credit line" in your description that reusers can easily copy and paste, directly contacting the publishers who used your image without permission, or if all else fails, issuing a takedown notice to those noncompliant publishers. Dcoetzee09:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users are expected to read the licensing, but in the cases where they do not attribute me it is clear they did not. When I am attributed, it makes it a bit easier to find the images on websites, and I can see if the images are being used correctly. Where they do not attribute me, I can not find them, and then I do not know if they are used in some offensive way. If I come across them, for people who don't care enough to read a license agreement, I don't want to have to get into implied moral rights, I rather much just point and say "see, you can't do that, you should have read this closer". It is all academic, I have no instance where anything was used negatively, but because I do illustrate national arms from time to time, the fear that such a thing could occur is in the back of my mind. I am on Commons now trying to find a compromise to the wording so people do not mistake it for restriction but as a claim on moral rights. [tk]XANDERLIPTAK18:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you're frustrated by some third parties not attributing your work properly,
I'm sorry to correct you, but there is no issue whatsoever about failure to attribute properly. The image at the core of this issue is this one, in which Xanderliptak's name remains in the very name of the image, and in which I copied verbatimall the information from Xanderliptak's original image. In addition, my own information summary credited him, by name, as the author of the image, with my name appended as having altered it. All provisions of the Creative Commons license were adhered to, and then some. The problem is not with my attribution, the problem is that Xanderliptak didn't like the change I made – which I did as a result of a consensus finding that part of his original image was original research not supported by the reference he provided – and wants to control any future alterations, which is (as you say) beyond the scope of his rights under the license. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, this has nothing to do with you, stop making it about you. You need to get over the argument, it's been a week. I don't care about your changes, you only increased the brightness. How many times do I have to tell you that? [tk]XANDERLIPTAK18:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, it has nothing to do with me or my behavior – which is why your filing a complaint about me on AN/I was so silly and absurd – it has to do with you and your behavior, your misrepresentations, your attempt to change your upload license after the fact, your repeated refusal to acknowledge a clear consensus, your editwarring and your inability to follow (or perhaps even understand) the rules and policies of Wikipedia and the Commons.
Hi, given that you are familiar with the situation, I think we need some "Admin attention" on Mary (mother of Jesus) and Catholic views on Mary in view of merge proposal that is generating secondary effects. I am not sure where the best place for posting is, but if you cannot handle it yourself, could you arrange for some attention to the issues, to avoid reverts, etc. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I may not be quite as familiar with the situation as you think. :/ I know the basics of the dispute, but have not really read either article which goes into nuances that are well beyond me. I see that Catholic views on Mary is currently up for AfD, and I know from your note at Malke's page that you believe the creation of the new article was disruptive. (As a non-Catholic, I will admit that there seem to me to be quite a lot of articles on the same subject, and I'm totally confused as to the proliferation of articles on different perspectives of one person, but I don't know if there is sufficient material to warrant them.) Mary (mother of Jesus) has seen a lot of activity today, but if there is something specifically disruptive about it, please point it out. Especially as the day goes on, I have less time to dig, and it would be very helpful. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry to take up your time. I guess this whole thing is one big nightmare from a distance. In any case that new page is an Afd now, since someone else also thought it was "making a point", so that will set the course for it. I did not do the Afd to see if anyone else thought it was a "pointy" page, but that has now happened, so we can just let it progress. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to giving you my time. :) It's just that you're up close and in personal with this, and hence you're in a good position to point out specific things that disturb you. I'd like to see these issues resolved politely and in good Wiki spirit. They're just very much outside my scope. If you can show me the problems, I might be able to help resolve them. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I can't. It was a copyvio. :( I can resurrect the non-creative elements for you, but copied content was there from its foundation; there were only two sentences that are not duplicated here. For what it's worth, if you look at the last two paragraphs of that archive, you're looking at our article aside from a lead sentence and an unsourced note about where he lives now. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it, except for those couple of words. But I see that an IP added some content in March 2008 that had already been removed before I got there as promotional. I can dig that up for you, if you'd like along with the links and whatnot that have been used. It might make a base for new expansion. Do you want it? :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the former, I'm kind of shocked that Commons users are granting any "exception to our copyright policy", which I think contravenes Foundation resolution. Anyway, that deletion debate could close at any point...near or far. :) Commons is slow about such things. I'll get on to your second question now. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've spent some time poking at her uploads, and here's what I would do: I would give her another week to come back to Wikipedia and answer your questions. If she does not return or if she returns and does not resolve your concerns, I would trot the images off to WP:PUF for the community to review. I think your concerns are valid, though she may be able to resolve them. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Moonriddengirl. I am in about the same position as you, the shamir pic, I removed it as I had doubts , the claim was that the account was the subject, something there is absolutely no confirmation of, that pic is on multiple wikis and I was also thinking, if a pic is widely published for long enough without objections does that weaken any claims to copyright? (2)I will give the user more time, she may be able to resolve the issue and they are low quality and I have looked around the web and found little to dispute from that, I was thinking they were screen grabs from videos and suchlike, it is strange there is no metadata as when I take a pic and upload it, there is always metadata. I'll give them a couple of weeks to comment. Off2riorob (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Darell Hammond
On 9 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Darell Hammond, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I think it's well within the spirit of fair use, but, at 760 words, that's a bit long for me. :D You never know how a court would go. I sometimes have to quote long to demonstrate copying, and I sometimes collapse the content to at least minimize display (never quoted quite that long). An alternative is to truncate it and link to the longer version in history...kind of a sneaky way to not have your cake and eat it, too (to misappropriate the phrase). If you take either route, it would be a good idea to remove the content or link when the conversation goes stale. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created and helped to populate this page with accurate information, properly sourced from government webpages...
We are currently in the middle of an election in winnipeg, and while I understand that wikipedia is not a means of campaigning, the public should be able to read accurate biographical information about councillor nordman.
Why has this page been marked as a copyright violation?
(talk page stalker) It was marked as a copyright violation because the content was copied without any evidence of permission from the copyright holder. The fact that the information is distributed freely elsewhere does not allow it to be copied here. The fact that it is from a government webpage also does not make it copyright free, see Crown copyright#Canada. Accurate and properly sourced information is of course allowed, but creative content can not be copied from elsewhere, it must be written entirely in your own words. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Verno. On October 1, the page was marked with a template that explained the situation and how to address copyright concerns. Rather than address copyright concerns as directed, somebody chose to remove the template. The same person removed an older note about the copyright problem from the talk page. Since no permission was provided and no clean content was proposed, the article has been reverted to an earlier clean version. Directions for verifying copyright permission are now on the talk page of the article. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you undelete this article or userfy it to the last creator's subpage or something for me? We've gotten OTRS permission (so that covers the most recent reason for deletion) but the most recent deleting admin won't restore it because it's in such rough shape, and I need to be able to tell the copyright holders something. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's now at User:Paddym293/Paddy Monaghan. I'd advise him that he'll need to do additional work before putting it in article space. I'd usually suggest he go to WP:COIN to ask for feedback or WP:DRAW. I used to be pretty much the sole contributor offering feedback there. I ran away a while back when I found somebody to take it off my hands. Now it looks like poor User:Graeme Bartlett is the sole guardian. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, got an article here that needs some RevDel work. This is the article: Ramón Hoyos. I reverted it back to DD's first version which contained his standard boiler plate text. Everything from at least his fourth version (where it gains that second big paragraph) to the version where Uncle G's workbot comes in should probably be revdeled since its almost certainly copyvio. If there is another page where I should put this sort of request feel free to direct me to it. Thanks, --*Kat* (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG, if you have a look at the history of 2010 Commonwealth Games medal table, you'll notice a section copyvio was introduced a few days ago and existed for about 15 edits before I caught it. I'm assuming these can't be RD1'd because of the additional positive changes in those edits? Can the four edits which introduced the copyvios (but before anyone else edited the page) be RD1'd? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They can be RD1'd. We're required to maintain a list of authors under CC-By-SA, and the history does that even when the individual contributions are obscured. Even better, in this article, there's nothing that requires attribution in the retained content ([3]). All non-creative. :) I've done the mop up. Thanks for catching it before it went too far! --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FUR's
I've started going through the Richard Norton CCI, and I had a question regarding FUR's. Allot of the uploaded images have FUR's that are four, five or six words long. I don't think they count as 'detailed fair use rationales' and don't really know what action to take. I don't really think that {{Short-Rationale}} is appt. because there is virtually no rationale at all, but maybe I'm wrong. Thanks in advance for your help :) Acather96 (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I very much appreciate that. :) I've been sorting them into the ones I thought needed additional review by those more familiar with the nuances of NFC than me. I'm particularly lost on the question of when we can use images of people. I frequently see images of dead people in articles, but I put a FUR on an image once of a dead man that was deleted at FfD (then IfD) as decorative by some admins I respect. I've asked for clarification at NFC several times, but I never get it. I think probably because there isn't a really consistent rule, but maybe I'm just missing it. :)
I've got five sections left to go on Wikipedia for sorting; I'll try to do that more quickly to save you some time since many of these are clearly PD. I've got a big RL job coming in on Monday, though, so I'm going to have tight time on Wikipedia probably until Wednesday. (Tuesday afternoon if I work fast!) In terms of your actual question, Richard is watching the CCI and is very responsive. I would think {{Short-Rationale}} might be very effective, but in courtesy I would only add the tag to a couple of images at a time. (He's putting in a good faith effort to clean up issues, and we don't want to overwhelm him.) Note that you've done so at the CCI, and he's very likely to address the concerns in short order. With the first one you list at the CCI, it's probably a good idea to explain in a bit of detail what's needed either at the CCI or at his talk page. If he doesn't fix them, then we can figure out what other action would be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A copyvio issue recently cropped up on World Vegetable Center, an article I am affiliated with through my rescuing of it at AfD. I attempted to fix said copyvio here (Ignore my rationale saying COI, it was late, I was tired, and I couldn't fix it afterwards), by making sure to get rid of the infringing info from the PDF and main website. However, the user who originally put up the copyvio template informed me here that i'm not allowed to remove a copyvio template myself, that an admin or OTRS agent must do so. Therefore, i've come to you, as a member of both, and being the super-awesome person at dealing with copyvios that you are. Can you just look over the changes I made, you really just need to compare it to the PDF to make sure there's no more copied info, and reinstate them if you think i've taken care of any copyvio issues? SilverserenC16:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good start, and it's not far off. But when we start with a copyvio, rewriting needs to be particularly thorough. The problem with incrementally fixing copyvios is that if you don't rewrite from scratch, you're at greater risk of creating a derivative work. There's the risk of missing material. The third sentence ("Headquartered in Tawain...") is duplicated from the pdf. And revising sentence by sentence retains the basic structure of the original. Ideally, we'd rework this in the temporary space as if writing from scratch, drawing on the facts but not necessarily the structure originally presented.
Hi Moonriddengirl, apparently History2007 isn't content to let the AfD proceed and he's now initiating a merge proposal. His usual supporters are on the talk page of Catholic views on Mary along with the editor who nominated this article for AfD. This seems disruptive to me as it is confusing the process. Can it be simultaneously merged and deleted? Shouldn't the process of the AfD be allowed to continue first, and also, there's been no time to even work on the article since it's just new. Any suggestions that will bring quiet over there? Malke 2010 (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the secondary discussion and have already addressed it at the AfD. I believe that a merge discussion at this point is unhelpful; if the AfD closes as "keep", then it might be appropriate. However, I'd suggest avoiding language like "his usual supporters", which would seem to suggest that they are not voicing their true opinions but simply backing his. (I would be equally uncomfortable if somebody used that language re: Xanderliptak's !vote to "keep" the article.) I would, by the way, strongly suggest that you consider explaining why you believe the article should be retained, if you do. Early responders to the AfD are not likely to see and be persuaded by any reasons you present at the 11th hour. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question - about the picture File:PwCLondon.jpg on the PwC page, I think that it is probably a copyright picture, and I think it is stretching WP:FUP to say that it can be used on this page, I have tagged the picture on commons but it is still there 10 days later - is there anything else I should be doing ?
Commons is a bit leisurely. :) I suspect they haven't gotten around to it. I've found the original image and tagged it for speedy deletion, so I suspect it will get on its way soon. Blatant copyvios are generally prioritized. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome aboard! :D There are special challenges when looking at tables and lists in determining when copying is okay and when it's not. If the information is basic and what you might expect anyone to add to such a chart, it's probably not creative, and our use of it is not likely to be a copyright concern. I think that list is probably okay, because we don't have all the information they have (information on customs and runway is missing) and because the information we do have seems basic and uncreative. Fortunately for us, the US law that governs us doesn't recognize sweat of the brow, so their labor in compiling the information doesn't factor in.
If the list were creative, we might be able to address copying concerns by adding or removing information (in this case, for instance, by removing the info on runways and customs if it were there) or by reorganizing basic information into our own structure.
I really appreciate your willingness to pitch in. We can use all the help we can get, and you are more than welcome to come by with any questions you might have. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to remind your acolytes that about Public Domain, and to give a few seconds thought before accusing people of copyright violation [4]. Sincerely, cygnis insignis15:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stripped all potential copyvio out of the article on Kayla Sharland. I'm honestly unsure if this was the right thing to do because what is left is present in DD's first version...along with some of the potential copyvio (which was probably pulled from a media guide).--*Kat* (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just did the same thing with Phillip Tahmindjis. This time I was able to find where DD pulled his prose from. The URL is in my edit summary. If I am doing the right thing then RevDel will be needed for the preceding edits. And if I'm not then RevDel will be needed for ALL the edits. lol --*Kat* (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid computer crashes. :/ My response disappeared into the ether. What you did is just fine. Thanks. :) The one suggestion I would make when the material is a little lengthier, as with Sharland's article, is to rearrange a little bit. You can see what I did here. When information is both brief and basic, rearranging what's left is probably sufficient to eliminate copyright concerns. With longer or more creative runs of text, you can't really do that without risking creating a derivative work. I've rev deleted the earlier edits and, again, you rock with your persistence. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CorenSearchBot
Hi there. Would you have time to please check why CorenSearchBot sparked this error here? The Bot compared the title of an article I had just created and apparently found a copyright violation here. When you click on that link, you'll see that the site has the same title as the title of the Wikipedia article. Any ideas what's to be done here?
Lastly, when I use short quotations from newspaper articles in wikipedia articles (e.g. here, the quote is in italics & quoation marks), is that acceptable or is this already considered copyright violation? Regards Amsaim (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) That's a pretty odd error, I think it just matched because your article was so short, but I'm running a backup copy of the CorenSearchBot code and it didn't find a match for that article, so I can't really be sure. Really the only thing to do is remove the tag and say it's a false positive in the edit summary - an editor will be along to double-check the tagging anyways. Judicious use of brief, clearly marked quotes such as the one you used there are perfectly acceptable. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to do the fancy star thing yet, but if I could, I would give you a star for both keeping a look out for me and helping me with an edit. Thanks! -Ludasaphire (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello... Thank you for watching over this matter. It seems that the other photo here was actually of something else, and that there was confusion. Upon further and more careful research and analysis......as you and others have done. But it seems that this here, as you pointed out, is the correct image of said "Arius." I was hoping though that maybe you can somehow (with your expertise) bring about that image onto Wikipedia, and onto the Arius article. Since it is the more accurate image. The Arius article is a good one, and it is a shame in a way that there's no intro image of the subject in question. At present, the beginning of the article looks a little too plain. With no image on the top area. I was wondering if maybe you could so something... Much appreciated. And thank you for your attention to this. 68.237.240.68 (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
