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 12:59, 1 July 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Hi. :) Here's where we hit a gray area in non-free content guideline and policy that I must admit I find confusing: pictures of dead people. Non-free pictures of living people are not allowed (except in some circumstances; for instance, we evidently can't have a non-free picture of a living actor in his own article, but we can have a non-free picture of a living actor in article about a character he's played), but non-free pictures of dead people frequently are. The rationale, evidently, is that images of living people are replaceable, because we can always find somebody to take a new picture. I have seen non-free images of dead people deleted under the argument that we can find existing free pictures of them as well, but by and large there seems to be wide consensus that if the person is dead (and the photo does not belong to a Press Agency), a low-res image is okay. I myself stay clear of this. I've had one image of a deceased person for which I wrote a FUR deleted at WP:Ffd (back when it was still IfD) and another retained in the same time period. So far as I could see, there were no significant differences between their usages. Complicating things here a bit, that seems to be a painting rather than a photograph. Generally, we use paintings only for critical commentary about the paintings, I believe. User:VernoWhitney, I think you handle non-free image issues far more than I do; do you have any sense where the community would stand on using a painted portrait of a dead person? --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off the cuff I'd say it should be allowable, since from what I can tell still being used to identify the person (as a photograph would) and not for some other purpose (such as using a magazine cover which had the person's picture on it). It would obviously have to be much lower resolution, but it should be okay (again, just my opinion). VernoWhitney (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is great information Moonie and Vero! Now I have a followup question: How do I write up the rationale? Is there an example that I could crib from? Thanks! — SpikeToronto03:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Verno for your quick answer! I took a look at the {{Non-free use rationale}} at File:JD Salinger.jpg. It is a great exemplar. Unfortunately, I do not have that level of detail for this image. I do not know who created it, when it was created, etc. I understand it to be hanging at Hatfield College along with portraits of each of the masters of the college. I assume the copyright would be held by the college. I cannot find this image anywhere else but on the college’s website, and there is no information given about the image. It is also the only image I have been able to find of him. Any suggestions? Thanks! — SpikeToronto19:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't really have to worry too much about the information you don't have, just make sure to include all of the information you do have - I have a similar situation for one of the images I've uploaded at File:Charles-Amable Lenoir.jpg where I have absolutely no information about the original source so my FUR is about as barebones as it gets. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free; make yourself at home. :D I'm sorry I missed this conversation up here, but I suspect that Verno is better all around at image matters than I. I've really not done that much with them. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I know that doesn't really matter for this kind of situation. I like to think that the "historic images" tag should be reserved for cases where the image is actually old or itself of import (as opposed to the subject of the painting/photo being the notable part), but I've seen it both ways and if there's a firm statement somewhere I'm unaware of it. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're probably right and that it's a reverse infringement. The major sources are archived here and here. It looks like the first source was the primary one; you can follow along with the paraphrase fairly well. See the paragraph beginning, "In Canada, Conde was thrown...." The language has changed substantially, but that follows point for point in the article: "Her early years as an immigrant were tough; "I was constantly picked on because I couldn't speak English and was very small". Conde proved up to the challenge, never failing a grade, and is now bilingual, speaking both her native Spanish and adopted English."
The tone is all wrong, but I don't think there's a copyvio of that source. It would probably be a good occasion for {{backwardscopy}}. Since you found it, I'll leave it to you to place if you'd like, but I'll be happy to do it otherwise. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a new template to me. Thanks for the tip. I've added to the article. Would appreciate your eyes on it to ensure that I've handled it correctly.--Plad2 (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course. Another memo to self to make sure I have read every word in the instructions and not to do things in a hurry. Thanks for putting that right.--Plad2 (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Music - notations?
What do you think? File:AIM Song repeated motif.png - copyright or not? The music itself might be PD but this is not a sample of the actual music. And the uploader did not upload any other music notations or transcriptions so it is hard to tell if this is really their own work or not. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do find some odd ones. :) Well, let's see. If the music is PD, the uploader would have the right to transcribe it, and I don't know if the uploader transcribed it or copied it from somewhere else. There's software that permit making some pretty professional looking music. I don't know if they retain copyright to their output or if there are any free. (I wanted to make a flow chart utilizing tools in Microsoft Word recently, but realized I couldn't when I noticed that it was licensed for non-com only.) If the music is not PD, then the brief snippet would probably be permitted under WP:NFC if it otherwise meets criteria. It's used for critical analysis, so that's good. It's not sourced, so that's not. If the transcript belongs to somebody else, I don't think we can use it. The uploader seems to be still active, though infrequent. He was here last month. Unless you find another source, maybe this would be a good occasion to ask him. The poor guy has never had a personal word on Wikipedia, even though he's been contributing here a couple of times a year since 2007. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears from this blog discussion (yes, I know...) that its origins are at best cloudy. The best attribution is to someone who says he didn't create it. In any case its use at powwows is clearly widely known and has not been challenged by the author. It's what can best be called "anonymous". A transcription of a folk tune is a non-creative process that could even be done algorithmically. The song was known by that name at Wounded Knee and is so described in this news article of the time (April 1973). LeadSongDogcome howl!19:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blog discussions may not be reliable, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. :D Good sleuthing. I've never heard the tune, but the creativity of the transcript would depend on the degree of creative interpretation, similar to the translation of a foreign language work into English. If the transcript is devoid of creativity to the point that it could be created mechanically, then I'd agree that copyright is unlikely to be a concern. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The usual thanks for being a great editor
Thanks. You rock. As you have for quite some time on wikipedia. When I have more time I'll figure out how to do the requests properly, but that was such a monster! vio! and I'm desperately categorizing algae the few minutes I have. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copying material from one Wikipedia article to another
Moonriddengirl, I believe that according to copyright law, editors need to attribute material copied from one Wikipedia article to another in the edit summary and/or talk page. Are you aware of any policies and/or guidelines that are telling our editors to do so, and how to do it? I can't find a reference to that scenario in WP:Copyrights; if it is a legal requirement, I think it should have a prominent section somewhere.
If I'm just daft and have failed to spot it, please let me know where it is, for future reference. If it isn't me, and we don't address it specifically, I propose we add a corresponding section to WP:Copyrights. Thanks! --JN46618:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised that this page has been deleted, despite - as I recall from my last edit to it - it containing much more material than could have been copied from [1]. This is an exceptionally notable DJ duo, and I find it rather incredible that the page was deleted in its entirety. I would note that in crecent weeks there seemed to be a concerned effort by IP editors to pare the page down, as well as others related to it. Was the page history checked to see when the copyvio text was added? Nick Cooper (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Yes, the history was checked and archives of the source pages were compared to ensure that it was not a backwards copy, as does sometimes happen. I looked at this 2005 version of the external source. The copyright violation was foundational, I'm afraid. I suspect from small differences that what was actually copied was a different promotional source. At the article's creation, for instance, it said this:
Their production and remix work has spanned the last 10 years under various guises, such as Hyperlogic, Untidy Dubs, Tidy Boys and many more. The weekend sees the boys hitting clubs both in the U.K and oversees as they join their a-list friends behind the decks.
(Compare to the previously published website: "With all this going on it's hard to imagine the boys find time to continue their production work which has spanned the last 10 years under various guises, such as Hyperlogic, Untidy Dubs, Tidy Boys and many more.")
Much of the content is exactly the same, however. The article had been edited many times, but the bulk of the text is little changed. The article had six paragraphs when deleted, as compared to the five at the source. Two of the briefer paragraphs were not copied.
The article was blanked for over two weeks to give contributors an opportunity to verify permission for the text or rewrite it, but unfortunately there were no takers in that time. If you want to work on the article, I'll gladly userfy the non-creative elements for you. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure if the page was in my watch list, but I missed it being blanked, as I've been quite busy later. I do think it unfortunate that this happened, as they are a very notable duo in their field, and as I said, there did seem to be a questionable pattern of editing by IPs a few weeks/months ago. I would like to re-start the page, if the non-contentius material can be made available. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I responded to the OTRS request at Ticket:2010102010000718 before I noticed your note there. Sorry. On balance I believe it's better not to take the risk, but feel free to undo my deletion if you do think this is likely a reverse copyvio. Sandstein 21:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked at Sandstein's page, but you appear to have missed it so I'll ask here: where/when was this article listed at CP before the 20th? It's not in any of the backlinks to the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moonriddengirl, Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi and thanks for your message. Have looked at the site where I obtained the image and it has been removed. It is therefore perfectly possible that the image is not Ivan Moffat so I would support its being removed. Thanks Jack1956 (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooodles of non-free image uploads
Vadjihoudine has been warned several times by me and by a bot that his non-free uploads, without any info, are inappropriate. I gave him a final warning and reported him to AIV but was not sure that is the best place. Can you look? TIA ww2censor (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better to catch these ones early rather than let the work fester and they think what they are doing has no consequences. Again thanks. ww2censor (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Scania N113
User:Scania N113 has left an "odd" message (basically a threat and personal attack) on User:Dave1185's talk page, per this diff. I can't find any actvity by Dave on Scania or any of the users he mentioned in the last few days, , and Scania has made only one edit since Aug 31 before posting this message, so this appears to be some sort of trolling. I've removed the comments from Dave's talk page, and warned the user, but since you've been active on Scania's talk page in the past, I wanted to inform you of the activity. Thanks. (PS, a check-user on all the listed accounts might be informative, just in case.) - BilCat (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article written back in 2005 (Copyright or plagerism problem?)
Hi Moonriddengirl, there is a RFC going on at the talk page of the article Paul Bern. The discussion isn't the problem though the article is. The article was written for the most part I believe in 2005, at least that's when the article was started. The article needs references so I was doing a search and came to this. As I was reading this source to see if it would be useful I felt like I was reading our article so I compared. The article looks close to a copy/paste of this source minus a few changes here and there. I brought up my concerns at the talk page but there are only two active editors there which was the cause of the RFC. I got there due to seeing it at WT:Actor and the other two who commented after me got there by a comment I made at my talk page asking my lurkers to please check out the RFC and give an opinion on it. Now, I think I've gotten better at seeing plagerism and copyright problems but this time it jumped out at me. I still feel I need your opinion on what I am seeing and if I am seeing it correctly. Then, if I am, I don't know what to do with what I found if I am correct. I sure would appreciate it again if you would take your precious time to check this out for me. This shouldn't take long at all to check out since the article is real small and you can decide in the beginning of the article, not the lead part so much as the first paragraph or two Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk17:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good news with this one! TripAtlas is a Wikipedia mirror, so they've copied it from us. I run into them often in copyright cleanup. :) They do give us credit, albeit tucked away pretty well. Down under where it says "external links", they say (in small letters): " This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source." I appreciate you checking into this! As you know, I value copyright cleanup, and it relies on people being aware of potential issues. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reason to believe that this user is a sock of this user which is a sock of someone who has been socking and bypassing indef blocks since early this year (sock archive). They're editing the same articles (Kate Plus 8, 19 Kids and Counting, Law and Order: SVU, and Smallville; all focuses of the previous socks (if they add Murder She Wrote and 7th Heaven, they'll have covered all their bases)) and have already made the exact edit the most recent sock made as their very last edit before being indef blocked (here and here). It looks like a pretty clear cut duck to me, but I'm always very hesitant to go forward in case I'm wrong. Could you please give me some advice on what to do? --13220:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's very strong quacking, and another piece of evidence to consider: the IP block on 174.91.240.0/20 expired two days ago. I don't do that much with socking, but I would think it would be a good idea to reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TH43/Archive. If there's no collateral damage, given the persistence of this user, blocking the IP again might be a good idea. The reappearance of this sock two days after the IP block expired suggests a stable IP range. If we block the main account, we get another sock 24 hours later when the autoblock expires. (Checkuser can't confirm what IP is used, but they can locate and block the IP range if needed.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've only made one sock report ever that I can think of and it's been so long that I forgot how to do it (would I just open up a new case and link to the archive?). Also, should I have it listed under needing Checkuser? --13221:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have limited experience with that, too. :) I believe when you open the new case, it automatically connects to the archive. And, yes, list it under needing Checkuser, explaining that a range block seemed effective the previous time and that a block of the underlying IP or range may be needed again. Do be sure to point out that the last IP range block expired just days ago! --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you could file it, I'd be very grateful. The whole thing just confuses me. Before, Redfarmer was filing them, but he went into semi-retirement, so I don't know if he'd even see a message if I left one for him, let alone file it if he wasn't in the mood. Thanks! :) --13222:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on your editorial and thanks for teaching me new things
Hi Moonriddengirl,
congratulations on the new editorial in the Signpost. As with your previous editorial, I have learnt new things. While it now stints my writing style till these new skills become second nature, I am grateful to have learnt it albeit at a late stage. This of course forces me to raise my English skills to a higher level. I consider this learning, painful though it is, as a reward for my contributions to Wikipedia and I thank you as the agency through which I recieve this gratification.
Hmm. That's a tough one. If her blog meets WP:SELFPUB, reference to it is not a problem under WP:BLP, but unless that particular entry is notable, then drawing attention to it is undue and is a problem under BLP. (Likewise, if there is no doubt of the provenance of [2], then its usage in the manner it is currently included is no issue.) The overwhelming question, then, would be whether the blog and the withdrawn invitation are notable enough for inclusion. Has this been picked up in media? Wikipedia is "not news", of course, and we can wait to see whether this is a flash in the pan or an event of sufficient significance to warrant reference in her biography. "Do no harm" is an important consideration in BLPs. I am myself conservative with respect to them, but if I were involved here what I would do is open a section at WP:BLPN and seek assistance forming consensus from the volunteers there as to how this should be handled. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG,
I was just going through the talk stalk report. Below is a partial list of articles that have had copyvio removed but have not had any revisions deleted.
Bruce Tulloh -- the first three or four edits, including Darius's original. The person who removed the copyvio noted that he had done so in his edit summary.
Brian Hewson -- everything from DD's third edit up to the most recent edit by SFB.
Cathy Sulinski -- everything from first version to SFB's most edit (only a few, so not so bad).
Another issue
AGradman said that he "remedied copyvio" in the Canada Cup (soccer) article. But what he really did was reword it. I don't know if he really found copyvio or if he was just playing it safe. Currently he's on an extended Wikibreak so, short of emailing him, there's no way to find out. I'm dedicated but not interested in emailing him.
I am, thanks. :) Hope you are, too. I have revdeleted all of the above, including the Canada Cup (soccer) article. If there had been copying, giving the minimal material, it should be okay now. Removing the history hurts nothing and is supported by what we know of Darius. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG, I'm back again looking for your advice! Do you remember an issue from last March with the DSM? I presume the procedure for blatant copy-pastes is still just to remove them, as usual, but I wanted to check whether any further developments had come out of that case. Thanks, --BelovedFreak07:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! And, oh, do I remember that! :/ Yes, that's still the procedure. No new directions have been handed down from on high, so we still have to treat it like regular copied text. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
stripping to what does not seem to be copied. The parent organization is notable; is the Junior?
I doubt it.
I think it is adequately covered on IOOF, or if it's not, it could/should be.
Ditto, the girl's org. (Theta rho??) [I now can't look it up because you've deleted everything! BTW: I'm not complaining, just making an observation.]
Does that agree with your assessment of the situation? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see anything retainable for the girls. :) Yes, it completely agrees with my assessment. If it weren't for the fact that I usually try to keep my copyright hat separate from my editor hat, I would have turned the article into a redirect to the parent. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually speaking of the boys' org. :) When there's no salvageable content, copyvios are routinely deleted, though there's nothing to prevent a new redirect being created under the girls' title. As far as the boys' title, the creator might feel that I am using my admin status in resolving the copyvio to push the usable content away, so I'll leave that for other contributors. You can feel free to redirect it, if you find it appropriate. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chortle. No, not really: LOL!
There's some relevant Monty Python quote about red rags and bulls, but I can't remember it.
Appreciate your revising and condensing the article.But, you have removed lot of information which were available in the previous artcle like the names of music composers and the female playback singers with whom he worked with.These are probably not even complete, but leads you to find out information on the other artistes as well..These are historical facts which also connects to lot of other artistes involved.It was interesting and does not seem like a fan's jabbering.The introduction at the top referring to his old songs was meaningful.The blog is in Telugu, but main thing is that it guides you through to his first songs in Telugu for HMV, his first Tamil song, his first Hindi song, etc.We all do not read all the references at the bottom, but drawing attention to this was a good and it was a treat.I note that the nunmber of visits are steadily increasing going beyond 100 visits during the last few days.
I think you have been too severe in editing by chopping off lot of information, some of which reveals his character, the good points and the bad points about him.
I thought I'd bring this to you, as you're always very impartial and helpful. The usual places don't work, so I'm asking for a personal review. I'm having a problem with a user. Everything ends up looking like content issues, but it's not. First off, can you look on my talk page and tell me if that's a personal attack. I have tried to reason with the user in the past, but the user only replies when it's something positive and nothing contesting an edit. I'm trying really hard to keep pages notable. I added a ratings section recently to the 90210 (season 3) page, with information on repeats too, if you tell his edit summary saying "nobody cares," I find that rude. I don't care much for repeats, but any extra information, reliably sourced, is allowed? The user in the past has been a constant ratings inflater, but gets away with it. Removes information from pages based on personal opinion. All I need to know is if I have a case here. Here is the user's talk page, Here's the most recent edit summary made by the user on 90210 (season 3), My talk page. I don't know what else I can dig out, but I don't think the user knows how to be friendly when his "opinion" is challenged. All my warnings go deleted, nice comments unanswered. I don't know what to do. Jayy008 (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"act like a normal person for once" is the comment I'm particularly referring too. I'm really sorry to burden you with this, but I feel like I'm going mad. Jayy008 (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is beyond the pale: "if you add it back without consulting me first, you will be reported." The tone of his communications are indeed problematic under WP:WQ, telling you to "act like a normal person for once" is inappropriate. At this point, I think you have two options for the content dispute part of things. First, you could start at the top of dispute resolution, probably with WP:3O. If you haven't ever requested a 3O before, please be sure to read the instructions and follow them carefully. If you aren't neutral in your request, it may be removed without assistance. It might be even more beneficial to request feedback on whether repeat ratings belong under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television) at the talk page for the guideline. (I would notify of that conversation at the talk page of the project and at the talk pages of each article involved.) For the tone of the conversation, you may wish to request feedback at WP:WQA. Keep in mind that the goal here is to bring communication in line with community standards. Include diffs of the problems and be aware that your own conversations with him will be equally scrutinized, so be sure you're comfortable discussing your own behavior, too. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two, out of three, sentences were copied. Given the overall context, here, I recommend removing the prose and starting from scratch. Uncle G (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darius's original version of this article is a word for word copy of the first paragraph of his source. None his original text was removed, per say, but it was expanded, referenced, revised and reworded until it looked nothing like the original.
Thanks for the link, Uncle G. :) That's a tricky question, *Kat*. Technically, expanding, referencing, revising and rewording incrementally does create a derivative work. Whether it's an actionable derivative work (violating copyright) depends on whether it includes "substantial similarity" to the original. The answer to that, in this case, depends on which version in the history we reference. While I have seen dissenting opinions here, the traditional practice on Wikipedia seems to be to focus more on the end product except when the original has been marked as a copyright problem. In those cases, I've seen a number of admins and editors who focus more on the requirement of rewriting from scratch (as do I). In my case, this is because once a work has been brought to our attention as a copyright problem, due diligence requires that we take no chances with the replacement, or we stand the risk of knowingly contributing to infringement. The contributors who incrementally rewrote this content were presumably unaware of potential copyright issues with the text. If the final revision does not constitute a copyright problem in itself, I personally would focus on the end product here and do our revision deletion to guard against inadvertent restoration of the content. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I appreciate your comments.But, wikipaedia is an encyclopaedia and should be more informative.It is good to know the famous films he sang for,
the music directors he worked with and the famous female playback singers he sang with.I for one, far removed from the fifties and sixties , did not so far have much knowlede.
May be this information must be formated in a differnt way.
Information on the films he sang for and the singers he sang with is present in the table in his discography. If content is missing, it can be easily added there (including noting the directors who worked on those projects.) If work with any of his collaborators has merited special attention in the press, it may be appropriate to include a referenced discussion of his work with that particular collaborator, although it does need to be kept neutral and verifiable. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MG, I decided to start checking this article also. I found that in the section "History", the first rather long sentence and paragraphs 4 and 5 (all but the last half a sentence) are copied verbatim from [5]. I also think that some of the rest of it is copied from [6]. Invertzoo (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) In the case of the former source, they've copied from us. If it had been the other way around, we could have dealt with that through attribution, since that Wiki is compatibly licensed. In this case, they've taken our content without credit. I've left a note about it there. (Not the first time I've registered at a website just to note licensing violations!) The other one may be a reverse infringement; it's not uncommon to see commercial sites that take text from Wikipedia without credit rather than developing their own. Since you've already compared the documents, can you point out some problematic text so that I can verify that? It'll save me the time of reading through both of them. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that knowing copyrights is actually essential, then there needs to be a serious talk where every admin who's granting it to editors without checking if they have a history of copyvios can be straigtened out. The topic has come up before and there was no interest from...well, anyone. There's also a reluctance to remove reviewer once granted even when violations have been pointed out; I seem to remember a discussion saying that there had to actually be documented abuse of this right to remove it but I couldn't tell you where at the moment. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since one of the things they're supposed to be looking for is copyvios, I think it's pretty essential. :) I have no such reluctance; I've just done that myself and have already opened a discussion about it at the pending changes talk page. I'd be shocked if anybody contested that action, as I think it would be pretty hard to demonstrate how it benefits the project to permit them to continue in that capacity. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That's a slightly different issue. :/ In this case (where I removed the right), the contributor's copyvios postdated the granting of right. If there are any subsequent problems, I wouldn't hesitate, but unless there are documented ongoing issues from after the granting of the right, I think it would not be uncontroversial. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When the content is free, there isn't one. :) In that case, doing even a complete paste is all right as long as full attribution is offered, and I see that the attribution template at the bottom of the article complies with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. (We have run into problems where people copy later editions and claim to have copied the free version, though.) It is generally regarded as better to produce content in our own words, though, so feel free to modify that if you'd like. I think a lot of people consider the non-free content copies as "start" texts for further development. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You put it in the right place, yes. I think it's well put. I'm glad that you note that you are open to feedback about your own approach; you are likely to receive it. The volunteers there are generally used to trying to look at all sides in conversations. It looks like given what you say about the user deleting things that you may not be familiar with "diffs". Unless he's an admin, everything he's removed is all there in history. You can still dig it up and provide a link to it. See Help:Diff. That way, you can highlight exactly what you mean to point out. If you have not notified him of the WQA discussion, pleaes be sure you do so. All you need to put on the page is {{subst:WQA-notice|User:CloudKade11}} --~~~~ It'll make the notice for you. I hope it goes well for you! --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl,
The AfD is still open. I understand there's a backlog, but this article has been up now for 2 weeks. Do you know if this will finally be decided today? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it will be decided today. It's transcribed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 16. Those won't come current for admin closure until 10/24 UTC (which is a couple of hours from now), but there are 75 other AfDs from that day and frequently the easier ones go first. Meanwhile, there are still discussions unclosed on the 13th and 15th. It should wrap within the next few days, though, since the admins who work there are doing a good job keeping backlog down. It'll resolve soon, though it is open for comments until it does.
By the way, you should move the conversation between you and TMCk to your talk page. That conversation is harmless, but if we permit him to interact there, we'll need to open it up for others as well. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Themistoclea - is the 2nd para now rewritten enough so it isn't copyvio of the 4th para at [7]? I've edited it twice today (as has its creator, who may not know about 3RR although seems to be sophisticated in some aspects of markup). Thanks. (I also don't want to appear a heavy-handed male in this case) Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse my butting in … I’ve tightened it up a little and made the order of paragraphs more (IMO) logical. Presumably there’s a point at which a summary or abstract of an original becomes short enough to be less than a paraphrase, so to speak. Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy Check
I know you're probably super busy on here, but if you have some free time, can you please look at some more of this? As I'm very close to deciding to RfA, I don't want too many copyvios to derail me. Thanks, CTJF83chat18:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm afraid I do tend to be super busy on here; I'm afraid I had completely forgotten about that! :/ I will certainly put it on my "to do" list, though I will probably will not get to it this weekend. I'll get my computer calendar to ping me on Monday. (By the way, one good way to prevent them from derailing you is to help review them yourself! If you find any issues and address them, that will go a long way to showing that you 've got the hang of the copyright thing. :) Feel free to make notes at that page if you find something.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry to trouble you again. It seems I always trouble you with tedious issues that shouldn't be issues in the first place. I have done what you said, but the user basically turned it all on me. And the impartial user who responded, pretty much said everything the user said to me was because he was frustrated or irritated. And accused me of being "less than civil" to begin with. I don't think being his reasoning is accurate. It feels like I'm just supposed to allow a user to potential say hurtful things to me (could be classed as bullying), and another user make excuses for it. When to begin with I always start a conversation politely. Anyway, yawn, yawn, where can I go next? Again, really sorry to trouble you. Jayy008 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, you wait for other feedback. Things move slowly in dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You should also consider carefully whether the bystander has any valid points. People who are uninvolved often see things differently than you do, and they may see facets of your behavior that might have contributed to the problem. If you sincerely believe he is misunderstanding, you might civilly and patiently explain why, but, again, I'd just wait a bit and see what else comes of it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point.But, discography like the references is for the keen fans.Main body should present facts which can be picked up at a glance.Further, you have deleted the names of films given there for which he composed music.There is only Kalyana Parisu and then you go straight to Nenjil Or Alayam.The linking events have also been omitted.It is rather incomplete now.
I have removed lists of information from within the body of the body of the article. There is no "at a glance", I'm afraid, in an article that was 57 kilobytes long. As I said above, if content is missing, it can be easily added to the chart (including noting the directors who worked on those projects.) If work with any of his collaborators has merited special attention in the press, it may be appropriate to include a referenced discussion of his work with that particular collaborator, although it does need to be kept neutral and verifiable. The lists themselves are not in keeping with our styleguides or general practices. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help?!
Hey, I spoke to another admin about a problem I have regarding copyright and he suggested I ask you. I've been working on the article London Road Stadium and there is an image I would like to put on it. It's a CG image from the BBC's website and it's relevant to the article. However, I'm not really sure how to go about uploading it. In the past I've only really uploaded my own photos and when I've tried to upload images from the internet, I've (rightly) been pulled up about copyright issues and the images have been deleted. Could you tell me exactly what I should do, since I feel that the article should have this image and knowing how to do this will help me in the future.
Thanks very much,
Hmm. Non-free content is not my major area of work. Basically, you need to be able to explain why we need the image and why it works within our non-free content policies and guidelines. Can you give me more detail, including maybe a link? What do you want to use it for? --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've attached the link here. I basically would like the main image on this page to go with the 'Future' section on London Road Stadium. It's not vital, but if it can be done then I think it would be a useful addition to the article. If it can't be done for copyright reasons, then that's fine. I don't really know much about the non-free content policies and guidelines, so I can't really comment in that respect. Thanks,
I think we probably can make a "fair use rationale" for that. It's an artist's concept of a building that does not exist, so it's not replaceable. I've got to run now, but I'll try to look around and see if I can find a similar non-free image somewhere that we can draw on. Maybe one of my "talk page stalkers" who knows something about fair use rationales can weigh in on this in the meantime. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright problem: Theories of dyslexia and Dyslexia articles
The Wikiproject Dyslexia main aim last year was to slim down the main Dyslexia article to become a summary article, and then to develop a series of new sub articles to provide more detailed information on some of the more complex issues regarding dyslexia.
The "Theories of Dyslexia" article was one of the new articles which was created during this process. When the article was created it I copied to existing content of the "Theories of dyslexia" section of the Dyslexia article to the new article with the intention of adding more detail at a later date. At this point I had been left on my own by the other members of the Wikiproject Dyslexia to do all of the proposed editing.
Then some members of the Wikiproject Dyslexia and others started something close to an editing war regarding some parts of the new articles and revising the recently revised main dyslexia article. As a result of trying to keep track of these various interventions, I did lost track of the overall changes that had been made, and due to the nature of my own information processing disability I forgot about some of the outstanding edits required to finish the aims of the 2009 Wikiproject dyslexia targets.
If there are any problems I would appreciate it if you could inform me so that i can try to make the required corrections. From my perspective due to the nature of my disability, I am very able at sourcing information but my real problem is copy editing, I prefer to rely on others to do this task, who do not share may disability. dolfrog (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Loading error?
I just noticed, as George's talk page is on my watchlist, that you alerted him of an RFC/U. However, your comment, happening today, is actually placed above two other threads which happened earlier, so I'm wondering if there was some error that caused this to happen, instead of placing the message the bottom like normal.— DædαlusContribs20:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back to April 2009, trying to determine if they copied us or we copied them-- do you have a tool for this job, because it's impossible! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much-- I've been working my way back, trying to see if they lifted a version from us, but all I can come up with is-- how the heck do you do it? I hate to interrupt a FAC when it might just be a mirror. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First thing I do is pick a distinctive phrase and put "WikiBlame" to work (I presume you're familiar with it? It's under tools for each article. It finds the point of origin of text. Great tool in our work!) Once I find where that distinctive content entered, I start looking to see if it evolved naturally or came all in one fell swoop. Best case scenario: clear major evolution in the article. The odds that we will have copied it in bits and pieces is slim. :) Things are slow on my computer tonight, but WikiBlame is chewing away. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but I've never been able to make Wikiblame go. Also, Erik posted something that may be helpful on the FAC page-- that BBCAmerica site was created in 2010 according to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of thing can surely help. :) I think reverse infringement is likely, but I won't be able to decide for sure into WikiBlame finishes. I find it works best for me if I set a start date rather than increasing the number of edits for it to evaluate and, when in doubt, I don't do "binary" but instead focus on "linear." --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My stupid computer is really slow tonight. I should be able to find you evidence to prove reverse infringement soon, I hope. I'm focusing on this: [on June 24 2009, our article said, "Sally Hardesty (Marilyn Burns) and her wheelchair-bound brother Franklin (Paul A. Partain) travel with three friends to a cemetery holding the grave of Hardestys' grandfather." (omitting markup). Right before blanking, our article said, "Sally Hardesty (Marilyn Burns) and her brother, Franklin (Paul A. Partain), travel with three friends—Jerry (Allen Danziger), Kirk (William Vail) and Pam (Teri McMinn)—to a cemetery containing the grave of the Hardesty's grandfather." The external site says, "Sally Hardesty (Marilyn Burns) and her brother Franklin (Paul A. Partain), traveling with three friends, Jerry (Allen Danziger), Kirk (William Vail) and Pam (Teri McMinn), a cemetery containing the grave of his grandfather Hardesty." This is clear evidence of evolution, but I'm looking for the coffin nail. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikiblame took its sweet time, but it's not the tool's fault, because I couldn't get pages to load worth a darn myself. :/ (My word, that article has a ton of edits!) Okay, coffin nail 1: [8]; coffin nail 2: [9] & [10]. Content evolved naturally towards the version of the article that appears at the external source. Mind you, I cannot account for some stuff that we don't seem ever to have had: "The man speaks and acts weird, and then slashes and Franklin himself with a razor blade to a group of his strength from the van....Franklin says Kirk and Pam local hole basin, and the pair head to find him." (local hole basin? What? Why would they change bizarrely to weird?) I'm trying to use Wikiblame to find if there was a vandalized version that they copied, but that would be icing merely. If Wikiblame doesn't find it soon, I'll give it a break. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MRG, thank you so much for getting right on that, and my apologies for "jumping the line" and not going through regular channels (not that I know where to find those :). I greatly appreciate your speed, so a FAC wasn't held up. You're still the best! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done The image has been uploaded as File:Eric Birley (resize) 002.jpg and had been inserted into the infobox at Eric Birley. For licencing, I used the pulldown list and selected the only one that applied for deceased persons, etc. This generated the {{Non-free historic image}} template. Thanks again to both of you for all your help! — SpikeToronto 04:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
_002.jpg){kind=link}
