|
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 11:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time, less frequently between 19:00 and 22:00. When you loaded this page, it was 10:41, 11 August 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
I think I've noticed you and Vern (hope that's an acceptable contraction!) having plenty of interation with User:Wipeouting about copyvio issues. I've crossed paths with this editor after a WP:3O and the article in question re-appeared recently on my watchlist today. Special:Contributions/Wipeouting suggests edits to the articles you had problems with before. I'll try to bring good news the next time I drop by! Bigger digger (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In a way, this is good news. Better that we find out now than months from now when we've got dozens of articles to clean up. Thank you. And I'm sorry that we weren't able to help him. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm not quite sure what positive contributions there were, and the user talk page formatting really hurt my eyes... I think maybe the language barrier was too much, Wipeouting just never seemed to get the point. Bigger digger (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm.. I see you've cleaned up some of Wipeouting's recent edits. I've reverted Sugathapala de Silva to a "cleaner" previous version, but still have some concerns which I will look at tomorrow. Lionel Wendt Art Centre was created by User:Cossde a few days ago with close or no paraphrasing and so perhaps it's a WikiProject Sri Lanka problem? Sorry, I'm now using your talk page as a notebook as I'm off to bed and don't want to forget this. I'll pick it up again tomorrow. Bigger digger (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free. I don't have time to look into it this evening myself, I'm afraid. But it evidently needs looking at. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still time limited. I have to leave in about 10 minutes, and will be away from my desk for possibly a couple of hours. But I've not forgotten! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Me neither, it's just that you're too quick! Bigger digger (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance of talk page stalkers requested – I have looked at two articles by User:Cossde after following Wipeouting's contribs and have commented at the editor's talk page of problems identified with Lionel Wendt Art Centre and S.J. Walpita. I'm not sure whether the articles should be tagged {{Close paraphrase}} or Template:Copyvio, which seems a bit harsh. Do I then need to work out the rigmarole for a CCI, these are the only two articles I looked at but it's not a good start, and it takes ages! Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does take ages. :/ I'll tell you what I do: I begin by listing some of the problems I found on the talk page. While doing so, I often reach a conclusion whether blanking or tagging is the better solution. If the problem is widespread and seems substantial, I blank. If not, I tag. In all cases, noting some of the concerns you find at the talk page is a good thing to do, because it can certainly help us zero in on the problem when it comes to doing cleanup. :) That way, we aren't doubling up on the labor. Once you've figured out whether tagging or blanking is appropriate, I'll help you work out whether a CCI is needed, unless a stalker does so first. :) I am determined to get CP caught up today before something else happens to demand my time! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged both of these articles as paraphrases so they get listed, since there's been no response to the comments left on the creator's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! Please excuse this intrusion on your talk page, and allow me to invite you to participate on the newly-formed Wikipedia Contribution Team, or WP:CONTRIB for short! The goal of the team is to attract more and better contributions specifically to the English Wikipedia, as well as to help support the fundraising team in our financial and editing contribution goals. We have lots of stuff to work on, from minor and major page building, to wikiproject outreach, article improvement, donor contacting, and more -- in fact, part of our mission is to empower team members to make their own projects to support our mission. Some of our projects only take a few minutes to work on, while others can be large, multi-person tasks -- whatever your interest level, we're glad to have you. If this sounds of interest to you, please visit WP:CONTRIB and sign onto the team. Even if there does not appear to be anything that really speaks out as being work you'd like to do, I'd encourage you to join and follow the project anyway, as the type of work we'll be doing will certainly evolve and change over time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, or ask on the Contribution talk page. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 19:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Valueyou seems to have been in contact with the site ownerUser talk:Valueyou and has posted a reply Talk:The Thing (art project).
Is it the case that only admins can look at incoming emails to permissions-en@wikimedia.org ?
thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Only OTRS volunteers, some of whom are admins and some of whom are not. :) I'll go see if I can find it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it! The e-mail isn't quite usable (since there is confusion over whether it is public domain or licensed), but once we get that clarified, it should be good to go. I've put the OTRS ticket on the article's talk page and let the user know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem! And thank you for following up on it so diligently. :) It's all complete now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a question posted at Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations#Rollback bot about an appropriate trial for a new VWBot task and would appreciate feedback...any feedback at all.
There's also a posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup#WikiProject Copyright Cleanup in the Signpost which could be a good way to try and recruit more lambs to the slaughter copyvio volunteers. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did this last thing last night. Let's hope I made sense. :D I'll reread it a bit later today with fresh eyes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's something that has been bothering me for a while. Our discussion comments are made under the site's license, right? If so, can they be deleted and when? I am looking at U1 and Wikipedia:User_page#Deleting_your_user_talk_pages, which suggests - but is not clear - that discussions with more than one significant contributors cannot be deleted. I also tried and failed information on what happens (and should happen under our licensing) to discussion pages of deleted articles... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the reasoning behind not deleting User talk pages involves their likely usefulness to other users (one sentence in WP:User pages#Deleting your user page or user talk page), not licensing concerns. If I remember correctly, the limitations on U1 are to prevent users from using deletion to sanitize their talk pages. Talk pages of deleted articles are usually speedied G8. Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The CC-BY-SA license, like most other free licenses, does not ever imply a mandate to distribute. As such, Wikipedia can delete anything it chooses to at any time, or shut down entirely, without violating the license (as long as attribution is not deleted without deleting the associated content - see Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Reusing_deleted_material). Dcoetzee 07:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good morning! Concur with both. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this mean that I shouldn't have been helping at SCV/CP for months, since there's not a whole lot of difference between resolutions at the different boards? Of course I also removed blanking templates more than once before I was an OTRS volunteer, and by the letter of the template I shouldn't have done that either... VernoWhitney (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) No, there's a big difference between resolutions at the boards. WP:SCV is meant to be reviewed by anybody; WP:CP is meant to be reviewed and closed by an administrator. The problem I'm trying to avoid is when contributors mark tickets at CP in such a way that I presume they've been closed by an administrator (or OTRS agent) when they have not. There've been a couple of cases of that in the last few days. Of course, I routinely WP:IAR when the template is removed or matters closed properly, but I would like some way to avoid the improper seeming of resolution. Do you have a different idea how I might do that? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I have a different perspective, but I was under the impression that anything at either board could be marked resolved by anyone uninvolved (i.e., not the contributor) and competent. I can see how limiting it to OTRS volunteers and admins may help with the competency issues, but I have come across more than one admin who's called articles clean when they're clearly not. I'd say formal clerkships like at SPI would be a way to guarantee that things are actually clean when marked as such, but I get the feeling that would just scare potential help away except for people looking for something to put on their WikiResume. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. The header says, "Listings typically remain for seven days before review and closure by an administrator." I probably made it say that myself, for all I know, but before I ever edited the page it used to say, "Listings should be checked and processed by administrators after 7 days." (formatting omitted, because i'm lazy. :)) It has similar instructions all the way back to 2005. My impression has always been that it's an admin review board, like WP:3RR or WP:AIV. We might want to ask for clarification at its talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, clearly an admin is required for deletion, overwriting copyvios with clean rewrites, and histpurge/revdel when those are required. That said, relisting/redirecting/confirming appropriate licensing/reverse copyvio don't take the admin tools. Maybe I'm just getting the informal environment vibe because of so few people handling the workload, or maybe it just strikes me as odd that adminship automatically implies competence (which I think we can at least agree is, or should be, one of the minimum requirements for closing investigations). VernoWhitney (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would definitely agree that competence is required. :) Non-admin closures are permitted in some fora, like WP:AFD, although they're frowned upon in contentious matters. I'm not sure, because I've never thought about it deeply, but I think it might be a mistake to "officially" open up CP to closure by anybody, although clerks would be fine. Just like with the template that should only be removed by admins and OTRS agents, I routinely overlook valid "IAR" removals, but I think that the danger of bias in closing CP listings is a serious one so I'd be uncomfortable opening it to everyone. That said, I'd love to have more workers over there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I was just fiddling about looking in archives of Sockpuppet Investigations, then I came across User:RM82087, I noticed that user wasn`t blocked. So I double-checked the sockpuppet investigation. I didn`t see any mention of User:RM82087, then I checked the revision history and found that you flagged RM82087 as a confirmed sock, could you explain why? Thanks! --Addihockey10e-mail 21:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Hmm. :/ He's a sock, but on behavioral evidence. He contacted us to confirm OSUHEY's copyvios (see User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_12#Ohio_State_Senate_articles). The 18th of October was only a month ago, but it feels like a billion years. :) I'm not entirely sure why I switched the templates. I'm afraid that I must have inadvertently mistagged him as CU-confirmed as part of establishing the Category for his sock--presumably, I moved it from the non-existant "suspected sock" category at the same time I moved over the socks from this related sockpuppet investigation. I'll switch him back to suspected. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay - thanks :) I`ll maybe contact a CU to see if we can confirm this guy is a sock. Thanks again :) See you around! --Addihockey10e-mail 21:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They won't be able to now, I'm afraid. He hasn't edited since March 2009, so his IP information won't be in the system anymore. I suspect he's moved on to other names, all things considered! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moonriddengirl, I hope you are doing well. :) I just wanted to check with you - is it appropriate for a WP:SPA user on a particular topic to blank out from their user talk page warnings regarding copyvio and plagiarism (these edits [1] and [2]) ? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Talk-page stalk) I remember a similar case that went to ANI where the consensus ended up being that you can do with your talk page what you want (unless it's attacks etc.), what you do in the mainspace is what matters. The user got the messages if he/she deleted them, so if copyvios persist appropriate action should follow. Hekerui (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, exactly. :) I always check for that kind of thing when investigating copyright problems. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thank you. But perhaps it might be helpful for someone such as yourself to investigate and leave a warning for the user - might be better rather than coming from me, as I have written WP:FA and WP:GA material on the topic, so you are more "uninvolved". Thoughts? :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, if he continues, I'll be happy to. If you work in similar areas, might you give me a heads up if you see that the problem is ongoing? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, will do. Thanks very much, -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl, as thanks for my warning of the above user regarding copyvio and plagiarism, I have been reported to ANI, here [3]. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You've deleted the page I wrote about filmmaker Pierre-Yves Borgeaud, arguing that it was a copy from a press kit:
http://www.paff.org/home/files/pressroom/presskits/Film%20-%20Return%20to%20Goree.pdf
In fact, I wrote the text you mention as a reference and the text is not under copyrights.
Could you bring the page back or do I have to write it another time? or another version?
Thanks for your answer.
Ab uno —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab uno (talk • contribs) 11:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your note. I have replied at your talk page. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MRG, A few questions:
- Does this (and a couple more insertions of the same) have to be RD1'd? I was involved in a content dispute on this - removing it from the article, but I didn't know this was a copyvio until another editor pointed it out on the talk page. If yes, as I'm "involved" in the article could you do it?
- Game (2006 film) started off as part copyvio but the editor removed the offending portion and the bot note on the article. How should that be handled?
- Kerala Forest Research Institute an old copyvio clean up that I did, can you take a look at this one too? It started off as a copyvio, someone else cleaned it up, then it returned to copyvio and I cleaned up and decided to tag for G12 as there wasn't any other content left, but it was declined by another editor; not sure if that content would classify as derivative.
These three seem to be standard experiences for me, so if you give me the answer once, you won't be bugged again :) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to stay away. :) With your first question, I don't think we need to RD1 it, since it's pretty minimal. I've left the contributor a note to tell him that we can't copy content, though. With your second, you'd generally just note at WP:SCV that it's been cleaned up. If the content is extensive, you can Rd1 it. In this case, I'd put a {{Plot2}} at the article's talk page (and will). The next thing to do is see if he does a lot of this kind of thing or if this is a one-off. If it's a one-off, we hope he got the message. If he's been doing it a while or keeps at it, more steps may be needed. With 3, the new version is unacceptable. I've restored Eastmain's and blocked the contributor again for copyright problems. This one doesn't look to be going well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- THanks for that. The third one, I don't think it's the same editor who did the new copyvio, but his talk page appears to be full of copyvio notes so this might get his attention anyway. I just remembered about it because it came up on my watchlist yesterday. BTW, Keyan20 (we deleted a bunch of his images here and on commons) has posted on my talk page (again) saying that they are his images and he wishes to upload them (again). I'm not sure I'm getting through to him and neither have any of the other editors who've tried to counsel him here or at commons. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, editor #3 was blocked last month for copyvios. :/ I remember User:Keyan20. If he keeps it up, we may have to head over to ANI on this one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't notice #3's earlier block. I've deleted one article as G12 and an image as F9. There could be a couple of PUF cases too especially the image on Naveen Chandra. Sigh. —SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And btw there's block evasion going on now, I think he's back as 124.124.211.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'll ask YellowMonkey for a CU on this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I missed this up here! Thanks for keeping an eye out for it. As for the CCI, if you think that there's more than can comfortably be checked in one setting, by all means, request one. I'd be happy if we never got another, but that doesn't mean they aren't needful. :/ I am, by the way, afraid that we may be about to get a big one related to India. See User_talk:LRBurdak#Copyright_problem and subsequent. I'm hoping there's some good reason for what looks to be extensive copying from books. If not, we're going to have hundreds of articles at risk dating back years. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've got to be kidding, LRBurdak is on my list! He's an admin over at Jatwiki and we have a lot of "cross posts" from one book to both wikis and then there's the flora and fauna thingy. As far as this Thrissur one goes, if I can get the new articles deleted as G12 I won't request a CCI and spare the folks. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, on the Jat garden, User:Dbachmann and User:Dougweller might be able to help, we've had numerous discussion on this topic at WP:FTN too and both of them along with some of the other regulars on that board have spent time weeding the garden. —SpacemanSpiff 17:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm looking. I don't think they're probably all copyvios, but that doesn't mean there aren't significant copyvios. I am not the most aggressive blocker on Wikipedia by a long shot. If I were, I would have given him longer than two weeks this time. My approach is crafted by a combination of optimism (if we can get through that we mean it, they may stop) and pessimism (if they have nothing left to lose, they will create socks and carry on violating copyright, making it only that much harder to identify). I've seen both my optimistic and pessimistic sides validated repeatedly. :) I will note, though, that he's right at least about Chit fund. He may have copied content from some source, but he didn't get anything from [4]. If you compare the article before he touched it to after his changes, you can see that their website includes material from both. See the "example" given in the older version; it is duplicated by that website. That one's almost certainly a reverse copyright infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good thing I just tagged this one instead of cleaning it out myself as I wasn't entirely sure about it as there seemed to be prior content that was similar too. THe block for this one is not entirely copyvio, it's also a lot of POV pushing into the Thrissur set of articles through misrepresentation of sources etc. Let me see if I can clean up some more stuff over the next few days and we can think of a CCI after that. BTW, I've had to take another PD tagged + Fair use tagged image from Keyan20 to FfD (since it had both, I couldn't F9). You could try your luck with him as you're far more diplomatic than I could aspire to be in this situation.... cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't argue with you if you extend his block. I don't always block long enough, and even without considering the other factors the copyright concerns are serious. I'm not sure diplomacy is going to work with Keyan20, but I can give it a go. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl!
sorry to bother you with the old question. Tonight I finally got around to trying to upload the updated logo for the wikipedia page on the Asia Petrochemical Industry Conference. You may see I made 3 futile attempts and cannot figure out why the logo does not appear on the page after my uploading. Did I miss out any steps here?
Do you have any detailed guidelines which are bozo proof??
Thanks for your patience.
Have a nice weekend!
JDW Wilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdwwilson (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! If we did, I'm sure I wouldn't make so many mistakes. :) Whatever may have gone wrong, it looks fine on this end. I see your updated image, and it's showing up properly at the article page. Maybe you need to refresh your browser? Or maybe it was just a temporary glitch that has resolved itself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: RAN's images. It took some time (and drama) but finally we have a professional approach to handling FUR-related problems for multiple images involving a single user. I also appreciate that you cared enough to mention to other editors not to mass-tag RAN's page with image-related notifications and gave them the correct reason why not to do it. Being efficient and caring is professionalism at its best. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, thank you. :) I do appreciate your comment. Among my main goals in these situations is to focus on making sure that content is usable and to remember that the people who placed the content very seldom intended to cause problems. It's best for everybody when things proceed professionally, without unnecessary drama. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an enlightened approach. In a difficult environment such as PUF it is both efficient and humane. It satisfies the needs of the project while treating individual editors with tact and respect. A very difficult combination, which has eluded many in the past and has caused a lot of problems. You just set a great working example for others to follow. This is what leadership is all about. Well done. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Bit strange but this article Majha seems to have the intro from a Flickr page [5] which says © 2010
I cannot work out if ours is a copy of theirs (although I assume it is the other way around) or not and how to find out.
Any ideas ? Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) It seems both are a copy of http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Majha. I have reverted the page to the version before User:Love luvs started editing, which seems fine. It is always a good idea to check the page history for recent mass additions when you find articles like this. Yoenit (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was aware of that - the only reason I did not do that was because of this [6]
- If that is correct then that article can be used, although there are no refs.
- The next problem was whether the Flickr was the original or the SkihWiki - If the Sikh wiki came first, or both were copy free, then that version would surely be ok to use ? (assuming refs could be found.
- To take it back to before that version was a moot point at the time I was considering it as the only version prior to that, the one you also chose, was also unreferenced.
- Chaosdruid (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sikhwiki version is from 2007, so it is definitely older then the flickr version. I did notice it in turn seems partly copied from http://www.thesikhencyclopedia.com/world/majha.html, so it is still a copyright violation. Also, the current version is not unreferenced. Yoenit (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oi. The joys of copyright work. :) If I were coming upon this fresh without Yoenit's dating, I would have looked at when the image was taken on Flickr. Since the image was apparently taken in May 2010, I would then have checked the history of the Sikh wiki article to see when the text entered there. If it was published prior to May 2010, I would presume Sikh wiki was the point of origin. Determining whether Sikh wiki or the Sikh Encyclopedia came first is a bit more difficult, since Wayback doesn't give me the Sikh Encyclopedia page. But that's not definitive, because the website itself is archived to 2004, and they might have rearranged content. (And even if the website didn't archive to 2004, that's not definitive, either, because they might have moved the site from another address.) If the Sikh Encyclopedia had copied from Sikh Wiki, they would have had to have done so prior to 2008, when these changes were introduced. We can see that they had an article on that topic in March of 2007 (#58), though it's not archived. We can see that the title bar was present in 2006, here. I think in the absence of other evidence, we have to assume that the Sikh Encyclopedia came first and Sikh Wiki made a derivative of their work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear MRG, sorry to bother you on such a beautiful Saturday morning. Believe me, I'd rather you and I were drinking coffee and doing the crossword puzzle while exchanging loving glances over our toast. Can you have a look at File:Gates2009.jpg? I tagged it (cause I had no faith) and it was subsequently deleted; now that same user, who has a history of unlicensed uploading, contributed a new masterpiece, File:ThomasNSA.jpg, which seems to be stolen from an ABC News article, "Feng Li/AFP/Getty Images". I was getting ready to report them for vandalism and ask for a block, but I will gladly let you make a decision on it (BTW, I tagged the image before I found the ABC article). I'm going through the editor's work--they seem to have a couple of IPs attached to them, making the same edits with similar edit summaries and typos (improper spacing in dates, for instance). Now, shall I squeeze you some more orange juice, and can I have one of your buns? Cinnamon buns? Drmies (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who knew you were such a roue? :O I've deleted the latest as an F9. You've given the contributor a clear block caution. The next move is up to him, I think, as regards copyright. Otherwise, I'm not sure he's intentionally disrupting. His changes seem like they could be well-meant, but misguided. I wonder what all those letters mean in his edit summary? :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC) (actually eating popcorn)[reply]
- Hmm, yes, it may be good faith--but they have been warned before... I'm afraid I might be trying to show off my masculinity to you; forgive me. Well, we will wait and see. Thanks again, MRG, and have a lovely day! Drmies (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, I have not received any of the accumulating messages about copyright concerns for my multi-article contribution on Cold War Legacies. Today I happened to do some browsing that brought me to Wikipedia, and came across the copyright issues. It happens that I am the lead author and copyright holder for Nuclear Shadowboxing and for Nuclear Insights, as well as being the original contributor for the Wikipedia subsection regarding Cold War Legacies. Therefore, the copyright approval is granted.
Because I have been very busy writing another book (on a completely different topic), I haven't had the time -- and won't have it -- to keep up with Wikipedia activities.
I hope you or someone can take care of this issue. Please excuse my inattention.
waterfox1 (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your note. I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you look at Anthony Paulet and a complex copyright issue. On the talkpage an editor is claiming "I wrote the original article on my own site. Leo cited ME, and then I cited him as well. That's not a copyright violation" - it's a bit out of my comfort zone to sort that one out.— Rod talk 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) supposed source acknowledges wikipedia as a reference, even naming the page creator. Clearly not a copyright violation. Yoenit (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to both; I've removed the EL from both articles per WP:ELNO. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled upon this, and the language made me suspect some close-paraphrasing or copyvio troubles; brief googling of some phrases e.g. "him with a baseball bat and locked him in the", escalated "capital offense" Komisarjevsky "offering post-traumatic stress assistance to jurors" and suchlike, it appears some bits are straight from syndicated news.
Can you take a look, if you have time? Cheers, Chzz ► 01:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, I haven't found anything, but I've formed the opinion that this was contributed by somebody with a great appreciation for the purple prose of crime narrative: "These preliminary measures employed by the police exhausted more than half an hour of critically valuable time and proved ineffective at serving and protecting the perilous needs of the Petit family." "The notoriety of this heinous crime extends well beyond Cheshire, and even the state." Not exactly encyclopedic! Given the evenness of the tone throughout, I would expect that it was either (a) copied wholesale or (b) contributed/copy-edited by somebody who writes that way. Since I can't find (a), I'm leaning towards (b). And that's a horrible crime. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh; many thanks. I'm sorry to have bothered you once again. Yes, the language and tone is exactly what made me suspicious. Chzz ► 14:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries about bothering me. :) That would have made me suspicious, too! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having contributed the specific prose cited above, I absolutely refute the suggestion that the prose was copied wholesale. It is my manner of writing which is reflected, and I am slightly concerned that you would exclaim it as non encyclopedic. While it does diverge slightly from the prose of other contributors, it is not original research or even point of view. In fact a reference stream can be produced to substantiated each adjective. What concerns me most is your closing statement; "And that's a horrible crime." My concern is that I don't know if the comment attributes to the circumstances of the crime, or to your reaching "(b)" as more likely. If my writing style is a horrible crime, please advise.My76Strat 17:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The crime about which you are writing is horrible. Your writing is not at all a horrible crime. :) It's very well written for crime reporting; I'm afraid that it is non-encyclopedic, at least as Wikipedia defines such things. See Wikipedia:TONE#Tone. Your writing is very colorful; content such as that I singled out isn't at all "businesslike". For example, even though I agree with you that the crime was heinous, it's not our place to comment on it. We're just here to report it. If other people call it heinous, we quote them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I agree. In fact Chzz and I have discussed this very counsel during the interim between these posts. And I thank you for clarifying the respects of my writing. I will remove the purple hue and steadfastly resist using prose which does lean towards support of a position. Kind regards.My76Strat 18:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a bit long, as a synopsis, given that there is nothing else but the synopsis? --JN466 01:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) yes it is too long. A good guideline is 2 words per page, while this is more then 4 words per page. Tagged the page with a plot summary too long template. Yoenit (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have restored the earlier plot summary, but it looks likely that it was actually copied verbatim! :/ I did put a {{Plot2}} on the article's talk page. Ideally, somebody will shorten the plot description and add critical commentary on the book. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi can you take a look at Miley Cyrus because people keep removing the lead roll notations in the filmography section so i have reverted them a couple of times would like to have your opinion thanksTucsonDavid (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's talking about this information, which is obviously incorrectly formatted, as well as spelled incorrectly. I've just left a notice on his talk page about it. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good morning to both of you. :) I'm afraid I have no special authority over this issue and my opinion would be uninformed. I've heard of Miley; that's about that. However, the words "people keep removing" are generally somewhat alarming, as are the words "reverted them a couple of times". If someone objects to content, it's usually a good idea to find out why; if people (multiple) are objecting, all the more so. The first thing to do is find out why; conversation at the article's talk page is a good place to start. If after that you feel additional assistance is needed, you should generally follow the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Asking for feedback at a proper board is more likely to get you an individual in position to provide neutral feedback. In this case, if you disagree with AussieLegend's rationale, you may wish to open up a conversation at Talk:Miley Cyrus first to see if you can reach consensus on the matter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found the articles American Mountain Deer and Odocoileus lucasi, written by Flueck (talk · contribs). They read like they were copied from some technical paper, but I haven't been able to find a source. Could your or your stalkers' superior copyvio detection skills perhaps shed some light? Ucucha 13:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be happy to take a look and see if I can find something, unless a stalker manages before I do. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find anything besides mirrors. However, the material is obviously original research and should be removed on those grounds. Yoenit (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose so. The material seems written like a scientific paper, but not polished as one might expect from an actual published paper—perhaps Flueck tried to publicize his summary of the issues with these deer on Wikipedia instead of a scientific publication. I'll try to rewrite the articles—though that may not be easy because I can't access Morejohn and Dailey (2004). Thanks both for the assistance! Ucucha 15:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I haven't found anything to contradict this. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG. I have now gone through the 14 film entries and marked them in the usual way. I have also added some thoughts to the general MO of this contributor regarding films. As this is only a 'partial' CCI I wasn't sure whether you wanted to review this one and determine if we need to do more. Boissière (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :D I think it's very plausible that this is the limit of her copyright problems. A lot of contributors seem to think that plot summaries are by default public domain, for some reason. I've seen other users in the past who have pasted these while otherwise contributing their own content. I did leave a note at the archived CCI, though, that if she's found to be copying content into other areas, we'll need to revisit the past, so to speak. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! How are you? I'm working on the Public Policy Initiative this semester and one of the student groups has copied some material directly from a source at Workforce development - you can see my comments at Talk:Workforce development. I'm afraid I don't have time to go through the entire article looking for other instances, but I was hoping you could help them out. They are graduate students, so they should learn quickly. Awadewit (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I'm fine; hope you are. Off to take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Re: the message you left for Fetchcomms) I think Awadewit has left a message for the student about it, but you should feel free to do so as well, you think more needs to be said.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, nevermind, it might have been a different student I was thinking of. So yes, please do leave them a note. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I wasn't sure if there was special handling of these situations per the PPI and didn't want to step in directly if passing it to an ambassador would be a better idea. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've withdrawn from NaNoWriMo. I'm just too far behind and, with finals coming up, I just don't have the time to write. I'm sad about it, but there's nothing I can do. I'll just have to make sure to actually finish my novel in December after the semester ends. I mean, if I still finish the novel, then it's a net win, right? ;) Anyways, could you go ahead and remove the Wikibreak Enforcer from my account? I'd appreciate it. (Silver seren) 165.91.173.45 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. ^_^ SilverserenC 01:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you even enjoyed the time you've already put into it, it's a net win. :) Welcome back. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IN RE: Copyright Talk Page
I wasn't sure where/how to continue. If I am posting in the wrong area, please move it back or whatever is proper.
So, I found the license you spoke of and added it to my wiki. It is located in the footer and the link sends you here. I believe this is kinda what you were driving at. I will need to go into each file I've imported and write a note in the Summary and that will take a bit of time, but I want to make sure I am on track. It's never been so much about the legalese and such, more of a belief that there is right and wrong in the world; the military drove that in my head! :) I want to make sure I get stuff right and acceptable to folks both on Wikipedia and at large as I hope to set an example with others who visit to my site; to show that there is a proper way to use other folks' materials. Thanx! --Foreclosurepedia (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) You are welcome here; it is certainly much more convenient for me. :D As I said earlier in our conversation, I can't give you legal advice, but as far as our view of the matter, you are in the right as long as you (a) continue the license and (b) attribute your source. For some reason, I can't get your website to load by following your links, by pasting it in directly or even by looking it up through Google. I even tried switching from Mozilla Firefox to Internet Explorer, but still couldn't get in. Maybe there's a temporary glitch? :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops. I see you've been blocked. I'll take this up with you at your talk page! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG, I see you're around right now; could you review WP:ANI#Main Page ITN image copyvio and WP:ERRORS#F1 image and see if it is indeed a copyvio (and if it is, replace it)? Thanks! StrPby (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks iffy. I'm working on this, but I don't know what ASSK means and am having to figure out how best to proceed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry; Aung Sang Suu Kyi was the last image on ITN. Meant that that would be a good replacement. StrPby (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, it's done. I need to upload a local copy and protect it. This is not my area, but I'm working it as fast as I can! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, no I don't. Evidently a bot does that. Yay, bot! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for the quick response; I think we agree having a copyvio image on the main page was bad. :) StrPby (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I received your comment about the changes that I made on MY page and that YOU reverted.
May I tell you that I find those last lines about my private life totally unappropriate, intrusive, and not of the level of an encyclopedia?
1. They are uncomplete. If you really need to talk about the women of my life, then talk about all of them.
If you really can't avoid mentionning my ex-wife, then MENTION HER NAME, she's a well known mezzo-soprano in France, Elsa Maurus.
Why to randomly choose Nancy Gustafson who was only a girl friend? It's not an "encyclopedic information", it draggs the level of Wikipedia to any "people magazine". If you were a composer, as I am, I would say that you end your sonata on a vulgar, pedestrian note.
So, please, either NAME my ex-wife, as I did in my new edit, or don't mention her. And mentionning the "girl friends" is completely out of the subject, or at least make an exhaustive list.... That, too, would be, if I may say so, totally uninteresting.
I just find really unfair, unpleasant to mention "non official partners", because the "current partners" are always offended by the mention of the previous ones. Do you get my point?
Thanks for your comprehension
Frederic Chaslin
Fredchaslin (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Chaslin, I will refer you back to the message I left you at the talk page of your IP: User talk:210.253.152.135. When you remove sourced content, you need to indicate a reason. This allows others to understand your actions and to see why the removal of sourced content may be constructive. Typically, articles are developed by adding content, not by removing it...even when old information is superceded by new, it remains of interest to our readers as part of complete biographical coverage. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apology Moonriddengirl (and Fredchaslin), I reverted an entry on your talk page by mistake, sorry. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It happens. I've done it myself. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to tell you about the File:PlagiarismHandout.pdf, then I noticed you are one of the authors :) Good job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! Thanks. :) I didn't know it had been transformed into a handout. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say a quick thanks for helping me with my copyright concern (National Capitol Columns). I was browsing and saw that it looked suspicious so I wanted to flag it, but I didn't have time time to investigate right then. So I'm happy that it successfully got sorted out!
Best, Qwerty0 (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem; working copyright is what I do, and I'm always happy when people come forward with their concerns so that we can either address it or clear it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply.
We have been in discussion on a number of occasions in the past about the Wikipedia page for Sassy Pandez. In the light of some recent negative feedback from potential clients, it seems that older material on the Sassy Pandez page is having a detrimental effect on her career, and is potentially jeopardising her future work and income. This seems wholly unfair, especially given that the original page was posted some years ago by a unconnected third party. I wanted to discuss with you again about making some alterations to the page, along the lines that we have discussed previously. If you feel that this is in fact not possible, because it does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, then it would in fact be better for the page to be deleted from Wikipedia so that no further damage is done to Sassy Pandez and her career. As it stands, the potential benefits of being included in Wikipedia are currently very much outweighed by the negative effect of some of the older material in the article and associated references.
In an ideal world, it would be great to have an article that is just about Sassy Pandez, and does not include references to the earlier work, since this does have associated legal issues, as I have mentioned before. If this is not possible, then we would have to consider deletion of the page as a last resort.
I look forward to your feedback on the above. Thanks for your time.
AquilaUK (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm afraid that we do not necessarily delete articles on subject request. If there are specific passages that you feel are damaging to her career, you should certainly point them out and explain why, but I have to say that the article about her seems to be well sourced and relevant to her notability. You should also review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help and Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) (which is intended as well for those who represent subjects) to get a basic idea of what we may be able to do for you and what we may not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have mentioned in the past, there are legal issues associated with the older material which it is not appropriate to discuss in an open forum like this. There have been discussions in the past about deletion of this article, and it's continued inclusion was deemed marginal at the time. It seems wrong to me that an individual has no rights over the material about them on Wikipedia, especially when posted by a third party, and when such information is proving to be detrimental to the career of the subject. What grounds would be considered acceptable for deletion of this article? I have looked through the two links you suggested but I am still unsure of how best to proceed from here. AquilaUK (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article would be deleted if Sassy Pandez was insufficiently notable for inclusion. Wikipedia does not include articles on private individuals, of course. We excluded her real name on your request based on her marginal notability. However, last time the conversation of her notability was raised, she was deemed notable enough based on reliable sources to retain the article. I suspect that as there are even more sources now, the article on her would not be deleted. If there are private concerns, you can communicate them to the volunteers who work the e-mail addresses linked at both of those pages. They will protect your privacy, but you will need to tell them specifically what your concern is and why in order for them to help you. Please especially read Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for the best means of approaching them about your concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the info. I need to think about this and work out the best way to proceed, but maybe an email like you suggest would be the next step. AquilaUK (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A thought struck me recently. In the recent furore in the press about oil drilling in the Falklands I noticed several UK papers cut'n'pasted text I'd written on wikipedia (without I might add attributing where they got it from). It then later struck me that if someone were to match the two at some later date I might be falsely accused of plagiarism. The revision history would of course show I wrote it before it was published.
What would happen in the mean time though, would it have been deleted. What about if I was no longer active or on an extended wikibreak? Is there checks and balances to make sure before action is taken? Justin talk 00:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) Don't worry, we check what came first. With newsarticles this is simple, we check the last page revision before the newsarticle came out. If the suspicious text is present in that revision they copied from us. However, it is certainly possible that you are falsely accused over this in the future. Therefore I would advise putting {{Backwardscopyvio}} with some links on the article talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Another TPS) And you should write to the newspapers and demand a credit for the work they stole. Editors round here are bending over backwards to make wp copyright compliant and the professionals can't be bothered to extend us the same courtesy? Outrageous! Bigger digger (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, when items are listed at WP:CP, we check to see which came first as a matter of routine. I'll second the {{backwardscopyvio}} recommendation; more than placing it, I would recommend explaining it in a section at the talk page. In this case, the date of the newspaper article should easily clear you, since the history of the Wikipedia article shows when the content entered here. I've run into a few items that have been deleted where we had the content first. What I do is restore them, note the backwards copying, and explain to the deleting admin why. We also try to keep up WP:MIRROR with websites that routinely copy us, which helps prevent the confusion in the first place. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK cool, lots of good advice there, thanks. Justin talk 13:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our conversations at User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Copyright seem quaint in hindsight now. Do you think WP:Plagiarism has been sufficiently buzz-sawed? It seems a lot better to me now, and awareness is at new highs. Gigs (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a lot better, yes. :D I'm not entirely sure about the advice in WP:Plagiarism#Where to place attribution, since I have never followed it myself (I attribute at the top of the ref section), but it's not worth the fuss and bother. What matters most (to me) is that we clearly define what we consider to be plagiarism and clearly identify how not to do it. That keeps us from the hand-waving of "It's plagiarism!" vs. "No, it's not!" --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I don't know what I was thinking! Inexperience. Delete both articles please, I don't have time to work on them. Could you check Don't Forget the Bacon! for copyvio/plagiarism? I'm reviewing it for GAN and I don't want to pass it to GA if there are any such issues. Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
