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 04:10, 7 November 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Update a template
Could you take a moment to update the {{Di-no permission-notice}} tag? Almost every link is a redirect. I would do it myself but as it is locked I can't.
And this is just a pet peeve - but Wikipedia:Non-free content should be Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The wording is "If you believe the media meets the criteria at..." and it makes more sense to link to the actual policy, not the guideline. I know, for whatever reason, a lot of the links go to the fair use guideline and not the policy and that has led to me having discussions with some editors and admins who feel that, because Wikipedia:Non-free content is only a guideline, nothing on that page is required. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll update the redirects, but would like to talk about the other one. :) I like linking to the guideline myself, because it incorporates the policy in its entirety. If you go to the policy page, you have to follow it to the guideline. The combined document is very clear that part of it is "an official policy on Wikipedia". I think that might be worth pointing out to the editors and admins who overlook that! --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted info-en-q@wikimedia.org a couple of weeks ago regarding my concerns with the Sassy Pandez page as you suggested, but I have not had a response. I therefore wanted to follow up with you again on this matter, and would be grateful if we could discuss further on my talk page. Thanks. AquilaUK (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio?
Hi MRG, could you find the time for a look at Temporomandibular joint disorder? There's a remarkable overlap at this website, but it may be a reverse copyvio. The string "Gentle jaw stretching and relaxation exercises you can do at home. Your healthcare provider can recommend exercises for your particular condition" was inserted into the article in 2007. LeadSongDogcome howl!05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have good instincts there! You've indentified where "Gentle jaw stretching" came in. We can see where the lead was altered earlier that year here, in a way that is mirrored by that external site. We see another change by the same IP which is similar to content in the external site. "Oftentimes" became "often" here, when a bot gets at it. Do you want to place the {{backwardscopy}} tag, or would you like me to? :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to leave it up to you, if you're reasonably sure. I still suspect that the March 2007 edits (User:Tmj association(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) may have been copyied from another (possibly offline) source, as there were html tags inserted in those edits (later removed) and xhe added over 4KB to the article in a little over an hour. LeadSongDogcome howl!18:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I've cleaned up what I found duplicated. Please let me know if you see that I've missed anything. :) I've got to be out of here in about 20 minutes, so I'm rushing a bit! --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MRG, if you get chance, please could you explain copyright and trademarks as they apply to logos in the above deletion review? Thanks—S MarshallT/C05:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question/request for help. Please take a look at User Talk: Md iet. The last section on the article Lulua Mosque is a bit confusing, and I can't figure out how to search for the info I need on previous instances of the article. Here's what I can figure out:
Some time in the past it was created.
Sometime around the end of October someone called it a copyright problem.
On 31 October 2010, you deleted it as a copyright violation. Given your extraordinary work in this area, odds are far more likely than not that you got the deletion correct. However, I can't figure out if there's a way for me to see where the work was originally copied from. I imagine you can see that by looking into the deleted history of the article.
Today, User: Md iet recreated the article. I have no idea how he wrote it.
The article as it currently stands is, for the first paragraph, a copy of an article on yawiki, which Coren Searchbot noticed.
Now, of course, yawiki got the article from us, back when the article originally existed prior to 31 October. That means that Md iet certainly didn't copy them.
But it does imply that Md iet copied the info from the same place that it was copied from in the first place. Which means that it probably is a copyright violation, just not of yawiki.
So, I'm wondering if you can look into the article history, and see where it was copied from. Note, further, that the editor has had problems with copyright in the past (on images), and has been blocked for being disruptive in other ways, so it may very well be that the editor did recreate a page deleted for copyright reasons and did so knowingly. So I guess in essence what I'm asking for is help trying to figure out if he 1) was associated with the prior instance of the article, and thus should know better, and 2) committed an intentional copyright violation by copying the information from a third source which i don't know. That is, is this a time to provide some instruction, or a time to provide some blocking?
I appreciate your assistance in this matter given all of the things you do. I'll watchlist your page, so feel free to reply either here or directly to MD iet. 07:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I was the one that originally tagged it for deletion as part of the users CCI. Not being an admin I can't see the deleted content but I am fairly certain that it was an almost verbatim copy of [1]. Looking at the latest creation, and now being somewhat familiar with the user's writing "style", it does look as though he has used his own words to write the article and that his assertion that yawiki yanked his content almost straight away might be right. It must be said that there is still a potential copyvio associated with the article in that the photo of the old photo (originally uploaded by this user) has no source information and thus we cannot assume that it is out of copyright. Boissière (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I haven't really looked at the article yet, but yawiki goes so far as to say 'It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Lulua_Mosque"', so that is definitely a mirror site and not copied from there. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's got to be a mirror. The content has been changed, so I think that he has made an effort to rewrite it. For one example, the deleted article contained the following: "The tower-like mosque was rectangular in plan with three levels, with the ground-floor walls built of local limestone blocks with a rubble core." The original source says, "The tower-like mosque was rectangular in plan with three levels, with the ground-floor walls built of local limestone blocks with a rubble core." The new article says, "It was a three story mosque having tower like structure. The construction material was local bricks and limestone." There's some rewriting going on. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that yawiki is a mirror, and that the new text is more substantially different than the previous one. I'll try to use some of my close-paraphrasing-but-not-copying skills on the article to get it further away, plus I'll add a citation to that site. However, the picture does seem to be a problem, but it also doesn't. I admit to not understanding how copyright works. The picture almost certainly appears to be more than 70 years old, although of course we can't verify that. However, on the picture's specific page on the above website, it states that the picture is copyrighted to the "Creswell Archive, Ashmolean Museum." Since that site claims copyright, do we automatically assume that it is, and thus tag it and delete it? Or do we try to do more research to figure out the date and whether or not its legitimately copyrighted? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attention to that article! It's certainly looking much better. :) With a serial copyright infringer, we generally lean to the presumption of copyvio. I have to admit that I'm not visual enough to feel confident that it's the same image. Might it be the same site photographed separately from the same vantage? --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New article created by copying material from a number of other articles
Vegoia was recently created from an unknown number of unknown articles (see the edit summary when it was created). It's thus copyvio with no way to trace it back to the original editors. Any precedent for dealing with something like this? There's an AfD on a similar one, created from 3 named articles - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegoia and Egeria. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've only seen this come up before in conjunction with copyright issues from other sources; I've never seen a case where we could not trace attribution. :/ If the contributor positively cannot trace where the content came from, it's probably best to redo it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I know you're an editor with experience in dealing with copyright questions. I was wondering if you could look at the concerns I just noted about our article on the Battle of Stalingrad. I summarized them here. I'm not sure exactly what's going on - my gut tells me that the wording came from Beevor initially, so I'm not sure what it's doing in a published work from 2007 and in our article - but I can't say that for sure without my copy of Beevor's book in front of me. Anyhow, I just wanted to get some additional guidance on how best to proceed. Thanks. MastCellTalk20:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hi, Mastcell. I took a quick look at the article history and it appears that the 2007 Ridder book may be a reverse copyvio. I left a reply on the talk page. More investigation may be warranted, of course. — CactusWriter (talk)22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rob. :) If it weren't a government site, it would be a problem under WP:NFC, as it is an extensive quote and is not used transformatively. But it's PD, so the concerns are restricted to plagiarism and the usual factors: neutrality, verifiability. Since it's in quotation marks, it's not a problem for plagiarism. :) It should be rewritten, though, because it's obviously unencyclopedic. We use sentences here. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, yes, we try to. I still find that Gov PD thing hard to accept being from the UK - its all top secret and restricted here. Thanks for the pointers. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory
Hello again, M.
Concerning The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory, deleted after 7-day notice at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Significance_and_Basic_Postulates_of_Economic_Theory, I have not been able to locate further details on the grounds for copyright violation. My impression was that the deleted article was well documented. I recall writing the future originator of the article, who had written a nice WP article on its author Terence W. Hutchison (oops!) when he had first expressed interest in writing such an article. I was happy to see that the article was well documented & met other standards (so I thought). The latter may always have been so in other cases for that Editor. Would you have any further details or any suggestions as to whether the article might be resuscitated or even restored (if its deletion was based on the not-always-applicable "not-proved-innocent" standard).* Thank you for your consideration. No rush here. * I note that you yourself have been active in salvaging articles, where feasible. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Documentation does not efface copyright problems, I'm afraid. Attribution can't replace proper license. The contributor in this case is the subject of a Contributor Copyright Investigation, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Robertsch55. When it can be verified that contributors have violated our copyright policy on multiple occasions, their major contributors may be removed presumptively. In this case, the evaluator found duplication in a 1998 book, The Handbook of Economic Methodology, by John Bryan Davis, D. Wade Hands, and Uskali Mäki. I can only view the book in snippet, but while we do try to clear articles of concerns, when there is reason to believe that content has been copied or too closely paraphrased by people who have verifiably violated copyright policy on multiple occasions, their articles are deleted if not rewritten. I do try to salvage articles when I can, but unfortunately we have far too many to permit me to do so even as often as I once did. :/ If you would like to take a stab at replacing it, I would be very happy to resurrect the non-creative elements, including the list of references which you might consult. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one that blanked it originally and did go through multiple snippets from that book to confirm that all but (the last) two sentences were too closely paraphrased; I didn't find those last bits specifically but their language when compared to the rest of the editor's work leaves me strongly inclined to believe they were copied from elsewhere too. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know of a little dilemma with this CCI. I've been doing as much as I can to review the images that were marked as public domain or already had {{Non-free use rationale}} full and valid, but the rest are mostly claimed for fair use with a sentence fragment such as "low res, no revenue loss, person is dead." A few times I've tagged these images for deletion for invalid fair use rationales, or I've tried to get the user to add the template, and the discussions ended up heated. The biggest cases of this went on here and here (look at the diffs). I'm not quite sure how to continue. The images in the CCI not yet reviewed are nearly all ones of this sort. Jsayre64(talk)20:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. :/ I appreciate all the work that you've been doing there, and I'm sorry that it's been dramatic. I'm not entirely sure how best this should be handled. I think perhaps I should invite an admin who works non-free images more regularly to help us figure out the best way to get these images taken care of. I would recommend WP:NFCR, but frankly that forum is so backlogged (with listings dating back to June) that I don't think it's a good approach. --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think asking for help from an admin would be the right idea. There are many admins who are very experienced with image copyright. If the WP:NFCR backlog dates back to June, I wouldn't add to it if that can be avoided. Jsayre64(talk)01:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, this is indeed a unique situation, and I admit I'm a bit at loss. The problem lies in the fact that {{subst:rfu}} tags don't allow removal (i.e., a separate administrator must review them), whereas {{subst:dfu}} does (something we might consider altering btw). My recommendation, as an administrator who's been around for less time than you (but someone who has nonetheless observed Wikipedia for a while) is as follows: try to talk to the editor and figure out why he's unwilling to add the template.
Is he standing on principle for principle's sake, a lá Giano (who deserves a star for Wikipedia navel-gazing drama of the year, followed by such notable incidences as the Pedophile userbox occasion... am I digressing?)? If he is, find out what that principle is. If it's because he thinks that WP has too stringent standards for fair use, then tough; if he continues to remove the tags, maybe you could try a block discussion at ANI or a RFC/U. I happen to think the fair use standards here are a bit much too sometimes, but I don't go ignoring them. Even if the user is worried that standards will change again and he'll be left out in the cold, I see little other that we can recommend we have him do - we need to have images brought up to code.
Is he refusing because he's uploaded thousands of images and lacks the time to write a rationale? I can understand his frustration - Wikipedia's standards have changed - but we need to keep up with them. I'm sure calm discussion with the user could work out a solution, even if it's obnoxious and requires someone to go through the man-hours to help tag the images. If calm discussion does nothing, I'm afraid I'll have to punt too and recommend going to WP:ANI. I didn't even know WP:NFCR existed until you posted it on my talk.
Is he just lazy? I admit I'm a bit worried this is the case given what I've read at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822 (of course, I could be wrong). See solution for first. Are RFC/U's ever effective by the way?
Hopefully we can work this out in such a way that doesn't involve the mass deletion of Richard's images. Let me know if I've been specific enough. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the approach that I attempted when I came upon certain images he's uploaded. I think he is refusing for a little bit of all three of those reasons (but not really lazy, because he comes quickly in defense of these images). At first he sounded very startled and demanded an explanation. So I explained to him about the insufficient rationales and what was lacking and strongly recommended that he use {{Non-free use rationale}}, because its parameters give you the chance to add all you need for a rationale. Then he was angry on the file talk pages and either did not understand the fair use requirements or insisted that there was no problem. He then went on to revert some of my edits. I think that he somewhat understands fair use requirements by now, given what I and some other users have done to help get through the CCI, but he's uploaded so many images that he only spends so much time with each one and isn't prepared to face the consequences. Therefore, I believe it would be appropriate for an administrator to politely confront him on his talk page and kindly ask him to explain his actions. What he writes back, and most of all, in what manner will determine whether or not a block is appropriate. Jsayre64(talk)01:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the text below is the user's response to I assume me, from his user page:
"Why is this now the second time that someone has flagged my image for deletion, taken by me, tagged properly by me. Every Essjay on Wikipedia thinks they are an expert on copyright law, and knee-jerk delete everything and anything." Jsayre64(talk)02:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's not just you. :) For example, he posted this, choosing for some odd reason to draw conclusions about my training and education. Since I have attempted to talk with him reasonably at multiple points, I'm unsure why he wouldn't just talk about his concerns with me, but I overlook that kind of attitude routinely in copyright cleanup. He was also strangely confrontational here with another admin over copyright matters, at least until I intervened. Sometimes people are disgruntled about copyright cleanup. I would prefer to avoid the RfC/U or ANI option if possible. Too much time wasted in drama. :/ Personally, I would hope that Richard would not need to be blocked. At least with respect to this matter he has been difficult to work with, but the vast majority of his contributions to Wikipedia are constructive. To me, what matters is getting the material squared away. Many of these images are valid; they're just not FURred well.
Before I consider speaking to Richard (based on the link above I would not expect a satisfying conclusion to that, as I have not found him generally approachable), I think there are several factors that we need to think about in the approach of this. Images that fail NFCC should probably be separated out and handled differently than images that have skimpy (but valid) FUR. For the latter situation, I believe we have a tag for that, don't we? Not a deletion tag, but one that asks for the missing information to be corrected? I feel like there's one and that I ought to know where it is, but my ability to forget things I know is truly remarkable. :D If we don't have one, we darned well should, and I am minded to correct that.
With respect to the ones that clearly fail NFCC, probably the best thing to do is to tag them {{DfU}} with a clear explanation of which part of the criteria they fail. Drop me a note, and I'll watchlist it. I'll handle any disputes that may arise. If it is less clear, it's probably best to list the images at WP:NFCR, backlogged or no. As long as you tag the images as instructed, note what you've done at the CCI and explain at NFCR what you think the problem is, you don't need to do anything more than that. That will bring it up for review by others. It may take a while, but we'll have met due diligence. :)
By the way, if you feel that this situation is too uncomfortable for you to do more, I will completely understand. I'll be sorry to see you stop, but you have my appreciation for what you've done already. We're all volunteers here, and the project benefits most by having you active and happy. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I am Charles Micklewright who has written around 99% of the content for the article "Lilford Hall". Much of the material has been obtained from the wesite www.lilfordhall.com which I have written and own. I am happy to grant permission under my copyright rights to Wikipedia for the article "Lilford Hall". How do we proceed so that the original article can be restored? My e-mail address is aziza@micklewrightc.freeserve.co.uk
Hi. :) The procedures for verifying permission were set out at User talk:Micklewright on 22 November. Basically, you can verify permission by one of two ways: either placing a release on your website or e-mailing a release to the Wikimedia Foundation. You can read more about the procedure at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If any of that is unclear, please let me know. I'm happy to help you through the process.
If you choose to send an e-mail, please be sure that you identify all articles on Wikipedia which used the text by name, that you provide a link to the website from which the content was taken, that you indicate a usable license (as set out in the process page I linked above) and that your e-mail address is clearly associated with that website. That will speed the processing of your permission and get the content restored more quickly. The two most common problems we run into with permissions are unclear or unusable licenses and communications we can't positively connect to the source. (If you don't have an e-mail address that clearly connects you to the source, there are ways around that; let me know, and I'll help you come up with one that works for you.)
Just want to run something by you. Mario Moya is up for CSD as a copyvio. Sure enough, the text matches this bio. However, the text in our article was added 2 September 2009. The bio doesn't have a date, but may be more current. (I checked Wayback, didn't find an older version, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything.)
Of relevance is the fact that the WP addition was by a user named Mario Moya. My guess is that the subject of the article added the bio material himself, and more or less simultaneously, used the same material for the website bio.
I don't have a clear copyvio, as I cannot dismiss the possibility that the WP article text came first. It might be a reverse copyvio, but I don't have enough facts to establish that as well.
However, it might be necessary to establish which is which if we thought the article should remain. My current thinking is to delete the article for other reasons, and not address the copyvio issues. I'm not quite comfortable with a speedy, so wondering if it should be a Prod.
This all may be moot in this specific instance if someone comes along and deletes it, but I'd be interested in your advice in any event.--SPhilbrickT17:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) What I would do in this situation: convert the speedy tag to {{copyvio}} and list it at WP:CP, giving the contributor the requisite notice. That seems a little more polite in borderline cases, and it gives us a little time for her to verify permission before it's gone. When it comes up at CP, I or whoever closes it will look for evidence that we had it first. Lacking that, we have to delete, but at least it gets a shot. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for clarification re: Malke 2010's mentorship ending
Hello Moonriddengirl. Could I be so bold as to ask that you clarify today's ending of Malke 2010's mentorship "due to disagreements about its administration" ? As you know, I was one of many who expressed concerns due to her multiple blocks, threads at ANI, etc. I also, as you recall, had highly unpleasant encounters with this editor, and was of the opinion that a lengthy block was called for under the circumstances but withdrew when mentorship was accepted; now I see that Malke 2010 has had still more blocks since that time.
For the record, and in the event additional ANI threads are started for this demonstrably problematic editor, could you please elaborate on the recent circumstances? I have your page watchlisted and will look for a reply here. Many thanks, Jusdafax03:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. With respect to the "still more blocks", I do need to point out that one of the interim blocks was withdrawn; feedback from multiple parties to the blocking admin suggests it may have been based on a mistaken understanding of the situation. As to the rest, conversation about the mentorship may still be ongoing, but I think it's fair to say that at this point we (for different reasons) do not feel that the mentorship is likely to be effective anymore. Although I think she has much improved since then, after more than five months as her mentor, I have become personally invested and no longer feel that I would be "uninvolved" enough to apply sanctions if any were needed. It seems best under the circumstances for me to withdraw, unless the situation changes, and to let the community know that she is not at this point under my guidance or observation. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a delicate situation involving an admin which is clearly paraphrasing. The question is whether it is too close, because he introduced factual inaccuracies into it. Could you please take a look. The diff shows what he added from a single source http://www.plainsborohistory.org/turnpike.htm. I was the GA reviewer Talk:New Jersey Route 26/GA1 and repeatedly suggested that he get a second source or drop the paragraphs from the article. He told me at the outset that he didn't want any messages on his talk page from me, and withdrew the GA nomination without any message to my talk page or on the review page. I question the wisdom of leaving these paragraphs in the article, but I want a second opinion regarding whether the paraphrase is too close. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's pretty clear what source he's been using, and not just because he cited it. :/ He follows lockstep. I'm inclined to think it's just on this side of okay, since the content is chronological and the facts basic, though the inaccuracies are worrisome. :/ I'll invite additional review, though. These are the gray areas that can be difficult to assess. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article Kurtis Blow appears to be an unambiguous copyright violation of this site. Originally I tagged the article for CSD but reconsidered based upon the CSD tag that this instance might be more complicated. Therefor I removed the CSD tag and applied a maintenance tag, as well as notify you here. Please cause the correct action to ensue and I will watch from the sidelines Thank you and I am sorry for increasing your workload. My76Strat17:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that during the interim of these posts a correction was made. I believe the issue is resolved but having posted this request, I leave it for you to verify upon your own leisure. Again, thanks for the important work that you do and the valuable liaison you have become. My76Strat17:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I added the {{cclean}} to the article talk page. It's possible that the contributor is the copyright owner, based on his edit summary, but we would need to verify that...and it's really not appropriate for us anyway. :) And please don't worry about increasing my workload; this is my workload. :D I've chosen to help out Wikipedia in this way, and I am happy to help. I appreciate your kind words. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's been blocked for 48 hours. Here's hoping that he'll get the point. If not, we need to go indef. To update the CCI (which we've only had to do twice), we run the program again and narrow the date range to between the opening of the last CCI and today. This point, we should probably simply be more presumptive of vio and eliminate text in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If he is still blatantly pasting without any effort at paraphrase in the weeks following his notice, he either does not get it at all or does not care. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio (I think) and what do I do?
Hi there, I'm not really sure where I'm supposed to take this, but I've heard you are the resident copyvio expert, so I'm hoping you (or a talk page stalker) can help me. On The Lees of Laughter's End, the "plot summary" section appears to just be a copy of the blurb of the book (although I can't actually prove it atm). So is that a copyright violation? Assuming the answer yes, what am I supposed to do? Originally I would have thought it would have been fine to just remove it, but with all that copyvio drama about a month ago, I somehow got the impression that it couldn't just be removed, an admin had to actually delete it from the page history. Any help at all would be appreciated. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've expunged it from the history. Given it was foundational, it might be worth looking through the other creations of User:Setne for more cut and paste jobs. I'll leave MRG to do the copyright lecture, she gives it so very well. ;) Courcelles08:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rule #3 of Wikipedia: If the language looks just a bit too clever, and just a little promotional, you 'll never go broke betting it was copied from somewhere. Courcelles08:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not much point in the copyright lecture, as the contributor has been gone for years, but a baby CCI seems needed. I've confirmed copying in several articles. I'm conducting it at his or her user talk page. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I can't believe my question caused you so much work. Thanks to both of you guys for your prompt action and for the mountain of copyvio work you do :) Jenks24 (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
