|
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 17:50, 14 October 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
I've written up a draft here. The language is, of course, very general. In practice, you would expect that a committee could be elected to make new policies, or to edit certain policy pages on sensitive issues on which the community is too divided. Count Iblis (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting me know. :) I probably won't get to look at it until I get back; typically, I don't sleep that well the night before flying somewhere, and I'd rather have my wits about me. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just expanded the page a bit. If you have some ideas on improving it, you can edit it directly (gaining consensus will be difficult, so I'm not going to insist on very specific wordings, it would be good enough to get something along the general lines of the curent version adopted ). Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your excellence is requested, when you are available and have the time. Could Haryana#Geography be a straight lift from this? I've ran it through dupe detector but couldn't make my mind up. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like a copyvio, some of text for example was added here during a period of heavy editing on the article. The editor isn't active anymore but appears to have had some copyright problems during their tenure here. Since the copyvio was awhile ago, the original text has been modified a bit and it makes it harder to clean. I guess the good thing about User:Maheshkumaryadav's article splits is that they exposed a bunch of existing copyvios.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, although he added a shedload himself! I'll have to read up on how to deal with a mangled vio. Thank you, your highness (since the excellency is away) <g> - Sitush (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed on that, it is often hard to tell when it is him or someone else. I removed the text from the Haryana article. If you need help working out copyright problems, WP:cv101 is a good place to start. No need for titles around here, haha. I am just a court jester and busy bee.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed the removal. Thanks also for the tip. - Sitush (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC) the humble tea boy[reply]
- LOL! I'm glad you two were able to work this out. :D (And sort titles, too!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previously , on Langley High School (Oldbury), the entire copy of the school song lyrics were included; I removed them in this diff. I did so on both WP:NOT grounds (we don't quote primary texts in their entirety), and for the inclusion of the full lyrics being a potential copyright violation. Another editor (dynamic IP, signing as "Cresconian") objected, saying that the inclusion of songs was common in other UK school articles. I told him that the NOT issue could potentially be discussed, but that if it was a copyvio, there wasn't any possibility of including it. Cresconian was able to determine that the author of the song was J G Haworth, first Headmaster of the school, and that it was first published in the UK in 1928. As far as I can see from the copyright info, UK copyrights are protected for 70 years from the date of death of the author, or 70 years from the publication date if the author is unknown. In this case, we know the author, but not the death date (I assume, I'll check to be sure). Questions: First, have I pinned down the relevant issue? Second, (if yes on the first) assuming we can't easily find the death date, are we safe arguing this is out of copyright?
Mind you, even if we find that this song is out of copyright, I'll still be arguing against inclusion, but at least it's a possibility and one that can be resolved through consensus. I see above you're out for another day or two, which is fine, as this is not time sensitive, although if any TPS have the answer, feel free to let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Had it been published just a few years earlier, it would have been public domain. :/ Probably because I'm jetlagged, it took me a bit of time to find this chart. :) You may want it to show to Cresconian. Here's the basic situation: if it was first published in the UK in 1928 without following US formalities and it had become public domain in the UK before January 1996, it's PD in the US Clearly, that can't be the case, since the author was still alive and publishing in 1928. It might also be PD in the US if it was published in the United States within 30 days of its original publication in the UK. PD would be determined then by whether it was published with proper notice and that notice was renewed. We'd need evidence of that publication. If it was not PD in the UK by January 1996, it will not be PD in the US until 95 years after its first publication--2024. This is true even if it has lapsed into public domain in the UK. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Found the conversation at your talk page. I'll just put this there. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again very much! Your copyright advice is extraordinarily valuable and unbelievably extensive. I don't know how you do it. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may just have to link this on my userpage. Now, do you have any idea on how weyou author this process? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! I have ideas, sure; viable ideas? Um....
- I've been bandying about the notion of an elected body.... Actually, not so much that elected body. :) I have no concerns of bias myself with ArbCom, but I know that a lot of those advocating for reform fear bias among admins, and I think that most if not even all of ArbCom are admins. I've been thinking that an elected body consisting of a balanced group of admins and otherwise might vet admin abuse complaints, deciding which may merit advice or admonishment to an admin and which might merit sanctions (which they might be empowered to impose or which they might pass to ArbCom for adjudication). Of course, they'd also be able to dismiss frivolous complaints (either arising from misunderstanding what constitutes use of admin tools or simply from grievance over legit use of those tools).
- Arbcom can, of course, address these matters themselves, but, as I said, I know there are deep-seated concerns that admins close ranks, and it seemed to me that representation might help alleviate those. It's a bit bureaucratic, but the current chaotic system of addressing things through ANI is certainly not an efficient and effective approach.
- What do you think? Hopelessly cracked? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
African Conservation Foundation page deleted, but there was no copyright issue. Text has a Creative Commons license and use was approved by the organisation. Can the deletion be undone or should we recreate the page?
13:49, 18 August 2010 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) deleted "African Conservation Foundation" (Listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over seven days: http://www.africanconservation.org/content/view/23/34/)
Orokiet (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Moonriddengirl is away from Wikipedia right now but I can help you out. The website does have a CC license but it is non-commercial (CC BY-NC-SA) and incompatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA. See here for a compatibility chart.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moonriddengirl - Your apology, on behalf of this hastily edited Forum, is appreciated and your encouragement along with that of others here, has inspired me to continue my work on Boue Soeurs. Just not on Wikipedia.
Regards,
Ellen
--Ellen Ada Goldberg (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Could you please take a look at Mecca massacre, in particular, this part:
- Khalid compiled a revealing letter of protest to Ruhollah Khomeini, asking that Khomeini urge his followers to show restraint but strongly hinting that the Great Mosque had been defiled by blasphemous Iranian pilgrims. According to Khalid, Iranian pilgrims in the Great Mosque had performed their ritual circumambulations while chanting "God is Great, Khomeini is great", and "God is One, Khomeini is one." There was no need for Khalid to elaborate on this charge. It was obvious (as far as Saudi Islam was concerned) that the Iranians' slogans constituted an excessive veneration of their Imam, regarded by Wahhabis as a form of polytheism. All this had aroused the "dissatisfaction and disgust" of other pilgrims, wrote Khalid to Khomeini. In fact, Khalid's letter distorted well-known Iranian revolutionary slogans. Iranian pilgrims had actually chanted "God is Great, Khomeini is leader." The Saudis had confused the Persian word for "leader" (rahbar) with the rhyming Arabic for "great" (akbar). The pilgrims' Arabic chant declared that "God is One, Khomeini is leader." Here, the Saudis had confused the Arabic for "one" (wāhid) with the rhyming Arabic for "leader" (qā'id).
And compare it to: [1].
I would edit it myself, but unfortunately, most of my recent edits have been reverted, and I have been reminded to stay within the guidelines set by 3RR. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out. Moonriddengirl is away right now but I removed the text in question as it appears to be a copyright violation. The book was published in 1990 and the text added in 2007. In the future, you can report such cases at WP:CP.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, NortyNort. :) (I have a feeling I'll be saying that more than once this morning. :D) Just for future reference, Unflavoured, copyright cleanup is exempt from WP:3RR, but that's an exemption you want to invoke carefully. On very controversial articles in which you may seem to be involved, I would typically recommend removal once, with a clear explanation in edit summary and a note on the talk page ({{cclean}} works) followed by, if the content is returned, blanking the material by using {{copyvio}} (if you place a after the section, it won't blank the whole article). If that template is removed without clear action (such as removing the copyrighted content or proving that infringement is reversed), it's a good idea to track down an admin to help out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, for your further actions and for your advice. I will keep this in mind later, but I think I will simply edit at a slower pace so as not to encroach upon 3RR, regardless of whether or not it is warranted. Unflavoured (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The material in question are essential information to the context of the events. Unflavoured is trying to censor this information for purely POV reason, Copyvio is not his main concern. The material should be restored as attributed quotation per our copyright guidelines, which clearly states "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea.". Do you guys agree? Kurdo777 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. We don't keep copyright problems around until they are fixed; they are removed unless they are fixed. The best means to handle this, as the template at the talk page advises, is to rewrite the material so that it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. We can't quote something just because we also want to present the material; use of non-free content needs to be transformative...it has to be used for good reason. (Some reasons are set out in the guideline which you quote.) Some of the smaller unattributed pasting I removed could probably be restored as an attributed quotation (although the sources cited seem to have been false; it was copied from Geocities which may not meet WP:V), but most of the content in the paragraph quoted above would need to be written from scratch. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think of my attempt to re-write/summarize the material in question. [2]?Kurdo777 (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems fine, overall. :) There is a problem with WP:V. Again, the content was taken from Geocities. I don't know who flagged it as coming from page 181 of the book, but at least the phrase "pollute the Great Mosque" is on page 184. (See [3]). It seems like whoever cited that source just used one of the pages from which material was drawn. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the page number and reworded the rest of the material in question. Cheers. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like your opinion as an admin, please. Is my recent edit [4] in violation of 3RR ?! The last similar edit was [5], but this time I had taken care to make only a small expansion of the lede, which I had expected to be uncontroversial. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like you're not quite giving me the full picture here. :) That's two edits; by definition it can't violate 3RR. You would need to show me all four suspect edits and, preferably, explain what you were reverting for me to give you an opinion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what I thought as well. My last 4 edits to Mecca Massacre (not including talk page, and an edit which added to the "External links") are: [6], [7], [8], and [9]. Thank you very much for your time. Unflavoured (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, again, I'm not seeing the full picture if I don't know what you were reverting. With a 3RR violation report, you would usually begin by showing the state of the article to which you were reverting with the first of those four edits. Having just gotten back from a trip, I'm trying to catch up on copyright issues and really don't have time to examine the article edit by edit. So I'll just address the principle. If in those four edits you were reverting fully or partially to an earlier state, then you may have violated 3RR in spirit, even though the diffs span a few minutes more than 24 hours. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In one of these edits, I expanded the history section, adding new material. That was not a revert, so I hope I have not broken 3RR. My apologies for taking your time, and thank you for your response. Unflavoured (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No apology needed; I'm just explaining why I'm not digging further into this myself. :) If, in one of those edits, you did not restore earlier content and those are the only edits you've made in the time period (excluding the one which added an EL, presumably for the first time), then you should not have any issues with 3RR. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, thanks again. I will expand other parts of the article for now, and leave the disputed parts alone to a later date, when perhaps there is a calmer mood. Cheers !! Unflavoured (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just reverted a huge copy/paste at Rajya Sabha. My suspicion is that, with suitable attribution, it might actually have been ok but I was unsure and it really was a lot of text. I have found the relevant website's copyright notice, which is a PDF here. It is extremely short and to the point, so if/when you have a moment would it be possible for you to check it out for me, please?
If it is ok, as I suspect, then my next issue is how to correctly incorporate it in a valid manner. I have looked at the WP:PLAGIARISM section on public domain and cannot decide whether each section needs citing + a comment in the edit summary or whether there should be a general note in references (as I think I have seen done for some PD books in the past). Clueless, as usual. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all clueless. :)
- I'm afraid that license is not compatible with Wikipedia's; it restricts reproduction to non-commercial use only and requires that "material has to be reproduced accurately", which is problematic for permitting derivative works. Both commercial reuse and modification are required by our licenses.
- If it were compatibly licensed, you have the option of going either way--section by section, or article as a whole. I usually go article as a whole when copying is extensive. If interspersed or controversial, I will sometimes attribute by section. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, damn. That opens a huge can of worms. Indian editors have long been insisting that the output of their government is in the public domain and can be used here without any issues at all. Since the copyright notice I provided comes from the website of the upper house of the Indian parliament ... it looks likely that they are wrong. Only 249,999 articles left to check, then. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some government information from India is public domain. Give me a minute, and I'll give you a fuller picture. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. This is from some of my older notes. :) Copyright rules of 1957, section 52(q) excludes as copyright violations the "reproduction or publication" of certain government works, although they explicitly require the retention of certain materials in subsection (ii). Reproduction in the absence of these materials is regarded as a copyright violation.
Specifically, it says that the following are not copyright violations:
(q) the reproduction or publication of-
(i) any matter which has been published in any Official Gazette except an Act of a Legislature;
(ii) any Act of a Legislature subject to the condition that such Act is reproduced or published together with any commentary thereon or any other original matter;
(iii) the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the Government if such report has been laid on the Table of the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the Government;
(iv) any judgement or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction or publication of such judgment or order is prohibited by the court, the tribunal or other judicial authority, as the case may be
So, some content of the government of India is free; some is not. Determining which is which can sometimes be challenging. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those exceptions are not mentioned at commons:COM:L#India or commons:Template:PD-India. They should be. ww2censor (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; I gave it a go (and here), but failing to get much response came back to my home Wiki. :/ (I also brought up the matter either in IRC or e-mail thread; I can't remember the details at this point.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Excellent stuff, as always. Who needs Wikipedia as a knowledge source when we have Moonriddengirl? <g> The 1957 rules section you quote actually makes a lot of sense to me: broadly speaking, it is placing in the PD all written transactions of the government and courts which were intended to form a part of the "public record". Unfortunately, the stuff I've seen does not fall within its scope & so, if I ever find it again, will either have to go or be rephrased. I seem to recall that this includes quite a lot of images. I am not going to win any popularity contest. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse interuption - just to note we have had issues with Indian Public Domain images in the past as the Indian Right to Information Act gives free access to government data but nothing in the act says it can then be re-used for anything for example commercial activities. In the public domain means it is available to the public not to do with what they want which has been misunderstood by Indian uploaders. Images quoting the Right to Information Act have required fair use statements in the past. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I had an example of that a few weeks ago. The Indian editor was not very pleased with me. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I'm afraid that I am doomed to disappoint you! There's quite a lot I don't know; although I learn more every day, I suspect that's not going to change anytime soon. :D Public domain is really too strong a word for what they're doing, even though I used it myself earlier in this conversation. Since there are conditions, the material is not entirely free. The biggest and most obvious exception, of course, is with Acts of Legislature, which must be published with commentary or other official matter. The sentence at Commons:Template:PD-India that says "Text of laws, judicial opinions, and other government reports are free from copyright" is just flat wrong.
User:MilborneOne, I've got a case up at PuF right now where the Press Information Bureau of India is just not quite liberal enough. Always a shame to have to disappoint people who think they're doing the right thing. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The PuF one is a clear as day! The problem there is likely to be that ppl read only the first sentence of the copyright section. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article looked well referenced. I'd like the chance to fix any problems. I was unaware of the fact they even had a "copyright problems" page and that the default was to delete if no one said anything. — BQZip01 — talk 21:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can restore it to give you a chance to fix problems, but I'm afraid that the quality of referencing has never been the issue with this gentleman; the problem is that he has evidently made a habit of copying or directly translating content from copyrighted sources. :/ See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110429. In addition to some confirmed copying from a New York Times article (abstract here), another contributor found some copying or close paraphrasing from [10]. Incidentally, if you have interest in the area, this is not the only of his articles that has been deleted or that probably will be. The CCI shows some redlinks that are already gone; the bulk of his contributions will likely wind up being removed, although with the backlog in that department it may be a while. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't necessarily have an interest in that area, but I did comment on an image from the page that was up for deletion. To be clear, what exactly is the problem? If he cited the source he got it from, where's the issue? Did he not use quotes? Did he copy EVERYTHING verbatim from other sites? If that's the problem, we can simply rephrase each sentence in our own words while retaining the citations. Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 23:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't know what he copied verbatim and what he didn't in any given article; that's really part of the problem. We just know that he copied a lot. :/ You can certainly rewrite the content, but you can't do it sentence by sentence any more than you could do that with a published source for risk of creating a derivative work; that's where close paraphrasing becomes an issue. It's best to work a little more broadly than that, perhaps referring back to those sources that you can see and working with them as though you were the originator of the article. Where he draws from sources you can't see (or, if you're not fluent in Russian, can't read :D) it may be best to be more general and avoid going too heavily into close detail. I've saved a few of his articles by stubbing them down; sometimes that makes a good starting point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, need your advice. Vivian Balakrishnan, an article on a Singaporean politician, has contained copyvio from his official profile since the very first edit to create the article in July 2005. Over the years the copyvio hasn't really been touched while the rest of the article has evolved. I've removed the portions that still offend (direct copy-and-pastes in most cases, with the occasional minor sentence structure change), but I'm not sure if RD1 is needed. I don't think it's feasible to RD1 every single revision dating back six years. What's normally done in such a case? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) Why do you think we copied from them and not the other way around? His official profile says it was published in March 2010. Yoenit (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Singaporean government has been updating its websites recently, including changing the looks of them (and possibly changing the underlying software used to publish the sites). I wouldn't trust the date at face value. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) I found the 2006 version of his website on the internet archive [11], this does indeed appear to be a foundational copyvio. I will leave it to an admin whether or not to revdelete, but pages with significantly more revisions than this page have been revdeleted under RD1 in the past. Yoenit (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, there's an earlier version from Jan 06, with a copyright tag at the bottom noting April 2005 – before our article was created. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope nobody minds if I jump in here - rather than use the revdel tool on this one, I just deleted the article and then undeleted the most previous revisions only. The history is still available in deleted articles, so I think we're okay from a licensing perspective. This just seemed easier. - Philippe 10:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) Unfortunately that is not how it works. Readers and non-admins can't see the deleted history and the material is thus not properly attributed. Yoenit (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good morning all! (From where I'm sitting anyway. :D) CC-By-SA has been interpreted as requiring that we either maintain the history of the article or provide a complete list of prior contributors. But there's an alternative to revdeletion here: Wikipedia:Selective deletion. In other words, I would start with exactly what you did, Philippe. :) I'll finish off with that list. I'm on it --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Strange Passerby#copyvio? - we have an another admin, La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who steadfastly refuses to believe this is copyvio and says the Singaporean government committed copyvio of us, despite evidence to the contrary. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just pointed him to this discussion. Yoenit (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't looked at the article for my usual tell-tale clues. :) I'll do a temporary move of the article top to get the deleted revisions off to themselves and do my usual trawl for signs of reverse infringement. The archived version of the article will be a great help. Would be much better with a definitive answer, but you take what you can get. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I am persuadable, hold on! I am saying we shouldn't jump the gun. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 11:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking for signs of reverse infringement is standard operating procedure. :) It happens way more frequently than people might imagine. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I restored a few revisions (I skipped a lot of them -- I only restored big content changes) otherwise we will be blind without them being temporarily public. If you look at how the article evolved from the very beginning, it seems clear to me that they copyvio'ed us. For example, info about his leadership of the student unions was put up early 2006, but this doesn't appear on his earlier biographies in 2005 and 2006, and only appears in his 2010 biography. Actually what we probably have is an intimate copying off of one another -- the government has this annoying tendency of editing articles about their own ministers to make themselves look better. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 11:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in his April 2005 biography, in the first paragraph. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I've reseparated them. Please give me a couple of minutes to organize this so that we can evaluate it systematically. Restoring only some of the history is probably not the best idea; generally, it is the small edits (typo corrections, etc.) where we see evidence of reverse infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I didn't know you were still analysing; okay I'll let you do your work. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 11:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the history of the article is currently parked here: Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions. If it turns out that the infringement is reversed, we can merge it back in. Generally, the biggest clues we'll find when archives cannot confirm that their publication predates (though it suggests they did) is looking for minute changes that alter the content into the form of the external site. This can be a bit tedious, but with enough of these we hit Occam's razor—the odds that somebody copied an external source with a few minor changes and that a couple of other editors came along later and happened to move it back to its original form are pretty small.
Now that the history is divided, let's take a look and see what we can see. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Preliminarily, I think this is a reverse infringement. The most significant factor so far: [12]. This sentence was added well after the foundation of the article and is present in the external site. Still looking; I like to be sure with these kinds of things. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing this, MRG. The April 2005 external site includes both lines. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a pro-government editor just making the article conform to the government source? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 11:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the structure of the article starts here. Clearly, the current website copies that from us. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 11:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's merely adding headings to the article. The actual structuring of the article, sans-headings, was identical to the official external site. The fact that the current external site uses headings should not be taken as a fact to mean that they committed copyvio from us, when their original site was already structured as such. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) That's not April 2005; that's January 2006. :) The April 2005 date of copyright is not proof of authorship in 2005; many websites use a single date. The point is that it is highly unlikely that one user would copy parts of a copyrighted source and another user come in and add other parts of the same copyrighted source. When this happens, this offers us signs of natural evolution. The more people I find building on such content, the better, but sometimes we don't have a lot. I'm finding more evidence of reverse infringement. I'll set it out here so we can discuss it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, your diff above is from April 2006, MRG. There's at least some aspect of copyvio on WP's side, but possibly there may be two-way infringement? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be; that's happened before, too. Your January archive is earlier than the one I was working with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It also seems possible to me the situation you mention would occur if the first editor thought some information inappropriate for Wikipedia, but a second one not, therefore the second editor goes back and adds this. Unlikely, but possible. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The earliest archived revision is January 2006, correct? I can't seem to go back any earlier. Vsion wrote (copied?) the base of that article in June 2005. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 11:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That we currently have, correct. I'm trying to find an earlier one somehow. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Unfortunately, that doesn't prove anything. :/ Archives can have a significant lag before they store a site. While finding an earlier archive can be used to prove that we copied, lack of an archive can't prove that we didn't. The January 2006 archives makes verifying reverse infringement, if it occurred, much more difficult because there is a shorter range for natural evolution. Given that dated archive, I don't think we have enough to exclude our copyvio, but I'm looking at it from a few other angles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
December 4, 2004, predating our article. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, good job! However did you find that? You do realize that I may be knocking on your door in the future when I find similarly complex cases? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! I'm surprised I didn't think about it earlier, actually. While we focussed on the recent editions of the external page, I was looking through the Singapore-specific (National Library-hosted) wayback machine. The earliest there, as we saw, was Jan 2006. Then I had the idea of taking that URL (a page which no longer exists) and putting that into the archive.org-hosted wayback machine, and it threw up results all the way back to August 2004. :) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Genius! :D I'm off to catalog the history, then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the history is all stored at Talk:Vivian Balakrishnan/Attribution. Since you may run into such situations in the future, Strange Passerby, the reason it's stored in talk space is to avoid our readers reaching it through the "random article" navigation tool. :) I always protect these pages, since there are legal implications in altering them. The deleted article is stored at Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions. It's there if it's ever needed, but not showing up for anybody if it's not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) Been following this a little bit to see how it worked out. Anyway is that attribution page sufficient? The standard disclaimer when you edit states "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" but that attribution list contains neither so could we still be breaking the licensing terms for those contributions and possibly leaving us in trouble with the contributors? Probably a more general concern than just this instance as I've seen it done before but I thought I'd ask here first as it's relevant. Dpmuk (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note first, I've notified the contributor now. :)
- In my interpretation, the hyperlink or URL refers to a hyperlink or URL to the article, which is what we require under Wikipedia:Reuse. The license itself only requires that we maintain a list of contributors, and WMF:Terms of use offers that as an option: "As an author, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, b) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) through a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.)" I think the list of authors should be okay. :) If we really worry that it could be misleading, we need to coordinate between ToU and whatever it is we call that text under the edit window. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree that the Terms of Use allow it and as it's linked from the warning we'll probably OK but as it's a little misleading I suggest the text of the warning needs changing. The text is at MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning but I have no idea about how to go about suggesting changes to that. Dpmuk (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll bring it up at the talk page there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Okay, another angle we explore is the history of the contributor to see if the contributor has demonstrated confusion about copyright or had other issues with copyright. Here he seems not quite to understand why Wikipedia does not accept copyrighted content. This is also not definitive; not like when we see a long history of copyright warnings and deletions. But the way policy is written, if we cannot verify that content is free and there are legitimate reasons to believe that it may not be, we presume it is not. I don't mark something as a reverse infringement lightly. If I had found this at WP:CP and been left to work on it on my own, I would have concluded that we could not retain the content for that reason; I would have left the contributor a note explaining that we recognize the possibility that they copied from him, but that since we cannot prove that we could not retain the material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Most of the stuff on the Sayaa Irie page is false.
I am correcting it! They are using bad links to verify incorrect information.
I consider some of the information they posted damning!
You are posting links to child porn!
The elk hart books are now considers child porn in Japan!
Please quit reposting it! I am reporting it!
Delete all the elk hart stuff!
and the part about Garo Aida needs to be deleted. He is nothing more then a glorified pedophile!
None of what is posted about him ever happened!
Sorry about the youtube stuff.
The problem is that wikipedia will not let me post every verifiable source.
If the link is in Japanese, it usually does not allow me to post...
The stuff about Sweet Kiss and Chase I posted in correct and was verifiable... wikiepedia blocks the link because some of it is in Japanese!
All of the Chinese links are bad! They post bad information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.253.2 (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your note. Replying at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well, I did what you asked, and all the bad information was reposted...
AKB48 is suing the magazine for 150 mil.
I do not understand why wikipedia keeps reposting the bad content relentlessly.
Hey, I'm a bit confused. You deleted this article's talk page as a G8 (talk page of a deleted page), although the page still exists; now, because the talk page was deleted, it's impossible to know what the page is supposed to be a copyvio of because you referred readers to the talk page rather than providing a URL. I'd like to help correct the copyvio problems, but since I don't know what they are, there's not much I can do. Mind helping out? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry; the article was deleted, but I restored it to give more time to a contributor who wanted to help out with rewriting it. I didn't think about restoring the talk page, too. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh wow, I didn't realize it had been deleted. Yeah, it would be great if you could restore the talkpage too! Then I may be able to get on rewriting the copyvio'd sections. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is insanely slow loading for me today. :/ Okay, the talk page is back; if I'm remembering correctly, there was more info on this one at WP:CP as well; you can find the link to the actual day by following the "what links here" tag in the toolbox. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Thank you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. :) It always makes my day when people want to help rewrite copyright problem articles. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, I saw your moving the edit history of Toledo Chico to Manga, Toledo Chico. I know about attribution per the CC-BY-SA license. I only wish to inform you that I have worked together with User:Dr. Blofeld to create articles for all of the (initially 79 smaller) barrios of Montevideo and we have been in agreement that some of them will have to be redirected to others of the series to end up with the 58 (actually it turned out to be 62) officialy recognized barrios. You will notice that most of my talk page contains discussion with Dr. Blofeld about Montevideo, barrios, etc. The small stubs I am redirecting to the composite articles were a serial work Dr. Blofeld did to start all 79 stubs. I am absolutely sure he has no CC-BY-SA license problem with my actions. Since there are more cases of such redirects in the series, I though I might save you some work by explaining this, but I may have missed the reason of your edit. Regards and thank you. Hoverfish Talk 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) Unless Dr. Blofeld is the only contributor and explicitly releases his attribution rights on the articles, I'm afraid that you do have to provide attribution as set out in our terms of use. The license that Wikipedia uses is a legal matter; we can't presume that it's okay to copy his content, even if it probably is. He has to actually say that he is waiving those rights. Wherever possible, of course, as it would have been with that article, you should rather move than copy them. This will not only take care of attribution but will marginally decrease storage, as we won't be hosting the content under two different locations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will not do another copypaste rather than move. All the other cases in the series are simply redirects placed on the abandoned stubs, so nothing went missing there. Thanks again. Hoverfish Talk 14:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for fixing Haida and Haida people. It was a pleasant surprise to see that today. I didn't know quite how to fix the pages, and didn't really have the time. Pfly (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. :) Thanks for notifying us! I was very surprised to see the problem had resumed; we actually dealt with it in 2009. :/ I think we've not seen the last of it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering if you could help me with this. I want to include information from this table from this book [13] (page 71, if it doesn't take you to the page with the table do a search for the phrase "Liberties originally granted") - how do I do it without running afoul of copyright laws? I once asked a related question on Wikicommons about time-graphs and they said that as long as you got the data and you make the graph yourself, rather than copy/paste the graph, you're good. So can I just make that table in the relevant article using standard Wiki mark up and including all the info, arranged in a similar manner? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) Help:Table and Help:Wikitable will help you with the markup you need to make such a table. Personally I am not certain about the copyright of the 1930 data displayed in the book because Polish law has retroactively made some public domain items copyright again per commons:COM:L#Poland. MRG is more versed in that department. ww2censor (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the data themselves can be copyrighted, it's more about the presenting the data in a way which doesn't violate copyright.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if the 1930 book from which the table was drawn is PD or not. It depends a lot on other factors of publication, including whether the content was published in the U.S. within 30 days of its initial publication in Poland. If not, the Polish rules applied, and they are, as ww2censor notes, a bit complex. We need to know when the author died to begin to determine its copyright status. Presuming that the material is not PD because of the death of the author, copyright in such tables can exist in two elements: (a) information and/or (b) structure. I think informationally speaking we may be clear, although it's hard to say for sure without knowing how he arrived at those figures. If they are his educated guess, they could be copyrightable. If he took them from a 1918 book, they're clear.
- If presentation is creative, then reproducing it in the same presentation even if with different markup to make it wouldn't clear copyright. It would be similar, say, to making an acrylic copy of an oil painting. :) Lists are creative to the extent that their compilers used subjectivity in organization them. This one concerns me a little bit, particularly in the classification of "Hungarians (and later, Italians)". This does not seem to be a category so common that just anybody would have made it. What I would do, if I were you, is introduce it as attributed text, rather than reproducing it as a table: "According to T. Landenburger, 14th century Cracow had a population of approximately 10,000, of which blahblahblah, while Kazimierz and Kleparz, with populations of 1,500 and 1,000 respectively, consisted entirely of ethnic Poles. The three cities combined, Landenburger says, had a population of about 15,000, of which 2,500 served in court, as soldiers or in the clergy.(site)" Of course, you prioritize whatever information is relevant to your point and can exclude altogether anything you don't care about. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, whilst looking through Milhist's list of unreferenced BLPs I came across Beryl E. Escott. The majority of the text came in on 18 November 2009 with this edit. It is essentially the same text as the author's profile on the publisher's website. Now as far as I can tell from the webarchive this profile existed before the WP page. (there isn't a grab of the Escott's page but there is a link of the main list of authors that hasn't changed in two years.) My question is should the whole page be deleted as almost every edit is therefore a derivative work of a copyrighted work? I wasn't sure of the correct procedure in these cases and hoped you might offer your assistance. Thanks, Woody (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) Ordinarily, yes, but I bet we can stub that one and keep the list of publications. Looking into this more deeply.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stubbed. The list of publications seems to be complete (now that I've updated it) and should be okay. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks great, thanks for that. Woody (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding the problem and following up on it so that it could be repaired. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got time to look at the conversation at User_talk:TransporterMan#Ruth_Glass about a close paraphrase situation at Ruth Glass - it is fairly short conversation. I think someone may have over-reacted here, especially as it was clear that I was looking at it. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I've had a look at the conversation and the article, and I've seen these kinds of situations before. Except when there's straightforward copy-pasting, there's always going to be some disagreement over when the line is crossed and how much. There's not an admin or an editor who works copyright (that is, heavily, since I've been involved) that I have not disagreed with at some point or the other, and I'm pretty sure they've all had moments of disagreeing with me. :) This is pretty normal considering that there's often dissenting opinion even in the Supreme Court when these cases go to trial. I've seen articles blanked that I thought should not be and others marked clear that dropped my jaw.
- I believe that the first edit needed to be revised to further separate it from the source. This is not wrongdoing of any kind on the contributor's part; it's a delicate skill to rewrite from scratch without heading off into original research. :/ I would not have left him the cp template; we don't really have a template for this situation. :( I have a few stock phrases I use, but I don't even have a template of my own. I suspect that what TransporterMan is responding to is the sense that incremental variations on a work can create an unusable "derivative". When you can trace the development of material, that's sometimes a problem. It's obvious that you were making good progress, and I would have myself been inclined to wait for you to finish and see if I still had concerns, but if I were in your position (and when I have been, in the past :D) I'd just go on to finish in the temporary space.
- One thing I'll warn you about in terms of doing these rewrites, because it is a subtle danger: sometimes incrementally altering the sentences in a close paraphrase can leave you still with the overall structure of a source. For that reason, I will myself generally try to find a new way of ordering the information we get as well as varying up the language. The only time there's no worry about this is when the structure of the original is purely non-creative. In this case, I'm not sure, for instance, why the information on the term gentrification is in the last sentence of the source. Is that chronologically when this occurred in her life? I'd probably haul that information up to the top of the article with some kind of "best known for blah and blah as well as for coining the term "gentrification". And one of my favorite techniques for addressing paraphrasing is drawing in information from a couple of more sources. First thing I look for: can I find a few facts somewhere else that aren't published in the suspected source? If so, I work them in immediately. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine. My next move was going to be to shift the comment about gentrification in the first paragraph, because it is a significant term and it is alleged that she introduced it. Thereafter, the article creator had already provided sources that could be dug into & in fact the source that the complainant picked up on was a precis of the much larger ODNB article that has a bundle of content in it. I just feel that the entire reporting situation was all done a little on the quick side.
- I'm not keen on people jumping on newbies within 10 minutes, but jumping on someone who has been around for a while within that timespan really irked me. Stick it on a watchlist and revisit in 12 hours, or even a couple of hours, would be my reaction. That is what niggled me: the CSD came while it was obvious that edits were going on and then the full-blown copyvio report went in while I had joined in and had commented on the reporters' talk page. I do accept that differences will occur but this has the "stink" of a new page patroller who is being unduly diligent and it worries me. There are rules and there are realities. It is a fine line.
- I will restart the entire thing from scratch, mainly because I am serious "narked" about what has happened here. I know nothing about the woman but am, at least relative to the average Wikipedian, sh*t hot with sourcing. You know me a little by now, I think: I am totally "pro" dealing with copyvios etc and the extent of them has driven me to despair on occasion. This occasion was not one of them. It was a hasty, unconsidered piece of trigger-happy notification. Something that, I think, we are all guilty of from time to time but is worrying if the person is indeed contributing primarily in a NPP role. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick is a problem. And I share your concerns about biting, whether the contributor is new or not. We don't want to sour the experience of contributing on Wikipedia to anybody who is working in good faith...the ideal goal is to repair the problem, keep the contributor. And I certainly know that you are very diligent in dealing with copyright problems. :) I appreciate your work there.
- Sometimes in working copyright problems I have encountered people who seem to me overly diligent or who have become very angry dealing with those who actually have violated our copyright problems. It's a very tricky balance; we want and need new page patrollers who are conscious of copyright issues. They provide tremendous value to the project, too. It can be hard to both validate the work they do (so they don't stop doing it) and encourage them to approach it differently (so they don't run off innocent or salvageable contributors). Pointing out when you disagree with important. And it's even more important to interact with the contributors you feel have been "bitten"; I appreciate your doing so. (I very much regret this situation, for instance. That was awful. :()
- I understand how you feel; really, I do. I've had content actually deleted after I had become involved with it. I've had to bite my tongue and dig for my diplomacy more than once. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm strongly considering filing a SPI for all the behavioral puppetry that is going on here (Unrationally keeping, Not signing, being in the very first articles edited on Wikipedia). Could I count on a statement of support (or confirmation of the behavior)? Thanks Hasteur (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) There's obviously either some sock puppetry or meat puppetry or serious offline canvassing going on. I'll certainly support that I've observed the behavior if you do file a SPI, but I'm not sure how much could come of it, unless it turns out that some of the registered users are socks or also "voting" as IPs. In terms of their impact on the AfD, the admin who closes the listing really should take into account the behavior with or without a SPI. We've seen this kind of thing before. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
