User talk:Moonriddengirl

edit count | edit summary usage Wikipedia ads file info – #178 Welcome 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. Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it. Hours of Operation In general, I check in with Wikipedia under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time and 21:00 Coordinated Universal Time, on weekdays. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 09:31, 20 June 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now. DYK redux Hey, MRG. We've got a complete repeat of last year's DYK debacle, no change, DYK regulars denying the problem, a repeat offender with hundreds of DYKs that DYK continues to run to this day, no change whatsoever from the issues of last October. I think a copyvio investigation may need to be opened? Please see WT:DYK and User talk:Billy Hathorn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, dear. :/ I've added some thoughts there. I'll try to take a look tomorrow when I'm back at my home computer to see if a CCI seems advisable here, unless somebody else has already done so. I see that somebody is talking to the contributor about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC) If a Copyvio investigation is opened on Billy, please contact me. He is the largest uploader of files to Wikipedia by bytes uploaded, and I had the pleasure of going though all of them looking for copyvios. About two dozen went to PUF, one or two wound up at FfD by accident, there's links to the affair on his talk page, but long story short he dosen't understand that he can't photograph someone else's work and then release it under a free license as his own work. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC) MRG, he is much too big of a problem for me to take on alone, DYK has done zero about him and has allowed him to continue for at least three years since he was last discussed, and Iridescent was taken to task at ANI (according to his post?) for trying to do something about him. I'd rather tackle the bigger problem at its source-- that DYK coddles, enables, and supports editors who have no business writing anything on Wikipedia, much less placing it on the mainpage. Every single piece that I have looked at from this editor has numerous flaws: I am truly uncertain if a CCI is needed, or if admin sanctions should be requested at this point through ANI, or if an RFC would be best. I'm stumped, but what is clear is that no one is doing anything. At least he's not creating content as of two days ago: I fear no one will ever clean up the hundreds and hundreds of policy violating articles he has created, and I credit DYK for feeding and enabling this kind of editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Hi, Sandy. By no means should you have to take it on by yourself. I'll look into the CCI question (I've just finished up my talk page responses), and if you think that the DYK approach itself needs modification, that would seem to be worth an RFC or something of its own. CCI is not set up for admin sanctions, but I'll look and see where Iridescent discusses taking the matter to ANI, and a spot-check of contribs for issues might clarify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC) I have been looking at his contribs for a bit (whilst also packing to fly to SF tomorrow) and have found one article that is clearly a problem. Many of the sources he uses are not accessible to me, which makes it difficult to assess how widespread of an issue this is. I will keep looking, but for now I have to chip at the massive backlog at CP for a bit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Update: There is now a CCI request on Billy link. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Records The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Re this section User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 37#Help! (no. 59, 10th July), I took your advice and look what happened [1] MuZemike, no. 20. You've previously said that it's important for us to keep accurate records, so can you restore my evidence to the record of the community ban discussion? 195.195.89.70 (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC) This was not advice, but a simple statement of fact, unless you're talking about a different talk page. Clearly, WP:ANI is not your talk page, and you are unwelcome to contribute to it so long as you are blocked and particularly now that you are banned. While I feel it inappropriate to remove a section that includes comments from others, removing your comments is in keeping with policy until you negotiate a return to Wikipedia. Because you are banned, I will not be talking to you further about this, but please see Wikipedia:BAN#Appeals and discussions for accepted procedures for appeal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Margaret, as I have neither a computer nor an email account, the guidance to which you refer is of little use to me. The following remarks are addressed to you as Liaison Officer with the WMF and thus have nothing to do with membership of the project. The following false and damaging claims have been posted on this website: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community ban proposal:Vote (X) for Change and references in the banning log to "vandalism", sockpuppetry and a link to the above. Both documents are permanent records, visible worldwide. They are partisan and inflammatory and the allegations are untrue. In particular, the word "vandalism" nowhere appears in the discussion, and in the log the link is held out to be a full and accurate record of the discussion, which contains not one diff to back the allegations. It is in fact a vote - stacking exercise by corrupt administrators desperate to save their own necks. You say that "removing [my] comments is in keeping with policy". I do not think so. A ban comes into effect when the discussion is closed, and the comments were posted before it was closed. In any event, Courcelles was not qualified to close it, being "involved" as (s)he had a few minutes earlier blocked me while the SPI remained open. The guidance requires the subject of the discussion to be notified for the purpose of filing a response. It is implicit in that that once filed the response must not be tampered with. The "sockpuppetry" allegation should be balanced by reference to the following. No administrator may ban unilaterally. The so - called "indefinite" block was intended to be infinite [2] and therefore invalid. The attempt to validate it by the ban discussion initiated last year failed. As indefinite siteban is the ultimate sanction it can only be enforced if specifically asked for. Consensus is never a simple tally of votes - it is affected by the severity of the sanction proposed and duplicate or involved votes are discounted. Although the guidance does not set a fixed tariff, for bureaucratship the level is 90%, and for an indefinite siteban it must be at least that. Please let me know how you wish to handle this. Can you (in order of preference) provide me with (a) your telephone number (b) your email address (c) your mailing address? If you do not wish to reveal your telephone number publicly it may be possible for me to get someone to email you with my telephone number. If I do not hear from you it will be apparent that you recognise that the "ban" is invalid. Best wishes. 195.195.89.70 (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC) By replying to my post Margaret has already indicated that she wishes the thread to remain. Please do not hassle her. Also do not hassle me - comments such as "borderline threatening MRG -- toddle off now" are very juvenile and your removal of her comment is blockable - I would advise you not to try that stunt again. 92.24.107.88 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Every corporation must provide a physical mailing address to which communications may be sent. Please provide yours, preferably with the name and department of the person who will be handling this. Best wishes. 86.162.234.186, 16:45, 25 July 2011. To SpacemanSpiff -- England 474 - 8 dec & 269 - 6 dec bt India 286 & 261 by 196 runs. (I used to work in the tickertape room). Hope you enjoyed the cricket. The inflammatory material has been taken down but there is still a link to it which needs to be removed as well. Over here we are told to be wary of websites which do not provide a physical mailing address - Wikipedia doesn't. There is a local contact, who bid to bring the Wikimania conference to Oxford a few years ago, but it seems that all we can do for the moment is await Margaret's return. I note that ErrantX, who is a key player in this, unsuccessfully ran for the Board a few weeks ago :)93.96.149.196 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Anatolia It seems that good chunks of this article: Anatolia are copy/pasted from this copyrighted source: [3]. I was going to slap a {{subst:copyvio}} template on the article, but thought I'd ask about it first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Hi. :) That one looks like a problem under Wikipedia:Plagiarism rather than a copyvio, since the source is public domain. It should have {{Country study}} at the top of the reference section. I'm not sure how long ago this content was placed--it might have predated that guideline. Alas, I don't have time to check it out further. I've got to run finish packing! But I've placed the attribution tag, even though the link doesn't seem to be working. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You were missing the abbr parameter ("abbr=tr"), apparently it's required even if you have the country name. I've fixed it and moved it to an inline reference at the end of the climate section though if others sections also copy it they should be go the footnote as well. With the exception of that (and it could be separate templates linking to the individual sections of the work if someone wants to go that far), I believe it is as fixed as is necessary per Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Repairing plagiarism.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks! So... I got a few more but it looks like you're quite busy. What should I do with them? Honestly, I have a suspicion that with everything going on right now (DYK etc.) once people start scratching the surface they'll find out that half the Wikipedia is all copyvios, plagiarism and close paraphrasing. Which would mean way too many problems and way too few resources. Don't know if I want to wish that upon you. Again, thanks!Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Ok, here's another one (two actually), and this one's a GA: Ein Avdat, stuff taken from here and here (both websites indicate their sources which appear to be copyrighted and checking the Wayback Machine at least the first one dates back to 2000, whereas the article was created in 2009), and maybe here [4]. I haven't checked the other sources used in the article. Since this is a GA I listed it for review [5] (I'm not clear on the exact nuts and bolts of the GAR process so I'm not sure if I followed it correctly). However I thought you might want to take a look since the whole GAR process may take time. The same user also created Al-Muallaq Mosque in december 2008, which is verbatim from here - this site existed in December 2007 with that text [6]. In this case though I'm not sure what the exact nature of the site is, it appears to be at least partially user generated content [7] so I'm not sure what the copyright status here is (it may even be possible that the same person created both entries). Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Skaugum Hi MRG: I was wondering whether you could take a look at the Skaugum article please. It looks as if it's a significant copy-vio, and much of it seems to be cut-and-pasted from two of the sources: Skaugum Estate (Kongehuset.no) and Skaugum Estate (Asker Municipality in Norway). I'm not clear how much of it is rescueable.  Roger Davies talk 05:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Hi, Roger. :) I'm looking into this one. My gut tells me that the second one is probably a backwards copy; we see a lot of that from tourist sites. But I never rely solely on my gut. :D I'm double-checking. I'm also seeing what I can do to date the first one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC) My gut was wrong; this content was entered into Wikipedia in 2009; Wayback has archived that site to 2006. I've reverted to the last clean. Worrisome, the contributor has a history of copyvios...with a first warning well predating this edit and the most recent explicit warning to February 2011. I'm heading to the airport in an hour, but I wish I had time to do a spot check of other contribs to see if there's a lot more of this kind of thing in his history. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Unverified image files MEDEA Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) File:MEDEA09 ceremony KnowITAll.JPG File:MEDEA09 ceremony statuette.JPG Hello MRG, I could use your help on the image files that was introduced to the above article page. As usual, the editor/uploader refuse to respond to my queries. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Hi, Dave. :) Seems like the images have been taken care of. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Missed this one, File:MEDEAawards logo.png. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC) That one isn't being used in the article at the moment, but it seems like it could be converted to a proper FUR as per WP:GID? :) (I see the contributor is open to talking now: [8]) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC) He/She's done it again. Facepalm... --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC) File:MEDEA knowIT.jpg File:MEDEA statuette.jpg List of highest-grossing Bollywood films Dear Moonriddengirl, I see you have been actively involved in editing and maintaining one or many similar pages (List of highest-grossing Bollywood films). You would have definitely notice all the films mentioned under various categories on that page are either ranked 1 or 3 or 6 or 10. This instantly brings us to the most possible and predictive question of every reader of that page: Where are the ranks 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and which are those films? Therefore I would just request you to edit the rankings and please list all the movies ranked from 1 to 10 in all their categories. That page is semi-protected and I didn't want to get into any sort of Edit Warring over already a controversial page. I see you are well familiar with the controversies surrounding that page. Thanks --ZoomTV (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 25 July 2011 Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen News and notes: Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news In the news: Open access clash with copyright; rising reader satisfaction; the wiki-correlates of geopolitical instability; brief news Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy Featured content: The best of the week Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC) user:Miradre Hi MRG. Miradre (talk · contribs) This user has been adding non-free content to the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology, Four of their edits have essentially copy-pasted segments from journal articles, where there was no reason not to paraphrase. Miradre's native language is not English and they do not write fluently in English. They have adopted the policy of adding some content to articles by copy pasting content and placing it in quotes, without direct attribution; there has been no attempt at paraphrase. The four edits that were copyvios are all described on the talk page of the article.[9] The fourth edit was made even after the precise policy for directly quoting text had been explained to Miradre. In this fourth edit they simply added quote marks around the copy-pasted passage with no attribution. I have not looked carefully at whethe Miradre's other edits have followed the same patterrn. I do know that exactly the same problem of copy-pasting instead of paraphrasing occurred on Malaria. Because of the quality of Miradre's written English, copy-pasting of this type is easy to detect. After Miradre's wikibreak and enforced change of subject, following a topic ban, I have the nagging doubt that many of their edits are being done in this way. What is the best way to proceed? Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Complaints about Mathsci If you look at Mathsci's edit the last 3 days he has done little except followed me around Wikipedia. Including to articles he has never edited before and made complaints and reverted my edits (almost never due to copyright claims). As well as making complaints to several different noticeboards. This seems to me to be just another, new part of his harassment campaign. But I welcome any scrutiny. I may certainly on occasion have made unintentional mistakes, such as missing direct attribution for quotes in addition to the footnote, but if so they are IMHO rather minor. I have always marked sources and certainly not copy-pasted lengthy texts.Miradre (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Anybody can edit wikipedia articles. I have made hardly any edits to articles recently (indeed this year). [10] I added a tag about the inadequate lead of Criticism of evolutionary psychology after Miradre's removed most of it. It is an article that many people watch. With Itsmejudith I monitored Miradre's controversial changes to academia. I am unaware that I have reported Miradre at multiple noticeboards. Miradre did suggest that Itsmejudith and I, as presumed academics, should not be editing academia because of a WP:COI. Itsmejudith and I then both separately and independently queried Miradre's charges of COI at WP:COIN, Miradre's position was not supported; he was given a warning by Atama not to harrass me. Mathsci (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I fear that Mathsci's answer misses some of the points. Le me help to elucidate. Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles (unless they are banned) but not every edit is therefore permissible. I have made hardly any edits to articles recently (indeed this year) regrettably true but Mathsi has followed Miradre to Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology, Talk:Academia, Groupthink, Talk:Evolutionary psychology, Talk:Leonhard Euler in the last week. I am unaware that I have reported Miradre at multiple noticeboards. is contraicted by edits at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard [11] and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard [12] Need I go on? A.B.C.Hawkes (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC) May I have a deleted article, please? I noticed you are part of this group. I was wondering if it would be possible to get this article (and its history for attribution purposes)? Perhaps it could be placed here for 24 hours so that I may have a chance to recreate it at another website. Thanks for your time. Cogitating (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I moved it for you.--SPhilbrickT 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks, Sphilbrick. I got the article and history, so I marked it {{db-u1}} since I'm done. Cogitating (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Assistance Hello Moonriddengirl, a user has reccomended you to check over my free use rationale... if you don't mind :) My image is not yet uploaded, and I want to place it on a certain article, but a user states that I'm not giving enough reasoning for placing a non free image on the page. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Is this a case of closeparaphrasing? Ref Sidalcea nelsoniana. Using Duplicate detector on the very first source itself, I found a slew of commonalities of very short phrases. Is it a case of fair use or copyvio? AshLin (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC) If I may interject as a an editor who has contributed to many botanical articles and created some, it is extraordinarily difficult to come up with totally new ways of saying things about plants and their distribution that do not use the same words as other sources. If a flower spike has up to 100 individual flowers, that what all the sources will say, but it doesn't make it a copyvio. If it only lives in a particular locality then all sources are going to call the place by the same name. I think the editors here have done a pretty good job of re-phrasing and re-organising information to keep as far from copy-vio as possible. That my personal opinion but I won't be offended if other think I've got it wrong!  Velella  Velella Talk   22:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Reminder: New Page Copyright Issue Hi, earlier last month we were discussing how to best rewrite an article I was creating in order to answers copyright and notability concerns. I think I have fully addressed those concerns, but since the article had been removed once previously I was hoping to get your opinion before trying to re-create the page. I just wanted to give you a kind reminder that the proposed page is available on my user page. Thanks again for all of your time and assistance. It is sincerely appreciated.Win.monroe (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC) More CV GAs In addition to the GAs I brought up above [14], Gazette Building (Little Rock, Arkansas) also appears to be mostly copied verbatim from here (DD: [15]), which predates the creation of the article on Wikipedia (May 2008 vs. Nov 2007), and which is a copyrighted source [16]. I think. I really could use a second pair of eyes to make sure I'm checking these things correctly. Wrestling with the best approach to some apparent copyvios Hi, Moonriddengirl – Atama offered your name as someone who might be able to help on a copyvio issue that I’ve encountered. (She did not actually recommend you as a first choice, you being as busy as you are, but her praise was high and I am lazy. Feel free to push me off in another direction if you haven’t got time.) An editor appears to have used too-closely paraphrased copyrighted material in more than one article he has created; but because I’ve been in content and other disputes with him, I think it’s inappropriate for me to try to remedy the situation by myself. In addition, he has already filed one ANI report on concerning me, here, and he’s got a quick trigger finger. I have little appetite for another even if it is swept away as easily as the first. Finally I’m uncertain about where or how to report the problems I suspect but haven’t got evidence for. WP:CCI seems right, broadly, but the instructions seem to counsel against my filing anything based on what I’ve got, and the dispute (which I’m assuming for now to be continuing). The disputes and their resolution are all pretty well laid-out in the ANI. It’s not that long; let me know if you want to see more. User:Ken keisel created an article last week, Anthony A. Mitchell, which was a close paraphrase of Mitchell’s Washington Post obituary. Text was reordered, but sentences or phrases were often left largely intact. Upon realizing this, I blanked the page and put up a template notice. Within a few hours and despite a copyvio warning from SarekOfVulcan, Ken restored the article to more or less the same state it had been in before I'd blanked it, arguing that facts can’t be copyrighted (well, true) and that his (lightly) revised version of the Post’s obit was fine (I disagree). He’s now blocked for a week. Since then Ken, still with access to his Talk page, has challenged Sarek to address Ken's assertion that the reintroduced text is fine under the copyright laws. This unapologetic response made me wonder if perhaps the Mitchell article was not the only instance in which he’d copy & pasted material, and a quick review of just some of the 40+ articles he has created turned up one clear instance of shuffled paraphrasing, Kokosing_Gap_Trail, (the "Nature" section in particular) taken from here, as well as a fragmentary example of close paraphrasing, Olentangy_Park#The_1910s from here. I am guessing that other parts of that page are not original, and came from sources covering other decades. Several other articles, including Noguchi_table and Marshmallow sofa, are written in a style that does not seem to match the (admittedly limited) samples of Ken’s prose that I’ve seen in the course of my dealings with him, and while I’m suspicious of those, they cite extensive off-line sources and aren't as easily checked. The upshot is that I have some but not a lot of evidence, plus some reasonable suspicion, that an editor has over a period of time been pulling together material from various sources, jiggering it around a bit and then adding it to Wikipedia. It's also possible that I'm making too much out of this and should find something else to do. In either case I think it’s inappropriate, in light of my history with him, to undertake remedies on my own; not to mention that I lack the expertise to detect and evaluate additional copyvios – if any – in any but the most blatant of cases. What do you think is a proper course of action here? Thanks for any and all advice. JohnInDC (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Hi. I am traveling (will be flying home today), but this is concerning. :/ Looking at Kokosing Gap Trail, I can certainly see the issue you find. His defense that facts are not copyrightable is a familiar one, but cannot be used to excuse such close following as "it's not uncommon to see deer, wild turkey or a great blue heron skimming the top of the Kokosing River in search of food" to represent the fact that deer, wild turkey and blue heron are local residents--not when the source says, "It's not uncommon to see deer, hear the gobbles of wild turkeys or see a blue heron skimming the top of the river looking for food." There's obviously been an effort to rewrite, but the evocative imagery of the herons skimming the river is highly creative. The proper course of action for you, in my opinion, was to do exactly as you have done--note the issue and point it out to somebody who is not involved with him to follow up. Needless to say, I'm going to have a lot to do when I get back to my desk, but I will add looking into his contribs to that list. :) Sarek has explained to him some of Wikipedia's norms, but there may be additional cleanup to be done. (Anybody waiting for an answer from me above, I have only a few minutes before I have to get ready to fly home, but I hope to be able to catch up over the weekend.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks. This is helpful and reassuring. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. JohnInDC (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Re BOI again Hi MRG :) I've received a reply from the BOI admin. He has some trouble filling in the blanks of one paragraph: "I agree to [STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).]" Also, he wonders whether he really is not going to have any chance of withdrawing the agreement in the future, which he thinks is a little problematic as there can always happen something unexpected. I also think it's a bit weird because after all he's making us a favour and I understand why he would not like to be "trapped" forever. Thank you. Shahid • Talk2me 17:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Non free use rationale Hi, I don't know if you missed my comment above, but could you please check over my rationale? I need to know if it is good quickly, as I need to respond to another user. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)