|
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. |
Hello again. If you have time, please could you check my recent action at Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church? I have just restored a much earlier version because of copyvios from a blog, details in Talk:Criticism_of_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#Copyright_violations. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm so sorry that you put all that time into working on a contaminated base. :( I hate that. I've confirmed the copying from the previously published blog that you note at the talk page. I would really recommend that you supply some example passages at the talk page to demonstrate that the taking was extensive. For instance, a hundred words or so of this would be helpful. :/ I think we will probably need to do a revision deletion, so people will not be able to see for themselves how bad it may have been. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (If you'd like help documenting that at the talk page, I'll be happy to help. I don't have time at the moment, however. And I may need to be poked later in case I forget. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Thanks, I will update the talk page with one or two examples as you suggest this evening and post here again. --Mirokado (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples added. --Mirokado (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid more will have to go too, even in the current version there is stuff from the same blog, but I can't deal with it tonight. --Mirokado (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry. :/ Church-related articles are copyvio magnets. Just like with TV shows, people seem completely oblivious to copyright implications. I appreciate your thoroughness here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the article is now clean, at least as far as easily-found content from that website is concerned. If you agree, I will close that section of the talk page off, as we do for a move discussion, so it is a clear record of this issue. Clearly I leave any revdels to you, this diff covers the systematic copying the earlier phrases were minor in comparison and I suggest not hiding those. --Mirokado (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You will also need to revdel this change: I suppose I must try harder not to be funny... --Mirokado (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A little reminder about this (you say above you might need one...) --Mirokado (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I did. :) I don't have time to do any rev deleting right now (Thanksgiving stuff I have to attend to), but I am reminded and it is back on my mental radar. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I know you're terribly busy, but G12 versus stubbing has come up again in relation to the new CCI. Fram and Edison are discussing at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#November 2011, e.g. this comment. Previous discussion was User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 40#I haz a copyvio G12 question .... I think that now is as good a time as any for a discussion on RD1. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! I'm sorry. I totally missed this last night. :( Sorry, but it was a particularly long day. I'd agree with you there. Where's the best place to hold it? WP:VPP? WT:CSD? Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations? I note that last policy doesn't even mention the possibility of Rd1. Maybe the best thing to do so is start by drafting up some language for that talk page, get it reviewed and entered in, and then talk at WT:CSD about implementing a note about stub/history delete as an option? What do you think? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reply, don't worry about it. The issue relates to both CSD and RD, but I see this more as "when should RD1 be encouraged" rather than "when is it okay to skip G12". I'm still leaning towards WT:Copyright problems, second choice WT:Revision deletion; notifications on all affected pages and listings on RfC and CENT. I'll start framing the issue offline. Regarding VPP, I realized recently that its relatively brief archiving period makes holding an extended discussion difficult. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, what about proposing language something like "When copied or closely paraphrased content is substantial or when inadvertent or intentional restoration is likely, revisions of the article containing improperly used copyrighted material should generally be revision deleted under criterion RD1"? It's a tad bit waffly with the generally and the vague substantial, but it's a starting point. :) Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good start; it might be a little clearer if formatted as a list (substantial and restoration as separate items). I'll keep thinking about it. There is definitely a void here – for example, the detailed instructions at WP:Text Copyright Violations 101#Partial infringement only say "if appropriate request revision deletion". Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have an outline of an RD1 RfC almost ready for drafting in user space, but I saw your comments at WT:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License#Attribution of material copy-pasted from one wp article into another wp article and started thinking about an omnibus discussion on attribution. WP:Copying within Wikipedia is regularly cited, but there are fairly widespread misconceptions and oversights. I'm leaning towards RD1, since it is a manageable task that will produce usable guidance. Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I'll let you know what the legal team says. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG, I know you're really busy but when you get a chance I'd love to get your feedback on my new RfA supplement proposal at Wikipedia:Tool apprenticeship (please leave feedback at Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship), since I trust your judgement. Here's the brief overview:
- In tool apprenticeship, a user who has an immediate practical need for a particular administrator tool or tools, such as deletion or protection, makes a request to receive that tool. The user is judged according the the following criteria:
- The user must be in good standing;
- The user must have an immediate practical need for the tool;
- To the greatest extent possible, the user should be active and have sufficient experience in the area in which they plan to use the tool.
- Satisfying these, they receive the tool on a trial basis for a limited period (weeks to months). When this period expires, the tool is automatically revoked. The trial period is subject to probation (tool revocation in case of misuse), and may involve voluntary mentoring.
- After or shortly before the end of their trial, the user can file a request to retain the tool permanently, based on their performance during the trial period, which will be granted if the user substantially used the tool and exercised good judgement. If the request is denied, the user will be given extensive feedback on their usage and may (if their misuse was not too egregious) have the opportunity for another trial period. Over time, a user who performs a variety of tasks may acquire many tools, giving them similar status to current administrators.
Thanks! Dcoetzee 18:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Derrick! I've glanced at the page, and I'm for anything that spreads the work. :D I don't have time to read through everything this morning, but I'll look at it over the weekend for sure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, just pinging you on this, I know you're busy but it'd mean a lot to me if you get a chance to look at it before I RfC it. Thanks! :-) Dcoetzee 16:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Moonriddengirl. Love that handle, by the way. Here's what you told me:
Thanks for your e-mail, I think the best thing you can do is to provide WP:ORTS verification that in each case you are the illegitimate copyright owner or that you have the consent from the owner to licence the images for free use worldwide. If you have any questions about this, the person to ask is User Talk:Moonriddengirl who I will alert to this matter. Mtking (edits) 08:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I hope I have provided the necessary verification. I tried to figure out how to add the Creative Commons tag to my images, but it doesn't seem to be a simple copy and paste operation. How does one actually get the tag from the Wikipedia server to the image?
Ghostrider51 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ghostrider51
I notice you've re-written this; it's been on my mind to fix this situation, and I apologize for not making a start sooner (I was winding down, as I'm going away in about seven hours). You said in the edit summary you knew nothing about the woman; I only know a bit, but I'd say you've pretty much covered it... well done! Swanny18 (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! :) I did my best with it, but, boy, that story was hard to follow. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My thanks for your work on this too. There was a lot of material to synthesise without creating another copyvio and you've succeeded admirably. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(from your archives [1]. It would have been easier to follow up if I had been notified of the discussion.)
Yes , I indeed always advise rewriting, and I almost never revisiondelete. Such I believe to be the policy . And if not rewriting, stubbification. Again, such I believe to be the policy. What I understand one should do in the cases of undoubted copyvio, where the actual subject is notable, is:
- If the copyvio is short enough to be turned into a short quotation, do so.
- If the copyvio can be removed, while still leaving the bulk of the contents, remove it
- Alternatively, if there is a non-copyvio version in the history, that still has most of the information, revert to it..
- If removing the copyvio would remove most of the meaningful contents, then Stubbify it to remove the copyvio and still leave the identification and a RS (which may well be the material wrongly copied)
- Alternatively, if one is able to rewrite some or all of the material, rewrite it, of course avoiding close paraphrase.
As I understand policy, It is usually not necessary to delete the copyvio version from the history, unless there is an outside complaint. It is my understanding that there in most cases where we remove copyvio we do it because we have seen it, rather than there being an outside complaint, but if there is, it must of course be honored. I am unsure about whether we should normally honor it by just deleting, and revision delete only when requested, or revision-delete whenever there is an outside complaint. There might be special reasons to revision delete for copyvio otherwise, but I think they would be limited & I can not immediately think of any.
What I say above is no more than existing policy , at
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins#Handling copyright violations
- If new, clean text has been proposed
- Always investigate first to see if new content has been proposed at the temporary subpage /Temp linked on the copyvio notice or at the article's talk page. If so,
- Check to be sure that contributors to the new version have not violated the attribution rights of earlier creators, but have properly attributed,
- Make sure that all copyright infringement has been removed and that there are not new issues with close paraphrasing,
- If the new content is clear of licensing violations or copyright concerns, it may be used to replace the original article (when the original article does not have salvageable content or history) or history merged into it (if the original does have usable content). If replacing an article, you may wish to move the original "copyright violation" article to a subpage such as [[Article/deleted revisions date]] prior to deletion. This will make selective deletions or undeletions at the article title easier to manage. (See Wikipedia:Selective deletion.) If merging, you may wish to use Wikipedia:Revision deletion on the versions that contain the copyright infringement to help avoid inadvertent restoration in the future.
- If there are clean versions in history or salvageable content on the page: Revert back to the last clean revision or remove the infringing text from the article, using an appropriate edit summary. Leave a note at the article's talk page explaining the removal (the template {{cclean}} may be used). It may be a good idea to use Wikipedia:Revision deletion on the versions that contain the copyright infringement to help avoid inadvertent restoration in the future if the copyrighted content is extensive. Otherwise, so long as the infringing text is removed from the public face of the article, it may not need to be removed/deleted permanently unless the copyright holder complains via OTRS or unless other contributors persist in restoring it.
I note the word may. which seems to leave it open to go either way--and it seems not to apply at all if one replaces the complete text. The only purpose given seems to be avoiding inadvertent re-addition in complex situations, Myself, I cannot recall instances of such restorations that I've worked on, though what I've worked on is mainly complete or almost complete article copyvio & may not be representative. I'm sure they can be found among the hundreds of millions of edits, I note also the guideline p. doesn't explicitly give the option of preparing the clean text oneself. But I and some other admins do have the ability & interest to write articles sometimes, and we're not as a while less qualified than anyone else. Neither in many cases is the original contributor, unless COI interferes.
As for the postulated conflict with WP:Revision delete, from that p.
- Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion can not be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for not doing more, as I see it, is that since we cannot remove the material from the outside we. No matter what we do here, it will never be totally destroyed, unless the rights holder can track down every indexed and unindexed outside version--which is almost always impossible, It is therefore enough to make it normally invisible to the reader--which would correspond to removing physical material from circulation, but not actually destroying it. In the RW, when material is ordered actually destroyed, but usually it's just removed. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- <blink>That's quite a lot of text. :) Sorry I forgot to follow up with you after my flight, but you weren't notified I'm sure because this isn't really a noticeboard...just an informal conversation point. I'm not sure I follow your "rationale for not doing more". There are several good reasons to rev delete copyvios....as you quote yourself above: "It may be a good idea to use Wikipedia:Revision deletion on the versions that contain the copyright infringement to help avoid inadvertent restoration in the future if the copyrighted content is extensive." This happens.
- Particularly when an article would qualify for a G12, I can think of no good reason not to rev delete. Your last paragraph seems to argue that the reason for not doing more is that we can't clean it up elsewhere? Is there any other reason? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's your feeling on this one? The entire article was blatant copyvio, so that's what's there in the history. Particualrly when an article's that "young", isn't it generally better to delete it an advise the creating editor to re-write from scratch? I'm really not sure on this one, but I know other people do tend to disagree with me on it. And can we have some clear policy on it, pretty please? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A clear policy? I doubt it. :) The problem with incrementally altering out a copyvio is that you run the risk of creating a derivative work. To be completely, 100% safe, we probably should start from scratch. But if the copyvio is all gone, I tend not to worry about. That's the kind of thing I would rev delete. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, as I'm not an admin (and never wanna be a Nadmin!) would you like to clean that one up to remove the copyvio version? :P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moon. Elen and I were chatting, and I volunteered to look at old articles I created, and delete or fix copyvios where I see them. She thought that a good idea. I presumed that it might be best for me not to tick off items myself, and she thought (but suggested I check with you) that this might be the case, but that perhaps I could create a subpage where I recorded articles I had checked and what you found. Thoughts? If that is correct, I'll have to root around again to remember how to create such a subpage. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I think that's a good idea, and it is very much in line with what I suggested you might do at ANI: "if you are unhappy with the way other people are cleaning up the CCI, why don't you do it before they get there? While you should not mark an article as resolved on your CCI, there is absolutely no reason that you can't put a note underneath the article title that you believe you have fixed it. Other CCI subjects have done this, and it can work well". The reason I would recommend placing a note underneath the article title that you believe you have fixed it is that if you make a separate subpage, there is a possibility that it will be overlooked by people reviewing your CCI, and it will make more work for them. An ordinary listing in a CCI looks like this (I'm not evaluating the article; I picked it randomly from the page):
* [[:Roger Cressey]]: (2 edits, 2 major, +3177) '''{{dif|392275610|(+1636)}}{{dif|392277165|(+3177)}}'''
- What I would recommend you do is this:
* [[:Roger Cressey]]: (2 edits, 2 major, +3177) '''{{dif|392275610|(+1636)}}{{dif|392277165|(+3177)}}'''
:*Paraphrased from [url]. Rewrote content in [diff]. --~~~~
- That will allow other people to very easily compare the diff they're looking at with the diff of your rewrite and the link to the source so they can more easily mark the article "repaired" to move on. (They ought to check other sources, if they have concern that you might have overlooked something.) It would reduce the chance that somebody will overlook that the content has been rewritten or removed and make workflow far more efficient, keeping up all, literally, "on the same page". :)
- If you're interested in doing this, please let me know, and I'll tweak the instructions at the top of your CCI page accordingly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the helpful input. That sounds good. As I said, I'm happy to volunteer to do it. I may need further guidance, and appreciate your offer to give it, but starting next week (when I will have more time than this week) I'll focus on examining our relevant fix-it guideline, and doing this. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Epeefleche: I'd be happy to take the foot of the gas on your CCI for a couple of weeks to let you catch up. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moonriddengirl.
I have significantly overhauled the article-list Bollywood films of 2011. It is now possessing both a table and text material which adds to the table. The contents of the tabel and text are, of course, subject to change as the year hasn't ended and a few very high-profile releases such as Desi Boyz, The Dirty Picture and Don 2 will be releasing post end-November. I have tried to keep it as neutral as possible, but if any problem occurs please do not hesitate to point it out.
Also, I would be much obliged if you could enlighten me regarding A-class articles and A-class reviewing, as I'm totally unfamiliar with it despite it being the last step before getting an FA. I plan to upgrade some articles to the level of A-class, so I hope to first know all the particulars regarding it. The manual given i WP wasn't too clear, and spoke in the most general terms, and hence I hope you can clarify my doubts in a more detailed manner.
Thank you. AnkitBhattWDF 15:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm looking into this, but I'm so sorry--somebody restored the table before you started. We can't use the table. :( I'm looking into what you added after to see what I can salvage. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to say it was easy to salvage what you'd done, as it was just the table added by the other guy that I needed to remove. That's a really good start. :) I've expanded a bit on The Bodyguard for a reason. According to the US copyright law that governs Wikipedia, the more we transform our source material, the more likely it is that we are making "fair use" of it and not going to get in trouble for copyright law. If we can bring in material from other sources to form new text about a topic, then we are creating something new that BOI does not own. All the information about the other films is drawn from the copyrighted source at Box Office India. Is it possible for you to find information from newspapers or other industry websites to expand those a bit? If we can develop good textual descriptions of the release and the economic impact of these films, we're in good shape!
- Different projects have different review standards, and I'm not sure whether you'd be looking for review of film articles only, but I see that the film project doesn't seem to do "A" reviews. (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment) Lots of projects don't. If it's a film-related article, I would probably just skip "A" review and go straight for Wikipedia:Good articles. The review process is similar to FA and it'll probably better help identify problem areas. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try my level best to obtain outside references, but it will be quite tough to obtain the refs for the BO figures. I'm happy that the re-working has not violated any copyright restrictions. Regarding the A-class, the particular article I had in mind was Ra.One. The article very recently was promoted to GA. But I'm not satisfied with that at all. I really want to push it to FA level. Perhaps you can suggest some tips for improvement? Thanks for your time :). AnkitBhattWDF 16:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for my delay. :) I've never conducted a "featured article" review, but I have to say that at a glance that article looks pretty stunningly impressive. One suggestion I'd have is reviewing the lead to see if all those references are really need. Some of them may not be, if the information is non-controversial and is sourced in the body, in accordance with Wikipedia:Lead#Citations. Have you thought about Wikipedia:Peer review? It might be a good final step before pushing it to Featured Article. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No probs at all. Well I'm hapy you are impressed, though Scieberking is less impressed and wishes to give the article time for proper copyediting (which I am unfamiliar with :) ). Regarding the lead, yes there are many references in the article itself. I put up the refs just for the sake of safety, in case somebody later objected to the lack of referenced material in the lead. And yeah, we did have a peer review, though it was so short I doubt it could be called comprehensive. Thanks for having boosted my confidence, this may be my first FA, so I'm super excited :D. Cheers! AnkitBhattWDF 13:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Johnny_Klimek_photo.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andy_Hill.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mani_color.jpg
I agree to 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).]
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Andrew Hill aka Ghostrider51
Copyright Holder/Appointed Representative
11/21/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostrider51 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moon. I've recently run into an enthusiast (may be more) who has been researching an architect and his works for nearly 20 years. He has published his research on a website he has created and would like to donate the material to Wikipedia. I usually only deal with small submissions and even then, I usually try to get someone to rewrite it as what they want to donate typically isn't written in an encyclopedic tone. This case seems quite different as it's all referenced and written and seems to all be written in an encyclopedic tone although I haven't read through everything. He even has several photos of each structure that he has personally gone to see. The amount of information is quite impressive.
The website is bradfordleegilbert.com and the user is Dfcoe although if you want to see the span of the material to be donated, here's the list of structures. I've considered altering applicable Wikiprojects given the amount of potential additions to WP but I wanted to get the copyright issues settled first.
Do you think the best thing to do would be to ask him to apply the CC-BY-SA license to his website or to submit an OTRS ticket? It seems that an OTRS ticket for every potential article created via his research might be excessive. Feel free to jump in if you feel like that would be easier. I've just been chatting with him to try and ease some frustration that was created regarding the text (it was originally deleted as a copyright violation). OlYeller21Talktome 18:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Injecting a small point here: don't assume he'll want CC-BY-SA, consider CC-BY and CC0 depending on how he feels about attribution and licensing of derivative works. Dcoetzee 18:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another stalker comment: Some of the buildings in question already have articles on WP (e.g., Illinois Central "Central Station"/Central Station (Chicago terminal) and Boston & Maine Passenger Station, Beverly, Massachusetts/Beverly Depot (MBTA station)). Make sure he understands that in those cases he should integrate the material into the existing articles rather than creating duplicates. Deor (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, both of you. To be honest, I don't understand the difference between those licensing types but I'm sure I can teach myself. I had noticed that some already had articles but assumed that we could cross that bridge when we come to it. At this point, it's not even 100% clear that he wants to make contributions to WP outside of a donation and the article he has already created. I'll definitely keep that in mind as well as notability issues as I'm not even 100% sure that all of the buildings are notable. OlYeller21Talktome 19:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if it helps, but I find the "human-readable" version of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence here to be, well, human-readable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Grandiose. That's actually the first place I stopped when I started looking. I may have been looking in the wrong places but it doesn't seem that WP explains the different types of common licenses very clearly. The CreativeCommons website does it really well (in my opinion). OlYeller21Talktome 19:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
www.asiachinaof.com had taken material written by me to create news group soc.culture.tamil in UUnet and have it in their website.
It is weird. It is nothing to do with Chinese or Chinese food. I sent them email as given below.
http://www.asiachinaof.com/161.html. Please review this. This China based website took my material and voting transaction in UUnet which is a public domain operation of 1992 in their website.
By all means asiachinaof.com is nothing to do with soc.culture.tamil or UUnet.
I sent them this email given below to Asia China.
<
Hello yt314@qq.com,
I respectfully request you to remove http://www.asiachinaof.com/161.html
It is nothing to do with Chinese people or Chinese culture or Chinese Food.
That body of material was written by me, Meyyur Parthasarathy Krishna Raj..
You not having my permission would be copy right violation.
Thanks again.
Meyyur Parthasarathy Krishna Raj
>
Meyyur (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry. :( I hope that they will respond favorably to you. I'm afraid that there's nothing that we can do on this end if they have copied content from you that you published elsewhere. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moonriddengirl, can you please block the following IP user User:109.148.213.32. He/she is constantly vandalizing articles related to Indian television series' (adding wrong air dates, made up titles, etc...). For example, the page List of programs broadcast by Star Plus was safe until the protection lock is removed. As soon as the protection was removed from the page, this IP user started adding false infomation all over again. I understand that the IP address will change or move to a different IP number, but this one has been into existance for a while, so can you please block it. Furthermore, he/she doesn't understand that what is the point for having a page on a particular article on Wikipedia if it doesn't provide accurate information. I have reverted few pages (but seriously he/she needs to STOP). Please HELP! Thank you!Survir (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm afraid I can't; you need to first reach out to him at his talk page to explain politely and precisely what's wrong with his edits. It's hard for me to tell since I don't know anything about the TV channel. :) If he disagrees with you, you can invite him to explain why. We do sometimes block people if they won't work with others, but we have to assume good faith and give them every chance to do it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I nominated the article for a G6 deletion to make way for the move. Someone went ahead and made the move. Just wanted to let you know where to find it now. OlYeller21Talktome 02:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Text looks great. :) One suggestion: you don't seem to be using footnotes 1 and 2 necessarily after the content it supports, but generally for the whole paragraph. I don't think that's a good idea, in case somebody inserts something footnoted to another source. Also, it is confusing that footnote 1 doesn't support anything in the sentence it follows. :) I would recommend using the footnotes directly after content it supports. Then again, I may overscrupulous with footnoting, so you can always seek another opinion there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey. Thanks for taking a look. I'll definitely go and be more careful about the application of foot notes. I don't want anyone to think I was trying to mislead. OlYeller21Talktome 12:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't come off that way at all. It just feels like you're using the footnotes to support pretty much the paragraph, which is not necessarily a bad practice, except that since our articles can be edited by anybody, there's a chance that reference will become confused. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added several items to the Wikipedia:Copyright problems. In three cases, there may no longer be a problem. My question - should I remove them from the list of items to be investigations, or should I leave that to a second pair of eyes? I'm following the second path, but I'd like to know the usual protocol, if there is one.
In one case, Gettysburg's Unknown Soldier in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 November 19, some material was clearly copied form a 2009 NYT article, but further investigation shows that the material inquisition came from a PD source. While I think there is an open issue regarding how the reference should be formed (see this question), he copyright issue is now moot, so I'm unsure whether it is fine for me to remove it form the list, or if it would be better for someone else to do so.
In another case, Robert Edward Lee Mountcastle in Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#16_November_2011, I realized, after reporting that the source was PD. I've noted as such, so a reviewer can easily make the call. Again, the question is, am I permitted to close it, or should someone else.
In a third case, Raoul Wallenberg Award in Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#18_November_2011, the editor has rewritten in a way that seems to cure the problem (see Talk:Raoul_Wallenberg_Award/temp ). If this version is acceptable, I'm not sure of the next step, whether the copyright problem is solved and the editor told he can copy the new version in, or if someone else should do it.
Please note, I'm not asking for any of these to be handled immediately or out of process, just trying to understand whether I am allowed to handle an incident I reported.--SPhilbrickT 19:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So sorry for my delay. :) I'll get back wtih youfirst thing in the morning! Promise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, sorry for the delay. I don't want to slow down your work, which is much appreciated. :)
- The seven day period at CP is to allow time for copyright problems to be settled. We can close out items early any time common sense says that closing them out early doesn't cause issues. :) (I wouldn't close an item early if, for example, we had a glorious B class article tagged and the tagger wrote a new temp version that would barely clear stub. I'd give the community more time to work with it and even to offer evidence that the tag was incorrect.) IAR still works at WP:CP as intended: if a rule gets in the way of fixing things, ignore it. But don't break it without good reason. (For instance, I'm not fussed when non-admins remove the "copyvio" tag out of process as long as their removal is for good reason--if they prove the content is public domain or rewrite the problem well. I am fussed if they remove the tag out of process and reexpose the copyvio.)
- What I would do if the problems have been fixed is go ahead and resolve them at the copyright problems board. Any administrator can do this. We don't remove listings, in case we ever need to go back to them. I've fixed the Gettysburg's Unknown Soldier attribution and closed out the listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 November 19, and I see that you've already handled the issue at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#16_November_2011. With regards to the temp at Raoul Wallenberg Award, you should assess it. If you think it resolves the problem, you do one of two things: you either move it over the old article, deleting it entirely (obviously can only do this if it does not have any content from the old article that was added by somebody else) or you merge it in. I would base my call there on the extensiveness of the copyright issue and how many people edited the article before and after the CCI subject. If the history is short and especially if the CCI subject was the only contributor, I'd replace it. If the history is extensive and especially if the CCI was not the founding editor, I'd merge and use revision deletion as it may seem necessary to prevent inadvertent restoration. If you haven't done a history merge before (for all I know, you've done billions :D), it's not as scary as the directions (at least used to) make it sound. I'd be happy to demonstrate, if you think the rewrite is good and a merge is the preferred option. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the extensive answers. No, I haven't done a merge, but I really should learn how. I have a full plate today, and will probably wait till past turkey day to try it.--SPhilbrickT 14:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've written to you! AnOpenMedium (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks! I've sent you what I hope is a last question...AnOpenMedium (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a discussion over at Talk:Barrio Santa Rosa (Tucson, Arizona) that's got me fairly confused. There's a sizable blockquote from a NRHP Featured Listing at http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/feature/weekly_features/11_09_30_Barrio_Santa_Rosa_HD.htm. That would presumably be public domain. However, on investigating the nomination document, which was authored by the Arizona State Parks department, I found that the listing summary was frequently word-for-word from the original document, though not much more than a sentence at a time. If that was done here, we'd be blanking it as a clear copyvio. However, Doncram asserts that the NPS edit/summarization created a new work of the USG, putting it in the PD, and I'm not sure he's wrong. What do you think? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can't risk it. The NPS has created a derivative work, which may have its own copyright, but it does not affect the protection of the original. We do not know what kind of license the NPS may have had to use the application in preparing their summary, but we do know that those applications are not released into public domain. We wrote them some time ago and their reply is documented in OTRS. I don't have time right now to search the system (which takes for freaking ever now, as I'm sure you know :P), but I know it's in there because I wrote them and put it there myself. :) Unfortunately, their copyright statement is vague: "Information created or owned by the NPS and presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain."[2] If they simply wrote, "Content of this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain" then we could presume that they had license to release it. They don't; they specific that it must be "information created or owned by the NPS". In the absence of evidence otherwise, I would assume that anything we find on their website is public domain, but in this case we do have evidence that the "information" was not "created" by the NPS.
- Personally, I suspect that some employee of the NPS has used the application document without giving a thought to the copyright status of the original, but we don't have any way of determining it without writing to them. Is it possible to use brief quotes and summary written by us, maybe based on the original instead of the derivative work? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This expansion was recently done to the Retail design article. It added a lot of nice info, which I went in and formatted a bit and all that. But, since the references are ones that I can't exactly check, i'm concerned that the user may have added a copyvio or two. Or they may not have, but I have no way of telling, so I wanted to see what you thought. SilverserenC 06:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- <blink> This is that guy's first edit? :O I've done a pretty thorough spot-check through Google and Google books and I didn't find anything. There's lots of red flags, but we could just be dealing with a very good writer. :) In the absence of any evidence of copying, I'd probably leave it as is. I might be tempted to put {{cv-unsure}} on the talk page, but I'm loathe to do anything that seems unfriendly. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I can't prove it isn't a copyvio either, this does look like a very good first edit, with appropriate, thorough rewriting. The section on the different plans seems e.g. to be taken from [3] (a source also included in the article), but with rewritten text. Fram (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Fram! That's helpful. Let's hope we can keep this guy. :) There's a bit of OR in there, but, wow! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking at it. I added a citation needed to the one paragraph that didn't have a reference attached, though I suspect the reference at the end of the next paragraph is meant to apply to it. SilverserenC 17:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hello,
am I allowed to upload a picture from a Jet magazine as fair use? Thanks.--♫GoP♫TCN 13:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
[reply]
- Hi. There's a lot of factors that go into that; it depends entirely on whether you can defend its need in the article under WP:NFC. :) That's not really my major work area, but I would not consider using it myself unless there is sourced commentary about the actual incident depicted. But I would really recommend you run it past WT:NFC for feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the quick reply! Will ask.--♫GoP♫TCN 13:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you peek at the article Dorothea Puente. It had an image of her with a proper FUR template. Someone keeps removing it, believing that the copyright holder has to give permission for fair use. The person is dead and there is no projected revenue loss. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, yes. Very strange. :/ I don't know if the image meets WP:NFC or not, but the removal based on its being copyrighted is out of keeping with our approach to images. I've put it back and will explain to the other user. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Admin. I write you with a concern and prayer. User38563 deletes and keeps editing and undoing work from my and others job. He kees delete fact about the IBO boxing title, just because he has a personal problem with the title and sanctioning body. I think he keeps ruining and deleting facst from aritcle I and others have worked hard on.
And his language and communication with others is bad. Ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/User38563
Thanks :)
David-golota (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC) David-golota[reply]
Hello Moonriddengirl. A long time ago you edited (copyvio clean up) some of the articles listed in this AfD nomination. I think you might be interested in commenting there, the copyright concerns are a part of the nom rationale. Thanks for any help. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Threats
It's unfortunate that you feel the need to make unnecessary threats. Your attitude in dealing with this issue is the primary thing that drives editors AWAY from Wikipedia. It's indeed a very sad thing. However, since you have the power to abuse simple editors such as me with the threat of a banning over such a simple dispute, there is nothing I can do. It's a SHAME that you allow blatant copyright abuse at Wikipedia. I will notify the copyright holder, and reference this conversation. =//= Johnny Squeaky 04:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Squeaky (talk • contribs)
Hello again MRG, at http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/images/ there are many "free" clipart images. I can't fathom the license ([4] section 17) though: do you know if it is okay to incorporate some of these (along with original material) into an illustration for use in Wikipedia? If so, what should the license for the resultant work be? Uniplex (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
