If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time on weekdays. I try to check back in at least once more during the day. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 10:37, 24 August 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Commons work
I've recently gotten a bit active in some commons work and I have to tell you, freedom of panorama is ridiculous. I suppose it isn't too difficult, except when applying de minimis, but it is beyond annoying. RyanVeseyReview me!16:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For this edit made to the Pineal gland, I believe that there is indeed close paraphrasing for the first reference and outright copyvio for the second reference. However, the material added in that edit was already removed anyways, so is there anything I need to do here? Do I just mark it as yes in the CCI, but note it was already removed from past editing? SilverserenC21:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That'd do it. :) Sometimes, if I think it's really important to the article, I may rewrite it or truncate it or something like that. Either way, I just note that it's been cleaned at the CCI and move on. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Off to Italy soon
Hi MRG! I'll shortly be off to Italy for a month with rather dodgy computer/internet access, so won't be able work at WP:Copyright problems until I get back. Didn't want you to think I'd abandoned ship. :). Have a great summer! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Just wanted to stop by briefly and let you know I've been tracking copyright violations on Jimi's page. I deleted six today, and as Ryan Versey suggested, I'm just letting you know, fyi. If you have any thoughts/suggestions (I have put a note on Jimi's talk page as well), please let me know. I'll stop by here to check next time I log in. Thanks :D Charlie Inks (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I'm afraid you seem to have run into a backwards copyvio. I did a history search on the text, looking for the run "recording regimen" and find it entered in this edit in 2006. The red flag there: it didn't enter as one piece of cloth, but was edited from what already existed. If you look at the content as it appears in that book, which also purports to have been created in 2006, you can see that the changes in that incremental edit are all in that source. I took the text string as it appeared before that change--"went from a disciplined recording ethic"--and followed it backwards from there. It was added earlier that month by an IP. Already in the article at the time of that addition, we find "relatively narrow neck", which text is present in that book on page 32, along with the surrounding material. A search for that in the article finds it entering in July 2004, several years before The Essential Jimi Hendrix was published. Already in the article at that time is the phrase "slipped into his bag by a fan without his knowledge" which is on page 21 of the book.
The liberal copying from Wikipedia can make it hard to tell which came first, and our policies encourage us to err on the side of safety. I think in this case, though, that we can feel pretty sure that we had this material first. I see you've done a lot of work on the article; if you think that the article was better with the content removed, you might want to put it back. If your rewrite serves the article better, it may not be necessary. But we don't want to cite Rotimi Ogunjob, I think, so he is almost certainly a circular source.
Hi there! Thanks for this and for your note - which I just noticed - on Jimi's talkpage! I really appreciate you clarifying that removal is the first step, because, 1. I'm new and I'm trying to follow all the rules, but no, I don't have time/energy to read ALL of them before working here - and that's what I care about: what things get represented here and why and how; and 2. I feel quite strongly about copyviol. It is breaking the law, IMHO, and I've found LOADS of it, loads, on Jimi's wiki. That said, I just want to make sure I'm fully understanding what you're saying here. I'm not a very technical person at all - and I'm not a coder. So some of the language here,(text string, backwards copyviol, e.g.) I just don't follow it all completely very well - not your fault. I understand that your research appears to show that someone copied the wiki? Is that what you're suggesting b/c of the dates? Okay, but where I'm confused is when you say we shouldn't cite The Essential Jimi Hendrix. Do you mean you think that parts/all of that book were taken from here? Just asking b/c later this week, as you saw on Jimi's talk page, I'll be putting together the copyviols that look like the content's worth keeping (after cleanup) in a sandbox for ppl to work on to fix. So should Essential JH be eliminated entirely from Jimi's wiki? Just making sure I understand you correctly. I do understand the law in broad terms, but I don't understand wikipedia some days. :) Just saying'. Thanks again for your help with explaining and clarifying all this. Cheers, Charlie Inks (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I just read the additional note (the same?) that you posted at the top of Jimi's talk page. I just wanted to further clarify that the copyviols I'm finding are from multiple sources - not just this one book. After reading your note (at the top of Jimi's talk), my understanding is if there are ANY suspected copyviols of That Book in particular, they should be ignored, right? Thanks again for your help with all this. Cheers :) Charlie Inks (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, it's only that book in particular that I've cleared. Unless we get some solid evidence, we should assume that any similar content between our article and that book originated with us. If there are other sources you think might be backwards copies, let me know! The reason why we can't cite that book, if it copies from us, is that we know it's not a reliable source; it's a WP:CIRCULAR source. We said it first, and they copied it, so it doesn't prove anything. They have almost certainly used more sources than Wikipedia, but there are probably better books out there than one that copies from an open-source website without attribution. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, this helps a lot! I see what you mean here - "we said it first, and they copied it." I'm not sure I've seen any other examples of this, but again, I appreciate the additional explanation. I'll be in touch if I notice anything else but you're the one who spotted this one - not me! :D Cheers, Charlie Inks (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at that article this morning. The English is rather hifalutin, combined with the kind of errors you wouldn't expect at that level of writing but could arise from typos (missing apostrophe, space missing between words, that kind of thing) but Googling a few likely phrases turned up nothing. --Stfg (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be easy. He's very tenacious about uploading images on skimpy evidence. I'm not sure how to properly encourage him to stick with what's clear and stop guessing...sometimes demonstrably wrongly. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what needs to be done either, but what's been happening seems very disruptive, and not just image issues. Some people benefit from having a mentor or mentors to talk things out with before their actions become problems, but not certain if the advice given would be heeded. We hope (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know your strength is text, and you deny being an expert in images (at the same time, knowing more than almost everyone about images), so do you have a counterpart with image expertise, especially one who involved with Commons?
I know I can try MCQ, and I guess I can try the Commons Village Pump, but I wouldn't mind contacting someone directly.
Short summary, I am looking at an OTRS permission for a painting by Eisenhower. We have been provided with documentation on White House stationery that the painting was given to his aide, then on to the family who is providing the license. However, as has been properly pointed out, the gift of the painting does not imply gift of the copyright to the painting, which may still reside with the Eisenhower heirs. I'd like to see if we really have to track down the Eisenhower aides to get their release.--SPhilbrick(Talk)18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. We'd probably need permission from the Eisenhower heirs, depending on the details of publication.
I'd think of it like this: if the painting were by, say, Pablo Picasso, would we assume that his gifting/selling it to somebody gives them the rights to commercially exploit it? Eisenhower has the same rights to his art as Picasso, and those rights descend to his heirs. (You can point them to Commons:Commons:Image casebook#2D art paintings for local policy.)
I think the only way we'd be able to accept the painting from the family is if we can verify that it is public domain through publication. I don't guess you have any idea if Eisenhower ever published it or, if so, if he complied with copyright requirements?
My feelings will not be hurt at all if you want to ask at either of those other forums. :) Or somebody else, for that matter. One of my go-to guys for image questions on Commons is User:Dcoetzee. I believe Derrick knows his stuff stone cold. :) Beyond that, I have never really approached him one-on-one with a question, but in my humble opinion Commons:User:Clindberg is a master in the field. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't want to hear that answer, but it sounds right. Unfortunately, I just ran into another situation requiring image expertise - more technical than copyright, but I'll try Derrick, who looks like he should fit the bill.
On the painting I know it was on loan to a gallery for some time, but don't know that it was ever published. I'll follow up with the family representative.--SPhilbrick(Talk)17:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey MRG, is copying a mission statement (which has to be verbatim) a copyvio? I'm scrapping it from the article anyway, but tell me if I should remove it from the history--this Vanish user did this fairly regularly, I believe. Squank you, Drmies (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! As a general rule of thumb, I remove mission statements from articles unless they are so brief and pertinent that they cannot be summarized, in which case I turn them into direct quotations. That doesn't happen very often. But if it's only the mission statement, I wouldn't remove it from history unless it's a honkin' big mission statement. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link now to the new user name, but this is about the articles created under the old user name. The CCI of the new user name is done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'd have to ask why. The name of the page is not its central importance; we frequently anonymize CCI pages that seem to be connected to "real life" names, for instance, by associating them with the date they are opened. In that case, the username is not in the page title at all. Unless it would encourage or facilitate quicker cleanup, I don't really know if I see the value of moving it, although I agree that clarity within the page until it is courtesy blanked would be a good idea, if it's not already clear. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to rename. I had my old pages move back to the R name and edits moved back. So to me it makes sense here. I leave the decision to MRG. PumpkinSkytalk21:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would make a little bit of busy-work moving it in the various templates-but it doesn't really matter. Trusting the "no index" thing, it shouldn't show up on search engines. Honestly, my big concern is that it might stir up drama. I understand you have a good relationship with Gerda, so I'm quite sure that no such is intended, but I'm not entirely sure that everybody would take it that way and CCI is just so much better off when drama stays out of it. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention a name for that reason. Hey Pumpkin, how you doin'? Anyway, MRG, some close paraphrase here, in the first version of an article, from this one (look for "deed restrictions". Not enough to scrap the article, of course, but your advice is, as always, appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well enough, thanks. Hey, I feel weird about going through those articles looking for stuff when all the while here you are, increasing the encyclopedia's coverage and all. I just want you to know that I'm glad every time I get to place a N on that list and the sooner it's over the better. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl. I hope you don't mind me coming by to ask an opinion. One of my protege's is transcluding Special:ListFiles/Swifty into his userspace. Special:ListFiles includes a thumbnail of each image and the vast majority (if not all) are uploaded under fair use. Is he violating fair use by doing this? Surely the ListFiles special page would be violating fair use on it's own, if it does. I've not been completely stumped by a question for a while, but this one's got me! WormTT(talk) 09:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never object to people asking opinions. I've asked a ton of my own over the years. :)
That said, this one is tricky. It seems to me that ListFiles is somewhat analogous to Google search, which generates thumbnails of images based on a certain parameter. So long as the list is not fixed or published somewhere, I don't think it should generate any issues. (I'm thinking of Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. Specifically see the paragraph in our article beginning "The Ninth Circuit did, however, overturn the district court's decision that Google's thumbnails were infringing." Caveat: I have read about but not actually read the court's decision)
If it is fixed on his userpage, though, I think the matter changes. First, let's look at NFC. There is nothing wrong with his including a list of images he's uploaded in his userspace, but I think that fixing the images for display there quite likely violates point 9 of WP:NFC: "Restrictions on location." Since I don't think that restriction can be overcome, I believe that issues with the other criteria don't really matter, so I'm not exploring those.
Then, looking to WP:C, I think this section of WP:LINKVIO very likely applies: "Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use."
Only a court can ultimately say if he's violating fair use, but I think that he's violating policy. I'd recommend he use the list instead or even provide a link to the ListFiles. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Maggie. That does make sense to an extent. I'm still not sure about ListFile being analogous to Google search. It might be my background, but part of the problem to me is that a ListFiles search is not really a search, the parameter is shown as part of the root URL, the information will come back in the same order every time, with only new images added, or deleted images removed. In other words, it's exactly as fixed as a userpage with a transclusion. A Google search, on the other hand, is based on a parameter, Google's regular reindexing and whatever magical formula Google might use.
I do see how transcluding may well be against policy and will be advising him to remove the transclusion, but I do think ListFiles should be looked at a little more carefully. However, I'm not sure which direction I should head with it, one of the community pages, the bugzilla pages, the foundation or the legal dept... or are you confident that it'll all be fine and I just forget about it ;) WormTT(talk) 12:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to defer to you on ListFiles and their function. To me, they're pretty much both magic. For all I know, hamsters assemble tiny thumbnails and put them together every time you ask for them. :D If you say they're different, though, I trust that you have much more insight. I'd be concerned if they were being displayed continuously, but don't really know if we should be thinking about disabling non-free images in some way so that they are not temporarily visible when the list is accessed.
If I were going to explore this, I'd probably take it to one of the village pumps and publicize it at WT:NFC. The Bugzilla folks are unlikely to do anything without strong community consensus. If you want to ask the legal department first, they are very unlikely to speak "ex officio", as it were. They're very careful not to interfere with community self-governance or to create a conflict of interest by providing legal advice to the community, but also understand that sometimes dealing with tricky legal matters is a challenge for those of us who volunteer. It's the kind of thing that they might well assign an intern to look into, akin to some of the other research at meta:LCA#Research. We're in the application process for fall interns right now, finishing up with Summer, so it might be a few weeks. I'd be able to let you know sooner if it's a question they feel is appropriate for that, though. Just let me know if you'd like me to switch to my work hat and get that in for you. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind putting your work hat on and asking the question, that'd be great. It's something that MediaWiki has had for a very long time, and I don't see lots of complaints about it, so in my opinion it'd be an interesting case for an intern. I've got enough to deal with things from my end (will talk to Swifty) - and I can always take it to the pump if I get a pang of guilt, or run out of things to do. For now I'm going to buy a hamster and print out some images... WormTT(talk) 13:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to overrule (sort of) my mentor here, just to make clear that an intern spending significant amounts of time on this specific issue is probably not warranted. If it can be folded into something else, that's great; but as I see it, this particular issue is not a priority. Interns should be focusing on other things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the question here. If I see a non-free image anywhere other than in an article, my understanding is that I can remove it. It doesn't matter whether it's visible via a direct inclusion, a template transclusion, or a Special.php function, we only use non-free images where essential for the reader's understanding of articles. As to whether Special:ListFiles itself violates something, well no, it is a maintenance function. Executing that special page in your own browser does not place any copyrighted images into the realm of public display (unless you are feeding your iPad output into one of those big Times Square signs ;). In the same way, accessing an image in File: space is also a maintenance function, accessing it in your own browser does not put it on public display. Embedding that maintenance functionality into another page such that a non-free image does become viewable by the public without a valid NFCC rationale - well, we already have a rule for that... Franamax (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please take a closer look at this? I left a note at the article talk page as well. According to WP:COPYPASTE (about copying and pasting from one Wikipedia article to another): "Copying more than one paragraph is content forking and is to be avoided." Your input would be much appreciated. Thanks. Poeticbenttalk20:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can see, that rule doesn't exist anywhere. :/ It was added to that page earlier today, and it is currently gone. There are absolutely no copyright issues with copying content from one article to another; whether or not the material is relevant in both articles is a matter for Wikipedia:Content forking and consensus at the articles. As Wikipedia:Content forking notes, "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick action there at the policy page, but the question remains. Is it OK to copy-paste (+7,807) so much text at a controversial entry undergoing a public review as an potential POV fork?
POV forking is not okay regardless of the amount of content. :) I think the question is more complex, though; it really comes down to whether the material is appropriate to the article at all. I'd be inclined to treat it like new content; if the material is contested, I'd treat it like a WP:BRD situation and discuss the material with the other editor, getting consensus of others if necessary. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unusual 2nd opinion request (in that it doesn't involve copyvio)
No, I don't think that was an appropriate close. It doesn't show a nuanced understanding of what deletion debates are all about - we need to assess the underlying policy and not just count noses. I also think it's unfortunate that it was closed without discussing your final question, which was an important one. :/ I have deliberately not looked at the article or the sourcing, because I don't want my opinion about it coloring my response. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind saying something to the closer? Don't think it's appropriate for me to, given as how I'm involved. Don't know if it's worth the hassle of WP:DRV or getting someone to re-open. Dpmuk (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again. I've been thinking about a paper I wrote in college about Native American Homelessness in Minnesota. It should be convertible to a Wikipedia article. Am I free to copy it into my user space and modify it so it is written in Wikipedia's style or does the University retain the copyright to any works I submit? (The University of Pennsylvania is a private university, if it makes any difference.) RyanVesey18:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) As far as I know, your own work is your own unless you release it, for instance by releasing it to us. But why not try to publish it in a real journal? Looks much better on your resume... Drmies (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. You've got a point. It currently isn't publish ready (it was written first semester of my Freshman year); however, I might be able to make it that way. There's a number of journal's that exist on Native American Studies. One of those might be appropriate. Maybe it would be better to submit it to a journal on homelessness. I'll try to fix it up. RyanVesey03:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Uncle G! I'll be looking through the PennBook. I feel like I can operate under the assumption that I retain the copyright unless I find something stating otherwise (since US law gives the default copyright to the creator of something). RyanVesey03:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good find, Uncle G. :) Looking through their policies is a good idea, Ryan, just in case. If you don't find something specifically referring to the type of paper you were writing, you should be safe, since you do have to clearly transfer copyright to lose it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At WikiProject Physics
Hello. There is a new user placing images in some articles, but we are not sure of the public domain or copyright status of these images. The discussion is taking place at Cleanup and mentoring needed at Talk:WP Physics. The new editor's wiki ID with a contributions link starts the thread. I think if you read through the thread you will understand the issues. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a first answer, I never mind the question. :) I know what it's like to run into a problem and not know what to do about it. In this case, I was happy to assess the situation, and I find that this user has a history of violating copyright on Wikimedia Commons and was issued a block warning if he persisted several months ago. Every image he currently has on Commons is either blatantly mistagged (in one case he claims the image was published prior to 1923, even though the physicist in it would be 12) or suspect. I have listed him at their administrators' noticeboard, here. Thank you so much for finding this problem and following up on it before it could grow even larger. This user has got to start respecting our copyright policies. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for thinking of me. I once did a search for material such as that, and don't remember coming across that one. I need to work on one of my to-dos soon, and that will help.--SPhilbrick(Talk)01:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are an amazing resource, Uncle G, and that's interesting. I hope we're evolving to a better understanding as a project. It's not just what you use; it's how you use it, and why. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminded of a scene in Gone From the Wind; you first see a battlefield aftermath, and you can see hundreds of injured soldiers, all in need of help, but while you are thinking about the enormity of it all, the camera pans, and you realize what you first saw was just a sliver, you now see acres of casualties. I thought the issue of quotes in footnotes was contentious, but I had no idea.--SPhilbrick(Talk)12:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may remember this sorry tale - and your post here. I tried to get involved in the Talk page to see if anything can be done but the two camps are as dogmatically talking past each other as before. I think the whole thing will be ignited once again by this revert. Given your earlier warning to the user, wouldn't topic bans all round be the answer at this point? DeCausa (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, URBIS is still under a ban. I've reverted him and blocked him preliminarily for 48 hours. Thank you so much for attempting to talk to them. :/ Hopefully dramatic action will keep us from going back to the state that we've been in for so many months in that article. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Become a teahouse host!
Hey Moon! I was thinking you'd be a great addition to the hosts at the Teahouse. Copyright questions come along from time to time, but it would be even better in that it allows you to answer some questions that aren't related to copyright. You've always been very friendly with editors and I can't imagine someone I'd like to invite more. RyanVesey18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible complicated/ complex copyvios in Giardiasis
Heya; Giardiasis has aroused my copyvio nose; I haven't done any major investigation of any kind. The article originally dates back to 2003 but has a long edit history with multiple contributors. I've found the same text as parts of the article over at this site, but lack the resources to see who had it first. I suspect that there may be multiple originating sites here, just on that hunchy thing (probably based on writing style, etc.) I think it certainly warrants further investigation from some experts (of which I am not one!), but it's likely to be complex/complicated. Enjoy! ;P Pesky (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. According to Wayback, that page is not archived, although archives from that site do exist back to 2006. My "backwards copy" sense is tingling. :) Looking into it.... --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, my investigation hinges on this passage:
Giardia has no vector. It affects a wide range of human and mammalian reservoir hosts. Small aquatic or semi-aquatic wild mammals, such as beavers, muskrats, and small rodents harbor water-born cysts of Giardia and serve as important reservoir hosts.[1]
Furthermore, a variety of birds may also serve as reservoirs of Giardia.<ref name="baker_advances_paras"/> Contaminated water supplies, such as water in rivers and lakes and improperly treated water in developing countries, are also reservoirs of the waterborne cysts.<ref name="g_emedhealth"/> Often, contamination of surface water is caused by rain and wind carrying cysts from fields containing or fertilized by manures of infected humans, livestock, or wild animals to nearby rivers and streams. Giardia cysts can remain viable in surface water for approximately two months.<ref name="baker_advances_paras"/> As a result, it is more dangerous for hikers to consume water from rivers and lakes during and immediately after raining seasons as contamination tend to be most severe during these periods. Finally, the organism can often be found in soil, food, and surfaces contaminated with feces containing infectious cysts.<ref name="g_emedtv">[http://diseases.emedtv.com/giardiasis/giardiasis.html Giardiasis]. Retrieved on 2009-02-24.</ref>
The suspected source says:
Giardia has no vector. It affects a wide range of human and mammalian reservoir hosts. Small aquatic or semi-aquatic wild mammals, such as beavers, muskrats, and small rodents harbor water-born cysts of giardia and serve as important reservoir hosts. Furthermore, a variety of birds may also serve as reservoirs of giardia.
Contaminated water supplies, such as water in rivers and lakes and improperly treated water in developing countries, are also reservoirs of the waterborne cysts. Often, contamination of surface water is caused by rain and wind carrying cysts from fields containing or fertilized by manures of infected humans, livestock, or wild animals to nearby rivers and streams. Giardia cysts can remain viable in surface water for approximately two months. As a result, it is more dangerous for hikers to consume water from rivers and lakes during and immediately after raining seasons as contamination tend to be most severe during these periods. Finally, the organism can often be found in soil, food, and surfaces contaminated with feces containing infectious cysts.
Checking the origin of the first words, I find that they enter in June 2009, when an editor does some copy-editing. The rest of the text is already there. That's a very good sign for us. It's unlikely that somebody copied content from that source, except for the first few words, and another editor coincidentally added them later.
The next sentence was introduced in February 2009 by an editor who does (from a copyright standpoint) behave pretty suspiciously. But reducing the chance that he copied from them, he actually includes more information than they do, material that was subsequently edited out of our article (such as the wider range of animal hosts).
So, my next step - since at this point I'm quite sure that the identified site copied from us - is to see where that material may have come from. I pick a sentence that is no longer in our article to reduce the risk of finding mirrors ("Larger wild animals such as coyotes, grizzly bears, and wolves also harbor the organism"). And I find this.
That's unfortunate. The earliest date on that site is March 28, 2009. But that's not definitive. I'm going to look to see if there's any chance we came first. First, though, I'll tag the backwards copy by the other site at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moongirl, hate to drop things in your lap (again) but the Srirangam#History section has the latter half of it's content copied from the official temple website here. Somewhat helpfully the IP who added it noted the link in the edit comments & also made the section header an EL :) Some of the content has been barely amended . Not sure if it should be blanked/templated, IP actions like this sometimes get blind reverted. Is there an official place to report this..WP is such a maze of noticeboards! rgds 94.195.187.69 (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I appreciate your finding the problem and following up on it. :D I have removed the section; I understand completely your concern about blind reverts. Sometimes admin actions like this get blind reverted, too. :/ The basic steps for dealing with copyright problems are set out at WP:Copyvio101. We do have a copyright problems board, but this one was a pretty simple repair and I'm afraid that board is very backlogged at the moment. Bringing it here undoubtedly expedited cleanup. :) You can also try removing it yourself; if you put a note in the edit summary saying why (for years, I've been using this: "copyright problem removed. PLEASE DO NOT RESTORE. See talk.") and a note at the talk page identifying the source (you can hand-write it or use {{cclean}}), you might not be blind-reverted by vandal patrol, anyway. If you are, you can always tell an admin, any admin. You are, for instance, welcome here. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^Baker, J.R. (2007). Advances in Parasitology. Elsevier Science & Technology Books. p. 131.
