::In the event that something like this were ever to come up again – if I take a translation a Wikipedian has posted on a talk page and insert it in an article, this seems analogous to copying a paragraph from one WP article to another. In that case, I believe editors are supposed to credit the source page which the text comes from in the edit summary. That's right isn't it? So in a situation like this, the easiest solution would be to indicate the source page, right? --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 19:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
::In the event that something like this were ever to come up again – if I take a translation a Wikipedian has posted on a talk page and insert it in an article, this seems analogous to copying a paragraph from one WP article to another. In that case, I believe editors are supposed to credit the source page which the text comes from in the edit summary. That's right isn't it? So in a situation like this, the easiest solution would be to indicate the source page, right? --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 19:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Ah, well that makes sense then. She was completely correct to attribute you; just it should be done in edit summary. Linking to the page would work, but when there's only one contributor, it's far simpler to just say something like what I use: "content contributed by <nowiki>[[User:BrilliantWikipedian]]</nowiki>" The page link is really a good idea if it is the work of more than one person, but when a single contributor has added the content, that saves people tracking down the other page to see who said it. :) In this case, it could even be specifically nailed down: "translation of German text by [[User:Jayen466|JN]]". --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 20:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Ah, well that makes sense then. She was completely correct to attribute you; just it should be done in edit summary. Linking to the page would work, but when there's only one contributor, it's far simpler to just say something like what I use: "content contributed by <nowiki>[[User:BrilliantWikipedian]]</nowiki>" The page link is really a good idea if it is the work of more than one person, but when a single contributor has added the content, that saves people tracking down the other page to see who said it. :) In this case, it could even be specifically nailed down: "translation of German text by [[User:Jayen466|JN]]". --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 20:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Okay, thanks for your time. :) --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 04:22, 16 May 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Talkback
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at WikiDan61's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tiffany's dance hall overview.jpg
Where it is?--Andrey! 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that use of not free image in article is justified and I do not see discussion on removal of this file. DFUs is a red link.--Andrey! 16:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me
I have been editing in wikipedia for the last four years. I am sorry for involving in some copyright violations. But they are unintentional. I have been spending lot of time for this purpose. Is it possible to give me some time to correct these violations from the table you have prepared. I don't want all these pages to be deleted. I will go through all these pages and correct the mistakes in a month time. If you or someone else is scrutinizing them, is it possible to delete the copyright violated part of the text rather than the complete article. I am sorry if my request is unreasonable. Thank you for finding my mistake. I will try not to do such mistake in future.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 17:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Palletooru page is deleted completely. I am questioning you for that. You could have deleted the plot of the film and kept a note of copyright violation as you have done to T. G. Kamala Devi and Swami Jnanananda. Please Please Please once again requesting you give me some time for correction.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 10:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Kindly restore the infobox, song list and categories of Palletooru. I would rewrite the rest of the article.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 13:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I have seen the trailers of Bhale Tammudu movie including the titles at Youtube and entered the credentials and songs of the film which includes Mohammed Rafi. Is it also comes under copyright violation against Youtube. If not, can you restore this part of the page.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 08:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi.:) I'm happy to help. It was a crazy weekend, and I'm still catching up, but I will come take a look later today (tomorrow, Wiki-time :D) and see what I can do. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I've looked at both pages and concur that wikipedia is the original, and the Sage site has copied a version from wikipedia somewhere around 13 June 2008. --Tagishsimon(talk) 22:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC). Wires crossed. TPS unable correctly to follow links. --Tagishsimon(talk) 22:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Moonriddengirl is experiencing some technical issues. Though she is struggling gamely away, her work is likely to be significantly slowed until the stupid thing resolves. Not that she's at all frustrated. She should be online on and off during her regular hours in the meantime, but overall productivity is sure to take a nosedive.
Donal O'Connor page deleted 6th February
Hi there,
My name is Donal O'Connor and my page was deleted by you, due to a copyright infringement. The information had been copied from my Biography on my myspace page and I have given permission for this. Is there anyway of undeleting the page.
Thanks, Tagishsimon. Mr. O'Connor, if you should choose to leave the release at your myspace page, please leave me a note here letting me know you've done so, and I'll be happy to help process it further. If you should send the note to the Wikimedia Foundation, the agent who addresses it there will restore the content if the license is usable. Sometimes technicalities require clarification; should this be the case, they will let you know. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question
hi
i want to ask you if for places where the name in the language of the minority is the same with the official name it is necessary to mention it in parantheses:
thx in advance for the answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't see why it would be, but I don't believe there's a policy that prohibits it. It could be useful if omission will leave people to wonder, thinking the information is missing instead of the same. I see you've raised the question at Talk:Arad, Romania. That's a good place for it, to find out how contributors to the article feel about it in that specific case. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help
How do I become an admin? 4 PAGES CREATED TO DATE. User:KingofFilm, the mighty Wikipedian. 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It helps to develop a lot of experience on Wikipedia and especially in the areas where administrators work. Wikipedia:Administrators gives a little bit of information about that, and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship includes a nicely written section on things to consider before undergoing the process. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
question
Hi Moonriddengirl,
Are editors allowed to collaborate on edits off wikipedia? Thanks.Malke2010 02:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that kind of depends on what you're asking. There should be nothing wrong with two Wikipedia editors sitting down over coffee to talk over the development of an article at a local Starbucks...so long as they are not attempting to coordinate to thwart consensus within the project. If the article is uncontroversial and they aren't trying to secretly discuss it where other editors won't be able to hear and if they're both willing to engage independently on Wikipedia, with full disclosure of their collaboration, in consensus-building, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable grounds to object. The point is improving the encyclopedia, and they're all above board about it.
OTOH, if they're collaborating because they want to iron out an approach to advance their mutual interests against other contributors, well, you've got a different situation. In that case, the answer is no. The policy and guideline to consider there are Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (specifically, the subsection WP:MEAT) and Wikipedia:Canvassing. Contributors should not collaborate off Wikipedia in a way that excludes the rest of the community from participation or that skews the consensus process. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 02:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I think there might be the latter situation taking place on Tea Party Movement talk page. Two editors there are insisting on a particular edit that I made be changed to something they had previously collaborated would be the edit. I can give you diffs. And the one fellow went over to the edit warring noticeboard and filed a complaint and said all sorts of things. Long story short, the admin today found I had not committed a violation and did not find any of the things this fellow claimed. So in the meantime, we're back to the question of my edit and I picked up on a previous post where the two are agreeing and the one mentions the collaboration. Well, now I'm asking to show me diffs of this collaboration and they're ignoring me. I'll post diffs for you.Malke2010 02:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2nd diff) Izauze responds
[3]
3rd diff) My response
[4]
4th diff: Izauze
[5]
5th diff: Me
[6]
6th diff: Changing the subject and getting hostile
[7]
7th diff: Happysomeone changing the subject
[8]
8th diff: Me
[9]
There is no discussion about the edit between them on that day or any other that I can see and I went back and looked.
This is the diff of the noticeboard [10], but it's long and rambling. But during the day in question, I did cooperate with editing changes and answered questions about my sources, etc. I did a good give and take and acquiesced to demands for placement of edit, other edits, etc. They were both upset that I would not yield to the content of this particular quote from a tea party organizer. From there, later that night, Izauze went off the edit war noticeboard without warning me on my talk page or even on the article talk page. He has stated on his talk page that his goal was to get me banned/or blocked and that he hoped a block would result in my being discouraged and leaving the page/wikipedia. The weird thing is, Izauze wrote up the complaint freely using edits from Happysomeone and mentioning his name. Things seem questionable to me.Malke2010 03:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they said they didn't collaborate off Wikipedia to produce the content, but even if they had what matters is if they are going off Wikipedia in an effort to thwart the consensus process. If they were both already active on the article, then it's not an issue of canvassing. If you think there may be sock puppetry going on, I'm afraid I'm probably not the best person to come to for a second opinion. I don't work in that area often. Frivolous 3RR reports happen, I'm afraid. I'm glad that the administrator evaluated the situation; I would expect that from Atama, with whose work I'm familiar. With respect to the dispute, is there a good mediation forum to which the three of you could appeal for a neutral, outside opinion? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at that. As for the sock thing, I don't know how some people are able to recognize it right off, but I will say they constantly agree and support each other. So if that's an indication, that's the only one I can recognize. Last night Izauze did a lot of editing that seems almost vandalism to me adding content without citations making claims that if I saw that from an IP I would revert as vandalism. I did not go to the noticeboard because I was afraid it would look like tit for tat because of the false report.
But I will say his style and behavior reminded me of another editor that has been ban/blocked and now claims to be retired.Malke2010 18:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, some sort of mediation is necessary here. But I'm specifically asking about this behavior of going to noticeboards for some kind of sanction, either blocking or whatever you get on wikialerts, etc. My question is, how do I get them to stop doing that first? Because you know, you could work at the U.N. and if I'd wanted to go to a noticeboard, I would have done it last night. I don't want to engage the argument. That seems like throwing gasoline on the fire to stop the fire. Suggestions for the immediate needs are most welcome.Malke2010 00:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another noticeboard [11]. Seems like WP:FORUMSHOP to me. Are there remedies for editors in my position. I think it's harassment given the posts Izauze made on , etc. and now this. If you don't think so, then I wouldn't pursue the matter.Malke2010 23:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are wandering into areas of Wikipedia where I'm afraid I have never been. :/ My involvement with sock puppetry has been limited to very obvious cases; a few I've observed from a distance have surprised me, because I tend to AGF a bit too far. The only solutions I know to problems with editors are in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution chain. If you and Izauze are willing to listen to and accept an outsider's opinion, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal could be a good next step. I've seen that applied successfully, but it does take willingness on both parts. Somewhat formally, there's Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Again, this requires willingness to reach consensus on all parts. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, some sort of mediation is necessary here. But I'm specifically asking about this behavior of going to noticeboards for some kind of sanction, either blocking or whatever you get on wikialerts, etc. My question is, how do I get them to stop doing that first? Because you know, you could work at the U.N. and if I'd wanted to go to a noticeboard, I would have done it last night. I don't want to engage the argument. That seems like throwing gasoline on the fire to stop the fire. Suggestions for the immediate needs are most welcome.Malke2010 00:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, I haven't read your notes at the noticeboard, so I'm not intending any kind of veiled criticism here. :) For all I know, this is exactly what you've done. I would recommend responding succinctly and briefly, showing other contributors why the noticeboard filing is unnecessary and inappropriate. I would be careful not to escalate by counterclaims, which can just throw up more heat than light (as you say, throwing gas on a fire to stop it). Basically, show your own innocence so that bystanders recognize that there is no problem with you, but don't spin more drama. Then, I would go to the contributor's talk page and explain that rather than filing notices in multiple places, dealing globally with the problem may be more productive and help in moving forward with the issue. I'd be very careful with tone there, since once people are already angry they can read your tone as more aggressive than you intend. (Wikipedia:Truce suggests placing a generous note on the other's talk page. There may be something about this contributor's work that you admire, even if it's just as abstract as his dedication. :)) The point is to try to get the emotions calmed all around so that reason can engage.
Mind you, I'm not real clear on what the issue is, but I'm assuming that at the heart the disagreement is content based, perhaps about the direction the article should take. :) I've never even read the article. If I'm right with that assumption, you might suggest coming up with a statement of the problem together, focusing on keeping it neutral, and then posting it for mediation as per directions. Then I'd try to shed any ill-will that the history between you may have caused and wait to see if you can come together with the assistance of uninvolved parties to create a version that works for everybody. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. That's a good idea. I forgot to post a diff. [12] about the latest thing, but I think this is just about content and a sense of WP:OWN on their part. A mediator would be the best route. I didn't know what I had here so I didn't know what to do. The mediator should be able to sort it out. Great advice, as always, Moonriddengirl. :) Malke2010 01:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I bring to your notice a seemingly 'copy and paste' copyright violation on this article. The 'biography' section seems to have been taken directly from here - [13]. Thanks,
For uncovering the history of the doubly-plagiarized Information technology governance, as well as your tireless work investigating copyright problems. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I would never have predicted that one would turn out to be reverse infringement. As I said at the talk page, this is a first for me: two separate reliable sources taking from the same Wikipedia article. What is scholarship coming to? :O I do appreciate your noting your concerns with the article. Copyright problems on Wikipedia would be completely out of control if it weren't for people like you. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Qs about Cvio cleanup
How acceptable is it to reduce an article to a referenced stub? Also, does it reduce the project's workload if a non-admin (like me) evaluates an article and posts a check mark at a CCI page to the effect that it no longer contains violations? Best, Novickas (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) It absolutely does reduce the project's workload, and you are most welcome to do so. I can't find simple words to convey how welcome you would be. :D It is acceptable to reduce an article to a referenced stub as needed to remove copyright violations. We do have a variety of templates to help explain why at the article's talk pages, including {{CCI}} and the old-fashioned {{cclean}}. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Contributor copyright investigation
Hi there, I wanted to get your brief views, if possible, on whether I should report a case to WP:CCI. I haven't reported a CCI case before so I want to be careful not to inappropriately report a case.
The user is User:Roman888 and the problem is close paraphrasing or direct lifting of sentences from (attributed) sources of a period of time. I left a message on the user's talk page alerting him to two examples that I fixed myself: see here. The user is a good contributor who I'm sure will be careful not to closely paraphrase in the future, but looking back through his/her contribution history, the word lifting and close paraphrasing is widespread and perhaps requires a thorough cleansing. Some more examples are:
Sivarasa Rasiah, who is also the MP for Subang and part of Anwar’s legal team, also pointed out that on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 the day before the alledged sodomy assault Saiful had met with Rodwan Mohd Yusof, who was then Deputy Director of Criminal Investigation Dept of the Royal Malaysian Police Force, now CPO Melaka ) at the Concorde Hotel.
Siva, who is also the MP for Subang and part of Anwar’s legal team, also pointed out that on Wednesday, June 25, 2008, the day before the last so-called assault on Thursday, Saiful had met with a senior police officer, Senior Assistant Commissioner Rodwan Mohd Yusof ( then Deputy Director of Criminal Investigation Dept of the Royal Malaysian Police Force, now CPO Melaka ), at the Concorde Hotel in Kuala Lumpur in Room 619.
Opposition leader Lim Kit Siang also singled out Umno as the biggest enemy of the prime minister’s 1 Malaysia concept of inclusiveness. He pointed out that Najib should ask Umno media like Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian and government television and radio channels to give him a chance to prove that he is Prime Minister for all Malaysians by ceasing to play the race and religion card.
Lim Kit Siang also singled out Umno as the biggest enemy of the prime minister’s 1 Malaysia concept of inclusiveness... “Najib should ask Umno media like Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian and government television and radio channels to give him a chance to prove that he is Prime Minister for all Malaysians by ceasing to play the race and religion card.” said party stalwart Lim Kit Siang today.
Two officers of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission on January 1, 2010 lodged police reports against the “Suara Keadilan” newspaper and pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand over an article which confirmed as murder the death of Selangor political aide Teoh Beng Hock.
Two officers of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) today lodged police reports against the “Suara Keadilan” tabloid newspaper and pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand of Thailand over an article which confirmed as murder the death of Selangor political aide Teoh Beng Hock who had been questioned by the MACC.
Hi. Thank you for your diligence in looking out for these issues and also for your careful approach to addressing them. :) The examples you supply are concerning. My initial thought is that a CCI seems likely to be needed. I picked an article at random from his most recent 500 contributions, Teoh Beng Hock. In this series of edits, I see more problems:
Extended content
The article says:
The Coroner's Court here on November 10, 2009 ordered the body of Teoh Beng Hock, who was laid to rest more than three months previously, to be exhumed on November 21 so that a second post-mortem on him.
The Coroner's Court here today ordered the body of the late Teoh Beng Hock, who was laid to rest more than three months ago, to be exhumed on Nov 21 so that a second post-mortem on him can be carried out the next day.
The article says:
Teoh Beng Hock's parents have ruled out any possibility that their son may have committed suicide, claiming that he was always happy and had already set out a wedding date with his fiance.
THE parents of Teoh Beng Hock have ruled out any possibility that their son may have committed suicide, claiming that he was always happy.
The article says:
Two officers of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission on January 1, 2010 lodged police reports against the “Suara Keadilan” newspaper and pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand over an article which confirmed as murder the death of Selangor political aide Teoh Beng Hock. for allegedly leaking contents from the report of the second autopsy carried out on November 22, 2009.
Two officers of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) today lodged police reports against the “Suara Keadilan” tabloid newspaper and pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand of Thailand over an article which confirmed as murder the death of Selangor political aide Teoh Beng Hock....
for allegedly leaking contents from the report of the second autopsy carried out last Nov 22.
The article says:
A inquest into the circumstances leading to the death of Teoh Beng Hock, that was scheduled on December 17, 2009 has been postponed to Jan 7, according to Gobind Singh Deo, lawyer for the Teoh family.
The inquest into the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock, which was scheduled to resume today, has been postponed again, to Jan 7, according to Gobind Singh Deo, lawyer for the Teoh family.
I've stopped looking in this article at this point. There may be more. I just spot-checked for duplicated sentences.
And this, mind you, was an article chosen at random, which would suggest that you're probably right that there are larger problems here. :/ It looks very like he is in good faith creating a pastiche of copyrighted snippets. I do agree with you that this is good faith; he is meticulous about sourcing.
I'm going to go ahead and address this article. If a few more articles like this are found, it would be a good idea to file for a CCI. If a talk page stalker wants to take a look, that would be great. :D If you do, that's great, too. Otherwise, I'll be happy to look at a few more articles tomorrow just to see. I have limited on Wikipedia time today. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick attention. I'll take some random pages as well and re-visit in a day or so. With over 4,000 edits it seems a WP:CCI may be required. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Loh remembered that Lingam had mentioned about how he had manipulated cases to his advantage by using certain lawyers against certain judges to make sure the judgments would be in his favour. Loh said he was so disturbed that something was terribly wrong with the judiciary that he decided there was no more freedom in the courts and chose not to take his Bar exams.
However, from memory, Loh, 34, said he remembered that Lingam had mentioned about how he had manipulated cases to his advantage by using certain lawyers against certain judges to make sure the judgments would be in his favour.
And later says:
After what he heard that night, Loh said he was so disturbed that he decided there was no more freedom in the courts and chose not to take his Bar exams.
The article says:
The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam video clip has found that it was former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim who was talking to prominent lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam on the telephone. Sources said the five-man panel also found that the video clip was authentic and that the conversation was true in substance. They said the commission also found that it was lawyer Loh Mui Fah who Lingam was speaking to after his telephone conversation with Fairuz. Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor presented a two-volume report on the findings to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin at the Istana Negara here yesterday.
The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam video clip has found that it was former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim who was talking to prominent lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam on the telephone. Sources said the five-man panel also found that the video clip was authentic and that the conversation was true in substance. They said the commission also found that it was lawyer Loh Mui Fah who Lingam was speaking to after his telephone conversation with Fairuz. Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor presented a two-volume report on the findings to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin at the Istana Negara here yesterday.
The residents of Bandar Mahkota Cheras is caught in the middle of a right-of-way tussle between Cheras-Kajang Expressway concessionaire Grand Saga Sdn Bhd and Bandar Makhota Cheras (BMC) developer Narajaya Sdn Bhd. Recently, the long-suffering residents dismantled the barricades erected by Grand Saga barring them use of a shorter and toll-free route into their housing area.
The residents are caught in the middle of a right-of-way tussle between Cheras-Kajang Expressway concessionaire Grand Saga Sdn Bhd and Bandar Makhota Cheras (BMC) developer Narajaya Sdn Bhd. Recently, the long-suffering residents dismantled the barricades erected by Grand Saga barring them use of a shorter and toll-free route into their housing area.
The article says:
Grand Saga Sdn Bhd, the concessionaire of the Cheras - Kajang Expressway, had reconstructed the barricade after it was taken down by the residents a few weeks ago.
Grand Saga Sdn Bhd, the concessionaire of the Cheras-Kajang Highway, had reconstructed the barricade after it was taken down by the residents a few weeks ago.
I'll delete each of the samples above. There are other quotes that are sourced to web articles that are no longer accessible - I'll hold off on those. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good work, and thank you very much for locating the issue and follow through. I have opened the CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Roman888. If perchance you want to continue looking, you would be most welcome to help document problems there. :) We are pushing on 30 of these, and while they will all eventually be reviewed, eventually is a key word here. I closed one last week that had been open for almost a year. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to help out; thanks very much for your guidance here. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright advice -- Images from National Register of Historic Places
Hi Moonriddengirl. I have a copyright question, which always makes me think of you. Here goes:
There are a number of images in a National Register of Historic Places nomination document that I think are nifty and would like to put in a gallery on Commons. The nomination part of the official NRHP listing and hence a government document. Some of the images are unsourced sourced. Some are sourced to the photographer. None of them would be readily verifiable, although copies of the nomination can be obtained from the National Park Service. (It is not available online yet, but presumably will be someday.)
My question is, are the images public domain? Given the source and limited verifiability, what would be the best way to post them, assuming that the license will allow it?
Thanks in advance for the help. This one is beyond me. I just like the pictures.
Hi. :) It's good to see you. Images are not really my area, but I know people who know images. :) Let me track down a Commons admin to see what he has to say. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the short answer is "it depends." I have conferred with one of my favorite Commons admins, and he says that research would be required into each image to determine whether it was taken by a federal agent in pursuit of his duties or if it was submitted by an outside party. It's tough when you can't yet provide a link. :/ If you can verify that the images were taken by a federal photographer, they might be usable, though how we'd go about proving that I don't know. You might be able to scan the documents if the federal status can be proven and e-mail those scans to OTRS. The ones that where no photographer is given may be exceptionally difficult. Although it's not on Commons, I might gather together the specifics here (including the names of the photographers you can identify), and present the details at WP:MCQ to see what the people there have to say. I think, honestly, that might be better than taking it to Commons:Commons:Help desk. It will all be much easier if this stuff winds up online. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy reply and the pointer to MCQ. Yet another hidden corner of Wikipedia reveals itself to me. I knew you would set me straight. I doubt they were taken by a government employee, and as you say, how would I prove it? I may just reach out to the archive I suspect the came from and see if they will grant permission if I ask them nicely.
BTW - You make recall the huge mess I made of The Avery Coonley School and how you had to roll it all back while I took copyvio 101. Well, that article is now at FAC (and looks like it is going to pass). I thought that might make you smile. Lest you ever think your work here is thankless.... --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awww. Thank you very much. :) It does indeed make me smile, and people like you are the reason I put so much time into this. Congratulations on your incredible achievement, whether it passes or not. I hope it does; with the effort you put into it, you deserve the star (and, potentially, the front page coverage). Getting permission for the images would certainly take care of any potential problems. Good luck, and thanks for caring enough to take the time. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Need your help
If you're not to busy, do you think you could better explain the situation here. The user doesn't understand what I mean [14] and my English is lacking. Thank you. Theleftorium 23:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. You're the best! :) Theleftorium 01:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what do we do with the temporary pages? Many of them began as copies of the already existing articles and still have copyright problems in them. The following piece, for example, appears in Talk:Dilwyn Lewis/Temp: "In 1996 he suffered the first of seven heart attacks. A quadruple by-pass operation followed and diabetes was diagnosed. He died suddenly in Ireland." It's copied directly from [15]. :/ Theleftorium 15:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can delete the earliest versions. If it's not too much trouble, can you give me links? If it is, I'll figure out which ones are problematic myself. :) You do plenty enough for copyright cleanup as it is! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait. That's still there. I misunderstood you. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll make sure he has the content he needs for reworking offline and go ahead and delete the involved temp pages as soon as I know he does. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what's allowed on user pages?
Hi Moonriddengirl,
Are we allowed to post images from other areas of Wikipedia on our user pages? A friendly bot has removed so things I've added and I don't want to run afoul of rules here. And tips would be helpful. Thanks, Malke2010 00:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only free images are allowed on user pages (that would be images that are public domain or licensed under one of the free licenses we use. Any image that is uploaded under "fair use" can't be used there. That's exactly what the bot objected to with File:Sinn Fein logo.jpg. That image can only be used in article space and only if there is a "fair use rationale" for the specific article in which it is being used. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see the difference. Thank goodness for the bot. Won't do that again.Malke2010 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's one that takes a lot of people by surprise. Even experienced contributors, in my observation, don't always know much about our image use rules. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Teoh Beng Hock
MRG, I have received your message regarding your removal of the part of the article and information regarding the Teoh Beng Hock issue. In the past I have dealt with many issues such as this regarding copyright issues in Wikipedia. Normally in such circumstances me and few of the other editors would rewrite sentences, rather than take the drastic measure to remove the information wholesale. So in this case I have reverted your removal of the information and proceeded to rewrite the sentences which have brought up your concerns in the first place.Roman888 (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As explained at the article's talk page, you do have the option to rewrite content removed for copyright concerns before restoring it, but you do not have a right to revert copyright violations and restore them to publication even temporarily. Such future behavior in the future is likely to lead to your being blocked. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diana Anderson
Hi. Thanks but I guess there's no rush since the temp pages have been deleted (although not the temp talk pages), and the pages will be deleted within a week. So I have time to further perfect the six or so articles. You didn't overexplain yourself -- I need it all. Sometimes I process slowly. I know the thread is on my talk page but it's getting a little crowded there. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any conversation involving me gets rapidly long. I recommend frequent archiving. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Translations by editors
Moonriddengirl, do you know what is the appropriate way (if any) of crediting translations made by an editor? I've had this issue come up twice on Wikimedia projects. The first time was a couple of years ago in Wikiquote where an admin asked me to add my name to a translation I had made. The other time concerns a brief translation of an old German text I made for another editor here on my WP talk page. She used it verbatim in an article and kindly (and unbeknownst to me) credited me in the footnote. Subsequent discussions related to this here: [16], [17], [18]. I am easy either way and would just like to know what is the right way to go about this. Thanks, --JN466 17:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's kind of an odd one, and completely contrary to Wikipedia:Signatures. Nnot that I'm accusing you of glory-hounding :) I understand that the signatures are the idea of others, but the principle seems to hold true: "When editing a page, main namespace articles should not be signed, because the article is a shared work, based on the contributions of many people, and one editor should not be singled out above others." I don't find the argument that the translation was tricky convincing, even if true: we don't have contributors sign particularly brilliant prose in featured articles. The fact that it was a brilliant translation wouldn't seem to merit an exception. :) As long as you are credited in the edit history, as well all are, I don't see why you would need to be singled out. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) I wasn't credited in the article history in the normal way because I didn't make the edit myself. I think that's why Ruth thought she had to say something. The way it happened was that I'd translated a paragraph for Ruth on my talk page. She took a sentence from what I'd done and inserted it in the article (which she was very welcome to do). The original edits are [19], [20].
An attribution is in the edit history per the edit summary of that second edit. So now I think we can just delete the footnote addition from the article and leave it at that. Would you agree?
In the event that something like this were ever to come up again – if I take a translation a Wikipedian has posted on a talk page and insert it in an article, this seems analogous to copying a paragraph from one WP article to another. In that case, I believe editors are supposed to credit the source page which the text comes from in the edit summary. That's right isn't it? So in a situation like this, the easiest solution would be to indicate the source page, right? --JN466 19:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well that makes sense then. She was completely correct to attribute you; just it should be done in edit summary. Linking to the page would work, but when there's only one contributor, it's far simpler to just say something like what I use: "content contributed by [[User:BrilliantWikipedian]]" The page link is really a good idea if it is the work of more than one person, but when a single contributor has added the content, that saves people tracking down the other page to see who said it. :) In this case, it could even be specifically nailed down: "translation of German text by JN". --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for your time. :) --JN466 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Urgent request
Hi Moonriddengirl,
This [21] had been resolved by the editors when another uninvolved editor came along and made more comments that aren't really helpful. I hatted the thread in order to let everybody know this is a closed discussion and this editor came back and opened it again. Please, for the sake of everyone involved, would you be kind enough to hat this discussion. The editors in question are done with it, but the 'uninvolved editor' seems to need convincing that things really are settled. Thanks.Malke2010 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm afraid I can't. There's no way after our conversations that anyone would consider me an uninvolved administrator here, even though our interactions started with my blocking you. :) I'm afraid that unless I sided against you in something, that's the way it would be in any situation that relies on an admin's actions from this point. I appreciate that you're coming to me because of the edit summary here, which is a good idea, but I'm afraid you're going to have to ask somebody who doesn't have history with you. Sorry. Be sure that if you do ask an uninvolved admin (though, really, any uninvolved editor can do it), you do so in a way that seems completely neutral: something of an "all parties seem to agree that this is over; would you review and hat if you think so, too?" kind of thing. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize that. I will ask another. Thanks. Malke2010 18:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, problem. The guiding principle here is WP:UNINVOLVED. I feel completely confident in giving you advice without worrying that I have a bias in your favor, but after all the conversations we've had, I could not even guarantee to myself that I would not be unconsciously biased in taking action. Best left to somebody who doesn't know you! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I've always relied on your advice because you are so good at seeing all sides. I've left a note for Gwen Gale, but if any editor can close it, would it be all right if I just find somebody who is available? I don't want to be seen as shopping for something, but I would like it closed as I don't want Jusdafax, remember him from last summer, who has also weighed in and seems to be making most uncivil comments about me. And he's got nothing to do with the issue at hand. So I think it best that it be hatted as soon as possible before he gets something else started. Thanks.Malke2010 18:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
