What's cooking? I hope you have a minute for a question--but maybe typing "there's no way" will only take you two seconds. I want a picture for my latest masterpiece, [[Charles Chauncey Burr]], a most disagreeable anti-abolitionalist (later in life, anyway). I found [http://www.jutarnji.hr/-ludwig--nam-je-lagao-160-godina--on-je-bio-poeov-crni-gavran/285194/ this], which has an image of him (the bearded dude, fourth image from the top). I can find no other copy of it, I can find no publication info, and I doubt that some Croatian dude somewhere "made" that engraving of an American who died in the 1800s. In short--how can I get it? Thanks, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 02:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
What's cooking? I hope you have a minute for a question--but maybe typing "there's no way" will only take you two seconds. I want a picture for my latest masterpiece, [[Charles Chauncey Burr]], a most disagreeable anti-abolitionalist (later in life, anyway). I found [http://www.jutarnji.hr/-ludwig--nam-je-lagao-160-godina--on-je-bio-poeov-crni-gavran/285194/ this], which has an image of him (the bearded dude, fourth image from the top). I can find no other copy of it, I can find no publication info, and I doubt that some Croatian dude somewhere "made" that engraving of an American who died in the 1800s. In short--how can I get it? Thanks, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 02:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
== November 2010 ==
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Welcome]], and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to [[:User talk:Moonriddengirl]]. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]], where you can write practically anything you want. <!-- Template:uw-joke1 --> ''I can see no reason for using the word "trending" as if "to trend" were an acceptable verb, as you did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl&diff=395223563&oldid=395223239 in this edit], other than improper humor. If this goes any further, I shall have no choice but to either Noticeboard you, or possibly even RfCing you.'' [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:05, 7 November 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 11:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time, less frequently between 19:00 and 22:00. When you loaded this page, it was 21:21, 16 May 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Regarding ANI on DYK
I felt it was necessary to mark it for archive so that people did not need to post more "incidences" onto the page. And I did mark in my closing statements that someone could "move this [thread] to WP:AN, a subpage, WT:DYK, or some other page, but do not continually repost more incidences here. The main issue has been resolved, there is no need for further discussion." So I felt it moot that further discussion was necessary, since the two editors who started the thread and were in the dispute have resolved their case. Further discussion about DYK, I feel, may reference this ANI discussion in the archives, but that they be located elsewhere. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the ANI issue is no longer pressing, but closing off constructive conversation which may lead to the improvement of the project is generally not a good idea. There have been quite a few opinions and ideas bandied about in that thread, and rather than archiving them, it would be better to make them accessible at the new discussion. I'm in the process of doing so. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The potential copyright issue with Grace Sherwood is rather pressing, and still an open and unresolved incident. It's today's featured article! I'm currently looking at this old revision and comparing against the USA Today source. Uncle G (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realize that had not yet been handled. I'll mention that one in the summary, unless you think it should be restored until that is resolved. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we need several eyes upon it in addition to mine, however we achieve that. We need a fairly clear retain/remove decision for Raul654. I'd certainly like my opinions double-checked. Uncle G (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that whilst I've been looking at this, this happened. We're less pressed now. But whilst I've got the tabs open … Uncle G (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! This is the revision that makes me say "Ouch!". We're going to have to ask the FA people what they want to do, here. Uncle G (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it still the USA Today source you're comparing to? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Old prose: On March 7, 1706 the court had a jury of 12 "ancient and knowing women" search Sherwood's body for suspicious or unusual markings, thought to be brands of the devil. They found two suspicious moles "marks not like theirs or like those of any other woman." After being tried in the second Princess Anne County Courthouse, Sherwood consented to be tried by water.
USA Today:The court had"ancient and knowing women" search Sherwood's body for marks of the devil, Nash said. They found two suspicious moles.Sherwood then consented to be tried by water.
This is why I want double-checking. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I focused in on (old prose) "Sherwood actually went to court a dozen times, either to fight witchcraft charges or to sue her accusers for slander." The source says: "Sherwood actually went to court a dozen times, either to fight witchcraft charges or to sue her accusers for slander, Nash said.". Except for cutting off teh attribution that is a word for word paste. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left the easy ones. ☺ Another example:
Old prose: The first accusation of witchcraft against Sherwood was a court case held on March 3, 1697 in which Richard Capps accused her of casting a spell upon his bull, causing it to die.There were no findings in the case but the Sherwoods then brought suitfor defamation, which was dismissed by agreement of the parties.Then in 1698 she was accused of bewitching neighbor John Gisburne's hogs and crop of cotton.James Sherwood brought another action for slander but lost that suit.
Old Donation Episcopal Church: Grace's problems started in March 1697 when Richard Capps accused Grace of casting a spell on his bull, causing it to die.There were no findings,but the Sherwoods then brought suit against Capps for defamation which by agreement of the parties was dismissed.Then in 1698 Grace was accused by John Gisburne of bewitching his hogs and cotton.James Sherwood brought an action for slander, but lost,
I guess you have seen it already, but since it wasn't made explicit and some people actually suggested that the section added in this edit wasn't even plagiarised because "only" two sentences were "only" almost verbatim as in the source: The edit plagiarised 8 consecutive sentences, with only a minimum of rephrasing, dropping only one sentence from the original 9 sentences in the source, and adding only a tiny amount of additional information. See my analysis at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page#Which is witch?HansAdler 14:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A very thorough analysis, thanks! I find this whole situation very disheartening. Frankly, it's an inevitable side effect of our editing model. We expect contributors from all walks of life to have a clear understanding of how to handle source material. I deal nearly daily with people who do not. It often takes multiple passes to help them see the concern and learn to address it properly. Has this copying been documented at the talk page of the article? (I guess I could go look for that myself. :D) We need to make sure that contributors fix the problem. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(And I did look myself, and, yes, I see it has. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
As far as how to handle the FA/FAR, I would say 1) wait to see if Rlevse comes back or 2) Malleus is willing to rewrite (if you ask him nice, he may-- it's troubling to him that he may get blamed for this simply because he copyedited, and when he copyedits, he only smooths prose, doesn't add prose), and 3) ask Raul if he wants it to go through FAR or if he wants to handle it himself. He's the boss :) MRG, I am constantly amazed by you. At one point, I was a little worried that I shouldn't have added the copyvio tag, but it appears that was right and I'm learning a wee bit about this business from you. We really really need to run those Dispatches, because we need to start educating people, in very plain language. The problem with what is written now is a lot of it goes over the heads of us who don't know intellectual property. What A Mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion
So what do we conclude about Grace Sherwood? Our bigger concern is copyright. So: Copyright problem? Or not? Is it a derived work of the versions that you, I, and Hans Adler looked at? I'm inclined to say that on balance there was a copyright problem. I'm also inclined, given the current text, to say that derived work does exist and is now spread through at least three sections (counting the blanked one) of the current article. I really do not like to be in this position, but if the FA people asked I'd (currently) opine that fixing the problem would require expunging a fair amount of text, just to deal with the USA Today and Old Donation Episcopal Church text, which would render a large portion of the article into disconnected nonsense. And that's just two sources. Uncle G (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again about this, this editor has serious ownership issues with this article I asked him what he was trying to do with his latest edits and got this reply. IMO it is starting to become disruptive. Mo ainm~Talk 18:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a bit. He evidently has his own idea of how he wants the article to appear and hasn't quite caught on yet that we do things in certain ways. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting the note on his talk page hopefully they will listen to you. Mo ainm~Talk 21:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. :/ I'm going to have to look into this one later. I've got to get back to my "they pay me for this" work, and that's going to occupy me for a while. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me why the image on Gossip Girl (season 4) won't show up please. Does it need admin approval? Jayy008 (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On another note. Say is a repeat rating is added, isn't saying a repeat of a low 0.86 an opinion and fancruft? The source doesn't say "a low" just the number. Jayy008 (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In terms of the image, I'm afraid I have no idea. It does not need admin approval, as its display should be automatic. I'd suggest asking at WP:HELP about that one. Calling 0.86 "low" isn't fancruft unless citing the repeat rating itself is fancruft. But it may be opinion; I do not follow television and I do not know what assumptions are a given. If it would be readily understood by anyone viewing the number who has the least familiarity with repeat ratings that the number is low, it may be appropriate. Alternatively, it should be sourced or presented as a bald number to let readers draw their own conclusions. But that's the kind of thing you should talk about with other contributors to reach consensus and, if feedback is needed, it can be requested at WP:ORN. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weighed in. Sorry for my absence! I've got unfortunate timing with a real world deadline that ate yesterday and will probably consume most of this afternoon and early tomorrow. :/ I'm going to try to catch up on the rest of that conversation after I take care of talk page issues and anything pressing in my watchlist. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, especially at such a busy time. Shubinator (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MRG (or any talk page stalkers), I've been off for a long time, and don't have much wikitime in the near future, but User:Keyan20 continues to upload copyrighted images (he's now started uploading them on Commons and using them here since we deleted a bunch out here, and I'd blocked his IP once). Can you or any of your talk page stalkers take a look at the history of contribs please? There are too many articles affected for me to handle in the near future. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've mass nominated for deletion here. Courtesy of User:Yoenit's detective work, we know now that one image was copied from another user on Wikipedia, though now we have to figure out if that was ever properly verified. Oi! It never ends! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've also PuFfed the images he claims per "self" here. More specific link, if you're interested, at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. I come back after a month, and this is the first thing I see! MRG, as for the Kumarrajendran images, I believe there was a discussion earlier, User:Sundar and/or User:Sodabottle might be able to provide some context on it, it was at one point in time generally accepted as a family collection or something, but I don't know the history. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kumarrajendran is indeed a relative of Janaki Ramachandran (i checked off wiki). And he had scanned and uploaded his family albums. Over time a lot of them were deleted since, we couldnt be sure it was him who owns the copyright (those who were taken in the 60s and 70s). But the scans of documents like MGR's ID card and Janaki's Bharat Ratna citation were done by him. (going by the metadata).--Sodabottle (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, welcome back Spiff.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been sceptical about the Kumarrajendran images for a while, because these images are widespread, but, as mentioned above, a "private family collection". Quite a few images that explicitly said that were deleted via PUF after nomination by me and others, but since Sodabottle explained the situation, perhaps those with no other info should undergo some discussion as well unless a valid permission is produced. You think so too? But that's another case of mass discussion which doesn't work well on this wiki (I remember discussing something like that with you). Hekerui (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think additional review would be a good idea, yes. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further copyright review
Hello. Please note that your doubtful questions kills me and makes me to go hanged. You guys want me to get out of wiki for ever. You say me directly I will leave. Instead of killing me again and again asking questions on this. Even I do edit wiki after doing my work whether to do or not.
Why are you like this. If you can prove those images are others owned, please let me know I will get killed myself. You are seriously hurting here raising questions just others asking you so. I am a true wikipedian want to spend good values in wiki. But seriously thinks like these makes users like me to get vexed. Please for god sake understand.
Hello guys, please see that asking again & again it disturbs me. I am trying to make the best work that I can meeting the norms. Raising questions again & again clearly violates the trust on a regular user who does work based on true facts/events. I agree kamal with sivaji.jpg ( no 4 and 5 ) feels like a screen-shot from the movie Thevar Magan, so you are doubting that. I got those from my collections and if anyone can prove those are others owned, I give you knife to kill me. I really mean it. I have lot of Tamil cinema connections and friends -- that I cannot explain all here. Please understand this. But raising questions on Ilaiyaraja the maestro.jpg, Anbazhagan.jpg is not at all fair -- all are incidents inheriting with my previous works. Beleive me, give some air to inhale. All are bowing arrows at me in a single shot. Jayalalitha image is already there in wiki but not in wikicommons, so I added it. Trust me here - whatelse you want me. Please !!
I owe you all with good respect and continued experience working so long here. But do not view all like the same. I started in wiki casually. You know I use wiki right from year 2004 heavily. But all these times I never made efforts/learned whats going behind wiki & others. Seeing me daily constantly using wiki, one of my friend told me some basic instructions how to edit wiki. So I slowly started and now just like it doing. I do work based on my heart and truth. I am not mistaking you for all that you do, but never never take all cases to be the same and since you had experienced before like this and expecting it to be the same. what can I say, I feel I am throwned away.
Please understand me. I will be very very disappointed and feel like there is no good justice done in wiki if those are deleted. I have no other words to explain to you. You might feel when reading this, what is this guy. But beleive me you destroyed my whole day on this and it will be like a biggest hardest thing to upset and setback me. Please please please understand me please.
How are you? some time ago i wrote to you about some help on the "Bujutsu Kodosokukai" article that we now have divided into a series of articles. We are very eager on getting this project in the air so we would still like your very useful help and support. Hope you have time soon to get a brief look and comment on our work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freezydk/Yakami-ryuFreezydk (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm sorry, but it's going to be quite a while before I have enough spare time to help with material like this between work engagements away from Wikipedia and pressing matters that require administrator review here. I would suggest that you consider asking for feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. I will, however, note from a single glance that the article seems to have no sourcing whatsoever. Until reliable sources are added to verify the information, I would not bother requesting review. That will be the first thing that a reviewer notes. Good luck with it! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any problem here?
Yuma War (written I presume in ignorance of the article Yuma Expedition seems to follow quite closely this book [1] eg " The raft was too small to carry the provisions so Heintzelman directed First Lieutenant Edward Murray to cross into Mexico with a train of wagons to retrieve the supplies. Fortunately for the Americans, their little invasion of Mexico in January 1851 went unnoticed and the much needed supplies were brought to the fort.[2]"
"nally able to tree the vessel, Willcox piled the rations on some driftwood on the Sonora bank and sailed away. Unable to carry the vital supplies in the small raft, Heintzelman ordered ist Lt. Edward Murray and nine men to open a wagon road through Mexican territory to the cache. By late January 1851 Murray's wagons had begun to arrive at the post with the badly needed items; at the same time, a train of eight wagons with foodstuffs arrived from San Diego. Back at Fort Yuma, Heintzelman sent Colonel Smith a lengthy report of his trip. He also mapped a portion of the lower river and sent a copy to Major Emory of the Boundary Commission. The Colorado was navigable, he concluded, though the channel was crooked and filled with shifting sandbars. He remained convinced that the best way to supply the post was by steamboat.2 Although authorized to use armed escorts to accompany the supplies across Mexican territory, Heintzelman was prohibited from pursuing hostile Indians into the neighboring republic." (and I think that the bit about an invasion going unnoticed is OR).
and
" Heintzelman sent two soldiers with two mules packed with supplies to rescue the Oatman Party. But when they arrived after a 120 mile journey, all they found was two graves and an abandoned wagon. Captain Heintzelman later discovered that six people of the Oatman Party had been massacred, and two young females named Olive Oatman and Mary Ann Oatman were abducted."
"Heintzelman dispatched 'two men... and two pack mules and a few provisions... 100 or 120 miles up the river' to assist in "getting them in." Arriving on the scene, the two bluecoats found two graves covered with stones near an abandoned wagon on top of a ridge and a few carpenter tools strewn about. Still, Heintzelman could not believe the immigrants had been murdered. He would later learn the grisly details. The Oatmans had pushed ahead of other immigrant parties and had been attacked by a band of either Tonto Apaches or Yavapais, though Heintzelman thought at the time the Maricopas were to blame. Six of the family members had been killed, while two girls, Mary Ann and Olive Ann, had been carried off as captives." Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Doug. Maybe. It depends on how much of this kind of stuff there is. If there's a lot of it, you might tag the article with {{Close paraphrasing}} and drop an example or two at the article's talk page. If it's just that, given the scale of the document, it's probably okay, though a {{Single source}} tag would probably be good. It would certainly be better if he were drawing content from more sources to help avoid close paraphrasing. I'm sorry that I don't have time to dig right now further myself, but we have several days worth of backlog at CP and, of course, all the recent hullaballoo about copyvio to keep me hopping! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Widespread plagiarism on Wikipedia identified in 2008
Hi Moonriddengirl,
I'm curious: were you aware of this study? It's published in 2008 and based on analysis of nine Wikipedia articles conducted in 2007. The full text states:
Eight Wikipedia articles contain unattributed quotes and at least five [contain] cases of possibly plagiarized content (material found verbatim elsewhere). The researcher found these cases easily without intense scrutiny; more text may have been copied. This lack of attribution is of serious concern; without an evaluation process or peer review, plagiarized content on Wikipedia may go unchecked.
I had no idea plagiarism was so rampant on Wikipedia until recent events, nor was I aware the problem had been identified in published academic literature. I just wonder if this study has somehow escaped the community's attention, given it's not cited in Reliability of Wikipedia or Criticism of Wikipedia, and doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the Signpost.
Hi! And, no, I don't think I've ever seen that. (I have a terrible memory, but I'm pretty sure I'd recall that!) I am aware of several other issues related to plagiarism on Wikipedia, including media references, but not a serious study.
In 2007, Wikipedia did not even have a plagiarism guideline. This was only adopted by the community (and narrowly at that) in 2009. I really wish that I knew whether the study had found what we define as plagiarism (unattributed free content) or what we define as a copyright problem (improperly used non-free content). I know that to much of the academic world, it makes no difference, but to me it's huge.
Have you brought this up at any of the fora where plagiarism is currently been discussed? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I've ever looked at that page, either. :) If I ever get free time again, I'll have to see what else I'm missing! :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell from the article whether the problems found are plagiarism or copyright; as far as I can see, the author just looked for "(material found verbatim elsewhere)". I'll email you the full article, in case your interested. (If any stalkers want a copy, I can send one tomorrow, maybe 10 hours from now.) I haven't mentioned this anywhere else – discussion seems terribly fragmented at the moment. The English pages linked by Uncle G only mention this article in passing. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, seems you can't send an attachment through Wikipedia email. Well if anyone wants a copy, just email me. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adrian, I have access to the article through my school and have sent a copy to MRG. Dcoetzee 19:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should've mentioned that I asked Adrian to send it to me and already passed it along. Oh well, the more copies the merrier! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shocking copyvio from regulars on this page! :P Physchim62(talk) 20:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The abstract, as I read it, seemed to describe points that should have been referenced but weren't. There is no mention of large scale verbatim copying, and I think any such copying would have been mentioned had it been found. Referencing of new materal has improved a lot since 2007, although there is still a lot of badly referenced older text on WP. Physchim62(talk) 20:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am now in possession of two copies! Riches in e-mail. Thanks to all. :) There is reference, as mentioned above, to "at least five cases of possibly plagiarized content (material found verbatim elsewhere)." There is, alas, no detail whatsoever. I do not know if these are Wikipedia mirrors or public domain sources or stuff that should have been at CP. It does occur to me, though, that we ought to be able to figure it out in the event that any of us ever gets substantial spare time. The articles evaluated were Badlands, Chautauqua, Free Soil Party, Harper’s Ferry Raid, William Kidd, Mexican-American War, Niagara Movement, Sand Creek and Harriet Tubman. OTOH, I'm not sure it would do more than satisfy idle curiosity to find out. We know that copyvios happen; we know that reverse infringements happen; we know that content is copied without attribution from PD sources. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, far be it from me to do serious work when I can track down random possible antiquated copyvios! It may take some time to even figure out which rough version of the articles she was working from because while the article was received by the journal in September '07, she mentions quotes without attribution which are from a section in Chautauqua which was removed 19 January 2007. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's more detail there than I realized! I had only read the conclusion when I posted, and we know what happens when we assume. :/ For example, she says of Free Soil Party, "Wikipedia contains a quote apparently from the party’s platform with no attribution." That would presumably be non-free. I'll now have to take a quick look at that one myself. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no it's not. It being a long dead party and all. Suppose she means the italicized content here?--Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Victor F. Lawson
Can you advise me as to why the Wiki page on Chicago publisher Victor F. Lawson was deleted.
Hello, and yes. It was deleted as a copyright infringement. The article was created by a contributor who has demonstrably copied content from a number of sources in violation of our copyright policy. In this case, it is confirmed that he pasted content without evidence of authorization from [2]. For example, the article said at the time of its deletion:
After the death of Ivor Lawson in 1872, Lawson took over the administration of his father's estate, which included the Norwegian language newspaper Skandinaven. Another tenant in the same building was Melville E. Stone, who about to launch an as yet untested one-cent evening newspaper, the Chicago Daily News.
The source, copyrighted 2006, said:
After his Iver Lawson's death in 1872, he took over the administration of his father's estate, which included a Norwegian language newspaper called the Skandinaven. Another tenant in the same building as the Skandinaven was Melville E. Stone, who about to launch an as yet untested one-cent evening newspaper, the Chicago Daily News.
The article said:
Ivor Lawson came to prosperity principally by buying and selling real estate in Chicago during the mid 1800s. The family was active in Chicago’s first Norwegian Evangelical Church and maintained a fashionable residence on North Clark Street.
The source says:
His father, Iver Lawson, was a Norwegian immigrant, a laborer who came to prosperity buying and selling real estate in Chicago during the mid 1800s.... The family was active in Chicago’s first Norwegian Evangelical Church and lived in a large house at 1136 North Clark Street.
There were other examples of copied and closely paraphrased passages in the source we were able to identify. Cumulatively, it represented a derivative work of that source; content which he added that did not come from that source may have come from others, given his history.
The article was tagged for over a week to allow interested contributors an opportunity to salvage the article by rewriting it, but unfortunately there were no takers. While the article had been expanded by others (including you), the foundational content by the article's creator had to be removed. If you have interest in writing a new article on the subject, I would be happy to salvage the references as well as the content which you had added for you to work with. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 01:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page
Hey MRG, no issues, don't worry! I was just wandering if I could "steal" your hours of operation box? Also, how would I change the header colour. And on a final note, how would I write in bold, moved into the middle of my page "Welcome to my talkpage." I know I ask you everything, and you must get sick of it. But I know, you'll always know, lol. Thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, have at it. :) The code is as follows:
{{Quote box2
|width = 30%
|border = 1px
|align = right
|bgcolor =
|fontsize = 1em
|title_bg = #F5DEB3
|title_fnt =
|title = Hours of Operation
|halign = top
|quote = In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 11:00 and 19:00 [[:Coordinated Universal Time]], less frequently between 19:00 and 22:00. When you loaded this page, it was {{Time|UTC}}. [[Wikipedia:Bypass your cache|Refresh]] your page to see what time it is now.
|salign =
|source =
}}
To change the background color, pick a different color value for "title_bg". If you don't know the color codes, see Web colors. To write "Welcome to my talkpage" in bold and centered, you can simply put the following at your talk page top: <center>'''Welcome to my talk page.'''</center>
. It will produce this:
Welcome to my talk page.
I don't know everything, but I've picked up a few things here and there. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can the "Welcome" be any bigger or different colours? And can I change the colour of my archive box? Thanks for the help, I'll try and learn myself from now on. Jayy008 (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can adjust font size and color for your welcome. For example, <span style="color: Red"><font size="6"><center>Welcome!</center></font></span> produces:
Hi, it has been long time since I received your help regarding wiki matters. Recently, on article Boxer Rebellion, user Дунгане has begun to accuse me of various things, simply because we disagree on that topic. If you read Talk:Boxer Rebellion you would have more ideas of the dispute. What I am saying is, whatever disagreement there is, editors can talk it out on the talk page, yet user:Дунгане has yet to show any good faith on the talk page, he did not even try to go into detail discussion, instead, he started to accuse me of "Arilang frequently insults non chinese ethnic groups and uses wikipedia as a political platform", which is short of calling me a racist. And if you care to have a look at the total number of articles I have created, and among those 8000 plus edits, you would know that I am here to contribute, not to create hatred as suggested by user:Дунгане.
I strongly feel that some admin actions are need to intervene in this case, and I hope you can help me. Arilang talk 05:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, admin, I'm afraid that User:Arilang1234 has been exhibiting blatant POV and has not shown and interest in constructively contributing to wikipedia. This is not a mere dispute, i actually tried to talk it out with Arilang, but unfortunetly, he revised massive sourced sections of the article without giving an explanation, falsely claiming that the "Lead section changed per talk page discussion", no one except Arilang had agreed to change anything in the lead on tthe talk page.
Also, Arilang displays extremely hateful and uncivil language toward manchus in his sandbox intro
Arilang violates WP:SOAP by suggesting that wikipedia articles are to be edited for political reasons
I hope you will objectively analyze Arilangs "contributions", to the article, and his massive copy and paste from wikiesource into the talk page, claiming these wikisource text should be used as a "reliable source" for the article.Дунгане (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Arilang1234 does not understand that wikisource is not a reliable source- [3]. Not only That, even if wikisource is counted as a reliable source, User:Arilang1234 has either not read it, or, I'm afraid to say- has lied about the contents, saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed hereДунгане (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in another edit, User:Arilang1234 either did not read the content, or, again, i'm reluctant to accuse people of this, but this is the only other possibility- lied when he said "Remove unreferenced content", since there was a reference in the information he removedДунгане (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet anyone can see the description of Jane E Elliott's book "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war", on google books is "This book marks a total departure from previous studies of the Boxer War. It evaluates the way the war was perceived and portrayed at the time by the mass media. As such the book offers insights to a wider audience than that of sinologists or Chinese historians. The important distinction made by the author is between image makers and eyewitnesses. Whole categories of powerful image makers, both Chinese and foreign, never saw anything of the Boxer War but were responsible for disseminating images of that war to millions of people in China and throughout the world."Дунгане (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arilang also thinks wikipedia is a platform to accuse Manchus specifically of perputrating atrocities.
Arilang also does not understand that the article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers, just because it has "Boxer" in the title, Boxer Rebellion. According to Arilang's logic, all references to British should be remove from the French and Indian War article, since the title only says French and Indian, yet the British played a major role in the war
The article Venezuela (song) strikes me as dubious - it includes the entire song. What do you think, and what's the best way to handle this? Rd232talk 11:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and yanked them, in accordance with WP:NOT#LYRICS. Unless they were published before 1923, we can't presume they're PD. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thought so, but wanted confirmation. Thanks. Rd232talk 11:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite as familiar with Roman as User:Mkativerata, whom I see you've notified. If this is Roman, however, the article should be protected to prevent his ongoing disruption. He is not welcome to contribute here in any capacity. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that Simbhu-936 who uploaded File:Vaanam.jpg yesterday could be a sock of Vadjihoudine, whom you blocked him a few days ago for uploading numerous copyright violations, and uploaded the same image File:Vaanam.jpeg about a week ago? Of course it could just be a coincidence. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. Do you want to open the SPI or should I? :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have stuff to do right now, so would you mind doing it? Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And checkuser confirmed. Good work on this. Maybe we'll succeed in getting his attention this time. Please feel free to let me know if you see any others. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful here, he wants us to know who he is: [4]. So now we have an IP to keep an eye on. Kids. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you ever need any help in laughing, here's some medical-grade nitrous oxide courtesy of WP:CHEM ;) Physchim62(talk) 17:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! You, sir, are ennabling me. :D Keep it up. (I am within spitting distance of the end of yesterday's CP listings! Almost...there....) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'll keep my eyes open but for now can I have some nitrous oxide too!! ww2censor (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I check something with you, please? I've created just a couple of the 1,000+ portals here on Wikipedia (P:OXFORD, P:ENGLAW) and, as you may know, portals highlight articles in a particular topic area by presenting a summary (generally some or all of the lead section) with a "more..." link to the full version. It's been suggested to me that, when I create a blurb or summary for use on the portal e.g. Portal:Law of England and Wales/Selected article/1, I need to state somewhere e.g. the edit summary that the wording comes from the article itself, lest there be a failure of attribution. Is this really correct? In such instances, it does seem to be stating the obvious. If so, shouldn't Raul be stating his sources when composing TFA blurbs, for example? Have we got several years of TFA blurbs and several hundred portals that ought to be deleted for licence vios, or tediously attributed? BencherliteTalk 14:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. That's a big question. :) I've never seen this discussed before; the closest comparable that I can come up with is when people create summaries of one article in another and add a {{Main}} tag. So far as I can recall, it's always been agreed that the implication of attribution in those cases is not enough. I believe personally that if we are copying content from those articles or paraphrasing closely enough that it would constitute a copyright problem if they were, say, in the New York Times, then we really should put in the edit summary where it's from in order to comply with our reuse policy and particularly the WMF:Terms of Use, which explicitly guarantee attribution through a hyperlink or list of authors. I wonder if there's some way to annotate this that will save us several years worth of tedious attribution...perhaps by bot? It seems to me that if a null edit is made saying something simple like "Summary taken from main article, which see for attribution" there'd be no question. We can, of course, take this to some other forum to get wider input. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) No, Bencherlite is safe. All authors to WMF projects agree to be attributed by a hyperlink or URL to the article to which they contributed (point (a) of the second paragraph of the ToU). Physchim62(talk) 15:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the situation I've seen discussed in reference to {{Main}}. It's not attribution if sourcing is not acknowledged. The link does not itself necessarily communicate that. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference that I could see would be that in each case only one article is under discussion, but despite that difference I do agree. I think that a bot could make quick work of this. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There are clear situations where a link is needed in the edit summary: where you're merging something into an article; where you're starting a new article with something demerged from an old article; when you're translating from another Wikipedia. If you're constructing a subsection de novo using an existing article and hatting it with {{main}}, I would say that Terms of Use are respected in the letter (if not, perhaps, in the spirit). How would click-through attribution for images work under your interpretation? Physchim62(talk) 15:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no conflict. Images have different attribution requirements. At WP:REUSE it is specifically provided, "Each media file has its own information page which includes source and licensing information. Clicking on the media file will lead to this information page." At WMF:Terms of Use, it says, "Please view the media description page for details about the license of any specific media file." --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a severe and ludicrous conflict (in WP practice) if we're saying that links in the edit summary are needed for text input which contains a link back, but not for image input which also contains a link back! WMF:Terms of Use do not override copyright law (as I know you're aware ;) Nevertheless, they do say "As an author, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions: a) through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to, ..." So the owness is on the people who are complaining about suage at {{main}} to justify why they think WP users must be acknowledged with both a link in the article and in the edit summary, while thord parties are only acknowledged with a (rather non-obvious) link in the article. If you hear of any more discussions of this type, feel free to let me know so that I can contribute in my usual diplomatic manner ;) Physchim62(talk) 15:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Sure. :D I think the difference is that we know that image attribution will not be present in edit summaries, and we know where to look for them. If we could click on words in article and see who wrote them.... (Well, that would be really horrible, really. Never mind.) If we only ever linked Wikipedia articles from which we copied text, there'd be no problem. But a wikilink has multiple meanings, and its primary meaning is just "there's more information over here." When we copy content from CC-By-SA sources published elsewhere, we're meant to note that we've done so; we've got Template:CCBYSASource and Template:Dual to help out. As you know, Wikipedia:Plagiarism suggests plain attribution in the article's face when anything is copied. Beyond the attribution element, there are of course good reasons to note origins. Rod and I met over copyright concerns in St Petrock's Church, Parracombe. He had in good faith copied over a copyvio from Parracombe. The article Parracombe was linked in the new article (albeit just a garden variety link, not with a {{More}} or anything, so one could say that he had technically met the letter of the ToU, but not only would that link not give reason to image copying, it wouldn't let us know that Rod was not the origin of the copyright problem. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I can see the exact case with Parracombe was perhaps going too far beyond the spirit of the Terms of Use. However, I'm still clear in my own mind that portals and the Main Page are OK for this sort of link-back attribution. Maybe we should take the wider debate to Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia to get more input. Physchim62(talk) 16:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Especially with the Portal question, I think this is an area that needs clarification. Would you mind launching it? I'm really desperately hoping to catch up at CP today...or at least come close. :) I'm clearing up some pretty blatant copy/pastes. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No amount of nitrous oxide could have made me laugh more heartily than this! Good one. :D I'll go see what's up with the conversation. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I think here is where we over-engineer things. The "more" link goes directly back to the article, just like the reproduction or reuse of our content on third party sites is allowed if there's a simple linkback to the wikipedia article. Transforming the "more" link into "read more about that topic and by the way see where we compiled that summary from and make sure you click on history to check the 103 people who wrote the article" is over-the-top. After all, we have a much less stringent attribution requirement for any of our re-users. MLauba(Talk) 15:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't one of changing the {{More}}, link but providing an attribution note in the "edit history", which is where one looks to see who wrote the article. But it sounds as though conversation about Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is necessary, as it says, "At minimum, this means a linked edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied." Any other reading does not conform to that. If that doesn't reflect consensus, it needs to be changed.
For the record, I do disagree. {{More}} suggests nothing about attribution, since it can be placed after content is split or after content is merged or when two articles develop independently. I see the possibility of ambiguity in the original question, but not in the {{More}} tag. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There might be some confusion here between "(more...)" – implying a link to the blurb's full article – and {{More}}, which has a more general use. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. That makes sense. I'd agree that "(more...)" is pretty clear in that regards. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tool time?
Wouldn't now be a good time to press for more copyvio tool development? At this point, we seem to have only two in-house tools, CSBot and Earwig's tool. Both of these were developed by, and are maintained by, individuals...sub-optimal.
A fair number of editors here probably have access to Turnitin, maybe our developers could consider how its output is formatted. I can envision table output: First five words in flagged sentence, source(s), repeat as necessary. On subsequent passes, click checkboxes to select/deselect matches in selected hosts. That kind of input/output would be so helpful.
Somewhere you posted about Gbook copyvio searches. There isn't a complex technical problem with searching any of the Google domains, including Gbooks. The issue is that CSbot is an automated task. If Google permitted all robotic searches it would be swamped - many entities would like to poll Google every 5 nanoseconds and it would break if they let them, while the other search engines might welcome our traffic. But Google does permit singly-launched search applications, that's why Earwig's tool can do it. Which would be most helpful for checking high-profile articles. The search requests might occasionally be refused on grounds of over-frequency, but we could probably live with that. (Retry).
An example of the need for Gbook searches. Several paragraphs at Root trainer, which I looked at some weeks ago during and shortly after its AFD, kind of rattled around in a corner of my head as maybe a problem. So today I checked this sentence in Google
"For many years, the production of trees, shrubs, perennials and annuals was done with various modifications of field production agriculture". It didn't bring up any matches in Google besides WP and what looks like a mirror [5]; but in Gbooks it shows up immediately [6] from a 1984 book. Four paragraphs are verbatim or very close to verbatim from there. (Going to delete them momentarily). I really wasn't expecting that, Gbooks results usually show up in a general Gsearch. Not always, apparently.
Best wishes, no hurry (Good heavens, this page is busy). Novickas (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the tool questions about beyond me, except the part where you ask, "Wouldn't now be a good time to press for more copyvio tool development?" Yes, indeed. :) But I don't really know who to ask, and I'm swamped by both conversations about the copyvio issues and keeping up with them (I'm trying to whittle away a little backlog at WP:CP). I'd be especially keen to get something that can scan Google Books, but so far I've had no takers. And I'd really love to perfect something that can compare two documents--whether that be two Wikipedia articles, two versions of a Wikipedia article, or a Wikipedia article and another URL. Oh, that would definitely make my Christmas. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Thanks for the clarifications about Google searches: I'd long presumed that was the case, but all this "bot" stuff is a bit beyond me ;) I just type in places where I think it will get me useful factoids (like copyvio)! I'm trying to work on a practical protocol for copyvio checking by human editors, but any new automagic assistance would obviously be helpful. Physchim62(talk) 15:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that Coren is planning to look into modifying the functionality of CSBot to address some of these issues relevant talk page comment; however I agree that several avenues should be explored, let's not leave all our eggs in one basket.--SPhilbrickT 15:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More tools would be great! And, yes, plenty of baskets full of eggs would be better! :D Physchim62, any input you have at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Copyright would be very welcome. Input also welcome at Wikipedia talk:Cv101. Of course, input is welcome from anybody, but given your focus I thought to point them out to you. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, there's a shameful aspect to plagiarism/copyvio that may have contributed to our lack of in-house tool development. But since MRG treats it very sensitively - and since we can foresee that her ongoing participation will continue to defuse and de-shame the problems - how about we post a request for more/better tools at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I'll go first if you-all see yourselves as supporting it :); will post a link here. Really, two developers - one of whom is an arbitrator and the other a student - is too few. Novickas (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby pledge my support. :) Tools, yes, please. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As we're now all concerned about clarifying, I started drafting something for the signpost here: User:MLauba/Signpost definitions and would also welcome input, feedback and of course fixes for my typos, my horrible grammar and my deficient syntax. MLauba(Talk) 17:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a number of ideas for tools that I've discussed with MRG at some point, both for text and for images. However, a number of them are sophisticated enough that they would require substantial development effort. I think what we would be helpful is a space in which to collaboratively list and discuss high-level designs for new tools - even people with little to no software experience could participate in this. This could be further generalized to discussion of designs for tools for any and all purposes. Deciding to be bold, I created Wikipedia:Proposed tools and announced it on the technical Village Pump. Please give any feedback you have on this new process and if you have ideas of your own please feel free to add them! Dcoetzee 02:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks D - I put one out - Wikipedia:Proposed tools/Cvcheck. Hope to see you all there. The tool proposal process looks like a good idea; just a little worried that proposals won't be as visible as they might be; maybe a dedicated 'Tool proposals' addition to the template at the top of the V.P. technical article? (Proposals, right now, goes to the VP general proposals page). Novickas (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would we participate there? Happy to throw in a "pretty please' if it will help. :) Can somebody who understands such things request my "page comparison" tool? That would be an extremely valuable tool saver in figuring out if copyright problems have been eradicated or dispersed in an article (comparing old edits to new) or figuring out where precisely in a lengthy document copyvios are supposed to be (it can take a while to find the problem text at CP sometimes). The latter is especially true when .pdf sources are used, but I don't know if it's even technically feasible to scan those. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm competent with the MediaWiki API, so I might be able to help with the "page comparison" tool. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I would be ever so grateful. That tool has been at the top of my "wishlist" for a long time. We could quickly compare "temp" rewrites with the original copyright problem or, as I said above, check to see if a copyvio introduced in 2007 is still lingering in 2010. :O --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a pretty please from you would undoubtedly be very helpful :) So would banging the drum wherever possible - doesn't WP have like a million dollars for software development? (not sure where that number came from, it might be one of the 95% of statistics that are made up on the spot). On the other hand, any significant allocations probably have to go thru some Foundation approval process...
WRT to the Cvcheck tool request, at this point, it's pretty new, so you should probably go ahead and edit its Requirements section to include your thoughts and wishes - at some point detailed discussion will probably need to move to the talk page but it's surely not there yet.
The 'page comparison tool' might need to be a separate request, but we could wait for input. For now (the iron is hot), I'd put it in that same proposal. If they say it needs to be separate, I'd create a new proposal, writing something like 'request a tool with two inputs - both are WP urls - the tool would find and display close text similarities. This is needed because...' Software developers and end users sometimes have communication problems, but it can be done :)
About pinpointing where in the source the infringing text is located - to me seems useful, but maybe difficult, let's hope any developers that show up will weigh in. Novickas (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry to bother you but I was wondering if I could get a second opinion. I just tagged and reported John Warner & Sons as a copyvio and now I'm wondering if that was a bit harsh, would a close paraphrase tag have sufficed? Looking at their contribs I'm worried I might have bitten a well-meaning newbie. (I thought I'd ask now because the user doesn't seem to be editing at the moment, so I could withdraw the warning before they see it if it's wrong.) January(talk) 19:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Urgency understood. :) I'll take a look right now. BRB! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's definitely the right tag. :/ What you might do is add a little note after the template indicating that you can see that he has rewritten some of the content, but that unfortunately it remains a very close paraphrase of the source. User:VernoWhitney frequently does this, I've noticed, and I think that it might help explain the problem to those who don't know that they can't minimally modify a source. If it were less clear cut, I'd provide examples, but that one is kind of all just out there and visible. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Y Took care of it. Hope you don't mind. :) Theleftorium(talk) 16:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Theleftorium, that's what I thought but I'am not so good on text, better on images. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
Hi MG, how are you? :) I'm very, very sorry for being so inactive the last few months (thank God for VernoWhitney!). School is keeping me busier than ever, and lots of stuff have happened IRL that have kept me away from the computer. Is there anything "big" that I have missed? Any new policy changes or stuff like that? Cheers, Theleftorium(talk) 16:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Good to see you, and, yes, I agree about Verno. :D He's really a huge help around here. And you are always welcome when you have time. I see you've already pitched in above! Thanks. :D There haven't been any major policy changes that you've missed, but there's this current drama, and User:MLauba is trying to pull something together for the Signpost about copyright at User:MLauba/Signpost definitions. I want to get over there and take a look at that today to see if I can help. :) (That current drama, by the way, is evidently taking place at several different points.) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed that discussion and I can't really say I'm surprised. I've spotted plagiarism and copyright violations tons of times in the DYK queue. Great idea about the Signpost article! Might bring in some new "volunteers". :) Theleftorium(talk) 18:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flavour of the fortnight
It appears the copyvio flavour of the fortnight for me is Indian educational institutions. Remember I asked you about Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University? Including that spree, I'm up to six (seven?) such copyvios. With India being such a large country and having possibly thousands of educational institutions with wiki articles, it boggles the mind as to how widespread this could be. And unfortunately it's not any single editor, but rather apparently one-off (good faith?) contributions from single-use accounts. I've left a message for the India Wikiproject. Maybe they can help. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Your attention to such issues is always appreciated. :) Coincidentally, I cleaned something similar this morning, United States-India Educational Foundation, which copied content from the official website. We see this fairly regularly in education institutions around the world...which is kind of peculiar, when you think about it. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you know some of the people employed to promote these institutions, I'm afraid! Physchim62(talk) 19:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
public domain claim?
Hi MRG, could yuou have a look at this pic File:FIT_spotter_card.jpg and its related thread at the BLPN here , seems to me to be a weak claim of PD and also a whole bunch of unidentified people associated as by association with crime. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hi Off2riorob, I took a look at this. Putting aside BLP issues, I think it's clear this image is not in the public domain, as it is a composite of images taken from unidentified sources - many appear to be posed (e.g. the ones smiling and looking directly at the camera, which they would not be doing if it was a furtive photo by government agents) and some appear to be professional photos, and so are probably downloaded from the web (e.g. Facebook sites) or obtained from private third parties. However, I think an excellent case exists for fair use, since this image clearly exposes the practices of the Forward Intelligence Teams in the UK. This would also diminish BLP concerns, since any use of the image would (by WP:NFC) be accompanied by explanatory text about its precise purpose. Dcoetzee 21:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Derrick here. Although the Guardian does indicate that the photograph of Emily Apple is public domain here, there's no real information on the status of the card in total, and it's pretty unlikely that the photographers of each of those images released them. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I will link the uploader to these comments to help him makes a decision. Many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you as I've dealt with you before over copyright issues and I'm unsure where else to ask questions like this (if there is somewhere I'd like to know). Anyway I've removed the speedy from this page as the website ([7] ) it was copied from has a compatible licence (CC-BY-SA) but the licence does mean it has to be attributed. The list of contributors to the page on the other website is quite long so can't just be used in a edit summary. Presumably we can't just link to the history on the wikia as we have no control over whether that will stay around so I've no idea how best to proceed. There is of course the quite separate question as to whether this is a suitable article for wikipedia, but I don't think it meets any speedy criteria. Cheers, Dpmuk (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Hi. :) This would probably be a matter for {{CCBYSASource}}. If the Wikia page is ever deleted, then we'll be put in position of having to delete the article, but that's the standard handling of other Wikis. (I say probably because I'm not familiar with a Wikia specific attribution template.) (Though we've got Template:Wikipedia from back in the GFDL days!) (Enough parentheses.) Like you, though, I'm rather more concerned about the content itself. I agree that it doesn't meet speedy, but it's probably a valid redirect candidate to Animal Crossing. I'd be inclined to add some brief prose on Roald there rather than merging. Then I'd attribute it and redirect it. If it's restored, it's attributed, and if it's not, the unsuitability of the content is handled. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Done as suggested - I wasn't aware of that template. Although my prose writing isn't the best, which is why I don't do much article work, so no doubt it will get changed soon. I've been meaning to get more involved in the tool / bot side of thing if I could find a worthwhile project and I think I may have just found a semi-useful tool to write as a useful, but not particularly important, first tool - namely a tool that checks the articles in that category and ensures the pages the template links to are still there (although I'd have to be somewhat clever as wikis won't throw a 404).
As an aside I notice that CorenSearchBot has a whitelist for CC-BY-SA sites. Does that mean we never check additions from those sites so we may be allowing the introduction of material without proper attribution or is there another bot I don't know about? Dpmuk (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I...don't know. Bots to me are grand and mysterious things. I don't know how they do what they do. But I bet Verno knows. And if not, I'll ask Coren. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 01:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it means we may be allowing the introduction of material from any of those whitelisted sites without proper attribution. There's also a (very incomplete) list of attribution templates (e.g., {{1911}}) which it looks for on the article before it tags it. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, decided to raise this with Coren here. Dpmuk (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and our favorite Moonriddengirl are arguing ourselves round in circles at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#How to attribute. When I get to compare myself to Galileo, it is surely the moment to ask for some outside input! As it concerns a fairly esoteric copyright point, I couldn't think of a better place to ask than here, although I'll also post some more conventional announcements in more conventional places ;) Physchim62(talk) 01:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! That page has supposedly got watchers of its own, but bringing attention to it can't hurt. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 01:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ron Sharpe
why are you blocking Ron Sharpe on Wikipedia??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.157.84 (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ron Sharpe is a Broadway performer and producer, per [8]. The article on Ron Sharpe was deleted in 2008 as a copyright infringement, as it was comprised of text previously published at this source. The contributor of the article was advised of the problem, but did not remedy it. A new article on Mr. Sharpe may be appropriate, but in addition to copyright concerns the older article was really inadequately sourced to verify notability. If writing a new article, please be sure to incorporate reliable sources not only to verify information, but to verify how he meets the notability criteria for people. Sources published by him or by individuals close to him cannot be used for the latter purpose; for that, we need independent sources such as newspaper or magazine articles. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is copying this much of a poster copyvio?
There is a ridiculous edit war going on about a poster at Genealogy of Jesus, see [[9]]. It's also being discussed at WP:RSN. The question has been raised as to whether this is copyvio. I think it probably is but I'd like your opinion. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, Doug. :) Yes, leaving aside the RS issues, I believe that's likely to be a copyvio. The copyright status of lists depends upon their creativity in presentation and selection, and it seems from that description as though non-obvious criteria were utilized: "having attempted to compensate for omitted generations by comparing various verses, and placing Luke's genealogy as the ancestry of Mary." --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your post
Contributors who are indefinitely blocked are not welcome to edit Wikipedia under other accounts. - Why not? Huelva (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's against policy. Disruptive users are disruptive users; new usernames do not make you less disruptive. Rangeblocks can do great harm to the project, but sometimes they are necessary to prevent determined disruption. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible CCI?
MRG, Should a CCI be started on Vrghs jacob (talk·contribs)? I deleted a couple of articles as G12 and went through a couple of earlier articles created and found them to be copyvios:
Juan E. Mestas - Source is NEH.gov portal announcement, so I'm guessing it's PD per US govt copyright, but it's plagiarism.
Ruth J. Person - different sections are copied from different sources, but other editors have contributed significant non-copyvio bits
There are a lot more articles that need checking, I just checked these three creations randomly. Editor's been to ANI twice for other reasons (never responds on talk page and keeps making the same disruptive edits).
While a majority of the edits are trivial, there are some significant bits of text introduced in many areas, and by the looks of it (especially since any full sentence that I've seen from the editor is lifted off from elsewhere) most major edits could be problematic. Does this need a CCI? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :/ Plagiarism doesn't feature in, although we do need to attribute that. For now, I've blanked Barbara Kornblau. You don't identify the source for Ruth J. Person, but anything copied there should be removed. I'm looking a bit more, and I'll get right back with you. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Pearson one is a bit tricky as the copy pastes seem to have appeared over different periods and have been subsequently edited by others, I found a couple of sources [10], [11] etc. I'll need to look at individual edits and search on that though. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trending "yes". "China’s emergence as America’s most visible source of goods thus reflects a structural change in the Asian economy more than it reflects new Chinese trade or labor policies. The development offers economic and security opportunities, carries with it potential sources of risk and financial instability, and also means a powerful new competitive challenge." is copied verbatim into Asian Union from [12]. Usually, five articles is a good sign of a trend for me. Still poking. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, following one of the edits, I hopped over to Commons, and all the images uploaded there are copyvios too (with the exception of one). There are a couple I can't tag for speedy yet as I haven't been able to find the sources, but it's very unlikely that he got to see the Indian and Chinese Premiers shaking hands in Hanoi when he has his sophomore classes in Flint. —SpacemanSpiff 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slim odds, I'd agree. :/ I've requested a CCI; since I requested, I'll let somebody else open it. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll help out with some articles on the CCI. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 21:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unrelated to the above): Is holybooks.com a valid EL? They say that the ebooks are PD, but the link is to a book published in 1957/India (Ramayana (C. Rajagopalachari)) and my copy from the 1990s has the copyright symbol. They have a lot of ebooks online, so I don't want us to be linking to a copyvio site. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say no to that one. They have Rainbow Painting by CHÖKYI NYIMA RINPOCHE; Translated from the Tibetan by ERIK PEMA KUNSANG Compiled by MARCIA BINDER SCHMIDT And edited with KERRY MORAN RANGJUNG, first edition 1995. Seems pretty unlikely that's PD. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, removed the offending link. I have to search for it to make sure it's not on other articles. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spiff, what are you doing here? I thought you were out on the road, living the life we can only imagine--and you you are here, talking shop. Get outside, enjoy the sunset, and try to scrape a meal together! Drmies (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG!
What's cooking? I hope you have a minute for a question--but maybe typing "there's no way" will only take you two seconds. I want a picture for my latest masterpiece, Charles Chauncey Burr, a most disagreeable anti-abolitionalist (later in life, anyway). I found this, which has an image of him (the bearded dude, fourth image from the top). I can find no other copy of it, I can find no publication info, and I doubt that some Croatian dude somewhere "made" that engraving of an American who died in the 1800s. In short--how can I get it? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
