The editor that expressed concerns before now completely ignores the sources and wants to say which sources are valid and which isn't. This in no way helps with the wiki article. Please have a say here:[Talk:Strikeforce]] [[User:Sea888|Sea888]] ([[User talk:Sea888|talk]]) 23:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The editor that expressed concerns before now completely ignores the sources and wants to say which sources are valid and which isn't. This in no way helps with the wiki article. Please have a say here:[[Talk:Strikeforce]] [[User:Sea888|Sea888]] ([[User talk:Sea888|talk]]) 23:58, 21 August 2009 (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.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. 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. 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. 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.
I will not consider it wheel-warring if you reverse my admin actions as long as you leave me a civil note telling me what you've done and why and as long as you're open to discussion with me should I disagree.
User:Moonriddengirl is away in real life from August 18 2009 for surgery and will not be able to respond immediately to queries. She will return when she is able, but is unlikely to be up to speed for several weeks. Happy editing!
i just had a query but since you can't reply doesn't matter.hope for your speedy recoveryMuskeeter8 (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needing a clarification...
Hi, Mrg. The first item on the today's Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 August 7 list is a familiar face, The Roth Law Firm. Although we received OTRS permission here, MLauba correctly points out their website still says "all right reserved" which is a conflict. I am not certain of the policy here. The relevant line from Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials states If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org... However, the policy doesn't clearly state whether the old copyright notices must be removed. What is the answer? — CactusWriter |needles 10:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) They can keep the notice on the website. The e-mail permits the licensing for the text they've placed here. Pertinent here is that, of course, as per WP:C they have not relinquished copyright to the text; they've only had to license it to place it here. So the copyright notice on their website is not inaccurate, though of course Wikipedia's readers are free to do with what they've placed here anything permitted by GFDL and CC-By-SA. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-clarification: my issue wasn't with their website but with the disclaimer they first placed at the bottom of the article and then on talk, which asserted ownership and reserved rights :) Doesn't change a thing but I didn't care for the source web site too much in this context :D MLauba (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood your reason for the listing (although it did help me to make certain about this other issue). As far as that disclaimer on the talk page goes -- it's meaningless. It is like any other point of misinformation that an editor may write on an article talk page -- it is open for comment and discussion. You already responded with a good explanation there, so the situation was settled. That should be good enough. — CactusWriter |needles 17:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Just wanna consult you about the file if it has the correct license, and copyright information. thank you MaenK.A.Talk 16:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acording to this I dont think its right!!! MaenK.A.Talk 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a copyvio to me; that page suggests that ADAM bits and pieces, where incoporated, are still copyright, as they were not created by a federal source. The ADAM logo would therefore suggest that the image is copyright, unless specified elsewhere. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 17:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a copyvio to me, too; I've tagged it accordingly at Commons. Thanks for bringing it up! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most welcome :-) happy working with you MaenK.A.Talk 13:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS permissions
Hi, MRG. Could you check to see if permission was received at OTRS for the Dave Fry and Vidal Cantu Garza articles. Both were supposedly e-mailed August 1 and August 8, respectively. Thanks. — CactusWriter |needles 11:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've blanked Dave Fry again. The letter for it was insufficient; an OTRS agent wrote on August 1st explaining that. There has been more than sufficient time without response to process it, but I've left the matter for you since it may require follow-up conversations that I wouldn't be around for. :) The article can be stubbed or deleted as necessary. I've protected it for now, since the material has twice been restored out of process. I got no hit at OTRS for Vidal Cantu Garza or Kenio Films or keniofilms or Vidal Garza. Accordingly, I've deleted that one. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl. The above article is a copyvio of [1], but the text has been slightly paraphrased. What should I do with it (G12 or Wikipedia:Copyright problems)? Or should I just turn it into a stub? Theleftorium 14:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TL. I hope you don't mind if I kibitz here. It won't pass as a G12 -- with the infobox, template,and intro sentence, it can be stubbed. If you want to stub it, that would be great. But list it at WP:CV too, so it can be rechecked in a week. The contributor made some effort to paraphrase, so I'll drop them a note about WP:Close paraphrasing. — CactusWriter |needles 15:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind at all, thank you for the answer! I'll rewrite it later today, but do I need to list it at WP:CV if I have it on my watchlist? Theleftorium 16:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. If you are correcting the article, than there's no need to list it at WP:CV. I only suggest it in case you want an administrative check on it later on. But thank you for taking care of the rewrite and keeping an eye on these copyright problems. — CactusWriter |needles 18:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About including public domain text in articles
Hi Moonriddengirl, how are you? Hope you are doing well. I am still (and always will be) extremely grateful for all the help you and your team gave us at Project Gastropods in rescuing all those 1,000 gastropod articles from possible deletion because of copyright issues, that was almost a quarter of all of our articles! In fact at the first WIki-Conference New York this July 25th, I mentioned you and your team in my talk, and our founder Jimmy Wales was there listening, so now he's heard about this massive clean-up too! Anyway, I wanted to say that now we have quite a few articles that contain chunks of prose (sometimes a bit modified) from sources that are definitely public domain, and I see that the users have included this fact in the references section at the bottom of the article. But is this sufficient? For an example, see Gadinalea conica. Thanks for your input on this question. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) It's my pleasure to help, and I very much appreciated the good spirit of you and your project in working on those articles. It's a shame to lose content, but much better to have content that is legally ours!
The only issue that using such public domain text would raise would be issues of plagiarism, ala Wikipedia:Plagiarism. There have been some who've promoted putting such copied text into quotation marks or block quotes. This is the way I handle such material myself. However, directly utilizing it within the article is currently accepted so long as the source is noted. The footnote should be fine. The only time it would be likely to be an issue is if the current consensus on that changes and it has to be sorted out later, to see what is public domain and what is not. But even if that happens, it won't have guide the urgency of the ones we had to clean up. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very best wishes for your surgery and thanks again for your help on this. Invertzoo (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying...
Moonriddengirl,
Ain't but a very few folks on Wikipedia whose mind, talent and good spirits are absolutely undeniably unquestionably indispensable. And
you're one of them.
We won't let the whole flower bed go to weeds in your absence -- but hurry back anyway. Here's wishing you all the best this week. Heal well.
— CactusWriter
Thank you! That is incredibly kind and very generous, particularly given that you yourself have helped to make me not indispensable. :D Seriously, I am very grateful for your work in the copyright problems queue, and I will be able to focus much better on my recovery knowing that it is in good hands. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surgery
Good luck with it. :) — neuro(talk) 11:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'll be thinking of you. Awadewit (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck! And thank you for being so helpful and kind to me the last few days! :) Theleftorium 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. I appreciate it. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chih-Ming Ho and John Kim (professor)
Hi Moonriddengirl (or whomever is checking this),
I'm new to Wikipedia, and noticed that the first two articles I posted, for Prof. Chih-Ming Ho and Prof. John Kim, were both deleted by you. I received permission from both of them to post titles of scholarly papers they've published etc. I don't understand why the articles were deleted. Please let me know what I can do to restore them. I don't understand how to put their information into a 'Creative Commons' format.Academic hall (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several people have asked me to let them know when I pull through, and I've asked my husband to leave a note. He's never edited Wikipedia before (aside from just now), but I've shown him how, and hopefully this will go okay. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is Moonriddengirl's husband. Several people asked for word how she was doing. She made it through the surgery just fine. Expect her to be online in a few days. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent news, MRG's H. Please give her all our good wishes for a speedy recuperation and for a successful outcome. --Tagishsimon(talk) 01:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. We are actually happier than you to hear that wonderful news! Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great news! Thank you for the update. Please let Moonriddengirl know that she should just concentrate on relaxing and "recuping" -- we will all muddle along for how ever many days she needs to take. All the best wishes to you and your family. — CactusWriter |needles 08:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll join the chorus and thank you for these excellent news, here are my own wishes for a prompt recovery, together with my added recommendation that she take all the time she needs :) MLauba (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User pages exempt from our licence?
Lumos3 (talk·contribs) has this notice on his/her user page "I agree to multi-license. all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below.". Is that legitimate? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This used to be legitimate before the site switched to dual licensing. Under WP:AGF I'll assume that this is simply a notice placed there a long time ago and not updated since June 16th. That being said, to answer the question, no, this kind of reserved rights aren't legitimate today - see below this edit box for instance:
You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 and the GFDL.
Doug, I think the relevant guideline is stated currently in a couple of places. Here is the policy at WP:UP:
"If you want to dual-license your contributions under an additional license or declare them all public domain, you may put a notice to this effect on your user page. Because of the large templates and long category names, some editors move the license templates to a subpage. Whether you include an explicit license statement or not, however, all of your edits on Wikipedia are also licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.".... "However, pages in user space still do belong to the community: Contributions must be co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License and GNU Free documentation license, just as articles are."
Additionally, the text Wikipedia:Multi-licensing describes the addition of multi-licensing templates to user pages. Although the text has been updated since June, it may still require revision. It states there:
"In general, users make their multi-licensing desires known on their user page by way of a banner or some description of their wishes (See User:Jamesday for a complicated example). This is often simply accomplished by adding a pre-made template. See the full selection of licensing templates available."
"Unless you explicitly specify otherwise, all contributions to Wikipedia are dual-licensed under the CC-BY-SA license and the GFDL; therefore, if you elect not to adopt additional licenses, no action is necessary. Even if you use said two licenses exclusively, you may wish to communicate your preference on your User page, such as by using {{NoMultiLicense}}."
Thanks. Perhaps I should ask him on his talk page what he thinks the practical implications of his banner are? Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I would be interested in knowing that myself. — CactusWriter |needles 11:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There really is no mystery there. He added that when we were GFDL-only and multi-licensing was voluntary. Keep that in mind when you question his motives. It's simply an outdated extension of what used to be the default license, and I'm willing to be there are still dozens of these around. MLauba (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning his motives - but should anything be done about all of these users to make sure they understand the current situation? Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My unhelpful 2 cents: yes, probably, but what or how? :) Perhaps it would be best if we brought it to WT:C or the village pump or something. MLauba (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I also have no answer for you. Raising the issue at WT:C may be helpful - although, in truth, it would probably be MRG who would respond there. You could wait for her to return or drop a note to another editor who is familiar with legal issues. You might try User:Jamesday who seems to be familiar with copyright issues. Sorry I couldn't be more help. Please let me know if you find more information. — CactusWriter |needles 19:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
The editor that expressed concerns before now completely ignores the sources and wants to say which sources are valid and which isn't. This in no way helps with the wiki article. Please have a say here:Talk:StrikeforceSea888 (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
