User talk:MLauba/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Re: Deleting Myron Prinzmetal..

Thanks.. suka94ain Suka94ain (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sain G.M.Syed,a renowed Sindhi leader who professed freedom of Sindhi nation

Sain G.M Syed ,the great revolutionist, a renowed Sindhi leader who professed freedom of Sindhi nation and worked day and night for rights of the sindhi people and for this he tolerated the cruelties of pakistani leaders, police and army. Deletion of SAin GM Syed pages from Wikipedia will be the loss of Wikipedia itself. I request you for the inclusion of Sain GM syeds notes.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.103.234.69 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Why deleted "G M Syed" article?

Why you delated the article about "G M Syed" the founder of Jeay Sindh Movement, founder of Pakistan, author of above 60 books. You can search about him in Google. some info at http://gmsyed.org

I hope you will restore the page. If have some problem plz tag there we will follow the Wikipedia rules. Thanks Zafar (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not User:MLauba, but I may be able to help. The article wasn't deleted because of notability concerns, but because unfortunately it was a copyright violation, infringing on [1] and [2]. The article had been a copyright problem since it was created, so there was no "clean" version in history that could be used. It needed to be rewritten. It was blanked with a tag explaining the issue and listed at the copyright problems board on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 February 16. The tag invited any interested contributor to write a new article with which we might replace the copyright infringement, but unfortunately nobody did so. It's not too late, of course. You would be very welcome to write a new article for G. M. Syed using your own language. But I'm afraid that the older one can't be restored. While some problems can be resolved through editing, copyright problems are not one of those, and we are not permitted to import content to Wikipedia from other publications unless we can prove that they are public domain or compatible with our licenses. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If some of the sections of article or award list is not valid you can remove the section, why whole article deleted? If we get the copy right permission from the site, will solve the problem and will you restore? Zafar (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Whole articles are deleted when copyright violations are substantial and foundational because under the US copyright law that governs Wikipedia, works built around copyrighted content are "derivative works", and the right to release them must be provided by the copyright holder. If the content had been limited to one section, it might have been removed, but it was not. At the time the article was created, the entire contents were copied from that source.
Additional copyright review would be necessary before the complete article could be restored because one of its contributors has a pattern of copyright violations, but the earliest edits would be salvageable if permission was provided. The template that was on the article during the one week listing period provided instructions for requesting and verifying permission. It's at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for detailed reply. I am trying to contact sindhudesh.com owners. In the mean time will you restore the article for some days, I am not saying for whole article but I am saying about the section which will be valid after permission? Zafar (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't. We're not permitted to restore content deleted for copyright concerns. However, I will be happy to do so as soon as permission is verified. If you need help with the procedure, please let me know. If you want, you can put up a stub article in the meantime. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I started new article on the same topic, please give us some time to improve it as per terms of Wikipedia, thanks. Zafar (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody wants the article deleted. :) As long as it doesn't copy content from other sources in a way that violates the Foundation's Terms of Use, it should be fine. I've pulled the non-creative content, like external links and infobox, from the deleted version and put them on the new stub. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope we will improve the article. Zafar (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Older consolidated

Thanks for knocking down some of that backlog. :) Typically, we do delete listings from there, since they are duplicates of their daily listings and we note resolution at those. I've gone ahead and removed the ones you've addressed.

I do see, though, that Richard Levao is still waiting review. Would you prefer I ask somebody like Toon to take a look at it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

For some reason the page doesn't load for me :( Yes, I'd appreciate if Toon could have a look (even if he mass-rollbacks my edits :) ) MLauba (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
LOL! That one was pretty eye-popping. I had a moment of "Whu--?" --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Johnnie Bassett

Hello again. User:Franamax suggested I asked you to give the newly 're-created' article for Bassett a quick appraisal for copyright purposes. If you need history, then both my and Franamax's talk pages should tell you all you need to know. Much obliged,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy to.
  1. A machine-based verification yielded no results
  2. A manual review comparing to AllMusic as well as the artist page gives me a couple of close turns of phrase, in particular starting with the 1960ies. I did some paraphrasing there, but I'm bound by the same limitations as you, to have only one single source to draw from. It's not perfect but I believe it passes muster.
Those small issues aren't a cause of worry for me, I believe these are quite typical of text summaries based on single sources where a second look is most helpful because it provides a fresh eye.
What annoys me most about all these articles is reading about all of these bluesmen instead of listening to them ;) MLauba (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you ever so much. I do not wish to appear a nuisance, but could I, on occasion, use you again for similar purposes ? I think my doctor once said of my brain - "A machine-based verification yielded no results". As far as your last sentence is concerned, and on the more general subject matter, as I type I am currently hearing "Got my mojo working". Thanks,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You are no nuisance at all and are absolutely welcome to use me again for this :) Minding that I'm going through a time of intense work activity that limits my on-wiki time quite considerably. MLauba (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Updates to copyright instructions

Hi. Based on some feedback I've received, I've updated the instructions at WP:SCV and WP:CP. I've left a more indepth explanation at Wikipedia talk:Suspected copyright violations#Header update along with a request for feedback. As we try to get more people involved in this work, we want to be sure instructions are clear. Given your work, your input there would be very much appreciated. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

BF block

I agree with you that his continuing attacks while attempting to get unblocked called for an extended block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the matter. I unfortunately could not see any signs that his virulent crusade against his perceived antagonist would cease in the short term, and while I'm still hoping for a change of heart, it becomes increasingly likely that BF's chosen path will end in a ban. Time will tell, I expect. MLauba (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I just reblocked, adding 1 second, to make it clear that I concurred in the escalation/disabled talk page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Article 25 deleted article

Hi MLauba,

I'm not sure you are the correct person to direct this to but I am unsure as to who to contact. Article 25 has only recently become aware that the wikipedia page concerned with this organisation has been deleted due to a number of issues. The comments made prior to deletion of the page have left me slightly confused and I was hoping you would be able to explain clearly exactly what the problems are with the article and therefore how I would be able to fix them and get the page up and running again.

My main concerns are: None of the text has been copy pasted from the Article 25 website/any documents. A number of comments have been made about the organisation not being 'notable' enough to include - a quick google search of 'article 25 charity' results in almost the first 4 pages of results solely relating to the organisation and has had/is getting increasing amounts of press coverage.

If you could point me in the right direction as to exactly what I need to do to fix this page I would be very grateful.

Kind regards, 13Curtain (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there
I had to think back a bit, this isn't exactly recent. I became aware of the article by verifying the so-called CorenSearchBot's reports who had tagged the article as potentially containing copy / pasted material, but found no direct match with what the automated system had identified.
When I had a look at the text, however, I found strong indicators (in particular due to the formatting) that the text, added as one single chunk, had nod been drafted on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia takes copyright issues seriously, and we're bound by due diligence to investigate any potential infringement we're made aware of. However, as there was no other source document to be found, the reviewing administrator cleared the article.
On that matter, however, please let me reiterate that if you're connected with Article 25 and the text you submitted is based on a prior existing document, even if not published on the web, we would be grateful (should the other issues below be remedied) for a proper authorization to re-use the material. Indeed, if a person contributes copyrighted information on behalf of an organization with their full knowledge and blessing, yet no trace exists of said knowledge and blessing, a complaint issued later on will lead to immediate removal of the material. The process for donating copyrighted material is described at WP:DCM, and the source text, again, does not have to be online.
Now to the rest of the article's fate. About one month after the above events took place, another editor expressed doubts that the article met our content inclusion guidelines and submitted the article to a deletion discussion. Let me hasten to add that the term "notability" raised in the deletion discussion is a bit of a misnomer: on Wikipedia, the concept of "Notability" doesn't reflect on a subject's importance or fame, it is rather a construct around the notion that the topic has been noted by others, in other words, that there is sufficient third party substantial and independent coverage to verify an article's content and allow for a neutral coverage.
This is where the article was found lacking, and as a result of the deletion discussion (also called "AfD"), the article was redirected to Maxwell Hutchinson.
How can this be remedied? The best way, provided that there are now enough third party sources to "establish notability" in the wikipedian sense, is to re-create the article in your own user space (eg. at User:13Curtain/Sandbox), add all the required references, then ask people at the new user help team for a review. Once they give you feedback that the article passes our inclusion critera, you will then have to open a discussion at WP:DRV asking for the right to recreate the article instead of the redirect, which at that point should be a mere formality.
In the meantime you can get more advice on how to build a solid article on this page.
Two words of caution, though: simply replacing the current redirect with the previous article text will lead to no good end, and if you're connected with Article 25 directly, you should also take some time reading our guidelines about editing with a potential conflict of interest, if only to be aware of the special challenges around that. MLauba (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hydra Vein - deletion

Hi,

It's recently come to my attention you have deleted the entry for Hydra Vein due to a perceived copyright violation. Please note I am the author of both the Wikipedia entry and the entry on www.hydravein.co.uk to which you referenced your initial notice. What do you need from me to re-allow the entry?

Thanks. Spartakus666 (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

To follow the instructions already present at your talk page, these will allow us to verify permission. MLauba (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


Copyright vio

I think I've spotted a copyright violation on the Italy page. Go see Italy#Environment. Does this page seem similar [3]? I think it's a copyright vio (the info was inserted by User:Brutaldeluxe.)--Theologiae (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is no longer there.--Theologiae (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard Levao

You have deleted my bio page posted by my College seven years ago. could you restore it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.24.211 (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Regretfully no, the article was deleted for possible copyright infringement, as it has been added as a verbatim copy from a copyrighted source without evidence of permission by a contributor who has, unfortunately, done so on multiple occasions, without understanding that such things were in fact not allowed.
We apply a strict precautionary principle on copyright matters and will not restore such material unless you can provide adequate permission from the site that first posted it (in this case your College). To do so, there is a procedure described at WP:PERMISSION that must be followed.
Regards, MLauba (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yours on mine

I regret your taking it as hostile tone. I was commenting on your hostile invocation of EEML as an evil, which I came across, when we have never crossed paths before and you know nothing about the alleged perpetrators. Per my request, in the future, please refrain from wiki-linking to EEML and using it to cry WITCH! Best,  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  01:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't know what you're talking about, and I'm quite confident I never wikilinked to EEML, ever mentioned you by name, or ever interacted with you directly. I've also barely been active here in over a month, so whatever it is you seem to be upset about, it's bound to be long in the past and you'll either have to refresh my memory, or, perhaps best, let it go.
And to return the favour, per my request, stop accusing me of wild things without providing context. MLauba (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I really had no desire to belabor this, I already said what I had to say in my original note to you. However, as you chose to make this into a public discourse, diff here. Apologies, you didn't wiki-link to WP:EEML, my mistake (as I virtually always see that done whenever people invoke the case to denounce the original participants or a new set of accused).
   As I discussed in my evidence at that case, I (and I expect most) had nearly always already found whatever had been mentioned and responded independently; however, the powers that be decided that was irrelevant and that the purpose of the list was to collude and coordinate as opposed to simply discuss off-line from an increasingly toxic on-WIKI environment—this after the list was released with a gross misrepresentation by an admin generally inimical to the alleged "POV" of individuals accused. If you wish to use "EEML-type" in a descriptive manner (fundamentally crying "witch!"), do keep in mind that in doing so you pass judgement on editors you know nothing about, including myself, that is all. And, I suspect, "EEML-type" means different things to different people depending on whether or not they know the editors involved. As far as I know, you never dealt with any of the accused and know nothing about them, their motivations, or their actions—nor were you using "EEML-type" in a positive context. We can (I hope) certainly consider this discussion closed at this point.
   My note to you was not as timely as it could have been, however, I am dealing with family health issues and a 98-year old mother in nursing and don't have much time to devote to WP at the moment. Best regards,  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВАtalk  18:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Totally out of line and unacceptable. Replied at your talk page. MLauba (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Brutaldeluxe

Hi MLauba. I'm coming back to you with a problem. Now, I have discussed this with him, yet little changes have occurred. Since you were so helpful, could you help this dispute too.

User:Brutaldeluxe seems to be, somewhat backlashing against me. An example could be seen in his recent message under the heading "poor quality edits", where he (later apologized) for calling all my edits poor, and having bad faith. Ever since then, I have tried my hardest to collaborate with him. Yet he reverts tons of text in Culture in Rome with absolutely no discussion, similarly does so in the now redirected, once an article, page List of tourist attractions in Rome. He just makes brief comments such as "irrelevance is not good". He has nominated several of my pages (which several admins rejected) for speedy deletion with short comments, and no discussion or notices on my talk page, and when one tries to ask him politely to discuss it on his talk page, he seeminlgy answered something like that added irrelevant nonsense is not good, and that he doesn't need to discuss it. Now, having been on wikipedia for over half a year, I realise very clearly that this is not the sort of attitude that wikipedia wants editors to have. Overall, I'd like to get along with him, but it looks like, despite my attempts, nothing good, if not worse things have happened.

Since you're so good at resolving disputes, could you please help resolve this one. I think if you contacted him, and found ways that we could get along I would appreciate it. Thank you and reply--Theologiae (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you certain you're talking to the right person? We interacted on copyright matters, and I'm not really involved in dispute resolution - have you tried mediation?. MLauba (Talk) 15:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I thought you could help (looking at the above message looked like a content dispute, but I may be wrong), but if you're just into resolving copyright issues, I'll contact someone else. Thank you for your consideration.--Theologiae (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Help needed request

Hallo,

I need help with two items. Which I have never done before.

1) I need to delete Carpenter House (disambiguation). I was trying to resolve a DAB issue, and while I did resolve the DAB issue, I found out the orignal Carpenter House was not a DAB page but a LIST page. And no, I did not start the Carpenter House article, but I helped clean it up. See notes on the discussion page of Carpenter House.

2) Carpenter House to List of Carpenter Houses. Since Carpenter House is a list, it needs to be renamed.

Any help would be appreciated.

B-t-w. Thanks for checking David Rosenfelt (author). As soon as I saw my error due to the {copyvio}, I quickly removed the offending material and read up on copyright and Wikipedia.

Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

List of prophecies of Joseph Smith, Jr.

I object to recent deletion of content at List of prophecies of Joseph Smith, Jr.. The claim is that it is a copyright violation. No text was duplicated at all. Could you restore the deleted text so it can be used for discussion on the Talk page. Or, alternatively, here describe where the copyright violation is. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please kindly refer to Dougweller for that. I merely fixed an incomplete revision deletion. That being said, suspected infringing text will never be restored, even for discussion purposes. MLauba (Talk) 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi MLauba. Thank you for saving those two Renaissance pages. I totally agree with you - considering they are copied from a book, the structure, wording and expressions do not sound appropriate for wikipedia, and the page is, of poor wikipedia quality. Yet, apart from the quality, there was, in essence, nothing actually technically wrong with the pages - they just aren't very good as they stand, and need radical improvement (also one question, can you re-word and edit public domain material?)--Theologiae (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, another question. I live in the UK. That work that I used was published before 1923, which means that it is automoatically in the public domain. Yet, if I live in Britain, would that mean that I can use it on wikipedia freely with attribution? If a work is public domain in the USA (Wikipedia's servers' location), yet copyrighted in Britain can it be used on wikipedia? Thus, all I'm asking is that work that I used, is it fine for me to use it freely on wikipedia? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Wikipedia doesn't mind (though Jimbo requests that we respect copyright in other countries; policy is clear that US copyright law governs). However, that's because it isn't Wikipedia who'll wind up in court. I very recently received a panicked e-mail from a user in Germany who had uploaded some material on Wikipedia in a manner he felt consistent with Wikipedia's non-free content policies. It was not consistent with German fair use laws, which are notoriously strict. Literally, he received a bill. I referred him to our attorney, but there's nothing that we can do in a situation like that. Since you use a screen name, you would have some shelter in that they would have to legally request your information and try to locate you by the minimal information that WMF stores, but WMF would pass that information over on receipt of a subpoena. I'm not trying to discourage you from using material that is PD in the USA but copyrighted in Britain, but to make you aware that the danger is not that Wikipedia would reject it...but that you could get in trouble in your own courts. We are governed by US copyright laws, but you are not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
So, would that source I used (the book) be public domain in both the UK and the US? Oh, and help me with all legal talk. I am only a child.--Theologiae (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
All right, I'll try to explain it better. Please let me know if you need it clarified. :) Wikipedia's copyright policies are built to protect Wikipedia. So, yes, you can put content on Wikipedia that is public domain in the United States even if it isn't public domain somewhere else. Our policies aren't built to protect you, though. If you put something on here that is legal for us but illegal for you, you can get in trouble.
With this book, yes, you're okay. It's PD in both the US and the UK. The translator died in 1890; the author died in 1897. Copyright expired in the UK a looong time ago.
Knowing if a work is public domain in the UK requires knowing the following: (a) who published it (government or private company); (b) when it was published; and (c) who wrote it (anonymous or named author--and, if named author--when they died). There's a nice chart that can help you here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hydra Vein

The Copyright holder has released the text under "" per https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4765079. Nsaa (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

the Page Hydra Vein could probably be restored and this added to the article discussion page: {{ConfirmationOTRS|source=https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4765079|otrs=4765079|note="I am the original author of both the Wikipedia entry and the compared entry on http://www.hydravein.co.uk and the copyright is mine. I'm happy to release this under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license"}}

Nsaa (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nsaa, and welcome to OTRS.
Unfortunately, the ticket at present is not sufficient: I don't see any clear proof demonstrating that the person granting permission is indeed the owner of the site. Further, the permission statement must be (pedantically) more explicit: It must mention the license version, and indicate an understanding that the license is irrevocable, includes reuse even for commercial purposes as well as free modification of the text submitted.
I'll let you get back to the customer if you don't mind, suggest using "en-More explicit statement of permission" as a base.
Best, MLauba (Talk) 11:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
That's great. Will you use some of these texts: Commons:Email_templates? Nsaa (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Eh? that doesn't go anywhere. We have Response:en-Not sure you are copyright holder and Response:en-More specific statement of permission which address both issues, respectively. Do you want me to take the ticket over? MLauba (Talk) 12:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Please do. The link was mal fomed, sorry Commons:Commons:Email_templates:-) Nsaa (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 Done Responded, awaiting the next step. MLauba (Talk) 11:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MRG. MLauba (Talk) 11:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Indef-blocked user

Hi, I see that you blocked Special:Contributions/Daniil0299; given this edit and these contributions from that IP, you may want to take further action. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly stale and parts of the edits aren't vandalism-only. Suggest taking it to AIV if there's ongoing activity. MLauba (Talk) 10:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your block of User:Anthonyhcole

I'd suggest you undo it, rather rapidly, and apologise. Pedro :  Chat  20:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Pedro, maybe you would cordially explain why you think it was a mistaken block worthy of apology? In the whole "orderly and civil" spirit of WP:GBU? (Just to note: I have no idea what's going on and don't know who this is or why he was blocked.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Block undo by Xeno. See Malleus's talk page MRG for background. Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah. So it seems MLauba would reasonably know why you object, then. It's a brouhaha already in progress elsewhere. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah right, it's not like there haven't been dozen of baiting comments on Malleus page of late. Sorry, I'm a bit dense when it comes to overly subtle sarcasm. MLauba (Talk) 21:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Have read it over (what an amazingly high page view count!), and my apologies for butting in. It was a startle response for what looked like an abrupt note, given the source, but I should have checked your contrib history and figured it out myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Not trying to be rude, MRG, but "Just to note: I have no idea what's going on" ----- maybe next time a little research to rectify that might have helped? Anyway, block undone so no point picking the bones from the carcass.Pedro :  Chat  21:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right, Pedro; that's the point of the apology and the whole mea culpa that followed it. I know it was my bad. I should have looked to see that conversation was ongoing about it elsewhere. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Suggest everyone calm down and concentrate on my lack of clue (if needed here on top of the other pages where it is being done). MLauba (Talk) 21:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I think I should say sorry for being quite so abrasive too. We make mistakes, it happens, best we can all try to move on. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'm plenty embarrassed already. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Leave the embarrassment to me in this whole affair (but thanks for your support ofc:) ). MLauba (Talk) 21:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher

Thanks. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 01:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:State Reform Party/Temp

Not wanting to ask any leading questions whatsoever, I thought I'd just come over and vaguely ask your reasons for not implementing this. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A RL interruption that prevented me from checking whether it was clean or not :) BTW, the knol one is CC-BY and is probably fine. ;) MLauba (Talk) 12:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, well, then I may have deleted that for no reason. I'll go see. :) If you can, then, would you review it? Without asking any leading questions, I'd appreciate a second opinion on it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did delete it. I saw the copyright notice on the bottom and did not see the CC-By notice to the side. In the process of attributing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I hate Template:CCBYSASource. It's so counterintuitive and needlessly complex! And I created it! (But, in my defense, based on something else.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
We could probably merge all these templates and make some of the parameters optional (like diff etc...). The way CCBYSASource is written (like GFDLSource before it) presupposes that the material comes from another wiki, which isn't always the case.
BTW, any more feedback on my copyvio managing guide at User:MLauba/Cv101? MLauba (Talk) 12:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Eep! I forgot about it! I'll take a look now. And I'd be thrilled to have a template that doesn't require me to write "sourcepath" (what's wrong with URL?). Maybe we could use some kind of licensing option like the Confirmed OTRS template? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Re the temp article, I expect it turning red answered the leading question you didn't want to ask? :-) MLauba (Talk) 12:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: the managing guide, do you object to my proposing alterations directly in the page in the usual BOLD fashion? If you'd prefer, I'd be happy to do so at talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a wiki, be bold :) Seriously, go ahead. I want this moved to WP space soonish, so the better it is, the better it gets :) MLauba (Talk) 15:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've boldly gone. :) Let me know what you think. I've added some complexity, but not all I could have. :/ I didn't mention backwards vios in the general user section, and I buried a note in the admin section: "This doesn't mention the possibility of providing credit in other ways. See Talk:Love_Jihad#Attribution_history." I think we should consider asking for other input at WT:COPYCLEAN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
After noticing today an admin speedy delete a copyvio which asserted permission (Raj juriani I think, but it was too early for me to be sure) I was looking over the essay and think it should include the information about blanking instead of speedy delete in those cases (as listed in the SCV instructions). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Good idea! I hate it when that happens. It's needlessly bitey. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77

Did you really block Wikid77 for this edit? Yes, we do have a policy which counsels editors against ad hominem remarks ("Comment on content, not on the contributor"). But it also tells us that it is "repeated or egregious" comments of this nature which may lead to blocks. I rather think that you've over-reacted here by blocking Wikid77 for a comment ("You know you need to get out more if ...") which was a very long way away from being "egregious". If you're intending to block people for comments such as that you'll be busy indeed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The article in question is under mediation and has seen long standing and massive battles. In this very specific context, needless ad hominem such as these are contributing to maintaining the extremely poisonous atmosphere on that article and hindering mediation. MLauba (Talk) 11:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Curtis Clarke

Hi. This one is not due for closure yet, but the contributor is requesting review. Can you review the rewrite? I have been involved in discussing the issue with him, and I think a second (well, really, third; I didn't tag) set of eyes would be beneficial. Note that earlier rewrite edits still contain copied text, so selective deletion there may be beneficial. There's more information here, if you want to read it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Going to have a look. MLauba (Talk) 13:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
No good, it still has both close paraphrase and word-for-word copy / pasta. :( Stubifying, it will need yet another go. MLauba (Talk) 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Frank Hyett

Hi, Monsieur Lauba. If the Frank Hyett temp page is good, can you move to the mainspace. Otherwise, please let me know -- my talkpage or yours, it doesn't matter -- what needs to be fixed. Thanks. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Robert (hope you don't mind if I address you by first name, otherwise accept my apology and let me know what you would prefer),
I had a look and this one still troubles me. First, it still feels like an abridged close paraphrase of the ADB - I suspect you may have rewritten it so often that it becomes difficult to come up with original language, a problem that gets worsened by the fact that this is a biography and that the key facts follow, obviously, a chronological order.
At present, there are also a couple of writing issues which I believe come from too much knife & scissor stabs at the draft (the lead for instance, parts of the chronology).
I'm going to give it a stab myself, see where it leads us. MLauba (Talk) 10:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done New stub is now up at main space. Dug up a couple more references for good measure. MLauba (Talk) 12:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you review?

There is potential new CCI under discussion at my talk page at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Palmerston Forts Society. I have reviewed the first 9 articles and find roughly 6 of them very extensive and 4 of them just unusably close. Since this is a judgment call, though, I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the latest three. The first 8 are from a cc-by-nc-nd source, and it's possible that the contributor thought the content was usable. So far as I know, the other sources are more clear.

If you confirm that this is a pattern, more evaluation would almost certainly be necessary at CCI.

If you don't have time or interest, please let me know, and I'll ask one of the other copyright admins, in short supply though we be. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

MoMK

Considering your pledge as an uninvolved editor and admin (which I think you should apply to anyone commenting there, including me, who steps over the line), would you mind talking care of that IP that is clearly not here to improve WP but rather to poison the well on a regular bases even at the mediation page (Although mediation was called off by the editor who filed it but this is a different issue)? The IP has a short edit history to check out (and is either a sock or just a plain "pain in the ass"... excuse my French...). I think a block would be appropriate by now or at least (another) strong warning followed by a lengthily block if s/he doesn't cease to post unhelpful personal comments. The IP seems to be static so nobody else would be "hurt" by any block, short or long.

About the latest IP entry: This IP's reinstated entry was removed (in part) by Xeno and again in whole by Pablo X today[4] but please take a look at his/her whole history, incl. the talkpage for the big picture. Thanks for any action or input, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just saw that: "Ihr könnt hier auch auf deutsch kommunizieren." Well, then I'd like to add: "Bitte, halte ein wachsames Auge auf den Artikel. Er braucht viele Augen um zu wachsen und sich zu verbessern." Gruesse, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't around but thanks for bringing it to my attention. As there have been enough warnings, I have suspended his editing privileges for the time being. MLauba (Talk) 21:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Anders ausgedrückt, Du hast Recht, diese Person hat für eine Weile genug Unfug getrieben. Ich werde weiterhin tun, was ich kann. Es ist schweirig, bei einem gewissen Zermürben fair zu bleiben. Danke, dass Du dabei mithilfst. MLauba (Talk) 21:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your quickly acting in regards of that IP. You made the right call in my opinion and I'm pretty sure other editors will think the same since you applied common sense.
Editors (and especially admins) tend to pull their backs on that MoMK page after a few edits. I (and I think I can presume other editors feel the same) would really be appreciated if you would keep your eye on this article, just the civility part so you don't get drawn into it too much and can act as an uninvolved admin in the future. Hope I'm not asking for to too much, "oder Du moegest mir verzeihen".
Anyways, thanks again and wish you the best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Und Ich helfe soweit es meine Zeit zulaesst auch wenn es manchmal schwer faellt und ich zu spaeht bin um hilfreich zu sein, aber ich tue mein Bestes, and no one can or should expect more ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting

Interesting that you choose to warn me rather than the other users. It seems that friendships can have a reasonable impact on the nature of Wikipedia. I shall stop my editing on the Battle of Gettysburg article, but I'll always remember how biased it is--Valkyrie Red (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never interacted with any of the other protagonists on the article before. That being said, you should have stuck to your first idea. MLauba (Talk) 22:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

My upcoming vacation

Moonriddengirls have evolved to leave the internet occasionally, but those who encounter them elsewhere are often startled by the sheer wrongness of seeing them out of their element.

Hi. :) I'm going to be away from Wikipedia from May 13th until May 27th. If you have time, can you pitch in a bit at WP:CP? I'd hate to come back to a two week backlog. :/ (You're not the only person I'm asking; I'm hoping to keep it from overwhelming anybody. :)) My preparation and family obligations have already got me a bit behind, but I'm going to try to get it current through Wednesday, anyway. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I'll be around, time permitting, though as I've mentioned, I'll be out next week myself. Don't worry, we'll try to make sure CP isn't bursting at the seams in the meantime :) Enjoy your time off the madhouse. MLauba (Talk) 13:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I do think it's pretty interesting, though, that planning for a two week vacation has almost certainly generated more work than I would have had if I'd just worked through! I'm beginning to think it's better to spring it on people with no advance notice. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
You know how I usually do it, don't you? :D MLauba (Talk) 13:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Is your edit summary a clue? :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
<Insert looking at shoes and whistling while pretending to be elsewhere here />MLauba (Talk) 14:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
LOL! In my case, I think I should remember the old saying "It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of 2nd Battalion, 18th Field Artillery Regiment

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated 2nd Battalion, 18th Field Artillery Regiment, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd Battalion, 18th Field Artillery Regiment. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SGGH ping! 17:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio à purger

Salut, désolé, je n'ai pas le temps à l'instant de remplir la paperasserie, je te signale un copyvio sur l'article İsmail Gaspıralı. Voici le diff : [5], lajout est comme indiqué dans le copié-collé un copyvio d'Inci Bowman. Cordialement --Kimdime (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)  Done C'est fait, merci. Amicalement, MLauba (Talk) 11:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)