User talk:Moonriddengirl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it.
Reaching me

I am not on Wikipedia as often as I'd like to be. My goal is to check my page, at least, daily, but I often fall short of that goal. If you have an urgent note for me here, please consider alerting me via email at (This is my work email address, and I do not mix work and volunteering, but mailing that address makes sure I will see it promptly, usually within a day.) If not urgent, I'll come by as soon as I can, and I heartily welcome talk page stalkers. :)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015[edit]

compare please[edit]


After the close of the extended 2015 season, work began on "Phase Two" of the project. Plans include: conversion of the excavated area just west of the field into a 30,000 square foot area for players locker rooms, strength, conditioning, training and hydrotherapy sections, players lounges, a media center and team offices; the previous clubhouse space will be utilized to enlarge the dugout, add two underground batting cages, an auditorium and more team office space; premium and season ticket holders will be afforded a new "Third Base Club" next to the batting tunnels and a "Home Plate Club" will be introduced behind home plate; a new 30,000 square foot concessions preparation and staging area will be constructed below the new Triangle Plaza; all seats, from the left field foul pole to the main gate, will be removed and replaced and new concessions and bathrooms will be added ; and an upper-deck exposed concourse will be added along the south and west roof-line of right field. Improved bathroom facilities and additional concessions are included.

Sourced to

Which has A new, 30,000 square-foot concessions preparation and staging area will be added below the plaza., The Cubs 30,000 square foot space includes locker rooms for the players and coaches, a strength and conditioning center, training and hydrotherapy areas, player lounge, media center and team offices. , The Cubs former clubhouse will be developed in order to make the dugout larger and will include two underground batting cages, an auditorium and additional office space., The team is building an area for premium and Season Ticket Holders adjacent to the batting tunnels in order for fans to get a view of the players batting practice. seats ... the third base side concourse will be completed that includes new concessions and bathrooms in the area etc. More could have been bolded alas.

[2] indicates how seriously the contributor actually views "The Plaigerism Police." I can not believe he did not know what he was doing all those times - and still continuing. Collect (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC) [3] blames me, alas. I did not recall having such powers to make folks into such edits. Collect (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry that this has evidently been quite unpleasant; I know it can be. Over the years I've been working copyright, I've unfortunately upset quite a few people, and I imagine it's no fun for anybody on either side. :/
I like to be clear on the distinction between plagiarism - which is a serious issue, but a guideline - and copyright violations. The two are often but not always connected. We are mandated to remove copyright violations pretty much on discovery. There may be close following that I myself do not feel rises to the level of a copyright violation that I will not blank. The more creative the source and the more blatant the copy-pasting, the more likely I am to remove or hide material to be addressed. But identifying when something is closely paraphrased crosses the line from plagiarism to copyright violation is not an exact science, not even for the courts. So you are welcome to blank sections that you feel yourself should be reviewed and list them at WP:CP. Another admin or copyright clerk will review.
I know that assuming good faith is a bit of a trope, but I honestly try to do so when it comes to copyright issues. It is a difficult area for many people, and outside of my work on Wikipedia I have had to coach many on how to handle such material. For some, the concept itself is hard; for others, the degree of rewriting required is a challenge. I didn't see any sign of warning in the distant past, so I assume that unfortunately this particular person was not alerted to the problem earlier. That's a shame, because it's got to be absolutely no fun to find out that people have problems with the way you're doing something you've been doing so long. Most people on being coached on the issue do stop, and I hope that this will prove to be one of those cases. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The user says that I am the Plaigerism Police(sic) and that he and a friend of his have been joyously deriding me personally in their userspace repeatedly for eight years now :(. the "giggles" number in the hundreds now Collect (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi Maggie. I recently spotted that OluwaCurtis has requested autopatrolled, despite being the subject of an ongoing CCI. I decided to do some further digging to identify if their copyright and close paraphrasing problems have continued, and discovered a couple potentially problematic edits after the CCI was initiated. My first concern is in the article Deputy Governor of Abia State (created by the user), from this:

Source Deputy Governor of Abia State
"be a member of a Political Party and be sponsored by that party" "be a member of a political party and sponsored by that party"
"be educated to at least school certificate level or its equivalent" "be educated to at least school certificate level or its equivalent"
"have attained the age of thirty five (35) years" "have attained the age of thirty-five years"
"must be a Nigerian by birth" and/or
"must be a citizen of Nigeria"
"be a citizen of Nigeria by birth"

I also identified another potential problem, albeit less substantial, in the article Nzango (created by the user), from this:

Source Nzango
"two teams of players, lined up and facing each other on a pitch measuring eight metres by 16 metres" "two opposing teams lined up and facing each other with individual members from each team taking turns in outplaying the other. It is played on a pitch measuring 8 metres by 16 metres"
"position of their feet in relation to their opponents" "position their feet in relation to their opponents"

The above problems are all that I identified in a rough check of their post-CCI contributions. I am wondering, would you be able to evaluate the above examples? This G12 tag from just over a week ago leaves me concerned that their understanding of copyright has not yet developed. I look forward to hearing from you. Many thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thine Antique Pen. I suspect that the first run is exempt from copyright as per Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works as an edict of government, even if it's not a government source publishing it. The second is a bit closely paraphrased, but limited in creativity and a very short run, if that's the extent of it. The G12 tag does show some lack of familiarity with copyright rules, but I appreciate the intent! Let me take a glance at other contribs and see if there's anything else. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't really have a lot of time right now, I'm going to drop this here:
I've done some hopping around throughout - not comparing to sources but Google searching spot-checks to text - and so far I haven't found any red flags. (I did find an illegal download site that copied the article at Ghetto University, but didn't do a {{backwardscopy}} because illegal download site. I did confirm that it was on Wikipedia first by comparing text changes early in the history.) I'll do more hopping around to see what I come up with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I've marked off a couple of articles above as simply being uses of the Reflinks/reFill tool, and plan to do a little more digging into their contributions and the material in the Deputy Governor of Abia State article from the INEC FAQ page. Thanks for looking into this. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. :) It's important to check back. I've poked at a few more, and so far things are looking okay. I'll keep poking a bit, and look forward to hearing your conclusions on Deputy Governor of Abia State. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Maggie, I've done some further digging into this. I began by looking at Nigeria's Copyright Act - Part 1 4(1) of the Act shows that all Nigerian government works are copyrighted. The first schedule of the law outlines that a work by a "government or a body corporate" is copyrighted for 70 years after publication. Although, as INEC is independent, rather than governmental, the FAQ page is not a work of government. I am unsure if the work is an edict of government due to its nature as a FAQ page (although, it could perhaps be a dictum), and I am also unable to identify any exemption of edicts in the Copyright Act. Of course, this is Nigerian law, and Wikipedia content must simply meet US law (respecting laws elsewhere is nice too!). I believe that US law interprets edicts of government as being both from the US and everywhere else, and excludes such edicts from copyright. I worry that this does not constitute an edict of government, being INEC's FAQ page (and claiming copyright in the page footer). I'm unable to offer anything conclusive about this. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted anything – I haven't worked with edicts of government before! :-) Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi, Thine Antique Pen. :) I'm sorry; it's my fault that I didn't explain myself better. :/ The reason I said, "I suspect that the first run is exempt from copyright as per Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works as an edict of government, even if it's not a government source publishing it" is because I suspected they had copied that from an edict of government themselves. I didn't know that - it was just a suspicion because it sounded a lot like legal text tied to election law to me. If it were a more substantial run of text with more creativity, I'd have gone digging immediately, but for a couple of phrases that were closely paraphrased, I put it aside and focused on the larger issue (to me) of whether there were ongoing copyright concerns.

So now, I've now backed up and done some poking and find the Nigerian Constitution, which discusses election eligibility in 65 (1). The FAQ did not copy all of the language directly from the constitution, although it's clearly derivative and some is reproduced. For instance, they wrote "be a member of a Political Party and be sponsored by that party", while the constitution says, "he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that party." I don't think their changes are substantial enough to attract copyright, and since the article doesn't copy directly from the FAQ, anyway, I think it's okay. I believe the base material is PD under U.S. law, and I don't think there's enough creativity in the deviations for us to worry about the copyright element.

The paraphrasing element is a separate question, of course. If the source were fully reserved, it would be more closely paraphrased than it needs to be, by which I mean that one doesn't have to copy it. It would be pretty easy to write "Must be sponsored by the political party of which he is a member" or something like that. So I don't want to imply that rewriting isn't possible and doesn't matter. :) But it is a short run of text with low creativity and moreover it is a rule. If there is a risk that the rule will be misinterpreted, it may be necessary in the case of describing a rule to follow pretty closely on your source. And you often are forced to follow the structure of the original by the rules themselves. You can't omit some and rearrange others, for instance.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I wouldn't necessarily assume that closely paraphrasing a small amount of material from rules represents a lack of understanding of the need to paraphrase or how to paraphrase. This is why I was checking other contribs. If there is close paraphrasing of more creative source material, then we'd be looking at a pattern that said to me "This person may not understand this." If their work with more creative sources shows good rewriting, then I think what we're looking at is difficulty with a particularly challenging paraphrase issue. It's more master level work. :)

Does that make more sense? Again, I'm sorry for not explaining myself better to begin with, and if I can explain my thinking better now, please feel free to say, "No, Maggie, not really." :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maggie. Thanks for explaining that - it now makes perfect sense. :) I agree that the text is quite uncreative and rather unsubstantial, so there are probably not any copyright problems within it. I see that the focus of efforts should on identifying whether copyright violations have continued, or their paraphrasing of creative material is too close. Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Another copyright issue[edit]

Dear Moonriddengirl: I came across a draft, Draft:Helen Manning, which appeared to be largely a duplicate of this web page. I was trying to find out which of the two was created first, and I noticed that there was a "next page" link, which I followed, finding this, which had pretty clearly been copied to Donna Caruso, so I tagged that one for deletion. Going on to the "next page" took me to this one, some of which appears in the older history of Donald Soctomah, along with text from another document. Each of these has a different editor. Could this be some kind of class project or the results of an editathon? If the first three I came to have been copied into the encyclopedia, chances are there are more. Should I keep going and tag all of these for deletion, or is there something I have missed?—Anne Delong (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Anne Delong. :) Still looking to figure out which came first. I have to say, this is a weird one. It doesn't inspire much faith in me to see this (from source.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
THere's also this, from this, or similar. And there was copying from this or similar. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking at commonalities, I believe I've figured this out. :) The site comes first. I'm almost certain that at least the two remaining articles were written by students of User:Ssenier, who may be in position to release the content of that site, anyway. As to the article I was looking at and finding copying from multiple sources, unfortunately students sometimes do plagiarize, in spite of the best efforts of the teacher. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl. What's the next step?—Anne Delong (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Ssenier being active, Anne Delong, I was kind of hoping the next step would happen automatically and that she might see the ping and stop by to talk about the copyright status of the site. :) If the site is released, the content can be duplicated with proper attribution as per Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If it is not, any article that is a copyright infringement of that site will have to be stubbed or deleted. :/ So, next step would probably be to ask her whether she is interested in coordinating or able to coordinate a compatible license for that site. (If the material was authored by people who are no longer available to agree to said license or who refuse to do so, her interest in coordinating a compatible license won't help.) If she can coordinate a compatible license, the site can be annotated as described at WP:DCM and any articles that draw upon it marked with the proper license template. I'm rushing out the door, having tossed together a basic stubby article this morning and needing to be somewhere for Thanksgiving dinner, but if she doesn't happen to notice the ping and stop by here, I suppose the next step is to go to her. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to be catching up late here. Yes, these are articles by my students. Wikipedia actually came first: the students drafted their articles for the "Writing of Indigenous New England" website in Wikipedia, where they got great editing feedback and practice in using reliable sources. They then imported the writing they had done in Wikipedia onto the other site, usually amplifying that work with other primary research not allowed in Wikipedia. In an earlier iteration the latter website did have a notice indicating that UNH students wrote the entries, which they had begun in Wikipedia. I see I need to restore that notice; but is there something else I should do? (In effect, if I'm reading your concerns correctly, the students have been "plagiarizing" their own contributions to Wikipedia.) I would indeed be interested in developing a compatible license, though this might be complicated with students who have graduated. Please advise, and thanks for your attention! Ssenier (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Kimberly Brandão[edit]

Kimberly Brandão appears to have a copyright issue. (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Can you identify the source? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015[edit]


Hey Moonriddengirl, how are you doing these days?

Could you please do something about this user? He's on bad terms with like everyone due to his editorial behavior, and is continuing with this. Though numerous people have told him not to remove those links, he's still continuing to do so, ignoring the talk page consensus and that the majority does not want them to be deleted like that. Just as of seconds ago, he officially made a threat to continue edit warring (which he's already doing and has done priorly too),[4] reverted it once again, without edit summary, though we explicitly told him not to do so,[5], says the voice of the majority "must be screwed".[6] Could you do anything about this? Honestly, we've shown enough resilience, and there's no simply no place for edit warriors that make statements such as "screw the voice of the majority". Clearly does not grasp multiple WP's as well as what is being a valuable addition to this place.

If it's not too much of an issue for you, of course. Bests and take care.

Edit; nvm! :-) Already appropriately blocked. Which will probably get extended as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)