User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20


Question about copyright

Hi Moonriddengirl!

I have a question about a copyright concern in the dogfight article. If a single sentence has been copied word for word from the source, would that be grounds for removal? Zaereth (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There are a couple of ways to handle it, and removal is one. The other two would be rewriting it or turning it into a usable quotation per WP:NFC. It depends on what the sentence is and how it is used. One of those three should be done, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
For the moment I'm leaning toward removal. Then I can begin a discussion on the talk page on how to best incorporate the information into the article. Thanks for the advice, and I hope you're recovering well. Zaereth (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Copying with Wikipedia

You're correct, that was an unfortunate oversight. I was kind of nudged to create the new page by comments on my FA nomination and forgot attribution, because I haven't copied Wiki material to create a new article before. I took notice for the future.

Hey, you're big on copyright, could you perhaps take a look at an issue in the nomination, there was a question about files used, which I answered but despite me asking for feedback the user raising the issue hasn't responded and nothing gets moving until this is answered in some way. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure! But this is one of those things where I will ask in some assistance. :) I do quite a lot with copyvio, but generally text, and Commons is a strange and alien environment to me. But I've got a good friend on Wikipedia with a lot of experience there, and I'll ask him to take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: ANI thread re: Talk:Devils Disciples

I put a notice on ANI regarding the legal threat on Talk:Devils Diciples. --Dbratland (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much for the heads up. :) I wonder if I shall be hearing from some lawyer upset that we may have misidentified a dead man who his killer "alleged was dealing cocaine and methamphetamine in the area"? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia mirrors

Ahh... I never thought of that! I'll definitely keep it in mind in the future. (this is why I need the admin tools!) :-) Thanks! Theleftorium 14:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this is correct, right? Theleftorium 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, precisely. Commercial reproduction must also be permitted. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, I have another question. What should be done with Jhala and Jhala (clan)? Part of the Jhala article was copied to the Jhala (clan) article without attribution. Thanks, Theleftorium 20:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've handled that one, but a brief step-by-step: null edits at source & destination to note the transfer of text. {{Copied}} at both talk pages. Note to contributor explaining situation. I have a form letter I sometimes use for splits, User:Moonriddengirl/form_letters#Split_not_noted_in_edit_summary, and another for general copying, User:Moonriddengirl/form_letters#Copying_from_article_to_article. However, I based my note on the not-yet-ready-for-prime-time template {{Uw-copying}}. This one shouldn't be used "as is" until the related documented is run up the flag pole and refined. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! :) I followed your step-by-step instruction on Chocky (TV Series) and Chocky. Can you see if I did it correctly? Theleftorium 15:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Perfectly. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey again Moonriddengirl. Could you take a look at John Todd (occultist) for me? It was deleted from Wikipedia a year ago and User:Ian.thomson restored it a few days ago, but I'm not sure if he was the original creator of that text. Thank you, Theleftorium 17:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He was not. I've left a note to the original deleting admin, since it was deleted as a BLP. If it no longer represents a BLP, we'll need to restore the history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel really bad for bothering you again (I won't do it as often from now on!), but I was just wondering if you could confirm this (see User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao). I don't know much about public domain, and a whole bunch of articles by that user has been listed at WP:SCV. Many thanks! :) Theleftorium 21:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't feel bad for bothering me. We're colleagues, after all, and this project is all about collaboration. :) But you might want to open new sections when you start new topics on my page, because I'm afraid if I'm not online when a message comes in, I sometimes forget to check to see what might have been added further up! Anyway, I'm off to look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind. I looked at the wrong link (this says it's in the public domain). Theleftorium 21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, public domain and government websites. Yes, most publications of the United States government are public domain. There's usually a link somewhere on a .gov page explaining how that particular text may be used. That website says, at [1], "Not all the information on our site is in the public domain. Some images/graphics are licensed for use under the copyright law, and the use of the Service logo is restricted to official publications (see below). We will identify material we use from sources outside the Service, and request others do the same when using information published by the Service." So, pictures are not necessary public domain, but text is unless the website indicates that it is not. So long as it is attributed in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism, there's no problem with incorporating that text verbatim. Note that while federal US government material is usually public domain, state government materials usually are not. And outside of the US, most government material is also not pd. Confused yet? Part of the fun of the job. :D Short story: if it has a .gov extension, it's probably safe, but I always check to be sure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh. You're great at explaining things. Thanks! :) Theleftorium 21:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mdd copyright concern

Hi MRG, thanks so far. I have been urged by Franamax to first identify possible copyvios, and made a first plan, see User:Mdd#First identify possible copyvios. In short I propose to tag all my suspicious articles with a copypaste-template on top or in a section. I would appreciate your feed back on this (first) idea. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you take a look at a more specific question about Working on overview article. Thanks you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a short question. Is it useful to tag some of my (biographical) articles with a "close paraphrasing-tag" or isn't that appropriate at all in my case? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's a little odd to add it for your own text, but should be doable if the text is relatively brief and if you are going to get back to it to fix it within a few days. (Adding that label will automatically put it up for administrator review, and if it reaches that review, it's likely to be stubbed or rather summarily removed anyway.) If the copyvio is more extensive, you should either fix it on the spot or go ahead and blank it with {{copyvio}} until you can get around to it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks, better not, better proceed as you suggested. As I understand I cannot get blocked for trying to solve the p-problems in the articles, as long as I don't bring in new material? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I made a first test-edit in Boundary critique, and I would to check... However, after I spotted the attack on Timothy F. H. Allen I am afraid I loose faith. I am not going to continu like this. I am sorry. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I give it one more try. I restored biography section: there is no p-problem here, because this is just the standard I have implemented in over 1000+ articles. It's up to you to block me.
Using words like "Reverting to state prior to mass insertion of copy-pasted copyright violating text" is not my idea of handle things with care. Has he lost his mind...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that anybody particularly wants to block you; as long as you're willing and able to help clean up any copyrighted material you may have introduced and as long as you don't introduce anymore, there should be no problem. I'd really urge you not to get sidetracked by whatever is going on with this other contributor. There is obviously some history between you and this other guy about which I know nothing, given his odd comment to you about the notability of these subjects at your talk page. But it's really just a distraction at this point. If he is temporarily restoring the article to before your contribution, it will not stop you going in to review the changes you've made and restoring the text as it is cleaned. I'm sure you know it's all still accessible in history. But while I understand that you may have intended well, I'm afraid that removing copyrighted text immediately upon identification of it really is the way that these things are meant to be handled, as per WP:COPYVIO. For instance, in Timothy F. H. Allen, a random google search on the phrase "Allen has been applying notions of complex systems and hierarchy theory to ecology for twenty-five years" shows that the paragraph in which it appears infringes on [2]. I would really encourage you to just ignore whatever he might be saying or doing and continue evaluating your own material, repairing problematic text where you find it. If he's already removed it when you get there, it's no problem. Again, you fix what's needed and put it back. That said, while I haven't reviewed the whole article, your change here is a good use of attribution and quotation marks, except that I've corrected the marking within the passage here to conform to the source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your feedback. I guess you are right. It is good to get the feed back about restoring original quotes... I always start slow there. Now I do agree the phrase "Allen has been applying notions of complex systems and hierarchy theory to ecology for twenty-five years" and more further notions in the work section are not well cited... and I have no problem them being removed. I didn't put that phrase back, I did put those other things back, which were removed. That was my whole point. He can removed all the worksections he likes, but not the biography sections. These are (mostly) all just standard phrases what can not be any mayor p-problem. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of clarity, what we are talking about here is a violation of copyright, which is far more serious than a "p-problem" (I guess you mean plagiarism). It takes very little creativity for US courts to regard text as copyright protected. If you have not yet read WP:Copyvio, you probably should. It says, "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major prose contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." Some material may be removed unnecessarily in efforts to clean up this copyright problem, but restoring it later is simple enough. It is with policy to clean suspect material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, now that's just too much. Moonriddengirl, I would like to have my side of the story heard, but not tonight. I'm too exhausted from trying to clean up after Mdd. I plainly stated in the talk page that I may have removed more than was necessary, and left it to him to restore whatever he felt was legit. He's just going to quibble endlessly on every point, no matter who's trying to help edit articles with issues he's caused. Bacrito (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not really my position to mediate whatever may going on between you two. My interest here is in the copyright situation and facilitating the cleaning of copyrighted text. My suggestion that Marcel Douwe Dekker focus on cleaning up the issues and pay no attention to what you're doing is intended to keep forward progression focused on that. As I indicated, your removal of problematic text is within policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I was hardly asking you to mediate between us. I think I have a perspective on Mdd that might have been useful for you to hear. But whatever. The only thing "going on between us two" is the copyright issue. Or was. As I just told talk I'm bowing out of this. It's just too depressing.
Incidentally, I was looking at the page discussing promotion of the idea of discouraging copy and paste as a means of generating content, I don't recall the exact link, but I saw it mentioned on your page I think. Anyway, it began with a statement that "99 percent of copying and pasting results in copyright violations" or something like that. I think it's a brilliant! Good luck with your enormous workload. I don't know how you manage it all. Bacrito (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I didn't mean that to be specifically targeted to you; it was meant more as a general request to focus on the copyright issue. (And I apologize further if I have misread your note on his talk page. I presumed you had worked together before and that perhaps this is what led to your discovering the copyright problems here.) I've worked on a lot of copyright problems in the past year or so, and in my experience they become very emotional. Things seem to go more smoothly when the focus is kept on the goal: removing the copyrighted content. To that end, I'm also very sorry that you're bowing out of helping, as we never have enough people working on copyright cleanup. But I do understand that it can seem overwhelming. If I have an opportunity tomorrow, I'll try to open a section on this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys, which will make organizing clean-up simpler, as the contribution surveyor program may help more easily identify problematic articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh heh, don't worry, I'm sure I'll find interesting ways to meddle about here and there; I just need a break from this particular tangle. I just realized I inserted a link to the Public Broadcasting System, instead of to Philip just now. Shows how tired I am! Thanks for your gracious response to my over-sensitivity ;)Bacrito (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi, could you take a look at this? I don't doubt he was given permission to upload the images, but is it fine without an explicit statement of being freely licensed (not just uploaded here) and without evidence of it? Thanks, --aktsu (t / c) 02:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, since I'm here, I was wondering how to deal with (over/mis)use of fair-use images. A section in the article on Fedor Emelianenko has four of them, none of which I think is necessary, and another user has uploaded a couple I disagree with elsewhere (like File:Shamrock UFC 8 title copy.jpg). Do I really have to FFD the lot? --aktsu (t / c) 05:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It depends, of course, on whether they're also being used elsewhere. ;) If they're also being used in this article, then I believe that FFD is the usual method for handling. When I've seen this done, it's usually been accompanied with an explanation of why these particular images are less necessary to the article than the ones that you haven't nominated. I've left a note about the first issue. You're quite right that we need verification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ram Narayan images

Hey MRG, just responding to your question about the Ram Narayan images. Hekerui had the right idea but their explanations were a bit off.

  1. File:Ram Narayan - Shiraz Arts Festival.ogg: Iran has not signed the URAA and so the video is not copyrighted in the U.S. and can be used because it's also public domain in Iran according to this guideline. Hekerui (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact, the URAA is a US law and not a treaty; however, the Wikipedia:Public domain policy linked above correctly explains that the US has no copyright relationship with Iran, which has not signed any major copyright treaty, and is not a WTO member, and hence the URAA does not apply to them (if and when they join, it would only apply from that date).
  1. File:Abdul Wahid Khan.jpg and File:Ram Narayan, young.jpg are in the public domain in the source country and I can't strictly verify for either that they are in the URAA date. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in April 2009 struck down the constitutionality of URAA in keeping content in copyright in such cases.[3][4][5] I found a Commons discussion on the case that advises tagging with a template, which I did. Is that enough? Hekerui (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
These two images, which Hekerui later removed, are strictly speaking not okay - the URAA is still observed on Commons, and deletions have occurred because of it, but the matter is controversial, and there is considerable debate over the applicability of the decision referred to above. Some users, like Carl Lindberg, argue that the URAA is still in force ("the court just said that the protection for people already using works which got restored ("reliance parties") should be better"), while others, like Yann, argue that it's not. There is frequent discussion about this on Commons:Commons talk:Licensing. The Not-PD-US-URAA template is a compromise - a way of tagging problematic images when consensus to delete them cannot be reached. I think they ought to document this nebulous state of affairs somewhere, and I'll follow up with them about that.

Hope this helps. :-) Dcoetzee 06:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it will. :) I'll pass this on. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info and the note. Hekerui (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation that wasn't mine - finally!

Hi Moonriddengirl, just noticed you removed some copyright material from Asia-Pacific Song Contest 2010. For once, I am proud to also notice it wasn't me that added the material in the first place (phew!). This link shows it was someone called Senseimatthew who did it back in April 2009. And by the looks of it, this editor inserted several pieces of copyrighted material into the article for months following. I'll take a look at what was removed, and re-work on it, if that's ok?! P.S. did you get chance to see that Lostock Hall one in the end? I think I'm starting to get the hang of this, and the article looks better than ever before lol. Anyways, take care, and I'll catch you around wiki-world soon. Pr3st0n (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I remove copyrighted material that wasn't added by you all the time. :D I did take a look at your reworked material, and it seems that you've rewritten it well. I appreciate that. I didn't get around to going through it until this morning, actually. Between my day job and a few pressing Wikipedia issues, I've been a bit swamped. I'm glad to hear that things are going well for you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Carrier pigeon

I came upon this edit to the subject article while watching recent changes. I Googled the text and got several hits. However, I don't know where the text originated and so am not sure if there exists a copyvio. I know it's a huge gray area and I'm not asking for miracles. I'm just hoping that your experienced eye will pick up something definitive that will tip the scales one way or the other. Apologies if I'm ringing the alarm bell over nothing. Thanks for your time. Tiderolls 05:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A related question; would it be bad form to revert such an edit on suspicion of a copyvio? A large block of misplaced text that appears verbatim several places on the net begs to be reverted, but is that reason enough? Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks Tiderolls 05:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me butting in here, but that addition seems to state a lot of what is contained in Pigeon post as most of it is about carrying messages. I would revert it after some more investigation. ww2censor (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Tide rolls. You are correct and definitely not "ringing the alarm bell for nothing." We really appreciate you noticing this kind of problem and raising the issue. The text you've pointed out is certainly a copyright violation - the verbatim text found here shows a 2007 copyright -- and it should be removed. When you suspect there is a possible copyright violation on an article, you can template the page and report the article for review per the instructions at WP:Copyright Problems. Thanks again for your help!. CactusWriter | needles 09:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh.. and Mrg, sorry for the kibitz. CactusWriter | needles 09:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The more the merrier. :) Thanks,Tiderolls, for noticing the problem and ww2censor and CactusWriter for responding. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's my official "oops" for missing the coyright. Now I'm edumacated and will endeavor to put the instruction to good use. Thanks to all for responding. Y'all have a good day Tiderolls 14:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
In regard to the above -- My understanding is that there is no need for a copyright notice to have been displayed, since copyright is automatic unless the author indicates otherwise, no? Just asking in case Tiderolls or others reading this might misinterpret. That is, the notice you spotted confirms Tiderolls' catch, but the material would still be a clear enough copyvio to have justified removal? (I don't mean just justified legally; I mean pragmatically in regard to how editors should respond to such suspicious text. I believe the copyvio policy states explicitly that copyright is assumed absent explicit indication otherwise? Bacrito (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I took CactusWriter's mentioning of using the tag to be for instances where an editor is not sure if there had been a copyvio or not. I believe the edit to Carrier pigeon to be a clear case of copyvio. I just missed the copyright. There may exist instances where copyright

may be asserted in error by the publisher, and that's concerning. The thought of that makes my head ache, though...I'll have enough challenges without seeing ghosts behind every door. Regards Tiderolls 15:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe me I can feel your pain; but since you seem to have a good nose for sniffing out those ghosts, you might take this as a silver lining: I've found that if you check a potentially contentious passage -- something that you might argue with in regard to style or pov or notability or whatever, and in which a revert battle might start -- for a copyvio (like illegit verbatim passages) you might save yourself even more headaches in the wrong run. That's my consolation for the grueling copyvio issues I've been trying to find the right way to respond to, anyway. (sorry to run on an on on your page like this, Moonriddengirl) cheers. Bacrito (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This conversation seems to have been thriving without me. :D No problems, Bacrito. I'm always happy to see that happen on my talk page. :) And, yes, copyright is assumed unless its absence is verifiable. Only very occasionally do I see situations, Tide, where the publisher falsely asserts copyvio, and it's understandable for you to be confused by it if it happens. I do enough with copyright work that I recognize most of our regular "wikimirrors", but if I see text duplicated on a page I'm not familiar with, will usually just check it at the wayback machine to see which came first. If they had it before us, it is almost certainly a copyright violation of someone, even if not of them. The exceptions, of course, are when material proves to be public domain by age or origin, such as with US federal government works. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

CC-By-SA 1.0

Can information released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license be used on Wikipedia (see Haga Haga)? If not, could we add that to the table in Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright? Theleftorium 15:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

...yes. You'll note that I don't say "Yes!" The problem here is that CC-By-SA explicitly accommodates upwards compatibility beginning with 2.0, while 1.0 evidently didn't foresee the possibility. So, strictly speaking, the answer may be no. But let's go with yes for now, and I'll check with our lawyer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I'll remove it from WP:SCV. Theleftorium 19:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I have written him, and I think it's a very good question. This one could have wide-ranging impact. He sometimes responds with lightning speed and sometimes, presumably, has real life going on. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Mike says we're okay with this, as the various numbers are a subset of the first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the history of Tina Knowles? I'm not sure if User:Brenntagee was the original creator of that text. Thanks, Theleftorium 22:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not his. Restored the history. We may need a new template for this soon, but for now I've made a form letter. Please let me know if you see any problems with it. :) User:Moonriddengirl/form_letters#Restoring_PROD_without_attribution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
That looks great. Thanks! Theleftorium 10:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I have another request (I hope you don't mind!). Could you delete the Jacobs photos article? It's a copy of the The Jacobs Creature article (now a redirect) and the subject had an article before, Jacobs Creature, that was redirected after an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobs Creature. Theleftorium 11:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Done and recreated as redirect. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
I give you the Special Barnstar for being extremely helpful and kind to other edtiors, and for your work with copyright violations. It's very appreciated! :) Theleftorium 13:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you. :D I'm happy to help, particularly since I really appreciate that you're pitching in on this important work. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you

I hope you are doing well. Thanks so much for the note about the email, I did not know that. I wanted to point out that I think you forgot to actually physically delete it, because it is still there. So I wanted to let you know, so that you could delete it yourself, so that the edit history would sort of make sense. Good luck and bless you for all the hard work you do to keep Wikipedia free from copyvio. As you know, I still am very grateful indeed that you and your team enabled us to keep those 1,000 gastropod articles this spring instead of having to delete them. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and that was very much a mutually successful experience. I mentioned you and your project not too long ago in discussing how a project might handle a copyvio. :D As for deletion, I didn't see the need to delete it in the sense that admins use the deletion tool. I really think just removing it is sufficient unless there is a request. (And that request can come from you. If you'd like me to delete it, let me know!) Cheers. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Thanks MRG! Best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

May I point you to this?

User talk:IWazEre1 creating self promotion articles. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Let me go take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted it and given him a friendly little block warning. I've watchlisted the space in case he continues. If you happen to notice him doing it in another space, please feel free to give me a heads up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool beans maybe we can redirect the zeal to GA creation. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Got another one.... Switchflicker Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Darryl Read page deletion

CatWizard777 (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Dear Moonriddengirl Donators I know are trying to put up a page on me, I should like to ask your help in this matter, as you have deleted my biographical information without (in my opinion) checking all original sources. We should like to work on this page under your guidelines, and get a hold on thsi page until such time as this is laid out in a satisfactory manner that suits you. Please advise

The donators are: atomaticshoes & Julie Rex

Sincerely Darryl Read

Actually, another administrator deleted the page. Unfortunately, no usable permission seems to have come through that would allow us to retain the text previously published at other sites. I am not permitted to provide you with a copy of this deleted article because it was deleted for copyright concerns. But I'll take a look and see if I can construct something brief and usable, as I believe that you do meet the notability guidelines. The users you mention are welcome to expand such an article (or even create it, if they get there before I do), but they must not use previously published text unless they first verify permission. This, I'm afraid, is a policy on Wikipedia that does not bend. The full details can be read at Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Non-free content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


sorry that i wrongly thought you were in conflict with the blocked user, thought user was disrupted you. apologies. entry since corrected. Ecoman24 (talk page) 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This may be of interest

I thought you may want to see this, OTRS ticket # 2009082510043322. It relates to that case that you ended up reviewing and closing out yourself. I believe it simply re-iterates the necessity of either using our provided copyright request forms, or clearly explaining the ramifications of free licensing, coupled with the necessity to have the copyright owner choose a license themselves, and fill out the consent form themselves. Not sure if there is anything that can/should be done here, but wanted to bring it to your attention. Thanks. -Andrew c [talk] 14:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. It certainly does. :/ It seems to me that the thing we most need to do is communicate amongst ourselves. We do seem to have some diversity in how permissions are handled that can lead to problems. I know not all of us are on the e-mail list. I doubt we all read the communication forum at the OTRS wiki. I wonder how this is done? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

S, T, U & V

Hi there MRG, feels like were nearly at the summit of the alphabet mountain! I have done re-editied versions of the blanked St. Paul's Church, Bedford, St. Peter's Church, Bedford and Stamford American International School articles. I have also re-worded the wobbly content in Society of Headmasters & Headmistresses of Independent Schools and Sudbury (HM Prison), and was wondering if the close paraphrasing tags on these 2 articles could now be removed? I have also added reworded versions of the paragraphs you removed in the Standford Hill (HM Prison) and Times & Citizen articles. As were nearly at the end please tell me if im getting the hang of this? :-) Bleaney (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You are top on my list today, after the plumber. (Due any minute. Eep! Breakfast dishes!) :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It is helpful. You are right in that its the short sentences and facts that I have struggled with. And also not wanting to misrepresent what the original source is saying. Hopefully though my re-edits have improved in quality... :-) Bleaney (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. I have reworked Talk:St. Peter's Church, Bedford/Temp, taking your suggestions. I have also reworked Talk:St. Paul's Church, Bedford/Temp(again)! You are right - inevitably if its from 1 source, you have to slash the detail, and i'm learning that now (hopefully). I always had a feeling that these 2 church articles would be the most tricky, as they are possibly the most historically important pieces i've done on Wikipedia. Bleaney (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
All right; I'll come review soon, though it'll probably be tomorrow. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. Just finished another version of Talk:St. Paul's Church, Bedford/Temp. The first paragraph is tricky in that I really don't want to trim out any more of the facts there, but hopefully it makes the grade now. As for the other paragraph, I took your suggestion (almost... to say "through 1982" is frightfully!). Thanks again for all your help :-) Bleaney (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Treaty with Algeria (1795)

I did wonder whether this would be PD because of it's source but thought that I didn't know the ins and outs of the copyright of US government sources well enough to decide either way. If it wasn't PD for that reason I did wonder whether it would be PD because of age, but again I wasn't sure as US sources of that age seem to be in a weird situation, and that's why I mentioned it's age on the copyright page. Dpmuk (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Checking into it is the right idea. :) I appreciate your diligence! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Article lock instead of vandal block

Just so you know, the article you locked was constantly vandalized by user User:LAz17. He claims to have consensus - more specific explanation of this "consensus" was given by him in the talk page "We by 80% overwhelmingly reject the gay parades, and along with that we reject this in the wikipedia article. Simple analogy, no?" That is not a valid way to create the consensus, in a case you don't know you can't make an analogy between personal rejection of gay parade and article on Wikipedia. The information that was removed was 100% unrelated to gay parades, it was about Vladimir Putin endorsement. While I tried to achieve compromise by arguments he kept on posting conspiracy theories - how this information was put into this article with intention to alter election results (?!). He also claimed that the content is irrelevant trying to make it look like a content dispute but another user posted several independent sources that covered the issue and I had intention to expand that to include the background and aftermath of that letter which caused stir in the political scene of Serbia. Finally he posted in Serbian "Samo da znas, dok srbi dobijaju otkaze, tadic daje stotine hiljade dinara pederima - sto to nestavis u clanak?" which translates as "Just so you know, while serbs are getting fired, tadic is giving hundreds of thousands of dinars to fags - why don't you put that into the article?" and though he claimed he used the word homosexual not fag it's not true. This kind of writing is not only irrelevant and made up it is also libelous to Tadic and insulting to homosexuals. Finally in the last ANI against this user admins said that if he continues his irrational behavior there will be a reaction however your reaction was to lock the article instead of blocking him for good (he has a history of of template warnings on his talk page, ANIs on him and even a temporary block for his behavior). Now I don't know if this is the way we want Wikipedia to go, that anyone can abuse it and to slander left and right and make us all look like idiots for giving him the right to vandalize the article while claiming that his consensus is actually the consensus against homosexuals and that his reasons are basically conspiracy theories?! One more thing - this is an ongoing issue with a user that has a history of such behavior so please don't try to downplay it and direct me to talk with him as we've been through all that, meaning all red lines, all fine attempts to solve issues with him by other users have failed, there is no more time for that, that has all been tried and didn't work.--Avala (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. He may have a POV issue (and attitudes about homosexuals that I find abhorrent, even if he is correct in his disputing your translation of his words), but this does not seem like clear vandalism to me. Leaving aside his views, several other contributors have also expressed concern with the way the material has been handled: User:Bwilkins and User:No such user. This suggests it is not a simple matter of vandalism or pushing a fringe POV, but a legitimate content dispute that needs to be resolved through the consensus process. Have you requested feedback from further neutral contributors? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No, after a glance through your contribution history, I can see that you have not. I have courtesy listed the matter again, this time at the WP:NPOVN, which may draw more participants. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have had a lengthy discussion about this on ANI. This is just dragging the issue, asking for further input is not helpful as one user who had supported the inclusion of this into the article was accused of "lying on purpose" by Laz17, he is no longer involved in that talk page. So whom should I call? Nobody was interested to respond previously to the content dispute, and why would they? Who wants to deal with user who acts like that? When they see the article talk page where one user begs for discussion to reach consensus (me) and the other user that victoriously keeps proclaiming consensus while it's obvious that there are arguments for and against which means that there is no consensus as consensus is made of arguments not votes. Like I said, his "arguments" are not arguments but something that warrants the admin reaction especially considering his history. I wanted to work with other users like No such user, who didn't have a clear position - while he said he felt this shouldn't be in the article he did subsequently provide a handful of references proving that this is relevant and that it was followed by media and that it did cause a political stir by prompting reaction from all of the political leaders in Serbia. I wanted to work with him on expanding the content in the article to give readers full insight on the issue, to avoid synthesis or whatever could be the issue with the current short sentence but he left the talk page and I was there alone again with Laz17 and his slander and conspiracy theories. You can sum up his willingness to talk in his latest post directed to me in bold letters "Your opinion no longer matters." --Avala (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was part of that lengthy discussion. I was the admin who was advising you to seek dispute resolution. This is the only way to reach compromise. Is there some reason you do not want to invite neutral participants to help settle the matter once and for all? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whom to call and judging by other three editors who tried but ran away from personal attacks and diversion of discussion to gay parades I doubt I will be able to convince anyone to take part. Not to mention that no one would respond to request to discuss conspiracy theories and other things that LAz17 insists on in every discussion. - sorry for this mistake, it will be added below.--Avala (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Laz17 did not attack No Such User or Bwilkins, and his diversion to gay parades took place yesterday, nearly two weeks after the last note by one of those contributors. I don't believe that you can directly connect their departure to either. I attempted to invite neutral participants at the NPOVN, but I am concerned that your note there may discourage participation. Notes are meant to be brief, and (per WP:CANVASS) neutral. It's best to focus on the issue, and let other contributors draw their own conclusions by reading over the page and judging the arguments and behavior of the participants for themselves. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As you can see ever since the beginning the discussion was being diverted either to attacks or conspiracy theories or to some empty space of "we have the consensus, I'll make an edit" while I kept asking for discussion on compromise. Gay thing just came as the top of the cake, and I am trying to prove here the irrational tone the other user inserted to this discussion. As for the other part, it is kind of necessary to point out to users that all these "consensus" that were mentioned are actually not consensus but things like 80% of people statement. From my long experience on Wikipedia, users tend to be superficial even if they have the best of intentions.--Avala (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It isn't encouraged to edit your earlier comments once they've been responded to in any substantial way. Unfortunately, edits like this may give readers the impression that I am responding to sentiments that were not expressed at the time I wrote my reply. Please see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments. The consensus process requires that you trust your fellow Wikipedians to read through the conversation and come to the proper conclusion. You certainly can point out to them errors in logic, but the place to do so would be at the article's talk page, not at the noticeboard requesting additional feedback there. At the noticeboard, I'm afraid it may simply become a distraction, particularly when the original request was placed by a neutral party. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I added it there as it was integral part of that comment not the subsequent one. And as for the other part, it seems that I am somehow failing to explain that suggestion "You certainly can point out to them errors in logic" with this user is almost humorous as you yourself have seen his behavior and his willingness to discuss and work with other editors. Playing neutrally to the point of complete inactivity isn't really beneficial for Wikipedia as it can cause a standstill and repetition of the dispute. Btw as it seems that requests due to fat amount of discussion and irrational discussion seem to fail so I tried to take things from the standstill, I made my proposal for a compromise solution on the NPOVN, LAz17 should make his proposal and prove that he wants to discuss, and even if he doesn't at least uninvolved editors that should try to help will now know what is my position. I invited everyone to work on my proposal, it's just the first proposal and we should work from there and if you want, you can encourage it or alternatively you can post there that I should take that to the dead article talk page as the NPOVN isn't 100% fit for such initiatives and cause further standstill.--Avala (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if its integral; it wasn't part of the comment when you made it. Placing it there later is misleading. Doing so is against guideline.
We do seem to have some difficulty communicating. As I told you at ANI, it is not him you are trying to convince; it is them--the neutral persons you invite to view the article. You should have made your proposal for compromise at the article's talk page, which I had already requested contributors from NPOVN to read. Contributors are capable of following the link to that talk page. It happens all the time. The noticeboard header is pretty clear that material there should be concise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I said that I was sorry, what else do you want me to do? They will not read only my latest comment, they will read edit summaries where he keeps on talking about consensus and it is my job to warn them that the "consensus" is based on his analogy of 80% on gay parade and this article.--Avala (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that no one would respond to request to discuss conspiracy theories and other things that LAz17 insists on in every discussion.--Avala (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What else I wanted you to do was this. Thanks. Again, consensus requires trusting the community to read and judge arguments. Aside from the Serbian text, they are as capable of reading his words and judging them as you are. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
And as I said before, five years of experience have thought me that even the users with best intentions tend to be superficial when asked to read through the block of text on the talk page and make a decision. Pretending that it is not this way will not make it go away, and that is why the discussion must be kept active at all times.--Avala (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

←There is an "initialism" in English: TLDR. It seems to me to be a real concern. Some Wikipedians seem to agree. A 716-word note may not be your best bet at keeping the discussion active. Cutting to the core is likely to get you more responses. Contributors encountering a long chunk of text may well choose to move on to something less time consuming. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons why the page instructions call for us to be concise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Those who are driven by the TLDR shouldn't get involved but they often do. If the issue was simple and short I would write a simple and short note but it is not. Anyway I did take a step forward to cut the endless discussion as you may have noticed - I made a proposal to work on and I would just like to now get some responses, some discussion etc. and finally no nonsense.--Avala (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest quotes from LAz17 directed at me [6], "you are full of POV stuff.", "What the hell are you smoking? Get off of your cocain or whatever you are on.", "Your last sentence there is really appalling, reaking with extreme POV.", "Truely disgusting, what you are trying to do here.", "Look, we know you are a Tadic supporter. At least take your sick POV out.". Now even No such user is talking about blocking LAz17. Which editor will join from the NPOVN now? Tell me which one? Who wants to get involved only to be insulted left and right by some LAz17? I don't think that anyone will. Btw maybe you didn't read what I wrote before but LAz17 has a history of many warnings, many ANIs and even a temporary block, and your optimistic approach that we are all capable to sit down and talk has only brought that he is testing boundaries further and further. As an admin you now have to step in and protect me from such grave personal insults and respond for that if not for his previous writings.--Avala (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to the lack of response to the above plea he continued with his rant.--Avala (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As my user page indicates, "I am frequently available and willing to help, in Coordinated Universal Time, between the hours of 12:00 and 20:00." As it happens, I am often here earlier, but you did not receive a response to the above plea because you left it on my userpage at 5:30 in the morning in my time of the world. I am not the only admin on Wikipedia. If you feel the need for immediate intervention, there are some who are active at 9:30 Coordinated Universal Time. In any event, I will come and take a look after I am properly awake. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Now that I'm properly awake, I can see that I misread your time stamp. Sorry; I missed your notice yesterday afternoon. As I noted to another person on my talk page, I am having computer problems. That said, I am still not the only admin on Wikipedia, and the proper way for dealing with personal attacks is set out at Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I think there are probably plenty of editors at NPOVN and other fora who are able to face that kind of language, even if it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I doubt that it has killed any hope of consensus. I will repeat again that you are not attempting to persuade him, but others. They are the ones who will help form consensus for the material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not talking about the article or NPOVN or consensus anymore. I am talking about loads of personal insults (their location is now irrelevant, it could have been anywhere on Wikipedia it's the same) that require your strong reaction.--Avala (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I've cautioned him, and that's the extent of what I plan to do at this point. If I see that he has persisted, I will block him for incivility. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi Moonriddengirl! :) Could you take a look at the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya article (and the recently created Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Churu article)? They appear to be copyvios of this source, but I don't know how to find out if the Wikipedia version was published first. Theleftorium 18:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm on it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
All right. First thing to do is check wayback. Wayback is not helpful here, I'm afraid, as it's not giving me anything. That doesn't mean it didn't exist previously, so we can't draw conclusions from that. Next thing I'll do is a "history search" for an idiosyncratic term in the older article, looking to see when it entered. I chose "socio-economic". It came in here. At first glance, this is promising for a Wikipedia origin of the text, because I see that some material from that external source was already in place. If a different editor introduced the word "brain child", that's going to look even better for us. Let's see. Oh, it was there at inception: [7]. And material was different enough then that there's no doubt that the source copied us. But to make matters yet more complex, it didn't originate there! It originated at Navodaya Vidyalaya! LOL! Off to look further. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that article had been PRODded. I restored it for attribution. This is the true origin of that text. I think I'll go do a history merge before I forget. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
All right. That's taken care of. I'll leave it to you to take care of attribution at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Churu and to notify the contributor, if you don't mind. I'm trying to catch up on another task. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this copyright stuff sure is confusing. :) I'll do that now. Theleftorium 18:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS request

Hi, Mrg. At User talk:Globe.explorer and Talk:Franca Batich, the editor says that they have sent two e-mails to Wikimedia. Could you check the OTRS office please? In the meantime, I've replaced the article with a stubbed version from the temp page and dropped the editor a note. Thanks :) CactusWriter | needles 09:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I will as soon as I can access it. My primary computer is at the moment a brick, as it is at war with a computer virus (lovely!), and I'm on my laptop. I hope (believe me) to be able to get back on soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I hate it when that happens. Good luck! CactusWriter | needles 15:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste copies of sections

Hi, just want to check I'm not being stupid. My understanding is that copying an entire section, such as the lead, from one article into another, such they both have the text but only one the history, is against the (GFDL?) licence. Is that correct? Can anything be done to allow this, such as an edit summary that contains a link to the revision of the article being copied? I've found this happening at a lot of articles. Cheers, Verbal chat 10:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption is correct, copying within Wikipedia must maintain attribution for both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA. This can be done by mentioning the source in the edit summary of the target, mentioning the target in the edit summary of the source, and placing the {{copied}} template on both article's talk page. Best, MLauba (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yup. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, but P.S., that mention should be a link. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Coin945

Hi Moonriddengirl - A quick question about the above: I've started working through the list and come across Carmencita (film). It looks from that page's history like you have already dealt with the copyright issue; is it safe to remove it from the list, or are there other steps to take? (Apologies if this is in the how-to!) --Kateshortforbob talk 14:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for finding this situation and persisting with it. I am sorry I didn't notice it at WT:CP. :/ Yes, you can remove it. The reason it's still listed is because I was working from his contribution list before I ran the contribution surveyor program, and so the ones that I had addressed previously are still included. And sorry for the long delay in response! This has so not been my week. :/ My computer is locked down with a virus, and my laptop lost connection for several hours. Beautiful! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about WT:CP! It's impossible to keep track of everything all the time on WP, and real-life concerns sometimes take precedence over editing (only sometimes!) :) I'll keep plugging away at WP:COPYCLEAN over the next couple of days; the contribution surveyor is a really useful tool. I hope you get at least one of your computers into stable working order - I know it's a real pain when they won't do what you tell them. --Kateshortforbob talk 20:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Image question

Can you take a peek at this picture and either comment or forward the request accordingly? Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  14:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The first three black-and-white photos at Lostock Hall might have problems. This one indicates it's copyrighted by the Lancashire County Council. These two (which includes the one you've pointed out) also appear copyrighted. I realize from previous talk page discussions that the editor has a personal involvement with the property, so I'll ask for a response from him about their provenance before tagging them for deletion. CactusWriter | needles 15:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks much for handling this, CactusWriter |. Hopefully Gareth will be in position to verify permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Several interrelated articles

Tom McGehee is a new article at User:Mgreason/Sandbox. Mgreason (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Dreams Come True is a new article at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 3. Mgreason (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Hope you're doing well. I will do my best to come and review these in the next day or two, but I am both swamped at the moment and struggling with computer issues! Hope things are going more smoothly in your world. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, MRG. It's been a while. I can appreciate computer problems; on Oct. 1st, mine refused to boot up, and after trying to repair/reload/etc., my only recourse was to reformat my hard drive and reload the operating system, wiping out all my user files. I had done a backup of personal files in mid-September, so it wasn't a total loss.
Honest Services Fraud is a new article at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 7. Mgreason (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mac Papers is a new article at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 5. Mgreason (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

eep. I've been on Wikipedia for five hours and only done the first thing on my to-do list! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Problematic user

Hi, I saw your notice on LAz17 page. Please see this. He call me a "vandalizer" on article that i created, and also he accused me for a sockpuppetry, beacuse he disagree with argument given on Template talk:Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia. Can you please tell this guy to talk with me with normal. I'm not the vandalizer neither sockpuppet (i can prove with CU if neccesery). I just want to work on articles that interest me, without any accusations. Thnx in advance--Ex13 (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Goodness. You guys have a long history! I'm afraid I can't tell from looking at that article's history precisely where the problem started, but it seems that some incivility may be mutual there. You seem to have referred to his edits as vandalism, too--even before he did yours. Now, it's possible that there was incivility prior to that. I cannot read all of the edit summaries, since they are not all in English. Given that incivility there seems mutual, I'm afraid that I'm not really in position to caution him alone. Perhaps you should consider the suggestions at civility and try to come to terms with him. If you can't, a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts may be appropriate, but I would suggest first a strong good faith effort on your part to come to terms first, particularly given that edit summary from you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Restoring page "Arthur R. Collins"

Hello. I have reponded to your message at Talk: Artinc. Thank You. Artinc (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

URAA policy

Hey, just letting you know I've added some text to the Commons licensing policy describing the current nebulous situation with the URAA, so you'll have something to link to in the future. See Commons:Licensing#Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act. It hasn't yet been reviewed by others but I think it's about right. Dcoetzee 22:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi Moonriddengirl- no problems and thanks for letting me know. I do share your concerns and am probably "luke warm" to the unblock now per your arguments. Shame, but as I just said at ANI if the effort / reward balance is to low then that's the way it is :(. As an aside my sincerte thanks for your hard work on this and all the effort on the copyvios - I admire your patience and tenacity!! Pedro :  Chat  13:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, Pedro. :) All props to you! I wish that he had come clean from the start, so all of this could have been avoided. It would have been much easier to assume he could be trusted had he done so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
For outstanding diligence and fairness in addressing copyright violations. Durova326 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you very much. :) I try. I really, really try. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-Igniting the SCV / CP consolidation


I think this whole thing has slipped quite a lot, more so since Coren is pretty much hopelessly busy these days. I think that we need nonetheless need to re-launch this, in particular if / when CSB starts checking reviewed pages with the WP:FPPR trial. In order to save Coren the dev work, do you think we should take our "shopping list" and post them to WP:botreq? Also, in an ideal world, I'd separate the CSB reports from new articles and those from patrolled revisions into two subsections (considering suggesting Coren to run a separate instance for the second task). What do you think? MLauba (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, times have been crazy and that one did fall out of the priority list. I don't know if it would offend Coren if we took it to botreq. I'd probably ask him, acknowledging his heavy workload. I agree that subsections would be good, and I still think it's a great idea to reduce redundancy. One thing I don't remember if we addressed: I think we need to absolutely end the practice of removing SCV listings when the two are combined. I am currently involved in a multiple-article cleanup effort with a good faith contributors whose problems I discovered only because I noticed him removing the listing at SCV. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was why you invented {{SCV}} in the first place, to check off instead of removing? :) I'll take our wishlist back to Coren and check with him what is feasible and what we should push to botreq. MLauba (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Duh. Yes, of course. Ignore me. :) I have been frantically busy lately and am dropping bits of memory all over the place. (I cut down my Wikipedia contributions yesterday; I was very proud. I limited myself to only 10 hours.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Green tickY I sent Coren a mail instead of continuing the graffity on his talk page. 10 hours? Good grief. Careful about not burning out yourself, Ma'am. MLauba (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
A valid concern. :) Fear of that is one of the main reasons for my current interest in getting more involvement in multiple article infringers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


Hey there MRG. So it looks like we really are at the final curtain now, only 5 articles (all beginning with 'W') left in my list to be checked. I have done some recent work to all of them in the hope they will be passed first time. But as you can understand, I am keen to put this whole episode behind me now. and move on. I was just wondering if there was any chance of you checking the few remaining articles? :-) Bleaney (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sure. You are next on my list. :) (I haven't checked off WP:CP yet, but I finished it just before grabbing lunch. It's that time in my part of the world.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hooray! The list is finished! Again, I want to seriously thank you in all your coaching efforts with me and your tireless patience over the past few weeks. I hope its made me a better editor, and infact it all feels like a bit of a cleansing process!! So can I get rid of the list now? Is my review period over? :-) Bleaney (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, your review period is over. :) But please feel free to come by if you are ever in doubt about a copyright situation, including how to paraphrase something. I'm always happy to help. I will almost certainly look back in on you once or twice until I'm quite sure that you're comfortable with paraphrasing, but odds are you won't even notice me. :D Thank you for your cooperation, and particularly for proactively attending to the Ws, which gave me a chance to see your handling material yourself. You are welcome to remove the list and anything else connected. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
One more question MRG, I would love to know which of the articles I have created has been viewed the most times. I think I saw this on your user page, or maybe someone else's? Is there any way of me finding out? Bleaney (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely, though it's a little tedious. (Not as much as it used to be!) Under the article's history, there is a "page view statistic link". A look at [8] tells me that it was viewed 436 times in September. It's tedious because you have to check each, but once in a while I enjoy updating mine. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes... very tedious! lol, thanks anyway, and take care. Bleaney (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Another question about US gov images

Hello Moonriddengirl,

I'm sorry to bother you again, but I have another question about the use of US government images. In this case, illustrations from the US Navy's flight manual, located here. I have a hard time following the legal "mumbo-jumbo" involved with copyright, so I wanted to double check with you to see if such an image qualifies as public domain. I think a few images from there would be a real help to the air combat maneuvering and basic fighter maneuvers articles, but not sure the proper way to upload them, or even if I can. Zaereth (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

US Navy = Federal = No copyright, so no problems there. As to how to upload, you're probably as well taking a screen-grab, cropping the image you get from the grab, and uploading that, citing the manual from which it was taken. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Good morning. :) Thanks for taking care of this one, Tagishsimon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Good morning to you, MRG. So, do we add CC-By-SA 1.0 to the two tables of allowable CC licences? Not sure if I entirely managed to understand your "as the various numbers are a subset of the first" comment in User talk:Moonriddengirl#CC-By-SA 1.0. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that was a pretty close paraphrase of Mike's decision. :) If I am understanding him correctly, he is suggesting that 2.0, 3.0 etc. are essentially the same license as 1.0 and, in spite of the lack of specific mention of updates within 1,0, it can still be updated. The really pivotal point of his e-mail, though, was the part where he said we could use it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Just verifying that I did update the FAQ but evidently not my own userpage! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the same holds for CC-By 1.0, by the same logic? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there'd be any problem. The compatibility chart on which I based the first table didn't break it down, but they indicate that CC-By is compatible with CC-By-SA. Wikipedia's contributors should be safe from infringement issues when they can point to a document from the license creator to indicate they had good faith reason to believe the relicensing was allowed. (The only wrinkle there is that theoretically what's permitted is derivative works--straightforward reproduction is not derivative work, and it should remain available under CC-By. But I really don't know if I want to split those hairs. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

transwiki to Wikinews

Hi, I was just wondering if this is now possible? It says here Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sister_projects#Wikinews that "Moving pages to Wikinews is not possible, for legal reasons. Copying material to Wikinews would put it under the CC-BY license, which violates the GFDL. However Wikinews articles can be moved to Wikipedia." And I recall it was said that the licence change would make this possible. Is that right? Are there any instructions? PS I'm creating Wikipedia:Wikinews as a page to collect Wikinews-related info. Rd232 talk 11:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid according to Creative Commons this is probably still not possible. :/ Indicates that derivatives of CC-By material can be used under CC-By-SA, but the reverse is not true. Copyleft licenses were new to me when I came to Wikipedia, but as I understand it the reason is that CC-By is a more liberal license. You can mingle your own creative content with it and retain copyright control over your creative part, so long as the original remains free. CC-By-SA requires that derivatives remain free. Anyway, I'll go look at the terms on Wikinews just to be sure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow! What a totally different environment! No, I'm afraid that they are still incompatible (I agree with their policy at Wikinews:Wikinews:Copyright), but I'm really astonished by the attribution requirements there: "Your work will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License and will be attributed to "Wikinews"." :O --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Do you think you could update Wikipedia:Wikinews to explain? Thanks. Rd232 talk 12:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Watch your tongue

Laptop thingy? Not a real computer? My laptop -- the only computer I've got -- has just thrown a fit. It's threatening suicide. I'm trying to coax it out from under my desk with promises of a new power pack. Thanks a lot, Troublemaker! CactusWriter | needles 12:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, if our two resident CP experts are having computer issues, this isn't looking good... commiseration to both and best hopes for a speedy computing recovery :D MLauba (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm so sorry if I irritated your laptop. :O I hope that it feels better soon. Please explain to it that I mean no harm, but fear new technology. Laptops are, to me, new technology. :) My computer had a weird collection of evidently unconnected issues. I got a pretty pesky virus. After a system restore, the whole thing went kablam, but it seems it may have been a power issue. Or motherboard death. I'm rooting for the power issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. I know those virus issues -- it's a rotten deal -- especially if it means losing a lot of data. They blew out out my son's desktop computer last Spring. It's the reason I keep my own laptop permanently wrapped in a large condom. Although it does cut down on the sensitivity of my keyboard. Um... this line of thought is quickly degenerating. Good luck with a fix. CactusWriter | needles 13:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, your virus problem got me to thinking about something. When you are working on OTRS, you obviously have to open a lot of outside e-mail and files. How do you defend yourself against virus and worms and such over there? Does OTRS have it's own scanner or is it left up to you? CactusWriter | needles 13:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
My desktop is somewhat careful about its partners, but I guess if you think of OTRS as a dating service, it has trusted that there's good vetting. I don't know if they actually check those things or not. I'm not sure where this virus came from--I've got a firewall and a virus program, and I generally do not execute executable files or open attachments that come in e-mail to me. I'm told it's a very old one: the Nutcracker Family. Old or not, it kicked the living daylights out of Webroot Spysweeper. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice with a delicate situation

I believe I have uncovered a small nest of single purpose copyright-violating sockpuppets relating to a film distribution company. My suspicion is that this is paid editing, but I have not tried to verify that suspicion. I've listed the main article and an article about one of the films at the copyright noticeboard, and I'm looking for further connections (and unfortunately finding a bunch of unrelated copyvios in the process).

Here's the delicate part: after I tagged a section of Wonderful World (film) as copyvio of the distributor's site, User:David Shankbone removed the template with the edit summary "revert - The text isn't on any official site, just blogs, so no evidence of copyvio - possible the blogs copied from Wikipedia". He then reworded the copyvio:[9][10] [11] [12]. Note that this is an unreleased film, so it unlikely that he has seen it. I'm not sure what to do in this situation. And, since he believes that I am already harassing him, I probably should stay away from this one.

Is rewording copyvio in this manner ever ok? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not talking about the rest of the story (I'll let Moonriddengirl deal with that), but if the diffs you showed is the text in violation, what he created is an unauthorized derivative work (under the assumption that the initial text is indeed a vio), and it remains a close paraphrase of the original.
Regarding the procedure, as long as the entry remains listed at WP:CP, we'll deal with it and any other that might come up, on the 23rd at the latest. MLauba (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You can also try to get this under WP:COI and even WP:RS, if your suspicions are correct. Physchim62 (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm on for a very limited time right now, but I'm trying to find a definitive answer as to the dating of an external source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I can help. The synopsis text as created by the original uploader in July 2008 was a copyvio from the official movie site. The movie site existed before the Wikipedia article -- indicated by the wayback archive from June 2008. It is permitted to revise copyvio text into an original form, so long as it's different enough as not to constitute close paraphrasing (plagiarism). However, a plot synopsis of a unreleased film is a bit different. This is because it relies on the film as a primary source (per our guidelines at WP:FILM). In other words, if one can't see the film, it is impossible to write an original plot synopsis. The best that can be said is one or two sentences written like: According to the production company, the story is about blah blah blah... and than a citation. Hope that clarifies the CV text issue at least. CactusWriter | needles 19:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Indeed you can help! :D And I'm off and running. Sigh. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I'll document what I can of the putative sockpuppetry on the main article's talk page, and leave the other issue alone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Peak Wilderness sanctuary

Hi again Moonriddengirl, I have a bad feeling about Peak Wilderness sanctuary. It exhibits the basic symptoms of a copy/paste. It was created big chunk of text without a single wikilink. Furthermore it was created by an IP not in Sri Lanka. However I search for original source but couldn't find. Towards end of the article it mentions about the trekking it might have copied from a commercial trekking web. There is a fair degree of chance that my doubts are to be wrong and I'm fully aware of it. I am willing to assume good faith. Could you please investigate the matter. Regards!--Chanaka L (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to take a look. I'll go see what I can find. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can't find anything, but I agree with you. This has all the markers of a copyright violation. I've made a note accordingly at the article's talk (and also neutralized some of the language). Hopefully, somebody will find a source. Lacking that, there's nothing really we can do without some other evidence. If the article had been created by a known copyright violator, for instance, we would presume. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for effort. I understand that we can't proceed without a source. So I'll be watching it. Let's see. Until then, so long!--Chanaka L (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Colony (TV series)

I noticed your recent removal of copyvio content on the page The Colony (TV series, as this edit also removed a lot of the summary information, as well as other, I was wondering if you could help me, or at least give me a clear idea of how to rewrite the material without it being copyvio, and if there are any specific points I should avoid. (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to login, above message left by me Blacksmith (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The problem with both the summaries and the participant descriptions is that they were copied from other websites. The easiest way to rewrite the episode summaries, if you have seen the episodes, is to briefly describe what happened in original words. While WP:OR usually forbids us to describe what we've seen, plot summaries (fiction or non-fiction) are a somewhat different matter, since the film or t.v. episode is itself the source. As long as you don't draw conclusions from what you've seen, then there's no "original research" problems. :) It's far better to write these without reviewing the official episode summaries, since you may be unconsciously influenced to duplicate their language or structure.
As far as the participant descriptions, you obviously do need to review (and cite) a source, and there's nothing wrong with viewing the one that was infringed. Just remember that while the facts are not copyrighted, the language is, and that copyright also covers creative presentation of those facts. That means you can't do a simple "word substitution", but must rewrite it completely. US courts have found copyright infringement even where none of the language of an original source was reproduced when other elements remained. What I would do is read the original and make a list of important facts. (Some detail is almost inevitably going to be lost when you have only one source.) Then I would look at those facts and build them into a paragraph. After that, I'd compare it to the original source and ask myself if somebody looking at both might think I had copied. If the answer is yes, I would change my paragraph. Obviously, we're not trying to hide the fact that we read the source; we'll even cite it. :) But the "total concept and feel" test—where a reader compares to see if they have a sense of copying—is one of the tests utilized by US courts, where an ordinary person answers exactly that question.
Remember that you can incorporate brief quotation marks in accordance with WP:NFC. These can't be extensive, and there should be a defensible reason to use them. I myself have stared more than once at a well-written piece of text and wished I could just use it because I like the way they said it, but, alas, that's not a defensible reason. :) NFC covers a few good reasons to use quotes.
Also remember that some things are not creative enough to be copyrighted. You can say, "John Smith was born in Omaha." But be careful relying on this, because it doesn't take much creativity to rise to a level of protected expression, and even a string of otherwise uncreative facts can become protected expression since structure and choice of facts is also creative. The facts are not protected, but their presentation (which may include creative organization as well as language) are.
Please let me know if you have any questions about any of this, and if you want feedback during your rewriting, you are welcome to come by. I am having some profound computer problems that are limiting my time online at the moment, and I've got a heavy workload (the one that I get paid for :D) for next week, but I always manage to find time to get online, and I prioritize situations like this. I appreciate your interest in dealing with this copyright problem, and I want to do what I can to support you in it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves

Hey Moonriddengirl. Do you know if there is a template that can be used to notify users who have moved pages incorrectly? Theleftorium 12:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! :) Yes, there is. It's at {{Uw-c&pmove}}. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I don't know if you're familiar with it, but I find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace very handy even now. It's huge, but I just do a text search on the page to find the one I need. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Gracias! :) Theleftorium 12:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket from ml wiki

Hi!, I am a sysop from ml wiki, who recently joined OTRS. I learn that you are having trouble with a ticket from ml wiki. Would you want me to take over that and deal with it? Please let me know. Thanks, --Jyothis (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I would love for you to do so! It's at Ticket:2009083010026091. I'm currently unable to access OTRS, because my computer is out for repairs and I'm not entirely convinced that this laptop is secure enough, so i do not know if there's been any communication within the last few days. Seems doubtful. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there is not. yours is the last email I see in the chain. I would like to get that ticket moved to permissions-ml queue, but I dont see that on the drop down. If you dont mind, I will take it over and go thru the verification. Unless the author email (since he is net aware and active) from his official Id linked to the orginal source, we will not be able to approve it. I believe that we had communicated that before itself, as you did in the mail. Lets see.--Jyothis (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind whatsoever. I'd appreciate it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Okies, then. I have taken over the ticket. --Jyothis (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


Would you please remind me how to attribute contributions that are split from one article to another? See Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station (newly created from Pittsburgh International Airport) and this. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  18:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The split process requires a wikilink in the edit summary of both source and destination articles mentioning the split. There is also a template for the purpose at {{copied}}. We are working on a centralized guideline at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, but it has not yet been widely publicized. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Derivative works

Hi! Austinmayor (talk · contribs) has uploaded a couple of images which he calls "artistic renderings" which are basically photoshop-filters applied to non-free images (see File:Artistic rendering of Wes Sims.jpg vs. this image for instance). Am I correct in that these are derivative works and thus can't be licenses under a free license as in this case? If so, how would one go about having them deleted; are they "blatant" enough for CSD F9 or should they be taken to WP:PUI? Thanks, --aktsu (t / c) 23:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) You are correct. I would recommend tagging such images for F9 if you can find the source. If not, I would list them at PUI. I've located sources for all but one of the images and handled them accordingly. Thanks for following up! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your politeness in light of my transgression. All of the best, etc., Austinmayor (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Userfication request

Could you userfy Todd Friel to User:BilCat/Sandbox/Todd Friel? I saw his program on a new channel that my cable system just added, and I was interested in learning more about him. Unforutunatley, his article was AFDed in April. (I've not seen the article, but hte 2nd AFD seemed quite weak.) Since I'm going to have to do my own reaserch on him anyway, I'd like to put it to good use and potentially recreate the article. The Userifed text would give me a place to start. If I do get it ready, I will use Deletion Review/Appeal to restore it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. it's all there in history. I presume the top version is not the one that interests you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi again. :) Mahboubalishah was nominated for speedy deletion as a copyvio of [13], but User:Graeme Bartlett declined the speedy because the website says "Use of the form and content of this site is free, but subject to honesty." I'm just wondering if he did the right thing (and if that note on the website is enough to decline a speedy), or if we should restore the speedy deletion tag. Thanks, Theleftorium 17:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I probably would not have speedied, since it isn't really a clear copyvio, but I would definitely have blanked it pending a usable license release. In fact, I have. I'll contact the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah.. I didn't think of that. Thanks! :) Theleftorium 17:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh queen of the copyvio

Would you care to issue a ruling regarding File:Obesity Med2008.JPG, currently under discussion here? To me, this is about as obvious a non-transformative derivative work as can be, but IANAL and all that. – iridescent 20:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. This one has had some action since you left the note. :) I see that User:Stifle has put it up for FFD on Commons, where it's hosted. I've commented there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A simple question on as an external link

Simple. Really. Take you 120 seconds. Honestly. [14] Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You were right. :) Opined. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks For Keeping An Eye Out

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Thanks for keeping an eye out. I'm doing the research now to clean up the Stanley Kubrick biography. I'm really curious about how to improve the quality of articles in the Wikipedia. As it stands, the page has a ton of stuff about his films, but you don't a good enough sense of the person. He's amongst the most influential filmmakers in the history of the art, so I figure he deserves better from the Wikipedia. He gets more page views than George Lucas. I wrote in the discussion some hints about his influences, hoping someone would pick up on it, and perhaps would bites. I'm going to try a few more things in the coming weeks to see if I can get a collaborative effort going. If not, I'll just go at it myself. --crm411 17:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crm411 (talkcontribs)

Image problems in St. Johns River

I think, maybe, that they are fixed. I found a PD US gov't illustration of the hydrologic cycle in Florida and asked User:Kmusser to create a graphic that seems to work. As for the SJRWMD, they seem to be dinks. However, I am grateful for your assistance, though it essentially put me back where I was before (dammit). I have another article that I feel pretty strongly would be FA quality if I could find images, but that seems to be over the top. It's best to stick to obscure topics that were somewhat popular before 1923... --Moni3 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for setting you back, but I'm glad you found something free! :) I feel your frustration. I've tried to track down some biography images and had a very maddening lack of success! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Image uploading problem for Santidev Ghosh Page

Dear Moonriddengirl. I need help again, on getting the page of Santidev Ghose to show a picture of him. I uploaded the picture, taken by me in 1980, and it did upload, far as I can see. But it still would not show up. Perhaps it is waiting to be approved or something. Can you help please ? Tonymitra (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It uploaded just fine. However, it doesn't automatically add to the article. You need to link it. :) I've done so, and it should be displaying. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Illinois State Archives website

I saw your discussion with Theleftorium concerning text copied from from the Illinois State Archives website on those mental hospital pages. That text is a description taken directly from the Illinois Secretary of State's website (which hosts the archival info). According to their disclaimer notice here, Information presented on the Secretary of State’s web site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. The question is whether that simple of a notice conforms with WP release needs. CactusWriter | needles 07:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for writing me here. I might have missed it. :) That's a bit frustrating. It's not quite the same as an indication that it's public domain, but almost. Can it be modified? I guess I'll have to ask around, though Dreadstar may still have a definitive answer. I'll check at WT:C and WT:PD and, if all else fails, bug our honored attorney about it. (Maybe i'll also go see how Commons handles this.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Template test

User:Moonriddengirl/CCI-notice --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm testing a template. Feedback is welcome on this or on the Contributor copyright investigations page. :) Please see this thread at WT:COPYCLEAN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

copy right image

Dear madame !

I have not added any Image and you are advising me it is violation of Copy rights .

furthermore the image there was present before my editing and I did not change or add any image .

furthermore it when you do delete or edit something the image was tempered by your side , I fixed the Html language bug only .

I am getting this in some mistake from your side .


KSY . —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSY3 (talkcontribs) 14:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

copy right text

dear madame !

how can something whihc is History be copy right violation , as I just quoted the history from Certian Hitroy Books and from other Pages of Wikipedia .

I am not Copying and just pasting .

It is just Funny and tell me when you say that , it is violation of copy right can you explain

As the Most Important Topic of World is being denied space in Wiki that can be valuble to reaserchers

I am just quoting from your other Pages in Wiki pedia not some book .

Explain , how quoting can be a Copy right Violation when you demand references .


KSY —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSY3 (talkcontribs) 14:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Further corrections and improvements in my work

Hi MRG, could you take a look here and advise. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I'll come by soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your further comments and that listing. Could you consider the further suggestions I made. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure. I'll be over in just a few minutes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, could you take a look at User talk:Mdd#Working the cleanup list. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Good morning (in my part of the world). Here I come. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I will take a three day trip with my family, and will proceed somewhere this weekend. -- Mdd (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacksonville Developmental Center

I think I have fixed the sentence. Do you agree? Racepacket (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the passages are sufficiently revised. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Zelenoff

Could you restore the history of Charlie Zelenoff or delete it as a G4? Thanks! :-) Theleftorium 19:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

CW's absence


Seeing as CW's going to be busy for a month, would you like me to try and work more in-depth on WP:CP? MLauba (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. You are more than welcome. :) I am currently trying to tangle through the last remaining issue from the 13th. If you want to give a go for the 14th, have at it! I'm probably only going to be able to contribute this morning for a short time (I'm waiting for a work e-mail; I expect it within 15 minutes to an hour, tops.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at the 14th, so far, most of the listings are MDD's self-listing. Now I must confess that while being aware that there was a long discussion between you and him, I'm not sure how to handle these. Did he agree / commit to anything and all we have to do is relist (or better move to a "voluntary" cleanup subpage)?.
Then there's the permission asserted cases, not sure how CW handles these. Just delete them with the listed for over 7 days rationale? MLauba (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm routinely relisting the ones that are licensing vios. I've clumped all the ones from the 13th onto the 21st. Why don't you add any new ones there? By the 21st, we should be ready to take some kind of action--if nothing else, I will then let him know that we've reached the point where attribution has been outstanding long enough that it has to be addressed. (We could move them to a subpage, but Dumbbot will simply keep listing them, unless they're visible at CP. :)) Prior to becoming OTRS, I deleted the ones that were unverified with the User:Moonriddengirl/cup rationale at the contributor's talk. Now I search OTRS. I know there's quite a backlog there at the moment. CW will occasionally ask me to check on something, so I think he kind of does either/or. Maybe it's situational? Some assertions of permission are more plausible than others. Once I finish listing the potentially problematic Miami Football articles, I can take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, ML. Mrg is correct -- my response to OTRS assertions is situational. A quick review of the contributor's assertion, their editing history, other contributions as well as the usefulness of the source text can provide some insight as to whether or not I want to push for an OTRS check. I believe that OTRS editors are generally swamped with more urgent matters than tracking down permissions -- especially for pages of questionable encyclopedic value -- and so I take that into consideration before adding to their workload. When I do request a check, I've gone to various editors -- Mrg, Keegan, Stifle, etc. (there's a list here) -- to spread the workload. The CP report then can be relisted while awaiting a response. (Although, in general, their response is pretty damn quick). In most cases, I will simply delete the article with a comment like OTRS permission has not yet been received and then add the Moonriddengirl/cup message to the contributor's talk page. The great thing about the CUP message is that it assures the user that their article is not permanently deleted, but rather, will be restored as soon as the permission has been processed. Hope that helps. CactusWriter | needles 09:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Sound advice. I've in the meantime realized that there's a wealth of cases where no sign has been extended by the user to demonstrate that they have initiated the process, and I've started to summarily delete these leaving the CUP message. I'll probably volunteer for OTRS some day to meet all ends, though. Take care and good luck with your RL assignment. MLauba (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


User:MLauba/CPC. Helpful? MLauba (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very! Good idea. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Devils Diciples

further info on devils diciples discussion page24.217.66.219 (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked in accordance with Wikipedia:No legal threats, including an indication that you are evidently intending to have your attorney start a suit against me personally. I'm afraid that under the circumstances, it is inadvisable for me to discuss this article with you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hennepin Technical College

Zoinks, not only was the PROD'd article unrelated to the actual topic - it, well ... sucked. I at least made a more-than-reasonable stub out of it and moved it back to articlespace. Hope it's a little better now. Some of those Minnesota college article are in sad shape. Thanks for undeleting for me. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling it wouldn't be of much use to you. :D Much, much improved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick question re: deletion procedure

DBZROCKS submitted this AfD, but then went ahead before the AfD was closed and wiped the article out, leaving a redirect. I know that we're told to be bold, but given that he's the one who submitted it for deletion, isn't that a little sudden? Or is that normal? Thanks for any insight you can provide. -moritheilTalk 07:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a little sudden, and it's forbidden in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion: "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community." I suspect in this case, he was attempting a snowball close, but obviously inappropriately, unless he is simply so unfamiliar with AfD that he thinks its okay for the nominator to judge consensus. (And he should not be, since I have reason to know he's been active in them for years. I thought I recognized the name.) I would have suggested restoring the content with a note of explanation to him...and I see that User:CactusWriter has already done just that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Aha. Thanks! -moritheilTalk 19:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I wanted to take the time to thank you for your help on this item on the Wendy Doniger article, to which I responded on my own talk page. I especially appreciate your having taken the time to post a note on my talk page with such a clear explanation. It was very helpful. Here are two notes I made on the same issue, one on my talk page thanking you there, and another I had posted on the Doniger discussion page a day earlier:

From my talk page to you: Thank you that was very instructive and I appreciate your help in making that edit. Only to keep the record clear it was one sentence that you quite correctly deleted from my longer contribution, which long contribution was repeatedly bulk deleted rather than incisively corrected as you have done. Thanks for getting involved and for helping me. Meetoohelp (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

From the Doniger discussion page to the other editors of that page: Thanks for the concern you show for the quality of this article. If there is a full sentence in the article that is found to be a copy of a full sentence from another page please delete it singly. On the other hand, to write an article about Doniger that contained none of the information on her cv would be difficult and of course unnecessary. This article is short not only on facts about Doniger, but also on Doniger's opinions, and conversely long on other peoples opinions. It should conform to what other bios of living person look like as to the relative space given to acts of the subjects, and then to criticism of that person. I think it would be helpful to look at articles about similar people, and I would suggest it should look something like Bart Ehrmans, whose work is similar and who attracts controversy for related reasons. In contrast to higher quality articles in Wikipedia, this Doniger page has the appearance of a blog spot. I suggest we editors should move to a bio with one pithy quote of criticism, and one pithy rebuttal quote, the remainder being a description of her work. There are plenty of internet forums for blogging and opinions and this article appears to have inappropriately achieved the character of those. Meetoohelp (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if you intend just to make the technical contribution to the copyright issue, or to be more involved to increase the quality of the article, the later would certainly be welcomed, the article seems to need a referee of some sort.

Thanks again. Meetoohelp (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Taking bets :)

The two proposed guidelines will be eventually promoted with a sliver of voters, and two months later will be suddenly contested by a dozen people who didn't participate until then. ;) MLauba (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not putting any money against that one. :D I wish I knew why people were so reluctant to talk about copyright problems. I understand that they don't necessarily want to address copyright problems, but you don't need understanding of copyright law or desire to undertake tedious tasks to talk about how to handle them. :/ And, by the way, you sell yourself short. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest using {{cent}} to attract more users, and maybe other pages from WP:Publicising discussions. Flatscan (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet of Pr3st0n

As you were involved in the case of blocked user Pr3st0n, I thought I should bring to your attention this message: User talk:93gregsonl2#New to Wikipedia from new user FriargateFairy. Reference is made to the death of Pr3st0n which makes me suspect sockpuppetry, in view of the previous hoax on this subject. To support my suspicion, I've just discovered Gareth Forrest's MySpace page has the URL . The page User:Pr3st0n/MSN strongly suggests that Pr3st0n's real name is Gareth Forrest.

I've never been involved with a sockpuppetry case, so I'm not sure if that's sufficient evidence to file a formal investigation, or whether we should wait a bit longer to see what FriargateFairy does next. -- Dr Greg  talk  19:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, User:Pr3st0n often signed his messages] with the name Gareth Forest. Given the new myspace account of a Gareth Forest of Preston is called FriargateFairy and this new account of FriargateFairy immediately sends out a troll message about the "death" of the user, there is little doubt this is a sock account. I have indefinitely blocked the account on that evidence. I find this is a straightforward case of block evasion. Because of all the drama previously caused by this account, I am not particularly keen to open a big investigation. CactusWriter | needles 21:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your rapid response, CactusWriter. -- Dr Greg  talk  22:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. :/ Thanks for uncovering this,  Dr Greg , and for dealing with it, CactusWriter. No investigation necessary when it quacks that loudly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


I have one article watchlisted that I removed after 7 days on CP, was recreated and the source now states "Copyleft by soandso". Re-list pending clarification or leave it? MLauba (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Relist. "Copyleft" is far too vague, I'm afraid, as it can mean any number of compatible or non-compatible licenses. But it sounds like it should be swiftly resolved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Done, and indeed, it was. MLauba (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Contesting Deletion of "Victoria Riskin" Article on Wikipedia

Hi, Moonriddengirl (Deletion Administrator):

I've been made aware that my recently posted article on Victoria Riskin was removed/deleted from Wikipedia website and I am contacting you to "contest deletion" as stated in Wiki instructions, as I don't understand why the posting was deleted due to "blatant copyright infringement." Here is the thread below to explain action take on my article:

A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

17:46, 2 October 2009 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) deleted "Victoria Riskin" ‎ (Listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over seven days)

Let me give you some background: I currently work in press/communications at the Writers Guild of America, West (WGAW) in Los Angeles. Former WGAW President/member/writer Victoria Riskin herself contacted me a few months ago asking, as a favor, if I could please post a profile page for her on Wikipedia, so I agreed to help her out. As I am new to Wiki and have never posted in article before, I tried my best to post an article on Vicki following Wiki's format/rules/guidelines, etc.

Please note that ALL content for the article was NOT borrowed from other sources/websites but rather article content was repurposed/pulled from from Vicki's own personal bio that she supplied to me for Wiki use.

Once the article was posted, I received notice/flaggings that this article may be removed if I did not include proper citations/references for content, so since all the content actually came from her own supplied bio, I thought the best thing to do was reference content from the WGAW's own website, since Vicki recently received an honorary award from the WGAW and much of the same content was used in our awards press release/program - I am not sure how this qualifies for copyright infringement? If I remove the references to WGAW website/release, will that solve this issue? Again, how can the content on Vicki's article be "copyright infringement" when 100% of content I used came from her own personal bio she supplied to me? Would it be better if you reposted article without external references, as I only included them later as I thought Wiki required me to or the article would be removed anyway?

I would appreciate if you could please advise on how best to resolve at your soonest. Much appreciated, as I'd like to respond back to Victoria Riskin herself.

If you'd like to talk more, I am can be reached at: 323-782-4651 (office).

Thanks Gregg Mitchell WGAW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggmitch (talkcontribs) 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, Grand Tutnum

Your service to Wikipedia has exceeded 2½ years, so you're entitled to display this badge.Mgreason (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This editor is a
Veteran Editor II
and is entitled to display this
Bronze Editor Star.
Thanks. :D Has it only been 2 1/2 years? Whatever did I used to do with my days? :O --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Justastud15 and repeated copyright violations

Howdy Moonriddengirl!

First, my apologies for coming to you directly on this issue. I am not completely sure how best to deal with this situation and you've been a help to me in the past on copyright violation issues; you have also dealt with the editor in question here. I just reverted edits to Matt Mitrione made by User:Justastud15 due to a large chunk of the edits being copy/pasted from [15]. I placed the standard warning on the user's talk page. I also reviewed the user's talk page as they have a habit of periodically blanking their talk page. This version of their talk page shows where you blocked the editor for 24 hours due to repeatedly violating the copyright policy and having been warned about it twice before that block. I do not know if you want to handle this, third, violation directly from my telling you here or if there is an admin board that would be more appropriate for me to make this mention on. WP:CP seems incorrect as the content is reverted, WP:AIV is wrong as it's not necessarily vandalism (it is but it isn't I guess), and I'm not sure how quickly reports to WP:AN are responded to (not that you may respond to this quickly). If there is someplace I should post a notice, let me know and I'll do it. Thanks for your help with this and for all you've done in the past. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This is fine; I'm happy to look into it. You could also do WP:ANI, but there's no reason. :/ (sigh) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
All right. 72 hour block. Please let me know if you see him doing it again. I hope he will not. I really prefer not to have to block people who seem to be operating with good intent, but what can you do if they keep pasting content? :/ I greatly appreciate your letting me know about this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with this. I too dislike having to report people who generally make good contributions. Frustrating more than anything. Thanks again. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Chuggington Episode List'

I (largely) produced this page (either logged in or via an IP address) as the episodes came and went on BBC Iplayer. There is no complete list on the web, ergo it cannot therefore be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MGD11 (talkcontribs) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue with the article was not a lack of references--it was that the descriptions of the episodes were copied. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 September 3. The article was listed for copyright evaluation, and when I addressed the listing I confirmed the duplication of text from the tagged site and other BBC sites. We can't copy text from other websites unless they can be verified to be free for our use. Even copying episode summaries constitutes a violation of our copyright policy otherwise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Some (not all) were copied - after completing the episode list for series 1, I largely left Wikipedia alone. If the page could be re-instated, I would quite happily re-edit them to conform to Wikipedia standards. MGD11 (talkcontribs) —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but I'm not authorized to restore the copyright violations, and there were no versions of that article that did not infringe copyright. However, if you'd like, I can retrieve the code for you without any creative text (such as episode summaries) so you can use it as the basis of a new article. Without creative text, there's no licensing issues with Wikipedia's contributors and you can start clean. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I could cope with that! Besides, the episodes on iplayer get rotated every week so a description of allthe episodes couldn't take more than a month...MGD11 (talkcontribs) 11:33, 29th October 2009 (GMT)

All right. As soon as I finish what I'm currently doing (shouldn't take more than 10 minutes or so), I'll take care of that for you. Just remembered to use your own words for episode summaries, please. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Code is retrieved and at Chuggington Episode List. I can't add creative text without attribution, so there's no lead sentence or anything. But it's ready to go. :) I'm putting an 'under construction' tag on it as a courtesy for you so that you can take care of the introductory material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

wiki article on Nadia Reisenberg

I need to include a reference to Nadia Reisenberg in a wiki article on Josef Hofmann. If possible, please inform me why the previous wiki article on Reisenberg got deleted. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextierno98 (talkcontribs) 04:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It was deleted because it infringed on the copyright of [16]. According to our copyright policy, Wikipedia can only use previously published text if it can be verified to be free for reuse, either because it is public domain or it is explicitly licensed compatibly with our project. On the contrary, this one is marked "All content © 2000–2004 Judith Pinnolis. All rights reserved." The original contributor was notified and the article tagged for a week to give others an opportunity either to request copyright permission or to write a new article, but unfortunately no one did so. You are welcome to write a new article on this woman, using your own language or free sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rationale of CC-BY-SA-1.0 compatability?

Given this section and your edit, I'd invite you to chime in on the rationale of 1.0 text being compatible. Thanks in advance. Q T C 06:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Chimed in, but I'm afraid I don't have a very lengthy reply. Mike tends to be succinct in his e-mails. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in...

... and this is exactly the section that will cause the biggest brouhaha . Oddly enough, I predict it will be the pro-Hutchison users who will try to eliminate it. I know from experience -- I got tired of trying to fight off all the trivial infighting with both camps -- but it seems the biggest issue is that Hutchison supporters don't want the word "Republican" associated with her and her opponents do. A political section will need to mention it. Good luck. CactusWriter | needles 12:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know. :) I've been accused of all kinds of things with respect to Kevin Powell—whether I'm seen as pro- or anti- depends on whose bias I've been fighting. :) Sourcing is key here. I'm digging through the tons of references right now and coming up with some text, but struggling to maintain balance is always a challenge in politics. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the Kevin Powell story, but I can imagine. I ended more than a month ago with this scrubbed version. All the rest of the odd little titles and POV statements whave been added by the support crowd since then. There is plenty of good sourcing in the archives of the Seattle P-I and the Seattle Times. I seem to recall reading in the archives her being asked to run for a couple of offices (mayor was one, I believe) around 2004. By the way, the reason I used "news anchor" instead of journalist is because all the sources define her by that term. I don't find any independent of her calling her a news journalist. (And I do believe there is a difference). The deal with the regional Emmies is that I find them to be fairly minor notability in the industry (20 US regional markets handing several dozen local awards every year. That's outside the 100 actual Emmy awards, 60 Daytime Emmy award and 35 Sports Emmy awards -- the Emmy quickly loses significance) and it doesn't actually go to her notability. From what I can read, she became popularly known in the Seattle area as a nightly news anchor for many years. CactusWriter | needles 12:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
You're far more familiar with this than I am, since I had never heard of the woman before yesterday, so please feel free to clean up after me. My inclusion of the regional Emmies in the head was because I think arguably awards do lend towards her notability and I was trying to find a compromise position with the other editor. Didn't work, obviously. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I think what you've got going so far is fine. It appears even at this point newspaper journalists are unwilling to describe her political background as anything more than as you describe. Sticking with the most recent articles is the best idea. CactusWriter | needles 12:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, and with this and this, it's a wrap for me. :D Except I'll change the lead. (Kevin Powell was a similar situation; I got involved in him from BLPN, where I used to spend a lot of time...when I had time. I have been roundly reviled by both his supporters and detractors for my efforts to keep things neutral. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well done. Sometimes it's good to be hated... I guess. CactusWriter | needles 13:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Thekkady boat disaster and Lydia Foy

Hey my brief return to editing, I bring you two interesting cases of copyright violations, 2009 Thekkady boat disaster and Lydia Foy. I've refrained from using the doomful copyvio template since the articles in question contain a mixture of blatant copyright violation, close paraphrase, and paraphrase that is most likely just fine. Is using the copyvio template the right procedure though, rather than bugging you? :) TwilligToves (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) What really matters is getting it addressed. :) You could also just remove or replace the copyrighted text or, if the problem is in one area, tag it. Can you give me some examples of problems you've found? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, things are sprinkled throughout the text. For example, in 2009 Thekkady boat disaster, almost the entire article at (currently source 11 ) is broken up throughout the Aftermath section. Lots of phrases are kept verbatim. The Subsequent Safety Concerns skirts quite closely to the source. "The Crime Branch’s probe report stated that overloading of the boat and negligence on the driver’s part caused the tragedy" taken from
For Lydia Foy, its use of and violates copyright, but again, these instances aren't localized to a particular section. I haven't really dug deeper into the other sources. TwilligToves (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Knowing even that will make it much easier for me to start. :) I can see when it was added and by whom and move on from there (though I won't be able to do so for probably another hour. Stupid work life. :P)--Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking at it now. I can certainly see the close paraphrasing that concerns you. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

←Okay. I hope I have sufficiently addressed Lydia Foy. There is still close paraphrasing of the court judgment, but I am advised that such documents are not copyrightable. Off to look more closely at the other. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm about midway through. Edits like this concern me, since it does take quite a bit of text directly from [17]. (And this from [18]) (Another major concern from [19]) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Where there's smoke, there's fire I guess...thanks for taking the time to wade through all these sources and cleaning up the have infinitely more patience (and expertise :)) than I do in these matters. TwilligToves (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should notify User:Chzz of this discussion. He's currently running for adminship and these articles were brought up in his RfA. Theleftorium 20:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
sigh Bad timing. :/ Thanks, I will do. I was planning on talking to him about it after I finished (I'm about halfway through. I know I said that a long time ago. Really! I'm about halfway through!). That way I would have a full view of the scope here. I think I'll probably stick with that, just so that I don't get distracted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for your help with this - I really am extremely grateful. Yes, bad-timing indeed, but no matter. For now, a brief note - 2009 Thekkady boat disaster was put together far too quickly, and I'm grateful for your edits. Lydia Foy I believed was sufficiently paraphrased and cross-referenced; as you said, the court documents themselves should be available under appropriate licence, so hopefully that will address some/all of it. Re. Braille Institute of America, yes, it was indeed BasicallyGood (talk · contribs), and it was 'way back' in April - OK, not so long, but 15000 edits for me. I've been on Wikipedia rather a lot since then, and would now make sure that I added the appropriate links on the talk-page etc. (example). Gah, you probably don't need such 'proof', I think I'm getting too used to this RfA thing where I seem to have to keep explaining myself - sorry. Anyway - Braille - I was merely acting to try and help them split the article using summary-style. I hope we can contact them to sort that one out. Re. William Windsor (goat), I've had a quick look at your edits, but not had time to check it all out.

In all of the above, I'll need to spend time, checking the sources and looking at exactly which bits are considered a problem, and why; thus, I suggest that we continue these discussions on the respective article talk-pages. Again, thanks for the assistance.  Chzz  ►  09:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Timothy D. Bellavia

Hi, Moonriddengirl. Here you removed one of the copyright-infringement tags but not the other. Was OTRS permission received for both sections of text, or just the one? Powers T 13:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness! I didn't even notice that one! Back to the drawing board. :/ (OTRS is just for the one source.) Thanks so much for pointing it out! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem; I appreciate your hard and diligent work on copyright issues. Powers T 14:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems like the least I can do when people find the stuff: help fix it. :) It's all about collaboration! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween 1!.jpg
Happy Halloween!

Here's my lame attempt at a Halloween card (hopefully it will work in your browser). I hope you like it! :D Thecrematorium Happy Halloween! 14:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Like it? It's awesome! Blinking multicolored text! Genius. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Ha! I just noticed your username! Very clever. :D You're in costume! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yup. Trick or treat? ;D Thecrematorium Happy Halloween! 16:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi Moonriddengirl, I'm not really sure I fully understand what that post on my talk page was all about, but thank you for your concern and efforts. To be honest, I thought he and I were friends of a sort, and it really shocked me to see such a post. I regret that such a think would take place on my talk page, and I really appreciate your help. Thank you, and all my best. — Ched :  ?  17:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ched. I'm really sorry that a person you regarded as a friend (even of a sort) would do such a thing. He left an odd little message for me, too, but as I don't know the guy I didn't take any more personally than I do the usual vandal nonsense. In this case, it seems like he just really wanted an excuse to stop editing and apparently didn't feel he had the fortitude to stop himself. If he had known about WikiBreak Enforcer, maybe he could have departed a little more graciously. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween too!

HP wand.png Thanks for the Halloween wishes, o fairy godmother of all copyright investigations. You're an inspiration to us all. MLauba (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Pretty! Thank you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
And well-earned, too. Happy Halloween indeed! :)- Sinneed 02:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I hope you also had a good one. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

copyright concerns

Hello, there are some issues being raised here in which we are not sure whether a book has copied some Wikipedia articles or if we have copied the book. Could you take a look please? nableezy - 22:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

never mind, think its worked out. nableezy - 23:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Always good when things work out. :) Feel free to drop by any time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Flaming Ferrari

Hey there Moonriddengirl. I don't have much experience dealing with serial copyright violators, so I thought I would ask you for help. Ironholds relayed to me that Arthur Clavell Salter was almost a direct copy of the Oxford DNB's version of the article. Apparently, this is also the case for several of the other articles that Flaming Ferrari has created. I I was wondering what the general course of action is for cases like these. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I created a relatively short list at User:Ironholds/ff of all the ones I could find; four are direct ripoffs, one is iffy. Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
First, we cry.... :)
Seriously, let me go take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that's a lot of contributions. :/ In the near future, I hope that we'll be able to take matters like this to WP:CCI (and I do not think it is canvassing to ask for your feedback there, since it's very relevant to this discussion, and since you may have better ideas). For the meantime, we have an ad hoc process at WP:Copyclean for multiple point infringement, under investigations. Since ODNB is not (unless they've changed) fully accessible, I can't compare. Are you sure that they are direct rip-offs, Ironholds? If so, I'd regard that (coupled with previous image concerns) as reason enough to run my contribution surveyor program which would give me an idea of the scope of contributions we're talking about here. It would be good to check some other major contribs against other sources to see if this is solely a problem with the ODNB. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely; I can email you my access number if you want to check. As an example, though, from the thing on Joseph Frederick Green:
  1. Article:"He was educated at Islington proprietary school, St Mary Hall, Oxford, and King's College London. He was ordained in 1880 and was curate of St Mary's, Tothill Fields, London, from 1880 to 1886, but abandoned the clerical profession to devote himself to politics. He was for a time on the executive committee of the Fabian Society, however he resigned over its support for the South African War. He was also treasurer of the Social Democratic Federation (later the Social Democratic Party), which he left in 1911. In the 1918 general election Green defeated Ramsay MacDonald at Leicester West on a National Democratic and Labour Party ticket by 20,570 votes to 6,347, however was subsequently defeated by Alfred Hill in the 1922 general election. He was parliamentary private secretary to the Conservative transport minister Sir Eric Campbell Geddes from 1920 to 1921."
  2. ODNB:"Green was educated at Islington proprietary school, St Mary Hall, Oxford, and King's College, London. He was ordained in 1880 and was curate of St Mary's, Tothill Fields, London, from 1880 to 1886, but ‘abandoned the clerical profession in the latter year’ (WWW), devoted himself to politics" followed by "For a time Green was on the executive committee of the Fabian Society (but resigned over its support for the South African War), was treasurer of the Social Democratic Federation (later the Social Democratic Party), which he left in 1911" and "In the 1918 general election Green defeated Ramsay MacDonald at Leicester West on a National Democratic and coalition ticket by 20,570 votes to 6347, but he was defeated in 1922." Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
No need. I believe you. But the quote certainly helps nail it. :/ Thanks. I'll pull up the Contribution Surveyor program and get it running (after I get back from trick-or-treating). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

←Home, exhausted, running the program now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope it went well :). Flaming Ferrari has certainly been online, but so far hasn't taken the opportunity to respond to NWs concerns. Ironholds (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
We are massively endowed with candy, thanks. :D I will be populating Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys#Flaming_Ferrari within the hour, possibly within ten minutes. Need to check for wikimergencies first. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

←Okay, I have populated Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Flaming Ferrari and have found copyright infringement from one non-ODNB (I hate those initials; I can never remember their order!) source so far. The article has been blanked for listing at CP. Since I don't have ODNB, I am going to need some assistance in review. (I always need assistance in review, as we have literally thousands of articles listed at the main investigation page, but in this case it's particularly a problem, since I don't have access to the source.) Once I've verified a few more issues, it may be a good idea to ask the biography Wiki project to help out. (Maybe they will; the opera and gastropod wikiprojects were stellar with much larger investigations.) But as a start, Ironholds, I need your discretion in handling Sir Robert Perks, 1st Baronet. How "slightly problematic" do you mean? Does it need {{subst:copyvio}} or does it need {{close paraphrase}}? Can you provide a few examples?

The lack of communication is never a good sign. I've dealt with a whole lot of copyright problems in the year (and nearly a half) that they've been my main focus on Wikipedia, and I've seen a lot of people respond to questions about copyright problems. There are some red flags, and silence is among them.

He received a clear block warning in August, here. What I've found so far predates that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Cleanup is underway at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Flaming Ferrari. I'm marking biographical articles where I have not found infringement with {{?}}. Can you double-check these, Ironholds, against the ODNB? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Certainement. I'm watchlisting your talkpage for future discussions, so you don't need to go to the effort of talkback posts :). Ironholds (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I see from the page that there are concerns with other pages as well, such as King's College London. Where does this text come from, then, and is it worth bringing something up at ANI considering FF's previous copyvios and problems with image licensing and the like? Ironholds (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Ordinarily I would have presumed so, but I figured I'd better not since I was specifically requesting your assistance. :) The text has been copied from various websites. At this point, I believe that the ball is in FF's court. I've stated my personal intentions regarding followup with FF at NW's talk page. I've also left a request for assistance at the wikiproject. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dragonfly Forest

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated Dragonfly Forest, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonfly Forest and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the notice, but my only involvement with that article was verifying copyright via OTRS. I have no familiarity with the subject. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


I am sorry to see that my contributions have caused so many problems. I thought I was contributing positively to wikipedia, but now it seems the majority of my work will be deleted. As a result of this I have decided to retire from wikipedia. I wasn't aware that my contributions breached copyright, so it's kinda sad to now see all my work so brutally undone. However I realise you are just doing your job. Once again apologies for the mess I have caused. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

British National Archives

Moonriddengirl, can you advise me on the copyright status of scans from The National Archives (UK)? Or do you know someone who can? I obtained a few scans a while ago (I had to pay for them, although I believe if you go to the National Archives in London, you can view them for free). The scans are of Foreign Office documents (correspondence etc.) from 1947. Can I upload these to Commons, or are they non-free? Would be grateful for any pointers. Best, --JN466 14:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. According to [20], they are not least, not in our sense. This explains a bit better the conditions that apply. I don't know if the documents you have are previously published (which would exclude them from the waiver), but even under the waiver they require the following (in provision 6): (a) attribution, (b) non-misleading reuse; (c) complimentary copy (including an appropriate end-user licence). Provision C is incompatible with CC-By-SA and GFDL and I suspect would not be permitted on Commons. The copyright approach to their material is explained in even greater detail at [21]. If you want to investigate further, I think you would need details on the individual documents, since the copyright status may differ for each, and I would myself ask a Commons admin. My usual go-to guy on these things is User:Dcoetzee, who I hope does not mind being my usual go-to guy on these things. :D Alternatively, since really it is the text in question, I'd check with User:John Vandenberg, who is a wiki source admin and astoundingly savvy on that kind of stuff. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
There's also User: David Underdown, who works at the National Archives and might be able to help. Sorry to pop in, I was just passing through :) Skinny87 (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, lovely! You're welcome to pop in at any time, and especially with a great suggestion like that one! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Guys, thank you very much! JN466 17:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


Got mail. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I read through de:Bildrechte, and it seems to be pretty complicated for non-lawyers, in fact, it reads like lawyers have established a goldmine there and just need to wait for someone to feed them fees. At least it is far from the unambiguous "Yes you can" I need. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian etc.

In fact, I had sent you an email from wp-fr. Did you get it ?

Best regards, --Moumine70 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Betty Skelton Erde

Thank you for the halloween card. I love it! I've finished with the rewrite of Betty Skelton Erde. It turned out to be a bigger job than I initially thought. She is really a remarkable woman. Please use your tool to see if I missed any "borrowed" phrases. Thanks for all you do. Mgreason (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. :) I'm getting ready to, go (it's hard to know what you call it when you usually work from home but have a meeting lined up somewhere else), but I'll run it later today. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Just in case, I've already relisted it under today, no rush :) MLauba (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi Moonriddengirl! Had a quick question regarding copyright issues on a file a new editor has uploaded (I'm actually having some other semi-related issues with the editor in question, but that's for another time and another place :) ), and thought you might be a person to turn to. The other editor uploaded a movie poster at File:Papadom019.jpg, and under "Licensing" claimed they are the copyright holder of the picture. That seems... well, probably not true. The file can probably stay up under a fair-use rationale, but I'm not sure how to go about changing the licensing permissions/fair-use rationales for a file uploaded by a different editor. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. File has since been deleted, so the issue is moot. Singularity42 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see I arrived a bit late. For next time, you basically just do it. :) You edit the description page to remove the inappropriate licensing statement, add a non-free image copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. In this case, we have templates, so you'd have added {{Non-free poster}} and {{Film poster fur}}. And then you'd leave the uploader a note explaining what you've done and asking them to go through WP:DCM if they do own the copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

La solidaridad

Sorry to revert you but the version you restored was still in infringement of the MSC source. I was rewriting a clean stub while you restored :) MLauba (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinion requested

Hello. I'd like your opinion on the copyright status of the (deleted) article Grigory Kheifets. It was originally uploaded to Conservapedia and then uploaded here by the original author (with no intervening edits by others). Harej (talk · contribs) deleted the article a few days ago citing concerns over whether users surrender their copyright to Conservapedia when they upload their own work there (see the talk page). If you aren't familiar with the site, RationalWiki's raison d'etre is criticism Conservapedia - not that I have a problem with that, but the arguments put forth on the linked page are, IMO, completely speculative. As I understand it, Conservapedia would need to explicitly state that contributors surrender their rights to the site - which it doesn't (nor does it imply it). Could you take a look at the relevant license page and let me know what you think? Oh yes, you might want to be warned of pointed anti-WP and particularly anti-WP-copyright policy sentiment on the page. The article itself looks well sourced, so it'd be a shame to lose it. Regards, – Toon 17:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am off to look now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, in their general disclaimer, they explicitly do state that contributors surrender their rights. Well, sort of. It says, "Your contribution of information here irrevocably waives any personal claims to copyright that you may have in that information, except as provided in the Conservapedia:Copyright disclaimer." (Obviously written by no lawyer, since information can't be copyrighted to begin with.) It's very hard to understand the intent of that statement, whether they mean to say "You surrender your copyrights to the creative expression" or "you promise not to prosecute anybody for infringing on your copyrights in the creative expression". The license, as you note, doesn't really help. But I don't think we can definitively state that original contributors still retain copyright, given that general disclaimer. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah OK. Thorough as ever M, thanks for taking a look. :) – Toon 19:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Set against that is their equally unclear Conservapedia:Copyright policy page which states "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution" ... but then goes on to say that the licence will only be revoked if we have a hissy fit. (I paraphrase). I guess they see clear and unambiguous copyright statements as some sort of liberal threat to their precious boldily fluids. My view is that it would be reasonable to rely on their copyright statement since publication of wikipedia comes nowhere near the two "such as" examples they cite for withdrawal of the license. They place no requirement on a re-user as to how they much licence the text (creative commons and GFDL being some form of commie plot, one presumes). So again, my view: no impediment to reuse on wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure. If a copyright holder wrote to OTRS offering to give us permission, but reserving the right to revoke it, we wouldn't be permitted to accept it. Our declaration of consent incorporates some of that in its clause that "I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement." Honestly, if I came across this listed at CP (once I found out that the original contributor might not own the content any longer), I'd probably either trot it past Mike or get wider community consensus at WT:C. I've no real familiarity with Conservapedia, but their unclear license and disclaimer don't seem like an improvement over the ones we have. :) ("You can use it. But you should say where you got it if you want. Except we might change our minds." Umm. Okay?) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It is all a little flaky. Given their opinion of wikipedia, it is possibly best not to give a group of presumably armed people any ammunition. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Political aspects aside, we work with irrevocable licenses here. Whatever happens between Conservapedia and its contributors put aside, their reuse clause specifies explicitely that they can revoke it at any time of their chosing. I'm not Mike nor WT:C but to me, Conservapedia content cannot be imported on Wikipedia, unless a sole contributor to an article on Conservapedia can add a CC-BY-SA license there. MLauba (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

12th Pioneers (The Kelat-i-Ghilzie Regiment)

It wasn't obvious that there was a copyright problem with 12th Pioneers (The Kelat-i-Ghilzie Regiment) until it disappeared and its links turned red. Can you please restore it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems so that infringing text can be edited and sourced from material in the public domain.--FwdObserver (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The bulk of the article is visible at the source: [22]. I'm really not comfortable restoring a copyright violation to Wikipedia, even temporarily, once it has been deleted, as this would put me in the position of having placed the material on the project: a potential pitfall for contributory infringement. However, since I can give attribution, I can tell you that the following seems to have been original to User:AshLin--or at least, not taken from that source:

The 12th Pioneers or the Kelat-i-Ghilzie Regiment were a pioneer regiment of the British Indian Army. They could trace their origins to 1838, when they were known as the 3rd Regiment of Infantry, Shah Shujah's Force.

... As a reward for its bravery, the name "Khelat-i-Ghilzie" was given to the Regiment and it was made an extra regiment of the Bengal Presidency Army. This honour title was inscribed on its name, colours and cap badges for most of its existence.

The 12th Pioneers fought in the Second Afghan War, at Maharajpore, at Burma in the Third Anglo-Burmese War and it also saw service on the Punjab Frontier. During World War I it served in India and Mesopotamia. Transferred to the Bombay Pioneers after the reorganisation of 1922, it was disbanded shortly thereafter, sharing the fate of all pioneer battalions after the Great War.

In addition to that text (again, all contributed by User:AshLin; he was the only contributor of substance to the article), there was a list of "previous names" and an infobox, which I can also supply if you think they'd be useful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Hello Moonriddengirl, website of this New York state government department is not public domain? Talk:New York State Department of Environmental Conservation#Website not public domain?. (Anonymous used the text from website at Chittenango ovate amber snail, so I have removed it rather. I can restore it easily then.) Thank you for your valuable work. --Snek01 (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. No, as you correctly note, it's not. :) While US federal government sites are largely public domain (a few exceptions where they publish the works of others are supposed to be noted on the federal sites I know), most US states retain copyright. Your removal of this text was exactly the right thing to do. It is up to the contributor to prove that he or she has permission to use the text, if that is the case. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Anna Vissi

Could you also protect the template {{Anna Vissi}} as well? Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good gracious! Yes, certainly. Done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Extensive quotation

Hello, have just noticed that you've taken exception to a quotation in Jamaica National Heritage Trust. Being aware of WP:NFC I would not have considered it "extensive". Bit of a subjective one though. Is there a definition anywhere of what Wikipedia considers "Extensive quotation"? Failing that, what's your personal working definition? -Arb. (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've replied to you at your talk page, since I was replying to the "tb" anyway. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio at Margarya monodi

Hi Moonriddengirl, I do understand you are away from your desk today, but here's a question. I noticed a new snail article yesterday, and I welcomed the editor, today however I checked the ref and saw that the text had been copied. One part is not quite verbatim, as I changed that before I wrote to the editor. Do you think what I said was OK? " "Please do be careful of one thing. Today I checked the reference you gave for the snail article, and I see that I need to explain that you must not create an article on Wikipedia by cutting and pasting chunks of text from another source, in this case a website (specifically the IUCN Red List website.) In almost every case you have to read the information, make sure you understand it OK, and then write a new account of it from scratch yourself. When you don't do that, and instead copy something directly, what you are doing is quite likely to be an illegal copyright infringement, not to mention plagiarism. Sorry about that, but this is something we have to make clear up front. It is in fact mentioned at the bottom of the edit page under "Please note:" but I guess a lot of people don't notice that. All best wishes to you, signature." Is that suitable? Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I think that's very suitable. :) Thanks! I see there may be some other concerns here, though, and will also need to address the contributor. I've checked another article and found more duplication. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, good, thanks to you too. I am glad that I mentioned it to you since you discovered that there are more articles that have the same problem. I wish you all the best with your very valuable work on here! Invertzoo (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

South China Morning Post article on Sir Run Run

I have read the SCMP article on Sir Run Run that we were wondering about. See WT:CHINA.--Danaman5 (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Gareth Malone

Please review temp sub page on the above that I have started today as Malone should have a page and the copy vio issue has been there for a while. Thanks.Paste Let’s have a chat. 14:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lovely! Thank you very much for taking time to address it. :) Do you want more time to work on it, or would you like me to move it live? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I should put it up and then I and/or others can improve it. Regards Paste Let’s have a chat. 14:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, what we would usually do is on the day it comes up for closure at CP (7+1 days after listing) either delete the old version and put the temp in place or merge them, if the closing administrator does not think the copyvio in history is likely to be returned. It was listed on November 1st, so it should be up on November 8th. If you want, we can leave it in temp for others to review or we can go ahead and close the listing early, since it doesn't seem to be a hotly contested (or observed) article. I agree the individual is notable, and I'm very glad you've undertaken to correct the problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to close it early, put up this albeit limited article and thus give the community the opportunity to edit and improve the article. Regards Paste Let’s have a chat. 15:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Bored with the week-end about to start? Don't be :)

We'll be baptizing our youngest so I'm not going to be around for the week-end. Could you run the contrib tool on User:Acntx? CSB found two recent instances of copying from the Handbook of Texas online, most recently on Willow City, Texas, and going to the AfDs linked on his talk page, it appears this happened before.

Note that I screwed up last time this happened because I meant to twinkle a copyvio warning but ended up with 3RR warning instead (idiotic I know). There's been a follow-up discussion on my talk page and a statement following the cclean message on Talk:Panola, Texas already. And I just added to the user's talk page after the last CSB notice. Thanks, MLauba (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I certainly will as soon as I'm able. I'm on lunch at the moment and then off and running for "meetings," but if I don't do it today, I will surely do it tomorrow a.m. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

International Home + Housewares Show Page

This page is awaiting permission to use the copyrighted content. The request has been put out and permission has been granted by content and image owners. I am just waiting on Wikipedia to give the okay to use it. It is in the works though. After permission is granted, how do I go about re-posting the content? LizGere (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)LizGere

Hi. When an agent of Wikimedia Foundation processes your permission, a ticket number will be put on the article's talk page and the content restored. Sorry for the delay here and the complication. We can't publish the material until this is verified, and we really could use a special notice for cases where verification is likely underway. Unfortunately, all we have now is the single notice which serves for all unverified content, whether permission is expected or not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding! I completely understand why you needed to do what is done for the time being. I have an email back from Wikipedia saying that the permission from IHA needed to be more specific and I suspect they will fill out the template I gave them and send it back soon. Then it will be off to Wikipedia so I can post the content. LizGere (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)LizGere

For my information

With regard to your recent deletion and restoration of National Museum of Arms and Armour, I'd like to ask a question. As the person who tagged the article at that title as a copyvio and posted it at WP:CP, I was surprised when the article was simply redirected (instead of being deleted and then replaced with a redirect, as you have just done—and as I could have done instead of bringing it to CP). Are there any guidelines that deal with when a copyvio should be removed from an article's history, as opposed to just being excised from the article or overwritten? The information would help me know how to deal with the copyvios I run across fairly frequently in the course of my editing. Deor (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I was surprised it was handled that way as well, which is a bit more labor intensive (see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 October 30).
We don't have firm guidelines on when copyvios should be deleted from history, and as I become more and more familiar with other copyright admins I see there is a divide in practice. Some rigorously delete all copyvios, while others rather casually replace the content without so much as a note of explanation. Wikipedia:Copyright violations doesn't discuss history deletions, but probably should — particularly as we now have a speedy tag specifically for that ({{copyvio-histpurge}}. (Note to self: do something about that.) Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins simply suggests history deletion if "copyrighted text was added over a few edits, recently, and/or if the text is extensive or clearly inappropriate to keep in the article's history."
If you encounter this situation again where a redirect might work, you might want to use {{copyvio-histpurge}}. But it's equally valid just to watchlist the page and make a redirect after it is deleted, as I suggested to User:Eastmain at CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I wasn't aware of {{copyvio-histpurge}}. Deor (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Many people aren't. It's still pretty new. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Julia Benson Copyright

The problem I had with the IP editor is that they used the most restrictive default setting on the copyright warning and in essence blanked the entire page. You are saying that I have no recourse for people using that template to blank pages and refuse to discuss the issue in the talk page as stated in the template. It was only after he altered the template settings to stop blanking the page that I stopped reverting him (that and I noticed the big honking "don't remove" warning about the same time). Alyeska (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiPilipinas "copyvios"

Hello. I'd just like to check if you know that WikiPilipinas has forked some 10,000+ articles from the English Wikipedia. So it's possible that some of the text you've deleted or tagged here in WP.en as being copyvios from WikiPilipinas are actually the other way around. Thanks. --seav (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) We've tried to keep an eye out for that by checking the history of the WikiPilipinas articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I'm just checking since trying to compare article versions between the two is very tedious as I have done before. The fact that they have not migrated to GFDL 1.3 and then to CC complicates things a bit since cross-pollination before the switch is acceptable. --seav (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

New SCV formatting & CP effects

Hi M. Could you drop by Wikipedia talk:Suspected copyright violations#Comments on the new system when you have a spare moment, si vous plait? I'm keen on getting Coren to add section headers to empty SCV subpages, but I want to make sure that I don't mess up CP's formatting. Cheers, – Toon 12:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Copy and paste

Hi Moonriddengirl,

A while ago you helped me out with an Arnhem VC recipient that I noticed had a lot of text copied from another website. While I've been expanding another Arnhem VC, I've noticed that this text would seem to be pretty much a copy and paste from this website. My initial reaction would be to just revert this edit, rather than nominate the page for deletion, but thought I'd better check with someone who understands all of this stuff.

Cheers for your time, Ranger Steve (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm off to take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for finding that! Reverting the edit would be one valid approach. Since it was pretty extensive and since it was very recent, I instead opted to selectively delete it with the admin tools. That way it's less likely to be returned, on purpose or accidentally. I still left {{cclean}} at the article's talk to explain what happened and to help prevent it being pasted back in again.
My general rule of thumb with that kind of thing: if the article has not been heavily edited since the copyvio was introduced, I usually remove or delete it, especially if it was an IP or a drive-by contributor. If the article has since been heavily edited, I'll usually tag it with {{copyvio}} to give regular contributors a chance to salvage the information before it is deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll bear that in mind if I find any more. Thanks for your help and the speedy response. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Our genius

Don't worry, true genius is never appreciated! :) GiantSnowman 17:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Honors College at West Virginia University

Hi. I think you missed The Honors College at West Virginia University at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 October 31. :) Theleftorium 18:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I did! I still think we need that red exclamation mark. I'll go look into that one now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Dying Center

The Dying Center was the first of its kind and really only those involved with it have recorded this information. So how does one reference something if the founders are the only ones who have written about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devi 8 (talkcontribs) 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hail and greetings :)

Hello Moonwiddengirl ! I've been busy trying to make head or tail of various help pages, in the process I've seen your name crop up a number of times making edits to various help pages, just thought in case you missed it, to point you in the direction of the Wikipedia:Help Project, where we have a few things going on concurrently, but if you're ever stuck in the maze, come visit us other editors who are wandering around there too, it even seems like some sense might come out of it all :) p.s. one of our current requests/tasks is cleaning up Help:Files ... Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 02:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've seen your name crop up a number of times, too, on my watchlist. I'd guess I'm probably a de facto member of your project as it is, since I do work on a number of those pages. :D I'll come check out what's currently going on with you, though I'm elbow deep in copyright work at the moment (WP:Copyclean is working on a new process board for copyright issues.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi Moonriddengirl, just to inform you that I have decided against retiring from wikipedia, and have begun to rewrite some of the articles which were cause for concern. If I can be of any help with your investigation please do let me know. Just for the record I have never had access to any of dod's resources in full, the only copyvios from dod's which you may find will have come from searching online, rather than subscriber content or the like. Best wishes Flaming Ferrari (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Certainement; will review this evening when I get back from uni/my political party's exec meeting (9:00 GMT or so). For future use, if you want me to email you my ODNB ID, give me a poke. Ironholds (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Can you protect? Thanks, Theleftorium 18:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just walked in. :) Let me take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. (For a month.) Why people can't just verify permission I'll never know. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


What should i do to show you that i got the right to submit thread article on behalf of UCB and so you guys dont bother us any more?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucb authority (talkcontribs) 21:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. If you are the copyright holder, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, please be advised that even if copyright permission is granted, Wikipedia's contributors may alter the material in accordance with guidelines and policies. As it says at the bottom of every edit screen, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I believe you guys are helpful in sharing info! Can you let me edit my page so that i can re-write?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucb authority (talkcontribs) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't be putting the content at UCB-Bahrain, but at University College of Bahrain, which is also protected. If you'd like me to unprotect the latter a day early I can, but I will have to protect it again if copyrighted content is added by you or anyone else. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright Dear , thanks for your support btw can i reach you through any messenger if possible?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucb authority (talkcontribs) 21:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm only regularly available on Wikipedia itself. You can e-mail me through the box on my page, but I frequently respond on Wikipedia unless there are significant privacy issues that mean I should not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It has been opened to permit your editing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well i need to know how can i make it more unbias ..I am new to wikipedia so just wanted some help from you also i own some forums would you like join it there also?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucb authority (talkcontribs) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't have time. Working copyright on Wikipedia is more than a full time job. :) I am happy to give feedback, though. For this one, you might want to ask for feedback at WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN. Once you've made changes, you can also ask feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback. As a general rule of thumb, if it sounds like it's praising or criticizing the university, don't put it in unless somebody else said it at a reliable source that the university does not own. Be sure to cite your sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks dear , I will try to be as what you said but please dont take out the image. I would add reference with the paragraph.


to whom this may concern, there was a terrible misconception on my page in which resulted in a deletion, now i took proper steps to resolve this matter, i was given options and i chose to email wiki the links to my original site bearing my creative commons licenses for my biography and nothing resulted,no user talk, no permissions,anything confirming resolve....please reply with clear info regarding this matter, and why havent i recieved any replies to my emails....thanks in advance.FORCEONE2000 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have replied at your talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for cleaning Federal Investigation Agency. I assume the job is done so I have marked it accordingly on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 October 31. If you are not finished with your work then please revert me. Thank you. Bwrs (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, no problem. The day had been archived. Evidently, I forgot to note the resolution of that one. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


I will be sure not to continue to post homosexual content within the sandbox. thank you so much for contacting me nicely, rather than yelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo The User (talkcontribs) 20:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover album conundrum

Hiya Moonriddengirl! As always, long time no see. Just a small question for you: is it okay that Cover Album is an article on an actual cover album, while Cover album redirects to Cover version (an article about cover albums themselves)? Is it necessary to move Cover Album to Cover Album (album) or Cover Album (Misono album)? Either way, it's quite confusing ;D I hope this doesn't hurt your head like it does mine. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a "my opinion", but no, I don't think that is okay. :) I would think it better to move Cover Album to Cover Album (album), redirect Cover album to Cover version and hatnote Cover version with {{Redirect|Cover album|the album by [[Misono]]|Cover Album (album)}}, producing:
But, this is just my opinion. If you agree, you might be bold; if you're unsure, you could seek other opinions at WP:Album. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done Okay, I ended up opting for the bold way :-) Now should "Cover Album" (with a capital 'A') redirect to cover version? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I say with equal boldness. It is the far more likely search term. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Great, done. Thanks a lot for your advice. Happy editing, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

GEE ROCK & THA CND COALITION copyright problem

i have recently sent another email to permissions and am informing you of this also, the headline is: THE OFFICIAL PAGE OF "GEE ROCK & THA CND COALITION", so it can be located, please let me know if everything is good with it, and that it was recieved by the permissions successfully....thanks in advanceFORCEONE2000 (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Right Way, Wrong Way, Richard Way

Article seems nice and clean :). Ironholds (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll get on to it this evening :). Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Edward Acton

Article has now been rewritten. Regards Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

William Otter also now rewritten. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

‘My private acrimony’ accessible to ‘outsiders’?

I have come to see (on receiving an enquiring e-mail) that it appears all and sundry perusers of Wikipedia are able to freely access and read personal notes between me and 'an editor'. MasterVerbosity (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. If you're talking about material on your user talk page, then, yes, these are accessible to anyone who reads Wikipedia, although they can certainly be archived or collapsed for privacy concerns. If I can help you with this, please let me know. If you're talking about material elsewhere--such as on the talk page of other users--we may be able to work out something with that, too, if it is disturbing to you. Otherwise, I might need more information to know if I can help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

to me you dont have the right

a woman has no right to delete any male subject, you should stick to deleting flowers and topics like pink dresses. YOU DELETED A SUBJECT ON BOXINGS BEST 100 MATCHES OF , HOW COULD YOU WHEN WE ONLY RECENTLY EVEN HAD FEMALE BOXERS, IF I SEE A FILE ON LAILA ALI NOW AND IT HASNT BEEN DELETED BY YOU...THEN YOUR A HYPOCRITE.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, when did Wikipedia move to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan? :-) --NeilN talkcontribs 00:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Scary thought, NeilN! :D, I'm sorry if an article you had interest in was deleted. Generally, the explanation is visible in the deletion log. I don't see that we've ever had an article called "Boxings best 100 matches of," so I'm afraid I can't help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion regarding User:Justastud15

FYI, I have started a discussion at the ANI board in regards to User:Justastud15's habits of uploading copyrighted images and copy/pasting material from other websites. And as a second FYI, I invoked your name, specifically when I brought issues with this user to you recently ([23]) and you suggested ANI as a possible avenue for me to raise my concerns. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYIs. :) I'll come take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at MLauba's talk page.
Message added 13:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MLauba (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Attribution query

Hi Moonriddengirl - Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if I could trouble you with a copyright query? I've been discussing the article Flyfishers' Club with a user Morganix79. I speedied the original version, and the editor produced a new version in his/her sandbox at User:Morganix79/Flyfishers' Club. Morganix79 also contacted another editor who is involved in articles about London clubs, Debonairchap, who created an article in main space which looks like it's based on Morganix79's draft here. Cleverly, I edited the article, and only later realised that Morganix79's work needs attributed somewhere :-/ I'm not sure whether a note in a dummy edit summary/talk page is sufficient here or whether something more complicated is required? --Kateshortforbob talk 14:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. Bother me any time. As many people can tell you, I will return the favor if I am in need of assistance I think you can provide. :D I'll come take a look and see what seems best. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that you're only talking one contributor, a dummy edit summary would have been technically fine, but because I personally prefer to give the best attribution possible and dummy edits don't clarify who actually wrote what, I did a history merge. I'll let the new content contributor know about attribution requirements if you have not already. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Awesome - thanks very much, Moonriddengirl! I didn't even think about a history merge; time to expand my Wiki-knowledge... Feel free to call on me, though my specialities are mundane and repetitive tasks! --Kateshortforbob talk 17:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC) PS. Congrats on the official launch of WP:CCI, btw :)
Mundane and repetitive tasks? You're speaking my language! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes! I saw there were a few newly opened investigations *cries*.I definitely will be back to WP:CCI, as soon as I get a decent stretch of editing time. --Kateshortforbob talk 10:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question re is Competency-based education

Hi, This is my first experience with copyright issues, so I thought I’d write to you to make sure I’m doing this correctly. I see the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems, but it looks like most reports are quite cryptic, with an article and a possible source, and not much more. I don’t know whether the intended process is simply to identify the problem and let the admin sort it out, but I wanted to provide a little more background. Please let me know if I should be including all this in a report.

Long discussion of issues

I will go ahead and place the template on the article, send a note to the editor, and file it here.

The article is Competency-based education.

The editor is User:Rgannonc

Editor MuffledThud noted issues including a copypaste concern on 14 Nov here. It is not clear to me whether MuffledThud knew there were problems, or merely suspected.

Article editor posted at the Feedback forum Wikipedia:Feedback#What_is_Competency-Based_Education.3F, which is how I became involved. The query at Feedback asserted that there were no copyright issues, and asked how to remove the warning.

Article editor removed the warnings.

MuffledThud reinstated some of the warnings, but did not reinstate the copypaste warning. I do not know whether MuffledThud is convinced there are no copyright violations, simply accepted the word of the editor, or simply chose to focus on unambiguous issues.

MuffledThud also welcomed the editor, but noted COI issues.

I looked to see if I could find evidence supporting or refuting the copyright concerns and found this online

It is not a straight copy-paste, but the WP article is clearly derived from the paper.

I copied a paragraph from each, and posted to the WP:Feed forum to see what the editor had to say. (I’m aware that some potential violations go the other direction; that didn’t seem likely in this case, but I wanted to AGF and see what the editor had to say. While it has only been a couple days, there has been no response. I also posted my response to MuffledThud. While I did not post to the editor’s talk page, if she asked a question at the Feedback desk, it seems reasonable she should expect an answer there. I will post the Copyright problem notice to her talk page. Reasons why this isn’t a straight-forward, and I didn’t nominate for Speedy Delete:

  1. While the paragraph of concern:
Competency-based education

What is Competency Based Education?

The major premise of competency based education (CBE) is that diplomas and credentials should be awarded on the basis of demonstrated performance on competency and on results, rather than on accumulated or completed credits. In fact, CBE is often tied directly to the occupational requirements of working professionals. CBE presents adult learners with opportunities to solve the real-world problems of managers, teachers, computer programmers, nurses, engineers and others.

Comparing Institutional Approaches to Competency-Based Distance


What is competency-based education? Its major premise is that diplomas and credentials should be awarded on the basis of demonstrated student performance – on outcomes and results – rather than on the accumulation of credits, the number of successful semesters completed (seat-time), and adherence to campus residency requirements. CBE is often tied directly to the occupational requirements of working professionals, requiring degree candidates to solve real-world problems of nurses, teachers, computer scientists, and business managers.

seems like a clear problem, I haven’t checked all paragraphs, and I think the author used the opening almost unchanged, then moved on to more original prose. Is it the responsbility of the person looking into this to check each and every paragraph, and blank out only those with unambiguous problems? I’ve taken the route of blanking the whole article, assuming we can sort it out if the editor is interested.

  1. The editor, Rgannonc, is almost certainly one of the authors of the paper in the link (Ruth Gannon Cook). Of course, almost certainly is not the same as certainly. However, I assume that is why MuffledThud is concentrating on COI issues.
  2. While an editor using words from a paper she wrote is not in the same league as wholesale copying from someone else's work, this doesn’t eliminate the copyright issue.
  3. One additional issue is the existence of the coauthor, Dan Eastmond. While I don’t yet know who holds the copyright on this work, he may hold a share of it.
  4. The document url is a .gov site. I’m aware that some documents published by the Federal government are automatically in the public domain, I don’t believe all are, so I don’t want to assume this is in the government domain without some feedback from an expert (that would be you).
  5. I looked for a copyright notice on the document, but I did not see one.
  6. Some people assume they own the copyright on documents they create, but this is not always the case. For example, when I submit a paper to a conference, the conference organizer then owns the copyright. I’ve personally been in the odd situation of having to write to get permission to quote myself. I don’t know how universal that rule is, but without further research, I don’t know whether Ruth and Dan hold the copyright to this paper. (Of course, even if they do, it must be properly referenced, and COI issues must be addressed.)

SPhilbrickT 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Personally, I love more detail. Makes my job simpler. :) Some of that is not necessary for the admins who close listings (we know that sometimes copyvios are reversed and that sometimes people who place copyrighted content here may own it; the copyright notice is not necessary according to US law or WP:C), but it could be helpful if the contributor reads the listing, so there's no harm including it. I do, though, applaud the collapsing. A listing that long would break the page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard le Scrope

Just to let you know I've created the subpae as noted on the copyright violations. It should be free of issues, as I've just put in the basic data when he was bishop, with the standard infobox and succession boxes. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That's fast. :) As soon as I finish creating the copyright investigation listing, I'll come take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
If you run across any more medieval English bishops connected with this, drop me a note on my talk page, and I can do much the same thing if needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I will certainly do my best to remember. It's a big job, though, which will probably stretch over a good many days. Please excuse me if I miss one. If you want to look over the listing at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Jcuk and note any you see, that might be helpful. There's an awful lot of biographies in there. :/ It may be that they are not all copyright problems. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

These are the ones that would touch on my project:

I checked them superficially, and only declared the ones clean where information was clearly not a copyright violation (such as basic dates or succession box addtions). Others are likely clean, due to rewriting. The ones without notations will be harder to figure out. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That's some serious overlap! Do you want to annotate Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Jcuk directly? All contributors with no history of copyvio issues are welcome to help out with that. :) If not, I'll incorporate your notes later. I'm out of Wiki time, and will only be able to lightly poke for the rest of the day. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to add them yourself. And given that my "project" is to get all the medieval English bishops up until 1300 up to "snuff", its not really a lot of overlap. that's two archbishoprics (canterbury and york) plus 15 main bishoprics and 6 minor ones. (See User:Ealdgyth#Big table 'o Dioceses if you're really bored.) Most of the ones above, if they predate 1300, won't have to be blanked, as I've done a LOT of rewriting on them, and they should be mostly clean. People after 1300 (such as Savage or Booth) may or may not need blanking. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Good to know. I will annotate accordingly. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


I get it now. I was looking for an (a) and (c) in the guideline itself, rather than in the Terms of Use statement. I did read back, honest, but I was looking in the wrong place (obviously). :) Franamax (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It took me a minute to find it, too, which is a sign that you were right--it was necessary to make it explicit. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Old old OTRS

Hi. Skimming through the "what links here" for {{OTRS pending}}, I found American Medical Group Association, which has had the tag affixed to the article itself since creation on 5 May. Since it duplicates large portions of the AMGA website, it might be useful if we actually had permission to use the text. I'm not sure if it'll be accessible in the OTRS system, but could you have a rummage for a relevant document? Cheers, – Toon 20:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm off to search now. I'll let you know what i find. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's there...but it's GFDL only. I'll contact and request CC-By-SA, since it's after the November 2008 cut-off. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Fun, fun, fun. One more: Cristina Fontanelli from [24], if you have the time. )The tag was placed on 23 September, if that's useful information) Thanks! – Toon 20:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Got held up a bit. I've already gotten an answer from the AMGA. That should clear quickly. :) I find nothing in the system on Cristina Fontanelli. I did a full timeline search on the website and the last name. Permission is unverified. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
That was swift, thanks. Now, fine-toothed comb time, I guess. Cheers, – Toon 21:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


On its little electronic way to you :) MLauba (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding legal policy or administrative policy subcats to some policy pages

The discussion is at WT:POLICY#list of pages. I'd love to get your input before we make at post at VPP suggesting that we add policy subcats to some pages, including WP:Copyrights and WP:Copyright violations. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll come check it out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried to go way back but I'm not quite sure I understand the purpose completely. Is the intention to start making a distinction between different types of policies, between those the community will be able to amend through consensus and those which are pretty much set in stone (ie that WP:C or WP:LIBEL no longer has a small template saying that you can build consensus to edit these)? MLauba (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That's part of it, I'll respond over at WT:POLICY. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The part we've been talking about now reads simply: "WP:Copyright violations and WP:Copyrights: I'd prefer to let Moonriddengirl, MLauba and others who have followed the page closely classify these in whatever way works best for them." If you like, you can wait and see how the discussion plays out at VPP before making your call. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Gibraltar

Curious how copyright applies to quoting the conclusions of a report. Its isn't an extensive quote, its a huge report. How is it a problem? I believe the person who used the template was doing so to make a point. Would you please reconsider. Justin talk 17:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Copyright applies to any work on publication unless it is from a source that disavows copyright or is not otherwise eligible for protection (such as US government works) or unless the material is completely devoid of originality. Non-fiction is not excluded. This matter was opened at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 18, and I have placed some notes about it there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I had to go fix lunch for some kids. :) Back to it: if that information is to be included, it would have to be clearly marked as a quote, but I don't believe that we can use an excerpt that large from a source that size. It would likely be much better to summarize it, selectively quoting where necessary. But I'd be happy to invite additional review at WT:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The original source is the report, the originator is referring only to the summary that was published as a stand alone document. Referring to the correct document and putting it in quotes should solve the problem should it not? Justin talk 21:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid not. :/ The material is likely to be too extensive anyway. I've addressed that at CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I trust This explains the situation please review and in order to avoid any misunderstandings with Spanish editors could you restore the section rather than me. In the event there is a remaining problem let me know on my talk page. Thanks for your help and attention to potential copyright issues. --Gibnews (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online, the release needs to be on the same site as the original publication. Alternatively, if the Chamber of Commerce does not wish to host it there, you may fax it to the Wikimedia Foundation or send it as an attachment in an e-mail to OTRS. For e-mail, send it to For fax, +1-415-882-0495. However, that release is not consistent with our usual licensing statement at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, and there may be clarification needed. It seems that they are releasing the material into public domain, but it will probably depend on whether the request for maintaining the material intact with attribution is regarded as a condition. If you choose to fax or e-mail it, let me know, and I'll try to expedite the handling, as otherwise it can take a week or more. (E-mail is faster.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
See also the original text on the same site as the release. The request for a link etc is a request rather than a requirement. --Gibnews (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The letter very specifically refers to a publication on The release must be on the same site or it may be communicated to the Foundation by one of the processes above. (I am communicating with the OTRS team about the language of the release.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
There are two separate items, the summary and the report, the link only refers to the report which remains copyright, the summary is freely available and is published on the same site as the letter from the Chamber releasing it for free use. --Gibnews (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The copyvio complaint tags [25]. The summary is published there. Given that these are the commissioners of the report, there seems little doubt that this is the site of original publication. Is there some reason that you would not wish to e-mail this as an attachment to the Wikimedia Foundation? If you're concerned about your privacy, these e-mails are viewable only to a small group of individuals who have been identified to the Foundation and who are aware of and respectful towards its privacy policies. Your personal identification information would not be publicized, but the release would be held on record and assigned a ticket number, which would be placed on the article's talk page. If you decide to e-mail it, let me know, and I'll intercept it for speedy resolution.
In other news, I have conferred with other members of the OTRS team. While the release does not permit modification, there seem to be no objections to using it to permit extensive quotations so long as these are properly formatted and verbatim. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Certainly no confidentiality concern problem in emailing, and will do so now. --Gibnews (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will watch for it. If it lands in the hands of another OTRS agent who is unaware of the conversation about it, there may be some confusion. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concens on King levitation

An editor is removing text from the King levitation article citing copyright concerns [26]. As far as I know, descriptions of magic trick methods cannot be copyrighted but I'd like an informed second opinion. I checked other magic trick articles and about half of them have descriptions of the method used to do the trick. --NeilN talkcontribs 22:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Weird one! A description of a magic trick method could be copyrighted, if somebody else wrote the description (or if we transcribed somebody else's description). If we are describing what we see, I don't believe its copyrightable. I got a 404 Not Found on the trick, so I don't know which this is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Here I'm guessing. Probably a description of what's taught on the DVD. I thought about if WP:NOR applies, but if it did, most of Wikipedia's TV show and movie articles would be gutted. --NeilN talkcontribs 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes. :) Generally consensus seems to be that it's okay to describe what's seen in the primary source (video or tv show). I guess one could make a case for WP:NOTHOWTO. Unless it's a transcription, this shouldn't be a copyright issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed the link but left the text in, based on what I saw at other magic trick articles. Thanks very much for your input. --NeilN talkcontribs 00:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify (or at least to try), the method of a magic trick can't be copyrighted (it would have to be patented, but they usually aren't for other reasons), but the description of the method is copyrighted. An outside (uncopied) description of what the trick is – say, what someone in the audience would see – is usually OK for Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Physchim62! Long time no see. :) Hope you've been well. :) And, yes, what he said. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
FYI, magicians often get upset about "exposure" of the methods of magic tricks, with the result that they sometimes invent spurious IP claims to try to protect them (see Intellectual rights to magic methods). When looking at copyvio claims on articles about magic tricks, it helps to keep this in mind. Dcoetzee 14:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi, we've talked briefly before about copyvio things - finally seem to have some spare time to make a return. Been away for a long time so just wanted to check on the current process for the listings page when things are resolved. When I was previously editing (a few years back), we just deleted resolved cases, but it looks like there may be a cleverer system now, could you let me know what I should do with the listings once I've resolved something? Ta Kcordina Talk 09:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Things have indeed evolved since we last spoke. :) We have three primary avenues now for addressing copyvios, some of which have been around a while and one of which is brand spanking new (and already backlogged):
  • Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations': where Corensearchbot dumps articles it tags. When these are resolved, they are annotated with a note beneath them, as at Wikipedia:Suspected_copyright_violations/2009-11-16. There are little icons that make this easy at {{SCV}}, but a handcrafted note serves just as well.
  • Wikipedia:Copyright problems: where listings are added manually and by Dumbbot, and which also transcludes the SCV listings. They're still handled basically the same, but they are also annotated with a note beneath them. There are little icons that make this easier, too, at {{CPC}}. If I write a handwritten note, I precede it with {{y}} just to make clear that this isn't discussion, but closure. Having the SCV listings transcluded in one batch reduces a lot of redundant labor, since typically SCV resolves well before our week is up. We just have to look at these listings and make sure that they've all been handled. Occasionally, one will have been retained with expectation of permission. If that permission hasn't arrived, we delete it.
  • Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations: where investigations are opened into individuals who have placed multiple copyright infringements on Wikipedia and whose major contributions need to be evaluated or removed. We used to remove these listings when they were evaluated, but now annotate them. Accordingly, some of the older ones are handled differently.
If you want more detail on anything, please just let me know. We can use all the help we can get! :D (Oh, we also have a project now: WP:COPYCLEAN.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright fair use issue

Can you, if appropriate, nominate and delete this image? It was used in an article that has the company logo as a fair-use image. This image of the bottles of the company's product add no distinctive value to the article and probably should not be used. I removed the image from the article. It is impossible for anyone not a routine deletionist to make their way through MFD, speedy, and all to find the correct tags. You will know if the image can be used (very unlikely), and how to handle it. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged this as an orphaned image because it is not used in any article now. ww2censor (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that should probably suffice. I posted a notice on the article talk page in case anyone wants to argue. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems like this one was handled while I was gone. Thanks. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice requested

I agree to publish that work under the free license *copyright license*.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Valid? Seek clarification that he explicitly meant CC-BY-SA? MLauba (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we seek clarification. I made this change in October because I was tired of seeing releases that said, "under the free license TYPE OF LICENSE")" I understand that correspondents find this complex, and I want to simplify it as much as possible for them. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Done'd. MLauba (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And one more

Potsdam University Library, translation of [27]. But...

Thoughts? MLauba (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I mailed them for clarification. MLauba (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Good call. That's not a usable license, but they should be willing to grant one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement

Hi Moonriddengirl. I came across your name on the Copyrights Problem page and hope you don't mind me asking you informally for your opinion. I'm not particularly versed in copyright issues and don't want to jump in just yet and flag an issue on the Problems page. I've just come across a series of pages which start under the main article Next Generation Air Transportation System. This article is based on a FAA fact sheet and is in parts almost a word-for-word reproduction of the fact sheet. Would you know whether the FAA sheet is PD, and if so, whether it is appropriate to largely reproduce it on Wikipedia passing it off as our own work? I'm happy to raise the issue with the primary editor but just want to be sure I'm following policy when I do so. Thanks for your time. Nick Ottery (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I do not mind at all; you're welcome to come by any time you think I may be of use. :) This particular source is public domain. Works of the United States federal government generally are, and most material on the official websites of a federal agency are free to use. There are some exceptions. The two we're most likely to encounter: works produced by a commissioned contractor such as a research lab and works reproduced by the government under fair use or license. In both cases, there is usually a byline. The second issue here is Wikipedia:Plagiarism. While Wikipedia permits material to be reproduced from PD sources, that guideline requests proper attribution to make clear that the PD document has not been simply referenced, but duplicated. We have a whole bunch of US government attribution templates to simplify this at Category:United States government attribution templates, including one specifically for the FAA: {{FAA.Gov}}. I'll add it to the article, and leave it to you to talk to the primary editor about it. :) Let me know if you want more detail. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for having a look at my query. That makes it all a lot clearer :D I've passed on some comments to User:Mcdonar who has been working on these articles and will hopefully be able to help him out from this point. Nick Ottery (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)