User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 25


Thank You

Thanks for your help and apologies if I came across as belligerent. I realise you were trying to be helpful. Regards, Justin talk 14:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I understand that this is a very contentious subject and that the rules on fair use text are frustratingly vague. I'm glad that User:Gibnews was able to verify permission to reproduce the text, since that resolves it neatly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


Yet another OTRS req :). Can you see anything from User:Millosh; it should be permission to use work from the author Robert Elsie's website under the CC-BY-SA, relating to Constantine of Berat and several older articles that are currently GFDL-only. Cheers, – Toon 16:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll do a system search and let you know if I come up with anything. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Came up with lots! Now to wade through it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. That's not a usable release. I'll communicate with the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Right, much appreciated. – Toon 17:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Joint Professional Military Education

Updated DYK query On November 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joint Professional Military Education, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


Just a question I was checking some of the images from Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Akhenaton06 and came across User:Florencebballer who is now uploading similar images and in the past has also uploaded the same image File:Carolina 041.jpg. Assume good faith but is this an issue for CCI or a different audience? Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tricky one. :/ Since User:Akhenaton06 is blocked, if this is the same contributor, he should be blocked as well. No assumption of bad faith there, just acknowledging possibilities. :) I haven't looked at his contrib history, so I don't know if this is a single, coincidental point of commonality. If there's no significant evidence to suggest that this is an alternative account which might be used to circumvent the indef-block of the other, it may be sufficient to launch a CCI on Florencebballer, who seems from a glance at his talk page to have had plenty of copyright problems of his own. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Jose Rizal

Hi Moonriddengirl, I think that the Jose Rizal copy violation is extremely important as it is the National Hero of the Philippines, and the whole info page is currently being held hostage to a wiki process. Anyway of institution older or basic info? It's crazy, and I'll be alerting Fil-Am community that this is all locked up. Kind regards Mog Rhod--Mog Rhod (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article was listed on the copyright problems board on November 7th. It comes current for admin closure the day after tomorrow. If nobody has proposed alternative before then, the article will probably be reverted to this version. So far, nobody seems to have commented about it at the talk, much less proposed an alternative. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks so much for explanation. Good to know that these copyright situations revert to former pages after a time. Am somewhat ignorant of procedures, but just noticed page down for a few days in a row. Thanks mucho for update. --Mog Rhod (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! :) thanks a lot for your work at Rizal. I think doing what you did, including keeping it locked for sometime, was a good way of shocking and waking up the copyvio culprits. I was just wondering how we can retrieve the other sections which did not have any copyvio problems. Am specially interested in the work I did in the Retraction conversy section. I spent some time on that one and was quite meticulous in giving refs. Thanks again. Marax (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I can go into the deleted revisions and pull out your content specifically, so long as it's new and not built around older material. Let me see what I can do. And sorry for the delay in my response. I'm afraid I didn't notice these new comments way up here. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Blanking, explanation

(You wrote)
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that this was done on request. At least, I believe I've interpreted correctly that he wanted new content removed as well. I still don't know what's going on, but I don't want to add to his distress by asking for clarification. I don't plan to continue removing content, but when restoring the history wanted to do my best to respect his wishes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. But if the blanking is the result of his wish, wouldn't it be more appropriate to delete his talk page? The next contributor would see it gone, and thus refrain from commenting on it? – It's just a thought. Thanks for letting me know. --Poeticbent talk 20:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Can't without an MfD. :/ I'm very sympathetic to the desire, but there's no consensus for deleting user talk pages otherwise. I considered putting up some kind of {{courtesy blanked}} or {{intentionally blank}}, but that seemed more likely to attract negative attention. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I think there is some recent clerk-related stuff that can still be accessed through the history that people might want/need access to. Someone's already mentioned this. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What to do?

Besides nearly 50 image warnings that have been ignored, Aircraft Enginer continues to upload screenshots of dubious status with incomplete fair-use rationales, apparently all for the List of starships in Stargate. He seems to be pretty much an WP:SPA right now, but should he be considered a vandal at this stage and if, so where, or who, should deal with him? TIA ww2censor (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Not ignoring you. :) I'm on the phone. I'll look into it as soon as I can get away. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Good gracious! I'd say the ball is in his court now. You've given him a clear request, and if he persists in uploading inappropriate material should be blocked for disruption—at least temporarily, which might be all it takes to convince him to stop. WP:ANI could handle it, but if you let me know I'll take care of it myself. (That said, I'll be away from my keyboard quite a bit later this week for the Thanksgiving holiday.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


i RECEIVED THIS IN MY WORK EMAIL THIS MORNING. DID THIS COME FROM YOU. (redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  • redacted MLauba (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Blatant copyright violation at Sword of Aragon

Hi, could you take a look at Sword of Aragon and decide how to resolve the copyright violation? The article was created straight from the game manual,[1] but most of the subsequent edits are not.[2] Jappalang (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - I did some work, please see the talk page. :) BOZ (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Fabulous! Thank you very much. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Having vacation days from work helps with the free time. :) BOZ (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Interceptor Pattern

I noted that the Interceptor_Pattern has been deleted by you. The deletion message cites possible copyright problems. I have not found either the original text for the page nor the copyright problem message, so it is hard to verify this. However, I would submit that this pattern has been a principle of public record for quite some time, is implemented in numerous systems from various vendors and is widely considered one of the classical patterns (I'm not saying its a good pattern, but people know it and compare more modern patterns to it). I could provide lots of links, but I'd rather not make the effort if there is not going to be a page for it. It really suffices to google the term to verify that it's widely used.

If you would be so kind to show me where I can see the original complaint, I'd gladly give my viewpoint on whether its substantive. (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Ingo

Hi. Surely. The article was located at Interceptor pattern. If you should encounter this situation in the future, the easiest way to check this is, when you are at the redlink, to click "what links here" in the toolbox. This particularly listing was at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 6. Unfortunately, the bot that listed it did not include the url, but it was listed on the template that blanked the article's face for seven days: [3]. Whether or not the term is widely used is not at issue. The problem was duplication of copyrighted text without verification of permission. A new article can certainly be created on the subject. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! I was a bit stumped at first, because this was listed under the "Close Investigations" heading, which is not shown by default, but then I got it ;-)
Anyway, the link you gave is not to an original source but to an explanatory talk about the pattern. Therefore, I would say that the potential for a "duplication of copyrighted text" is very unlikely and if there actually is duplicated text, I would suspect that it was copied from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around ;-) The copyright problem page also mentioned that you requested feedback from User:Dcotzee. What did that user have to say about it?
Can you restore the original version, so that I have something to work from? (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Ingo
No, I'm sorry, but it's against policy to restore articles deleted as copyright violations. The article was created in September of 2009. The pdf archives to March 2007. Moreover, the article's creator cited that source, which is all the evidence we need that the duplicated material was copied from it rather than the other way around. :) Dcoetzee said, "It looks like a clear copyvio to me. Compare page 8 of the slides with the intro paragraph. To a lesser extent page 16 resembles the second paragraph. The example is also clearly lifted directly from the slides - compare pages 23-28 to the code in example section, they're identical." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have now added a very brief description of the pattern, with references to the most relevant background resources. This is by no means exhaustive, but should suffice to give an orientation. I have used the POSA2 book as a reference (except for the example), but summarized and paraphrased their discussion (which is about 30 book pages ;-). This is my first Wikipedia contribution, so I hope its OK! For my part that should be it. Thanks for the explanations and have fun :-) --IngoLütkebohle (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar Again

Apologies for bugging you, could you please remove the disruptive use of templates that user has added again. Justin talk 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As if by magic its removed. Sorry to trouble you. Justin talk 22:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw that, but he reverted it before I could read the reasons for why - if there is any outstanding problem, let me know. Otherwise I assume its ok. Whatever some editors feel. --Gibnews (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy to talk to him about ongoing concerns. He seems to have been under the impression that the release must issue from the copyright owner, but we do accept permission forwarded from others under certain circumstances. Really, the release is not quite as clear as I wish it were. That's why I talked to the OTRS team about it. They don't release the material explicitly into public domain; they mention the right to reproduce, but they do not mention modification. It would be loads better if they were explicit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to keep raising this but now he is changing the hidden OTRS text you added. I don't understand what he hopes to achieve. I've reverted for now but expect on past performance we'll see an edit war about this. Regards, Justin talk 09:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, apparently I'm the bad guy all the people above talked about (but nobody talks to). Well, I don't want to enter into any disruptive edition, so therefore I'd like to ask your advice. First of all, I must say that the figures and facts written down in the report are encyclopedic and worthy to be in Wikipedia. Having said that, I don't understand the insistence in including a verbatim copy of an executive summary that cannot be modified (if we generalized this approach, Wikipedia would end up being a patch work). As far as I understand, and provided the information you included in the talk page and the information I've received from other OTRS volunteers (and regardless whether Gibnews can actually release the text or not, that's something that the OTRS team has to assess), the text is not free as it cannot be modified (it seems that Gibnews claims now that the text has a CC-BY-SA license, it would change totally the issue, since it would allow modification and full compliance to wikipedia principles) and therefore, it breaks the relevant policy (WP:NFC) in the following sense:
I say that because as far as the text is mainly comprised of figures, it would be easy to summarize and rephrase it thus avoiding this mess.
On the other hand, even if the text is verbatim kept, shouldn't it be clearly marked as a quote (using for instance {{cquote}}), as the policy clearly states it ("Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes")? Current layout of <blockquote> does not really allow to distinguish it's a quote (that's the reason of my last edition, along with a better, I thought, explanation of the quote following). Anyway, I'll simply give up this article, as I'm a bit tired of the regular bad faith accusations I receive. Hope you fix the mess of the section. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, as you quote from the guideline, the text was marked with the standard notation of block quotes. :) The use of {{cquote}} is discouraged in articles. However, since it's already used in that article anyway and since clearly marking it as a quote is important, I've utilized it there as well. To respond to your other points, Gibnews didn't release the text. The Chamber of Commerce did. Gibnews forwarded to OTRS their release, on their letterhead. I don't deny that it's a highly irregular release, and though all the feedback I received from the OTRS team suggested it could be used in this fashion, I can't guarantee that this won't change, barring a more explicit release into PD or under CC-By-SA. In subsequent discussion, is been likened to the use of no-derivative images on Commons, which is disallowed. (If you'd like further clarification on the question, WT:NFC would probably be the appropriate forum. I certainly wouldn't object to clarification there.)
Either way, please note that permission at the talk page does not mean that the material must be used in that form. Wikipedia receives permission to use text all the time that editors modify or remove because they feel it is inappropriate for the article. If you think the article is better served by a summary, that's a question for consensus and the regular dispute resolution processes, if needed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your remarks and for your restoration of {{cquote}} in the article. However, I don't think I'll edit the article with regard to this issue, too much quarrel :-) I still think that it must be rephrased unless actually licensed under PD or CC-BY-SA as it violates the first item of WT:NFC (the one I've previously quoted) but anyway, changing even a comma in a Gibraltar-related article requires a months long process, even if the edition being discussed about breaks a Wikipedia policy, so I will use my scarce time to edit other articles :-) Best regards and, again, thank you for your effort in this issue. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC) PS: how do you do the green box magic? ;-)
Using 'scarce time' to unilateraly change the date that Gibraltar entered WW2 might be considered disruptive. --Gibnews (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The magic green box is an "edit notice", and they're quite simple. :) See Wikipedia:Editnotice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It's never too late to learn something new :-)) Best regard and thank you again. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

re:Copyright problem: Food power

Thanks for spotting this. This article is part of this educational project, which I am supervising. I told the students weeks ago about plagiarism and copyvios, but... Hopefully there will be no more copyvio instances, but just inc case, if you can look at all 10 articles, please don't hesitate to review them for copyvio and plagiarism! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Btw, could you expand the Talk:Food_power#Copyright_problems with info on how the students can fix the copyvio issues - I am afraid that some of them may get confused along the lines "where is our article?". Should they edit the article or work on a subpage? PS. They way the students usually work, each is uniquely responsible for some sections. I'd thus hope that it may be possible to just blank / copyvio notice the section(s) created by that particular students, and leave the others intact (it will also make the article look less confusing). Anyway, I know what I'll be discussing tomorrow in class :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, parts of [4] are copyvioed (first para, third para). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What exactly was the problem with the material? What can I do to fix this issue? and WHY did u disband the entire article? Can't u remove the copied material and leave the rest?????? ShaqSmith (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am Sorry and I understand the copyright issues.....HOWEVER I need to know where I plagiarized so that I can fix this ASAP! Thank you.... my email is or u can write on my talk page! ShaqSmith (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

re:Economy of Pittsburgh, copyright problems

Thanks for the information. I stressed today the importance of respecting copyvio/anti-plagiarism policies. Hopefully the students will address those issues soon. PS. In the past, when I was involved in fixing some copyvios, I usually rewrote them myself and removed the notice. In this case, obviously, the point is for the students to do that. What do you think is the best way to address the issue: should they (or preferably, me or you) copy the content to a temporary subpage, including the copyvio, and work on it there (us removing the copyvios, students rewriting them)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are valid points you raise. After teaching many dozens (now, probably hundreds) of people about how to edit Wikipedia, I suggest erring on the side of caution: sure, some students understand what a template is - but I am sure quite a few don't. They should be able to edit an article, but if they cannot see a preview of the content (and they are forced to edit the entire page, with possibly more complex syntax than in their own subsections), confusion and demotivation may arise. Should we just slap the template, remove the copyvio content, remove the template and leave links to it being removed on article's talk page and user talk pages for those who added it? It may be a good idea to device a procedure for that and inform WP:SUP about it (this is not the first time nor the last time that such problem has come up). What makes the SUP case different from regular ones is that 1) the editors are likely not experienced (with the possible exception of the course leader) 2) the course leader would likely prefer that the students fix the errors themselves instead of the community rewriting / deleting the article. That is, of course, assuming that the assignment has not yet been graded (or worse, the course has ended) - because in that case the student motivation to fix their past errors becomes very, very low (of course, in that case, we are back on more familiar grounds - sofixit :>). PS. One m ore thing: in case of collaborative assignments (like mine) it would be very useful if in your summaries of the cases you could note which students (editors) were responsible for plagiarism/copyvio. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
So fix it: indeed. And despite all of our volunteers, we there are so many areas in this project that need help (I wasn't aware copyvio department was also affected, but I am not surpised). And sad things is, this is a growing problem.
Once we identify which sections are problematic, I think that it would indeed be best to remove them, and add diffs of removal to article's talk page / editor's talk page so they can see what needs to be fixed / rewritten. I think that such an approach would be the most efficient one.
I certainly understand why we start from an article wide template and narrow it down; it is a good policy on many levels (including showing the people a big "warning" sign and making them realize it is a serious problem). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding identifying the individual, sending a private email to the course instructor is probably a good compromise (in addition to dropping a note on the editor's talk pages, which presumably the instructor has watchlisted).

Re-creation of Warriors character lists.

According to some text near the top when editing the page List of characters in the Warriors novel series, the page may be too long, which is apparent as it is listed as Wikipedia's 8th largest article. Often, users have tried to fix this problem by splitting this list up into various pages, sorted by "Clan". However, every time this was done, the articles were deleted.

I wanted to fic this issue, and according to the red box near the top here, I should contact an administrator. Seeing as some of those administrators do not appear to have been present for a while, I thought perhaps, you, who has in the past deleted List of RiverClan Cats, a similar page, may be able to discuss this with me.

As a test, I have created the pages under my user page so I can get advice and tips, since I am a relatively new Wikipedian. Here they are

List of ThunderClan cats (Warriors)

List of RiverClan cats (Warriors)

List of ShadowClan cats (Warriors)

List of WindClan cats (Warriors)

List of BloodClan and SkyClan cats (Warriors)

List of cats in the Tribe of Rushing Water and Ancient cats (Warriors)

List of Characters outside Clans (Warriors)

I would appreciate any advice on how to improve the pages so that they will meet standards for inclusion. If you have a reason why I should not do this, please indicate to me why.

Brambleclawx (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The problem here is that these articles were deleted by community consensus, with the belief that they did not meet inclusion guidelines (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of RiverClan Cats, for instance). Ordinarily, I would tell you that if you wanted to create a new article on one of the topics, you would need to overcome the problems listed in the AfD: in this case, notability. (See this proposal: Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages.) Complicating things here is that you are evidently proposing this as a split from a larger article, which is a separate matter. (Be sure you follow Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, or your articles will be copyright violations. You have to give credit to the original contributors.) I see you mentioned this idea at the talk page of the article. I would suggest that you seek consensus for the split, since you didn't receive a response, from a related wikiproject. You might ask it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, for instance, or the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. If there's consensus for a split, then you might go ahead, but explain at the talk page why and link to the consensus. This won't mean that the article will not be deleted again, but it makes it less likely that it will be speedily deleted under criterion WP:CSD#G4. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.I will look over the things you have told me to do, then maybe get back to you. Brambleclawx (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The unfortunate part is that almost all members of Wikiproject Warriors seem to have disappeared. Brambleclawx (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That is too bad, but for this I think you'd do better to get consensus for the split from a more general audience, which is why I mentioned the two I did. If it was from Wikiproject Warriors, others might say that the audience was partisan. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks, Moonriddengirl! I was highly impressed by the amount of work you put in to reconstruct my contributions. Thanks so much. :) Marax (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Help with Rove thing

Hi Moonriddengirl: There seems to be a tag team on the Karl Rove page reverting reasonable edits again. I split the article because the section with Rove in the White House is so long and distracts from the basic bio. But another issue is the religion controversy section and there is a copyright violation question on it. So I deleted it, but another editor, reverted it. That particular editor never adds content, he just reverts all and any changes. Any suggestions?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Problems with other contributors are almost always handled in the same way, by inviting wider community input at whatever forum seems most appropriate. You start with the article's talk page, politely inviting the other contributor to respond there. If he doesn't (or you can't reach consensus), you alert neutral contributors at an appropriate noticeboard or forum to get assistance. You want to remember to remain calm yourself and stay clearly on topic in your conversation. Even if this doesn't persuade the other party in your dispute, it may persuade those neutral contributors, who will better be able to see the issues and also that you are working in good faith to resolve them. This is the best method that I know of to resolve content disputes on Wikipedia. It can be slow and frustrating, but it seems to be all we have. :/ I frequently find myself at WP:COIN and WP:BLPN. Other good ones are WP:CNB, WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN. There's also WP:RFC, but I've found that venue kind of spotty. Sometimes it brings good response, and sometimes it doesn't.
With the copyright question, if a contributor reverts your removal of what you believe to be a copyright violation, you have two options. You can remove it again, with a clear note of explanation to the contributor at his or her talk page, or you can tag the section {{copyvio}}, listing it at WP:CP. This tag keeps Wikipedia from publishing copyrighted content illegally while the copyright question is resolved. If an involved contributor removes that tag, restoring the content to publication, you should seek administrator intervention. Unless there is a very good reason, such restoration is generally regarded as disruptive. Either way, I would also recommend detailing your copyright concerns at the article's talk page. We have a template we use, {{cclean}}, that can be used when removing copyrighted material from articles, but if the case is not so clear cut, you might wish to explain it yourself.
If a contributor is reverting any and all changes without adding content or discussing issues, you may be dealing with a disruptive editor. Sometimes, it's necessary to take such contributors to WP:ANI. There, brevity and good diffs are your friends. You want to demonstrate that others have tried to reason with the contributor and that the contributor is unwilling to work within community behavioral standards. The point is to demonstrate as clearly as possible to an audience who may have a short attention span what's going wrong. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, as always your advice is good. . .I reported the editor to the edit warring page as I believe he's up to four edits now. He doesn't contribute constructive content, he only comes around to revert new edits. Please check edit war notice board and let me know if I did this correctly. It's the first time I've done this, thanksMalke 2010 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I hope it will prove useful to you. I see that the 3RR filing was closed without action, but evidently this is because conversation had not yet been exhausted on the issue. I see, though, that you did not list four reverts, but only three. Under some circumstances, an admin might still take action in such a case, but generally the fourth revert is the reporting point. Also, it is important to show that the contributor has been cautioned. See this one, for instance. Although it, too, resulted in no action, the reporting includes diffs of four reversion, evidence of warning and evidence of efforts to discuss the problem on the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Again, thanks so much for getting back to me, I don't know what happened to the fourth diff, anyway, I've been doing everything you've been suggesting since my block way back in the summer, and I find your advice to be the best. It has been so helpful. I've been using the talk page, stay calm, etc. It really is the only way. One more question though, I am still plagued by User Jusdafax making truly rude/incivil comments. He seems to do it to isolate me, keep others from building consensus. Of course, I don't let it get in the way, but he and Soxwon and Chhe are really blocks to building a consensus. Any suggestions for getting them to the table without running off to notice boards or am I dreaming? Baby steps, anyone?Malke 2010 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad if my advice was helpful. :) Without being aware of the specifics here, I'll say that I believe that remaining very civil yourself is really your best defense. Whether you are dealing with a contributor who is excitable or one who is trying to bait you into losing your own temper (and thus discredit you), your behavior is what will demonstrate to other contributors that you are not a part of the problem. As to how to get contributors to the table without noticeboards, it really depends on the contributors. :) Again, I don't know the specifics here and so am speaking generally, but if you are dealing with somebody who really is operating in good faith, sometimes persistent politeness will overcome their initial resistance and help them reach compromise. Of course, strong feelings can get in the way of that, even when contributors are operating in good faith, and I really don't know anything to be done then except to find neutral contributors who are willing to get involved. This can take persistence and patience. And it is, once more, really helpful to you if you've been very civil and worked within process, since it can keep the focus on the facts...and since if you do run into bad faith contributors, they very well may try to throw up smoke screens, it's really important not to give them ammunition. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well said. We're doing all these things right now on the Karl Rove talk page. Stop by for a look see You're wisdom has contributed much to my contributions. :)Malke 2010 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Azeri military photos: your deletion request on Commons

Hi Moonriddengirl. First, fantastic green header on the talk edit page - I've got to figure out how to do that myself!! I write in regard to I don't know Commons at all, but some of these photos seems very strange (a self-taken photo of a jet fighter cockpit in flight?), particularly in conjunction with the previous behaviour by User:Neftchi. What's the procedure for moving forward on these deletion requests? - be good to decide on their fate and then possibly get some GFDL compliant picces in place. Declaration: as you'll see from my contrib record, I'm currently in a minor dispute with Neftchi over the Az Army, Air Force/Air Defence, and paramilitary articles - standing by for third editor comment/response. Kind regards from New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that what's needed is an administrator at Commons to review the request and take action (or not). Still, that one has been open for quite a long time. I'll ask a Commons admin if it might have slipped under the radar. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Almostmissed this question! The green header is an edit notice, and the directions for making your own are at Wikipedia:Editnotice. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Saw you were busy and preempted you. They're now all deleted. I'll go back thru the Azeri military photos and check for other copyvios. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ecucational assignment update

So as I mentioned earlier, I am going on a new round of checking for copyvios. I went over Polyethnicity, which seems fine, and Semi-periphery_countries, where I found problems originating from one editor, others seem fine. Listed it here: Talk:Semi-periphery_countries#copyright_issues - not sure if this is enough to swap a template on the article... Anyway, I also notified the good article reviewrs they may want to pay special attention to those issues (usually people at GAN don't think in those terms...) and I think it may be useful to list all 10 articles in one places and our comments on reviewing them for potential copyvio/plagiarism issues in one place, so check the list below. Btw, I am curious as to how you and other COPYVIO folks look for possible violations - perhaps you know some tricks I don't :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Group 1: Polyethnicity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - reviewed by Piotrus, seems fine (second opinion always welcomed!)

Group 2: First World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - GA already passed, presumably copyvio free (update: one section has copyvio problems: Talk:First_World#Copyright_problems)

Group 3: Sociology of health and illness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • Unfortunately, infringes on at least [5].
  • Found two more problems, detailed below. I think I am done reviewing this one for copyvios, striking out (Piotrus).

Group 4: Pax Mongolica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - GA already passed, presumably copyvio free (Piotrus)

  • Seems to be. This problem (compare to "There was monetary interconnectedness in the form of credit extension, rudimentary banking and money changing, and a system of payments which resulted in merchant wealth." in [6]) has already been repaired). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Group 5: Economy of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - problems found, listed at talk: Talk:Economy_of_Pittsburgh,_Pennsylvania#Copyright_problems

Group 6: Proto-globalization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - some problems found, some listed at Talk:Proto-globalization/GA1

Group 7: Gender aspects of globalization in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - some problems found, listed at Talk:Gender_aspects_of_globalization_in_China#Copyright_problems

Group 8: Politico-media complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - reviewed by Piotrus, seems fine (second opinion always welcomed!)

Group 9: Food power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - problems found, listed at talk: Talk:Food_power#Copyright_problems

Group 10: Semi-periphery countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - problems found, list at talk: Talk:Semi-periphery_countries#copyright_issues

Good idea notifying the GAN folk. :) I know some keep an eye out for that, but we can certainly use more. There's a lot of pressure during peer review to generate quality content. The quickest way I know to verify violations is to just pick a brief, striking phrase and search for it on google & google books. That finds quite a lot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, now that I've finished review the article I've already tagged, I'll do my best to look through those before leaving my computer. I've got to take care of WP:CP first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, my time is short (and I'm addressing this first instead of CP in spite of myself :D), but I believe that everything else is clear, since you've already addressed this one. I can't say there aren't small bits of text that are too closely paraphrased, but I don't think there are major problems. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my talkpage. I'm reviewing four of these articles, I've already found copyvios in Proto-globalization and you have found it in Food power & Economy of Pittsburgh. I did pass First World, but one section is under challenge for lack of Globalisation. Thanks for the comments above, having been caught on Proto-globalization, I will be more cautious in future. Pyrotec (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Now I see that there's problems in Sociology of health and illness, from [7] as well. :/ I don't have time to thoroughly review this, but I'll see if I find other issues and decide what tag is needed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I've noticed that and added a note to that article's talk. Did you manage to review any other parts of this article, or of other uncrossed article's above? I'll try to finish whatever left today. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

←I've just found a chunk of copied text in First World. Archives confirm their prior publication. I'm still reviewing that one, but I am so out of time. I only have a few more minutes. --Moonriddengirl (talk)

For further source issues, see [8]. Most of the article is unviewable, but there's at least some copying from that source. Checking to see who added it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. Thanks. Did you finish reviewing either of the sociology of health or the First World completely? I'll do my reviews in a few hours (heave to do something in RL too before that). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Finished reviewing soc of health and illness. Found more: African section has a lot of content lifted from [9] ([10]). I dropped a note to the editor who added it, you may want to add your input there as well. North American section has similar problems: content lifted from source ([11]). Editor informed, notes on talk page done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Finished First World. There was old (pre-course) copyvio of [12] but it is now gone due to article's expansion and rewriting :) I am not sure about the European Union section, it uses a lot of sources, but a few sentences are probably on the borderline case of close paraphrasing ([13], [14]); that said the section and those fragments deal with statistical data and summarizing legal texts so they are sometimes difficult to rewrite properly if you could take a look at it I'd appreciate it. In the meantime, I've left a note to the editor who wrote it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I am done. Found partial problems with one section in Talk:Gender_aspects_of_globalization_in_China#Copyright_problems ([15], [16], [17], source). I left the editor a note. Her previous edits to the article seem fine, as far as I can tell. Not sure if the current situation warrants section blanking with the copyvio template? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Sorry to bother you, but you and your talk page stalkers are much more helpful than the copyvio pages. I removed a copyvio from an article talk page, someone has pasted an entire article from the Denver Post on the talk page. Does that now have to be oversighted to remove the copyrighted material from wikipedia? Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The talk page stalkers are the same that respond on the copyvio pages, you know :) Try a {{copyvio-histpurge}} or give me more details, I'll have a look. MLauba (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's the diff where I removed the content. You may be the same folks, but I usually edit as an IP and Moonriddengirl is particularly polite, helpful, and quick to assist anon editors with copyvio problems. Thanks for stalking, I won't check back as I assume you'll know what to do with this. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) For the record, User:MLauba is also very good with anon editors and very good with copyright problems. :) I'll leave this one for MLauba or for my return to my regular computer, as I've had some connection issues and would hate to lose contact in the middle of using admin tools, if they are needed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. No stray pixels were harmed in the process :) MLauba (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


Hello, sorry to bother you, the copyvio pages do not seem very informative, this discussion seems to be much clearer. Is it a copyvio case, if an article uses elements of a public domain text published on a website? Do I have to get a permission of the website owner? Thanks for help. Varions (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm happy to help any time I can. You're welcome to come by. :) I'm out of town and have a very wonky internet connection at the moment, so I hope I will be able to respond before I am disconnected, though.
The first question I'd ask is how you know the text is public domain. Is it too old for copyright protection? Is it from a source that does not claim copyright, like the United States Federal Government? Wikipedia:Public domain can give you some guidance, if you're not sure.) If you're sure the text is truly public domain, no permission is needed, though attribution is required to meet the terms of Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Category:Attribution templates can be helpful. If you aren't sure if the text is free of copyright, then you would need permission of the website owner or the original publisher of the material. (Some website owners are themselves violating copyright law. For example, the webmasters of a popular lyric publishing website aren't likely to be in position to give you meaningful permission to reproduce their lyrics.) There are recommended approaches to requesting permission at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Other suspicious Azeri military photos

Bringing these to your attention - there's one on Commons,, and at least two on Wikipedia,


. These have all been uploaded by User:Baku87, User:Neftchi's original name, as 'own work.' I'm an admin myself here on wikipedia so can assist with those ones if you indicate the procedure. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm traveling at the moment and accessing Wikipedia through a very spotty connection, so I hope I get to post this before I lose contact. :) Unfortunately, this case was not so unusual that I remember the details of it. I deal with a lot of multiple point infringers. If I had no history and stumbled upon this, I'd handle it in one of two ways. If there are only a few images involved on Wikipedia, I'd list them at WP:PUF explaining why the contributor's history leads me to doubt the veracity of the licensing information. If there are a lot, I'd list the contributor for investigation at WP:CCI to invite wider review. (That board is for situations when there are too many individual images or articles involved for easy evaluation.) As I'm not an admin on Commons, all I can ever do is nominate images for deletion by an admin there, either through the deletion debate or one of the speedy processes. Deletion debates there are slow going, evidently. Pretty much all I know about image deletion is compiled at WP:GID, a guide I drew together primarily because I needed to figure out how to do it. :) I still refer to it regularly, and particularly when I need to follow the link to the Commons processes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Hope your travels are going well... :) Buckshot06 (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert Garside

I have rewritten the controversy section. Let me know what you think here. Aditya Ex Machina 14:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Herron Arch 1

Surely all the images in this article are improperly licenced, especially as there is no freedom of panorama for sculptural works in the US? One image with a proper fair-use rationale might be acceptable. Right? ww2censor (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm going to need to check this out when I'm back to full speed. :) I don't dare open multiple images at the moment. Although images are not really my area, I'll be happy to take a look and offer what input I can tomorrow (well, later today, Wikipedia time.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I can load images! :D I agree completely. Unless the uploader really is the copyright holder (which would likely mean being James Wille Faust, and he would need to verify that in accordance with WP:IOWN), these images can only be used under fair use. I've often seen this kind of thing listed at WP:FFD, but, you know, if you explain to the uploader what the problem is, he or she might be reasonable about it and help choose which should be saved, tagging the rest for WP:CSD#G7. I suspect that (unless he's James Wille Faust) s/he just didn't realize that s/he couldn't own copyright to a derivative image of a copyrighted sculpture. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Pittsburgh

Hello, I have been working on the Economy of Pittsburgh and just recently got back to working on it. I am new to wikipedia as you can tell with all the copyright issues. I have been looking at your talk page as well as my instructors Piotr and I am just not sure how to go about fixing these copyright issues. I appreciate your input towards our article but I am not sure on how to approach fixing this. I was not sure if I could access the old edits and fix them on the article page or if we have to just start over. Any guidance on the easiest way to fix these problems would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. Tuna12 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Country mile

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Country mile. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dweller (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

NB the lack of criticism of the closing admin - I think you played the hand you were dealt. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. :) This one seems to have played out in my absence. :) For the record, I have no problem with a new article on that subject, either. I also don't see any problem with restoring the history if the old content would be of use to you in creating a new article. As you know, there wasn't much there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I knew this would happen. I do use dweller as part of one of my email addresses, but I'm not dweller here. But it's nice to hear from you anyway. Dougweller (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Image and a copyright question

Hi Moonriddengirl, I have a small image to upload which is an extremely simple self-portrait by a cartoonist for whom there is an article already. The cartoonist has given me his verbal agreement to release the image as free use for all, but what do I do next? Do I need a written agreement, an email from the artist releasing it? And if so who do I send that to? And do I do that before I upload the image, or what? Thanks for any help you can give me with this, best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yes, you do need a written agreement. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission contains the basic process. Once you get his license (I really recommend asking him specifically to use Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries—it makes processing so much easier, though if he is unfamiliar with copyleft licenses you may need to fill it out for him yourself and ask him to paste it back into an e-mail), you can forward it to (I'm presuming you will place this image on Commons, since you have permission for it.) Alternatively, you can ask him to mail it directly. Once you have the written consent (or he is ready to send it himself), you should upload the image. It's very helpful to the OTRS responder to have the url to that image int he e-mail of permission. :) Add {{OTRS pending}} to the image upload page to guard against premature deletion. Permission should process within about a week. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much MRG, that is a tremendous help! Good luck with everything! Invertzoo (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi, as you were the main contributer.. I am happy to manually archive the talkpage, is there some kind of general agreement that we are more or less happy that what is left is fair enough settled on? Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Evidently, we are editing across each other. :) I responded to this at BLPN, and I imagine you've seen that note, since you've already archived up to the point that I requested remain open pending further discussion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusion over speedy

Dear Moonriddengirl, I am really confused over this. I use TW for tagging articles for speedy deletion and TW automatically notified the article creator. If the editor in question wasn't the article creator then TW must have errored. Can you help tracking down the issue? Basket of Puppies 18:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. No, there was no error in that notification on TW's part or yours, but this was just an unfortunately complicated situation. As far as I can tell, the article was not created a second time, but restored. You tagged it quite properly on October 30th for a copyvio. It was deleted at 20:34, 31 October 2009 under G12. It was then restored on 09:55, 19 November 2009 by MLauba, who believed the copyright issue had been cleared. BobbyGH never edited the article again after its first deletion. I'm all for notification, especially with copyright issues, but under the circumstances felt that a second tag for deleting the same content would be a bit bitey, especially since he has evidently attempted to comply with licensing requirements. I don't think there was any intentional biting on your part there. It's simply under the circumstances that essentially he has gotten two warnings for one action (sort of like a redundant vandalism tag).
For the second tag, though, I do think it would have been courteous for you to discuss your concerns about the article with User:MLauba. As I'm sure you know, CSD is typically for uncontroversial deletions. Personally, I am greatly appreciative of your efforts to keep an eye out for copyright violations. It saves a lot of time and grief if we can nip that in the bud, and even when a contributor may be able to verify it's best to get that taken care of early, while we may still be able to get in touch with him or her. But I think under the circumstances it probably would have been a good idea for you to explain to him why you felt his closure of the CP listing was incorrect rather than to tag it for G12, which tag is not meant to be used for "Unambiguous copyright infringement." If there is even a "dubious assertion of permission", as there was here, CP is better for it, and the admins who work CP are generally open to conversation if there is disagreement about our conclusions. We're human, and we may make mistakes or even just interpret evidence differently. :) If you encounter this situation again, no matter what admin has removed the tag, I would really recommend you just put the {{copyvio}} tag back on the article, explain why on the talk page, and leave a note of explanation for the admin who removed the tag. I've done that myself, when I've disagreed with another admin's conclusions about a CP matter, and it's a good way I think to avoid publishing potentially problematic content while the matter is under dispute.
Since you are not an admin, I understand that you may be hesitant to replace the {{copyvio}} tag if an admin has removed it. You are welcome to come by my talk page if I'm around for assistance in such a situation. Even when I'm not here, there are generally a few copyvio admins who are. And I'm pretty sure, having worked with MLauba, that he would have been okay with its restoration with an explanation of why.
Again, I do appreciate your keeping an eye out for copyright issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, I think I completely understand what you're describing- both the technical restoration and the social/BITEy aspect of it. I am glad to take the path you have suggested! Thanks for the substantial and thoughtful reply. Basket of Puppies 18:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A nice fresh snowball

I have a feeling this probably was not so much of a "guy thing" as an "oh-my-god, Christmas-already?, jingles-on-the-brain, gotta-buy-gifts, days-are-short, when-will-I-find-the-time?, my-mind-is-plum-pudding, bah-humbug, holiday-panic-irritability" kind of a thing. At least for me... this lasts until the first snowball smacks my face and then a short sharp shot of Aquavit. Or a post by Moonriddengirl. Same difference. Same refreshing result. CactusWriter | needles 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I very much hope that all will be well. :) This job can bury us if we're not careful. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Avery Coonley School

Can you help with a question, a User as just added large parts of the The Avery Coonley School article most appears to be a direct copy of the school website the website only has a general copyright statement from the hosting company. Without checking every single edit (over 20) made today should they all be rolled back as potential copyright violations on the assumption that the website doesnt mention public domain or do we need to check all the edits. Any advise appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll come take a look in just a few minutes. I've got a dog soaking in oatmeal. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Oi. I've blanked both articles for now, as I found duplicated text in both. Meanwhile, some of the images may also be an issue. With File:SCPA Historical Marker.PNG, I've got to remember how things landed the last time historical markers came up. There's no source given for this watermarked image. This, this, this and this may be PD, but there's no sources for them, either. (With the last, I can't read what it is.) File:Schools of To-morrow.jpg is being clearly misused. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the user in question, and while I understand the concern, I do not understand the procedure. As a brand new editor, I admit I find the rules and review processes confusing and a bit frustrating. My intent was not to copy the school website -- which I did not do -- but to selectively edit material from the site when the site was the best (or only) source for that material. My plan had been to edit and properly source that text, a task I was working on even as the conflict forced me to stop. In other words, it was a work in progress. I admit this may not be the most efficient way to make major revisions, but again, I am new at this. All I really wanted to do was improve the article from the stub that it was to something more useful. At this point I do not know what to do. As you will see, I've been at it a while. So if it is possible to get some guidance as to how I can fairly use the public site content and continue working on it, I might do that. Right now, all my work appears to be lost and I am not certain I have it in me to start over, nor would I know how to do that without leaning heavily on the school site for much of the information. Vaughanchris (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not realize until now that you had blanked my SCPA article, as well. I believed I sourced the Old Woodward image when I uploaded it to Michael Husman. But again, I am happy to correct any issues given the chance to do so. If the SCPA article is a do over, too, I probably just do not have the stomach for Wikipedia. How exactly does this confilict process work?Vaughanchris (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify what this review process entails. How do you make the determination on what is deleted, and what is my opportunity to participate in this discussion? I would argue that the vast majority of the SCPA piece is my own, with minor inclusions from the schools FAQ (including the Mission Statment, which should I think be verbatim), that could be quickly fixed by stronger citations. Likewise, there are changes to the Avery Coonley piece (the infobox, the lead, etc.) that are clearly my own. Are these automatically deleted? Are all of my changes deleted? It is less disheartening to be told there is a problem than to be told that there is nothing I can do about it. I really does make it very difficult to participate. Vaughanchris (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Given what you've said, I would prefer, if possible, to just roll back everything I did to the Avery Coonley page. It will be far easier to recreate what I think is mine than explain it. And I imagine easier for you, as well. Clearly, my work-in-progress approach to editing is not going to work here. If you have suggestions on how others do it, I'm listening. With regard to the SCPA page, I do think the problems pointed out on the talk page are minor and I would prefer to fix them. If those are not the only issues to be dealt with, please let me know that. I will follow your suggestions and post my comments in the appropriate place. Finally, I have no problem with you handling the review. I have no complaints. I am just confused.Vaughanchris (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed your comments on the SCPA talk page, and do not know if it is best to reply here or there, but I will post here since I am really asking your advice. I am happy to revise the sections you indicate, but I have two questions about it: The first regards procedure: How do I make the changes, given that the page is blanked right now? Should I make edits on the page anyway? Will you automatically be aware of them for approval? The second question is about policy: Given that some of the material is just facts and rules (admissions, creative review, mission statement, etc.), what is the best way to include this information legitimately? Should I quote (or block quote) the sections verbatim and footnote them specifically? Or do my best to paraphrase. For example, there are only so many ways to say that 90% of the kids go to college, or that you have to audition in all majors. Thanks. And thanks for rolling back the Avery Coonley post. That was a rookie mistake on my part.Vaughanchris (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to say thanks to Moonriddengirl for looking at this issue. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Amelia Island Plantation

Greetings, MRG:
Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. I've finished a new article that I've been working off and on for a few weeks. No big hurry. Mgreason (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I did, thanks. Hope you did also. :) I'll try to get to the article tomorrow. I've got a good bit of daily CP stuff still facing me, and work to catch up on post holiday. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Another question on a cartoonist's image?

Sorry to bother you again MRG, but never having done this before, I hope I am understanding the process properly. I assume that I get the cartoonist to write the following text in an email. But when they say he should sign off with his name and "details", well is email address enough details, or should he include a phone number too? His address?

And before he sends it, I will upload the image to Commons (adding the OTRS pending tag to the image upload page), have him add the Commons page link to his email message, have him send the email, and then wait about a week before adding the image to the appropriate Wikipedia page. Right?

Thanks for taking this time to look this over. Invertzoo (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC) ............... To the staff of Wikipedia and Wikimedia:

I hereby affirm that I am Edward J. Subitzky, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of “small self-portrait” located online at:

Here give the link to the Commons page

I agree to publish that work under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, as detailed here:

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.

Edward J. Subitzky, New York City, I guess to include his email address and what else as "details" here? Copyright holder

Date: December xxth 2009

And send the email to: permissions-commons AT

That should work just fine. The only complication will be if he has published this online before, in which case we need to be sure that the e-mail address is clearly associated with the point of first publication. Let me know when this is sent, and I'll intercept it for quicker handling. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


Thanks so much for the shiny, seasonal bauble :) Hope you had a good Turkey Day and that your dog's skin condition is better. So at first I thought I'd do Fasciolopsis, but a couple sentences in and... mah smelling salts... must call doctor... obvious symptoms...

Short articles that are clearly notable and lots of reliable sources pop up - I'll try to keep my eye on candidates. Best, Novickas (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Don't develop symptoms. That would be no good. :) That one turned out to be mostly copyvio clear, anyway, as the CDC published it first. But it's great to have you on board even for short articles, clearly notable, lots of sources. I hate deleting 'em. :) (Dog is decidedly less itchy today.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could reply

To that. In a week the assignments should be over; till then I am trying to help the students address those issues as much as possible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't recall

Would you mind giving a quick reply about to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#who's copying whom? about Wikipedia's stance on reverse copyvios? (For my benefit, too.) Somewhere in the recesses of my brain, I seem to recall you answering me about it way back when -- but, for the life of me, I can't remember where, when or what was said. CactusWriter | needles 16:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Right there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. CactusWriter | needles 16:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted item "Extended PMRL"

I understand and think it's great that you have deleted the article that is in question, because you find it to be a copyright violation of some type, obviously because someone has contacted you, or there is no reference for the information, and you can't find any permission that was given by the contributor of the information.

However, is it possible for you, once you have deleted to the item to have a reference to the location where the information came from in the first place, if you have it? Like if it was actually copyrighted information from the Encyclopedia Britannica, maybe leave that reference there, so that we can actually go to that source and find the the information? Because you've obviously done the research to find out where it came from to validate that it is a violation, so you know where the information came from, so, if it is a publicly accessible source, maybe provide their name, or the name of the book, or website where it came from.

Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There are rules against creating "articles" that consist only of external links. I don't find any sign that we've ever had an article called "Extended PMRL" (with or without quotation marks). I've had a glance at the last 1,000 articles I've deleted, and I don't see the words "Extended" or "PMRL" in them.
You may be able to find out the source yourself. When you are at the article title, click "what links here" in the toolbox on the side of the page. If it was listed at the copyright problems board, the listing will be included in those links. Take, for example, the article Shultz tables. The links lead to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 August 31, which gives you more information including the source from which material seems to have been taken. If you can give me the precise title of the article, I'd be happy to give you more information about its deletion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Time waits for no man...

... but computers are not men :-) J.delanoygabsadds 18:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Too true. I've also noticed that computers have an amazing ability to suck time out of the real world, the way you sit down for a moment at the keyboard and stand up dazed five hours later. Maybe it's saving the time it steals for these moments of suspension? :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My suggestions on how to improve copyvio template

You'll probably see it anyway, but here it is. Based on my recent experiences and discussions with my students. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Palm, meet face

[18] Banhammer time for Matthew06 87 I think. MER-C 05:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeffed. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Need your help asap

Others might get involved before you get a chance, but we need some comments on copyright here [19]. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Still sleepy, but will do my best. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Good gracious. Opined, with lots of parentheses. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good morning...

...I know, we should stop meeting like this. Can you take a look at Charles Anthony Pearson and this source? I think the efforts are good faith but clearly copyvio. Would appreciate a "best course" pointer.  Frank  |  talk  13:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering that we're usually meeting over copyright problems, it would be very nice if we could stop meeting like this. :D I would much rather meet in better circumstances. Yes, it's a clear copyvio. I would tag it {{copyvio}} and either give the contributor the standard no-thanks template it generates (which is designed to be newcomer friendly) or give him that and a personal note underneath it. I frequently add something under the template like ":Thank you for your contribution here, but unfortunately unless you can verify permission this article will need to be rewritten or deleted. We can't use or [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing|closely paraphrase]] copyrighted text. Please let me know if you'd like to discuss steps in addressing this.". That may help ease the sting a bit. Just let me know if you'd like to take point on this one. (But let me know soon if you'd like me to do it, as I've got a long meeting I can't duck in about 20 minutes. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks!  Frank  |  talk  13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Any comment on the note at Talk:Charles Anthony Pearson and my talk page from the originating editor? I'm not sure what to do; the text at the source site does seem to have changed.  Frank  |  talk  12:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I've responded there. I've seen this happen once or twice. The problem is that changing the external site doesn't clear the copyright protection on the original content, and we need to verify that we had it first. I hope it'll be a simple matter to clear up. It should be, if the Wikipedia contributor is in contact with the webmaster (or is the webmaster him or herself!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I checked at but it wasn't archived often enough to make a determination one way or the other; in fact it does appear possible the text could have appeared here first. Thanks for your input on this matter!  Frank  |  talk  13:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo Copyright

Hello Moonriddengirl,

There were some photo copyright issues earlier with the Jonas Salk page on two photos. Apparently it's been resolved, but I was wondering how does an issue come up in the first place? Is there a Wikipedia program that automatically checks for copyright against a published list? There's so much wikipedia to learn. Also, the deletion notices are still up on these photos on the Salk page despite someone telling me the issue had been resolved. How do I go about getting this deletion notice removed so that the photos aren't deleted in error? Thanks for your help, :) Malke 2010 (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) There isn't a Wikipedia program that checks for copyright against a published list, but there is a bot that trawls the internet looking for matches for newly published text. Off the top of my head, I would estimate that this finds about 3/4ths of the copyright problems we deal with on Wikipedia. Most of the rest are found by vigilant contributors who either notice similarity or suspect copyvio based on certain circumstances of the text/image in question. A very small number are reported by the copyright holders themselves, upon their discovery of their content on Wikipedia.
Looking at the images on the Jonas Salk page, I see several with deletion notices. File:Salk Carter 77.jpg is tagged for lack of evidence of permission on Commons. It was tagged on November 18th, and it waits a Commons admin to review it and either decline or delete.
The ones that I imagine concern you are File:Salk test tubes.jpg, File:Salk March of Dimes poster.jpg, File:Roosevelt OConnor.jpg, and File:Salk Thank You.jpg. Each of these is under an ongoing deletion debate on Commons (Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salk test tubes.jpg; Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salk March of Dimes poster.jpg; Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roosevelt OConnor.jpg; Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salk Thank You.jpg) and will also have to wait a Commons admin to review and close. From what I understand, Commons has quite a backlog on deletion debates, so this could take a while. (They go back as far as May, if I'm reading this correctly!) You may be able to request an admin to go ahead and close it at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, but I don't really know if that's within "protocol" at Commons. It's a very different environment than Wikipedia. You might want to find a familiar face in the list of Commons admins at Commons:Commons:Administrators and just ask if that would be considered appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand things a lot better now. Appreciate the list of admins, also. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Richard Restak, "eponymously"

My use of the word "eponymously" it the context that I used it may have been in error, however it is a "word". It's an adverb. "Eponymously" is used in many other wikipedia articles:

It is listed in the dictionary
<snip copied text> And it is listed in wikitionary:
7mike5000 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Eponymously is a word, yes. "Epomymously" is not a word. It was a typo, I presume; I myself have made some doozies (you have to look in the edit summary for my jaw-dropping one there). :) (I've removed the definition you placed above as non-free text. You can certainly copy from Wiktionary.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize I misspelled it. Shouldn't have used it in the first place. Thanks 7mike5000 (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and my apologies. On rereading it, I can see that my edit summary must have sounded snarky. It truly wasn't intended to. "People who live in glass houses..." as they say. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Food Power Reposts

I started putting the new information on the temp site...thanks ShaqSmith (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Thanks for the help...I will have everything reposted by 5 AM tomorrow EST. Thank you and can I have ur email? ShaqSmith (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi back

Hi dear Moonriddengirl and thank you so much for stopping by, i read your message at work in the morning and got me really happy and active, a great way to begin a day. i`ve around assessing, but these have been slow months i took it easy when i broke the 27000 barrier on unassessed articles left, but i`m back on track and is really nice having my mentor watching over me, specially if she is dressed in opals and rags, feathers and torn taffeta. Thanks again. (I hope you like chocolate) Zidane tribal (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Added Food Power

Sorry to bother you so much but I added the edits. How do i add quotations around a few sentences of texts. ShaqSmith (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Food Aid and Food Power

ok Thank you...Please keep me updated as you update the main article and remove the copyright infringement signs. I am also removing the entire section on "Europe" as it is not important toward the project and the topic. THANK YOU! We need the copyright infrigments removed so that my group and I could work on the project, we only have a few days... If there is STILL something in need to fix, let me know on my talk page and/or my email at: ShaqSmith (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


Plot summary appears lifted almost entirely (a word or two here or there out of hundreds) from sparknotes. Sparknotes clearly declares a copyright on the page, so I assume it's our bad.[20] "©2009 SparkNotes LLC, All Rights Reserved" Is it possible they copied ours? Seems unlikely....

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Good catch and thanks for reverting to the previous non-copyvio version! There's no question about the copyright violation. Wikipedia's version was this wholesale addition on May 1 2009. Sparknotes version goes back to at least 2000 including this version from August 2008. Mrg (good morning), I've added a cclean template on the talk page. CactusWriter | needles 09:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, as usual, to Moonriddengirl and her stalkers. I know it's not a wikipedia synopsis because it hit a few major points and wikipedia plot overviews usually miss all major points because they are OR rather than taken from literary critiques. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Man, I was tired when I got up this morning! I didn't even notice this section up here (hooray for stalkers :)). Thanks for cleaning it, IP69.226.103.13, and thanks for ccleaning it, CactusWriter. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Admit it, your stalkers are as good as you are. Sorry I abuse your page, by the way, but even you might admit it's fast and doesn't tend to leave loose ends. ;) --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to see it as abuse. If so, I'd have to judge myself very harshly. There are a few people I run to routinely. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Punishment Approach

I am so sorry to bother you so many times (truly I am). Could you find out who from my group added the section on the punishment approach because it was not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaqSmith (talkShaqSmith (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please send User:Nikzen another message please...I will contact her ASAP. ShaqSmith (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


It seems that you are not active nower days Ramesh vyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh vyas (talkcontribs) 19:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am, although I have unfortunately a lot of work to do today. I've answered most of the above comments at the talk page of the user who left them. :) Are you in need of assistance? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Once the educational assignment cleanup is done

Would you mind writing up your thoughts on your experiences with it? I am collecting feedback from students, but I'd also like to get feedback from the other side - the Wikipedia helpers :) Hopefully, once we put those two together, we can figure out what to improve (like streamlining the copyvio template and such). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, still having trouble figuring out how to work wikipedia but realized today that I had a copyright problem that you posted on my talk page. I have rewritten the section (for the article on Food Power). Can I post it in the food power article, or should it go somehwere else? Thanks for the help, and sorry about any inconveniences. Nikzen (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

You are really a hyper active person. Ramesh vyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh vyas (talkcontribs) 20:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I hope you still remember me, but if not, I was the one who asked you about recreating Warriors characters list pages.

I'd like to thank you for your help in showing me specific articles that helped me do things better, like the copied template for example.

So once again, thank you!

Brambleclawx (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I do remember, though I tend to get fuzzy about details after two or three days. :D I'm glad if I was helpful to you. Please feel free to stop by any time you think I may be of use. If I can, I will. :) Good luck with it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is something I'd like to ask for: according to this, you have access to deleted pages. I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a copy of the previously deleted pages: List of ThunderClan Cats, List of RiverClan Cats, List of WindClan Cats, List of ShadowClan cats and List of SkyClan Cats. (all case sensitive) I would like to make sure that the new pages are different enough that they will not be considered a violation of Wikipedia:CSD#G4. I am quite sure that the edits during the past two years have added enough significant information, and the addition of citations, has improved to it the point where it can no longer be realistically considered "sufficiently identical and unimproved", but I would still like to be completely sure.


Brambleclawx (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That was very helpful. It appears that the old versions were basically splits, without using the {{copied}} template, and done quite poorly. The new versions that I made are currently in the mainspace, and since they are still a work in progress, requiring a bit of extra citation, I've put the {{newpage}} template on them. I along with another user are at present working on adding even more citations. And yes, I have given credit to the original page through the use of the {{copied}} template

Brambleclawx (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary is the really crucial part, and a check of this suggests you've got that covered. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What I'm worried about is that previous version have been deleted over issues involving WP:N and WP:FICT, and the fact that most pages mainly site the books they are about, author chats, wands and worlds, and amazon. The apparent problem is that although popular, Warriors still has not gained much public notice, so there are very few if any independent sources which can be cited. A search on Google will not give any results besides book stores, and fan sites. After reading WP:N, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.", I personally question that as a "general" definition, since there are so many things that could be considered "notable", yet not receive much attention. Any suggestions on what I can do in terms of citations, and these issues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brambleclawx (talkcontribs) 21:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Oops, forgot to sign again. Brambleclawx (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable thing to be worried about. :/ That's why I had suggested that you get consensus for the split at a neutral, but interested location like Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels or Wikipedia:Content noticeboard before splitting. If you can point to that consensus (even if you get it now), G4 is much less likely. You have a bit of an uphill battle here. The only other tip I can offer is the one I follow myself: slog through google news and google books and consider a trip to the library if the sources aren't accessible to you. I find some stuff at [21], but I don't know how much is useful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried getting consensus for the split. I waited 1 weeks. The only response i got was {{User talk:Brambleclawx#Warriors|this]]. Even now, after 2 weeks minus a day, no one has responded. I suppose one reason is that many Wikipedians are disappearing (See the article I have on my user page for more info). And yes, Google news is something I hadn't ever even explored before. Very helpful.

Brambleclawx (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


This looks about nine months old. I find this source which is attributed to another copyrighted source (apparently with permission). Should we just revert to the version before that edit and continue along with the article from there?  Frank  |  talk  05:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, although I also added in the new content that didn't build off of old material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That one was a real bummer; I went to it expecting information and it took me very little time to think "this MUST be a copyvio!" But to discover it was in for so long was really just disappointing. Thanks again.
I'm starting to recognize what looks like templated wording in your responses to these you have a template you subst in? I really could do this myself, especially if, as it seems, I keep finding more of it...  Frank  |  talk  13:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes. The one at the talk page of that article is {{cclean}}. There's a compendium of copyright maintenance templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Resources#Copyright maintenance templates. I have a few more personal ones that I use stored at User:Moonriddengirl/frequently used templates#Copyright concerns. I also have a couple of "form letters" for situations that I either haven't encountered often enough for a template (but have encountered often enough to have grown tired of typing it) or haven't gotten around to turning into a template: User:Moonriddengirl/form letters. Because I lag sometimes, some of these have been turned into templates. This one isn't needed anymore, because we have {{Uw-copying}} now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick question about copyright

I have a real quick question about if I can copy and paste this table here directly into my article as an image or if I have to change it and make my own which I would need some guidance. Thank You Tuna12 (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Would the book listed here be out of copyright in the US? The article Christian Klengenberg has been created and if the book is no longer under copyright then it could be linked to and the images added. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 08:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not automatically, though it could be. I really like books published in 1922, because as far as Wikipedia is concerned the answer then is "Yes." :D I'll see what I can find out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Real life stuff called me. Stupid real life. :P
The big question here seems to be whether it was published in the US as well and, if so, when. If it was published in the US within 30 days of its original publication, we may be able to use it. Otherwise, I think we can't.
Summarizing (for the benefit of any friendly stalkers who may like to help out :)): this is an autobiography by a man who died in 1931. The book was published in 1932. It was originally published in London, where it is now PD as the author has been dead more than 70 years, but the United States does not recognize the rule of shorter term. It may protect material even if it is pd in its own country. (Thanks a lot, United States.)
According to Cornell's handy chart, a pivotal question is whether this material was PD in its home country on 1 January, 1996. In many cases, it would then PD in the US as well. But I figure it PD in the UK 1 January 2002, if the UK also dates to the beginning of the year following expiration term. So under US law it would be under copyright for 95 years from publication if it meets any one of these conditions: (a) “published in compliance with all US formalities” including notice & renewal; (b) solely published in the UK; (c) also published in the US but “more than 30 days after publication abroad.”
If it was published “less than 30 days after publication abroad” we use the US chart, at which point the condition of publication becomes pivotal. If it was published in that span in the US, it is public domain if it was (a) published without copyright notice or registration of copyright within five years of publication, or (b) published with notice but no renewal of copyright (I searched [22] and [23] and found no evidence of renewal, fwiw). Otherwise, it is protected for 95 years from publication.
I never had much to do with these gray areas prior to coming to Wikipedia, so I'll see if User:Jayvdb has time to weigh in, because he is an absolute whiz at this kind of thing. I bet he knows how to find out if and when it was published in the US. And he should certainly be able to correct my summary if I am misunderstanding anything. And in the meantime, maybe a friendly stalker will help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think that replying a few hours after I asked is any sort of delay. I really didn't expect anything back for several days. I'll ask Rosiestep what publication data is in her copy and will go and check the copy my ex has to see if there is anymore information. Thanks again. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, it would have been a good hour earlier if real life had not interfered. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I checked and it has the same publication information. 1932, Cape, London and Toronto. However, I thought of another possible problem. None of the pictures are dated or credited. So if the picture of Klengenberg had been taken by Diamond Jenness or one of his kids, most of whom died less than 70 years ago, would it not still be under copyright? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Good point. The PD situation on the text and the images may well be different. I so much prefer uncomplicated situations. :/ Anyway, I've left a note for John, and maybe he can shed some light on any US edition. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The permanent link to the book I used while writing the Klengenberg article is: . Unfortunately, I don't have the book anymore -- only had it over the long weekend. My stepson is returning it to his school library. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The images are not a problem any more. Rosiestep jogged my memory and I went and looked through Archives Canada and was able to find a PD image that I uploaded. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah sorry the picture had the wrong names on. I guess we might need to know if the pictures are OK. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I'm talking to John about this, but have nothing definitive yet, and I haven't even asked him how to go about checking the images. About to do so. I may need to find a Commons admin. I don't think this is promising, tho. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Several days into it, and my answer is still vague. John points out that the editor is Canadian, which might mean Toronto was the original point of publication, and not London. This could be good news, since Canada has a shorter term (life + 50), and material authored by Klengenberg that was first published in Toronto would be PD in the US as having been PD in originating country in 1996. However, the editor (Tom MacInnes) died in 1951. If his contributions were significant enough to give him a copyright claim to the text, then it still isn't PD. The status of the images still depends on who owns the copyright to them, and if the photographers are not identified, figuring that out isn't going to be easy by any means. :/ I'm not that familiar with image copyright laws and so will seek feedback from User:Dcoetzee, but as I understand it, if the book was first published in London and the photographer is unknown, it would be PD in the UK "70 years from end of year taken, or made available to the public if within 70 years of creation", according to [24], which would miss the 1996 cut off. If Canadian copyright applies, I believe that the photographs will be PD either 50 years following publication or 75 years after the photograph was taken, whichever comes first (according to Commons). I'll check with Derrick. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
For images first published in a book, without any indication of image authorship, there is a rebuttable presumption that the author of the images is the same as the author of the book. That means that any claimant on the copyright would have to prove that they were the photographer, and not the author of the book. Our normal practice is to presume authorship in the absence of any indication to the contrary, so that would mean that the images have the same copyright status as the text (one of the many reasons why we insist on accurate sourcing of images). I don't think it is wise to claim them as "of unknown authorship", given that they have been published in a work under an obvious author name.
I have to agree with Moonriddengirl that it is more than likely that the text and images are under copyright in the U.S., and this for two reasons. Firstly, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, we have to assume that the work was simultaneously published in the UK and Canada: as such it has simultaneous copyright in the two countries, and the UK copyright would trigger a restored U.S. copyright under the URAA. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the author is Danish, and so there is also a Danish copyright to consider. I've checked with the Danish Copyright Act (No. 395 of 14 June 1995), and it includes both the rebuttable presumption of authorship and the necessary extension of copyright term. In other words, even if there were not a U.S. copyright from the British publication, there would be one from the nationality of the author. Physchim62 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That's very helpful. Not good news, but very helpful. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not certain the author (Klengenberg) was a Danish citizen at the time the book was published. He became an American citizen before 1925, and in 1925, rescinded his U.S. citizenship to become a Canadian citizen. I don't know if he retained dual (Danish) citizenship. Though I dug around for legal citizenship documents, U.S. or Canadian, so far at least, I didn't locate them. I'll check with CambridgeBayWeather who may have some local resources that could answer this. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I've been busy and not been able to spend as much time here as I would like. I'll check with Heritage Society later and see what they have. I'd like to thank all those who have spent so much time in trying to solve this. I did notice that a free image has been added to the article which came from here and the copyright information is at Library and Archives. Thanks again. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 10:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Klengenberg moved around. I've got feedback from User:Dcoetzee here. He seems to think a case could be made for use with the tag "commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA" and one of the appropriate licenses he recommends, but he also says, "I wouldn't recommend it unless you have some really compelling reason to." It might be better to wait until the dust clears on the debate over how to handle these situations on Commons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

Hi Moonriddengirl, I came across this note on a talk page here [25] just now. The note dates from April of this year, and that IP address user appears not to have been active recently but a bunch of edits to the article were made a few days later in April by User:Goldstar 353, possibly as a response to the talk page note. I was not sure what should be done now (if anything) so I am asking you to take a look. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll go check it out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be a copyright problem. Perhaps the copyright holder just felt poorly represented. :) I've left further instructions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh thanks for checking, I couldn't work out what was going on really but I am glad you took a look at it all... very best wishes to you as always, Invertzoo (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Query over extensive quotations

Sorry to bother you with this again but I think you'll recall that I found it very difficult to understand the area of copyright and when extensive quotations breached copyright. Are extensive quotations stored in user space and on talk pages acceptable? See User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar and Talk:Gibraltar‎. I only ask because tempers have got frayed in mediation and I don't want to raise it as in issue if it isn't one. 01:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as with other WP:NFC questions related to text, there is no clear cut answer to that. :) Wikipedia has developed policies against the fair use allowance of images outside of article space, but a different standard exists for text. We frequently discuss the meaning of quotations on article talk pages and other project spaces. I use them all the time in demonstrating copyright concerns. They are also typically permitted for "decorative" purposes, so long as very brief. I have never seen anyone object to a brief quote from a song on a userpage or from a favorite poem or book. I think the community view is that these kinds of uses are harmless, and so long as the material is brief I suspect that they probably are.
All that said, I would not myself be comfortable with text of the sort at User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar being stored in that way. It does not accord with the usage at WP:NFC, and it is not brief enough to be presumptively harmless, the way two lines from a pop song would likely be. I note, though, that the page is newly created. It's possible that this is part of a note-taking process that this contributor is using to build article content. I suspect the community would allow a little latitude for that. It's also possible (I venture, since I don't know the substance of the dispute) that he is placing them there to reference in a debate over article content, not wishing to burden whatever forum page that conversation is occurring on. I would imagine that the community would grant some latitude there, too, though I hope it would not remain long.
Talk:Gibralter is a scary 437 kb long, and I'm trying to finish some article work before I have to get off (which I should have done two hours ago :D). Rather than look through to pick out the ones that might concern you, I'd suggest that you might mildly mention at arbitration your concerns with the quantity of non-free content there. Presuming that the conversations that used them are stale, you might refactor to remove the content as long as you have announced your decision to whomever is mediating this and you know that it will not be seen as disruptive. Sometimes, discussing copyright concerns requires me to use more non-free content than I am comfortable replicating, to demonstrate my concerns. I will routinely delete the text as soon as its purpose is served.
In other words, I think it's a valid point to raise. But in all cases, I'd encourage bringing it up calmly, with an assumption of good faith, and an air towards collaboratively protecting the project. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, you can see what I mean about the discussions.  ;-). Justin talk 01:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind repeating that advice as my comments appear to have been ignored. Thanks. Justin talk 11:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I have spoken to Ecemaml. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RGM-89 Jegan

There is a comment on your closure of the copyvio investigation of this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RGM-89 Jegan (2nd nomination) in case you would like to comment. SpinningSpark 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of E-century publishing corporation

Hi Moonriddengirl, we had an exchange of communications quite a while ago following my efforts to try and get a page set up which had the link ( which still had work to do - personal events overcame me not allowing me to follow that up for a while (I became a Dad!). However in the interim the need for this page has now been superceded so please can you remove this page for me? I have looked to see how I could do it myself but I cannot remember my password details for my (old) "MolecEpidemiolFan" account and thus I have a new account unimaginatively called "MolecEpidemiolFan2"! Can you help with this deletion? Sorry for the inconvenience but also thanks for your assistance with this in the past too--MolecEpidemiolFan2 (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete CCI?

The Aiman abmajid CCI appears to be incomplete. I was looking for the two copyvios ([26] [27]) I found when deciding to accept the case to mark them off and they weren't there, even on the original creation of the page. Hmmm. Would you mind running the contribution surveyor again? MER-C 02:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's disturbing. :/ I have an older, slower version of the software. I'll run it and see if it picks up more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It's running. When it's done, I'll compare the results. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
...still running. Scary, huh? :O --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
...still running. Even more so. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
...still.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Finished! Hope I don't break Wikipedia trying to post it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What is the emoticon that you use to express your emotions on reading this? "ERROR: The text you have submitted is 3,114 kilobytes long, which is longer than the maximum of 2,000 kilobytes. It cannot be saved." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi Moonriddengirl, thank you for your kind message. I'll try to explain tonight (I don't have much time right now). It's really amusing to acknowledge that there's a complain about one of my subpages and not having received a direct request in my talk page (I do not read the whole of the Gibraltar talk page; it's too long to focus on more than one issue at the time). However, you've summarized above very well the rationale behind those provisional "long quotations". Mind that the quotations applies to an ongoing mediation process where the sources themselves are challenged (with frequent mutilation of quotations to make them say what they don't actually say). Best regards and, again, thank you for the tone of the message (it's really gratifying to know that most of wikipedians assumes good faith) --Ecemaml (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, I've left a note as introduction of the page. As I express there, if you think that, anyway, there's an actual problem, don't hesitate to go back and talk to me (possibly if you think that the note is not as self-explanatory as I intended). I cannot be but committed to Wikipedia spirit and therefore no harm is purposed with such a page. Best regards and, again, thank you for your trust. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again. You've been very helpful. I'll delete them when the issues are over. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"High res version available for money"

Hi there, Moonriddengirl. Seemingly you are an expert in copyright concerns. That's why I am here, although my question is not really a copyright concern but one related to wikimedia commons policies.

Here's a link to the picture I am dubious about. Please look at the comments section, where we can read other_versions=High res version available for money. Are advertisings of this kind allowed? Thanks! Cremallera (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not that up on Wikimedia Commons policies, but I'll take a look in just a few minutes to see if I can help. If not, I'll refer you to a Commons admin. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow. How on earth did you stumble onto a comment that was removed over a year ago? It took me a few minutes to figure out where that comment was visible. :) [28]. I suspect that the removal of that comment was appropriate, and it doesn't seem to be under contention. If somebody is disputing it, then I'll be happy to ask a Commons admin if there is precedent. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I really had no idea that the comment was removed already. I just read the link in a talk page, as given by Gibnews himself and saw the advertisement. Sorry to waste your time (and Gibnews' as well, because I've directed him to this notice in his talk page). Will it be visible always in the file history, then? Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries about my time. I was just very curious where you saw it. :) Yes, the comment will always be visible in the file history, but it should not be currently visible on a casual glance. I just can't fathom how it was visible for you when it's been gone for so long. Maybe some technical thing? Would you like me to ask somebody with more technical expertise to see if they can figure it out, because this is beyond me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it something unusual? Cremallera (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Got distracted by some copyvio stuff. :) Yes, it shouldn't be showing in to the comments for you unless you were looking at an old version. It doesn't show for me, which is why it took me a few minutes to figure out what you meant. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry then, there are issues better left unresolved, like velcro or magnetism :) Thanks for your time! Cremallera (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL! Okay, then. I'll continue with my copyvio work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank heavens I'm not being stalked by Spanish editors. --Gibnews (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Err no. You are not being stalked, I am debating with you in the very talk page where you've posted the link. I apologise for wasting your time, as I did not know that the comment was already removed, but please notice that it was deleted for a reason. Regards. Cremallera (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Charles Fryatt

Hi, User:Mjroots here - not logged in as this isn't my pooter - what is the problem with the article on Charles Fryatt. The citation was Crown Copyright but that is expired (50 years). The article had been approved for a DYK and was in the queue. I've not looked at the queue to see whether it is still there but it affects my SS Brussels hook too. I'll be back on my own pooter within the hour so please would you leave a message on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to fix the problem ASAP. (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Immediate panic over! I was getting confused with the Gordon Bastian article, which involves the SS Empire Bowman article in a double hook. I'll have a go at writing a non copyvio version of the Charles Fryatt article later. Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I think my input to the CF article was pretty minor, a bit of wikilinking to the SS Brussels article, adding a cat and an image etc. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I've made a start on the new article on the temp page. It's nowhere near finished yet though, but should be an improvement on the original. Mjroots (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't process it yet. I've still got more to do but it's getting late and the beer is kicking in. Hopefully I'll polish it up tomorrow and then it can be transferred to mainspace. I don't see why I can't do it myself. Would it be better to delete the existing article (G12?) and then recreate it? (Ulterior motive, I'd technically be able to claim it as a new article then!) Mjroots (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted the old version and replaced it with a shiny new non-copyvio version. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. I'll not join the project but will rewrite articles of interest if I come across them. Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeat copyright violator - edit warring to restore material - help!

Hi Moonriddengirl, I've listed the problem at AN/I [29], but sometimes, things like this get lost in the various dramas. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the contributor; selectively deleted the vio. Feel free to drop by any time. :) (Oh, by the way, I've watchlisted the article, but should I miss him getting back at it when the block expires, please let me know.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much! You're a star! I'll keep an eye on it too and his other "contributions". I fear from the warnings at his talk page that his Wikipedia career is destined to be a short one. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest problem

This problem - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Contributor_copyright_investigation_notice - looks too big for even the copyvio team's dedication to handle. How would you and the other team people feel about a posting to Mr. JW's page about it? I don't really have any ideas in the way of solutions. Clearly you and the other members of the copyvio team have put a lot of effort into rewriting rather than deleting - but maybe it's time to consider just excising these texts (via tools) in some cases - and asking for some $$ to be spent on copyvio tools when the task clearly exceeds the capabilities of mortals. The request could be a joint composition. Novickas (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Jimbo is in position to help with everything else in his bucket, but if you feel like publicizing the issue of CCIs by all means please do. :) This one is a bit daunting, I'll admit. I'm not sure if it's as many numbers as User:GrahamBould, but in terms of quantity of edits? Oi. My jaw fairly dropped when I saw how long the list was. It took many hours to populate. :( We've got 17 open CCIs at the moment, though I'm pretty close to closing out one. They do keep coming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I'd have the time/dedication to follow thru on publicising and follow-up; it just seems a lot to ask of the humans. Later, Novickas (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyvio?

I happened upon this new article (because it mentions snails): Heterophyes heterophyes. I fixed the title of it. I was going to go ahead and clean it up and Wikify it, but, right now it looks as though it may be copied verbatim from somewhere so I thought I should temporarily leave it as it is. It's probably not copied from an online source as I cannot find it by googling, but as another editor said on Ashleymont's talk page, maybe it's copied from the book that is used as a ref? I was not sure how to tackle this, so I am asking you. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I would handle this in one of several ways. One would be to tag it with {{copyvio}}, placing "see talk" in the url parameter and list it at CP. On the talk page, I'd explain concerns in a way that clearly assumes good faith (almost automatically wikilinked that, and while I'm thinking about it, please forgive me if I wikilink something so basic that it's insulting. I talk to a lot of newcomers, and my fingers have a mind of their own!) while also setting out that confirmation is needed. Then I'd hie myself off to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange and ask if somebody there can access and compare with this book. That sometimes pays off, and it sometimes doesn't. :) I'd explain my follow up at CP.
The second approach would be to tag the article's talk page {{Cv-unsure}}. This asks future contributors to verify, but is obviously far less likely to result in action being taken.
I'd be comfortable blanking this while we wait for further response from the contributor, if you'd like. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

MRG to the rescue!

I've gone and stuck my nose in a copyright-dispute thingee. I know, my nose shouldn't be stuck where it doesn't belong, so you have to save me! =) See Wikipedia:ANI#Admin:Rama ignoring previous consensus, refusing to gain new consensus, User talk:Rama#File:Chicago Spire.jpg and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chicago spire.svg and kindly try to mediate and lend insight where possible. –xenotalk 15:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Your nose belongs pretty much all over Wikipedia, I think. :) My nose is not that often seen on Commons, as images are not my main thing, but I'll take a look and see what insight I can offer. If I have none, I have peeps with whom I regularly confer. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Cheers. As always, I'm prepared to be wrong and just want a fair and even-handed approach - which you'll no doubt provide! –xenotalk 16:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Gracious. I think you are quite right to pull your nose out of User talk:Rama#File:Chicago Spire.jpg, as it looks like we have an admin on a crusade (and I don't mean you). I don't believe that I'm in position to prove you wrong, because I agree with you...but I can't prove you right, either. For a question of this sort, I would personally approach a user who is an admin on Wikipedia and Commons and also puts a lot of time into non-free content issues here. My first choice would be User:J Milburn. Any objections to my asking him to take a look? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No objections at all - I trust your judgment. –xenotalk 17:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I've requested his input. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to strongly disagree with Rama. Either his creation is a derivative work, and therefore non-free, or it is not a derivative work, and therefore useless as an illustration. I will chip in at the various discussions. (As an aside- cool! I'm someone's contact!) J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


I appreciate all of your help....If i need anything else i will leave u a message ShaqSmith (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Food Power

Could you check again quickly on copyright issues on Food Power. My group members and I added alot of stuff and I wanted to make sure no one palgarized as we have learned our lesson on that issue.ShaqSmith (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of K.Will

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article K.Will has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:RS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andyzweb (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I presume this is an automated notice? I kind of hope so, because I'm not sure it's helpful to notify everybody who has ever edited an article of a proposed deletion...and if you aren't notifying everybody, I'm not at all sure why you chose to tell me. :) My entire contribution to this article was to remove a biased statement and to add unsourced and notability tags. If this is an automated notice, can you tell me what you were using? I'd like to address it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I'm new to the Proposing deletion thing. what are good guidelines for notifying editors to an article? andyzweb (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think generally it's a very good idea to notify the creator of the article and it's probably a nice courtesy to notify others who seem to have invested a lot of time and energy into it. I would not notify individuals who have done a drive-by editing, such as templating problems or correcting vandalism. I couldn't even re3member what this article was when I got the notice. :) I may have only visited it a few days ago, but it was part of the routine processing of matters listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 30. I think as a general rule, I'd be inclined to notify only those contributors who've added significant actual text to an article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Some photos

Hi there MRG, I was hoping I could get some quick - and hopefully easy for you! - advice on some photos I've taken and want to upload to wikipedia for the Lionel Queripel article. I volunteer at the Eastbourne Redoubt where Queripel's sword and medals are kept, and today with the assistance of the assistant curator I took some pictures of the sword and medals. As I have taken the photographs, with the assent of the assistant curator, does that mean I can upload them as PD-Self (or whatever the Self justification/copyright tag is) or do I still need to get the curator to email permission to OTRS for the images? There would be about three or four of them in total. Many thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to images, little is easy. :D I would imagine the question concerns the basic copyright of the medals and sword. (The sword may not be copyrightable, if it is completely utilitarian, but most sword designer include some flourishes.) I'm going to run this by one of the Commons admins with whom I consult, because I don't want to steer you wrong. But specifics on the medals could be helpful. I see that he received the Victoria Cross, which according to File:Victoria Cross Medal Ribbon & Bar.png, anyway, is out of copyright. Are the other medals? Do you have any idea the origin of the sword? Is it decorative? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, I didn't think this would be so complex :( The sword is decorative and has various fancy inscriptions on it - I believe he used it before his death upon graduating Sandhurst, and it was then revamped as such after his death. The medals consist of the Victoria Cross, the France and Germany Star, the Africa Star and the 939-1945 Defence Medal. They are on a dark background, and I've cropped the photo to get rid of anything else that was in the original photograph. I hope this helps, many thanks. Skinny87 (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries. :) The first question with releasing photographs is whether the stuff you're photographing can be legally released or if a photograph of it constitutes a derivative work. (See especially Commons:Commons:Derivative works) The sword may be a problem, unless we can pinpoint an origin. Swords can be utilitarian objects, or they can be works of art—and it sounds like this one falls into the latter category. Since the sword is the focus of the photo, its use is not de minimis. Do you have any idea the date of the sword or its creator? That could help. :)
With the medals, I believe France and Germany Star and Defence Medal (United Kingdom) should be out of Crown Copyright in accordance with [30]. Order of the African Star seems to have been Belgian. I'm not familiar with Belgium's copyright laws, and we don't have an article on it, but [31] tells me that the Belgian government does reserve copyright. Commons:Commons:Licensing says that for anonymous work, copyright expires 70 years after publication. Since that medal was established in 1888, you should be free and clear on that as well.
One question raised by your latest note: "the original photograph." Do you mean that your photograph of these medals is a photo of a photo? If so, then, yes, we will need verification of permission from the curator. :) While the museum does not own the copyright to the medals or the sword, it would own the copyright to a photograph it has made compiling the medals, as the placement of the medals in the photos is copyrightable creativity. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, no, sorry about the confustion. I took the photograph of the medals, then cropped it a bit, but I didn't open a new file or anything. I think you've also got the wrong medal - it's actually the Africa Star and is not a Belgian decoration - sorry for the confusion. I'll try and find out who made the sword, but to be honest this seems like a dead end. I just wanted to illustrate Queripel's article, but I think we'll have to do with a few photos of the Battle of Arnhem at this rate. And I don't think I'd want to try for fair-use or anything. Maybe if I can find out about the sword and who made it I can get their permission, but given that the assistant curator is extremely busy, I was lucky that he took the time out to let me take the photos. Skinny87 (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Henry Delforn

He's on my watchlist, so I noticed your block and declined it, but I can't get the template wrong, I'm no good with templates! Can you tell me what to do to fix it? I'll fix it myself if you tell me what to to. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I've found another copyvio from him and am in the middle of leaving him a note about it. I'll get back in just a moment. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay. First, your decline replaces his unblock request. :) That removes him from the active request list. Second, the directions on that are very wonky. I've tested it, and the only way that I can get it to work is to replace {{subst:Decline reason here}} with the reason for the decline. I tested it here. It includes your signature in quotation marks, which is odd. But I think this is the way it works. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
So it's not just me. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, yeah, you are supposed to replace "decline reason here" with an actual decline reason. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL! No, it was the whole thing that I needed to replace to get it to work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about copyright concerns

Hi, there is a conversation going on at Talk:Ted Bundy about a long quote that has been added as being a copyright breach. We could really use your expertise to resolve the situation. The quote is by a judge stated in this section. One of the citations Ann Rule I found the info about the judge and typed it directly from the book and posting on the talk page the quote and the page number. The second ref I can't find the judges comments at all though I could have missed it. I typed in the quote so I don't know if it's a copyright violation or not since the book is used as a ref but I want to be sure I didn't do anything wrong here. Originally a quote was added that was taken from which I knew was not acceptable plus it seemed incorrect. We really could use your experience and knowledge about this before things get out of hand. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll come take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply, very much appreciated. Your response should definitely take care of the issues that are going on there. Again thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy if I can help. :) Sometimes a quick outside opinion is all the traction that's needed to get things moving forward again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but we could use your help still at the Ted Bundy talk page. The discussions under 'in film' and 'Judges comments' are still under way. Two editors are still arguing to keep the youtube edit in saying your comments are just your opinions. An Ip pulled up a fair use comment about how it is supposedly allowed. Another editor is saying it's just opinions, this editor has volunteerly accepted a ban from editing the article directly due to breaking 3RR so no other sanctions would happen. It's going around in circles and personally it's past ridiculous in my opinion since the quote out of Ann Rule's book would be a good allowable ref. Rule is used throughout the article but all of a sudden it is being said that her words are inaccurate, incomplete. So to fix this supposed error, the editor took the words down from youtube and the words from the book and smooshed it together saying it's not synthesis violation. Not sure how it's not because it's taking two refs and coming to a comclusion. Anyways, if you have time, and are willing, we sure could use more of your input to hopefully put this to rest. I'm about to just put the Ann Rule quote in with her book name and the page number and just try to be done with it but I don't think it will stick. This seems silly to me but hey I guess we can go a little longer and see if we can come to a conclusion already. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for responding. I hope this time it takes and we can move forward. I made some suggestions about how to move forward so I'll wait for the others to respond. One last question, the syntheses violation in the article should it be removed immediately? I really don't know policy on this and since this is a BLP, well he's deceased now so not sure if those rules apply anymore (still learning about BLP, sorry) would it be better to remove the quote and replace it even if it's only temporary with the quote from Rule or just removing it all together which the last is fine by me. Thank you again, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that it's so much a WP:BLP issue here as, really, a problem with WP:NFC. I would allow it a couple of days before addressing it, since I don't think it's urgent. Both sources are provided, more or less, although the citations are rather incomplete. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree with what you say. I think your last comments helped to finally put an end to the major problem which was the merging of the two refs. I'll wait a few more days or longer to make sure there is an agreement with everyone before fixing up the area. Thanks again, your help was very valuable to allow the conversations to move forward and to stop the esculation that was happening. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi Moonriddengirl! How are you? :) I was wondering if you could take a look at the Spin polarized electron energy loss spectroscopy article. I removed some of the copied text but I'm not sure if that was the best solution. Anyway, I'd appreciate if you could take a look at the situation. Thanks, Theleftorium 14:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll be right there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that removing it was probably a good idea, since the whole article is not tainted and since there is an ongoing AfD. I would suggest you make a note there explaining that you've removed text that constitutes a critical issue. While the material has been altered some, there's no doubt that it remains derivative, with some identical passages. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty, thanks! Theleftorium 15:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is the note on this website ("No copyright for this biography") sufficient for use on Wikipedia (see Alireza Farhang)? Theleftorium 15:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost, but I'm afraid I don't think it is. It could in my opinion just as plausibly mean "We didn't violate any copyright writing this biography" and "We don't want you to violate our copyright on this biography" as "This biography is not protected by copyright." If we wound up going to court over it, it wouldn't do us much good to say, "Well, we thought it meant it was copyright free." :) I would blank and relist it as "permission plausible" and ask the contributor with a personal note to have the website altered to be specific. For example, if it says, "This biography is released into public domain," we have no issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thanks again! Theleftorium 15:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vlad9

I'm afraid the Vlad9 CCI is still not complete - there's still five more images:

... all of which were taken with different cameras. I think these can be deleted presumptively too. MER-C 02:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks for letting me know. I thought that the "On Commons" division meant they had been tagged there. :) I've deleted the versions on Wikipedia, but they're going to have be tagged for a Commons admin, perhaps through their deletion debate process, which takes forever. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Tagged at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stadionul Municipal (Râmnicu Vâlcea).jpg. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Valle Crucis Abbey

Thanks for the thanks. There was a cry for help on WikiProject Wales for someone to have another crack at the article, this time without a cut and paste job. I'm still adding to the article, and have a nice little book which I can reference to, so hopefully by the end of the day all parties will be happy with the situation. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

SanHaunt PaoChui

Dear Moonriddengirl,

Hello, It seems you have found my page of SanHaung PaoChui and I sincerly appreciate your assistance. I would like to give my appologies for the copyright issues that you have currently stated for I actually did not nowtice myself. I have changed the wording and paragraph structure to be able to give as much information as possible without the issue of copyright infringement. This is actually the first time I have attempted to write on Wikipedia for my Computer lecture so please excuse me "noobie" matters. Thank you! I am not too sure what steps else to take, Although I did rewrite the paragraph you quoted.

- Ranoishiki Night

- New Paragraph -

Revisions - Around the time of Ming and Qing dynasties, there was a monk by the name of Puzhao whom climbed Mount Emei in the Sichuan province. Upon arrival he met a Daoist priest whom taught him the first style of Pao Chui. Years later, he finally mastered the art and returned back to teach it to Qiao Sanxiu and Gan Fengchi during Qing emperors Kangxi and Yong Zheng's ruling. He taught Qiao to learn soft fluid motions as the core of his form but strength and power as the outward application. On the other hand he taught Gan to learn strength and power but instead use a supple soft motion as his output. The Gan-Style focused on maintaining a positive life with strong health. Both mental and physical vitality. During 1736-1795, the Emperor Qian Long, Qiao Sanxiu passed what he has learned from Mount Emei to his disciple Qiao Heling. The disciples of Gan Fengchi are unknown to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RanoishikiNight (talkcontribs) 17:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerning my article - SanHaung PaoChui

Hello again, I think I am starting to understand the circumstance but my inexperience to Wikipedia still proceeds to confuse me on this matter. Would it be necessary for me to start a new article with the same subject? I personally wouldn't mind rewriting a new article to avoid any future copyright issues. Although, I would much more prefer to keep this article hehe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RanoishikiNight (talkcontribs) 17:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's that time of year again...

Thanks for all your help and all best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Happy holidays to you, as well. :D (I need to read up on some of those.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


You might want to join in here - there are about 250 links to this site (some talk pages of course), and we are discussing potential copyvio problems of such links. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Seem pretty substantial! Weighing in. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Cincinnati Bearcats Football

I just didn't reference the location of that information. The other stuff was completely written by me. I can adjust the history part, but the traditions, and facilities are completely right, and brand new. I was attempting to fix it when you 'protected' the content.

Bradamj (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Image uploaded & permission letter sent

Hi Moonriddengirl, the cartoonist's image is uploaded here: [32] and the permission letter was sent this morning. Thanks for any help you can give. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll go see if it's arrived. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I've located the letter. There's a technicality we'll need to clear up, but if the gentleman is willing that should take next to no time. :) I'll let you know when things progress. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey I put it up on the template. Hope this one is better. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikzen (talkcontribs) 19:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, just let me know whatever it is that needs doing, whenever you are ready to explain it to me, and I will go ahead and explain to him what he needs to do. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the problem might be that people think that the website mentioned in his email was the actual source for the image. In fact the website image and the image he sent in to Wikimedia are both from the same original source, which was a small, full-length self-portrait he drew in 1992 for his business card. That was scanned in and made into a digital image several years ago, used for his little one page website about 3 years ago, and then now used to send in here. Let me know if there is something the artist can say in another email to make this clearer. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It doesn't matter to the Wikimedia Foundation whether he published it at that website first or elsewhere first. We know the website predates us, so if the website is his, he can easily verify by connecting it to his e-mail account through one of the methods recommended. If it isn't his or he can't, I'm afraid it could be more complex. :/ We need some tangible way to verify that this is his address in accordance with Foundation practice. Is he unable to connect the accounts? I haven't received a response from him to my letter of 12/09. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. He never got your letter (your email I presume) of 12/09. Maybe it got caught in the spam filter? Could you send it again and let me know when it was sent so I can tell him to search for it, even if it ends up in the spam. He also says he has another email address via if that would be easier to link with the website which is a website. Having not received your email, neither of us know what the actual "methods recommended" are. Thanks for any help you can give, Invertzoo (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

An article to unlock

It looks like everyone is in agreement on Tyranny of the majority other than Todd.

Shouldn't we unlock the article so the consensus can be put into effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollingeyez (talkcontribs) 19:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is consensus, given that a contributor has added several sources to the section. But you may wish to speak to Todd about possibly unprotecting the article. I'm not so sure about those sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Thank you, but my involvement with that article was largely restricted to copyright concerns, which is primarily the area where I work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Image deletions

Why did you delete the images from the Old Forge Blue Devils page? First of all, many of those pictures are very old. Second, the photographer is probably long dead. Third, I can gaurentee there are no copyrights on these pictures. I am asking that you please restore them.

You seem to be running amok with deleting images I have posted. I am trying to improve Wikipedia with interesting and historical images, only to have them removed.

Also, you deleted 3 photos form the Bee Gees page. Those photos are promotional pictures which are fair game. Please restore those as well. Lou72JG (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted no images that utilized fair use templates; every image I deleted asserted that you were the copyright holder. Your images have been deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations, "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 contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately", in conjunction with the duly filed Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Lou72JG. If you do not know the photographer, you cannot guarantee that there are no copyright on those pictures. If you do, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about attribution

Hi Moonriddengirl! I just have a quick question: does the content on the 72nd World Science Fiction Convention need to be attributed? Theleftorium 21:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to 71st World Science Fiction Convention, because the same user created both and the content is substantially the same. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
My bad, I didn't realize they were created by the same user. Thanks and Merry Christmas! :) Theleftorium 14:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, can you check if Pull lead (talk · contribs) was the original author of the content on Wes Shivers? Theleftorium 14:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
No, he was not. Good catch! I've restored the history for attribution. Can you explain the situation to the contributor so it doesn't happen again? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll try. ;) Theleftorium 15:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Can Wands and Worlds Author Chats be considered "reliable sources" on fiction books, since they are technically direct statements from the author(s)? Brambleclawx (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with it. :) The best place to check on something like that is probably WP:RSN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I've asked it there. Brambleclawx (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


terribly sorry about that, I think I deleted something by accident, could you please revert to the old version? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercury2K (talkcontribs) 21:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at MLauba's talk page.
Message added 01:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MLauba (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

New copyright pages etc.

The page Wikipedia:Copyright problems/NewListings I have changed so it never needs updating again. The rest of the situation I am looking into. Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC).

I mention this because, no doubt, it will get over-written by ZorglBot. Rich Farmbrough, 02:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC).
  • Gasp* That's fabulous! Thank you very much! I'll talk to Shutz about it once you figure out if anything can be done with the other Zorglbot tasks, so as to avoid having to track him down twice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Danny Tarkanian

Can I simply go back to the history of the page and paraphrase anything that is considered a copyright violation?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Finished new page at Talk:Danny Tarkanian/Temp. Please check it.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I will come by and evaluate it today. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Charles Fryatt

Is now a Good Article! Face-grin.svg. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Go you! I've got a couple dozen more of those, I'm sure, if you feel like it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar again

But this time with no specific problem but just for a double-check :-)

Well, I've just uploaded this picture. Is it OK? My main concern is in the purpose section. Although there is no picture available describing the event it relates to (the closure of the land border between Spain and Gibraltar for 13 years, from 1969 to 1982), the articles where I've included it may possibly remain without such a picture (the event is very important but it's not the only one). What do you think? May I claim fair use? Many thanks in advance --Ecemaml (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images are not as much my area as non-free text, but I think that one could be borderline. The question it comes down to, I believe, is whether the image itself famous or the image just captures an historic moment. If the former, then the image would be governed by WP:NFC image point 8: "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." If the latter, the image is likely to fall under this example of disallowed usage: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." As I understand it, if the image itself is iconic, you should discuss the image in the body of the article, with sources (not the moment, but the image itself).
I admit, I find the application of NFC image standards very confusing. I've had two images I myself uploaded under fair use that were essentially identical in function and nature. One of them was deleted at FfD. The other was not. I also once nominated an image for FfD when a more image-involved admin told me it was a violation of NFC...and it was kept, with support of another image admin. My point here being that even if I or somebody else tells you that it's okay, this is not as straightforward a question as it may seem. :) My best suggestion would be to consider the status of the image, to discuss the image specifically in the article and, if you're really concerned, to ask opinions at WT:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Image upload and permission letter (continued)

This exchange copied from the thread higher up: "Hi. It doesn't matter to the Wikimedia Foundation whether he published it at that website first or elsewhere first. We know the website predates us, so if the website is his, he can easily verify by connecting it to his e-mail account through one of the methods recommended. If it isn't his or he can't, I'm afraid it could be more complex. :/ We need some tangible way to verify that this is his address in accordance with Foundation practice. Is he unable to connect the accounts? I haven't received a response from him to my letter of 12/09. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)"

"He never got your letter (your email I presume) of 12/09. Maybe it got caught in the spam filter? Could you send it again and let me know when it was sent so I can tell him to search for it, even if it ends up in the spam. He also says he has another email address via if that would be easier to link with the website which is a website. Having not received your email, neither of us know what the actual "methods recommended" are. Thanks for any help you can give, Invertzoo (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)"
Sure. :D I have resent it. It's generally pretty simple to link up. Please let me know if he doesn't get this one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
So far he did not get this most recent message. I wonder if there was something wrong with the way it was written in his email or something. He can give you other email addresses. Invertzoo (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Strange. :/ If he wants to e-mail us from a different e-mail address, please ask him to include the ticket # in the subject line: 2009120910062691. Alternatively, if he does not mind, you can e-mail us and include that ticket #, and I can send the directions to you instead or as well. The ticket # will make sure that it is assigned to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I sent you an email today. Invertzoo (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I responded to it through OTRS an hour or two ago, and if you don't get that, I'm going to be very worried indeed. :) Maybe I'll go try to e-mail myself from OTRS. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Your email didn't come through yet, but it may still come in later tonight or by tomorrow morning. Sometimes messages can get stuck at a node for a while so I understand. But I think it wouldn't hurt to email yourself just be sure your end of things is working OK. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
You could also maybe try that other email address I gave you, he should get that at work tomorrow morning assuming everything else is OK. Invertzoo (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I did. I sent it to both of his addresses and to yours. :) My e-mail to myself from OTRS showed up, so hopefully one or more of those will as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Henry Delforn

Prior to my semi-retirement, I had noticed some copyright problems relating to User:Henry Delforn's edits. However, as far as I could tell at the time, most of the objectionable material was from publications of the U.S. government which, if I am not mistaken, are in the public domain. In a few cases, I tagged the material appropriately to indicate that it incorporated elements from the source to allay my own squeamishness over plagiarism—ostensibly a different problem than copyright violation. Perhaps I should have addressed the problem more aggressively, but as Delforn was a new user at the time, I was trying gently to encourage him to cite his sources in a more conventional manner. I assumed that he was aware sources published by the U.S. government are generally public domain, and so I didn't bother to address this specifically with him. Let me know if you think I should comment in some way at the copyright investigation. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yes, US government sources are public domain, and anything found duplicating those should be no issue. We didn't really have a good process for dealing with issues of this sort back when you first noticed some cause for concern. I understand the balance between not wanting to bite and wanting to avoid future issues...there are a few individuals I've taken the same path with, hoping for the best outcome. In a way, we're hoping for the best outcome still with Henry Delforn, as consensus at ANI was only to block if he does it again. :/ I don't know that comments are necessary, but should you decide to unsemiretire (or just have spare time), you'd certainly be welcome to check a few articles off of the list. :D I'm afraid these CCIs tend to linger for quite some time due to shortage of manpower. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I have seen that Henry Delforn regularly blanked his user talk page (which is allowed). I guess the blanking of the talk page has made the discovery of the repeated copyviolations more difficult (because people have not seen earlier warnings about copyvio when they write a comment on his talk page). Do you think the current policy for blanking of talk pages should be changed? Ulner (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
There are some cases where I might—at least, it seems that a time requirement for publication would be helpful. In the case of an established user like this, I'm not sure. There may have been enough communication in his history for the page to need archiving anyway, and until recently we really didn't have a good forum for people to take cases like this. (Actually, in fact, if he had archived them via the "move" function, it would have made it more difficult, as I might not have noticed the recurrence myself. Though I had dealt with Delforn once before finding a second issue at SCV, I did not remember him. When I see an experienced contributor at SCV, I routinely check history.) It would be nice if we could catch these situations more quickly, as they can cause quite a lot of collateral damage. When cleaning up copyright violation rolls an article back a year or more, there's potential for a lot of people's time to get flushed. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all you have done in handling this. Copyright cleanup must often be a thankless job. I have found an additional violation at codistribution and marked it on the CCI page. I have also placed a {{copyvio}} template on the article. As this is part of an ongoing copyright investigation, I assume that it is not necessary to place a notice on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 December 20. Have I done this all properly? Again thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) It is often thankless, yes, but very cheering when others pitch in. :) I appreciate your contribution there. The only purpose of listing at CP in this case is to ensure that after a sufficient period of time the article is either replaced or deleted. However, articles that are tagged but not manually listed are listed by bot, so it's not a big issue either way. I often list them there myself, but when I forget, the bot gets them for me. :) The one thing I handle differently when using {{copyvio}} for a CCI is user notification. There's no reason to place the "nothanks" template. I will generally start off by notifying when I've blanked articles (unless the contributor is blocked), but in this case I don't intend to anymore. The contributor only removes them without comment and has taken no steps to address any of these concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I also would like to thank you for observing these copyright violations! Best regards Ulner (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom Frost photos

Thank you very much for providing me the proper code to use for these images. I appreciate your help, as I am a "relative newcomer" and am still learning the ropes. Jim Heaphy (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

San Juan High School

A section of San Juan High School was reported at Wikipedia:CP#20_December_2009, and I wanted to see if Talk:San Juan High School/Temp worked as a acceptable substitute for it.

If it is, could you make the change, remove the template, and update WP:CP to reflect that it has been handled? If not, could you give me any additional advice on how to proceed? Thank you. Moogwrench (talk)

Hi. Typically, listings at CP are not closed for 7+1 days, but given that you are the only contributor involved in this, it seems reasonable to go ahead and address it now. :) There were a couple of passages that I felt remained too close to the source—probably not enough to rise to the level of copyright infringement, but I went ahead and revised them anyway. Copyright covers more than language; it also covers structure and creative presentation of facts. (See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for some information on that.)
In any event, I think that the rewrite is usable and have moved into article space. I'll go ahead and update CP after I finish this note.
Just in case clarification is needed, given your conversation with User:A Stop at Willoughby, Wikipedia presumes that all previously published text is copyrighted unless we are able to verify that it is not, either because it is explicitly licensed compatibly with our project or because it is public domain. Wikipedia:Public domain offers some guidance on what may be public domain; typically, older material that is published before 1923 is presumed to be public domain. Material from copyright ineligible sources like the United States federal government (but not most other governments) is public domain. A very few things that are judged be non-creative like track lists from albums are not copyrightable. (Song titles can certainly be creative, but at least the US government has sensibly decided that they are not copyrightable, which is a good thing, because it would be a nightmare for songwriters if only one person were allowed to name a song, oh, "I Love You".
The vast majority of published work is copyrighted. I read recently some eye-popping statistic that said something like 90% of all text ever written was protected by copyright, but I could be off by some percentage points either way. :) I guess it makes sense, when you consider how much easier it is now to publish and even write, compared to the days when pen and paper were about your only option. Even this text I'm writing right now is copyrighted under US law. Most text is owned by somebody. :)
Unless we can verify that text is public domain or licensed compatibly (there's a list of some compatible and incompatible licenses at the copyright FAQ), we can only use small bits of it in accordance with policy and guideline, and we have to clearly mark those small bits with quotation marks or block quotes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. I will try to avoid any copyright issues in the future; I am still learning about how Wikipedia handles different things and so I appreciate your help greatly. Moogwrench (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

St. John's Cathedral, Warsaw

Is it a good practice to stigmatize some articles and users, as you did at Talk:St. John's Cathedral, Warsaw? This contributor is known to have introduced copyrighted text to many articles. I know many valuable editions of this user. Besides I removed the copyvios in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BurgererSF (talkcontribs) 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Never to be released, would-be album


This album got in my way while assessing and while i`ve assessed another unreleased albums, this one is like an unfinished idea, is not like some album that never got out but an idea that never got fully formed, i don`t think is an album, is more like something for a Trivia section. I actually don`t like articles on never-to-be-released albums to begin with. What do you think of this one? Zidane tribal (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. That particular album is very unlikely to ever pass WP:MUSIC, and I would redirect it to Slipknot (band)#Unreleased, but leave a note welcoming the newcomer who contributed it and explaining about notability guidelines for albums. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thanks as always. Zidane tribal (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Finally... that self-portrait image release

Hi MRG, I Just sent you an email explaining that the info on the release is now up on that webpage. Hopefully that will process through OK. Let me know, and thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes!!! I have now put the image into the article. Great! Thanks again for being so patient! Invertzoo (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous! Thank you for the same. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles created by Henry Delforn

i had a quick look at some of this guy's articles after seeing your message. My impression after looking through several of his math articles is that they consist almost entirely of copy/paste copyright violations, and that further examination of his articles is a waste of time because they are probably all like this. Is there some way just to delete every article for which he is essentially the only contributor without wasting further time checking them in detail? His math articles are of such poor quality that even if they were not copyright violations it would be no loss to delete the lot. r.e.b. (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Policy certainly permits presumptive deletion in such cases (see Wikipedia:Copyright violations). Frequently, I'm loathe to implement that because of potential collateral damage. Blanking at WP:CP gives interested contributors at least a chance to rewrite. However, I've seen several people from the math project make similar statements, and I wonder if streamlining the process here, given the ample evidence of long-term repeated copyright violation, would be the best approach. Since presumptive deletion is within policy, I think it would be appropriate to blank articles for which he is essentially the only contributor with the {{subst:copyvio}} tag, which would allow seven days for any interested contributors to either rewrite the article or verify that the material is free of copyright concerns. I'll whip up a temporary template for talk pages in such situations (we have a template for noting presumptive revision of text ({{subst:CCI}}), but nothing for presumptive copyvio tagging) and bring it by the math project for consideration. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Done, though it may not be a temporary template, and publicized at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Copyright concerns related to your project. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've just tried it out at Noncommutative desingularization and it makes things a lot easier. His articles had been bugging me for some time even before I knew they were copyvios because they are so bad, and it's quite a relief to have a good reason for deleting them. r.e.b. (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. :) Math is very much not my area, which is one reason I am so particularly grateful that your project is stepping up like this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You should not let that stop you from editing math articles. You might be surprised at how easy it is to create a plausible-looking article on a topic one does not understand, just by pasting together a few carefully selected sentences from papers. r.e.b. (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL! There's a thought. If I ever get tired of cleaning up copyright problems, I can just create them! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered at times why Henry Delforn seemed slower than most to learn Wikipedia's conventions and write articles accordingly. I suppose this situation probably goes a long way toward explaining that. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, it probably does. :/ With all the new safeguards that are being put in place these days, hopefully such situations will be uncovered more quickly so as to cut down collateral damage. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: Were we supposed to be adding the article to the Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 December 22 as it says in the copyvio template, or is that already covered since there is an active CCI page? Looks like no one has done it so far so I didn't do it either, but I thought I should check, new to this process.--RDBury (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your help. :) I add them, but if you do not, DumbBot will. If you look at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_December_21, you'll see that it's been busy already. :) Also, the list will serve to make sure none go undetected--as long as it's marked on the list that they are blanked or otherwise marked for deletion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually thank you for bringing this up and doing all this; I just don't want this guy to give mathies a bad name. I did 9 articles total which seemed to fail notability anyway. Another question (sort of), some of the articles on my list don't seem to be on your list, for example Differential invariant shows him as creating the article but I couldn't find it on the CCI page, even after I unhid everything and did a search. It's not a big deal since all the original content has been overwritten, but I was wondering why it wasn't there to be checked off.--RDBury (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that I don't know. :( If you look at the clerk's note at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Henry Delforn#Background, you'll see that we're having problems with the program. I had hoped that the alternative version we had was doing better, but it's very disheartening to hear that it's missing articles created by the contributor. I'll have to talk to our programmer and plead for help with this. (Hearty sigh.) I suspect it will be after Christmas before he can help in any way.
I tend to think mathies deserve a very good name from this. I've worked on a number of multiple article infringers, and some projects are very responsive to requests for assistance, while others are not. You guys are certainly among the top. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) A follow-up; the only two articles I couldn't find on the CCI were List of noncommutative topics in mathematics and Differential invariant. I would have given them both an Red XN.--RDBury (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User needs help, and you'd be better to advise than I.

Hi MRG, Please see User talk:Hanay#Green archaeological excavation. I speedily deleted the article under the G12 criterion, but I believe this user is working under good faith. The best course of action for him/her at this point is not entirely clear to me. I'm not sure exactly what the webpage needs to say to make copying it here ok. Even if that gets resolved, I think there would be other problems with this as a WP article. Can you respond at Hanay's talk page? LadyofShalott 22:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. I'll be right there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! LadyofShalott 22:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Xmas 2009.JPG

Hi, Moonriddengirl, I have 1876 pages on my watch list and this message will add wishes for 2010. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! :D Happy holidays to you. I'm not sure how many I have total, but I do make a solid effort to keep my article list below 1,000. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Your right, I am going to give mine a good trimming for the new year. Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jamie P. Merisotis

Can you take a quick look at Talk:Jamie P. Merisotis? I'm not sure which editor is right, although I think the text should be okay to use. Theleftorium 16:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'm there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Green archaeological excavation

Hi, I would appreciate if you will answer Tomer question in User talk:Hanay, Thanks Hanay (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

How beautiful! Thank you. :) Merry Christmas to you, too. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy right concern

Hi, Thanks for your comment.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice: traveling

Grandpa's visit Christmas morning.jpg

I am away in real life until December 29 2009 and will not be able to respond immediately to queries. I'll try to check in from an available online source, but urgent matters are probably best addressed elsewhere during my absence. Happy editing and, to those who participate, Merry Christmas or other winter celebration! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming of Contributor copyright investigations

I think it would be better not to name Contributor copyright investigations after a possible real life name of someone. The problem is that one tends to end up with lots of links and edit summaries saying things like "Removed presumed copyvio: see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/John Doe for more details". It would be better not to have a real name of someone appearing in comments like this (even if they deserve it). Perhaps the Contributor copyright investigations should be named instead after the date on which they were started, or something like this. r.e.b. (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This is certainly something we need to be concerned about, but a ready solution that doesn't involve using the name a person has chosen to identify him or herself on Wikipedia may not be easy to find. :/ We talked a bit about this at the copyclean project back in June (see the copyclean project|archive). There are several reasons why attaching these usernames to the cleanup project can be beneficial. If we do not block the contributor (and I don't think we should start doing so routinely, since I believe many of these people are operating in good faith), we need to be able to easily access these later...both in case problems continue and additional cleanup is needed and in case we ever need to document for an authority the due diligence we've applied. Archiving them by username seems to be the best way to locate an individual report. But the archive page (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Archive), as well as the individual investigation subpages, are removed from indexing to minimize potential embarrassment. The template created to notify projects of the problem and also the template used to explain the removal of content were created to minimize potential embarrassment as well, with the user's name obscured (Template:CCI; Template:CCId).
This is an evolving process. The first of these in which I was involved was heavily publicized on ANI and the user's real name had already been widely bandied before the cleanup project ever got underway. These investigations are only opened when a contributor's history shows repeated, substantial violations of this policy, and I have myself never opened one in which the contributor had not been warned multiple times of policy and persisted with violations in spite of that. I don't say this as indication that I believe we should not be sensitive, but in noting that this is not a court of first resort, so to speak. We wind up here only when we absolutely must. Nevertheless, the process is intended to be relatively low drama; it doesn't carry with it nearly the hullaballoo that I've seen at ANI listings of similar issues before the board was opened. The primary purpose here is to protect the project from legal problems occasioned by violations of copyright policy. There's no way to do that without identifying the individual involved, to facilitate cleanup and to demonstrate the need. Even if the name of the page is changed, I'm afraid that the user's name is going to be publicized if projects are anywhere near as responsive as the math project has been. Perhaps, though, we can use alternative page name structures when it seems like a "real life" name has been used so that links to the cleanup page won't include at least that name? We can still archive it under the user's name for later documentation purposes, as that page is not indexed, but it would take care of the link concern you raise.
Sorry if I'm rambly. Usually I take time in composing my notes to try to make sure they're at least on topic, but I'm traveling and on short time. :) You're getting the thoughts as they occur. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just add a suggestion in the instructions for cleaning up copyvios that it might be better not to use real life names in edit summaries. (I did this several times before realizing it was not necessarily a good idea.) Or we could add a mild warning on the account creation page: "users intending large-scale copyright violations might want to consider using an alias". r.e.b. (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL! If we're going to alter the account creation page, I'd rather we just say, "users intending large-scale copyright violations might want to reconsider registering an account." :D That's a good idea for the instructions. When I get back at my home base, I'll bring it up at WT:CCI and see what we can come up with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion please?

I see you're away, and wish you the best of the Christmas season and much health and happiness in the coming new year. My reason for stopping by is Oragenitalism; I apologize if the subject matter is objectionable but my main question regards the page itself - is this a copyvio in sheep's clothing? Is it an AfD? Or am I just overreacting? There are links from that page to others as well that I question the notability of, but again...overreacting?  Frank  |  talk  03:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you, and happy Holidays to you as well! :) It's certainly very questionable fair use. It looks like it's using a lot of quotes simply for the purpose of disseminating the information from the book, which isn't transformative, and while the text may not yet be extensive in context of the total book, it it extensive in context of the article and seems like it might well be copying the "heart" of the matter. You might want to consider stubbing and explaining to the contributor that WP:NFC sets out some of the circumstances in which we may use quotations. Otherwise, the information should be put into his own words. I would also consider cordially directing him to Wikipedia:WikiProject Books for some ideas on writing book articles. We already have an article on Oral sex. This article should discuss the history of and critical reception to this book. Finally, I would point him to Wikipedia:Notability (books) and suggest that he should consider documenting in the article with reliable sources how this book meets those inclusion guidelines. If he just wants to write about oral sex, that belongs in an article on the topic itself, not in an article about a book on the topic. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem

Thanks for the info. :) There really is no problem because I just copied and pasted that one, because I needed it to bolster the info I provided to the Retraction issue of Jose Rizal that I wrote about. As far as I know it's the only one I took from Wikipilipinas. Thanks. Marax (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

  Set Sail For The Seven Seas  345° 10' 45" NET   23:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


And a Happy New Year. Zidane tribal (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Piling on - Happy Holidays!
Thank you, Thesevenseas; than you, Zidane tribal! Merry Christmas to both of you! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Only one edit to make on Christmas day: Happy holidays Moonriddengirl! -Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow. :) Thank you very much. :D I hope you will have the same. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for being you. Novickas (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You're very kind. :) Thank you. And thank you for your unsung assistance. I hope you know how appreciated it has been. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Okay, let's talk about the Harvey Swados article. Yeah, I totally copped most of that from an on-line source, and I was promptly busted. At the time, my thinking was that, since I wasn't trying to make any money off this, and since I was just trying to get the word out about good ol' Harvey Swados, that this was a good thing. Okay, so I went and re-wrote the article, and it has subsequently been re-written, and that's probably for the good. Anyway, LAY OFF THE SWADOS ARTICLE! (I learned my lesson, okay?)

The Cuneo article is not a cop. It's based on INFORMATION in the NYT obit, as well as Niel Gabbler's bio of Walter Winchel (both of which were, if I recall, cited in the footnotes).

Of course, there's no way to check this out now that you've purged the article.

BioBlu 27

I thought I added the speedy copyvio tag, but it's not categorized in that area. Can someone explain/repair/take care? Too many bad articles. I'm going to go write some insect articles for featured pictures. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a worthy goal. :) I've got a very slow connection at the moment, but it seems that what you put on it was {{copyvio}}, which is quite proper but not speedy. It sits for a week before admin closure. Usually this tag is used when a copyvio seems certain, but when the article doesn't meet WP:CSD#G12, such as if somebody might have permission or the copyvio is not blatant. All seems functional, it's just not time to close it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think since it's already at AfD, not speedying is probably better. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

PS, don't mind slow, as it always gets done properly. Isn't that better? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, proper is better than fast. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Thanks for your attention to the copyright issues left on my talk; I hadn't misunderstood neccessarily what the policies were, just some missed details on those specific sources and my own ignorance on copyright expiration and attribution etc. I'll certainly pay more attention in the future to borrowed text from copyrighted websites, and for the most part I've tried to submit material in my own words if not quoting (which the latter, I think, is where things got dicey in those aforementioned violations). If you ever find it upon yourself to look through some other articles I've submitted or expanded, I'd like to hear feedback on any issues you can find to help me better future contibutions. Irontobias (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Per a recent request for a CCI, I have blocked Blackknight12 for a period of two weeks. I noticed that you had blocked him indefinitely and then unblocked him about six months ago, so I thought I would let you know. I have no issue with you lifting or lengthening the block as you deem necessary. Regards, NW (Talk) 22:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's discouraging. :/ I thought he was working within policy now. Unless he can give convincing reasons in an appeal, I wouldn't shorten the block. If further investigation shows that he's been violating copyright policy particularly in text, where he should know very well what policies are, lengthening it may be appropriate. I'll take a look when I get back to my home base. thanks for letting me know. A glance at his images suggests it'd be beneficial to get one of the admins who routinely work NFC to help out. This isn't a "unique historic image", by any stretch. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concern

Hello there. I came across the talk page of this user (Warning - 324 kb page) today. There's clearly a copyright problem here but I'm a bit rusty when it comes to copyright stuff. I was just wondering how to approach the situation. Obviously there's no rush! It's Christmas :). Have a merry one! Seraphim 17:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at this one when I come back. I'm not sure that I could manage 324 kb on this connection! Merry Christmas to you, too. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have a better connection this morning and braved that monstrous user talk. There comes a point where non-compliance with procedure becomes WP:DE, I think. A spot check through this guy's history suggests that he consistently requires reminding of procedure, and where his failure to follow procedure is not detected his images may not comply with NFC. (He can fix it himself; he did here.) I don't see much conversation from him; some argumentative "leave me alone" stuff here (in the text he removed in 2006), and that seems to be it. I do not know if his failure to communicate is related to his self-professed Asperger Syndrome or not.
What I would probably do here is begin by archiving his user talk, except for the last several notices. He edited on 12/24 and can be presumed to have seen everything before then. I've done this before, leaving a note explaining that I had archived as a courtesy and would gladly restore the material to its previous state if the archiving was unwelcome. Reducing the size of that talk page may make it easier for others to communicate with him and may also help him focus more on the recent communications. Then I'd note that he has on many occasions uploaded images without following procedures and tell him that these procedures are mandatory and must be followed each and every time. From what I saw, it looks like he mostly uploads album covers. You might suggest that he do the following every time he uploads an image cover:
  • Make sure that the image isn't too big; it can't be bigger than 300px on any side
  • Use the {{Non-free album cover}} image copyright tag.
  • Paste into appropriate field: {{subst:Album cover article rationale|Article Title|Spin Boy 11}} Image from [url where found it]
Making a list of it like that might help him to remember in future usages. I would also try to point out in as non-threatening a manner possible that it's important to be open when other contributors talk about problems, because that's one of the core policies of Wikipedia.
Then I'd watchlist his page and if I saw that he was still creating problems after that, I'd consider that perhaps he is not able to comply with procedure. Competence is required. At that point, I'd consider ANI. If he can't upload images within policy, he should perhaps not be permitted to upload images. Even if he means well, he may not be a constructive contributor if others must clean up after or watch over him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed response. I'll follow your advice later on when I get back from the sales :). Seraphim 09:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok - all done now. Thanks for the advice :). Seraphim 20:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Your note seems perfect; to the point and friendly. Hope it works! I've watchlisted his page in case additional input is needed. Let's hope the clear directions eliminate future issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Being bold pays off....most of the time


Hoping you had a most wonderful holidays i come to you asking for help.

You see i wanted to move this article for it has a very simple capitalization problem, but a redirect exist with the proper name so i could n`t do it; i was bold and moved the redirect, but unfortunately the only thing i accomplish was to make a redirect to the redirect so as you can see i only make the problem worse.

Can you drop me a line on how to solve it or should i just request it properly? Zidane tribal (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. All is going well with me, thanks; I hope your holidays have also been happy. :D What you would do here typically if you can't move the page is tag the redirect {{db-move|PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|REASON FOR MOVE}}. Theoretically the admin who deletes the redirect will also move the page, but sometimes they don't, so you should watch the page just to be sure. :) I've already taken care of this one, since it's a rather simple use of admin tools. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
As always thanks a lot of the advice and for the problem-solving -skills. Zidane tribal (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues

I was reviewing the M-46 Catapult article created today by Ramesh vyas, and I realized that the information was largely copied from an online excerpt from a Jane's article (found here), and the article (found here). I took the liberty of removing the verbatim text, and I was going to leave the author a note when I noticed that you'd spent some time working with the user on similar issues over the past few months. Upon looking at his other contributions, the text for his Light weight launcher (LWL) seems to be copied almost word for word from a DRDO document on the weapon (found here). Just thought you may want a heads up. - Jonathon A H (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for detecting that problem. I've blanked the second article, documented the cleanup of the first and will address the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Civility issue

hello Moonriddengirl, Would you be kind enough to review a complaint I've made at the wikiquette noticeboard regarding User Chhe? [33] Thanks, I appreciate it. Also, this user put an edit warring warning on my talk page. I've used the talk page, I've removed unsourced, false material, I've added correct material, and I've been diligent about using the edit summaries. This fellow comes along and reverts without using the talk page and then keeps bringing up my old blocks, etc. I'm tired of this and I want help. Everybody else gets help, I feel like I'm the only one who does not.Malke2010 04:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Given our previous conversations, I would not be in position to take administrator action on this. I don't believe that I'm involved, but I'm afraid that it might reasonably seem I am to others.
I've looked over the WQA listing, and it seems as if you have misunderstood the purpose of the board. It is not an administrator noticeboard but a forum for informal mediation which can be supplied by any contributor who happens to be reading the board. While it's always possible that an admin watching the page will respond to egregious incivility, that's not its purpose. WP:ANI is the forum for that, but I think that the response at WP:WQA suggests that the matter might not be as clear cut to others as it seems to you. I would not recommend bringing a civility matter to ANI unless it is very clear, as responders there are likely to take even less time to review a matter than the responders at WP:WQA.
As I've suggested before, you might find it very helpful to strictly follow WP:CIVIL yourself. If others believe that you are deviating from that standard, they are far less likely to take action when you feel somebody is being incivil to you. To an outsider, edit summaries like this and this may muddy the water. Notes like this one are also unlikely to help, and even if you felt that Dayewalker's intervention was unhelpful, this just seems like a flat personal attack. Certainly, it's difficult to interpret a comment like that as anything other than an angry lashing out, as there doesn't seem to be any way to perceive it as constructive. The community is far more likely to help you if there is no way that your comments can be interpreted to put a bad light on you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
You are right. I don't help things when I don't mind myself first. But it does seem apparent that Chhe was deliberately being provocative. This seems to be a pattern with him, and as I look around at other disputes, I see it repeated in Wikipedia. The rules say one thing and people do another. This is a BLP and therefore there is more latitude in removing NPOV, items that give undue weight, etc., removing material with poor sources, etc. I don't think I should have to be saddled with Chhe (and also Jusdafax) reading my posts, and then suddenly coming in to attack me with this past history of two blocks. So yes, I would like someone to make a statement about that, because I'm not the only one in this. And yes, it is frustrating and easy to become angry, but that does not excuse the bad behaviors by other people. Mother Theresa could be editing the Karl Rove page and she would experience the same. Every time I attempted to have something done and about what was being said about me last summer, and I was not very good at it not knowing all the rules, where to post, etc., nobody helped me, and I ended up getting blocked. So yes, I do want some help here. And as far as the situation being clear, I think it is very clear that Chhe is being provocative and I believe he should be asked to stop doing it and move on. I think it provokes a battle mentality to keep bringing up someone's past. When does wikipedia stop punishing people?Malke2010 17:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been using NPOV as a short hand for 'negative point of view' and obviously this is not correct as someone just kindly pointed out to me.Malke2010 19:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a peaceful environment, I'm afraid. Even as an administrator, I've been able to enjoy some lovely exchanges with people. For example, before I ever even saw this note on my talk, somebody else had reported this guy to ANI for it. He wasn't blocked for it. He was eventually blocked for sockpuppetry. (I had never encountered him before; he was making some kind of point or other. I do not know Chhe, so I have no idea if this applies to him or not, but some people will never let your prior block drop so long as they think they can get a rise out of you by bringing it up. If they succeed in provoking you, they've already undermined you, because outsiders viewing the matter will only see reciprocal antipathy. Don't take the bait. Quite probably the best response you could have given to Chhe's reversion of your edits was to seek consensus at the talk page...or at one of the boards for finding it. If somebody shows a pattern of reverting you or follows you around contesting your edits, then you may be able to make a case for harassment. That document gives good advice, though: "If you feel you are being harassed, first and foremost, act calmly (even if difficult). It is hard to over-emphasize this." Really, it is hard to over-emphasize this. Impeccably civil behavior is your best defense. My not-at-all scientific estimate would be that 99% of people brought to WP:WQA or even WP:ANI over civility matters and personal attacks say the same thing: "He provoked me." It may be true; it may not. It's used so often, it's pretty much meaningless. To succeed on Wikipedia, you must become practically unprovokeable, even if that means biting back your first response and taking a long walk before you post. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well said, as always. I think it should be a rule that at the first exchange or throwing down of the gauntlet, take your own pulse first. Obviously, tit for tat is not productive. And the exchange you've had, well. . .I don't understand why these people don't get blocked. Whether or not someone gets blocked comes across as random, depending on the admin that views it. Also, I do think the topic being edited does impact peoples' responses. I think some admins might think, "Oh, I don't want to get involved with that," etc. and move on, and maybe they would have been the voice of reason but they choose not to take it up. At any rate, I've had some good exchanges with people today. Would you be kind enough to close out the wikiquette section I opened? I feel it is resolved just by having the exchange with you. I don't imagine I can close it out myself. Thanks and these are for you, [34] Malke2010 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. :) I've marked it resolved, with your permission. I suspect that you're right that some admins will shy away from contentious subjects. I would not willingly involve myself with an article that would eat a major portion of my life. I can barely keep up with the copyright work I do. And with some articles, you wind up having to fight the same fights over and over and over again. I think you're also right about the response to incivility. On the one hand, civility is required...even mandated by Foundation policy (see Wikimedia:Code of Conduct Policy, specifically "The Foundation aims to treat all people with respect, and to foster a productive environment free of harassment, intimidation and discrimination"). On the other hand, Wikipedians have different cultural backgrounds and understandings of what that means. What some view as insufferably rude, others see as forthright. What some see as polite, others see as mealy-mouthed. Another one of the challenges of working here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I'm getting adopted by JadeFalcon and/or Coldplay Expert. They're also going to turn me into a vandal fighting expert. That's hilarious. There's so much about Wikipedia that's fun and good. And they're going to help me write an article. I've been wanting to add Maasai Wilderness Conservation Trust to wikipedia because it's such a unique wildlife ecosystem experiment. And they also clued me to in the hilarity of the "edit wars" page, and also the page with the guy who banned/blocked ClueBot. That was laugh out loud funny. Thanks so much for being you. Malke2010 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you've got some stuff to look forward to and that you've found some friendly folk to help out. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-phrasing article Barbara Buchholz

Dear Moonriddengirl,

as suggested by MLauba - I re-worded the article about Barbara Buchholz in a temporary page here

May I ask you how to proceed now?

Thanks & best regards

Spacejump (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help; re the youtube video, I will try to figure out the copyright issue.

Spacejump (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Yeah, lots of my article on Ernest L. Cuneo is based on FACTS in the NYT obituary, but as long as I re-phrase them, the FACTS are a matter of public record, aren't they?

And, isn't it better to HAVE an article on Ernest L. Cuneo that recapitulates the FACTS of the NYT obit than to have NO article on him?

And, of course, if what we are looking for is originality, then why does Wikipedia reject "original research?" I got this message about Atlas Shrugged: "We cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information."

Yours for a Better World, Dutchman Schultz

And I'll just sign my message with: Dutchman Schultz (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC). like you said.

If an article is too closely taken from a copyrighted source, it cannot remain for legal reasons. Regarding original research, it is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original research; what we publish must be verifiable from reliable sources.
On the matter of this particular article, Ernest L. Cuneo, it may help to know that we have an existing article at Ernest Cuneo.  Frank  |  talk  13:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Locked image

I was trying to add the "nowcommons" tag to File:Sagittaria lancifolia - Duck potato.jpg, as it is redundant, but the image file is locked, a situation I have not seen before for registered users. Can you deal with it? TIA ww2censor (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I've not seen this before, either, so I'll ask the admin who locked it about it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, wait. I know why it's locked: it's about to be on the front page. It's currently in prep area 1 for DYK (Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1). The image has been placed here temporarily for that purpose and protected. I have encountered this before, but only once, when called upon to update DYK myself. :) The image is not protected on Commons and so was temporarily placed here to minimize the odds of vandalism. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Now that make sense but it is a new one on me as there was no such notice at the time I reviewed it, but there is a notice about it now. Cheers and thanks. ww2censor (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe you. It wasn't showing when I looked at it either. I only figured it out because I checked what linked there, and it tugged at some buried memory. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Erin Toughill


First of all, I am not sure WHY you are writing to my team concerning MY page, giving "tips" on neutrality and "conflict of interest". Do you "work" for Wiki or are you just independently working on your own accord being a "watch dog" in your free time?

At any rate, last year, I had several links and paragraphs removed due to defamation and slander, for an "alleged" civil case which was brought against me in 2008, and thrown out soon thereafter due to the said person facing jail time for PURJURY. My lawyers contacted Wiki and they responded immediately - removing any and all slanderous material. Recently, another "watch dog" lol had decided to re add the offending material, and after several times of asking this user to STOP adding and deleting information, myself and my law team, contacted Wiki and they responded right away. I have had those articles, links, or names of said persons, removed from my page and blocked. Andrew Owens has been more than helpful, and I have kept in contact with him.

So I KNOW the "rules and regulations" of MY page, so there is no need for you to send me messages pertaining to information which you clearly know nothing about. Don't worry about "watching" my page by sending me superfluous information in a message to my team.

Merry X Mas and Happy New Years —Preceding unsigned comment added by Team XC (talkcontribs) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Need Help!

Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir again. There is this user with the IP address who keeps vandalizing a lots of templates and articles. He/she keeps switching the names of television series in the templates which are listed in alphatized order. I did reverted some of his/her edits before, but he/she changed them again. Also, in the page, Sony Entertainment Television (India), he/she keeps messing up the list and adding his/her personal comments, such current Ekta Kapoor's "Bakwas" (rediculous) drama etc... To see more pages that he/she changed, you can click on his IP address. Can you please help me stop him/her. I will really appreciate your help. Thank you, your wiki friend Survir (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Survir. :) I've explained the reason that templates are organized that way at his talk page. If he keeps changing them, you may want to request page protection. I've also restored Sony Entertainment Television (India), but that change seems to have been implemented by a different IP. It's hard to tell if it's the same individual, of course. That might also be a good candidate for protection, if it persists, but you should start by explaining to the individual why it should not be done that way. This gives him an opportunity to understand stop before additional action needs to be taken. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)