User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 25

Contents

possible (probable?) copyvio

Hi, while trying to source Poland related BLPs I got to work on the Jolanta Kwasniewska article. Looking for sources I found this [1] from the Department of Information of Malta. A lot (all?) of the text in the article corresponds verbatim to that in the source. It appears that the DoI/Malta article was last updated in March of 2004, while the article was created in November 2004. In fact, the earliest version is pretty much the DoI/Malta version [2]. So I'm thinking this is a straight up copy vio, rather than a Wikipedia mirror. This is true even though there have been some changes to the article since 2004.

Can you confirm this for me? And if so, what's the best way to proceed? Just remove the duplicated text?radek (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yes, I can absolutely confirm this for you. Good catch! (And nicely thorough review. :)) According to edit summary, the contributor who placed the content thought it permitted for some reason. Since he is evidently gone since 2005 and does not respond to e-mails, there's no way we can find out why. Since the copyvio is foundational, the entire article is an unauthorized derivative work. It should be replaced. I've blanked it, which starts a 7 day clock to give anybody who wants to time to do so. If a new article is produced, the old one will be deleted and the new one put in place. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Can I just write up a short, non-copyvio, version under the template, even if just a stub and then have it removed? I think that'd be the quickest way to solve this.radek (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh and I see what happened. The prezydent.pl web page states [3]:
"Zezwala się na używanie, kopiowanie oraz wykorzystanie tekstów oraz zdjęć publikowanych w serwisie internetowym www.prezydent.pl, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia. Zezwolenie nie dotyczy elementów zastrzeżonych, w tym zastrzeżonych elementów graficznych oraz tekstów publikowanych pierwotnie w innych źródłach. Żadne elementy nie mogą być modyfikowane w jakikolwiek sposób bez zgody Kancelarii Prezydenta RP.:"
Translation: "It is permitted to use, copy, or (put to use) the texts and photos published on the internet website www.prezydent.pl, as long as their source is referenced. This permission does not refer to restricted elements, including restricted graphical elements and texts published originally in other sources. None of the elements can be modified in any way without the permission of the Office of the President of RP"
Not sure if this means it's okay to use texts from the page - the part about modification gives me pause - but the person apparently thought so. At the time Kwasniewski (this woman's husband) was president so the information was on this webpage. This is probably how Department of Information of Malta got their copy. But now there's a different president so the information is not up there anymore. I don't know how that potentially changes the copyright status of the text. (Web page also says photos are released under GFDL).radek (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) You should put the new version in the temporary space linked from the template (and now also linked here :)). Since the copyvio is foundation, unless permission is forthcoming, we'll have to replace the article. Yes, that's probably why he thought it was okay. But, unfortunately, we do need license to modify to use the text. :/ Their removal from publication wouldn't make a difference to the copyright status. It's still theirs until the copyright expires. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, will do that. BTW the Wikicommons translation of the permission is here [4]. One more question (sorry!) - does this mean it's okay to upload photos from the current version of the page to Wikicommons?radek (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not that active on Commons, but I believe that should be fine. I would feel confident doing so. And feel free to ask anything you like. :) If I know the answer (or have an opinion), I'm happy to share. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for copy of a deleted article

I was unpleasantly stunned tonight to find that the trusty Style over substance fallacy article - which I have linked to many times in online discussions - had recently fallen victim to our friendly vandeletionists. Could you please userfy a copy for me, so I can transwiki the content off to a potentially safer haven such as RationalWiki? The article over there does not define the same cases as the Wikipedia article did. The Wikipedia article isn't showing up in Deletionpedia, for some reason, even though enough time should have elapsed. Incidentally, it's nice to "see" you over on the Commons Help desk from time to time. --Teratornis (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a copy in archive.org, but it's a bit old. --Teratornis (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've been poking about a bit more at Commons lately. Makes a pleasant change from my usual copyright work here. :) I have transwikiied the examples from the last version to the article over there. Let me know if there's anything missing from the version you remember. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Teratornis (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. However, there's already some talk about eliminating the examples. If they do and you need it userfied, let me know! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

More old copyvio

I found this yesterday somehow, although there's a note on the user page saying the copyvio is ok, I don't see how. [5] Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, reading User:Seemagoel suggests I need to ask User:Nat Krause. I'll do so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, wait. I already have. :) Let me dig up how that played out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Not well, I'm afraid. The letter was sent to OTRS, Ticket:2009022610004614, but was not acceptable. The text was removed from the article that I knew had problems. I'll check and see if content remains in those other articles and note the insufficiency at User:Seemagoel. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sassy Pandez

Hi,

I got your message on my talk page yesterday night, and wrote a reply there, but haven't heard back from you yet. I have seen posts from you on your own talk page today, so I know you are online, and I was hoping you could give me some feedback on this issue. I appreciate that you may be busy, but I would very much like to get this resolved quickly. Thanks. AquilaUK (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:VanemTao in Estonian Wikipedia. Problem solved.

Hi! I wanted to inform you that most of pictures uploaded by User:VanemTao are now deleted.--WooteleF (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Today on CP

I'll leave Thel's potential CCI to you for evaluation :) MLauba (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All righty. I will take a look. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello Moonriddengirl,

Is there a process for suggesting a name change for an article or do editors just get consensus and do it? Thanks. Malke2010 01:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. :) It depends on how contentious the name change is likely to be. Help:Moving a page is the page to see. If other contributors are active on the page, it's always a good idea to mention it first on the talk page even if you think it will be uncontroversial, to give you time to figure out if you're wrong. :D If there is debate on the talk page, you should probably turn it into an official proposal and list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Current discussions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Good advice as always. Thanks a bunch. :) Malke2010 17:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Monica Maimone

I updated the website page http://studiofesti.com/english/monica-maimone.html with the copiright declaration you suggested. Hope this helps to solve the copyright problem. Please let me know if it dosen't fit wiki-standards ;-) Thank you for your kind help. Keep on continuing the great wikipedia job. We all love you!!! --Guido Bellix (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We love CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL, and webmastes who place their copy under these licences. Well done, Guido. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Badwolftv

Hey Moonriddengirl. On 23 January, I warned Badwolftv (talk · contribs) for adding copyrighted material to Wikipedia (he was the one who added a bunch of copyrighted plots to the Doctor Who articles). On 31 January, he uploaded File:Letwrestle.png, which is copyrighted and not released under the license stated. What do you think we should do? Theleftorium 16:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, I've deleted it as an F9. Let me see what else he's up to. Block seems likely. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a history of non-free image issues, but not of blatant copyright concerns. However, you did advise him only a week before he copied this image, evidently in blatant disregard of the copyright. I have blocked for 24 hours. Persistence after the block would warrant further action. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Theleftorium 16:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A discussion in need of your clear posts

See here. Awadewit (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I've read through it, but I'm afraid I don't really know what to add to that. :) Besides wanting to object to the many people at the talk page thinking it went too far (many? I think that "some" would be more WP:NPOV), I'd be inclined to point out that the signpost article is immaterial, really; what matters is the guideline, which is where Wikipedia's standards are set out. At one point, that guideline suggested that FA could not contain text copied wholesale from PD sources, but it was removed quite some time back for lack of consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
But of course I'm willing to throw in a murky post there, what with having a big mouth and all. :) As I recall, it was doncram who raised the concern about DANFS? I also vaguely recall trying to reword that bit. MRG, don't worry about having nothing to add, be like me and add vacuous fluff! :) Franamax (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I may later. :) I'm technically off the clock (well, at least in my family's opinion :D) and pulling my hair out over a BLP thing at ANI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the post at WP:AN

Thank you for your post at WP:AN in response to the question I posted regarding CDA. Yesterday, I was hopeful the discussion would stay focused on the question and not spin off into a debate about CDA itself. I guess I was too optimistic :) I appreciate your answer to the question in the "re-focus" section. I think answering this question is an important step in understanding the impact CDA might have should be it be implemented. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I know how hard it can be to get feedback on Wikipedia. :) Good luck gathering more answers! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Justo Almario wikepidia info

Hi,

You left a message on a wiki that was changed twice. Mr. Almario' wiki is mis-informed, and the changes that are trying to be made are correct. His current bio is listed on various websites to include UCLA's Music School, it is not a press release as stated by other users or admins.

I understand that anybody can make a change and that it has to be neutral, however, when it comes to a living person's biography, it should also be allowed to have the right information represented.

Thanks22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.42.45 (talk)

Thank you for your note. I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, your pressumption is actually incorrect, I'm a professor at USC School of Law and happen to be a fan of Justo. Noticed that his bio does not give the correct info and thought I would post it or reverse any changes made. If the problem is that particular sentence, perhaps editing to remove the particular sentence would be the appropriate thing to do as opposed to giving outdated material.

Thanks again and hope that his bio does reflect his musical abilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.42.45 (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Neftchi (probably) again

Would you mind please taking a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Viggenblog ? especially picture Viggenblog 12? These pictures appear to be stolen from a South Korean site - one still has the yahoo.co.kr label on it. The problem is that I have few tools to locate the original source of the image. Appreciate your assistance. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked, but I can't find sources for any of them--not even the Viggen's Blog that claims to be the source of Viggenblog12. I'm afraid I don't have that many tools for images, either. :/ I agree that they seem questionable, especially File:Hindbaku.jpg. You have to be in a pretty special place to get a shot like that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking if I wrecked the wiki or not :)

Hey there, I took my first foray into page delete and restore to kill some copyvios on Mr. Marcelo. I tried to follow what you did at Lakewood Yacht Club and I only screwed up three times (didn't get all the vios; moved the talk page too; left a redirect behind when I moved the pages back). The servers seem to still be running but could you have a quick look? Also, as far as moving the page to "/deleted revisions...", would I be correct that your rationale is to make explicit the exact deletions being made for the specific purpose? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Been there, done that. :D It all looks okay to me now.
I've been using the processes at Wikipedia:Selective deletion for quite some time. (Even when revision deletion is enabled, I expect I will still as this constitutes "other cases where it is needed.") My primary rationale for moving the text: if you leave the deleted versions in the same space, you will be creating a nightmare for any admin in the future who has to do a delete/restore...or, more likely, just creating a situation where the copyvio will be returned to the article's history. I learned this one the hard way, when I found an article in exactly that condition (not noticing until I had deleted it) and had to reinvent the wheel. (To repair that: move the current article, restore the deleted text, move the deleted text, re-delete the deleted text, delete the current article, restore the current versions you want to keep from the article & put the current article back.)
I usually do leave a redirect when moving to the "/deleted revisions..." space, just so that it will not redlink & seem to have disappeared, thereby panicking bystanders. I don't leave a redirect when putting it back into article space, unless I forget to turn off that option. :)
Moving is not as necessary when the copyvio text is foundational and later versions are okay, because they're easier to separate out for future admins. I will sometimes do it anyway, just to be tidy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the fun world of selective history deletion :) MLauba (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations at ANI

Hi, this is Thirteen Squared from the ANI thread about, well I guess it was about me issuing a warning to a user, but quickly devolved into the OP fussing about Baron Cohen and trying to justify their messages that I warned them over. I know removing the BLP-violating messages from the talk page of Baron Cohen was all right, but what about from ANI? I wouldn't remove them simply because of the level of my involvement and was mostly just wondering due to my curiosity, but should they be removed from ANI as well? --132 23:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I thought about it and decided it was better to leave them for now, as they provide context for others, and collapse them as the conversation progresses. Others may feel differently, of course. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
All right. I was just curious so thanks for letting me know. Also, the OP is still going at it. At this point, I think I'm going to bow out since discussion about my warning has long since stopped and let you guys handle it. Thanks for all the help! --132 23:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, MRG; glad you found the intervetion helpful and that you're not unhappy with your talk page being stalked by such people as I. There was no lack of clarity and ample consideration in your messages to GRMike, but maybe it was helpful for him to understand that others shared 13^2 & your views; or maybe it just got late and GRMike went to bed. Who knows. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
He's back and, considering his statement of the warning being "unjustifiable," he still doesn't get it. :S I tried to explain it without inviting discussion of the topic. Hopefully he doesn't stray back to violating BLP. --132 02:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind. He's back to it, but editing the archived discussion. --132 02:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I've responded anyway. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Simhamukha

Hello, I just noticed that Simhamukha has been deleted by you due to copyvio. Vajrayana is my area of expertise and I have significantly iterated most if not all of the major Wikipedia articles on this subject as my editing history will convey. I would like access to the raw code of the deleted article to rework as appropriate and would like, if possible, to put myself as a last point of call to repair articles on Vajrayana prior to pending deletion. I keep my head down butt up working and translating and I am not overly politically involved nor involved in the governance of Wikimedia Projects but they are all very close to my heart. I would appreciate if this article could be recalled from the deletion archive and a link provided for me and I will iterate suitably prior to republishing. This saves me time so I will not be recreating the wheel.
Blessings in blood
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 09:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Ordinarily we can't restore articles deleted as copyright violations, but I have on occasion put them back with the "copyright" template still in place to prevent publication so that a contributor can prepare a new version. Doing so does start a clock of seven days during which the article needs to be replaced. Do you have time to rewrite the article within the next seven days? If so, I can do this now. Otherwise, you can let me know when you're ready.
I appreciate your willingness to rewrite this. We lose too much content due to copyright problems, and it's good to see a contributor willing to salvage something.
I wish there were some way to notify you if articles related to Vajrayana were in danger of deletion, but I don't know of any process for doing so. :/ However, you might be able to figure out when they are in danger yourself. If they are tagged appropriately for their wikiprojects, then the "article alerts" bot should note issues, if the projects have requested such notification. Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism has them active on their front page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet doesn't seem to be, but they could be set up through User:ArticleAlertbot. I will try to remember your interest, but fortunately we don't see too many articles on this subject pass through the copyright cleanup queue. I may have forgotten by the time we see another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes I will iterate it appropriately within seven days so there will be no violation. Full reinstatement though is not necessary as I am more than happy just to have the code recovered and place it as an annexure of my User Page and work it at my caprice. Whatever is appropriate is fine. I will honour whatever the caveat of seven days if required or otherwise but prefer to work at my leisure.
Thank you.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem, but let me be sure I'm understanding what you want. If you are looking for the former text, I cannot userfy that because of the copyright concerns. I can only restore it in article space as it was in the week before its deletion and extend the deadline by another week. If by code you mean non-creative content like categories and external links, I can userfy that, and you can take as much time as you like. Can you clarify whether what you want access to is the text or the non-creative elements? (And if it is the text, please note that you can look at it, but you will have to rewrite it anyway.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That is an excellent distinction. Please userfy the non-creative content, for my purposes that will be perfect. Then we can retain what was of value and create anew without any disrespectful Copyvio. Thanx.<br
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 06:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Today on SCV :)

Morning :)

E.MA - can't open the source document due to firewall policies, can you have a look at this one? Thanks. MLauba (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. :) Let me annotate the one I've just closed, and I'll be right over. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I hate it when I have no access to the sources, and I'm not looking forward to our ODNB-related CCI entries tomorrow... *sigh* MLauba (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, is tomorrow their "up" day? I can handle the ODNB ones if you like, but the point to remember there is that with a CCI, we're in "special circumstances" territory anywhere. Policy explicitly permits deleting all major contributions by contributors who can be shown to have extensively violated copyvio, so even without access to the sources removal of the content is the proper approach. We just take extra care in trying to verify first, because I don't like throwing out the good apples because there are some rotten ones in the mix. But in the long run, if we can't tell if it's rotten, we don't have a choice.
I think a stub on most of those is probably a good approach. I'll put a bit more time into reworking the "good article" (or was it a former "good article"? Can't remember).
I'm working British peers today. :) If I can make a dent in that one, I'll move up to the next in line. This is the one I dread. It took me three days to review a single article. Talk about tedious! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Not envying you these :) MLauba (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Tackled the first one (rest tomorrow). PITA and that one was relatively straightforward. Dunno yet what to do with the future former GA, if you want to keep that one, be my guest. MLauba (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Go you. :) I'll see what I can do about that GA. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference to my amendments to Johnny Smith's 'Moonlight In Vermont' and others

In your kind message to me you say that you have restored some of my corrections to songwriters according to Wiki guidelines.

I have looked at those and cannot see exactly what I did wrong.

My main concern was to put the song writer(s) first followed by the lyricist(s), ie:

- Rogers, Hart - Rogers, Hammerstein II - Van Heusen, Cahn

That, to me, would see the most logical way of recording this.

86.16.153.76 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Mike Longworth86.16.153.76 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

TFD

Regarding your close of the TFD for "harvard reference". I am not concerned about the template itself, but you have to be careful about "unused". As I pointed out there, the nominator prejudged the outcome of the discussion by unilaterally removing hundreds of actual uses of the template immediately before nominating it for deletion. That's not really an "unused" template, and I thought that your closing summary ignored this fact. In cases like this, the fact that the template is unused is not really evidence in favor of deletion (just like when someone empties a category before nominating it on CFD as an "empty category"). — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've edited the template closure to add a note that it is not currently in use in article space. I did read through the deletion debate, including your notes, but while there may be valid concerns with depopulating something before nominating it for deletion as unused, the fact that it isn't used is one of the reasons its deletable without breaking anything. :) As you know, redundancy was the main reason cited for deletion by those who supported. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Smith et al ...

Moonriddengirl - thank you again for your informative message regarding my entries. Having now read the 'style sheet' I can live with most of them but I still have problems with the composers method of entry. I will have to think long and hard as to whether I will make any further submissions. It's not definite. We shall see how I feel in a couple of days. 86.16.153.76 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)ML86.16.153.76 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

question about a deleted page and copyright issues

Hi Moonriddengirl,

I recently found out that the wikipedia page for my wife, Shawn Connally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Connally), was deleted because of copyright problems. The site referenced for the copyright problem is our own family blog, where I had originally just copied the text from her wikipedia page for her bio page on our blog (http://bruceandshawn.com). I have now deleted that text from our personal blog, and am wondering if that is sufficient to get her page reinstated? I read through all of your documentation about this, but did not find any info that exactly applied to this kind of situation.

thanks in advance for any help you can provide! 76.21.65.22 (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Bruce Stewart bruces@gmail.com

Hi. That won't help and might actually complicate matters. It's considerably easier to keep the external site in publication and to place a notice releasing it there. Alternatively, you can send an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation from an address associated with that web domain. The information can be found at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Please let me know if you decide to restore the external site and place the necessary release there, and I'll restore the article. I have no read the article recently, so I do not know if this applies to it, but I do want to advise you that the text may not be retained if it does not otherwise meet policies and guidelines (specifically see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Notability (people)). I also want to caution you that there can sometimes be unintended consequences to having an article on Wikipedia. While we especially strive to keep articles on people neutral and reliably sourced in accordance with the biographies of living persons policy, our articles are open to editing by anyone. Vandalism and misinformation are cleaned as swiftly as they are detected (and we do have a good many volunteers keeping an eye out for them), but sometimes articles may not develop in ways that the subject would prefer. I don't mean to discourage you from donating text to Wikipedia, but would suggest you consider that carefully before doing so. Once it's here, if it meets those policies & guidelines, it's not going to leave, and your ability to control it is limited. You should read over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help just to get an idea of what those limits are and what rights and recourses you would have.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the donation procedure or the other issues you may wish to consider before donating that text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and explanation. I have restored the text on the external site and placed the release notice there now (http://bruceandshawn.com/?page_id=392). I've also reviewed the other policy pages you provided, and I think this entry meets them all. Thanks a lot for your help with this! 76.21.65.22 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Bruce

Deleted templates

Hi

Thank you for deleting Template:Maros (Mureş) County. I think Template:Galánta (Galanta) District should be deleted too, because the circumstances are exactly the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Gal.C3.A1nta_.28Galanta.29_District —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talkcontribs) 14:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. That would require a separate WP:TfD. I am not deleting the template of my own accord, but just enacting community consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary a new debate. The data are identical, the only difference is that we talk about a Slovakian district instead of a Romanian county. Even the author of the concerned template is the same as in the first case(Iaaasi (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. There is no consensus currently to delete that template. You are welcome to open a second TfD, but it cannot be deleted on the basis of this one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


But is it ok to give the first template as an example and to mention the solution that was adopted for it? (a precedent)(Iaaasi (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

Yes, it is. But each deletion debate stands on its own, so the outcome of this one can't predict the outcome of another. Please be careful not to canvass. There was too much of that in the last debate. You must keep your notices limited and neutral and be sure that you are not selecting a partisan audience. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have one more question if u don't mind: what is the criterion for supporting bilingual templates? There is no such a template on wikipedia, why should we introduce one here?

There doesn't exist templates with alternative names nor for districts from Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (names only in Greek, not also in Turkish), Transnistria (names only in Moldovan, not also in Russian), Vojvodina (names only in Serbian, not also in Hungarian), Kardzhali Province (names only in Bulgarian, not also in Turkish), Pyrénées-Orientales(names only in French, not also in Catalan), Municipalities of Kosovo(names only in Serbian, not also in Albanian) (Iaaasi (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

If consensus supports the development of such a template, then such a template is proper for Wikipedia. It is not a static construct, but evolves to reflect the will of the community. Only if there are existing policies or guidelines forbidding or discouraging such is more widespread consensus required. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult for the 2 sides to reach a consensus: The Hungarians will be for and the Romanian against. It is necessary to introduce some clear regulations(Iaaasi (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Consensus is how such regulations develop. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if the sides cannot agree and wider input is needed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

[6] Don't know if you've seen that. I haven't always agreed with some of your positions in the past, but you always raise valid points and you are certainly knowledgeble in this area. Acer (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, thank you, I'm familiar with that conversation, although I haven't been keeping up with it. I haven't yet had anything I wanted to add. While I helped draft that signpost article and worked on the guideline for plagiarism, copyright is actually the drum I bang. With copyright concerns, obviously, we try to keep the project out of legal jeopardy. :) I believe there's a lot more leeway for the community to adopt its own standards for plagiarism, including determining if tighter standards are appropriate (or not) for featured content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

William Ponsonby, 2nd Earl of Bessborough

You deleted this before I could copy it. Can you userfy William Ponsonby, 2nd Earl of Bessborough for me and I will see what I can do at some stage? TIA ww2censor (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'd be thrilled for you to replace it, but I'm not allowed to userfy copyvio articles per Wikipedia:Userfy#What cannot be userfied (just adding that I know it's an essay, but it's policy-based in that respect). I do have the option of restoring it and relisting it for another week if you want a crack at it in temp space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I did not know that. I should have copied it over earlier, so I would have had something to work from, but a week will be too short for me. Leave it for now and I can always ask you for help later if necessary. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)To help you along, the DNB entry can be viewed on Wikisource, it hasn't been transcribed yet, however. MLauba (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks MLauba. ww2censor (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that one is all free for use. Let me know if at some point you need to see the old, to mine additional sources or what have you, and we can temporarily restore it for your use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit by admin needed

Hi Moonriddengirl, could you fix the statement "This template should only be used on image pages." to something like "This template should only be used on file pages." in Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0? Audio files and videos can also be released under the license. Especially since the license already speaks of "work". Hekerui (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Hekerui (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Anna Vissi editor is back

The protection on the pages ended about a week ago and it seems the editor is back [7]. I don't know how we should proceed. He doesn't seem to be as bad number of edits wise, but nevertheless he is continuing in the same fashion. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

When disruption continues, remedies get extended. I've semi protected Template:Anna Vissi, Anna Vissi and Everything I Am for six months this time. Please let me know if he resumes vandalizing other pages or templates, and I will semi protect those again as well. If registered sock puppets appear of User talk:JORJKIE.AV, let me know, and I'll handle those. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it might be him, but I would have to see more edits to know for sure. I'll let you know. Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I was expecting the user to re-appear in some form or another sooner or later. I have protected the remaining pages the latest IP has edited from, though I expect many more will have to be protected. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I would expect so, too, though I am hopeful. :D I don't remember how many were involved last time, but as I recall, it was a good many. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello again!

Hi there, MRG, i'm in need of some further help! I seem to have got into an unwitting edit war with someone over the St Thomas More Catholic Upper School article. The editor keeps including a 'notable alumni' section to the article, but without a source, and I cant find any sources on the net proving notability. I have therefore removed it, but it keeps being re-done. I have tried to explain to the editor the wiki rules about this (as far as I understand) but they keep re-adding it, with their main justification being that other wiki articles have similar unsourced alumni. Now it seems the original editor has created an account to do the same edits. How can I stop this? I'd be fine with the inclusion if a source could be added proving notability, but it hasn't. How can I proceed? Bleaney (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. If I were in your situation, I would take it to one of the boards for additional feedback first. I might start with WP:30, if the other contributor was talking. If not, I'd take it to Wikipedia:Content noticeboard just to get somebody else involved so you don't inadvertently find yourself in an edit war. If the contributor continues editing in defiance of consensus, then you're dealing with disruption, and it should be handled accordingly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks MRG, will do! Hope you are well these days? Bleaney (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm doing all right, thanks. :) Having a hard time at the moment juggling work deadlines and Wikipedia. Stupid real life. :/ How about you? Other than this particular wrinkle, everything going well? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Really good, off to Rome next week for a holiday! Take care. Bleaney (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Oooh, fun! I hope you have a lovely time. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Lasantha Wickrematunge

Hi MRG, I requested above to be protected in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Lasantha Wickrematunge. I saw you have protected it till 22nd. Can we have a long term protection here? Because in last month this has been protected. Once it expired we are having problems again. Regards--Chanaka L (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What a coincidence. I didn't realize you had requested it, but just noticed on my watchlist that the material had returned. Now that I see that this has been going on longer than I had realized, I've reset the term for one month. If it continues, we can extend the protection, but perhaps the contributor adding this material will figure out that he or she must work within process by then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Let's keep an eye on it.--Chanaka L (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I will. It's on my radar because of the recent copyright problems. If perchance problems resume and I don't notice, please feel free to let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick Copyright Question

Given this was first published 100 years ago, is it copyright free [8]. Failing that would a derivative work I create myself by acceptable. Justin talk 10:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, that's clear for use. The governing document here is Wikipedia:Public domain. Anything in the US published before 1923 is public domain in the US. Most stuff published elsewhere in the world before 1923 is public domain in the US. Anything published anywhere before 1909 is public domain in the US. Since it was published in 1907 there's no ambiguity there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi again. I'm a beginner on wikipedia and want to ask you something:

In the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Carpathians. the user Nmate tries to impose in the Hungarian name, even if the respective mountains are located in Czech Rep and Slovakia. I tried to initiate a discussion on that subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_Carpathians, but he answererd "go elsewhere!". What can I do?(Iaaasi (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Literally, go elsewhere. :) Dispute resolution is based on getting input from other, neutral contributors. A good forum for a situation involving only two users is WP:3O (make sure to follow the rules for requesting input, or it will not be answered). Alternatively, you might try the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard or the talk page of a guideline relevant to the issue. In all cases, you should word your request for feedback as neutrally as possible to remain in compliance with Wikipedia:Canvassing. While you may not always get a quick response, you should request feedback at one forum only. If nobody answers within a few days, you can consider looking elsewhere, but make a note at any new locations that you have an outstanding, unanswered request elsewhere. Be sure to focus on the issues only. Brief, factual notes — especially if you link to policies or guidelines that may support you — are most likely to succeed in bringing response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought it exists a naming convention. Isn't any criteria about the languages which are chosen to be listed for a place name? PS Sorry for being so insistent, but I'm a beginner on wikipedia and I don't know very clearly which are the procedures (Iaaasi (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Even if it exists as a naming convention, you need to get additional input as part of dispute resolution. There are certain types of edits that you can simply change as clear vandalism. You can also work towards cleaning copyright problems or problems related to biographies of living people with less concern. (In all cases, though, you also need to follow up at relevant notice boards if your actions are disputed.) Otherwise, even if you are quite sure a contributor is doing something wrong, you need the input of others in the community to avoid simply edit warring. I don't have time to research the background of this article or its popular names, but I would image consensus and even existing guideline would support you if there is no reason for the names to be translated into Hungarian. If the Hungarian name is widely known, however, it may be appropriately included under WP:UEIA. In any case, dispute resolution sets out the procedures for dealing with conflict in all cases. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

On SCV...

on the 30th, we have Universal Insurance company Limited. What are your thoughts? Looks copy / pasted to me but I don't see any sources. MLauba (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC) (looks like a financial analyst's report to investors or something) MLauba (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. With the bot, I only picked up the little bit lingering from [9]. With a manual scan, I found nothing else. This may be a case for {{Cv-unsure}}. Not to mention {{Unsourced}}. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Starsking

Starsking (talk · contribs) has once again added copyrighted material to Wikipedia: [10]. I think a longer block might be needed here. Theleftorium 15:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeffed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

UCSI University

This one I left untouched on today's listing, since you had some open questions. MLauba (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, man! I tricked myself. I saw my own note, "I've blanked to notify and will relist." and thought, "Okay. I relisted." I didn't realize that was the relist! All right. I'll take a look at it. Lacking clarification, though, our mandate is pretty clear. Yuck. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Charles Anthony Pearson

Hello again! I was hoping I could direct your attention to [11] as I'm utterly stumped and would like some help! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I remember that one. :) The problem was that the website in question published the material under notice of copyright. There was no way to verify which was the first point of publication; the contributor indicated he had given permission to the website to publish the text. I asked him to have the external site publisher send a letter verifying this so that we could clear the text with no question of whether or not we had the right to publish it. Presuming that you don't mind, I'll take over the ticket and handle it from here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem at all. Thanks for helping! Way too confusing for me. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was an odd one. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ida Raming and Gisela Forster

Hy i translated german writers and theologians Ida Raming and Gisela Forster. Maybe you can have a look on it and correct mistakes. Best regards, from Germany GLGermann (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mein Deutsch ist nicht besonders gut, aber ich kann lesen besser als ich sprechen kann. :) I've had a look, and I've added a bit of information from the German article to Gisela Forster. I've also added a few other sources in English. I'll see what I can do for Ida Raming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added a bit to it as well, from the German article. I've also asked a contributor whose German is better than mine to take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Forster will need some more work, I'll have a more in-depth look morgen früh. MLauba (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions on my talk page

I'm being asked some questions about fair use and uploading a personal image (ie an editor's picture of themselves), who should I refer them to as I'm on shaky ground now. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, for fair use questions I'd send them to WT:NFC or WP:MCQ. As far as uploading personal images, there's the complicating factor that copyright is owned by the photographer, which means that a photo of themselves is unlikely to be owned by them. :) I think that quite often a blind eye is turned towards this, but to do things properly we need license from the photographer. Ask them if it would be possible to have the photographer upload it. If it hasn't been previously published, that should take care of things. If it has, we need the usual permission process at WP:DCM. If the photographer can't upload it, the editor can upload it him or herself, but should have the photographer mail a licensing permission just as if it *had* been previously published. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RCSA

Hi,

I have received authorisation from www.rcsa.ca to release information on Wikipedia. The email has been sent by their admin to permissions-en email address. Please undelete the article and restore it. Thanks, MartyRobar (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Hi. Give me a minute to search the system, and I will see if the e-mail has been received. If it has not, we will have to wait until it is processed and logged before the content can be restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but we are not able to use that release. (OTRS agents only can view the letter at Ticket:2010020910033416). It licenses the content for use on Wikipedia, which is inconsistent with our licensing requirements. Further information has been sent to the correspondent. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Will check with them about it. MartyRobar (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
All right. If they reply directly to the e-mail, we should be able to handle it pretty quickly if they do decide to release it under CC-By-SA. Thank you for following up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
They informed me that they replied, please check for the email, thanks. MartyRobar (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they did. Give me a few minutes to process it, and I should be able to restore the article with no additional problems. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
All right. All up and in order. Thank you very much. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. MartyRobar (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just to say thanks for your really useful and intelligent help at Henri Fauconnier. I scanned the Coren-bot-suggested original sufficiently to remember a few phrases and thought they were exactly duplicated; your work was far more useful and informative. A job well done like this deserves acknowledgment. Unfortunately, no good deed goes unpunished <grin>; I'll now bring all my copyright issues to you!! Accounting4Taste:talk 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


JC Studios

I have one question about getting permission from JC Studios to use their info in the article I posted. Who at the JC Studios should authorize my use of material? I'm posting the article for the company. Would an authorization from my contact there -- the studio manager -- be sufficient as long as I include her email in what I sent to Wikipedia?Markdfaris (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on my talkpage

Hi there, I have pasted a reply to your comments on my talkpage. Would you please respond to one of the specific questions I have asked there(related to a sentence sourced to UNESCO)? Thanks Zencv Whisper 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Another article - Arcandor which you had proposed cleaning up had been edited. Would be cool to know whether your concerns are addressed Zencv Whisper 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Feelgood

? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've responded to your note at that article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket

How exactly are you going to be dealing with pages to which he has several hundred or several thousand edits to?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The same way we deal with all WP:CCIs. If the material is foundational, the article will be blanked for cleanup or deletion through WP:CP, which gives interested contributors a week to rewrite the content. This has already happened, for instance, at Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research. If it seems cleanable, it will be cleaned, as with Salem State College. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
So because of Racepacket, several hundred articles may have to be rewritten.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, just like each of the other current CCIs and all of the ones we've closed. After reviewing most of the first 20, though, I'm hoping it will be a couple of dozen at most. Many of the articles are non-creative content or the contributions are not that extensive. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about the fact that for the past five months he has been editing University of Miami and that everything that has been done to the article will have to be redone from scratch.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I just ran across Paul Olum and was confused. Do you suggest deleting the article without restoring any of the history? If so, I don't understand why — the article's been rewritten enough that it's only a paraphrase of the original, and therefore I don't see it as being any more of a derivative work than it would be if I wrote about him in my own words, using the copied article as my source. Please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Paul Olum is a really bad example of what you believe to be a sufficient rewrite. Within only 10 seconds I noticed that the first sentences of the Early years section for instance are verbatim copies of the obituary. So without going into further details, if the rest of the bio is similar, the article will be either deleted or stubified on the 18th, unless someone rewrites a clean article in the temp space.
That being said, even if it weren't as obvious, a gradual rewrite still produces an unauthorized derivative (as opposed to one single full rewrite), that we cannot keep. MLauba (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your last point Mlauba, or at least that's not the approach I take. If I can't detect a copyvio (assuming I have access to all the source texts) then I figure there's no copyvio present. For me, it's only a derivative work if it still preserves the creative structuring of facts or portions of distinctive wording. If it has now become a "dry recitation of fact" overlain with WP authors' own wording, I don't see a problem. I just gut the copyvios I can see. I realize I may be out of step here but I'm fairly sure I have a mandate to remove copyvios on sight. I'll be interested in what the QoC (Queen of Copyright) has to say. Franamax (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
That's where the reviewer's judgment comes into play. In practice we usually leave these in place if no trace of the source remains. If you look at the current version and find no close paraphrasing, there's no need to take further action. We're required to perform due diligence on copyvios were aware of, but I'd make a distinction between a foundational copyvio and those added at a later stage. With foundational, the nuke & start over is usually the safe approach. With later additions that have subsequently been edited away to the point we're no longer a close paraphrase, we either leave them as is, or, if appropriate, revision delete. MLauba (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that MLauba is correct both in that a gradual rewrite produces an unauthorized derivative and that in practice we generally aren't bothered if nothing visible remains of it. (So, Franamax, your approach is the one I take as well.) The courts are likely to find derivative work liability only where substantial similarity exists to the original. But one of the tests of copyright infringement is whether there is evidence of copying, and an article history that proves copying goes a long way to satisfying that test. So for that reason, I am more likely to view a close paraphrase as crossing the line when there is that history than if it is a contributor's first effort. If the answer to both questions ("Is there substantial similarity?" "Can we tell that it was copied?") is yes, then a finding of copyright violation is more likely.
Nyttend, I always check to see if something remains of the content before tagging, though being human and all there's always the chance of human error. :) In this case, you'll see the text in our article beginning with "His father was a Jewish businessman who had fled Russia at the age of nine to escape persecution" and continuing for some stretch is identical still to that source. With CCIs, I am less thorough in checking for extent of copying than with a CP listing because with a CCI there is a presumption of copying rather than the other way around. Current policy is that "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."
The CCI process was created to avoid that as much as possible by encouraging review. At the very least, we try to make sure that something has been copied before we remove it. But we also have to somehow get through the mountain of articles listed for review there. My typical practice is to search from the earliest edits onwards. If I verify copying in one source that remains, I don't spend time checking other sources. It's not possible. In one article where I did (from another CCI) due to the age of the material and the importance of the article, I found 59 instances of copying. It took me a couple of days to evaluate. It's a whole lot easier to paste content onto Wikipedia than it is to track it down afterwards. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Ryulong, that may be the case. It's fairly low on the list and with 364 edits a bit daunting to take on, but I'll make it a priority to review. Hopefully, we won't find anything. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
How exactly is the editor in question supposed to be dealt with?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You're going to have to be more specific. I'm not sure what you're asking. Meanwhile, I'll get back to prioritizing this article for you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I have 54 more edits to evaluate, and I'm going to have to call a halt to it tonight. I should be able to finish up this one tomorrow once I catch up the daily CP list, anything outstanding at the talk page and the usual overnight fires. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yayy Moonriddengirl! :) :) I have to slip out soon to watch the Olympic torch jog past my street, but maybe I can help a bit later. Franamax (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Racepacket

Hi! I thought I'd help out on this one, but I'm not horribly experienced with the copyvio processes that are in place: if you see me stuffing up, just let me know. :) The processes seem straightforward, but you never know. - Bilby (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I have posted a revised page at Talk:Cornell Central Campus/Temp which I believe will resolve any problems. Racepacket (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you to you both. Racepacket, I'll take a look at the temporary version soon. Bilby, I have noticed your assistance there and been very grateful. CCI can use all the help it can get. :) I'm glad the processes seem straightforward; if you see any way the instructions can be improved, please let me know! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll try to review that today as well, though typically these would each be reviewed as matter of course. Articles that are listed for copyright review cycle around at WP:CP and when they are closed by an administrator those temporary versions are checked. The good news there is that you have seven days for a rewrite before any article is handled. And if you have intentions of rewriting an article but can't do it within seven days, it isn't uncommon to relist them for another week. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what you mean by "relist them for another week." In the meantime, I have done: Talk:Road Runners Club of America/Temp. Your feedback is appreciated, and I know we have worked to resolve copyright issues before. (I think the only substantive difference of opinion we have is on the status of press releases.) Racepacket (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Every article that has been blanked has been listed on the copyright problems board. Listings there typically remain for a week. Sometimes if an article comes up for closure and a contributor is actively working on rewriting it, we relist it to extend the deadline for another week. The status of press releases has been discussed on Wikipedia on numerous occasions, but there has never been consensus to treat them as public domain, since the question of commercial reuse and modification is not easily resolved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I am verifying personally Salemstate.edu's copyright policy with their publications team, since I am a student there. I put the page under inuse, because it shouldn't be edited until the webteam replies back with their policy. It's a shame we don't have a template for copyright resolutions inuse! Silivrenion (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. :) I've put a note at that talk page about what they would need to do to verify. (But I didn't link WP:DCM; will go do that.) Thanks for letting me know here; since so many of these cross the table, I do not watchlist them all. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This reminds me of an interesting point: I wonder if in some cases the most effective way of resolving a copyvio is instead of removing the material, to encourage the original source to donate their material under CC-BY-SA 3.0 (Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials). It depends on the source obviously whether this is a possibility, but you never know. Dcoetzee 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi! That would always be great. :) The instructions for requesting that are on the template, but I don't know how often people actually try it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Water activity

I've not ever reported a copyvio in an article. This was brought to my attention from someone who actually understands the science and realized it was a copyvio.

Source: [12] --Moni3 (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've confirmed via archives that they had it first, so I've blanked it and listed it at CP and notified the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cornell Central Campus

Could you please userfy the Talk:Cornell Central Campus/Temp article so that I will not lose the additional research that went into the latest version? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't userfy material that has copyright problems. However, I can temporarily restore it, blanked, so you can retrieve the content you want to salvage, and I can certainly mail it to you so that you can extract the content. Would either one of those options work for you? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You can email it to me. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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

User:TheSimpsonsRocks

Hi Moonriddengirl. Can you block TheSimpsonsRocks (talk · contribs)? He/she has reinserted copyrighted material to List of Modern Family episodes despite being warned several times before. Thanks, Theleftorium 17:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have confirmed restoration of copyrighted content and issued a brief block. Hopefully this will bring the point home so that it does not continue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Can you delete Talk:My Funky Valentine/Temp as well? The plot was rewritten at My Funky Valentine. Theleftorium 17:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems he's at it again: Sons of Tucson (pilot). Longer block or warning? Theleftorium 20:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I did some more investigation and there is a possibility that he just copied the content from the Sons of Tucson article without knowing that it was copyrighted. Perhaps just leave a warning this time? Theleftorium 21:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, but the warning should relate to the need to attribute when copying from one Wikipedia article to another. :) I wouldn't hold him responsible for the copyvio content, since he didn't add it. Just one more example of the rampant problem with copyvios in TV articles. Wish we could do something about it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Website copies of copyrighted works without express license

Hi Moonriddengirl, could you have a look at the dicussion here: Wikipedia:RSN#Sources_which_appear_to_be_copies_of_reliable_sources? It's gone a bit cold because I forgot to watch it for a couple of days, but I still would like to get a clear result to this before it gets archived. thanks, --JN466 18:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC) To be more specific, I am interested in whether GRuban's argument flies. ;) --JN466 18:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Opined. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! :) --JN466 19:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

... re Hans-Ola Ericsson. Happy to help. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bellator 12

The website you listed actually took the words from the Wikipedia page not the other way around. I don't know why you think that it is copied and pasted. RapidSpin33 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

[13] is certainly copied from wikipedia, complete with [edit] and [hide] text from our hyperlinks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia articles have been up for quite a while now and all of a sudden you're accusing the creator and I of copyright? If the person takes it from here then that's not our problem. RapidSpin33 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:AGF, RapidSpin33. False positives happen. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The contributor of that article — again, whom I believe to be you, for the reasons I've already stated at your talk page — is the subject of an ongoing copyright cleanup investigation, at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Justastud15. These investigations are opened after a contributor has been verified to have copied content into multiple articles or multiple files of Wikipedia. This particular contributor has been twice blocked for copyright violations; there is nothing about sudden about this. (See [14]). In accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations, any of his edits may be removed indiscriminately from the project. We do make an effort to verify copying before deletion, but presumption is that copying has occurred in such cases. I'll take a look at the source, and if it proves that they copied the Wikipedia article as Tagishsimon, I'll try to verify if the content has been copied from elsewhere.
Note that if you are not Justastud15 — and, again, I believe you are — then you are certainly in violation of copyright. You cannot copy Wikipdia's content without providing attribution, and restoring content without its edit history deprives contributors of that attribution. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
No doubt that Tagishsimon is right about this one. The good news is that although I hit on several sites that predated the article, that seems to be because it was created with content taken from other Wikipedia articles. Again, this is also a copyright problem, but one that can be satisfied with attribution. I'll restore the article and provide credit to what seems to be its precursor.
RapidSpin33, whether you are or are not User:Justastud15, you must never recreate an article that has been deleted from Wikipedia in that manner. If you wish to contest a deletion, you should begin by talking to the deleting administrator; if the administrator does not agree with you, Wikipedia:Deletion review provides you an opportunity to receive additional feedback, and consensus may be that the article should be restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Naoman Alam

Sure thing; I've removed my speedy tag. Thanks! AlexHOUSE (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Vijayawada

Sorry for taking your time with the copyright concern at Vijayawada. It was a rather easy investigation, I could do it myself if I knew that webarchive thing. I just adhered to the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, which did not mention the procedure you followed. Anyhow, lesson learned. Thank you.--M4gnum0n (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You were absolutely right to look into it, and there was nothing at all wrong with your approach. :) As I said at the talk page, I appreciate your diligence. Copyright problems can be serious for Wikipedia, and having editors who are aware of and ready to help out with the issue is important. The procedure I followed is set out at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins. Those of us who routinely work the copyright problems board are very familiar with it. People who don't encounter copyright issues often are understandably not going to be. When I first started working at that board, I didn't know about the webarchive thing, either. :) It's not perfect, but it helps out with my work quite a bit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

World Universities Debating Championship

Hi,

A little over a week ago you blanked a section of the above article waiting to see if the apparent autor of the text would contact WP and donate the text - do you know if he has - and if not is it Ok just to remove the offending text ? Thanks in advance for you help. Codf1977 (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've checked the Wikimedia Foundation permission e-mail system, and there's nothing there yet. Typically, the matter closes in 7+1 days, so it is due for closure with tomorrow's batch at WP:CP, but since the article is not going to be deleted, there's no real harm in closing it early. I'll go ahead and do that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sindhis

Hi Moonriddengirl. Thank you for moderating Sindhi People. A certain contributor: Wasimawan has been constantly editing Sindhi People and making it pro Muslim. Kindly review the link below which is a more authentic version of this page and kindly update the same. Thank you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sindhi_people&oldid=299108017

--Sindhi King (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I'm not empowered to evaluate which versions of the article are best and choose among them. As I indicated at the talk page, I was addressing copyright concerns, and I restored an earlier version of the article ([15]) before Wasimawan's involvement solely to make sure that none of the copyrighted content he added remained in the article. You are certainly welcome to edit and improve the article as seems appropriate to you from this point, though, even if that means incorporating content that was in the article's history. Just please remember to follow dispute resolution if others object. You might want to document the reasons for your change if it is major at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor who falsifies sources

Hi Moonriddengirl, could you possibly help with a check on something? An editor who was nearly indeffed last year for hoaxing a source and copyvios has returned under a new username and falsified sourcing for a cut-and-paste from Citizendium. I've reviewed his image uploads on his previous account and found more copyvio problems.

I found his latest falsification when a cited source didn't substantiate a paragraph at all; cut and pasted the paragraph into Google and the entire article turned out to have been lifted from Citizendium without the required CC-by-sa 3.0 attribution. The only thing he had changed was to add false inline citations (the Citizendium article lacked inline citations).

Am taking care of a very sick housepet over here; could you have a look at his other text contributions? Would be much obliged if you'd provide assistance. Durova412 17:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sure; I'm going to be in and out of Wikipedia today (heavy workload getting ready for a weekend trip), but I'll put some time into it and see what I can find out. Hope the housepet will be okay! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Durova412 17:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Contrib list

So other than the lack of a fair use rationale things check out okay? Durova412 03:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Hawaiian Alphabet and improperly using a non-free image were the only real problems I found. Weird cherry-picking from the sources at Paintball, but that's a different kind of problem, I'd suppose. Given the behavior at Hawaiian Alphabet, I'd say you caught this one early — which could save us a lot of cleanup. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Many ...

thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A token of my appreciation

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you very much for helping a clueless newbie out with ticket:2010021310020403. NW (Talk) 03:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! You are very welcome. :) One of the best things about working on Wikipedia: if you run into difficulties, there's usually somebody else around to help out. :) Hooray for collaboration! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Citizendium license compatibility

Hi Moonriddengirl :) Just wanted to double-check something with you, if you don't mind. Would a direct port of a Citizendium article be a copyvio? I have the feeling that I read somewhere recently that their license (CC-by-sa 3.0) isn't compatible with ours. I've commented to that effect here, but thought I ought to confirm. Thanks! EyeSerenetalk 08:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)CC-BY-SA 3.0 is our primary license since June last year. We're obviously compatible, provided we maintain attribution - that is, that the import is marked as such in the edit summary (adding text from Citizendium article at URL) and that a completed {{CCBYSASource}} is added at the top of the references section.
In case of doubt, you can always refer to the handy table at WP:CCPS. MLauba (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I wasn't aware of that table; I'll bear it in mind for the future. Thanks again :) EyeSerenetalk 10:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
And making things even easier, we have a specific attribution template for them: {{Citizendium}}. I had occasion to use it just yesterday. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I always leave this page a more informed (and possibly better) person than when I arrived. I should come here more often :) EyeSerenetalk 14:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Williamson

I happened to find Peter Williamson today and see that, just above the references section, it is attributed to JK Gillon, the author as a 1990 article. I found this online version and also on squidoo.com (blacklisted, so I can't post the url) found by searching "French and Indian Cruelty". The article is obviously a cut and paste of Gillon's introduction to the a reprint of Peter Williamson's 1758 publication but I can't find any copyright statement regarding the article even though there is a page on Scribd.com showing uploaders how to set their copyright status. I suspect the article is a copyvio of that introduction. Thoughts? ww2censor (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at history, there have been copyvio concerns before. I found the squidoo listing, and I agree. I'm listing it at CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually I did not look closely at the history but I see you have tagged it. This edit appears to show that the author wanted to use their material though without any permission but we have no way to confirm that. I will see if I can start a new version, even if it is only a stub but there do seem to be quite a few sources. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It does seem so. You're quite right that the lack of confirmation is the issue. I appreciate your willingness to salvage the article; I don't hold out a lot of hope for getting permission now, although it's not impossible. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Bingo! I made direct contact with the author but even though I pointed him directly to the WP:PERMISSION page he just wrote back saying: "This is to confirm that the item is my copyright and I give full and unlimited permission for it to appear on Wikipedia." Of course that is unclear as that permission is limited to us. Being text, what licence do you recommend as best to have me suggest to him he send to the OTRS team? Thanks ww2censor (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Question re copyright / OTRS

Hi, Moonriddengirl! Could you answer a question I didn't see answered in the Copyright / OTRS material? Rockfang (talk · contribs) contacted me about Lui Che Woo, an article I speedied under G12. The user states that there's an OTRS ticket pending for that material. Is the material allowed on-wiki while the OTRS is pending? Or should the ticket go through before the article is re-instated? Thanks for your help - you can reply here and I'll watchlist :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)As MRG may already have left the building, here's my take:
  1. As we cannot keep material on display without having verified permission, an article where there's a claim of permission should be blanked using {{copyvio}} and listed at WP:CP until an OTRS volunteer confirms that the permission is valid
  2. If the article is speedily deleted before it comes to our awareness that a ticket has been sent to OTRS, the article should not be restored until permission has been verified.
  3. I'm off to check OTRS now, will handle this. You're free to direct the user to this conversation, and if I get the ticket number, that may speed up things. MLauba (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Have only temporarily left the building, but thanks so much for taking care of this. :) I'm planning to juggle packing/preparing with chipping at a few CCIs. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The OTRS wasn't pending. All was fine with it. Which is why I asked SatyrTN if he/she could undelete it for me.--Rockfang (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I eventually understood as much. It's Friday and I'm not know for being particularly bright. MLauba (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Not so much pending then, as "in hand." :) Seems like a misunderstanding; looks like it's all worked out now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Lost Horizons (Abney Park album)

Quick question for the copyright go-to girl - are the links to MP3s on Lost Horizons (Abney Park album) acceptable? I've watchlisted the page, so I'll consider any action or non-action there as my answer. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's an interesting one - essentially, deep linking to the website of the artists.
For me, it fails on guideline 2 in Wikipedia:External_links#Important_points_to_remember, which says "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." The utility of inline links in a track listing might, by some, be considered a special case, I suppose, but I'd prefer to stick to the guideline.
From a copyright perspective, Wikipedia:External links is fairly silent, though it does advocte deep linking (in the following context: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article"). US law does not exactly look settled, according to Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing, though my reading of the Arriba Soft summation suggests that we should not be deep linking in this instance since we are allowing users to cherrypick the best of what would otherwise be a sales pitch from the band; and we're not providing anything radically new that is unavailable at the band site. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I've copied this to the talk page of the article, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Tagishsimon. :) I've got a really lousy connection here, so I'm scared to try to explore the site. It seems to be the official site, in which case WP:LINKVIO would not be an issue, but I'm not at all sure that the band would want us hosting their content out of context. I'd say keep the links out of the article, but mention at the EL link at the bottom that the site contains music samples. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

No problem, thanks for the barnstar award! --Hj108 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyvio in FA now at FAR

Please see this: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indian Standard Time/archive1. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be point 6 in the list of reasons why the article should not be a FA...a four line or so copyvio. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

James M. Tien

Hi Moonriddengirl, hope you are doing well, hope your trip is good. If you have the time, would you take a look at this new article. It appears to have questionable notability, and copyright issues on top of that. I will put this message on the copyright project talk page too. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Trip is going well, thanks, but I'm going to have to run. I may be able to get back on late today...if so, I'll take a look then. Otherwise, it will probably be after my return. All about finding a quiet moment and a good connection! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks MRG. If you don't have time, it's OK, it will wait, and plus I did leave a note on the CRV project talk page so maybe someone else will be kind enough to look at it. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright question

Sorry to bother you again, but I can't seem to find any source which deals with this.

If a person tries to release material which has been published on Facebook or Youtube can they do that or do the copyright restrictions for those websites still apply? I know Facebook claims to own the copyright to anything you post on there so I don't think anyone can release what's been posted there.

Thanks in advance. If I am bothering you please let me know. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Facebook's Terms, §2, states "You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook", and while I haven't reviewed YouTube's terms (and I can't for the life of me think of any meaningful content on a YouTube video that would be encyclopedic), I'm going to assume it has similar wording. So if an user tries to repost this kind of content on Wikipedia, the text in question should be marked with {{copyvio}}, listed at WP:CP and the user directed specifically to WP:DCM. MLauba (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

wb

you got mail x2 :) MLauba (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Gary Lavergne OTRS

Hello Moonriddengirl, ready when you are for discussion. I have already put my 4 cents in. Thanks!Victor9876 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I had not gotten around to checking that. I have replied there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Given your copyvio/plagiarism-smashing proclivities...

this might interest you. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my. :( I'll be happy to look into it further ASAP. I am just arrived home from a trip and am fairly wiped out, but this sounds like a potentially very serious issue. I'll try to give it some time before crashing tonight and will certainly look into it more tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI, I have collected larger contribs here. I cannot view many of the sources, I'm afraid, to indicate whether content is too closely paraphrased or not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Henry Elliot

Hi - can you send me (to my user page) the deleted Sir Henry Elliot and I could try to make an unplagiarised article out of it. I am just watching a prog about him on TV and we have nothing! Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

Hi. I would love to see a new article on him, but I'm afraid that I can't userfy copyright violations (if it were a simple matter of plagiarism, it would be easier to address). :/ If you don't have access to the ODNB (it was pasted from there), there is some basic information here.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I have made little article from the ODNB that is referenced and not palgiarised. Do you have the categories ar anything from the old article? Thanks for your time anyway Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

I think it is OK now (is it)? Best wishes and sorry to have bothered you. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

I've added the Swedish link & the succession boxes. I should think it would be fine. You didn't bother me at all; I appreciate your taking the time to create a new article! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I have added a bit more to Henry Elliot from ODNB and the Times Obit (some of the ODNB reads very closely like the Times Obit!) Do you think ours is looking OK or do we really need some other sources? (Msrasnw (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

Well, as a general rule of thumb, other sources are always good, but I'll take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's certainly heavily based on the OBIT. While more sources are always good, I think you've created a good basic entry. One thing, though, you had taken a run of text from the ODNB with only one word altered. We can only do that if it is completely devoid of creativity or if we are quoting. :) Accordingly, I've turned into a direct, cited quotation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - my italics were to indicate a quote and I didn't put a proper ref in. I think though it is still a bit problematic with first double and then two single quotes. Anyway thanks for the help (Msrasnw (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC))
Oddly, and apropos nothing, Elliot turned up in a telly programme I watched last night, covering the question of whether ethical foreign policy is or is not achievable; it made the point that Elliot supported Turkey because it acted as a bulwark between Russia and the UK's interests in the middle-east & India. Elliot's critics accused him of turning native, but he argued that there were capital considerations they had not taken into account. Tum tee tum. I might add to the article sometime later. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if you two watched the same program. It's all to Wikipedia's good, since we have a usable new article on him. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess so - hadn't actualy taken in the first line of this thread. We shouldn't have been idling our time away like that when there are articles to write...do you ever wish you could use wikipedia with another Your Have Mail banner? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your input

Hi Moonriddengirl. Welcome back! :) I'd appreciate your input at User_talk:DESiegel#GFDL_and_Wikipedia, as I don't know if my decision to tag the article was correct. Cheers, Theleftorium 14:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll come take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Your decision to tag the article was, imo, correct. You did not restore the same tag, which is never appropriate, but used one that made the situation clear. However, since you know now that the tag itself is currently controversial, you should probably go ahead and convert it to {{copyvio}} for processing through CP. Meanwhile, I've tweaked policy & opened a conversation to seek consensus for that change at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Change to G12: accepted license. If consensus supports the change, the tag won't be controversial for long. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! By the way, what do you mean by "You did not restore the same tag, which is never appropriate"? Also, is this appropriate (should it be reverted)? Theleftorium 14:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Wildly inappropriate. MLauba (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought so. Thanks! Theleftorium 14:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Apparently this comment was masked by my answering one higher up on my page, as a result of which I never got the "you have message" bar. :) What I mean is that when a speedy is challenged, you should never restore the same tag to it. Speedies are by nature meant to be uncontroversial, and if somebody other than the creator contests a speedy, you should take it another route. :) And I agree with MLauba about the latter and support his actions there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. I'll keep that in mind. Theleftorium 14:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This is technically speaking not quite true - an article that satisfies the speedy deletion criteria can be deleted even if the deletion is contested, unlike a PROD. The criteria are intended to cover only articles that would (almost certainly) be deleted anyway if taken to AfD, so this makse sense. Can be deleted doesn't mean must be though, and factors like this are often taken into account by an admin. Dcoetzee 21:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia:Deletion policy says, "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page" and follows up, under "Renominations", with "Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below." It's true, though, that I have stated the case as more definite than the policy does. I would never renominate a page for speedy that had been challenged by somebody other than the creator; I believe this is typically frowned upon. :)--Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I need input again, this time with the user Jrcla2 (talk · contribs). See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jrcla2&action=history and you'll know what I mean. In addition to the examples I listed there, I've found copied content in Tobacco Bowl ([16], [17]) and Darren Rizzi ([18]). I fear a CCI is needed here. Theleftorium 18:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

More: 1970 Tangerine Bowl from http://www.mmbolding.com/bowls/Tangerine_1970.htm (search "but his pass on fourth down was broken up to stall the drive"). Woodbury Country Club from [19]. William Small Physical Laboratory Library from [20]. Theleftorium 18:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. I see this problem has been around awhile: [21]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I've cleaned the article at Darren Rizzi. Can you tag the other ones you've found? I'll generate a request at CCI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Sorry for dumping this on you BTW. You really deserve a break. :-/ Theleftorium 19:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) We need more people! Desperately! :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletions from The Real Estate Roundtable page

Hello Moonriddengirl,

Thank you for your services to the Wikipedia community.

After checking on the page about The Real Estate Roundtable, I corrected a minor grammatical error in the first sentence. Then I noticed how the first paragraph was significantly rewritten, I believe, to the detriment of those trying to understand exactly what the organization does. Then I noticed the vast majority of content I had added, then editec and updated, was deleted. The information deleted indluded an updated list of the individuals who serve on The Roundtable's Board of Directors.

I updated a lot ofinformation in 2009. I could not see on the history page when exactly it was deleted or who did it. So I write to you because I see you are the only one, beside me, who has reviewed the page recently.

The Roundtable addresses public policy issues related to commercial real estate and the national economy. The organization does not address residential housing transactional issues.

There is so much more that was deleted and wiped out. I cannot find out any information why. Could you please provide any clarification, or how I can find out?

I would like information to be restored, and would be happy to present why it is factual information that could serve the community and foster opennesss.

Thank you for any clarification you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rercomm (talkcontribs) 22:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The question is not whether the material was factual. Unfortunately, the article has contained content copied from the official site since its inception--for instance, [22] and [23]. Note specifically with the first page the copyright reservation. We are not able to use content that is previously published without proper license. The creator of that content was notified of the process for verification, here, and the article itself remained in place with a template containing instructions for doing so for over a week before it was replaced. I'm sorry if there are errors in my replacement, which was based to the best of my ability on the official website. I am not very familiar with real estate, but I felt that the organization was too notable to simply delete the article. Since no other contributor took the opportunity to propose new content, I tried. :)
In order for us to use the original content, we will need permission. If you are in position to grant it, the process is at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not directly associated with the organization but believe that it can be obtained, the procedure is at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While some of the material added to the article, including the list of individuals involved, was not specifically a copyright issue, the document in whole constituted an unauthorized derivative work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No Copyright Violation - The Real Estate Roundtable

Hello Moonriddengirl,

I am not sure if my previous message was posted. Checking the page for The Real Estate Roundtable in Washington, DC, I noticed a massive change in descriptive text, including the individuals who serve on its Board of Directors.

I can assure you the content was not a copyright violation. I work for The Roundtable and am attempting to keep the information about our organization factual, accurate and open to benefit the wiki and internet community. I would be happy to provide any kind of confirmation that may be needed.

Could you please advise me on how to approach the issue of reverting the page back to what it was? I want to add some more factual updates. After all that work, and effort to make it as factual and straightfoward as possible, everything was deleted. I do not know if I can put my email address here, but I will hold off on that for now. My wiki name is rercomm.

Thank you for your consideration and for whatever clarification you can provide. Again, all the content I added before was not a copyright violation. As I work for The Roundtable, I am writing about this organization.

Rercomm (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just answered this, immediately above. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will grant sharing - just went to the copyright page

You are fast ! ;) Thanks for the clarficiation. I will go to the link you provided and figure out how to grant copyright sharing ... if this is done, will you be notified? Can we then proceed with reverting to the old page? As commercial real estate is facing a significant financing crisis during the economic downturn, a crisis that could dwarf the residential sector, it is important to get the message out about what The Real Estate Roundtable does and who is behind it. Thank you so much for your attention to detail and concern for sharing information the right way, not just anyway ;). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rercomm (talkcontribs) 23:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you mail it, the response can be slow - up to a week - but if you let me know that permission is underway, I can intercept it and speed it along its way. Be sure that the e-mail address that issues the release is clearly identified with the publisher, as otherwise clearance will be slowed. If you do it on the website, we won't know unless you tell us. :) Since I'm familiar with the background, I'll probably the quickest to get it up and running. Just let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

suggestions needed

hello Moonriddengirl - i hope it's okay to barge in with a request. we've had some contact in some music-related discussions, so i was hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction for appropriate places to post this "eyes-needed" type announcement: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#a_Pop-music_question_in_need_of_input. i'll keep my eye on your talk page for a reply ... thanks! Sssoul (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've taken it to the right place first. :) You might also note it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music genres, though I suspect that's a small group. And if I were you, I might also post it at WP:CNB...but make it plain that you are requesting feedback at the article's talk page, not at the board. If you don't generate discussion there enough to establish consensus, you can eventually try an WP:RFC, but I'd give it about a week first to see who shows up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thank you! i thought the music genres project was abandoned, but i now see there are some signs of life over there after all, so i'll post it there as well. thanks! Sssoul (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final CP entry on February 12

Just a note, I left this one for you on your e-mailed request :) MLauba (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I haven't even looked at CP since I've come back (that I remember: post trip is a bit of a blur). Will do, very soon. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ranking Roger

Hi Moonriddengirl, would you have a little look at this issue on the BLPN about a subject as yet unidentified wanting to correct his DOB, interesting issue, subject is offering to make a utube video or send a copy of his birth certificate, your otrs experience capacity would be appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've weighed in. I think your suggestion is probably a very good one there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Moon, I am still a bit confused, I have added the OTRS email link there but if he makes a utube video were we can clearly see it is him, would he need to identify to OTRS? If he does need to identify, what exactly does it take for us to accept them as that person, I always wondered that..and is that email I have added at the BLPN the correct one for self identifying.. questions questions, sorry, I know your busy. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
No, we don't need him to contact OTRS if he makes the youtube video. We just need somebody to be able to verify that he is the individual. :) If there's any doubt, it would be best for the video to be mentioned on the official band website. Alternatively, he could simply release a statement and tuck it somewhere in that domain that we can link to, even if it's not navigable through the usual menu. No worries about questions. I'm happy to help if I can. I'll go take a look at the note you left at BLPN and clarify what I meant there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thats covered it, if I can understand anyone can, tanks very much for your time, best. Off2riorob (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ramesh vyas

Hi there. Sorry to be bothering you again, but I noticed that Ramesh vyas had apparently been blocked, but created a new account (Ramesh vyas-1) to continue editing. Writing "style" and MOs (Indian military equipment) are identical. RV-1's account was created a few days after the block on RV's account went into effect. Not sure if this is an issue, or if it is, how it should be handled, but I thought I should make a note of it. Thanks. - Jonathon A H (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It is an issue, and I have blocked the sockpuppet. Please let me know if you see any additional issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:HD

..re Lanh... I've just removed something at Mount Colah, New South Wales that might have been by a related account. Have a boo.User:LeadSongDog come howl 19:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You think User:LanhLangLangLang owns User:Lanhai as well, evidently, as User:TranThienLoi, User:AllaHAKBHaaR and User:DoanThucTran? Have you seen this behavior elsewhere or have any clue what's going on? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
IANAA, so I can't see the deleted contribs. But the subsequent comments at WP:HD sure read like an admission of socking. Note also the dates in the user logs suggest Lanhai is the older account. I suppose there might yet be some justification mounted.User:LeadSongDog come howl 03:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the Lanhai account had good contribs up to 31 Jan, then bad. Perhaps the account was compromised?User:LeadSongDog come howl 04:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Attributing deleted edits

Can you look at Talk:2010 United States Women's Curling Championship#Restoration of non-BLP-violating revisions and let me know if how I did it works for attribution purposes? –xenotalk 20:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. That works just fine. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't sure. I know you use some arduous edit-by-edit method, I was hoping to make it easy on myself. =0 –xenotalk 20:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I have done, yes. These days there's so much copyright work to do that I can't say I would now. :D I've tended to try to annotate edit by edit in case of other issues with article text, but what really matters is that the list of contributors is preserved. If it turns out that there's, say, a copyvio in the aggregated text, we can always pull up the deleted versions and find out where it came in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A customer to keep an eye on

Njeson (talk · contribs) - specializes in creating stubs for US states' utilities commissions, liberally copy / pasting from the source site. No CCI needed, everything has been deleted or stubified so far, but he's under a final warning and looking for an indef given the sheer amout of warnings he got. Would appreciate another pair of eyes on his coming contribs. MLauba (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

All right. I'll check in on him. One trick I've used: you might make a note at the latest day of CP to remind us to check back. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at DESiegel's talk page.
Message added 00:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

inwiki copying; lyrics?

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Roger Davies's talk page.
Message added 04:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:TheSimpsonsRocks

See this. Indef block? Theleftorium 14:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

More at Fears (Modern Family). Theleftorium 14:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your diligence. :/ Indeffed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

70.126.138.182

Hi.

You know me, i work in the backstage, i don`t mess with no one, i don`t get in anybody`s way, and thus i never expected to get in trouble with someone, nonetheless, as you can see in the recents edits to Ocelot (Metal Gear) the aforementioned IP user, is creating a edit war in which i intended to put a stop, and he insult me, my country and my profession, the user has been blocked before, i`m not specifically calling for a block but at least for some disciplinary action. I`m sorry if it looks like i`m overreacting but i won`t tolerate an insult to my country from someone who doesn't even has a "name".

As always, thanks and i leave it in your hands. Zidane tribal (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)`

Hi. The IP in question was just days ago blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks; I have now blocked him for 72 hours for continuing that incivility. I'm sorry that you were offended, and I do understand, but I hope that you won't take it personally if somebody does this again. While personal attacks are against policy and a block seems necessary to reinforce that, really, it's the cheapest form of debate for a stranger to try to take potshots at things he imagines you hold dear. For me, it's usually something related to my being female. :) Getting in trouble with somebody on Wikipedia is inevitable. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate a lot you quick response, sadly it was a short-lived happiness because the IP user created a account just to insult me again, a friend undid the edit, so the`re is no harm, just that the IP user has created a new account... He did mentioned that i "went crying like a baby to that female admin"... A complete lack of respect for one of the best admins in the project. Specially the one that is kind and very clean without ostentation. Zidane tribal (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I'm not bothered; please don't worry about it on my account. And I did see his note on your talk page. As it was being removed, I was blocking the contributor for harassment. It's only 72 hours, but hopefully he'll decide to abide by the rules governing our interactions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sweetpotato bug

Updated DYK query On February 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sweetpotato bug, 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, quick check ) 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) 11:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Singing Daisies and all his guises

Hi MRG, did you get my email re this? If so, feel free to respond here if you prefer. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC).

I'm so sorry; I overlooked it. I have replied. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edward John Hutchins

Sadly my Wandsworth library card does not get me into The Times' archive. I'll get myself a Northumberland library account in the next couple of days; they have taken out a subscription. If the matter is still open then, I'll dive in & fetch the 1876 text. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and I'd be sorry to put you to that trouble! I can try to find somebody else with a subscription; there may be somebody at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. I'll ask. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It'll be a useful login to have in the copyvio armoury, and I pay them a handsome amount each year in domestic rates, so no trouble. But you're right that you might get a more immediate response in this instance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, then, thank you for your willingness to serve your wiki! :D I've gotten an immediate response, but I still can't view the source. Maybe somebody'll be able to help me work it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This one is resolved. I've got the obit in my hands. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I have found alternative sources and edited the article so that most of the text is changed and no-one could reasonably claim violation. Please could you authorise the revised text to replace the copy vio notice? I have access to the sources listed here, should you need them in future.Vernon White . . . Talk 00:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry. I almost missed this up here. I'm walking out the door in a few minutes, but I will look at this as soon as I get back! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No hurry, no hassle Vernon White . . . Talk 17:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I wonder whether the rather verbose and threatening process of blanking out claimed copyright violating articles could take note of (1) Several editors putting in hard work on the article (2) The consequence of deletion for succession boxes etc. in other articles (3) the cumbersomeness of the process of seeking documented permission (3) the level of probability that the alleged violation might lead to complaints or litigation (4) the possibility that a smoother and gentler approach might lead to quicker resolution and better articles. Vernon White . . . Talk 20:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
We are mandated to stop the spread of copyrighted content imported in violation of Wikipedia's policies as soon as it is detected. It is unfortunate when subsequent editors put time into articles that cannot be used because the content was placed here in violation of policy, but as it says at the bottom of every edit screen, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." As I explained to you at the article's talk page, the Wikimedia Foundation has chosen to take a firm line on copyright violations; we do not wait for complaints from copyright holders and certainly not for litigation, which has the potential to do serious harm to the project. None of us is able to guess which copyright holders are likely to sue you for placing their content here and at the same to consider suing us for contributory infringement.
I'm sorry if the process feels hostile to you, but in this case, eventualism does not apply. We must address these matters swiftly. It would have been ideal if you had removed the copyrighted content when Corensearchbot originally gave you the notice, since other contributors might not then have contributed to an unauthorized derivative work. The process is typically far less friendly than it was in this case; usually, you would have been given a templated caution to stop placing copyrighted content on the project with the standard built in block warning (either {{uw-copyright}} or {{Nothanks-web}}, the latter of which is at least a little warm and fuzzy and operates on the assumption that you might have permission), but in this case the situation was complicated in the need to determine which text violated copyright policy and which text did not. The purpose here is not to make contributors feel threatened, per se, but to make the copyright violation go away - either through permission or deletion - and to make sure that it doesn't happen again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't recall receiving a warning from "Corensearchbot". The first bot message that I received threatened speedy deletion for lack of notability. The History of this page has vanished now. So has my migraine aura - thank goodness! Perhaps I should vanish too . . . Vernon White . . . Talk 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about your migraine; I get those, too. Hate them. :/ The message from Corensearchbot was here. You may not have realized it was the bot since you got the speedy notice at about the same time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Retraction of error on OTRS Gary Lavergne

I hope you will accept my retraction as levity after finding my source for the observation deck being the 29th floor. Victor9876 (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to you there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Laura Schuler

Hi, I have received your message. My apologies for the error. It was certainly not my intention to create any problems. I will review your suggestions to avoid any such issues in the future. Maple Leaf (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

userfy

I would like Three Wise Cats to be userfied to User:Flamekitty thank you. Brambleclawx 22:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I moved it to User:Flamekitty/Three Wise Cats where it will be easier for him or her to work on. Sometimes articles that are kept on user pages too long may be nominated for WP:MfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh all right. I'll try to help the user make it better. Thanks, Brambleclawx 15:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Gary Lavergne

I note with some amusement your recent exchange on BLPN. Your correspondent reminds me very strongly of another editor we both know.Jarhed (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes conversations go more smoothly than others. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Commons image question

For all intents and purposes, that picture is the same as a scanned page of a book. It would be legit under fair use, I suspect, but I fail to see how it could be legit under our non-free content criteria. However, it probably shouldn't be on Commons at all, and may be worth nominating for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Which locally hosted image are you referring to? J Milburn (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't really see it meeting our non-free content criteria. The image is replaceable with the same information stated in an editor's own words. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I've not actually seen that template before. I'd just send it to PUI- that can be done with Twinkle. J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Levineps' again...hey, you told him to come back in March...

He's asking for his restrictions to be lifted again here, if you care to comment. Apparently he seems to have expanded his work to disruptively moving articles now. Not getting it, don't see how he will ever get it. Auntie E. (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That one's not ringing any bells for me. :) It's late in my part of the world, and it's easily possible I'm forgetting something, but is there any chance you're thinking of User:BrownHairedGirl? I'll poke at it a bit more in the morning to see. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Dammit, you're right, sorry wrong girl. Thanks. Auntie E. (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I've done that myself. :) Once got User:Dougweller and User:Dweller confused. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Image expert(s)

Please remind me who our resident image expert(s) are, particularly regarding User_talk:AndreyA#Images. The images in question might have been fair use in Tiffany's, dancehall, which was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany's, dancehall, but now I think that claim isn't supportable. Thanks (stalkers too)...  Frank  |  talk  14:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I strongly doubt that the FURs are robust enough to support their use in a Dire Straits Tour article, and as we have a person identifying him/herself as the owner of the website from which the two images were lifted, I suggest they be deleted forthwith. However I'm at work, not an admin, using IE so unable to access twinkle. I trust MRG will do the honours ASAP. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I've tagged them for DfU. I'll bring them up to one of our resident image experts to see if the copyright holder complaint means we should do something more swiftly. If we take them to WP:NFCR, they'll be there for years. :) I usually consult one of the following on images: User:J Milburn, User:Stifle or User:Dcoetzee. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

why?

vandalism is fun --59.93.222.82 (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tiffany's dance hall overview.jpg

Where it is?--Andrey! 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Tiffany's dance hall overview.jpg.  Frank  |  talk  16:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, DFUs go on the images in question. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I consider that use of not free image in article is justified and I do not see discussion on removal of this file. DFUs is a red link.--Andrey! 16:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

London Health Sciences Foundation

Thanks! Rees11 (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcoming a scholar

Hi. You had good advice last time, and everywhere else I've seen you, so I was wondering if you could advise (or help) with my query at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Welcoming a scholar who pastes in parts of his own work. No rush at all, I just don't want it to get lost and forgotten in an archive! Much thanks. (reply here or there). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi.:) I'm happy to help. It was a crazy weekend, and I'm still catching up, but I will come take a look later today (tomorrow, Wiki-time :D) and see what I can do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I've looked at both pages and concur that wikipedia is the original, and the Sage site has copied a version from wikipedia somewhere around 13 June 2008. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC). Wires crossed. TPS unable correctly to follow links. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's US Government PD

Hello, Moonriddengirl, long time no see. Could you take a look at This? The source is http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/gsgibbs.htm . I think that that makes it Public Domain, but would like a second opinion. Thanks, Dlohcierekim 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

All but the last paragraph ("His wife, Ruth...") is PD, from [24], page 69. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dlohcierekim 00:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And thanks to both of you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me

I have been editing in wikipedia for the last four years. I am sorry for involving in some copyright violations. But they are unintentional. I have been spending lot of time for this purpose. Is it possible to give me some time to correct these violations from the table you have prepared. I don't want all these pages to be deleted. I will go through all these pages and correct the mistakes in a month time. If you or someone else is scrutinizing them, is it possible to delete the copyright violated part of the text rather than the complete article. I am sorry if my request is unreasonable. Thank you for finding my mistake. I will try not to do such mistake in future.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 17:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Palletooru page is deleted completely. I am questioning you for that. You could have deleted the plot of the film and kept a note of copyright violation as you have done to T. G. Kamala Devi and Swami Jnanananda. Please Please Please once again requesting you give me some time for correction.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 10:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Kindly restore the infobox, song list and categories of Palletooru. I would rewrite the rest of the article.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 13:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I have seen the trailers of Bhale Tammudu movie including the titles at Youtube and entered the credentials and songs of the film which includes Mohammed Rafi. Is it also comes under copyright violation against Youtube. If not, can you restore this part of the page.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 08:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

hi

i want to ask you if for places where the name in the language of the minority is the same with the official name it is necessary to mention it in parantheses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arad,_Romania

thx in advance for the answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talkcontribs) 18:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't see why it would be, but I don't believe there's a policy that prohibits it. It could be useful if omission will leave people to wonder, thinking the information is missing instead of the same. I see you've raised the question at Talk:Arad, Romania. That's a good place for it, to find out how contributors to the article feel about it in that specific case. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Help

How do I become an admin? 4 PAGES CREATED TO DATE. User:KingofFilm, the mighty Wikipedian. 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It helps to develop a lot of experience on Wikipedia and especially in the areas where administrators work. Wikipedia:Administrators gives a little bit of information about that, and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship includes a nicely written section on things to consider before undergoing the process. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Big Tiny Little

Can I bring to your notice a seemingly 'copy and paste' copyright violation on this article. The 'biography' section seems to have been taken directly from here - [25]. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you. :) I'll go take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

question

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Are editors allowed to collaborate on edits off wikipedia? Thanks.Malke2010 02:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that kind of depends on what you're asking. There should be nothing wrong with two Wikipedia editors sitting down over coffee to talk over the development of an article at a local Starbucks...so long as they are not attempting to coordinate to thwart consensus within the project. If the article is uncontroversial and they aren't trying to secretly discuss it where other editors won't be able to hear and if they're both willing to engage independently on Wikipedia, with full disclosure of their collaboration, in consensus-building, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable grounds to object. The point is improving the encyclopedia, and they're all above board about it.
OTOH, if they're collaborating because they want to iron out an approach to advance their mutual interests against other contributors, well, you've got a different situation. In that case, the answer is no. The policy and guideline to consider there are Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (specifically, the subsection WP:MEAT) and Wikipedia:Canvassing. Contributors should not collaborate off Wikipedia in a way that excludes the rest of the community from participation or that skews the consensus process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, well I think there might be the latter situation taking place on Tea Party Movement talk page. Two editors there are insisting on a particular edit that I made be changed to something they had previously collaborated would be the edit. I can give you diffs. And the one fellow went over to the edit warring noticeboard and filed a complaint and said all sorts of things. Long story short, the admin today found I had not committed a violation and did not find any of the things this fellow claimed. So in the meantime, we're back to the question of my edit and I picked up on a previous post where the two are agreeing and the one mentions the collaboration. Well, now I'm asking to show me diffs of this collaboration and they're ignoring me. I'll post diffs for you.Malke2010 02:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
1st: [26]Malke2010 03:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

2nd diff) Izauze responds [27] 3rd diff) My response [28] 4th diff: Izauze [29] 5th diff: Me [30] 6th diff: Changing the subject and getting hostile [31] 7th diff: Happysomeone changing the subject [32] 8th diff: Me [33]

There is no discussion about the edit between them on that day or any other that I can see and I went back and looked.

This is the diff of the noticeboard [34], but it's long and rambling. But during the day in question, I did cooperate with editing changes and answered questions about my sources, etc. I did a good give and take and acquiesced to demands for placement of edit, other edits, etc. They were both upset that I would not yield to the content of this particular quote from a tea party organizer. From there, later that night, Izauze went off the edit war noticeboard without warning me on my talk page or even on the article talk page. He has stated on his talk page that his goal was to get me banned/or blocked and that he hoped a block would result in my being discouraged and leaving the page/wikipedia. The weird thing is, Izauze wrote up the complaint freely using edits from Happysomeone and mentioning his name. Things seem questionable to me.Malke2010 03:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, they said they didn't collaborate off Wikipedia to produce the content, but even if they had what matters is if they are going off Wikipedia in an effort to thwart the consensus process. If they were both already active on the article, then it's not an issue of canvassing. If you think there may be sock puppetry going on, I'm afraid I'm probably not the best person to come to for a second opinion. I don't work in that area often. Frivolous 3RR reports happen, I'm afraid. I'm glad that the administrator evaluated the situation; I would expect that from Atama, with whose work I'm familiar. With respect to the dispute, is there a good mediation forum to which the three of you could appeal for a neutral, outside opinion? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at that. As for the sock thing, I don't know how some people are able to recognize it right off, but I will say they constantly agree and support each other. So if that's an indication, that's the only one I can recognize. Last night Izauze did a lot of editing that seems almost vandalism to me adding content without citations making claims that if I saw that from an IP I would revert as vandalism. I did not go to the noticeboard because I was afraid it would look like tit for tat because of the false report.
But I will say his style and behavior reminded me of another editor that has been ban/blocked and now claims to be retired.Malke2010 18:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, some sort of mediation is necessary here. But I'm specifically asking about this behavior of going to noticeboards for some kind of sanction, either blocking or whatever you get on wikialerts, etc. My question is, how do I get them to stop doing that first? Because you know, you could work at the U.N. and if I'd wanted to go to a noticeboard, I would have done it last night. I don't want to engage the argument. That seems like throwing gasoline on the fire to stop the fire. Suggestions for the immediate needs are most welcome.Malke2010 00:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Another noticeboard [35]. Seems like WP:FORUMSHOP to me. Are there remedies for editors in my position. I think it's harassment given the posts Izauze made on , etc. and now this. If you don't think so, then I wouldn't pursue the matter.Malke2010 23:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You are wandering into areas of Wikipedia where I'm afraid I have never been. :/ My involvement with sock puppetry has been limited to very obvious cases; a few I've observed from a distance have surprised me, because I tend to AGF a bit too far. The only solutions I know to problems with editors are in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution chain. If you and Izauze are willing to listen to and accept an outsider's opinion, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal could be a good next step. I've seen that applied successfully, but it does take willingness on both parts. Somewhat formally, there's Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Again, this requires willingness to reach consensus on all parts. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, some sort of mediation is necessary here. But I'm specifically asking about this behavior of going to noticeboards for some kind of sanction, either blocking or whatever you get on wikialerts, etc. My question is, how do I get them to stop doing that first? Because you know, you could work at the U.N. and if I'd wanted to go to a noticeboard, I would have done it last night. I don't want to engage the argument. That seems like throwing gasoline on the fire to stop the fire. Suggestions for the immediate needs are most welcome.Malke2010 00:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, first, I haven't read your notes at the noticeboard, so I'm not intending any kind of veiled criticism here. :) For all I know, this is exactly what you've done. I would recommend responding succinctly and briefly, showing other contributors why the noticeboard filing is unnecessary and inappropriate. I would be careful not to escalate by counterclaims, which can just throw up more heat than light (as you say, throwing gas on a fire to stop it). Basically, show your own innocence so that bystanders recognize that there is no problem with you, but don't spin more drama. Then, I would go to the contributor's talk page and explain that rather than filing notices in multiple places, dealing globally with the problem may be more productive and help in moving forward with the issue. I'd be very careful with tone there, since once people are already angry they can read your tone as more aggressive than you intend. (Wikipedia:Truce suggests placing a generous note on the other's talk page. There may be something about this contributor's work that you admire, even if it's just as abstract as his dedication. :)) The point is to try to get the emotions calmed all around so that reason can engage.
Mind you, I'm not real clear on what the issue is, but I'm assuming that at the heart the disagreement is content based, perhaps about the direction the article should take. :) I've never even read the article. If I'm right with that assumption, you might suggest coming up with a statement of the problem together, focusing on keeping it neutral, and then posting it for mediation as per directions. Then I'd try to shed any ill-will that the history between you may have caused and wait to see if you can come together with the assistance of uninvolved parties to create a version that works for everybody. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. That's a good idea. I forgot to post a diff. [36] about the latest thing, but I think this is just about content and a sense of WP:OWN on their part. A mediator would be the best route. I didn't know what I had here so I didn't know what to do. The mediator should be able to sort it out. Great advice, as always, Moonriddengirl.  :) Malke2010 01:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For uncovering the history of the doubly-plagiarized Information technology governance, as well as your tireless work investigating copyright problems. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I would never have predicted that one would turn out to be reverse infringement. As I said at the talk page, this is a first for me: two separate reliable sources taking from the same Wikipedia article. What is scholarship coming to? :O I do appreciate your noting your concerns with the article. Copyright problems on Wikipedia would be completely out of control if it weren't for people like you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Qs about Cvio cleanup

How acceptable is it to reduce an article to a referenced stub? Also, does it reduce the project's workload if a non-admin (like me) evaluates an article and posts a check mark at a CCI page to the effect that it no longer contains violations? Best, Novickas (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) It absolutely does reduce the project's workload, and you are most welcome to do so. I can't find simple words to convey how welcome you would be. :D It is acceptable to reduce an article to a referenced stub as needed to remove copyright violations. We do have a variety of templates to help explain why at the article's talk pages, including {{CCI}} and the old-fashioned {{cclean}}. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

what's allowed on user pages?

Hi Moonriddengirl, Are we allowed to post images from other areas of Wikipedia on our user pages? A friendly bot has removed so things I've added and I don't want to run afoul of rules here. And tips would be helpful. Thanks, Malke2010 00:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Only free images are allowed on user pages (that would be images that are public domain or licensed under one of the free licenses we use. Any image that is uploaded under "fair use" can't be used there. That's exactly what the bot objected to with File:Sinn Fein logo.jpg. That image can only be used in article space and only if there is a "fair use rationale" for the specific article in which it is being used. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see the difference. Thank goodness for the bot. Won't do that again.Malke2010 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
That's one that takes a lot of people by surprise. Even experienced contributors, in my observation, don't always know much about our image use rules. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Donal O'Connor page deleted 6th February

Hi there,

My name is Donal O'Connor and my page was deleted by you, due to a copyright infringement. The information had been copied from my Biography on my myspace page and I have given permission for this. Is there anyway of undeleting the page.

Kind Regards

Donal O'Connor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.33.188 (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. (And I've removed your email from this page) --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Tagishsimon. Mr. O'Connor, if you should choose to leave the release at your myspace page, please leave me a note here letting me know you've done so, and I'll be happy to help process it further. If you should send the note to the Wikimedia Foundation, the agent who addresses it there will restore the content if the license is usable. Sometimes technicalities require clarification; should this be the case, they will let you know. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Just a note to let you know the page was twice deleted; the first time for non-notability. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible Contributor copyright investigation

Hi there, I wanted to get your brief views, if possible, on whether I should report a case to WP:CCI. I haven't reported a CCI case before so I want to be careful not to inappropriately report a case.

The user is User:Roman888 and the problem is close paraphrasing or direct lifting of sentences from (attributed) sources of a period of time. I left a message on the user's talk page alerting him to two examples that I fixed myself: see here. The user is a good contributor who I'm sure will be careful not to closely paraphrase in the future, but looking back through his/her contribution history, the word lifting and close paraphrasing is widespread and perhaps requires a thorough cleansing. Some more examples are:

Thanks--Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your diligence in looking out for these issues and also for your careful approach to addressing them. :) The examples you supply are concerning. My initial thought is that a CCI seems likely to be needed. I picked an article at random from his most recent 500 contributions, Teoh Beng Hock. In this series of edits, I see more problems:
I've stopped looking in this article at this point. There may be more. I just spot-checked for duplicated sentences.
And this, mind you, was an article chosen at random, which would suggest that you're probably right that there are larger problems here. :/ It looks very like he is in good faith creating a pastiche of copyrighted snippets. I do agree with you that this is good faith; he is meticulous about sourcing.
I'm going to go ahead and address this article. If a few more articles like this are found, it would be a good idea to file for a CCI. If a talk page stalker wants to take a look, that would be great. :D If you do, that's great, too. Otherwise, I'll be happy to look at a few more articles tomorrow just to see. I have limited on Wikipedia time today. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick attention. I'll take some random pages as well and re-visit in a day or so. With over 4,000 edits it seems a WP:CCI may be required. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Further samples

G'day again, I've reached back further into the edit history and found more samples. This is from a series of edits in May 2008 to Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Video Clip - it is only a selection because the edits added substantial content to the article:

And from a series of edits made to Bandar Mahkota Cheras also in May 2008:

I'll delete each of the samples above. There are other quotes that are sourced to web articles that are no longer accessible - I'll hold off on those. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good work, and thank you very much for locating the issue and follow through. I have opened the CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Roman888. If perchance you want to continue looking, you would be most welcome to help document problems there. :) We are pushing on 30 of these, and while they will all eventually be reviewed, eventually is a key word here. I closed one last week that had been open for almost a year. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help out; thanks very much for your guidance here. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I am also happy to help out. :) If you need any clarification on the CCI process, please let me know. I would be most grateful for any assistance you wanted to provide there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made a start and just have one question. If I come across a sentence added to an article, and a news source is cited as the source but is no longer accessible on the web (example here, is it appropriate to presumptively delete the material? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You've made great headway! And, yes, it is appropriate. We try to verify because it's a shame to lose material if we don't have to, but we vet every CCI first precisely to make sure that infringement is more rather than less likely. You may need to look at the language and use your judgment. I find that after working on a CCI for a while, I get a pretty good sense of a contributor's style, and it can become easier to judge where problems are. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright advice -- Images from National Register of Historic Places

Hi Moonriddengirl. I have a copyright question, which always makes me think of you. Here goes:

There are a number of images in a National Register of Historic Places nomination document that I think are nifty and would like to put in a gallery on Commons. The nomination part of the official NRHP listing and hence a government document. Some of the images are unsourced sourced. Some are sourced to the photographer. None of them would be readily verifiable, although copies of the nomination can be obtained from the National Park Service. (It is not available online yet, but presumably will be someday.)

My question is, are the images public domain? Given the source and limited verifiability, what would be the best way to post them, assuming that the license will allow it?

Thanks in advance for the help. This one is beyond me. I just like the pictures.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) It's good to see you. Images are not really my area, but I know people who know images. :) Let me track down a Commons admin to see what he has to say. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the short answer is "it depends." I have conferred with one of my favorite Commons admins, and he says that research would be required into each image to determine whether it was taken by a federal agent in pursuit of his duties or if it was submitted by an outside party. It's tough when you can't yet provide a link. :/ If you can verify that the images were taken by a federal photographer, they might be usable, though how we'd go about proving that I don't know. You might be able to scan the documents if the federal status can be proven and e-mail those scans to OTRS. The ones that where no photographer is given may be exceptionally difficult. Although it's not on Commons, I might gather together the specifics here (including the names of the photographers you can identify), and present the details at WP:MCQ to see what the people there have to say. I think, honestly, that might be better than taking it to Commons:Commons:Help desk. It will all be much easier if this stuff winds up online. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply and the pointer to MCQ. Yet another hidden corner of Wikipedia reveals itself to me. I knew you would set me straight. I doubt they were taken by a government employee, and as you say, how would I prove it? I may just reach out to the archive I suspect the came from and see if they will grant permission if I ask them nicely.
BTW - You make recall the huge mess I made of The Avery Coonley School and how you had to roll it all back while I took copyvio 101. Well, that article is now at FAC (and looks like it is going to pass). I thought that might make you smile. Lest you ever think your work here is thankless.... --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Awww. Thank you very much. :) It does indeed make me smile, and people like you are the reason I put so much time into this. Congratulations on your incredible achievement, whether it passes or not. I hope it does; with the effort you put into it, you deserve the star (and, potentially, the front page coverage). Getting permission for the images would certainly take care of any potential problems. Good luck, and thanks for caring enough to take the time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Need your help

If you're not to busy, do you think you could better explain the situation here. The user doesn't understand what I mean [37] and my English is lacking. Thank you. Theleftorium 23:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Working on it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. You're the best! :) Theleftorium 01:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So what do we do with the temporary pages? Many of them began as copies of the already existing articles and still have copyright problems in them. The following piece, for example, appears in Talk:Dilwyn Lewis/Temp: "In 1996 he suffered the first of seven heart attacks. A quadruple by-pass operation followed and diabetes was diagnosed. He died suddenly in Ireland." It's copied directly from [38]. :/ Theleftorium 15:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I can delete the earliest versions. If it's not too much trouble, can you give me links? If it is, I'll figure out which ones are problematic myself. :) You do plenty enough for copyright cleanup as it is! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, wait. That's still there. I misunderstood you. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I'll make sure he has the content he needs for reworking offline and go ahead and delete the involved temp pages as soon as I know he does. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Teoh Beng Hock

MRG, I have received your message regarding your removal of the part of the article and information regarding the Teoh Beng Hock issue. In the past I have dealt with many issues such as this regarding copyright issues in Wikipedia. Normally in such circumstances me and few of the other editors would rewrite sentences, rather than take the drastic measure to remove the information wholesale. So in this case I have reverted your removal of the information and proceeded to rewrite the sentences which have brought up your concerns in the first place.Roman888 (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As explained at the article's talk page, you do have the option to rewrite content removed for copyright concerns before restoring it, but you do not have a right to revert copyright violations and restore them to publication even temporarily. Such future behavior in the future is likely to lead to your being blocked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
In regards to your concerns about rewriting the articles and content, I don't see any issues in this matter. I will only removed the copyright violations templates or message only after the rewrites have been completed. I don't see how warrants me from being blocked as I am doing it in good faith. In the past I have asked other administrators to removed the templates, which led to some arguments between different administrators and edit-warring situations. There is also no need to conduct a copyright-investigation on past articles. Just point me to the article and the content concerned and I will do the necessary reediting. I have always strive to improve the articles that are mentioned in your article. In my opinion, your current investigation are a waste of time and effort. Roman888 (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Roman, you're missing the point. You didn't remove a "template or message", you restored a copyright violation in the face of specific instructions not to do so. That is blockable, at least after a warning, which warning you have now been given. Franamax (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Diana Anderson

Hi. Thanks but I guess there's no rush since the temp pages have been deleted (although not the temp talk pages), and the pages will be deleted within a week. So I have time to further perfect the six or so articles. You didn't overexplain yourself -- I need it all. Sometimes I process slowly. I know the thread is on my talk page but it's getting a little crowded there. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Any conversation involving me gets rapidly long. I recommend frequent archiving. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Moonridden girl. Yes I am a little dispirited and upset because I have never wanted to do anything but create good articles, but I appreciate your kindness and patience. So I want to see if I understand the procedure. I checked the CCI, p. 1,CCI, p. 2 and there are 1280 entries, consisting of articles I created and articles I did not create but edited. Just so I understand, aside from those which you annotated with a checkmark as "already blanked", am I to assume that the rest are OK as of right now? Or has no one gotten to them yet? Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Seeing you on my talk page, just wanted to let you know that I'm back online. :) I'll be over to talk more about this in just a minute, as soon as I drop a note at the talk page of the plagiarism guideline. It's early yet in my part of the world. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I am not really concerned about the articles created by others, since I am pretty sure that they will pass muster. I saw one case so far (Jean Conan Doyle) that was saved from deletion by just re-editing by one of your volunteers. I rescued another by re-editing (Monica Golding). Is that the general policy, i.e. to save articles wherever possible that are not wholly compromised by just deleting the offending portion(s)? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, just for my own edification -- once a page is blanked (i.e. Geoffrey Nice) does that mean I should no longer bother to try to fix, vis a visa the above, and just wait for it to be deleted and then redo? I am not entirely clear on this point. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So, in that case, could you have one of your volunteers (at their convenience of course) review: Talk:Aston Chichester/Temp, Talk:Ivan Vranetić/Temp, Talk:Honoria Somerville Keer/Temp, Talk:Geoffrey Nice/Temp, Talk:Diana Anderson (QARANC)/Temp (utilizing your "flipping sentences" technique) and Talk:Dilwyn Lewis/Temp? If they are good, fine; if not I can keep working on them with a better idea of how to fix them. Thanks! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Translations by editors

Moonriddengirl, do you know what is the appropriate way (if any) of crediting translations made by an editor? I've had this issue come up twice on Wikimedia projects. The first time was a couple of years ago in Wikiquote where an admin asked me to add my name to a translation I had made. The other time concerns a brief translation of an old German text I made for another editor here on my WP talk page. She used it verbatim in an article and kindly (and unbeknownst to me) credited me in the footnote. Subsequent discussions related to this here: [39], [40], [41]. I am easy either way and would just like to know what is the right way to go about this. Thanks, --JN466 17:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of an odd one, and completely contrary to Wikipedia:Signatures. Nnot that I'm accusing you of glory-hounding :) I understand that the signatures are the idea of others, but the principle seems to hold true: "When editing a page, main namespace articles should not be signed, because the article is a shared work, based on the contributions of many people, and one editor should not be singled out above others." I don't find the argument that the translation was tricky convincing, even if true: we don't have contributors sign particularly brilliant prose in featured articles. The fact that it was a brilliant translation wouldn't seem to merit an exception. :) As long as you are credited in the edit history, as well all are, I don't see why you would need to be singled out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I wasn't credited in the article history in the normal way because I didn't make the edit myself. I think that's why Ruth thought she had to say something. The way it happened was that I'd translated a paragraph for Ruth on my talk page. She took a sentence from what I'd done and inserted it in the article (which she was very welcome to do). The original edits are [42], [43].
An attribution is in the edit history per the edit summary of that second edit. So now I think we can just delete the footnote addition from the article and leave it at that. Would you agree?
In the event that something like this were ever to come up again – if I take a translation a Wikipedian has posted on a talk page and insert it in an article, this seems analogous to copying a paragraph from one WP article to another. In that case, I believe editors are supposed to credit the source page which the text comes from in the edit summary. That's right isn't it? So in a situation like this, the easiest solution would be to indicate the source page, right? --JN466 19:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, well that makes sense then. She was completely correct to attribute you; just it should be done in edit summary. Linking to the page would work, but when there's only one contributor, it's far simpler to just say something like what I use: "content contributed by [[User:BrilliantWikipedian]]" The page link is really a good idea if it is the work of more than one person, but when a single contributor has added the content, that saves people tracking down the other page to see who said it. :) In this case, it could even be specifically nailed down: "translation of German text by JN". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your time. :) --JN466 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Urgent request

Hi Moonriddengirl,

This [44] had been resolved by the editors when another uninvolved editor came along and made more comments that aren't really helpful. I hatted the thread in order to let everybody know this is a closed discussion and this editor came back and opened it again. Please, for the sake of everyone involved, would you be kind enough to hat this discussion. The editors in question are done with it, but the 'uninvolved editor' seems to need convincing that things really are settled. Thanks.Malke2010 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I can't. There's no way after our conversations that anyone would consider me an uninvolved administrator here, even though our interactions started with my blocking you. :) I'm afraid that unless I sided against you in something, that's the way it would be in any situation that relies on an admin's actions from this point. I appreciate that you're coming to me because of the edit summary here, which is a good idea, but I'm afraid you're going to have to ask somebody who doesn't have history with you. Sorry. Be sure that if you do ask an uninvolved admin (though, really, any uninvolved editor can do it), you do so in a way that seems completely neutral: something of an "all parties seem to agree that this is over; would you review and hat if you think so, too?" kind of thing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that. I will ask another. Thanks. Malke2010 18:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No, problem. The guiding principle here is WP:UNINVOLVED. I feel completely confident in giving you advice without worrying that I have a bias in your favor, but after all the conversations we've had, I could not even guarantee to myself that I would not be unconsciously biased in taking action. Best left to somebody who doesn't know you! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and I've always relied on your advice because you are so good at seeing all sides. I've left a note for Gwen Gale, but if any editor can close it, would it be all right if I just find somebody who is available? I don't want to be seen as shopping for something, but I would like it closed as I don't want Jusdafax, remember him from last summer, who has also weighed in and seems to be making most uncivil comments about me. And he's got nothing to do with the issue at hand. So I think it best that it be hatted as soon as possible before he gets something else started. Thanks.Malke2010 18:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

youtube

Another quickie for you. This article has had multiple links to a youtube version of a UK news program inserted [45]. What is the correct way of proceeding? Nothing about the channel owner appears to indicate that he represents the BBC, or has sought their permission: [46]. Related discussion: User_talk:SlimVirgin#youtube, User_talk:Jayen466#Your_note. Thoughts? --JN466 22:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a problem under WP:ELNEVER. There's no reason to believe that the video is hosted with permission and good reason to suspect it is not. While the link is nice, it's also unnecessary; the interview itself can be cited without linking to a bootlegged copy of it. Meanwhile, if the BBC gives permission, that would be fabulous. :) Kudos to Slim for going for it. I know she's proactive like that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts too. Should we say where we got it, per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? That's really a wider issue: is telling the reader that we only watched the bootleg (or only saw the version on the news scraping site, etc.) contributory infringement, even if we don't provide a link? --JN466 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If you're feeling a bit tired, or have a headache, I will gladly accept "I have no idea" as an answer to the last question. I am aware that some questions are easier to ask than to answer. ;) --JN466 22:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks for the bump. I just missed it for some reason. Maybe it came in at the same time as another note? Once in a while, I miss stuff that way. :/ I'm trying to juggle a couple of CCIs, but am functioning all right otherwise. :) Linking to a copyright violation puts Wikipedia at risk of contributory infringement, but Wikipedia is at no risk at all if its editors are viewing bootlegged content on their own time. :) Indicating that it was seen on Youtube should not be an issue under ELNEVER, so long as we don't link to it and we don't suggest that they go looking for it. I actually have seen a case where a Youtube video was accused of having edited its contents, so I can see why it matters to indicate it wasn't the actual broadcast that was seen. But, you know, this is a really interesting question and possibly worth raising at WP:RSN or WT:RS. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, when did that become IRS? :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, indeed, our edits crossed. I found another copy of the video, here. Is that any better? --JN466 23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I haven't a clue how to figure out who is hosting content on google video. :/ I might run that one by WP:MCQ. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I have the same problem. I've started a thread at MCQ. --JN466 23:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know. It's a very interesting question you've posed, and I'll look forward to seeing what consensus develops for handling it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Want a laugh ?

Try reading Heimathaus Twist. Most of the article made me giggle, but 'Blues Mecca in the bog' was the real clincher. Just when I thought Wikipedia only gave me grief.

00:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL! There's nothing like a good machine translation. (And now I must add "and that's nothing like a good machine translation", in classic Groucho Marx style.) And then go make sure that it was properly attributed. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Completed CCI, yay!

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Khemkhaeng is done. Can you archive it? :) Theleftorium 18:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yay! You bet! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Starsking is almost complete too, BTW, but there are some articles I'd like someone else to take a look at. Theleftorium 21:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, and I would be happy to provide a secondary review. :) I'm working on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114 at the moment, but will see what's open later today if I can; very soon if not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Less than you deserve

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For tirelessly and diligently working to address copyright issues over the entire encyclopedia, managing always to remain good humored, helpful and collaborative; I give you this Barnstar of Diligence as a minor and wholly inadequate token of my, and the community's, gratitude. — Coren (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, thank you! I very much appreciate it. :) And you know that we couldn't do it without your bot. Most of our recent CCIs have come about because of problems Corensearchbot has picked up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Aston Chichester

Hi. Thanks for the advice about Bishop Chichester, but there is a reason why I deleted the 1897 became a priest text, which is that there is a discrepancy between the obit that indicates he became a priest in 1897, and my other source, a tad more reliable, which gives the year he was ordained a priest as 1913. That's why I removed more text than I normally would have. Cheers. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OTRS check

Would you look for the OTRS permission for File:Gary Rosenblatt.jpg which is lying around since early December. If not it needs to be tagged as no licence and no permission. TIA ww2censor (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that I'm awake enough to look above the bottom note on my talk (didn't take me long, did it? :D), I'll go check it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted it. There was a ticket (Ticket:2009120310052837, for OTRS volunteers), but there has been no response to the December 2009 note explaining that we needed more information. Thanks for finding it hanging about. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

re: inwiki copying; lyrics?

It occurs to me that queries may eventually arise with Jarama Valley (song). I've written something on the provenance and copyright issues on my talk page. If you are minded to reply, please do so there. Thanks,  Roger Davies talk 11:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of copyvio material

Hi there, just to let you know, User:Roman888 has started trying to rewrite some of his problematic contributions. I'm glad he's trying to rewrite his contributions and try to de-copyvio them but I don't think they are rephrased enough to avoid unduly close paraphrasing. These diffs for example are the total of the efforts to Malaysian Armed Forces. In one example, the source reads:

The Defence Ministry Wednesday reiterated that the government had never paid 114.96 million euros in commission to Perimekar Sdn Bhd in connection with the purchase of two Scorpene-class submarines. On the contrary, Defence Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said, the purchase was done through direct negotiations in line with the government's procurement method with the submarine makers, France and Spain.

The original copyvio that I deleted read:

The Defence Ministry on May 14, 2009 reiterated that the government had never paid 114.96 million euros in commission to Perimekar Sdn Bhd in connection with the purchase of two Scorpene-class submarines, saying the purchase was done through direct negotiations in line with the government's procurement method with the submarine makers from France and Spain.

The restored version now reads:

The Defence Ministry on May 14, 2009 however pointed out that the government had never paid 114.96 million euros in commission to Perimekar Sdn Bhd in connection with the purchase of the submarines, saying the purchase was done through direct negotiations in line with the government's procurement methods together with the submarine makers from France and Spain.

FYI I've previously directed Roman888 to this helpful essay but he may need some more assistance.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that won't do. Thank you very much. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no question that he should have known the content was a copyright infringement had he read the policy (never mind the essay) and properly considered the text. I find additional problems beyond that you cite here and left an example at his talk page. He has been blocked for 48 hours. Please let me know if you encounter additional problems. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, after a bit of digging it seems that this is all not a first offence: [47]. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right. I saw disruptive editing in the block log, but did not see that it was for copyright issues. I have adjusted his block to indefinite and will report it at WP:ANI. Sorry for not realizing that myself; I have been rather scrambling to try to get through my to-do list. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, I'm progressively putting all of the CCI-identified pages on my watchlist to monitor any activity from new accounts or IPs that restore the copyvios or introduce new ones. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Sadly, this vigilance is obviously going to be necessary. :( FTR, you are making it very difficult for me to hold to my resolution to bestow barnstars on people for copyright cleanup after a CCI in which they've worked is closed. But if I give it to you now, however will I thank you then? :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI it looks like he's back already as User:Orang77. I've reported this to the same ANI thread as a likely sock and am going through to blank his new contributions. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Enid Russell-Smith

Hi, again. Could you explain why User:7SeriesBOT deleted Talk:Enid Russell-Smith for the following reason: "Only one contributor who requested deletion under WP:CSD#G7". I created the article and did not request that the talk page, which was empty as far as I know anyway, be deleted. Just curious. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As far as I can make out from another example discussed at User talk:7SeriesBOT#Bot Talk Page Deletion, the bot found a link in the article to a disambiguation page, and made a note of this in the talk page. You corrected the link in the article. It removed the talk page, since it was the only thing to have posted to it. You may have been entirely unaware of the bot having posted anything on the talk page. Authorship of the talk page is not the same as authorship of the article page. I can well understand your confusion; it took me a few takes to get my head around it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's an interesting one. I've never seen that before. But, yes, I do believe Tagishsimon has pegged it. The bot created the page and, problem resolved, requested its deletion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yup, you've pegged it! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Presumably you need to be USA-based to view that page? FYI, the author of Colette Rossant emailed me, so you may want to check the OTRS system and the source website for releases when that CP day comes around - apparently they're the Source's webmaster. I'll no doubt hit you up to check the system if they indicate that's the route they've taken.

Also, about the Cheruvannur (vadakara Taluk ) SCV listing: it's Cheruvannur (Kozhikode taluk) which was at Cheruvannur when Cheruvannur (vadakara Taluk ) was created (as a copy of Cheruvannur), so it's the contributions to Cheruvannur (Kozhikode taluk) (history) prior to March 1st which haven't been attributed at Cheruvannur (Vadakara taluk). They seem to have been moved twice, making it even more confusing. Cheruvannur (Kozhikode taluk) was at Cheruvannur, which was copied to Cheruvannur (vadakara Taluk ). Cheruvannur (Kozhikode taluk) was then moved to that title, and then moved to its current title. Cheruvannur (vadakara Taluk ) was then moved to Cheruvannur (Vadakara taluk). Does this make sense? I'm not at all sure how to attribute this, I think a template of some kind probably exists? – Toon 20:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? :D I thought I had worked that out, but now I'm totally lost. I'm going to look at it all very hard. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so Cheruvannur (Vadakara taluk) is an unattributed copy from [48]. Got it. Glad you figured that out. :) I'll do a selectively deletion and history merge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that's done. And, sure, I'll be happy to look into Colette Rossant. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pay

Hi again Moonriddengirl! It's been a while! I was wondering if you'd look into BPAY, an article that was deleted over CSD F9. I thought that F9 was only used for files, not articles, so maybe you could help un-confuse me. Thanks a lot! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why that would be confusing! The article was tagged for speedy deletion, but the tagger used the wrong label. When an admin deletes, the deletion rationale defaults to the tagging reason; he just didn't correct it. According to the tagger, the article was a copyright infringement of [49]. So it did, but there's no way that article should have been speedied for copyright violations in its entirety; it had been around since 2006, and the infringement was introduced only in November 2009, the month before it was deleted. Perhaps there was another rationale that Mike didn't express. I'll check with him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Moonriddengirl! In case you were wondering, I came across this at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#BPAY. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. That's good to know; I'll let Mike know as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Alright, it's all taken care of :) thanks again, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Username violation

Hi Moonriddengirl, I'd like some advice. The user Haus der Kulturen der Welt (talk · contribs) edits under the name of the Haus der Kulturen der Welt cultural institution and edits culture articles. I left a message in January about how editing under a company name is not permitted but the user continued to edit, with the last edit at the end of February. What's next? Thanks. Hekerui (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems like a block for violating username policy. I'll take care of it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem. :) Sorry I didn't get to this sooner; today's been a bit "off" for me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you assist?

I have nominated several images uploaded by Luckyaim who mostly claims the images to be his one and gives them a PD tag. I cannot believe any of his uploads are really his own. Now I found source for File:Sultan Bahoo shrine.jpg which I have nominated for deletion. File:Darbarsharif.jpg is also claimed to be his but is a copy of another panoramino image by a different panoramino uploader which essentially confirms he is lying that the images are his. However this image has an CC attribution licence, which looks like it could be true. I have seem a lot of copyfraud on Panoramino. IMHO something more needs doing; should this go to ANI? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't know. I'm not really familiar with image upload sites; is there something that makes this one more prone to copyright fraud than Flickr? I don't really know if there are media sites that are regarded as more or less trustworthy than others. If so, I'd guess ANI or AN would be as good a place as any to figure out if this one is usable. But you might want to start with checking with WP:MCQ first, just to see if there's any known issues with this site or such sites already. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and in case I'm misunderstanding you and you're not talking about blacklisting panoramino (sorry; I think I might have. I've been having some headache issues over the last couple of days) but rather dealing with this individual, what we really need is a mass-deletion nomination, like Commons, where we can make these decisions all at once. CCI works to that end, but before it's useful there need to be enough confirmed issues. I think ANI might be the place for this, since there are only a few confirmed issues, to get wider review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Panoramino is not really any worse than Flickr for copyfraud but I have happened across more examples there. I was not suggestion blacklisting it right now. I definitely approve of a mass deletion system like the commons has, so long as it does not take as long (I have a Japanese stamp related one, where some participants are posting in Japanese without translations and it is going on for months). Anyway, I do hang out at MCQ but thought a personnel discussion might be better. MCQ seems rather quite these days as Quadell and Skier Dude are not active. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry; I don't hang out as much as I send people there, or I'd know that. :D (Whatever happened to Quadell, anyway? I miss him!)
Oh, I know the pain of Commons deletion debates. Those people need more admins. Basically, CCI winds up being something similar, but before we open one we do try to verify that there are multiple issues.
Sorry for misunderstanding the thrust of your conversation, but as I said I've had headache issues, and they sometimes challenge my mental acuity. Poor CP is getting a bit backlogged as I stick with clearer issues. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Myron Prinzmetal..

Hi Being a relatively new but daily on-line wikipedia user (for my medical studies), i am not very well knowledgeable about this website's secrets and policies.. Therefore, if you don't mind, i just want to know - for curiosity - why the article/page about "Myron Prinzmetal" was deleted..? Also, is any one able to delete any article or page on this website or there are certain qualifications or prerequisited authority to do that..? Thanks Suka94ain Suka94ain (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The deletion reason is listed in the pink box stating who deleted it. Myron Prinzmetal was deleted because it was reproducing copyrighted content without permission. As for the deletion process, while WP:DELETE will tell you all you need to know about this, any user can nominate an article for deletion if it clearly fails our guidelines, but only administrators can perform the deletion. MLauba (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking my IP address and Adminship

Hello Moonriddengirl,

If you could, I would like you to unblock my IP Address. Many people use this computer, and many users use Wikipedia without accounts. I only edit pages when I'm logged in, so the people that don't have user accounts actually have done the vandalism. We all apologize and I will all make sure it doesn't happen again.

Also, if you could, please provide the steps for becoming an Admin on Wikipedia. I would gladly volunteer my time do help out!

Jim F. Grottole —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgcena (talkcontribs) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Ordinarily, I wouldn't be able to tell what your IP address is, since only a few individuals have the tools to check that, but since it's at your user talk page, I can figure it out. That IP address has been blocked nine times, I'm afraid, for vandalism, and it is common practice in such situations to block for an extended amount of time.
I have, however, converted it to a "soft block" which will allow account creation. This way, interested students should still be able to fully participate, just not without a registered account. If registered accounts should vandalize from this IP address, it will be autoblocked, but for shorter periods of time.
The first step to adminship on Wikipedia is really time in the saddle. Stick around, learn about Wikipedia's various policies and demonstrate familiarity with a wide range of areas. The basics on adminship are here, and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship should be very useful to you in figuring out what you should do if you are interested in helping with the administrative part of Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

NOAA Technical Memorandum

Hello Moonriddengirl, could you check this, please? Are all texts published in NOAA Technical Memorandum public domain? They are published in two versions:

Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can find out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Interesting stuff; a division of federal copyright law I'd not explored.
Okay; according to their copyright notice, all publications of NWFS can be considered public domain unless otherwise indicated ("If copyrighted text is included on a NWFSC web page or in a NWFSC publication, it will be specifically identified.") NOAA has its own copyright statement at [50], which says, "The information on government web pages is in the public domain unless specifically annotated otherwise (copyright may be held elsewhere) and may therefore be used freely by the public." This indicates that "Non-NEFSC authors who are not federal employees will be required to sign a "Release of Copyright" form. That form, here, says, "The U.S. copyright law requires the release of copyright -- in writing -- from all non-federal authors seeking to publish in federal journals and report series." The release notes that the author releases all copyright (though he can retain other rights) and that "all copyright is waived by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center". So, I'd say yes, it's all PD unless it specifies that it is not, and I'm very confident of that. Do you want me to seek further opinions? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Compass barnstar.png The Guidance Barnstar
Moonriddengirl, thank you very much for your help in locating valuable informations and assistance. Snek01 (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! :D I'm happy if I can help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello Again,

Non-account wikipedia users on this IP adress would like to know what would be acceptable for uploading pictures; what type of licenses are required? I'm a fairly new user to Wikipedia so I cant really explain to them what type of licenses wikipedia takes. If you could, please list them here. They would also like to know if someone gets caught lying about the copyright status on a piece of information-what would be the consequence? For future reference. Please explain that to me so I can explain to them.

Thank you,

Jim F. Grottole —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgcena (talkcontribs) 13:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Your license question is answered at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Contributors who are caught lying about the copyright status of a piece of information are likely to be indefinitely blocked or banned from the project for copyright fraud. In response to your question below, I see no messages on your talk page warning you about neutrality; generally, if you receive one, the place to ask that question would be at the talk page of the contributor who left it. General information about using Wikipedia can be obtained from the help desk, Wikipedia:Help desk. We even have one specifically engineered for new contributors: Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Hello,

Everytime I edit the article Jeremy Piven, I get a message on my talk page saying you should always edit pages with a neutral point of view. What I say in the article is Piven also special guest hosted WWE Monday Night Raw on August 3rd, 2009. Why does this happen? How is this not neutral?

Thanks again,

Jim F. Grottole —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgcena (talkcontribs) 13:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Why is it that everytime I edit something RrBurke tells me it is vandalism and tells me that I will be blocked? I'm not violating anything. I'm just adding to the articles! He probably has something against me.. :)

Thank you,

Jim F Grottole —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgcena (talkcontribs) 14:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Might be because of edits like this. --RrburkeekrubrR 14:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that could do it. When you first arrived, you were left a welcome, here, that included a link to our "five pillars". Reading it over might help you understand why such content is not constructive. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

Howdy! I've placed a request for your help in the content here - look for the bold text Re: my assisting with this mess: The key phrase:

"the procedure for clearing a diagnosis isn't exactly clear. How about making it so, in a special section, here, to expedite the process? I'd like to do it right the first time."

Many thanks. Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I missed that. :) This page is already getting complex. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There. I've made an effort. Please let me know if that's not clear. I regret that I didn't make this its own subpage. Generally, we call for help with copyright investigations and not too many people come. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright/plagiarism concerns

Since you have already had some dealings with the user concerned User:Epeefleche ‎regarding these matters, I just want to bring to your attention additional issues with these new articles Specially Designated Terrorist and Specially Designated Global Terrorist. See the talkpages for details. I'm not sure if I have done all that is required. Should I be listing them on a copyright concerns page somewhere? Any advice welcomed. Thanks --Slp1 (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea to tag them {{close paraphrase}}. This will list them at CP automatically, so one of us who work there can take a look after the week listing to make sure they've been addressed. It's worrisome that he is still doing this. He's known about these policies since November 2007, anyway. (Though that content may have been available under GFDL, it wasn't attributed.) If this continues, I think WP:ANI and/or WP:CCI may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I'll do the "close paraphrase" thing, if I can figure it out!! I'm sure I can. I'll bear in mind your suggestions and keep an eye (and maybe you can too) --Slp1 (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I will, yes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I appreciate your keeping an eye out on this. :) I'm so focused on getting through the list of DSM articles that I forgot to say it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there some way I can help with the DSM article issues, which I just caught sight of? Let me know if so, as subject-wise it is moderately up my alley!! --Slp1 (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You would be most welcome. :) If you have access to the DSM, all the best, since I can't tell with some of the articles. But one of the responders there helpfully pointed out that a good many of the criteria are reproduced at [51]. I've been looking at that where I can. Where duplication is obvious, I'm removing it. Where there's no duplication (and there've been a couple), I've removed the copyvio tag. Where I'm not sure because I can't tell if something is copied from the fuller description at DSM, I've been leaving it with a note for a book check. You may have seen that the list is at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 March 9. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I do have online access to the DSM IV so could help with any specific questions you have to hand. I'll take a stab at Histrionic personality disorder (it appeals on a Friday night!), and try to see how it is done and what the problems are. --Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Whoot! Thank you! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Talk:Posttraumatic stress disorder.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Just wanted to extend my thanks for all your help. Please extend my thanks to anyone else who assisted in this matter. Yours always, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So far, I think it's mostly me and User:TheLeftorium. :) Please let me know if you have any questions about rewriting to avoid close paraphrase. I tend to run around like the proverbial decapitated chicken (what a nice image :D) most days working the various copyright fora, but I truly appreciate it when contributors work to address these issues and want to be as available as I can to help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

List of The College of William & Mary presidents

Would you say the table in List of The College of William & Mary presidents meets the threshold of originality? Theleftorium 20:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh! Lists. I'll come look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's a problem. The names and date spans are fine, but the descriptions are amply creative enough. I'll handle it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Pity. He did quite a nice job there. :/ The copyvio predates him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Yeah, perhaps we can just remove the descriptions and leave the rest? By the way, on an unrelated note, did you know that you made your first edit to Wikipedia on my birthday? :o Theleftorium 20:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
No! How about that. :) That may be what we do, but given the longevity of the material I'm tagging it to give an opportunity for rewriting. (Hey, your birthday is getting close! You have big plans?) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Not really. I'll probably do something fun with some friends. And take a one-day break from Wikipedia, of course. :) Theleftorium 20:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Break from Wikipedia? Voluntarily? :O I hope you come up with something special to do. :D (BTW, if you haven't seen it yet, I've placed an ad for us at WP:AN. Here's hoping that a ton of interested contributors take up the gauntlet.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's hope so. Perhaps later on we can do one of those WikiProject reports in the Signpost as well. That might get some attention. Theleftorium 21:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We need it. And, for the record, I've noted all the recent work you've been putting into CCIs. And I appreciate it. I have most, if not all of them, watchlisted. And now I'd better go make dinner. Stupid daylight saving time! It's way too early to eat! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Potential copyvios

I removed some very extensive quotes from sources at Talk:Frugivore that I thought were copyright violations because they were unlikely to be fair use. Could you confirm that is the case and do you know what should be done with the revisions containing the copyvios? Should they be suppressed? Ucucha 01:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yikes, yes, I agree whole-heartedly that this usage would almost certainly exceed fair use. Also, WP:NFC explicitly forbids extensive quotations. I don't think we would need to suppress them unless they are restored out of process. Sometimes I suppress extensive quotations in article histories to ward against the possibility of their being inadvertently restored, but it seems to me that talk page content is less likely to be accidentally dredged up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I deleted two revisions at Talk:Human with similar (though less extensive) problems; I take it I'd probably better restore those revisions into the history too (the current result of what I did is this—the two intervening revisions are gone). Ucucha 13:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think there's any harm in selectively deleting the problems. In the grander scale of things, it's probably a good thing. :) I wouldn't restore them. It's just not quite as necessary as it sometimes is in article space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks again. Speaking of this: [52]. I have warned him again. Ucucha 13:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
That's some strange stuff. Let me know if you need somebody else to try to explain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I already tried to explain it, but his response was to use another extensive quotation to argue that his quotes qualified as fair use, so it may indeed be good if you also give it a try. Ucucha 13:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)