User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 50

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 45 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 55


Re: Problems with same harasser

Hello Moonriddengirl and Happy New Year!

Disruptive problems with user previously reported: [[1]], [[2]] and [[3]] reveals proxy IPs beginning 173- 204- 207-, 209- and 69- engaged in long-term edit warring. Perhaps a semi-protect on these articles is in order. Thank you very much WhateverML (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This one is a bit more difficult for me to assist with. :/ Harassment on talk pages is much easier to follow, but to somebody not involved it's hard to see how this content is harassment, per se. Contentious, certainly. Is there a talk page discussion somewhere that explains this better? I note some of the content added by 173- is still intact. Semi-protection may be necessary, but this doesn't look like a traditional edit war. It may be best to take it up at WP:RPP, for admins who are more practiced in evaluating these situations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Appreciate your time and thoughtful answer. Looks like one admin is already involved with one of the articles. May take it to that level if the edit warring on other two pages persists. Very Best Wishes WhateverML (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concern raised by User:Darkness Shines

Hello there,

There have recently been some leaks in Bangladesh covered by international media [4], [5], [6]. User:Darkness Shines has informed me here [7] that using leaked material of private emails and conversations is a copyright violation. I find this difficult to understand in the light of international media coverage for it, and wikipedia's extensive coverage of wikileaks material as noted in the reference section of this wikipedia article [8]. He informs me that you are a copyright expert I should ask about this. I would very much appreciate your advice on whether I may make reference to websites like YouTube that contains recordings of conversations that have been leaked to the Economist, and which the economist has covered in the public interest as noted in the second website I mention above?

Darkness Shines has also contested my use of a WikiLeaks document at 14:53 on 28 Dec 2012 [9]. Your advice on this would also be appreciated.

Many thanks, Aminul802 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. What The Economist may reference as fair use is not necessarily fair use in a YouTube recording. I agree with what Monty wrote on your talk page, but wanted to explain a little further that being leaked into the public record is not the same as entering the "public domain". Public domain doesn't just mean that it's publicly accessible; it's a specific legal status. There should be no issue with referring to the leaks and linking to news sources that discuss them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that! Very informative. I wantedto ask, what do you mean when you say there no problem referring to leaks? Does that mean you can cite the contents of specific leaked conversations? That would be strange, if YouTube recordings are disallowed, but there contents are allowed? Is this because citing an entire clip goes against fair use, whereas citing a part of a recording does not? Thanks! Aminul802 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I mean that it is not against our policy to discuss such matters, only to link to them. For instance, we can have an article talking about an illegal bootlegged musical recording, so long as it's notable, but we can't link to a site that hosts the bootlegged recording. You can talk about leaks, and link to news articles that discuss them, even though you may not be able to link to the full leak. In terms of quoting from leaks, yes, fair use would likely be a factor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Mason Henry Gang


Mason Henry Gang is in the 12 Oct CP list. I wrote to one of the main editors, who rewrote a version at this temp page. I thought it still needed more work, so I have tried to clean it up and improve some of the refs. I guess it now needs to be merged. I've never done a merge, probably should learn. I've scanned the directions at Wikipedia:Merge, but it isn't clear to me how to bring in the new material, and preserve the editing history. Then I suppose rev-del is required for intervening versions?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your proactiveness there. :) History merges are really pretty easy - just a tad bit laborious. You move the temp article over the old text, telling it to delete the old page. When you look at the history, it will offer you the option to "View or restore X deleted edits" near the top of the page. Clicking on that takes you into the "View and restore deleted pages" screen. Scroll below the deletion log into the page history, and you check the edits you want restored (frequently, all of them). Under reason, I just write "History merge." This puts the edit histories together. You can then do revision deletion as seems appropriate to the extensiveness of the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey, that wasn't so hard! Thanks--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No. 204 Squadron RAF

Can you have a look at No. 204 Squadron RAF - after spotting what appeared to me to be a fairly obvious close paraphrasing from, the editor who originally added this has got quite shirty. it could do with someone independent to look at the article and consider what needs to be done. (It would probably be best to move further discussions to the article talk page, so that everybody can see them.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually at least some of the lists are about what you would expect - certainly the list of aircraft operated, and probably the list of locations of the squadron (and those bits don't appear to be copyvio, which is why I didn't re-delete them when they were re-added- the problem was the Operational history sections which are too close for comfort to the source. The editor in question (User:Dirk P Broer admits that he based the troublesome changes on the source, but seems to think that it can be tweaked rather than restarted (and he seems to think that just because rafweb may have based itself on other sources that makes it alright to copy it.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was looking at the historical development of their aircraft... I don't do squadron articles, so I'm not sure if that's necessary. My only aviation articles thusfar are Dakota VT-CLA and Gatari Air Service. As for the paraphrasing... I'll try and look into it, if MRG doesn't beat me to it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I see that this has undergone quite a bit of work. :) Is there still an outstanding issue? Happy to take a look, but I am recovering from traveling. :P --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that offending bits have been revised sufficiently that they are OK now, and as the original editor seems to have calmed down, I don't think that there are any urget problems, although he may need some sort of coaching on copyright issues by an expert like yourself as he doesn't seem to be sure of how much rewriting of a source is needed to avoid close paraphrasing issues.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh. It seems I spoke to him about this issue in 2009. :/ He was concerned with my take on things at the time, so i asked User:CactusWriter for a second opinion. I'll speak to him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your message

Hi Moonriddengirl, I read your message and I will acknowledge it, but can you please point out for me where the flaw i did was, because I dont recall, Thank you. ( (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC))

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

IP user adding original research

Hi Moonriddengirl, I saw that you've already talked to about his edits, but he has been continuously submitting edits that are original research. He has submitted an edit that is not backed up by any reliable sources, and the way he continuously reverts is starting to look like he's vandalizing and purposely trying to disrupt the articles and insert incorrect or unsourced changes. For comparison, this is the original and this is the current version restored by me. I've added a section on the article for us to discuss it there. If he does not provide reliable sources for it, and continues to go against consensus, will you please report him to the admin noticeboard or ANI? Also, he seems to be sockpuppeting and using his IP to make unsourced or disruptive edits. Thanks (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Update, the dispute is resolved. 00:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. Hopefully he will work towards consensus now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year!
Hello Moonriddengirl: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 04:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Thank you kindly. :) I hope your New Year is a happy one as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding copyright.... Could you take a look? Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Responded. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess I should apologize for bringing you into a discussion that has turned a bit unpleasant. I haven't contributed anything further because there really doesn't seem to be anything for me to say - if Timeshifter doesn't accept the facts when you state them, he's unlikely to accept them from me, who he's pissed off at in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, BMK. And I completely understand why you haven't said anything further. Sometimes people take these situations very personally, unfortunately. :/ I'm glad that a few other admins have weighed in; perhaps collectively we can keep the talk on topic instead of drifting into further unpleasantness. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Deewana (2013 film)

I think this article (specially the plot section) is a copyvio. Can you check please? --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The article was created on 31 December. Here is search result till 30 December 2012. --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for picking up on that. :) The content has been removed, and I've cautioned the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, let's see what happens now (you remember I requested your help about some Bengali movies box office after trying everything?, anyway, those editnotices you helped to create also failed, and I have left that zone ad unsolvable, unstoppable), now it is also a Bengali movie issue! (Note: Not all Bengali movie articles are problematic but, only few new released masala (commercial) films! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry they didn't work. :( I recommend page protection if they did not, but of course you're free to move to other areas if you want to. None of us is required to work on any particular problem. :) I know we have some problematic areas on Wikipedia. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
He he! "Nothing" worked! I have had 6 or 7 page protections. The only idea that I had a "blind SPI check" which is not possible in Wikipedia (check all suspected contributors of these articles and compare with each other, there are sooo many accounts, I loose my track everytime).
For example, these two are innocent socks 1) User talk:A.G.DASTIDER 2) User talk:ANKAN GHOSH DASTIDER (they don't know the rule, it seems and mistakenly created two accounts with similar names). There might be more. --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


You might be interested in this GLAM project. It is an attempt to fully use the free resources offered by Smarthistory to improve Wikipedia. While we have their full cooperation, of course the work done and decisions made need to be by Wikipedians. Still working out how best to do this (see the talk page) and your input would be appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll be happy to take a look a bit later and see what assistance I may be able to provide. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal history of Chinese Americans

Hi MRG. I've been looking at this article, and based on the history, the style of writing, and the way in which huge chunks of text have been added to it, I'm concerned that it remains one huge copyvio. I was wondering if the article should just be speedied per G12, since it seems just about impossible to disentangle what little original content there might be from the vast swaths of almost certainly stolen text. Thanks for your help. —Torchiest talkedits 15:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Articles can't be speedily deleted as copyvio unless there is no salvageable history and we have clear, unambiguous proof of copying. I've found several instances of clear issues in the content and the bulk of it doesn't come close to reliable sourcing, so I have reverted it to an earlier version, with a note at the talk page. I suspect that there is quite a lot of literal translation from Chinese going on, but that is difficult for me to verify. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that. My concern was that the original version had copyvio problems too, but as you said, it's really tough to tell. Thanks again. —Torchiest talkedits 16:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it did. It was a rewrite from an earlier copyvio, and the guy who did it seemed to get the problem as he went on. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn

Hi again,
have there been any changes to how articles created by Billy Hathorn are treated? I just stumbled across Treesap68 (talk · contribs) and SouthNLake (talk · contribs). :(
Cheers & happy new year, Amalthea 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Happy New Year! And groooan. No. Billy's situation is unchanged until and unless he takes steps to change it. By any chance, is User:Merlon_Ranch related? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
That would make it easier, but I don't think so (I don't think Billy Hathorn socks generally use minor edits). But yuck, the SPI has collected a few new accounts and IPs; Based on experience from last time I'd guess he has never stopped editing. Amalthea 21:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Undoubtedly. He never did seem to care much care what policies and guidelines says he should do. That's pretty much why he's blocked. :/ Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
You're right of course; I guess every time I come back from a hiatus I expect everyone to play nice. :\
Next one: TheGoodGrinch (talk · contribs); blocked and his articles are deleted, but what are we going to do with the remaining edits and all those IP edits? It's possible to round up the IP edits that are probably or possibly from him and continue adding them to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727 13, but of course quite time consuming.
Amalthea 00:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I do understand that. I eventually lose GF on existing people (not that many, though; I'm more inclined to assume competence issues than bad faith), but I'm often surprised afresh that somebody else is misbehaving, too. Like each time is going to be a one-off. :) I don't honestly know the best response with Billy's edits. His copyvio issues were only occasionally egregious, as I recall. I've done a spot-check of recent edits, and I haven't found any issues. I'd ask the editors who are working on his CCI, but there don't seem to be any. (I haven't checked all subpages.) I have no idea if the BLP issues that factored in have continued. I just don't know. In a perfect world, our thousand copyvio cleaners would descend cheerily to make sure all is well and we'd be done with it. But we don't have a thousand copyvio cleaners; we have a handful. And a thousand things for them to do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (Any talk page stalkers want to weigh in? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC))

reuse and attribution of deleted text

Hey, MRG! I don't have any better idea for where to ask this, so I'll start here. A user has started a (compatibly-licensed) Wikia site, and he wants to populate it with some text from Wikipedia. But, the text has since been deleted, so a URL isn't going to work for attribution. The deleted page in question, List of Dish Network channels (United States), has 4,000-ish deleted edits, so I'm not sure a simple list of the contributors is going to be very practical for attribution purposes. Do you know of a way to go about attributing this, so that he can use it in his site (and/or a better place to ask)? Thanks! Writ Keeper 17:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yikes. (Running away now.) Are they sure they want that article?
Seriously, I've generated the list already with my special "I've done this before and have a few tricks up my sleeve" magic. :D (My trick: I use Microsoft Word and liberally "find & replace" what I want gone.) This is good for porting over to his Wikia page. He can make it shorter, if he wants to boil it down to a simple list and remove redundancy, but I think that's too much trouble, myself. If you let me know when he's done with it (please), I'll delete it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why he wants it, either: mine is not to reason why, mine is but to do or die. Regardless, thanks! Now that I know that that's the thing to do, I should be able to handle anything else that comes up. Writ Keeper 21:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Any time. :) (If you ever try it with an article of that size, be sure that you use the "plain text" paste option! If you try the rich text, it'll hang up your program. I speak from long experience!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The person making the request is one of that tiny handful of people heartbroken that all the "List of FOO Network channels" articles have been deleted from Wikipedia and nobody will listen to their WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT complaints. So, they are doing what it was suggested they do: set up their own wiki for this kind of thing, where they can obsess to their hearts' content. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Always a good alternative. I can't help but wonder if Dish Network wouldn't maintain such a list too, and possibly more reliably. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the buisness with those articles

Hello "Moonriddengirl", I'm sorry about the issue with the copyright on some of the articles that I have written/edited. I assure you it will never happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rampinofrancesco (talkcontribs) 02:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am considering requesting the admin bit back

Hi Moonriddengirl,

It has been almost three years since I voluntarily requested the admin bit removed due to the issue over copyright violations that I committed. I have been informed that, after 3 years of inactivity as an admin, I will no longer be able to get it back through a simple request to the Bureaucrats noticeboard. Since the three year period ends next month, I am considering asking for the admin bit back. I thought I'd inform you of my intent and ask for your feedback. Thanx. --Richardshusr (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Richard. This is a kind of difficult one. :/ I personally have no problem whatsoever with your reacquiring the admin bit assuming that you're all comfortable with the approach we have towards copyright content now. I'm thinking about the process and potential community response. It would be ideal if you could have somebody evaluate some of your recent major text contributions just to make sure that there are not lingering issues. And I worry that the fact that your CCI is still open may be an issue in itself. This is not your fault, obviously. Yours has been hanging around for a long time and in a perfect system we would have had legions of smiling, happy volunteers to comb through and close it down. We've always had a shortage of volunteers, and the backlog in the area is just continuing to get worse, particularly with WP:CP no longer being kept up to date. Your CCI is particularly difficult given (a) the quantity of your contributions, (b) the complexity of the religious articles and the way content moves from one to another, and (c) the contentiousness of the topic area and especially as it no longer resembles traditional CCI structure. I'm afraid it could remain open for some time (even though the incredible Wizardman has been putting time to it lately). :( Just to be clear, I am not saying that I would consider it necessarily a reason to oppose, but it could be an issue.
If I were you, I would really consider putting some more time into that CCI myself before running again. For instance, at a glance I see this diff (not annotated at the CCI) was a split. I'd put a note under the diff at the CCI saying so and put a note on the listing for the article itself advising that if problems are found the other article needs to be checked as well. To give you an example of what I mean, I've annotated it myself. :) See how I've done it here. That would help close the CCI more quickly and also continue to demonstrate your good faith willingness to comply. I would also consider requesting review, as I mentioned above. People are likely to be looking rigorously for issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Christmas. Thank you for your response. As it turns out, I misunderstood the new policy for requesting the admin bit back via WP:BN. Technically, I am eligible to ask for the admin bit back as long as I have active as an editor within the last three years. However, a bureaucrat might consider whether I relinquished the admin bit "under a cloud" in which case, it might be deemed that I should go through the RFA process again. I am not in a hurry to get back the admin bit and was mostly wanting to preserve whatever rights I might have than wanting to get it back at this particular time. I agree with your advice that the CCI needs more work and that I should request a review before proceeding. Can you explain how I would request a review? Thanx. --Richardshusr (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps my question got "lost in the shuffle"; how can I request a review? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
If you are asking for a review on the status of your CCI case, a post to the talkpage of that page might be the best place. If you asking for a review of your status vis-a-vis adminship, you should post to the bureaucrats' noticeboard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Newyorkbrad! Sorry I overlooked this earlier, Richard. Additionally, for a review of current contributions, any editor who is familiar with paraphrasing issues should be able to help evaluate current contributions. The challenge is always in finding somebody with the familiarity and the time to assist. :/ I would (if I wanted review) pull together a list of 5-10 relatively recent major article contributions, perhaps taken from over the past four or five months. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Happy New Year. Thank you for your responses. I can pull together a list of major article contributions over the past couple of years. I think I could find five, maybe as much as ten over the last two years. I have become less prolific in adding new article text in the last three years so it's not so easy to come up with ten major article contributions. Once I've done so, where would I post my request? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of the hard part of your question. :) I haven't raised my hand to help out because I can't guarantee I could do it quickly. Unless your patterns have changed, I know that evaluating your contributions tends to be a bit time consuming, and I don't have nearly the time that I used to have to volunteer (partly work related and partly due to a change in my family situation). I would do you a disservice if I hurried through it and didn't find anything and somebody else did. And I would feel guilty if I wound up holding you up for a long time because of my limitations. :/ If I wanted such a review, I'd probably look to see who is doing copyright work and ask them. If you want my assistance in spite of my limitations and aren't in a great hurry, I'd give it a go, but it might take me a few weeks to complete it - especially if the content is complex. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
OK... I understand. Actually, my editing pattern has changed significantly in the last three years. My copyright infringements were due to laziness in not re-writing the text and I basically decided that I needed to scale back my contributions to those that I could write in a non-infringing manner. As a result, I have not been anywhere as prolific in adding new articles or even new article text as before. I am also not in a great hurry so I would ask you to remain open-minded about performing the review for me.
Here's what I propose. Is it possible to create a CCI file for my contributions (as User:Pseudo-Richard) for just the last three years? If so, I would work on organizing that file to provide a more easily scannable list. Basically, I would review the edits and edit summaries and identify the obviously non-infringing edits (vandalism, reverts, simple copy-edits, attributed copy-paste from Wikipedia, etc.). I think the remaining list will be a relatively small number of articles and relatively little article text that require review.
If, when I'm done, the resulting list looks like something you'd be willing to take on, I would be much in your debt. If it looks like more than you're willing or able to take on, I will at least have something that will make it easier for somebody else to review.
I also recognize that, when all is said and done, it's still possible that a bureaucrat may ask me to go back through the RFA process anyway. However, it seems to me that having my last three years of contributions reviewed and given the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" would help in that process.
Thanks for your continued assistance in this matter.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The list is here. Once you've organized it, we should get a better idea of the scope of what you've got going on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bojhena Shey Bojhena

I have reported a copyvio edit warring at WP:ANI (another newly release commercial Bengali Film dispute Face-sad.svg). My experience with ANI is not good so far. There might be more coopyvio in that area (newly released Bengali commercial films) Anyway, can you tell me the templates to warn users for copyvio? I generally type manually! BYW, error: {{lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help) means "(S)he doesn't understand at all"...... applicable for the editors who add copyvio content? Face-smile.svg --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see it's been handled at ANI. :) There are a couple of different templates you could use. For a new contributor who probably isn't really familiar with copyright concepts, I recommend starting with {{uw-copyright-new}}. In other cases, {{uw-copyright}} is a little more straightforward. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Front Street Entertainment

Front Street Entertainment has a {{wikify}} tag, and {{wikify}} has been deprecated. Not sure who is responsible, but you're the last one to touch it. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That must be quite an uphill battle, looking at your edit history and the category for the month. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I know you're a respected, experienced editor, and maybe you can give me some advice (I know this is outside the scope of what you specialize in though). I just noticed this deprecated template issue today, and skimmed through some of the related discussion. Given that it's been over 3 months since the template was deprecated, and there isn't really an efficient way to get the word out on that, is it a good idea to drop a note on talk pages of editors who are still using the template, or should I just let them figure it out themselves? As an aside I cannot figure out why this was tagged. Nothing obvious stands out to me that needs fixed. While the current month doesn't have much backlog, there is quite a bigger hill to climb if you go further back to older tags. I just decided to start with the most recent. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, my first thought would be that if people are using the template still, it isn't really as deprecated as all that. A group of people in a TfD may have decided that it shouldn't be used anymore, but it seems like they haven't done much to get the word out. :/ They talked about ways to do so here, but it doesn't look like they ever did anything. Advising individual editors probably isn't going to be a quick or efficient way of attempting to enforce the consensus of that TfD. More likely, one of the recommended approaches at the TfD itself should be implemented. The only way to effectively stop the use of the template is for it to either not work or for it to tell them itself that it's inappropriate. For example, if you try to put {{subst:copyvio}} on a file page, you get a really obvious red box with an exclamation point that says, "The template below should not be used on file pages. Please remove the {{copyvio/core}} and {{copyvio error}} tags. For image copyright violations, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files." I do not know how this happens (being fairly tech clueless), but when the use of {{copyvio}} was deprecated on files, it seemed to be the only effective way to if not completely stop greatly reduce its misuse. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and he's probably asking for internal links. It looks like there's room for a ton of them in the list section. :) That has traditionally been the main purpose of {{wikify}}. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Ha, he tagged Chevrolet Superior for {{prose}}! Just validates the decision to deprecate. I was thinking, maybe be wants more prose, but without further research work that would be hard because most of the current article is just basic spec lists. OTOH, does someone interested in this antique car really need links to learn about tires, radiators and brakes? Unless we have specific articles on the components used in this car, seems like could easily get a case of wp:OVERLINK for linking ordinary English words. I think the plan is to clear out category:Articles that need to be wikified before taking more drastic measures. Just 840 more to go, and they're all contained in the months of July & August 2012. I think if I just stay on top of new uses in January 2013 by quickly reverting them, some editors will notice the reversions and "get it" from my edit summaries. Still, a lot of work. No shortage of admin backlogs here ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Notice wouldn't have to be obnoxious nor necessarily to wait for clearance of the tags, I would think. :) It could be added to the template as a relatively subtle note requesting that a more specific template be added. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
See Template talk:Wikify/tutorial, waiting for admin attention ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sanjiang Plain

Hi! I have an interest in creating a new Sanjiang Plain page for Wikipedia. For comparison of my past work see the Xin River page on Wikipedia. My plan would be to find several journal articles describing this area and compile the info into Wikipedia format. I was not active in the past Sanjiang Plain page editing. My role in wikipedia is mainly something I use for fun. I'm a freelance writer and editor as well as botanist and ecologist. You can see my page at for more info about me. I started teaching myself Chinese in 2004 and have turned my editing skills into a full time business after an early retirement from the US Forest Service. I'd be surprised if you find any problems with my methods, but I thought it would be best to check with you before I begin. When I find pages on Wikipedia that need editing or creation, and I have time, I tend to use a few minutes of recreation and create them. You can check my wikipedia editing history for many examples if you like. I've not used a talk page in a few months so I hope I've not forgotten anything! Sedgehead (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Sedgehead

Hi. You are very welcome to write a new article on this subject. :) The old one was not deleted because of any flaw in the subject, but only because the contributor who created it copied from other sources. You don't need any advance permission or clearance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio/plagiarism/rewording issue

(Note: I had first written the follwoing message to Roger Davies, but he said that you were the resident expert in such matters. Your insight would reward my understanding of copyright matters where it pertains to television episodic articles immensely.)
Iirc, you were part of the discussion some time back when a long standing admin was found to have committed several errors in judgment (which is put it as mildly as possible) in regards to the above subject over a host of articles. After some editing to plot sumaries, I am getting a bit wobbly on what is and isn't an instance of copyright violation, plagiarism or just simple rewording. If you want an example of my concern, the last 4-5 edits or so in the Tron: Uprising article. I've initiated discussion after some revert back and forth, and am not - repeat, not looking for an admin hammer to weigh in. I just want to make sure I'm not making huge errors in understanding here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talkcontribs) 17:11, 5 January 2013

Hi. Plot summaries are an interesting situation. Obviously, the copyright to the story belongs to the author/producer, what have you, who owns and controls the content. But anybody is allowed to write a description of the work within the boundaries of fair use - as for critical commentary. Copyright issues may arise if the description becomes too detailed and supersedes the original. Summaries of copyrighted works are copyrightable themselves to the extent that they reflect creativity - which they may in both means of expression and selection of details. (What constitutes importance or is worth singling out.) Generally, it's safest to describe a story based on your own observation, which prevents your touching on somebody else's creative elements. I don't think it's impossible to base an original plot summary on somebody else's plot summary, but it would be more difficult, especially if the plot summary is brief. With a lengthier plot summary, you can create a more concise overview and avoid following lockstep on theirs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Would that pre-empt the writing/rewording in brief of episodes for which we have cited plot teasers for episodes that have yet to air? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for my delay. Plot teasers? That implies great brevity. The shorter your source, the more difficult it is to make your own spin on it. I myself would probably avoid trying to summarize a summary of a single sentence or two in preference to waiting for the complete episode. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
While i was awaiting your reply, I went looking for background on the subject. The turning point for me, I guess, is that a plot summary - even a short one (episode articles tend to be skeletally brief) - is put together without citations because it relies on the consensus view of what the plot objectively was. With an unaired ep, that is impossible, and we are relying on a marketing source to tell us what we will be seeing. That presents (imo) an insurmountable obstacle to inclusion. Add to that the problem that almost any rewording of an extremely short press release is going to be a copyvio, and I think the question is answered. Would you agree? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you partially. :) Rewording extremely brief sources is likely difficult, which is why I said I would avoid it. But if a press release were to give a lengthy and detailed description of an unaired episode, I do not think it would be an insurmountable obstacle to inclusion to boil it down to a concise, high-level overview so long as the source is cited. --15:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Omnibus

I deleted most of the contents of this article as a copyright violation - except for the brief lead and infobox, it was just blurbs copied directly off the backs of the volumes. The violation goes back to the very creation edit of the article. Do I now revdel all those edits? LadyofShalott 22:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd call that a "yes", personally. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I thought - it just felt a little weird being almost the entire history. Done now. LadyofShalott 23:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I did one not long ago where all but the last edit was redel'd, it seemed odd, but I think it is right. The record of the contributors is not lost, and if for some reason, someone ever needed to find out what a particular editor did, it can be recovered.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
True, and this way there's no risk of anyone reverting to the violation on the grounds that "you deleted good information!!!1111!!!1" :) LadyofShalott 01:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It's always surprising when that happens. :/ I had the subject of a CCI actually accuse us of "vandalism" for reverting his copy-pasted information. Not everybody quite understands the policies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

DYK for Pritilata Waddedar

Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC) manually posted by Tito Dutta (talk)

Congratulations, Tito Dutta. :) Thanks for replacing the content! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi! I've assigned a fairly complicated ticket regarding permissions to you - would you mind taking a look? Thanks! --Rschen7754 07:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright investigator?

How to become a copyright investigator (of West Bengal or Bengal related articles)? Do I need to be an admin first (I am not an admin and not going to be so at least till mid 2014). Do I need to apply somewhere first (like online ambassador)? --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all! Quite a bit of copyright work can be done by anyone. :) See Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/How to clean copyright infringements for some of the steps you can take. The important thing is that you are not required to tag an article for admin review if you find a problem; you can simply fix it. If you need the history deleted, that can be arranged after the fact. :) Any questions about this, or how to proceed, please let me know! We need all the help we can get. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Non-free with permission

This template has been brought up for deletion four times. I didn't read all the discussions. I don't know if WMF has weighed in on it. It seems to me that we have reached consensus on limited use of copyrighted images. Can en:wp use images in the same way as books, magazines, etc. with permission (and full resolution), that limit their use? You may wish to put a non-archivable (sticky) statement at the top of the talk page. All up to you of course.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm not sure if I'm following here - the template is used to indicate permission, but (in the absence of compatible license) does not excuse the image from meeting the requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, right? In other words, it provides an additional note of "why we can use it", but doesn't relax the primary standards for use, right? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree after reading through a 85 more discussions of it. Can images with permission use full resolution or would this violate policy? I would assume the copyright holders wish to use good images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this would be a problem under policy. Generally, full resolution isn't necessary for us, anyway. Stuff shows up nicely on a computer screen at lower res, but doesn't print out as well. If the copyright holders want us to use good images, they have the option of licensing the stuff appropriately - which they really should do anyway. :/ Anything else is an effort to get around our licensing requirements by trying to say, "We don't mind this being used, but we want it used by you only." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply. Yes, it would be nice if they were more free with their images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright concern

Hi, sorry I don't have much experience dealing w/ copyright problems here. If you don't mind, I'd like you to look at this and advise. This came to my attention via a Wikipedia:Requested moves request. See my comments at Talk:Life rank. Then compare Tenderfoot Scout with Tenderfoot Rank Requirements, which says "© 2013 Boy Scouts of America - All Rights Reserved" at the bottom. Looks like cut&paste by some drive-by middle school student. What to do? Sorry, I know there's probably instructions somewhere, but I'd just like to see what you do. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For now, I've redirected it to a section of Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America, as someone may want to write a valid article on the subject in the future. Moonriddengirl may want to delete the offending revisions from the article's history, or she may just decide to delete the whole thing per CSD criterion G12 (which you could have tagged the article for). I've also redirected the same editor's Life rank and (retitled) Star (Boy Scouts of America), as they were just uncredited copy/pastes of the corresponding sections in the article on ranks. For good measure, I did the same to Second Class rank, which was a hopeless muddle. As always MRG can feel free to undo or revise what I've done in any way she thinks appropriate. Deor (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) So far I've deleted the pages and recreated the redirects, except for Second Class rank. I'll check the copyright issues there, if any. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Deleted, at least two sentences looked like blatant copyvios. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not $, but you can't have everything :-)

Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

We hope (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. :) I'll try to get to it a bit later today. Please poke me if I forget. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

CCI update

At long last, arguably the most tiresome copyright case I've worked on is done! A much better feeling when those big ones get taken down, I must say. --Wizardman 00:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow! What an amazing accomplishment! I'm so grateful that you keep these moving forward. I never thought we'd see that one completed! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi Ive really been trying to improve my page Port Lympne Mansion by adding references but now Ive lost the title reference sorry to be a pain but please can you add in again. Hopefully you will see some improvements since you last checked my work novice Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatureSam (talkcontribs) 16:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm happy to help, but I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you need. There were two references cited in the article as it was when tagged for copyright issues, and you're using both of them in the current text. If you can clarify for me, I'll be pleased to see what I can do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National Film Award for Best Actress/archive1

There is a problem with the inclusion of Nargis Dutt's image in the list. Would you mind having your say? Vensatry (Ping me) 15:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) Got this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you. :) I'm going to see if I go do some power-work through CP today. Here's hoping I find a stack of easy days! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. May you live in boring times — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
        • LOL! My dearest wish. :) So long as I have good books about imaginary people in more interesting situations! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Don't know if you like psychological novels, but there's a translation. As for boring times... sadly I've never seen a boring day on Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Me, either. Although I've seen a few tedious ones. :/ I'll check it out! Quite possibly literally, depending on local supplies. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Hope you like it. It's... well, a little different. At least it's relatively relatable for a Western reader, unlike Sengsara Membawa Nikmat (very heavy on the Minangkabau traditions, that one). Alright, I'm off to bed. Enjoy your Sunday! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia

Hi! You probably knew this already, but there's an ongoing discussion at the talk page of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia to turn the guideline into a policy. As you are a copyright expert, and the creator of the page in question, perhaps you could weigh in? I would appreciate it. Cheers, theFace 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't create the page. Flatscan did. :) I just helped out. (Also, I'm experienced, but not really an expert.) I'm happy to weigh in but don't really consider it that crucial. The attribution requirement is already part of the Terms of Use. Whether we call it policy or not doesn't really matter to me. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
That's a technicality, as you're definitely the primary author. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It's been a while, but as best I recall, it was your brilliant idea. :) It was needed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it was needed. I'm sure that I had plenty of inspiration, including an AN report (between a few and several years ago now!) about merging and GFDL compliance that you commented in. Very few things here are created in a vacuum. While I'm here, congratulations on the well-deserved shirt. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! That was quite a surprise and quite an honor. I'm incredibly touched. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Brucewayneent

Can someone review this to see if my block was appropriate. Brucewayneent (talk · contribs) has emailed me saying he's made some great contributions and has not copied word for word, "it is not exact therefore not breaking any copy right rules." Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Your block seems perfectly appropriate to me. He has been cautioned about copyright issues, with block warnings, back to 2010. If you want to write him back or leave a note on his talk page, I'd directly him to Wikipedia:Copy-paste and point out to him that copyright policy - to which he has been directed many times - notes that you cannot follow your source too closely. If he wants to be unblocked, certainly he can follow your requirements under the block notice. He should demonstrate an understanding of our copyright policies and practices. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. In fact, I'm going to add to my conditions, see [10]. He's been creating bad articles. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

CCI for Doncram?

Doncram is currently at ArbCom, but one thing I've noticed is that he tends to allow the sources to write the bulk of some of his articles. I believe the majority of his articles are fine, but I recently had to remove this. It's happened on numerous other occasions. Should a CCI be opened? On another note, I would bet a million dollars that Doncram will restore the information I removed if he notices it in his watchlist. Is Revdel appropriate? Ryan Vesey 18:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

<Sigh> If you think the vast majority of his articles are fine, I don't think I'd open a CCI over extensive quotations. I wouldn't generally use rev deletion for that, since somebody could actually use that quote to summarize the material in their own words. Is this by any chance under discussion in the ArbCom case? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about image permissions for a band

Hello! Here's a question for you. How do you recommend that a third party license an image for use on Wikipedia, in such a way that I know when the permission has been granted, and for which image? A friend of mine is in contact with a band that has a Wikipedia article, and they've told him by email that it's okay to use the images on their website for their WP article, and he's suggesting that I proceed with uploading one of the images to Wikipedia and adding it to the article. I get that that's not good enough. (I can see it now: "But my friend got an email from the band saying that it's okay!") It seems to me that there are two ways to go with this. (1) Get the band -- or the photographer, whichever owns the copyright I guess -- to upload the image to Flickr with appropriate licensing, such as creative commons attribution share-alike. Then anyone can use the image, and I know how to proceed from there. (2) Get the band to use their official email account to submit a share-alike licensing request to, as explained at Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing. Is that right? And if yes, and we pursue the second option, how do I know when the licensing has been arranged, and how do I tag the uploaded image? I'm guessing that that would have to be coordinated with whoever submits the request, but I don't really know how all that works. (And since my friend's relationship with the band is just as a fan, I'm guessing the band won't want to go through the hassle, but that's not the issue right now. I'm just trying to understand what the process is.) Thanks! Mudwater (Talk) 18:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sort of option b. :) If you ask to be cc'ed in the permission letter, you'll know, and you can upload the image and tag it with {{OTRS pending}}. If I were your friend, I would send them a copy in an email of Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries cc'ing email address and you, and simply ask them to hit "reply all" in returning their consent. As long as the image is clearly identified, there should be no issue. If they don't want to do that, they don't have to through the first choice, but only need to put a note on the page on their website where the image is displayed licensing it there. Please let me know if any of this is not clear! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. If I encounter any further perplexity I'll post back here. Thanks for the help! Mudwater (Talk) 19:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Knock, Knock

Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Q:Who's there?
Q:Boo who?
A:There's still no $, but there's no need to cry about it. :-) We hope (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Q: Knock knock
  • A: Who's there?
  • Q: Ka-ching
  • A: Ka-ching who?
  • Q: Catching copyright violators, of course! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mukti Bahini edit history

When you deleted the page and replaced it with the new one you also have deleted the edit history. There were usable stuff that existed in that edit history (I, for instance, can remember a table of the command structure). Please, don't delete the edit history. Aditya(talkcontribs) 10:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. The article sat blanked for over two months with a tag on it inviting people to help reconstruct it. Had User:Titodutta not done so, we would currently have no article at all. If there was content that you believed salvageable in the history, can I ask why you did not salvage it during the months it was requesting that you do so? (Just to make sure that this is clear: it is standard when a rewrite is proposed that does not use prior content to replace the article, as was done here. Are you requesting more time to work on the rewrite? Or are you simply asking that the old versions of the article, with the copyright violation in them, be restored?) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor edit warring to restore copyvio

HudsonBreeze is edit warring to restore copyrighted text to Execution of Rizana Nafeek. Can you step in? Ryan Vesey 19:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've added it to my watchlist and things seem to have settled at least temporarily. I'll keep an eye out there for the next few days at least. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yay. :) Thank you! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio

When you reverted my edits to Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio, you don't seem to have noticed that I not only removed the possible tint of plagiarism (which was your main concern), I also removed a number of strange expressions and structures from the English -- which was obviously written by a non-native speaker -- corrected mistakes, and made the article more sober (less 'eccentric'). It is a little disconcerting that you reverted the whole lot wholesale without even checking what the content was. (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention to reject your work; I misunderstood the purpose of your revision. Based on your edit summary, I thought you were solely attempting to address the plagiarism issue - which proved to be non-existent. :) You are certainly welcome to change the content. Please feel free to restore your edits. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User Richie Campbell

When you've absolutely nothing better, I'm concerned that this long time and presumably good-faith contributor has a history of adding copyright violations to article texts, the first two examples of which I've noticed here [11] and here [12]. I've left a note at their talk page [13]. The concern, of course, is that there may be many such articles with pastiches of copied text. (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a concern. Thank you for noticing the issue and letting him know. I'm concerned from his response that he may not yet have understood - although he's obviously intending to be cooperative. A CCI may be necessary here. I've left him a note. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Very much appreciated, (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I've found further instances, and left a note at his talk page, in hopes that he'll clean up after himself [14]. Regardless, this is a fairly prolific user who now bears watching, or something more. I find it unlikely that he didn't understand copyright violation, given his familiarity with Wikipedia and energetic patrolling of beauty pageant articles, regularly reverting vandalism and unsourced content. For motive my money's on plagiarism as the easiest and quickest way to add information. (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your continued follow-up with the user. Though I've edited here for years as a registered account and IP, I'm terribly ambivalent about Wikipedia's value, for numerous reasons (Well, since you asked, the best way to do an encyclopedia would be to compensate scholars for their time and research, and do away, to a great extent, with the extraneous headaches of plagiarism, promotion and vandalism. I'm sorry, but we would do just fine without the tender contributions of Mamie Eisenhower Middle School, and news of their annual car wash/bake sale/teacher found in motel room with alpaca, etc.). Yet I'm grateful for the efforts of editors like you, not so much for preserving Wiki's integrity, as for the broader implication that one strives to do the right thing in general. (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you. Your advice to him was very good. :) I'm sorry that hear that you're ambivalent, but I do understand your concerns. It does seem we spend an awful lot of time cleaning up even well-intentioned detrimental edits. I appreciate your kind words. I do try. And it helps that I've seen a few contributors with copyright issues turn around and become extremely good contributors. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User Mondigomo and massive copyvio

When I first came upon Mondigomo (talk · contribs) at Apollo today I was willing to AGF despite earlier warnings, but looking at massive copyvio in Persephone from Burkert, [15] (or rather the copyvio material there), it's clear there's a problem I did a bold revert at Ananke (mythology) but I can't untangle the rest in the time I have, sorry. Not sure what the best thing is to do. At the moment I haven't blocked the editor. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Notified 3 editors and 2 projects asking for help. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to get a list of his articles in my field together and take a look over the next few days, but for now I note that Mondigomo was for a time adding references to L. H . Jeffery (1976). Archaic Greece. The Greek city states c. 700-500 B.C. Ernest Benn Ltd. London & Tonbridge, at least one of which I had to punctuate as a direct quote, so there may be quite a bit of verbatim text from that book on WP. I see the editor was previously warned about copyright violations by Paul August.  davidiad.:τ 18:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Since he edits infrequently I doubt he will reply to my post. I've given him an indefinite block but as always that means what it says, if he can demonstrate that he can avoid copyvio in the future he can be unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finding the issue, Doug, and thanks for helping with it Davidiad. The good news is that his contribution list is relatively small, but that doesn't mean that it can be cleaned up easily since checking print and online sources can be complex. :/ I've opened a CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mondigomo. Doug, do you suppose that the editors and projects you've spoken to would be willing to help out? Davidiad, your annotations on that page would be very helpful. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I've asked them to help. I'll point them to the CCI. He's appealed his block claiming it was only brief passages and that the book only said "all rights reserved", not " All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher, except for brief passages included in a review". Unblock declined of course. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Sigh. I like Daniel's answer to him. That was well done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Documenting permission outside of OTRS

Hey, I was wondering if you (or any friendly talk-page stalkers, of course) have any good ideas for documenting off-wiki permission statements. In particular there's some at Facebook a la this one, and WebCite won't work to archive it, so while the permission seems usable there's no hard record visible except by logged-in facebook users. Commons relies on the FlickreviewR bot for possible changing licenses, but it's not really the same. Any thoughts? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Make a screen copy while viewing the page and upload the image somewhere (or send it to OTRS?) as evidence of the license? Deor (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of a screenshot, but it would be a shame if it had to be registered with OTRS. The place is already swamped, and I see adding the license to the Facebook page or Flickr page as a way to avoid the need to file with OTRS,
Let me throw out a crude workaround, although I suspect there will be some problems.
What if you took a screenshot of the image_with _license, then uploaded that on top of the original image, then, seconds later, re-upload the original image. The correct image would portray on any Wikipedia page, but anyone wishing to check the copyright status could go to the file, look at the history and see the image_with _license in the history.
A more elegant solution would be to specifically allow someone to upload a file containing the permission, ideally, both subject image and the permission on the same file, and upload it as a separate attachment to the file. However, I assume that would require a software change. My work-around does not.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
You mentioned the Flickr review bot: If it's sufficient there that a trusted automaton checks the license and adds a template confirming it, why isn't it sufficient that a trusted user adds a similar message to the image description page? Amalthea 23:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Talk page stalkers know stuff. :) That's a good question, actually, but history tells me that there's a chance it just won't be. I mean, you'd be surprised some of the copyright stuff I've seen challenged. :/ Maybe it's made me paranoid, but I would probably go myself with what SPhilbrick suggests. That way, long after I'm gone, I can hope that the image will avoid untoward removal. OTOH, considering that I've also seen blatant copyvios remain for years unchallenged, I think there's also a chance that nobody would ever challenge it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
No question that the more documentation is available, the better case we have -- and I certainly have no idea what any court would consider sufficient.
I'm just saying that Commons folks seem to consider it sufficient for 140k images plus another 290k bot reviewed images, as far as I can tell they don't maintain documentation beyond that template. If there are serious doubts whether this actually holds water someone should ask legal about it.
Now who would be in the best position to discuss this with them ... ;)
Amalthea 00:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not talking about courts. I'm talking about our fellow users. :) That's why I mentioned untowards removal after I'm gone. I've seen people challenge stuff that I would never have imagined they would. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, haha, THAT I can certainly understand (based on first-hand experience). :) Amalthea 00:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I tried it as a test. One thing I learned, I created an image with the attribution, and the software I used created a PNG, which I was not able to upload on top of the other one, so I had to make a JPG.
Obviously, this requires a little bit of AGF, as anyone skilled with photo software could mockup something, but presumably, the person doing this is an editor involved in the process.
I would have illustrated with Facebook, which is the more relevant issue, but I don't have much of a Facebook account, so I used Flick, but it illustrates the concept.
File:Sunset at my house.jpg
Click on the middle version to see the image along with the license status.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the ideas -- I think I'll go for the screenshot as file history idea (it's the same method that's been used by other uploaders to provide evidence of a lack of copyright symbol for old PR photos, now that I think of it). Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But aren't those screenshots non-free because they incorporate design elements of the copyrighted websites? I'd take a screenshot, post it to your own flickr (so it's archived), and link to that flickr image from the commons image description. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • At the very least the top bar and advertisements need to be cropped. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio on Lords of the New Church

On the talk page of the article Lords of the New Church someone brought up that the article was plagiarized, apparently from here. Someone else claims the problem has been fixed. However, looking at the current text and that source, it's a copy paste job. Either the copy paste was re-added again, or the original editors didn't catch all of it.

The only thing I'm not 100% sure of is whether the material at is copyrighted, although it does list an author.Volunteer Marek 08:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Same editor who re-inserted the text in LotNC article, also has another, more recent, copy paste: [16], from [17]. Again, I don't know if the source is copyrighted.Volunteer Marek 08:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. As a general rule of thumb, everything is copyrighted unless we have reason to know it is not. :) Under current US law, notice of copyright is not required. That said, allmusic is most definitely copyrighted, as they reserve rights at the bottom of each page. That they are speaking on behalf of their licensors is explicitly set forth in their Terms of Use.
With the other website, the automatic protection of copyright law applies, unless they explicitly license or release content such that we can use it.
All cleaned up, and contributor advised. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This page continues to put living persons at risk for possible libel and copyright violation under the name The Lords of the New Church. For this reason it has been submitted for speedy deletion twice and has twice been removed by mischevious editing. The top most legal parties within Wikipedia addressed the issues with this article on 1/16/13 and concurred that it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi Moonriddengirl, I want to ask for a semi-protection for the article Cicero. I have made some contributions in there and saw that there was vandalism going on in that page, and I requested for a indefinite semi-protection for the page, but I received no response and nothing was done in regard for protecting the page. I was wondering if you could protect the page. Vandalism is currently low in the page, but it would be a good precaution and protection for the page, Thank you. (Slurpy121 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC))

(tps)As noted on the talk page, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the place to go to make the request, where admins with experience on what does and does not deserve protection hang out.
However, I see only four recent instances of vandalism, all by a single IP who has been blocked. I wouldn't grant page protection in such a case, so you are free to check with the regulars, but I doubt it will happen. In general, if a single editor is vandalizing, the best option is to block that editor, as has happened. Page protection is used when multiple editors are vandalizing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I was a bit concerned for the page but since you say there is only one vandalizer who got blocked, I see there is nothing to worry about now. Thank you (Slurpy121 (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC))
Thank you, Sphilbrick, and thanks, Slurpy, for keeping an eye on the article. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of data from an online journal

A help desk question asked about the copyright status of data from an online journal. I've offered some thoughts, but abstractly, because the specific example hasn't yet been identified. Your name was mentioned, so I'm alerting you to the question.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice! :) It looks like it's been well handled. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Got time?

OK, I know there aren't enough folks keeping up with CCI these days, so I'm not going to bother with initiating one unless you think it worthwhile. If you have time, please look in on Template:Did you know nominations/Vamos A Celebrar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy. :) Taking a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
While I don't speak Spanish at all (in spite of a few years of taking it in high school :D) the examples you cite are very concerning. :( I see that the editor's attitude may be turning around; that's good! As you said there after leaving this note, it's best if we can avoid a CCI, especially where the issue may be with primarily Spanish sources. I don't know if any of the CCI cleaners read it. Thank you for catching the issue and explaining it to her so thoroughly. I hope she'll follow through with clean-up. If she does not, I think a CCI probably would be necessary, but at least it would be short. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay ... I was off for a few days. Checking contribs, I don't see that either DivaKnockouts (talk · contribs) or Hahc21 (talk · contribs) have begun any of the cleanup, and yet Diva has submitted two more DYKs. I don't see big issues in the new DYKs, but I'm not sure what's next if there has been no attempt yet as far as I can tell to clean up the old issues. Perhaps a note from you? There are 29 articles created and multiple old DYKs with the same sorts of issues ... and it's direct cut-and-paste mostly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I speak Spanish pretty well and could help check these articles. It's easier for me to keep track if a formal CCI gets started, though.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
It would be optimal to avoid a CCI, but I don't think the message is getting through: Template:Did you know nominations/Lejos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

OK ... Diva says he's checked them all, so the first article I checked (Dime (Ivy Queen song)) reveals:

The source is a blog. Nonetheless, it says:

  • Dime” [que es un nuevo tema incluido en su disco y DVD titulados “Ivy Queen World Tour 2008” y grabados en directo durante su concierto presentado el año pasado en el Coliseo de Puerto Rico,] trata de una pareja que se ama, pero no puede estar unida por sus diferencias del temperamento.

Translates literally to ...

  • Dime [blah, blah, blah] deals with a couple who love each other but cannot be together because of their differences in temperament.

Article says:

  • The lyrics talk about a couple, who love each other, but cannot be together due to their temperamental differences.

He says he's done ... I found issues on the first article I check. What next? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly useless with this, as my Spanish is horrible. :/ But I've populated User:Moonriddengirl/DivaKnockouts, which should make it easier to coordinate cleanup. If it turns out there are more than a couple of lingering sentences, moving it into CCI space may be best. Hopefully that won't be necessary! Jen, I greatly appreciate your help here. You rock. :) Sandy, I appreciate your noting and following up on the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

OK ... Calliopejen1, it looks like we'll have to do this. [18] I've got some catching up to to today and tomorrow, and then will dig in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Second article I checked, copyvio in English and likely BLP vio as well ... I'm not sure that source rises to the level we require for info of this sort. [19] OK, since I'm not an admin, I can't scrub the history. Maybe we should open a CCI, since there are also vios in English, and we can be pinged in to check the Spanish ones. Not sure how thoroughly I can help since I don't have tools to revdel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Revdeletion matters less than simple removal, and isn't frequently done for close paraphrasing of this sort. It's usually done for honkin' big copy-pastes or copyright problems that are put back after removal. :) I can move it into CCI space if you think that's helpful. I've poked at a couple and found one borderline issue (I've cleaned) and another not borderline issue (that Jen had cleaned, although I did some additional tidying on non-transformative use of quotations). It seems obvious that a review would be good here, wherever it's conducted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Another reverse copyright at cellular automaton?

Hi MRG. I brought an issue with this article to your attention a few months ago, and it seemed to be the case that a very legitimate-looking book took its information from Wikipedia. Once again, I am trying to source information in that article, and I have found almost identical text in a very solid looking science book that appears to have been lifted from the article. Here is the page from the book in question. The section in the article, "computer processors", was already in it on December 29, 2010, while the book was published in 2011. Am I missing anything here, or does this call for another note on the talk page explaining it's not a copyvio? The publisher, IGI Global, also looks legitimate. Thanks for any guidance you can provide. —Torchiest talkedits 08:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a backwardscopy to me. The copyright page claims the book was published in 2011 and asserts that "All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material." That eliminates reprint. I did a search to see when content entered, fixing on the duplicated phrase "not software only", part of the larger sentence currently represented in the external source as "Cellular automation processors are a physical, not software only, implementation of cellular automata concepts, which can process information computationally." That phrase entered our article in a lump in 2006. I believe we would need an older source to assume that the copying was on the part of the IP who placed the content here. (Note, it's quite possible that the professor himself placed the content here, in which case there's no issue at all with his using it again later elsewhere. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Does this mean I'm out of another seemingly sterling source? This is getting bizarre. :) —Torchiest talkedits 18:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, as I said, maybe the contributor and the author are the same. He'd still be reliable, as long as he can get a reputable house to publish it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Erin Brockovich (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have removed the 'scientific accuracy' section twice and other editors before that have as well. It keeps getting added back. I put a note at the copyvio board but no response. I am posting here in case you or your talk page stalkers wish to look at it. It is 80-90% quoted from the source and one editor keeps adding it back instead of paraphasing it better. I have given up trying to keep it out so it is still in there an probably copyvio.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your keeping an eye on the situation, and I agree that the content constituted a copyright issue. Significantly, it also seems to be a WP:BLP problem, as it attributes content to a particular scientist where attribution is not at all clear. I have cleaned it and attempted to explain to the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
A kitten to keep an eye on your page

 Done. Thank you! Here is a kitten.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As the editor who initially re-added the material after 7 months of it being curiously taken down time and time again, without, might I add, those removing it offering to help a hand to write the section. I acknowledged then, and still do now, that I simply reworded what the original source had said, in future I will attempt to use direct quotations instead, to prevent this issue from arising again. Principally, I express sincere gratitude that you did not simply remove all reference to the source as Canoe1967 and RepublicanJacobite have done in the past, and for validating that, in your own words.

It is certainly worth noting that scientific accuracy has been questioned.

So thank you again for re-writing the section, as the talk page record shows, I've been asking for a co-writer for over 7 months now!
Boundarylayer (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi Moonriddengirl. Do you happen to remember how the copyright investigation ended up the last time I uncovered an Accotink2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) / Pohick2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) sock? I've uncovered another. I'm sure it is him/her, but I guess I'm trying to figure out if the previous investigation came back fine or if there were copyright issues. This current sock has been active since 2011 (with a few copyright issues on their talk page over that span) so I can guarantee this will be a huge mess of an investigation if we are concerned about their edits. If the previous invest came back fine then I'm more inclined to consider this a fresh start (despite the hallmarks being really really clear). Let me know. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I don't remember but can look into it if necessary - I'm wondering if it is, though, since you say there are a few copyright issues on their talk page. There's no way that Pohick in any incarnation is unfamiliar with our copyright policies. If he continued violating copyright with this sock, then it seems quite likely that he still just doesn't care...or can't quite figure out how to write in his own words. Somebody wrote me some time back suggesting he's a paid editor - I don't know if that's true, but if it is, it would make the former more likely. Quicker and easier not to write the content yourself, and most of these guys are paid after a relatively brief time. If the content is deleted later, it doesn't make any difference to them. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I saw some continued back and forth between you two on his accotink2 page after he was blocked. If you could take a look (or point me where I can look into it, I don't want to make more work for you) I'd appreciate it. I think he just disagrees with our copyright policy and does what he thinks is legit regardless (and then says 'LOOK AT THE MESS YOU HAVE WROUGHT' when we delete it). I guess what I am hoping is that in the accotink2 incarnation the CCI came back with a very low rate of infringement. If that was the case I'd be more inclined to try and work with the current incarnation than block and sequester / delete. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
When socks are uncovered, the cleanup is done at the primary account (or the one identified for CCI). So any investigation will have been conducted at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Pohick2. I'm afraid I don't know where that landed, as Verno indicates he was continuing manually after the trial run of the bot and I can't see that the contribs were ever added. He had real life issues that took him away for quite some time. :) I'm running the CCI software on him now, but what I'm seeing at the top is non-creative content and transplants from other articles. Since a good many of his articles were deleted, it may not be a good indicator. A better indicator would probably be for you to use it on the sock you've found and do a spot-check of major contributions to see what you find. The tool is here. It would probably also be helpful to look at the content that was flagged for copyright concerns under the new account and see what sort of issues existed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, will do. I'll report back. *salutes* :) Syrthiss (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

User Richie Campbell, redux

Nothing shaking since this message [20]. Perhaps he's still intending to clean up, but thus far is cleaning up his multiple copyright violations with the same eagerness I display when called upon to do something unpleasant. I can go delete the passages I found, but given his longterm involvement here and familiarity with the material, am hoping he'll tend to the messes. I'll drop him a reminder. Cheers, (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping on top of it. :) I've made a note for myself on February 2nd to look into his contribs. If he's active and not working on it or if he's not active, I'll go ahead and make a formal CCI of it so that at least we know it won't be forgotten. It would certainly be best for everybody if he did it himself. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC) - blacklist candidate?

See [21] - looks like a copyvio host. Should this be added to the blacklist and the links removed? Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure looks like it to me. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Bawali Unlimited copyvio

In this edit from this Times of India article! --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. :) I've purged it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted pages and links

Hi there! First of all thanks for the message explaining the problems. I do understand the copying problems but i would like to explain myself about the site. i was using it as a source as basically there is no other English source for this kind of topic (Hungarian artists) and it is not an auction site but a database site about painters and about which of their works was on which auctions in Budapest. thanks again Annaauc (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

whoops, my bad, you were right! sorry Annaauc (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Walter Sickert

Hi there! I notice that a lot of new content has been added to this article recently. Or perhaps not so new. I searched for the string "The isolated rhetorical gestures of singers and actors seem to reach out to no-one in particular, and audience members are portrayed stretching and peering to see things that lie beyond the visible space.", which seems to have been in the article for a couple of days, and got hits all over the net. I'm not clever enough to know if that is a copyvio or not, though it looks to me like one. I didn't want to blank out the section with a red warning as the editor appears to be trying in good faith to improve the article. Could I ask you to take a look? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The passage you've quoted has been in the article for a long time—it was there a year ago, for example. It looks to me as though the Google hits are people copying us. I haven't done a thorough check of the recent edits, but in searching for a few distinctive phrases, I haven't found any evidence of copyvio. Deor (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep; I've edited the page over time, as has Paul Barlow and most recently Ewulp; I won't toot my own horn, but the other two are contributors who know how to write. I think the content is good, and ought not contain copyright violations. JNW (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
It happens. Actually, a lot. :D It's always a good idea to check, though, Justlettersandnumbers. Thanks for investigating. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for 3 hours

Due to vandalism I've semi-protected for 3 hours. If any IP's have an urgent need to communicate they can communicate with me. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry, that may have been a bit bold of me, feel free to unprotect if you want). Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

CCI update

Got this done last week, but in case you or any talk page stalkers wanted a pick me up. :) Wizardman 17:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yay! Very well timed. :) I'm looking at a worrisome situation right now. :/ Thanks for letting me know, and I'm so glad it's done. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about sourcing and plagiarism

Greetings. Before someone says I am forumshopping or throws out some other violation I want to clearly state up front that the reason I am here is because you are widely considered the expert on Copyright matters. So with that said. I have nominated several articles for deletion (and there are a lot more that have similar problems but I started with these 4) because I feel that they are not properly sourced, some have questionable notability because I couldn't find much other than what is used and more importantly these articles were written using cut and paste exact wording from the source provided.

One example is Eduard Frederich. In this case you can see the layout of the "source" under the notes section. My opinion is this doesn't qualify as a properly sourced article. Additionally, if you look at the reference and compare the text there to whats in the article you will see it is an almost exact copy. To me this is not an acceptable way to write an article. It was years ago but not in the last couple years.

Again I am not looking for someone to side with me I am just looking for clarification on whether these articles are acceptable or if I am indeed misreading policy as the author of these articles suggests. Kumioko (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I speedy-kept those articles, because they were created in proper compliance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources. See Ælfthryth of Crowland and for another example of how this works... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Well just for the record I still don't agree we should be doing that and I don't even agree that's what that policy means or should mean. Kumioko (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Kumioko. :) Policy does support removal of content that is copied and pasted from copyrighted sources, but where the sources are public domain at this point consensus is only that their copying must be explicitly acknowledged (see Wikipedia:Plagiarism: "Whether copyright-expired or in the public domain for other reasons, material from public-domain sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed." There really is no legal reason for us not to accept this content, so it all comes down to consensus on whether or not it's appropriate. I've certainly seen plenty of people who have argued that this content should either not be allowed or at least be discouraged, but there are also plenty who think it's fine, some even without explicit attribution. Currently, the "use it, but say that you're using it" view seems to have the most support. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright with quotes

Can you check Talk:AR-15#My addition to "history section" and offer an opinion on the copyright issue? Ryan Vesey 22:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan. :) Explanation here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible multiple copyvio from the ODNB

Hi MRG! Could you or one of your talk page stalkers take a look at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#ODNB. It's potentially rather serious, but I could only deal with one of the articles because the suspected sources of the copyvio are subscription only. The editor who added the copyvio hasn't edited for almost a year. Not sure how to proceed. Voceditenore (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

popping in briefly, I've confirmed and removed issues from Helen Cherry. :/ I've blanked Robert Craufurd, John Mason (diplomat) and removed material from Percy Sillitoe. This is going to need additional checking to be sure. I'm going to open a CCI and am very thankful that the list is short, because the problem looks very serious. This kind of thing can (and obviously does) set back article development years. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hydeblake :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate history edit in AR-15 entry

I have changed my previous edit, scrubbing it of any opinion, changing it from a quote to my own words, and citing my source. Watch the page please. I'll bet these "guardian editors" delete it and find an even flimsier reason than before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trblmkr1 (talkcontribs) 15:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013


The anniversary of the "Rlevse/PumpkinSky affair" is the perfect day to find "verbatim" about a DYK article on my talk. I was sleeping when it happened. The arcticle was created for Wagner (FAC). When I added the source called "this pdf", a publication of the CDU political party, I was aware that they had added a history section "Zur Geschichte der Kreuzschule:", copied from the German Wikipedia. I did't check where the German Wikipedia has it from, possibly from the school. What should I have done/do to avoid the irritation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Gerda. :) You always have the option of checking the other project's content to see where they got it from - the same way that we check sources when doing a CCI. I'm sure there's not a 100% success rate, as it's not always easy to find where people copy stuff from. But often it's easy to verify with official sources. I do not always bother when copying content from one Wikipedia article to another to check to see if other editors have copied from elsewhere, but if there are red flags I do - you eventually develop a feel for what reads like an "official" source. In those cases, I check any cited sources and do a spot-check for striking phrases from throughout.
If somebody is accused of copying from an external source when they have actually taken from another Wikipedia page, the edit summary should make clear where the real problem is, as long as they have properly attributed as per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. User:Smerus did. Even if they don't properly attribute, it's usually a simple matter of the editor explaining, the attribution being repaired, and the problem caused by the editor(s) of the other page removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, see more on the article's talk, about that pdf being partly a copy from de-WP (marked in different colour, but without attribution), partly written by an author who is named and pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi MRG - this is a little complicated and I'm currently taking a quick break from work, so might not be totally clear (I'm hungry!). I've tried to explain what I did on the article talk. Also, last night I posted an explanation to Gerda's page. The article was on the main page at the time. This brings up other questions in terms of sourcing for translated articles, etc., but not anything I have time for at the moment. I think this is now okay. You're good at trawling through histories and I marked my edit summaries, so it shouldn't be too hard to see what I did. I don't know whether you can read German ... Truthkeeper (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, guys. :) Boy, that's a complicated one! It sounds like your combined investigation has identified an issue and figured out what it is. The question of WP:CIRC is always interesting when it is an official source that cites us. (My German is very rudimentary.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Acceptability of qualified licences on images

A number of images that have been uploaded to Commons with the verbatim requirement that

Must include photographer's URL shown bellow when using this image outside of Wikipedia

The URL is to the commercial wedding photography site of the uploaded. See here for a typical WP entry and here for his web-site. Whilst licensing supports the requirement to acknowledge authorship, I cannot find any reference to supporting a promotional message for a business. Before setting out on a mission of deletion, I thought that I should seek advice for the sage of Wikipedian copyright practice. Many thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   22:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Velella. I think that it's possible that they can require the URL under the Creative Commons Attribution license, as it includes the following text:

You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and (iv) , consistent with Section 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author").

The URI may consist of or include a URL, and the code would seem to suggest that so long as the URL refers to the copyright notice or licensing of the work, the licensor may require that it be included "to the extent reasonably practicable". If the URL does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the work, then the URL may not be required, at least by my reading.
I think it would probably be worth checking with the Commons community before launching deletion discussions, however, even if the URI does not refer to, well, those things to which it must refer. :D They may have some local policies or clarification standards. For all I know, they have a template which makes clear to re-users the conditions under which a URI request must be honored...or maybe they just expect re-users to read the legal code and understand the requirements on their own. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I sometimes wonder if I should have taken a law degree rather than Natural Sciences one, but I will try and pursue at Commons. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   12:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mitzi Meyerson


I have contributed to the article about Mitzi Meyerson. I have got the text directly from her. Ditto for the photo. I understand that there are similarities between this text and what you can find on the net, in particular her website, but we are talking about a biography and I do not see what one can do, apart from modifying a little bit the sentences. A biography is a biography and the content is de facto essentially the same on whatever website. I can put you or wikimedia foundation in contact with Ms. Meyerson, if that can help. --Mahlerite (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; it will help and is, in fact, required. :) Biographies are not de facto essentially the same on whatever website as far as American copyright law is concerned. The details of an individual's life are not copyrightable, but the way they're expressed is. It is not copyrightable to say "Person A was born on 1 January 2000 in City." Statements like "Mitzi Meyerson specializes in researching little-known or lost works for the harpsichord, which she then brings to light in recordings. Without exception, these CD documents are received with the highest acclaim, many of them winning international awards and prizes", easily meet the creativity threshold for US law (which is set intentionally low).
Ms. Meyerson has two options for permitting us to use the text at her website. First, she can follow the same process that you used in granting permission for her picture - sending an explicit license statement via email. Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries is the form to use and provides the email address to which the release must be sent. Please note that copying from her site predates your addition of text; the article was actually created with content taken from her earlier web biography. She can't simply release the material from the current page for that reason, but must also release earlier versions, including this one (you have to use the scroll bar at the bottom of the screen to see the biography - it is rather hard to see).
Alternatively, she can change the copyright notice on her website from "Copyright © 2009 - 2012 Prof. Mitzi Meyerson UDK - Berlin" to read:

Copyright © 2009 - 2012 Prof. Mitzi Meyerson UDK - Berlin. The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

If she chooses to release the content on her webpage, please let me know. I will verify the release and close the copyright listing. If she chooses to send in her permission, it will need to wait until an OTRS agent has processed it. I can help facilitate that as well if you let me know that she has sent in her permission.
As one final point, this content is likely to need modification. It may be completely true that "Without exception, these CD documents are received with the highest acclaim", but our policies don't permit us to take the subject's word for that. Wikipedia:BLP#Using the_ subject as a self-published source and WP:NPOV are the policies that govern here. As WP:V notes, articles should be based on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and should not be based primarily on self-published sources or refer to them for "self-serving" claims. It's certainly acceptable to cite the lady herself for details about her life and work, but critical reception to her work needs to be cited to somebody who does not profit from such statements. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have just written her, I hope the problem will soon be over. Thank you for your help and explanations. --Mahlerite (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Any idea what this post about you on my talk page means?

See User talk:Dougweller#Sovereign copyright of scientific research. Anyway, I wasn't thinking carefully when I called this set of edits[22] copyvio. It's copy and paste from [23] which is public domain[24] - how should this sort of copy and paste be handled? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. :) In accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism, it is perfectly all right to copy from public domain sources as long as the copying is explicitly acknowledged. Copying without that explicit acknowledgment constitutes plagiarism. I would recommend, when you copy extensively from public domain sources, acknowledging what you are doing in the edit summary, but what is required is a note or attribution template indicating where the material came from and that the material is copied. The attribution template for that source is {{NPS}}. I place these in the top of the reference section. Alternatively, he can cite the source for each passage and place this template in the citation: {{PD-notice}}. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. I myself would recommend an inline citation to the source but the use of the first template. If he uses the in-citation template, the template may disappear if somebody rewrites those specific sentences, not realizing that other passages are copied as well. I prefer the in-citation template where only a few sentences are copied and each is explicitly identified to the source or where multiple PD sources are copied and annotated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I almost missed the subject line part of your questions. :D I assume the edit in question is this one. I do not recall any response to that, but it isn't uncommon for editors simply to remove them without comment. My general assumption when that happens is that - just like with any warning template - they've read it, received the message, and understand the policies that led to it being left. I typically presume that removal of a copyright notice such as that one without comment about the issue is a tacit acknowledgment of error (I don't assume bad faith) in importing the content to begin with. If there are reasons why the content is okay, people usually do speak up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed the article, restoring the material with the NPS template. As for the removal, the point was that the editor claimed he responded - removal is fine. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Video link question

Hey, Moonriddengirl, could you please take a look at this discussion on my talk page and address the copyright question? I find it a little odd that the university would post the video while at the same time indicating that it doesn't own the copyright. We're not talking about the usual fly-by-night YouTube user, so I'm reluctant to say categorically that we can't link to the video. Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you get my email?

About the OTRS ticket. Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh! I had not. You sent it to my personal account, and I check that thing maybe once a month. :) I've forwarded it to my work inbox and will get back with you in just a few minutes. I want to search the OTRS system. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Bokaro Steel City

This edit is copyvio of this article. Edit reverted, but, I can't hide the edit! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you so much. :) I really appreciate your continued attention to copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Million dollar question

Let's say someone writes an original paragraph, sourcing it to two online pieces. They check out, but in the refs they quote the part they're referencing, and have two sentences for each. In other words, the article's fine but there is a copyright issue in the references. Based on how we tackle copyright, should that quote be removed or are they acceptable?

Suffice to say, this is not a hypothetical situation, and if there is no accepted answer one way or the other we have to make one, the sooner the better. Wizardman 01:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) I generally say we should not have quotes in the references except where absolutely necessary for verification. For an online source this is just ridiculous, but for an offline source it may be necessary (I've only ever done it once, for Terang Boelan, and that was at the request of an FA reviewer) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. I myself have only used them where I believed that content would be controversial. (So far as I recall; after so many years, details can be lost. :)) You know, depending on how extensive the use of copyrighted content is in the source we probably need to consider WP:LINKVIO. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It is hard to tell given the lack of examples in the OP, but I suspect the OP is a follow up to a post I made yesterday at a conversation in which Wizardman advocates not using the quote equal parameter.  The conversation is at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#quote equal parameter.  What I said was,

    The quote equal issue was discussed at WT:Citing_sources/Archive_32#Use of quote parameter in footnote - a proposal to provide better guidance.  The quote equal parameter serves to characterize and identify the source.  Using the parameter judiciously improves the article for the reader, improves maintainability of the article for editors, and draws attention favorably to the publisher and author.  My experience at Taquan Air was to mostly use one-sentence quotes, but occasionally more up to as many as four sentences. 

Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Well, I expressed my own thoughts on the use of the quote parameter pretty extensively in that conversation, at least as applies to non-free content. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I have to admit though, I have absolutely no idea how it helps the reader any more than the link to the source anyway would. I actually think the Taquan article overdoes it a bit, but that's just me. From trying to go through the RAN CCI (which ws what I alluded to) he seems to use them extremely liberally, which is a problem. Ironically, reading through it the ones arguing for it are using arguments that convince me the option in general is a terrible idea, more than I felt before. Wizardman 20:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm more supportive of allowing quotes than some, although I would like to do it a bit differently than some do it. I've been meaning to write up my thoughts for some time, but they are not totally organized, so I will take a stab at it now, and will try to do a better job at some time.

One of the purported values of including quotes in footnotes is to help support the actual wording used by the editor. I do see value in that, but I also appreciate some of the counter arguments. However, I see another value, that I don't recall seeing listed all that often. A perfect example is illustrated by an article I was reviewing in a CCI. I'll do it without mentioning the specific article, because the point is generic. The editor had a two or three sentence statement in an article, with a supporting reference. I want to look at the reference, not to see if the claim is adequately supported, in fact, almost the opposite point, I want to make sure the material isn't a copy-paste or close paraphrase. However, the link is dead. In fact, two were dead, and I was able to find and replace on of the links, although it took some detective work. I haven't yet found the second source, which means two problems, we have some material in an article that isn't sourced, and we have an open question abut the possibility of close paraphrasing that can't easily be investigated.

Imagine what would happen if the editor had included a sentence or two in a footnote quote. Now, it might be trivial, or at least easy to find the source. In the case of one source, the entity had reorganized their site, so the text existed, just with a different link. I suspect the same for the second, but I don't have an easy way to find it. I tried searching on the material in the article, and didn't get a hit, which is probably good news for the CCI investigation, but it doesn't help me find the source. Fixing dead links isn't our only goal, and it is arguably less important than copyvio issues, but it isn't nothing. We have millions of bad links, and we have more than are reported. I suspect the situation will get worse, until we find a better archiving solution, so I see the inclusion of footnote quotes as a way to help combat link rot. I trust no one thinks I support inclusion beyond fair use guidelines, but I think we could stay well below fair use guidelines, and still generally achieve the first goal of the quote, as well as the second goal I just mentioned.

I also think that extensive quotes in footnotes is ugly, and I would prefer they were hidden, but that's a discussion for anothe day.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I would ask yourself, I think, if the material might be a problem if it were simply used as a quotation in the body of the article. If the answer to that is yes, then putting it in a footnote isn't likely to help. If anything, the fact that we were able to express the information in different words in the article strengthens the claim that we didn't need the quote from a fair use standpoint after all. As Harvard's general counsel notes, "The extent of permissible copying varies with the purpose and character of the use. Taking more of the copyrighted work than is necessary to accomplish the fair user’s salutary purpose will weigh against fair use." I'm not sure we could reasonably argue that copying the original was necessary in case they chose to withdraw the publication any more than I was convinced by the argument in that conversation that we needed the original text because the copyright owner required a fee to see the text.
I don't disagree with your reasons why it would make things easier for us, but I'm not sure that those reasons strengthen our claim to fair use. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this really close paraphrasing?

Can you look at Talk:Botik of Peter the Great/GA1 and tell me if the close paraphrasing comments are correct? None of the statements "four tiny cannons", "sail against the wind" or "pile of junk" appear to be creative. Ryan Vesey 16:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I will, but will have to do so later. Assessing for close paraphrasing takes some reading time, and I'm heading off. :/ I would argue that "four tiny cannons" and "pile of junk" could be quite creative, depending on context. ("sail against the wind" is almost certain to be a common phrase, unless it's not talking about literal sailing, in which case there may be some level of creativity in application.) But if that's all there is, it isn't likely to be an issue. More important is to assess the degree of common "concept and feel" between the two works - the mix of similar phrases and structure are often what add up to an issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I got rid of (substantially rewrote) the claimed offending passages. 7&6=thirteen () 17:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, great! Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
You have so many other fish to fry. 7&6=thirteen () 20:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Artúr Lajos Halmi

Hi, during writing the article in huwiki, I found a wrong link which I corrected. :) --Rlevente (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

trying to fix copyright problem, M Meyerson biography

Hello. I am sorry, I not clever with computers, and I am trying to fix the copyright problem with my bio on the homepage. I asked the administrator to put the sentence you advised, and he said he changed it under "IMPRINT". I hope this is correct. He is a Nigerian living in Germany, and I am a little unclear as to how his English (or German!) really is. For nearly all queries, he merely says, solemnly, "Eet ees nawt suppoooooosed to bee like daht!" Anyway, the corrected sentence is online under that subject, and if you also require it on the opening page, please let me know. Thank you! (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Your web administrator is quite correct that the IMPRINT page works fine. :) Thank you for donating the text; I will close the listing at the copyright problems board. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

clarification for the page concerning Mitzi Meyerson

To whom it may concern--- I authorize the use of my biographical material as taken from my website ( I can send in many many reviews to substantiate the support of my recording projects. Of course it is possible that there might be some review in the world that is not positive, although I have not seen such a document, so if it seems more correct to alter the sentence, "Without exception, these CD documents are received with the highest acclaim, many of them winning international awards and prizes", we can certainly change that to read "These CD documents are received with the highest acclaim, many of them winning international awards and prizes". I agree also that anything on the website may be released for Wikipedia. I beg pardon for my naivite, but I thought that the purpose of having a website at all, was that information about a person could be available to the public at large. I did not know about the rule that the person would have to permit use of anything that was already published on a website. I will ask the administrator to change the wording about the biography and the copyright as suggested. I do not think we have saved earlier versions of the biography, as each change reflected the most current information and there did not seem to be a need to retain all previous and outdated versions.This may take a little bit of time, because he is in the middle of moving house, and you can appreciate how this kind of thing disrupts daily tasks. I will write to him tomorrow and ask that he try to change the wording regarding release of information. I myself am in the middle of running a conference, so please forgive me if I have missed something I need to do. I will put this matter at the top of my list to accomplish by the end of the coming weekend. (Finding hundreds of papers for the tax declaration I need to turn in on Monday morning, and also having a concert Monday evening, are also at the top of my list!) Thank you for your consideration. (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. In terms of the older text, the internet saves pretty much everything, which is how I was able to find the older versions of your biography to begin with. If possible, please let us know when he has placed the licensing statement on the website and please be sure to use the recommended text - "may be released for Wikipedia" is not a license we can use, since we ourselves release our text for any use, including modification, print and commercial use. A license such as the following would resolve all concerns:
Copyright © 2009 - 2012 Prof. Mitzi Meyerson UDK - Berlin. The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
To see the conditions of the license, you may want to review WP:CCBYSA and WP:FDL.
In terms of your note that "I did not know about the rule that the person would have to permit use of anything that was already published on a website", the United States copyright law that governs us grants copyright protection to any creative content the minute it is put in fixed form - without any additional effort on your part, simply publishing it on the internet would protect it. However, beyond that, your website is explicitly reserving rights with your copyright statement at the bottom of the page. :) You are welcome to continue to reserve copyright, of course. We don't ask that you surrender this. Simply that you license the material for use.
Please let me know if you have any questions or encounter any issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Ms Meyerson has done all what you have asked and has reported below, even if as IP (she is not registered in WP). The copyright issue should now be solved, but nothing moves on her page. What else should we do? I do understand the importance of copyright issues, but I find a bit excessve to take many hours from different people to confirm and reconfirm that the author of a biographic text has granted permission to use it.
Would you kindly tell us if anything else still has to be done or, if everything is OK, restore the page?
Thank you for your understanding. --Mahlerite (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Mahlerite, I'm sorry for any delay, but I was given notice that the license statement had been posted 20 minutes ago. Like most people, I am not on Wikipedia 24 hours a day. :) Nothing moves on her page because I had not visited Wikipedia in the interim. I will be happy to take a look at her website and clear the listing if the license is usable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much and apologies for having put you in a hurry - I did not have the precise chronology of the events and I was wandering if something went wrong. Thanks again for your help. --Mahlerite (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
She seems like a pleasant lady, and I'm very happy to help out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, friend

Not sure if you've been following the latest chapter in the Richard A. Norton saga, but I've got a proposed remedy up at his talk page — User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_). Since you've been so closely involved in the work on his CCI case, I was hoping you'd chime in as to whether it satisfies your concerns moving forward. Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've put in two pence there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Attribution help (both volunteer capacity and official)

Hi Maggie! Any chance you have some time to grab both of your hats and come on down to Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#RfC_on_shared_accounts_for_use_by_minors and offer us some detailed knowledge? With your volunteer hat, we could use some information about exactly what the attribution responsibilities of CC-BY licensing are (as it applies to multiple people sharing one WP account). With your WMF hat, Floquenbeam has some questions about why there are a couple of WMF-related accounts that appear to be role accounts but are nevertheless unblocked and allowed to edit in apparent defiance of our role account policy. Any insight you could offer on either of these matters would be awesome, thanks! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Will do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious (and I didn't want to ask at that thread because it'd be a bit off-topic): does your comment imply that if a minor creates an account, adds some content, then requests it be removed because they'd changed their mind about releasing it under a free license, we'd be obliged to honor that request? 28bytes (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Since this bridges my roles, I think I can answer from this account. :) Possibly. See comment by Geoff Brigham at Commons. I feel confident saying it has still never happened. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for the link. My curiosity is satisfied. :) 28bytes (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair use from a speech

While there's no deadline, I'd really like to get this done so I can do my homework and go to bed. Would it be appropriate to use the text of Paul Harvey's So God Made a Farmer speech as fair use in the article? It's found at [25] where it must've been used as fair use. Otherwise should I just summarize it? Ryan Vesey 04:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I created a summary at So God Made a Farmer#The speech. Is there a proper way to reference it? I assume creating a summary isn't original research, as there's no way to really use a source for a summary without copying the source. Ryan Vesey 04:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
So, I'd like to include some part of the speech, would it possibly be appropriate to include the portions of the speech not in the super bowl ad? They can be seen at [26] surrounded in brackets. Actually, I'd love to include a sound clip, would it be appropriate to use one phrase? Ryan Vesey 05:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for piling on the comments, but what do you think of my longer quote of Dale Buss' comment. His wording there was perfect and I couldn't imagine breaking it up. Is it appropriate? Ryan Vesey 05:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Wow! You were busy last night. :) (Me, I was already in bed. :D) I'm not familiar with the speech at all, but you can generally excerpt from speeches the same way you can excerpt from poems - that is, a small percentage as part of critical commentary. Certainly, you can summarize speeches the same way that you summarize any source. "I Have a Dream" is not a bad example to look at for an article discussing a speech. Place the source after the quote or the summary - just cite to the speech. Assuming you weren't there for it (;)), say where you found it. You can use a brief sound clip, certainly, in accordance with Wikipedia:NFC#Audio clips. I would probably stick with the song standard of 30 seconds or 10%, whichever is shorter. Buss' comment doesn't seem at all problematic to me at a glance. It's an attributed opinion, which is exactly the kind of thing you should quote according to WP:NFC. It's a single sentence from a much longer source, so there should be no real issue with the extensiveness of it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The section I chose is about 16 seconds once I learn how to get the clip. The introduction of the quote from the speech feels a bit awkward, is there a way to explain it without editorializing it? Should I use something like "consider the following excerpt:"? Ryan Vesey 17:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I took a shot. See what you think. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the fix, I like it. Ryan Vesey 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm dying for views data to come out, this might be the most viewed article I've ever had, and it's made it's way to the top of a Google search. Ryan Vesey 18:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it better for the sound and the text to be the same or different things? Ryan Vesey 20:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Again I'm piling on the comments, is there any chance that it's PD? Per new information added by another editor, the article is a derivative of a work by an anonymous author. That would mean there's no way a copyright could have been renewed before '89. Ryan Vesey 21:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There's a chance, but we would need evidence of such. And even if it is derivative, the Harvey version might still have copyright in its creative elements. I think it matters less whether the sound clip is the same as the excerpt than if we can find sourced critical commentary discussing it. :) Any chance all this superbowl coverage includes somebody critically analyzing his work? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Atlantic specifically mentioned his style of delivery "he speech was originally delivered in 1978, smack dab in the middle of the Carter era, and with its folksy timbre and talk of God, Paul Harvey's words stood out amid the stream of ads that ranged from salacious to ridiculous to sentimental on 21st-century CBS." It also included a quote from the New York Times that read "a hypnotic timbre, extended pauses for effect, heart-warming tales of average Americans and folksy observations that evoked the heartland, family values and the old-fashioned plain talk one heard around the dinner table on Sunday." It's too bad that the extended pauses aren't visible in the audio clip. I would have included the information from The Atlantic earlier, but it was so short I couldn't think of how to include it without close paraphrasing, so I was waiting for more information to come up. Ryan Vesey 22:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, awesome! That should make a solid fair use defense. I'd look for a section of speech that best reflects that hypnotic timber with extended pauses for effect. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
For it to make a solid fair use defense, it has to be in the article. :D I've added some critical commentary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for putting it in there. I would've gotten it in before nominating for DYK for sure. Ryan Vesey 13:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So, I'm trying to think of a good way to include some material that someone else got to me in an email. Prior to the God Made a Farmer speech, Paul Harvey wrote a similar in concept column in 1975 [27]. That was a blatant lift from this work by "Tex Smith" from Ellensburg, Washington. Apparently, the original was written by "a poor, hardscrabble Kentucky-born farmer named Boston Bernice Blackwood, who served in the First World War and then hacked out a living from the ground in Oklahoma. His "Definition of a Dirt Farmer," ran in The Farmer-Stockman, Vol. LV, No. 15 (November, 1942), Pg 7." I haven't yet been able to figure out how to find that issue of the Farmer-Stockman. In any case, no news organizations have picked up on this. Is there any way to include this in the article without violating WP:OR rules? Until I find the source from the Farmer-Stockman, I can't mention it, but I was considering writing something like

Paul Harvey ran a similar article in the column "A Point of View" for the Gadsden Times on August 26, 1975.(Source to Gadsden Times) Entitled "What it is to be a farmer", Harvey extolled the characteristics of a farmer.(Source to Gadsden Times) Many of the same phrases made their way into his 1978 speech.(No source) This column was largely similar to a September 10, 1949 letter to the editor of the Ellensburg Daily Record written by Tex Smith from Ellensburg, Washington.(Source to Ellensburg Daily Record) Both the 1949 and 1975 column share elements not included in the speech such as the statement that a farmer's wife won't let him starve.(Source to Gadsden Times and Ellensburg Daily Record) In some cases, all three share similar phrases such as "can shape an axe handle from a persimmon sprout".(Source to The Blaze, Gadsden Times, and Ellensburg Daily Record

I've probably walked a mile into OR territory here, but what I'm stating is factual and I'd really prefer not to send it to a news organization and wait for them to write about it. Ryan Vesey 14:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've included it on the advice of Shadowjams but am open to continued discussion if anyone takes issue with it. In addition, what would you think about copying this discussion over to the article talk page? Ryan Vesey 15:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Just in case anyone's curious about my self revert, I realized that the person who gave me the material was Yoni Appelbaum. The author of this article related to the Reddit serial killer hoax and the Edward Owens hoax. I initially misread it and thought Yoni Appelbaum was the teacher who created this hoax and that he had somehow manipulated the primary docs he sent me. I realized my mistake afterwards. Ryan Vesey 16:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)



With regards to copyrights i notice that the law of USA, it being the host of the Wikimedia servers, is followed. I have a question now. Are the servers for all Wikipedias and other projects located in USA itself? For eg: Indian languages Wikipedias. I guess they are. Only Wikilivres is in Canada. But i am not sure. Hence wanted confirmation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all primary servers for Wikipedias and all other projects we host are located in the United States. (I understand we have caching servers in the Netherlands, but they are not primary servers.) Wikilivres is not a Wikimedia Foundation project. :) It belongs to an affiliate but separate organization - Wikimedia Canada. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay! Oh i see! But even being affiliated is good enough i guess. Direct linking of files is possible, just like how Wikipedias link files from Commons. Anyways.... I have another related question. Maybe you don't have the answer, but still. Why doesn't foundation have any project that hosts fair-use images? That way we can restrict multiple uploads on various projects. Also verious images are unnecessarily uploaded under fair use. Wouldn't single database help cut that short? For example, for deceased people, various wikipedias uses different images. That would then be restricted to one. Maybe Commons is a better venue for this question. But do you still have any idea about this? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The Foundation has many projects that host fair-use images - including this one. :) I understand what you mean, though - why isn't there a project like Commons which all projects can access. I suspect it's because fair use laws vary dramatically from country to country. While all of our primary servers are in the US, our articles tend to serve different populations. To create a "fair use" style Commons, I believe we would need the Board to modify its meta:Resolution:Licensing policy, which currently requires each project to create its own (and forbids Commons to do so). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I see! We are in discussion at the Marathi Wikipedia for creating such rationale. And hence came up with this question. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah! It may be easier at first to go ahead and create your own and then, if you want to propose a central one, to work on that on Meta. Good luck with it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

UCSI University

Hi, thanks for the heads-up after I speedied it. I retracted the speedy when I saw someone had stubbed the article almost immediately after I tagged it. The article is now an unreferenced stub - not ideal but at least there's no copyvio. A CORPNAME editor had done some work on it before getting blocked. I found the copyvio due to this Help desk topic. Roger (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


Just a note, here's hoping to see you at Wikimania 2013. I've submitted my travel scholarship request and a presentation proposal (after The_ed17 suggested I do so). I'll probably be one of the few people wearing a batik shirt all day, every day. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL! If I wind up in Wikimania this year, I will most definitely look for your presentation. :) It would be great to have a coffee or something (like Coke, which I actually like to drink). Last year was pretty overwhelming for me, given that it was my first, but I hope that this year I can swing more "hang out" time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Wonder if HK has good bubble tea, but yeah, a coke sounds good. :D I didn't apply for last year because a) I was just registering for my master's degree and b) wasn't sure if I was worth it  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No, not pathetic. I would have the same feeling. :) It's always amazing who feels that way and how looking at them you're inclined to go, "Really?" --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • True, true. The merchandise giveaway seems to have been effective on that principal. J. Alexander should be proud. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi Moonriddengirl! As you both started this request and handled a lot of the checks, I thought I'd let you know that it is complete and that I've archived it. It is nice having problems of a manageable size, although it would,of course, be even better not to have to investigate them at all. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thank you so much. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll find this interesting

This slashdot story picked up on this Ars Technica story of a misbegotten DMCA takedown scam. I do hope it's not the thin edge of the wedge... LeadSongDog come howl! 18:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yikes. At least we can easily challenge takedowns. We make that kind of thing very public and respond quickly when editors issue counter-notice. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

US copyright question & a Zionist conspiracy

I can't find an easy answer to this. The study quoted in exhaustive length in United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations (surely that's too much even if not copyvio?]], at Norman Dodd and at Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) (where an editor seems to be trying to prove that there really is a Zionist conspiracy) is "COPYRIGHT, 1934, BY CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS]]. Is this copyvio? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read through all of it, so this is my at a glance thoughs Isn't it public domain material? It appears to be, which would make it not copyvio. It still seems like an excessive amount just from an editorial standpoint. In addition, pull quotes are inappropriate for the article space. Blockquotes should be used instead. Ryan Vesey 19:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
How could it be PD if it says copyright? The link I found is [28] which of course is a copyvio link of the document if it is copyvio. See also [29]. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that there were two studies. There's people here who know how to check if the copyright of the study was renewed, I don't know how to check. I was looking at the actual Dodd report which appears to be PD as a government source. Whether or not the copyright was renewed on the first source, I'd remove it all. If the copyright was renewed, it does not qualify for fair use. If it wasn't, it's terrible to write an enyclopedia that way. The wall of text on the talk page is a massive TLDR issue. Ryan Vesey 20:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm assuming we mean 1954, based on this. :) The question abut copyright of governmental works is always going to come down to this: was it created by a government employee in the course of his duties? Norman Dodd seems to have been a private individual, which would permit him to copyright his work. As Wikipedia:PD#U.S._government_works notes, "Works produced under a commission from the U.S. government by a contractor are most likely copyrighted." Judging by the copyright symbol, Dodd was diligent about protecting his work (or somebody was). As Ryan notes, the question becomes whether or not he renewed copyright. I would agree with Ryan that it should be removed at least pending evidence of PD. If it's PD, the entire content should probably be placed at Wikisource, with critical commentary in the articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not the Dodd report: "The text he was referring to, the American Historical Association’s Report on the Commission on Social Studies,[8] supports these claims. Excerpts follow:" which is found at [30] which maybe a copyvio link - original at [31]. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Well, it's not old enough that we can assume it's PD. American Historical Association is definitely entitled to copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It was also WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for the offer on article histories, hopefully I won't need to take you up on it. One thing that has struck me during this affair is how overwhelmed CCI is. Since one has to be able to read deleted material to properly investigate, that means CCI is essentially limited to the pool of active administrators, which is shrinking. It's actually a big problem in the making, if it hasn't reached crisis proportions already. No matter how the RAN case resolves itself (and there are several potential outcomes at this point) I hope you think about both alerting the broad community to the problem and will consider new approaches to the solution of cases (sorting by time rather than contribution size and using sampling methods to isolate problems). Deepest respect and best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :)
Just to clarify, CCIs don't begin as reviews of deleted content - they begin as reviews of live material. :) The content is deleted during the process, not before. So, looking at this one - Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hydeblake - if you look at any article that has not yet been processed, you'll see what they all looked like at the time the case was opened (the only exception to this would be if content was deleted before the CCI, which is unlikely, since the software wouldn't list those diffs, or if they were cleaned while the CCI is being opened and the software is underway). Taking Richard's CCI in specific, it is not a complete list of diffs because anything that was deleted before the CCI isn't there. Because CCIs review live content, admin tools aren't needed at all, unless to remove problems. Even then, problems are often kept in the history, only rev deleted when they are extensive or deleted if (during a copyright problems board listing) the articles are rewritten from scratch.
Does that make more sense? I want to be sure that the CCI process is itself understood. :) It was never meant to be limited to admins (except in opening and closing cases, which can also be done by clerks), and in fact there is an invitation that is frequently given to wikiprojects when articles in their purview are up for review trying to get as many eyes as possible on them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Just chiming in to agree on two points, first I did run into someone who was under the impression that CCI's were only for admins, so it doesn't hurt to keep mentioning that the key is an understanding of copyright, and that doesn't mean one has to be an admin (except for the minor exceptions you noted), and second, while one does have to be an admin to see deleted text, I don't recall needing to use admin tools in any CCI.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm all for anything that brings us more people in the area. Maybe we can administer copyright tests to newly registered users and require CCI work if they pass? :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Butting in: hi MRG - my feeling is that it is easier to clean a full CCI with the tools. The small bit of work that's been done on the ILT CCI (still far from cleared) was really only possible on my end because admins helped. I've often thought I'd probably be more active in clean up if I didn't have to ask for admin help. FWIW. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Have you and/or MER-C (talk · contribs) considered RFA? :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Good question. :D Beyond that, anybody have any ideas how we can make things easier for non-admins? We really need to make this work as easy as possible for anybody with an understand of the policies and practices. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Just as a thought, there - identifying what isn't copyvio takes up as much time as identifying what is. While having the bit would make cleaning easier, or at least better, for most of the CCIs I've seen more time is spent adding the little crosses than ticks. :)
If there was to be a change in process, one thought would be to emphasis the value of any editor identifying diffs that are or are not a problem, even if they aren't able to clean them - giving us a cross, tick or flag, as opposed to the current cross or tick model. - Bilby (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 22:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

RAN case at ArbCom

Hi again. A brief heads-up that I've dropped your name in my evidence article in the Richard Arthur Norton case at ArbCom. While this document is not yet final, I expect it will remain. LINK. Thank you for your work on the case. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

And you. :) I will of course offer whatever I can. I have never (that I recall) been invoked in an ArbCom case, but stand ready to assist. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!

Oh MRG. That you have time, patience, dedication, and energy to answer questions from beginners, noobs, novices, and neophytes in addition to everything else you do... well, it's just a reflection on how much you care about this project (and all things copyright). So, here's a badge, which can only hint at the awesome impact you have around here daily.

Great Answer Badge Great Answer Badge
Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum.

A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Ocaasi t | c 22:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

awww. :) Thank you! I try to pop by the Teahouse now and again, but even when I don't, I have it on my watchlist. When I see a subject line that seems to relate to my experience, I try to help out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi Moon, could you please let me know what you think about the other two articles I found and whether you think a user investigation is warranted. Mkdwtalk 07:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, I didn't check back on that. :) I'm only here for a few minutes at the moment, but will come by later today. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

CCI update

I got a lot of help on this one, which was great to see. Looks like Ktr is helping out on other CCIs now, and has been very beneficial there :) --Wizardman 04:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fabulous news! :D (And a great application of IAR.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Wizardman did the heavy lifting, but I wanted to note that it was more fun working on it when one could see others working on it as well. I've worked on a couple here I was the only one, and it is hard to keep up the enthusiasm. While I'm not yet ready to return to RAN until the quote issue is sorted out, if Wizardman has his sights on another one, maybe we could get a few of us working together, and knock it off.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to collaborate on one, at least a bit. :) Name your poison! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll give deference to Wizardman to pick the next (non-RAN) CCI. I'll join in, and I am about to invite someone else.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
(tps) I've been working on Racepacket and it's nearly half done. If anyone wants to pop in and help they would be welcome. It's not been a very difficult case, considering how long it's been languishing in the queue. Best, -- Dianna (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I have an idea on getting a big project going copyright-wise, but right now I'm making sure it's feasible. In the meantime Racepacket might be a good one to collab on, since it's an easier one with sources provided. I'll probably be doing a bit of work on RAN and IEP as well to get those two knocked down a bit. Wizardman 23:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Racepacket it is, then. I'll go poke for a few minutes before work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Userfy request for Musée Granet


I recognized your name at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles and wonder, in case I don't make more headway with my request at User_talk:Phantomsteve#Deletion_of_Mus.C3.A9e_Granet, if you might userfy or else take a careful look yourself. I'm genuinely baffled, and wondering if the copying was from WP. Sparafucil (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to try to help resolve this. :) I notice that the article was created as a split from another, but unfortunately the attribution you supplied does not conform to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. You need to provide a direct link in the edit summary to the original article - this is important for attribution reasons, as our contributors all consent to permitting their work to be copied with such a link. It's also helpful because it prevents ambiguity. You name an article, but we don't actually have an article at Aix. :D I found it, of course.
The "source" indicates that it was published on July 5, 2012. Looking at the parent article at Aix-en-Provence of July 4, it's obvious that we're dealing with a {{backwardscopy}}.
I've restored the article - I'm sure it'll be uncontroversial since WP:CSD#G12 doesn't apply and User:Phantomsteve is a very reasonable guy. Please note the template I put on the talk page - it's not essential like the link is in the edit summary - but it's a very good idea and probably would have helped prevent this misunderstanding. I've also added the link in the edit summary. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm. I recognize much of that content as having been written by me. Mathsci (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
If you want, you have standing to issue a takedown. :) Or alternatively just to ask them to provide proper attribution and licensing, per WP:MIRROR. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that's more trouble than it's worth. The standalone article could certainly be improved/expanded in a way that was not possible in the original article because of space limitations. Some of the information is a little more up-to-date than in the French article. Mathsci (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mathsci! I hope you might work on the article yourself and am very glad to see you get proper credit for what I certainly couldn't have much improved. The trivial original edit I recalled was actually made on [different page]. Thanks Moonriddengirl for the link to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia; I had somehow long ago learned about Template:Translated page but don't think I have never come across Template:copied before. Sparafucil (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Lajos Bruck

Hi. Mea Culpa. I have now read the notability requirements for artists. Thanks for the note. Gbawden (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


...for your support and offer of help on copyright issues; you'll be hearing from me! All the best, Miniapolis 22:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! You will be heartily welcome for that or even other work. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

OK to use French WP article for new article on Joe S. Bain?

Hello again, MRG.

I was thinking of starting a Joe S. Bain article but see that it was deleted by you earlier for copyright reasons on 14:06, 30 September 2010.

I saw that there is such an article at (French WP), which has a nice translation feature & which I reproduce below (without italics etc.).


From (French WP, using its translation):

Joe Bain

Joe S. Bain (1912-1991), American economist specializing in the industrial economy .

Training and career [ edit ]

After studying at UCLA , he spends his Ph.D. at Harvard in 1940. It will most of his career at the University of Berkeley , where he taught including the industrial economy . His two major works are Barriers to New Competition , where he developed the idea of a barrier to entry and his classic "Industrial Organization" (Industrial Economics) in 1959. He also served in 1960 as director of studies at the California Water Industry . In 1982 he was elected Distinguished Fellow of the American Economic Association and recognized as the father of the industrial economy .

Work [ edit ]

"The Profit Rate as Measure of Monopoly Power", 1941 Quarterly Journal of Economics. "Market Classifications in Modern Price Theory", 1942, Quarterly Journal of Economics

The Economics of the Pacific Coast Petroleum Industry , 1944.

Pricing, Distribution and Employment: Economics of year enterprise system , 1948

"Price and Production Policies", In: Howard Ellis (Ed.), A Survey of Contemporary Economics (Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1948, pp129-173

"A Note on Pricing in Monopoly and Oligopoly," 1949, American Economic Review "Relation of Profit Rate to Industry Concentration: American Manufacturing, 1936-1940", 1951, Quarterly Journal of Economics

"Conditions of Entry and the Emergence of Monopoly", 1954, in Chamberlin, editor, Monopoly and Competition

"Economies of Scale, Concentration and the Condition of Entry in Twenty Manufacturing Industries", 1954, American Economic Review

Barriers to New Competition: their character and consequences in manufacturing industries , 1956. Industrial Organization , 1959.

"Chamberlin's Impact on Microeconomic Theory", in Kuenne, editor, Monopolistic Competition Theory

International Differences in Industrial Structure , 1966

Northern California's Water Industry , with RE Caves and J. Margolis, 1966.

Essays on Economic Development , 1970.

Essays on Price Theory and Industrial Organization , 1972.

Environmental Decay: Economic causes and remedies , 1973.

"Structure Versus Conduct as Indicators of Market Performance", 1986, Antitrust Law and Econ Rev

Industrial Organization: a treatise , with TD Qualls, 1987.

External link [ edit ]

Biography of Joe Bain at the University of California

Read Online Economy Portal

Categories  :American economistDoctor from Harvard UniversityBorn in 1912Death in


Is that essentially identical the deleted article? If not, that would be an easy way to start a new article, with due credit. I assume that French WP would have no problem. The article is so routine it's hard to see that it would pose a problem, but I'd welcome your opinion either way.

Thank you for your assistance. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. :) It's nothing like the deleted article, and it would be great to have a new one. When an article is deleted for copyright reasons, of course, it doesn't cause any issues with the subject. Not only will the French Wikipedians not mind, but it's part of Wikipedia's universal license. :D All you have to do is follow the steps at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia to make sure that content is attributed properly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Good news, indeed. And fortunate for me on a quick response. I'll cross all my t's on the above. The Industrial organization lead will look a little less red for that. Thank you again. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Histmerge/copy-paste question

Hi MRG! I'm working on a CCI and I stumbled across a situation (again!) that I'm not sure how to fix. User:Brucewayneent did a copy-paste move from Buono to Buono (surname), then redirected the article there, but without attributing the information when he did the copy-paste. Another user then moved the surname page to Buono (disambiguation) and re-re-directed the Buono page. It was then decided that Buono should point to the primary topic (?) and so it was re-re-re-directed to Buono!, where it currently sits. My question is: does the history of these four articles/redirects show proper attribution, and is the history in the correct spots? If not, what should be done? Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. :) I did the cleanup. I deleted Buono and restored the earlier edits before the copy-paste move. I moved this into Buono (disambiguation). This required deleting that article, of course. So after the move, I restored the deleted contents at the disambiguation page and put the last edit back on top. Then I restored the contents at Buono after the original copy and paste move. All should be proper now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Huh - interesting. I'll try to remember that particular series of moves for when I come across this situation again! Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

IP signing as you

There's something weird going on at Talk:Peter-No-Tail and the Great Treasure Hunt, not sure if revived edit from a deleted page or cut'n'paste renamed or what, I don't have time to look further into it. DMacks (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems to have been taken from a completely unrelated page. :/ I'll look into it, thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

The Invisible Barnstar The Working Man's Barnstar The Guidance Barnstar
The Multiple Barnstar
For your incessant work as a volunteer responder, helping frustrated people of all kinds with their Wikipedia-related problems, always maintaining a cheerful demeanor with them, notwithstanding the extreme frustration at times. You are a credit to the project, thank you! -- Avi (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Avi. That is so kind of you. I'm humbled. And grateful. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  • 👍 Like Agree, agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Old discussion moved far, improper image (again)

Way back in this discussion, there was an article named WP:Images with a Talk page. It has moved a couple of times; my best guess is here. So I'd like to add the moved link to your Talk page archive 39 for future reference, if you don't mind. Apropos of that, the subject of improper images has popped up again at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#User-made_paintings_of_a_subject_in_infobox? . --Lexein (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, have at it. :) (And fwiw, I've nominated that image for deletion because I am concerned about its copyright status. It appears to be a derivative work of this photograph. If it turns out the original photograph it was based on is free, then we won't have to use a painting. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair use of short liturgical texts

There's a discussion going on at Talk:English versions of the Nicene Creed at which you might want to comment. It's on the CP backlog, but several people have started talking about the copyright issues. Thanks. --JFH (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry for the backlog issues and have made a note at the talk page, which I will watch. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


I see that New Zealand Coaches Hall of Fame matches this page which is a Wiki. I couldn't find any copyright notices at that place, so my first inclination was to delete. However, they were created within minutes of each other, by the same person, apparently relying on this as a valid source, and no paraphrasing issues, so I am now inclined to accept it. Do you agree?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say it's ok given that it's pretty clearly the same person posting it on the wiki. Wizardman 17:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of roles advice


Just wanted to reach out to say that I think you should not have voted in the Carrite RFA. To pre-empt, have never had an issue with you and have only seen you act with rectitude and kindness anywhere on the site. It's just a small point, but I wanted you to think about it. Phillipe made comments in his official role and then you participated actively (including voting) in your unofficial role. And you are definite colleagues (I had the impression you reported to him, or at least at one time least worked actively on work projects together). Note, that voting in an RFA that the WMF has an issue with is quite a different thing that just editing an article as an editor. Obviously you must have decided it was OK (since you did it ;-)) and since you also made comments about "bridging the role". But, net net, like to at least let the opposite point bounce around and percolate with you...even if you disagree now, it may resonate later.

BTW, I am VERY impressed (and not saying that as light praise) by both you in working with RfB and with him in his gentlemanliness in working with you. About the direct opposite of the usual "post a black retired box after RFA" experience...and just one more reason you impress me and why I think Tim deserved the tools for full time use.

My vote was not even considering the whole single time thingie. I realize that there were sufficient people who were concerned with the strangeness of the one time RFA and the content viewing that the RFA failed. And accept it. And that it was close. being close is a reason why your vote may have really had an influence...which is almost another reason for why not to do it when conflicted. At the end of the day, I thought why should it be a problem for him to view the files if we let anonymous 14 year olds do so. But it's academic anyhow since he has access to the files for the case help. And my comment on role conflict would be the same even if I agreed with you on the substance of the issue.


I would understand your concern, TCO, and I appreciate the kind way you've presented them. Fortunately for my conscience, I'm afraid that you're confused on the timeline. :) I participated in the RFA prior to any involvement by Philippe and would not have done so if I had imagined that the WMF would have been consulted. Questions about the appropriateness of the RFA in the WMF's view were not raised until after my participation, and not by me. I had not considered it an issue myself until others raised them and left me less certain.
To make sure this is clear, the timeline went like so:
  • My first involvement in the RFA (my "vote" and a note higher up); 13:35, 7 February 2013
  • Coren raises the question about the appropriateness of the RFA: 14:39, 7 February 2013
  • I express my opinion on that subject 15:37, 7 February 2013 and modify it after further input 15:51, 7 February 2013
  • On the talk page, I first clarify a question that seems unrelated to me at the time about special usergroups at 15:16, 7 February 2013. The bridging of my role comes only in my knowledge of the reasons why special usergroups are limited.  :) As Moonriddengirl only, it's honestly unlikely that I would have known or cared about that, since it's not part of the area where I work. Once the appropriateness of the RFA is raised, I addressed that as well on 16:29, 7 February 2013 noting that I had not considered it inappropriate myself but was no longer sure. At no point did I oppose on the talk page or the RFA on those grounds. I simply lost my certitude that it wasn't an issue and withdrew that opinion.
  • I was asked if the WMF would weigh in on that specific question at 17:00, 7 February 2013, and Philippe did so at 2125 7 February 2013. I do not know if he read my !vote, but his opinion in no way reflects the question of involvement, which was my entire focus.
I did not contribute again to the main page of the RFA after the WMF were invoked, but do not consider that their later requested involvement constitutes a conflict in my earlier participation. I didn't foresee that they would be asked to participate, but their participation did not seem to me to invalidate my earlier participation. This is especially so because the question they were asked to address (whether the process was equal weight) had nothing to do with my oppose, which was simply based on involvement.
My only participation in the RFA after that point was at its talk page in an unrelated question which was relevant to my own opposition on the grounds that uninvolved editors should be able to see the evidence as well as Carrite: [32].
I'm very careful not to cross my roles in any way, and I appreciate that it would be a concern for you, too. I hope that the timeline above clarifies and resolves your concerns. I wouldn't want you to think I had acted inappropriately, as certainly it would never be my intention to do so. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good timeline and ethics. Serious.

It ended up kind of a hashed mess given how he came into the discussion. I'm not sure if you should have anticipated that or if he screwed up. He should really step back from communitai dramah (blocking, RFA, ARBCOM...all that crap) and work more on reader experience. (but I won't get too much into dissing Sue's lieutenant. Even though this is the non-WMF half of you I am talking to.  ;-))

Like why the heck can grannie upload videos to youtube and FB and here she can't even view them. We tell her to download a new browser! She has no clue how to change the IE that Dell loaded on her box and will not/should not. That is outrageously bad that we think that is how to help multimedia (officiiously telling more than 50% of the surfing puplic to change their machine!) It's like Dilbert help desk from hell stereotypically bad. Just allow mp3 as an ALTERNATE format (could still have ogg required as a repository file for every single video if you are worried about total freedom, but let both formats exist together, rather than excluding the one that is actually viewable.) It's almost like the little CS free-tards communitai are trying to change the public behavior. (Wiki does not have that much sway..sorry, people will just move on to other content, when you tell them to load a new file to watch something.)

TCO (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

P.s. I saw something interesting just now (from 2011) where someone was talking about "crown copyright" to you. It got me thinking about something radical (but make sense). Why not ALLOW CC-NC images!? 90%+ of all the usage that people do of Wiki content is ONLINE Wiki viewing. And the reader experience would have huge increase with the many more photos available (not to mention the benefit to allowing photogs some rights to their content). Commercial use of the content (printing books or using them in a work presentation) is really a pretty small use of our content. And there is already a hassle factor involved with attributions (for CC-BY-SA) and with fair use exceptions for the re-users. Plus all the text is still available.

I'm afraid I only have speculation on why we don't permit NC images based on reading I've done. Obviously that was decided long before I arrived. :D From what I understand, our forefathers (gender nonspecifically) were dedicated to making sure our content was as free as possible and would remain as free as possible. They chose to require commercial reuse in dedication to this - anticipating in part that people might need to sell derivatives to recover the costs of making the content available. Now that we've gone that way, I think we'd need a Board resolution to change it, and I suspect they wouldn't consider it without some serious community consensus.
In terms of Philippe, I think he'd be right there with you on improving usability, but - alas - he's not in engineering. (I know engineering is right there with you, too. They're working on all kinds of initiatives, such as visual editor, which I hope'll help. I don't know about video capabilities.) As Director of Community Advocacy, Philippe sometimes gets the really fun job of delivering good news, but when he delivers news that isn't quite as welcome community drama is inevitable. :/ Unfortunately, too, the areas that generate the most community drama are likely to relate directly to his work with Legal & Community Advocacy. The legal team cares about stuff like admin processes and who gets to view deleted content because they think it's important to the legal safety of the project. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

User page move

I'm highly offended and disgusted that User:Fivebills moved a draft user page of mine User:Ww2censor/Guy Bullock into mainspace without asking if it was even ready for primetime. I had just started it a few days previously and wanted to add quite a bit more. Can this be easity reverted, even though he has made more edits to the now mainspace page Guy Bullock? I have posted my indignation on his talk page. Your advise plaese MRG. ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it back, pending consensus. He had edited the page before moving it - since userspace is not proprietary, I presume you have no issue with that. His edits to the page after moving it are not substantive. He does, of course, have the right to create a page on the guy and in accordance with the license of your text even to use your text in doing so, but it is not collegial to do so without discussion when there's no reason to believe that you have simply abandoned a draft. Your reasons for not wanting it in user space - so you can get it into shape for DYK - seem sound to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I am of course happy for him to start a page himself or participate in improving mine draft to make it ready for primetime but a simple talk page request would have been appreciated and positively welcomed. We can do with all the constructive editors we can get. Thanks again. ww2censor (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

CCI update

I ended up spending all day on this one plowing through everything. Was one of those where once you delve into it deep enough it's easy to spot the clean and problem ones. One left from 2009, but there's waaay more articles to deal with on that one. --Wizardman 03:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Woooow. :D You are a powerhouse. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Very impressive!!!--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

About Corkscrew landing

Hi Mooney,
Yes, the message I left on the talk page was confusing indeed. I think I was taking "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use..." possibly a bit wrong-headedly. I reviewed the article, and was concerned that I myself may have used close paraphrasing. The fault of being over-critical of ones own contributions is, as faults go, not one of the worst. I'll fix the message up very soon.
--Shirt58 (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Oh, I see. :) I have no problem with doing a gut check on that for you. I honestly just wondered if you'd put it on the wrong page. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that - all fine now. Truth be told, in informal writing, I write like I speak - with lots of formally incorrect dashes - like Emily Dickinson's poetry - and the person I most like poking fun at is myself - and person I most like poking fun at after myself is... everyone else in the world. Face-smile.svg Thanks again.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Michael Crow


I work for Michael Crow, President of ASU and one of the things I keep an eye on is the Wikipedia page about him ( I noticed that you locked the page for copyright violations. Can you give me some additional information about this and let me know how this can be rectified? Thank you for your time.

Sean Storrs Constituent Communications Coordinator Arizona State University Office of the President 480-965-9582 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is more information about this on the talk page of the article (see Talk:Michael M. Crow), but in a nutshell we cannot accept content from other websites until and unless they are licensed compatibly with our own. Arizona State University of course has the right to license the biography for reuse; Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials discusses how. Even in that case, however, it may not be appropriate for university employees to replace sourced content with their official biography. Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize what reliable sources that are not connected with notable subjects have to say about them, using connected sources only sparingly. Content such as this - unless quoting an unrelated and reliable source - is against Wikipedia's core content policies: "He is guiding the transformation of ASU into one of the nation’s leading public metropolitan research universities, an institution that combines the highest levels of academic excellence, inclusiveness to a broad demographic, and maximum societal impact—a model he terms the 'New American University.'" Please review our guideline on conflict of interest for more information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Our content is subject to Florida, Virginia or California laws?

Hello MRG. Please see Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Florida → Virginia. Since I noticed you had edited the foundation: Terms of Use I am guessing that you know something about this. One might assume that the state jurisdiction matters for things such as libel, slander or child pornography, since U.S. copyright is federal. If this turns out to be a hard question, perhaps we should revise the WP:Edit warring policy to not mention any particular state or its laws. The only way this makes any difference for the policy is whether people who say they are reverting an article because the content violates some law should have their reverts counted against 3RR. Perhaps it doesn't matter what state we specify in that case. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask the legal team. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Note left there in work mode. The legal team spontaneously suggests your approach - not mentioning any particular state or its laws. Evidently, the situation is complex. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Some copyvio additions

I've just looked into some page histories and found that a large swath of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (season 1) and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (season 2) had been edited to use copyvio episode summaries from across the Internet. I also discovered that at one point you cleaned up such edits by an individual I believe to be related to the issue, Jparend (talk · contribs) now editing as Spooks1 (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (he hit a bunch of other Power Rangers episode lists but I caught them all), and I was wondering if you would not mind helping out in cleaning up the page histories. There's a lot of them, though, and it would involve apparently deleting at least 50 revisions from the season 1 and season 2 pages, while a significantly smaller number from the other seasons/series' pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done cleanup. Thanks for catching this before it got worse - it's much harder to clean such articles after time passes when others have made more good faith additions to content that I hate to roll back. :/ I'm not 100% sure it's the same guy - they so far only overlap on two articles - but it does seem quite plausible. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is related. Both IPs operate from the same place, and this IP has done the same things to the same articles. I suspect that he or she got tired of fixing up the episode summaries we have and decided to just replace them wholesale with "better". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm not sure about some of the summaries still there because I'm finding them similar to other websites, but who knows who came first and second. I only caught it because Spooks1 blanked at least 2 articles on my watch list.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Section of an article possibly a copyvio

Is there a specific template to tag a section in an article where part of the text was copied from a website without proper attribution? I deal mostly with non-free files and don't know much about copy-pasted text. I brought up the issue at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Nippon Oil, but I am unsure whether that is the correct venue or whether that is the correct approach regarding this issue at all. If the text should be simply removed, just let me know and I will do it or I could rewrite it if that is a better approach. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Copyvio?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Is this template also for cases where only part of a page is possibly a copyvio, such as in this case, or is it only for cases where the entire page is a copyvio? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I tagged the text as a copyvio. If I messed something up, just let me know. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

Page corrections

Hi, thank you so much for getting Aerohive Network's page up. I have made changes to concerns you have raised. I was wondering if you could take a look again and provide more guidance on where to go. Thanks again. Gneda (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

reviewing eyes
Your name was mentioned in relation to PumpkinSky ("... someone whose conversant in the copyvio area should be added to his list of mentors, someone like Moonridden girl."). I would appreciate highly if you reviewed just one article in his CCI (of 11 left of 729) and join the distinguished list of reviewers. I have been labelled an "absolute supporter of the copyright violator" and would live happier without that, an absolute supporter of a person. - Repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (21 April 2009, 7 June 2009, 20 January 2011)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 37th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style. I miss him again and put "Letting go of the past" on top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) We've got a drive going on another CCI at the moment, but I will certainly try to review at least one more over the weekend. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
No worries, that was quoting last year ;) - but you could express that you miss him who feels not wanted on this project, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I hate to ask, but why did he leave? :/ Glancing at his talk page, is it related to his withdrawing an RFA? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Why, I don't know. The RfA was described as an attack page, and the attacks continued on his talk, just scroll. Some people could take/ignore it ("the myriad levels of deception and rampant socking", - I probably could), he couldn't, why I don't know, same (over-)reaction as Rlevse. The main attacker, whose main contributions were opposes to RfAs, left also. The other wasn't elected to be an arb, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer to drop him a private note. While I will leave my respects for people who have passed away, I feel a little uncomfortable with feeling like I'm pressuring somebody who chose to go. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Completely up to you, - I personally think that saying "I miss you" is no pressure, but that may be my lack of language. If you want to drop a private note, use the other account, PumpkinSky email is disabled. - Different topic: I was referred you your expertise, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Village of Wayne, IL

Please see talk for Village of Wayne...I believe the copyright issue lies with "your" source, not with our edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherbeach (talkcontribs) 18:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Wayne, Illinois. (Please note that this edit did not involve content that you placed. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Responded Talk:Wayne, Illinois. Thanks for clarification it wasnt me -Otherbeach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherbeach (talkcontribs) 19:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for TALK response Otherbeach (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) BJS

Cobweb Painting

Many thanks for your measured, constructive, and helpful assistance. Rosser Gruffydd 21:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Bernard J. Taylor

Hi Moonriddengirl: for your perusal, this bio appears to use large tracts of text from, which accounts, in part, for the article's tone. I'm not sure that the Virgin Encylopedia of Film and Stage Musicals constitutes a reliable source, but nonetheless, this appears to have been in place for fact, this has been a copyright violations since its inception in 2007 [33], which makes me wonder if speedy deletion is in order. Your thought appreciated. Thank you and cheers, (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I've pretty much stubbed it; there was really no way to excise it and much of what has been subsequently added is clearly COI editing. :/ Thanks for finding the issue! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Well done. I found the problem; you performed the surgery. Very best, (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi Moodenriddengirl, and thank you for answering my question at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations. Do you have an answer to my question there about ICD? With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, coming to look! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Need some help with temp pages

Hi MRG (or any of your talk page stalkers who are also admins). I've been working on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 January 18, and there are some temp pages that need to be deleted. I repaired the articles myself in situ using much better sources, since the temp pages are basically unusable. They were all created by the same (currently blocked) editor who had introduced the original copyvio in all three articles. The editor pasted the entire articles onto the temp pages not just the passages where they had added copyvio and then re-worked only the passage they had added, thus creating attribution problems. One of them (Talk:Kindergarten/Temp) also reproduces the verbatim copyvio from another section in the article which had been added by someone else. The "rewrite" of the relevant passages is also still too closely paraphrased from the less than ideal sources. The temp pages needing deletion are:

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done (talk page stalker) Done and gone :) MLauba (Talk) 11:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, O kindly TPS! :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. :D Thanks to both of you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Admin abuse

Two sysops claimed that I made no persistent contributions. This admin agreed with them, without doing any research beyond her talk page and memory of drama boards. All three (user:sarcasticidealist, user:jehochman, and user:moonriddengirl) should lose their adminships, because all three claimed to be doing research that none of them did. (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
GYPSY MIJET ESCAPES JAIL: Small Medium at Large.

See WP:ADMINABUSE. I'm afraid that it does require being explicit, however. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk)22:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


Hey MRG. This is for both you and TPS, so I'll just leave it here. I've had the idea of potentially doing a copyright drive for some time. Needless to say, 90% of the planning was figuring out any area that could be ripe for abuse, or people flying through articles just to do it. I came up with what I think could work; if I asked users who have worked at a certain CCI to refocus on that and make just the one the subject o a drive, it could go well. If successful then we could move on from there, and if not we at least would know precisely where any damage may have happened since the scope will be limited. Thoughts? Wizardman 23:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a great idea. Any progress is progress, and it sounds like a good way to avoid the serious issues you raise. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki needs updating

Hi MRG (and talk page stalkers). I notice that Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki has only listed the articles edited up to 21 January 2013. I have discovered that since then, this editor has continued to add huge chunks of text probably copied from other Wikipedia articles into multiple other articles (about 30 of them) with no attribution. They will all have to be checked and repaired. See [34]. This went on right up to their latest indef blocking on 20 February. These need to be added to the CCI so they can be systematically checked, but I haven't got a clue of how to add them.

So far, no admin has unblocked this user despite three requests, but I left a note at ANI to the effect that if anyone does unblock, I strongly recommend that it be on condition that this user not copy any text from one article into another for at least 4 months. I can't believe how many hours of editor time are going to be consumed to clean up after just one person. SMirC-sad.svg Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Added in. The sad thing is that this is one of the smaller and simpler CCIs out there. At least this is one of those where if you're not sure you can just blank his diff and continue on. Wizardman 16:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, goodness. :( I see Wizardman has added in the diffs. I'll see if I can pitch in on that one after I glance up further on the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair use images

Does our policy on fair use images reflect the WMF postition on US laws? I would like to upload a copyrighted image of Casper (cat) as fair use. The copyright holder may wish to contest its use on en:wp. Do we have a legal right to use it or should we avoid any issues with the copyright holder?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you're taking it from a commercial source, such as a news agency, its use would be contrary to NFCC#2, and deletable under CSD#F7. J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
If I find a source that is non-commercial and use a low resolution image would that clear the NFCC#2, and it is the subject of the article so it may yet clear CSD#F7. I did ask at fair use image review and they recommended an image of the cat actually on a bus or getting into it. --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd imagine that there are mobile phone images and the like bouncing around the web. The book cover would also probably be acceptable, but I appreciate that it isn't actually a photo. Perhaps try to find a way to contact Casper's owner? Bit of a long shot, but she may have some photos she's willing to share. J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I won't make waves at this point. I see on the talk page in the banner section that we do have editors in the area. I will see if any are active and leave notes on talk pages. Resolved and thanks for responses.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because.
Hi. :) Because of the resolved tag, I didn't actually read through this one earlier. But now that I do - and thanks, J, for the good advice - I'd have to second it. Sometimes owners of photographs are pretty happy to share. If you find one on Flickr or suchlike, you might contact the owner. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I received an email reply from one of the media images. They are very happy to provide one with a cc-by licence. I already prepped a page for it at commons. Can I just forward the permission email she sent me to OTRS at commons or does she need to send one as well? I forgot to ask her permission to forward but I will if needed. File:Casper the Commuting Cat.jpg--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It's often acceptable for you to send it in, but generally I think it's a good idea to have them do it themselves. If there's something off about the permission, it'll be a whole lot easier for the agent to negotiate directly with them than to go through you. :) One successful approach I've seen - some people will email them the permission form, cc'ing OTRS, and ask them to "reply all" with their digital signature. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The photo editor at The Herald is balking now and wants to hoard an image with very little commercial value. If he doesn't give in then I may find the email of his CEO and see if Mr. Wales wants to ask him.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Very short quotes

Can you take a look at Austin Dabney and the talk page? Nyttend argues that using the phrase "black patriot's grave" in quotes, is a violation of fair use policies. I disagree, but don't have the time to dig through the policy to state why. For reference, the first diff changed by Nyttend was [35]Ryan Vesey 00:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree - it's an attributed point of view. From a fair use stance and in accordance with WP:NFC, it should be fine: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." That it is a point of view is amply illustrated by all the talk page comments regarding whether or not it's right and what it means. :) That said, I'm with User:Noleander in the third opinion there that we should more strongly indicate that it is their opinion, perhaps something more like:
Bob Galer, one of the organization members arranging the ceremony, noted their belief that Dabney's was the first "black patriot's grave" to be so marked in Georgia.
--Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
for your excellent work on the Andrew Lawrence-King article Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

An old press release

Hello Moonriddengirl, A copyright question. On Saturday I was trying to help a newbie who is developing what will hopefully become an article about a film and video group that were important for a few years in the mid 1970s, filming NY punk rock bands before they were famous. The editor has a 1975 press release from The Kitchen, a press release which is about the film and video group. He has made an image of the press release and he wants to both upload it to Commons and use it as a source to back up the article. What is the copyright status of press releases? Any idea? Can he upload the image or not? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) The last I heard, copyright on press releases is still unclear. We treat them as copyrighted here. They are created for wide publication, but that doesn't mean that the creator would be comfortable with the press release being commercially released or modified. In this case, there is the complication of the date. Where was the press release published? Did it carry a copyright statement itself or was it covered by copyright statement in the publishing document? Given the date of the release, this is an important part in determining if the material is copyrighted. If there was notice either on the press release itself or on the publication in which it was included, it would be protected for 95 years from publication. He might ask at WP:MCQ, but the more information he can offer on the publication the better. But it isn't necessarily to upload it to cite it, of course. It's still a reliable source even if it's copyrighted. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank Moonriddengirl. As was standard at the time, the press release was in the form of typing on a sheet of paper (possibly a Xerox) that was sent out by The Kitchen to all the newspapers in New York, I suppose by mail or fax or messenger. So I don't know if that is considered "published" or not, and I don't know how the new editor would go about citing it, if it even can be cited (?). I am sure it did not have a copyright statement on it; he showed me his image of it, which he has not uploaded yet because I told him to wait because I did not know if there is a copyright problem with it or not. Invertzoo (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
If they sent it to publications without a copyright notice on it, it should count (I believe) as published, and given the date would not have copyright protection. (Copyright notices are no longer required, but were then.) But I would really recommend he seek second opinion at WP:MCQ. :) Where did he get this press release, do you know? If it wasn't published, there are likely to be issues with it as a source regardless of whether or not he uploads it. :/ As you know, Wikipedia:Verifiability requires published sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
He got it from The Kitchen themselves I believe, back then. I did just now leave a note at MCQ about it. Copies of this press release were sent out to newspapers back then, if that means it is considered to have been "published". I am not sure how exactly one would cite it though. I will let you know what MCQ says when I get a reply. Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Pretty much what I said above. :) It's largely down to copyright notice, in that time period. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Copied from WP:MCQ note on "New image of an old press release"

This correspondence is copied from the WP:MCQ page:

What is the copyright status of a new photograph of an old (1977) press release? A new editor wants to upload his 2013 photograph of a paper press release from The Kitchen, dated October 6th and 8th 1977. The editor has not uploaded the image yet because I told him I want to check to see if there would be a copyright problem or not. I don't even know if a paper press release (which was sent out to journalists) is a "publication" or not. Invertzoo (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that's a publication, and fully subject to copyright; taking a photo of it would not enable us to circumvent the copyright involved. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Unless the press release had a copyright notice, which is highly unlikely since that would defeat its purpose, it should be PD, template "pd-pre1978." Press releases were intended to be published freely.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Good point, watcher! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much Wikiwatcher and Orangemike! So it is indeed in the Public Domain, and should be templated as "pd-pre1978" when it is uploaded. Great! Thanks again! Invertzoo (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013


Thanks for saving Lasseo for me. (Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 January 1) I have deleted it, and contacted editor to let them know it can be restored if they want to arrange for permission.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that you were working on it. :) I don't want to get in the way of work already undertaken. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Your child is almost crawling, MRG, no thanks to you--you deadbeat dad. In other news, it's always a pleasure to see your edits and comments somewhere since it reminds me that there are at least some things in this world one can rely on.

Drmies (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Awww! Kitten. :) Sorry about the child neglect and all. Footloose and fancy-free, that's me. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I KNOW! Well, I'll have you know that he is in fact a beautiful little boy (much better looking than me) and has a lovely smile. You can ask the Lady; she's seen the pictures. (In fact, I believe she's been on his Facebook page: six months old and already wired.) Take care Moonriddengirl, Drmies (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

A Mr. Gray may be in conact with you about images. See:User talk:Andrew Gray 'Thanks' section at the bottom. The issue has been brought at commons on his talk page as well as other pages, I think. One is the deletion review for File:Joe-Fortes.jpeg.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If he contacts me, I'll help him in whatever manner I am able. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. A template for the BL uploads to commoms may help aleviate many future copyright status concerns. I may look at other templates over there to see if there are similar ones to model on.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi MRG, can we still write articles in our sandboxes and then move them into live space or must we go through review first? I ask because I used article wizard thinking it would be wizard fast and my article is pending review. I have another article I'm writing and I'd rather just post it, do the talk page, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You can certainly create the article in your sandbox and then move it. In fact, as a registered editor, you're free to move your article that has been languishing in AfC yourself. Ryan Vesey 17:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that's good news because I felt bad about adding to the backlog. When I saw the number pending I realized it was probably just for newbies. Thanks Malke 2010 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Ryan. You're being all kinds of helpful today (well, yesterday). :) And hi, Malke. Long time no see! I've read some recent discussions about how the Article Wizard might better indicate that keeping the article for review isn't mandatory, but I think they don't want to overemphasize that because the people who most need it might bypass the review stage, too. Ryan, have you ever seen any statistics on how many articles created via the Wizard are rejected? I haven't, and it occurs to me that that might be interesting to know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your post on Talk page does not show

Thanks for the post to my Talk page. However, your post to the Talk page never showed. I just found out you even submitted something due to email notice I saw today. The email link led me to your post content, but it still does not show on the Talk. Feel free to email me. I hate the Talk page method anyways, but starting to understand it. I just wanted to inform you that for some reason it never showed and does not show, and also say thanks on the post you attempted, as it would have been appreciated if visible, and is appreciated now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiposter1 (talkcontribs) 18:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You can see her comment here. You accidentally removed it in that edit. Ryan Vesey 18:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)