User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 54

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 50 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 60

Contents

Society for Scholarly Publishing

Greetings, MRG, I would like some advice. I noticed a fair amount of copyrighted material at Society for Scholarly Publishing. (much of its content appears to have been pasted from the org's website by one of its volunteers.) There is some seemingly non-infringing content, but it is too promotional/unsourced to be useful, in my opinion. Given that I don't think there is much worth keeping, I would like to delete the article in order to expunge the history and then recreate a new article about the subject. I've done something similar to an article about the org's blog, Scholarly Kitchen, which had very little non-infringing content, but Society for Scholarly Publishing doesn't seem to meet G12 as clearly, so as far as I can tell it might not be ok for me to delete this one. I've listed the article at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014_January_8, but I'm wondering if there's a quicker solution. What would you advise? Delete and start a new page? revdel everything prior to now and start a new page? Wait for the copyright investigation? Undo everything I've done because I'm way out in the weeds? I'd love to get the page for this subject back in business. Thanks for any input, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Or, maybe get Draft:Society_for_Scholarly_Publishing up to snuff and move it over the current page? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead with the draft; I also noted my actions at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems. Please let me know if I've done anything inappropriate here. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, User talk:ErikHaugen. :) Generally, what I'd do is just write it right over the top. You can always rev-delete the history if you're worried that the text will come back. In this case, though, what you've done seems perfectly fine. The copyvio text was there from the beginning. If the article had come up at WP:CP and you had placed your proposed rewrite in the "temp" space, I'd have just done the work for you of replacing the original. :D
The benefit to WP:CP instead of instant fixing is really in two areas: (1) where permission is plausible and the content is worth keeping, and (2) where contributors may dispute the issue or simply need time to fix it. In the first case, offering people the red tape of verifying license for content is pointless when the content isn't what we would publish anyway. The second case is best where the original content may be temporarily useful in finding sources and making sure that the new rewrite is the best it can be or when somebody is going to pull a Hail Mary pass and prove at the last minute that the contents can't be copyrighted because [insert brilliant, persuasive reason here]. None of that is likely to be the case with an article like that one. So, thanks for being all proactive. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, after sleeping on it I felt like I must be misusing the copyvio template/process, for the reasons you say, and wanted to get an article up faster. Like you say, I should have just replaced the content with my new version and dealt with the histories later; that would have been much less disruptive. Sorry about that; and thanks for taking a look. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, ErikHaugen, I didn't mean that as any kind of criticism. :) Using the CP tag where content could just be rewritten is very common; I've done it myself plenty of times. Sometimes, to allow others a chance to do the rewrite and others to just soften the blow. People can be very taken aback to come in and find an article completely changed. Giving them a chance to see the issue and address it themselves first, if they choose, seems like a good thing to me in many cases. Anyway, my thanks were genuine. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note; I didn't take it the wrong way, it's just that some associated with the page were pretty upset after I replaced the page with the CP template, and I should have realized they would be and was just trying to think about what I could have done differently to avoid getting everyone riled up. But you have a good point, if I had replaced the old page with the new one I made that might have riled them up just as much! Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

CCI Question

Hi MRG - I hope you have been having a lovely holiday season, full of whatever weather and food you may prefer :) (I'm a snow and cheesecake sort of girl, but maybe that's just me...) I'm back with one of those "the CCI is down to the last article and I don't know what to do with it" situations. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20131014b has one left - the contributor added a fairly massive amount of text, and copyvio was found in most of his other large contributions, but I can't find the source for this one, and there have been a lot of edits in the intervening few years. Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I would love some snow! I haven't seen it in years. I like cheesecake, but if I'm getting the food of my preference it's always going to be pizza. :D Let me take a look at that article. BRB. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, he took this from youtube. I think what I'll do is go through the article later and just see what's still there from what he added. If it's creative, I'll rewrite it or remove it and explain why at the talk page. Alas, no time now. :/ If I don't do it in the next day or two, can somebody please politely poke at me? (I hope to do it later today.)
And I hope your holidays have been lovely as well. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Some progress. Loads more to go. I want to look at this range next (including an IP that evidence suggests was probably the same guy). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done. Still working on it. :) It doesn't help that this clearly crucial article is such a mess! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't archive, section. I'm still working on this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Still. I've reworked much of the article, but not all, and I need to check what I've got now against what he wrote. Just haven't had much time the last few days. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

St. Michael's Choir School

An "uninvolved admin" seems to be making thoroughly negative and disruptive removal of key material that was partially sourced to independent press sources (which you also removed). The "copyvio" was two or three short sentences from a college webpage that is no longer live (it's been archived). Do you really think it's going to help improve the article by removing reliable secondary sources - something which the article is visibly lacking for 5 years?! It takes 30 seconds to reword the material. To be honest, I can't even see the copyvio for the second paragraph. Sionk (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like an obvious copyvio to me of a live page. "On May 17, 1955, St. Michael’s Choir School was accorded an affiliation..." --NeilN talk to me 14:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
How many other ways in the English language are there to say "St Michael’s Choir School was founded in 1937"? This fact was cited to a news source that someone had added as an inline citation. Admins need to be sensible and practical, rather than creating unnecessary additional work for others. By all means remove lengthy copyvios but not basic sourced facts (and sources). Sionk (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
No, admins (and every other editor) need to follow WP:COPYVIO and be aware of WP:COPYPASTE and WP:PARAPHRASE. I cannot believe that you, an experienced Wikipedia editor, are advocating not removing "non-lengthy" copyvios. If editors want to reword the text, they can look at history. --NeilN talk to me 14:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
That isn't what I said, is it?! Are editors supposed to be psychic? At least leave a message on the Talk page that sources have been deleted. But my comment wasn't addressed to you, so I think the conversation is over. Sionk (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

GFDL

You learn something new every day (well, I do, at least). Working my way through the licence migration documents now - can't believe I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for correcting me. Yunshui  13:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No issue at all, User:Yunshui. :) It's a huge project, and I'm constantly learning myself. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
If it had changed in the last six months or so I could understand my ignorance, but 2009? Shows how often GFDL gets used, I suppose... Yunshui  13:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Part of the reason for the license migration, I believe. :) GFDL was never really intended for text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Category renaming for grammar

Hi, I had listed Category:Tamil films remade to other languages for renaming long ago, but no response yet. Bcos there is some grammatical error, it needs to be renamed urgently. Same case with Category:Malayalam films remade to other languages. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Kailash29792. I'm sorry, but this is not really an area in which I work. I'm not familiar at all with renaming categories; you might want to talk to an admin who does work on those requests. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for help

MRG, would you or one of your talk page watchers carry on at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 January 13 on intercostal nerve block (ICNB) and Aeromobil? I'm not sure what's next. I came to ICNB only because I was pinged to check the DYK, and based on what I found, I checked another DYK by the same editor. As I've suggested on the Copyright discussion, I have concerns that this editor's command of the English language doesn't allow for adequate paraphrasing, and I'm not sure what should be done next there, but there was originally significant cut-and-paste or very marginal paraphrasing from every source I checked. Aeromobil has been rewritten and I think can be moved to mainspace, while I've been unsuccessful at finding anyone at WT:MED interested in rewriting ICNB, so I think it will need to be massively stubbed.[1] (I have no interest in trying to write on a topic that is over my head so someone can get DYK credit.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:SandyGeorgia. :) That's a complicated one. :/ I'm working at the CP listing, but would welcome more participants, since I don't have much time right now. Life is busy on the work and home fronts. A CCI may be necessary, but fortunately it does not seem it will involve that many articles. I ran the contribution survey, and two of the three articles I popped in on were problematic. (The other one may have been a poor translation from a foreign language source, but I'm not sure.) The survey is not removing all reverts, so I don't really know the scale yet. I believe this link should work for a bit, since I think these are stored temporarily. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree it's complicated ... what to be done in a case of a good-faith, collaborative editor whose ESL issues seem to make adequate paraphrasing an impossibility. I've no time either to follow up further ... unless you disagree, I guess I'll stub the medical article. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Abilene paradox

Hi. Thanks for helping improve the article. Would you be open to considering restoring the external link to the blacklisted webpage. The webpage is only used in the 'External links' section of the article. In my view the webpage provides a highly educational, informative and insightful practical example of the Abilene paradox. This practical example is also fun and entertaining to read. In my view, restoring the external link would not damage the article in any way, and would only help improve and strengthen the article. Thanks and warm regards, IjonTichy (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:IjonTichyIjonTichy. :) I don't know why the site was blacklisted, but the thing to do in that case is request whitelisting for either the website or the specific page. I'm afraid I don't do that much with blacklisting - but it seems that it was added to the global blacklist by User:Vituzzu here in late December. According to the log, he says it's widely spammed. Directions for requesting whitelisting are here: Template:Blacklisted-links#What_to_do_next. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I have requested that the webpage be whitelisted. I posted the request on Jan. 11 and, as of date, nobody has commented on the request. Could you please assist in moving the request forward by offering your viewpoint? Thank you. IjonTichy (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

re Bienvenido Banez Jr. entry Close connection to contributor

Hello, please look over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bienvenido_%E2%80%9CBones%E2%80%9D_Banez,_Jr.

I have removed all references to the "close connection" immonuclear, one of the contributors of the entry except in the reviews and publications section (should I remove this, too?).

Thank you.

Cblanglois (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Cblanglois. It seems to be much improved, although I have done a little further editing so that content that seemed biased or out of touch with our policies is removed. I've also removed the critique of a writer that at this point does not have an article on Wikipedia because the community judged him not notable enough for inclusion at that time. If that changes, his perspective may be included. Generally, we try to write in such a way that we do not imply anything about the material we are including. :) For instance, it is a fact that he is published in a German encyclopedia, but writing that he is the only Filipino surreal artist who "has made it to" the Lexikon der phantastischen Künstler suggests that this is a fiercely competitive publication, and we don't know if this is true. I've tried for a more neutral presentation of the fact.
What the article most needs now is inline sourcing. The whole section on life & work has only one source, and it seems to be to a specific point. If you can, please add inline citations to that section to support the content. I've specifically asked for a source to support that "Edades was one of the pillars of the institution, along with the school's founder Aida Rivera-Ford", but that's only because that one is a "point of view" that especially needs such a source. The rest of the section needs sourcing, too. :)
The publications should be fine. I have not checked the reviews, but they should really be looked at carefully to ensure that they all conform to our reliable source guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Moonriddengirl, thank you, I'm working on the citations in the Work and Life section although I have already found one re Aida Rivera Ford and Victorio Edades. I have revised the Themes section, moved the sentence about Satan giving color to the world and added a citation. Also added another sentence with a citation. Re reviews, I have deleted two which I realized were not reviews but mere announcements to an exhibit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cblanglois (talkcontribs) 04:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Moonriddengirl,when you have the time, kindly please look over the article again so we can finalize. Let me know what needs to be deleted, if needed, as the ones I have posted are the only verifiable references or citations that I could find. Thanks a lot! Cblanglois (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Cblanglois. It's looking good. :) Have you encountered his birthdate and place of birth in any of the sources you reviewed? Without a clear source for that, those will have to be removed. If you have, we should cite them with an inline citation where they are mentioned. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Moonriddengirl this is done. Found a citation for where and when he was born. If there isn't anything else, would appreciate it if we could already take out the note about the article needing more citations. Thanks a lot! 66.177.185.143 (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Question about using rev/del to remove copyvio

At WP:ANI#Breach of copyright in a locked article there's a discussion about whether you can use rev/del in a situation which although leaving the names of editors no longer makes it possible for non-Admins to see the text that they contributed. You may have seen this as I mentioned you there. I'm not sure if there is any guidance on this anywhere. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I started WT:Revision deletion#RD1 wording. I have linked it from the AN/I and WT:Copyright problems. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and Move to Add MusicBlvd on a verified list

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Thank you for verifying that MusicBlvd.com is a licensed lyrics publisher. It takes a lot of hard work to get validated on Wikipedia and in this case MusicBlvd.com is one of the few that have gone through so much work to get verified. I would like to motion to add MusicBlvd.com to this resource list Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Lyrics and music videos so editors can choose at their own will to include MusicBlvd.com as a resource. We would like to add the resource link here to clarify to the community that it is indeed validated.

Do you think you can add it? Or shall I?

Trystanburke(talk) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, UserLTrystanbuke. I'm afraid I can't; as I told you when you asked before, here, whether or not MusicBlvd is added to that list is an editorial matter for volunteers who work in that area to determine, if they feel that the links are useful to the pages they might appear on, beyond the question of copyright. While happy to help with the correspondence in my volunteer role, to tell other editors what the letters said, I'm afraid that I have nothing to add to that discussion, as this is not really an area where I work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A bad penny

Turning up yet again. When, if ever, you have a moment, could I ask you to look (again!) at St. Michael's Choir School, where you cleared out FreshCorp619's stuff a while ago. Because it looks to me as if there are older problems there, which perhaps at that time you were not looking for? Specifically, I can't see how this could have got there if it wasn't copied from here. I'm also bothered by this block of non-encyclopaedic content, and by the resemblance of this to this. Some of that stuff is still in the article today. Or am I tilting at windmills? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, Justlettersandnumbers. That's a good find, and you're right, I wasn't looking for older issues. :)
See, this is why I think you could be a copyright clerk if you want to be. You're conscious of issues, and you have a clue. You may not be 100% confident in what you find, but you have a great track record, you're good at asking when you aren't sure, and you learn. In other words, if you ever feel like it, you'd have my support. :) We can certainly use you! But no pressure - there's lots to do on Wikipedia, and I'm happy that you're doing some of it, whatever you may choose to do. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, I've now done some reading and some thinking. The first thing I need to say is that I appear to have done, on at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 occasions that I'm aware of, stuff that I was not authorised or entitled to do. I'm sorry about that; I should have read more and more carefully before charging in there. The second thing is that, if you'll still have me after that, I'd be happy to give this a try - but only on condition that if I make a mess of it, I'll be plainly and promptly told so. Is that OK?. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, please don't be sorry about that; you made things better - as far as I'm concerned, that's the very definition of WP:IAR. You're not the only helpful editor who has done that and done it well, and I have personally never, ever complained when it's done well. (I've complained a few times when it was done badly - but IAR doesn't apply when people aren't making things better.)
I would be delighted to have you on those conditions. Would you mind if I bring you up at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems/Clerks to get review by some of the others who work in the area? As you can see by reviewing that page, it's a low-drama, pragmatic affair. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Then yes, thank you, please do that if/when you have time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fuzzy welcome

Thanks for the warm, fuzzy welcome! I'm glad I could be an early part of something so important in your life and am happy to see you being a part of the Wikimedia Foundation. See you around. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons OK?

For images uploaded to En/WP, can I add a "commons ok" template like I did for Gold Hawn? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I don't have any say over that. I'm not an admin at Commons and don't know how they feel about blocked editors transferring stuff to them from other projects. You might want to find a Commons admin to ask. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Is this article a copyvio concern?

Just came across this article: The Shame of the Nation.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't make me comfortable. It's a summary of the book offered with little transformative material. Would it compete with the original, eliminate the need to read it? Possibly, I think. I don't know if I would blank it, but I would make it more concise and support it with more critical commentary about the book. Or at least note the concern on the talk page. :/
Interestingly, I did an internet check to see if it was copied from somewhere else. I found this:

Kozol (2005) reveals the poor conditions and state of disrepair many urban schools are now in. The physical appearance of these schools negatively impacts the students desire to be in school and the way that they feel while they are present. In Oklahoma City, for example, the schools are overcrowded, lined with insufficient trailers that are not heated or cooled and often leak. He further portrays how in some schools in California, the overcrowding is so severe that students have to attend schools in monthly shifts year round. Some schools lack even the basic supplies such as text books, chairs, and desks for their students. Many students do not even attempt to eat lunch because the cafeteria is so overcrowded and the lines are so long.

Our article says:

In this chapter, Kozol reveals the poor conditions and state of disrepair many of the segregated schools are now in. The physical appearance of these schools negatively impacts the students desire to be in school and the way that they feel while they are present. In Oklahoma City for example, the schools are overcrowded, lined with insufficient trailers that were not heated or cooled and often leak. In California, the overcrowding was so severe that students had to attend schools in monthly shifts year round. Some schools lack even the basic supplies such as textbooks, chairs, and desks for their students. Many students do not even attempt to eat lunch because the cafeteria is so over crowded and the lines are so long.

But we've had that content since 2008, and the dissertation I'm quoting was presented in 2010. So it seems that this is not our problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I am going to go ahead and delete the block quotes then to make the article a little less sketchy. I would normally contact the talkpage first, but since it hasn't seen any conversation for over 6 years I will just make the changes and if an editor cares they can revert me and bring it to talkpage. Interestingly I noticed that the chapter 2 section was missing, and had been deleted about a year ago, the chapter 2 section is also almost identical to the paragraph following the one in the dissertation you linked.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources

I saw that you talked about this music writer several times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews There's a final discussion about this, at the moment. Could you explain why here in a few words? Thanks. Woovee (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. :) There's no such thing as a final discussion on Wikipedia. :D (I assume that's the point of your emphasis.) However, I'm afraid you're mistaken when you say his music writings haven't been recognized professionally, User:Woovee. As I noted in this discussion, Scaruffi was cited in a Houghton-Mifflin book about the Blues (http://books.google.com/books?id=GAGFsljVngEC&pg=PA235&dq=Scaruffi+Piero+music&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=Scaruffi%20Piero%20music&f=false). (A quick Google search shows he is also referenced in terms of his musical contributions in this publication by the Chicago Museum of Contemporary Art, cited as a source in this book under the Pelican imprint, and cited for his critical opinion in this book published by Greenwood. He's not a professional reviewer, so not including him as a source for professional reviews seems sensible enough; I see the discussion has closed, and I'm not really that active in the area anymore anyway. But he's made some inroads and is likely to continue making them as a cultural historian, and I doubt we've seen the last of Mr. Scaruffi. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Harissa

Are you the author of the Harissa page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjones212 (talkcontribs) 15:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Chrisjones212. No, I'm not. :) You can see the contributors to any article by clicking the "history" tab near the top of the page. By the way, I notice that you are changing some sourced content. I'm afraid that we can't really simply do that, even if we think the sources may be wrong. Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize in due emphasis what reliable sources say about notable subjects. If reliable sources disagree, we generally note that. If we disagree, there's nothing really we can do. :) Our verifiability policy and our policy against original research will help explain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio at Adam Kalinowski?

During my regular new Poland-articles review, this one passed notability, but it appears to be copied partially from [2] ("In 1998 Kalinowski built and hung a spatial object between three poles crowned with propellers of windmills. The Cloud Room – a cuboid with metal edge" is the sentence that google picked up immediately). Likely the author is the same, but we need to go through the motions of getting them to license their work, OTRS, yadda yadda. I am sure you or one of your page watchers can get the ball rolling (I am not sure where I should report it so as usual I leave this here :>). PS. There's also a bunch of problematic images: way too many for fair use, and the occasional OTRS is dubious: File:THE SKY REACHING RAILWAY TRACK 2004.jpg labelled as "Own work" and from 2004 - is this really the author who gave permission, nearly 10 years before this article was created - I think all images need careful review there... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. :) I suspect you're right, but we need the forms. I've done the duty. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

wiktionary link

wikt: NE Ent 01:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I always want it to be shorter! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

CCI update

One of the oldest is finally taken care of. Since the other copyright backlogs are well in hand hopefully closing these are a new trend. Wizardman 16:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's wonderful, User:Wizardman. :) I'm working on the current oldest along with User:Diannaa. I'm all kinds of optimistic. :D (Mind, you what's happening the {{copy-paste}} and {{close paraphrasing}} articles - which are currently not showing up at CP - doesn't bear thinking of. But I'd rather be optimistic. And, hey, backlog is backlog.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

RealTime Racing

Greetings,

Last year I attempted to update the RealTime Racing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealTime_Racing page, but it was removed due to copyright infringement, as much of it was taken from the RealTime Racing website (www.realtimerl.com). You posted on my Talk page how I could correct this, as I did have the Team Owner's permission to use the text. The team owner, who is the owner of the website and its contents, followed the directions outlined and sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and I posted the correct note in the RealTime Racing Talk page. I haven't seen any progress on this matter. Is there something else that needs to be done? EMCracing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, EMCracing. Thank you for working to resolve the issue through our processes. :) Generally, when the tag is never replaced, that means there was a problem with the permission that was never resolved. I'll see if I can find it in the queue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've done a search of the email system, and I don't find any matches for "RealTime Racing" or the url (http://realtimerl.com) We get hundreds of emails a day, and I'm afraid it's not really possible for me to do a ticket-by-ticket search. In the period between my notice to you and your posting that the letter had been sent, we received 1200 permission tickets alone. :/ If you can give me any details about the letter (subject line would be helpful, for instance), I'd be happy to look again. Alternatively, you may want to ask him if he ever received a response. If it was received, they should have sent him a response to his email either thanking him for the permission or explaining the issue. The subject line of their response would also have included a "ticket number". With that, I can find it instantly and determine why the permission was not processed. Or he can re-send it, carbon copying you (if he is willing), and I can try to work with the issue with the new letter, if you let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It does have a ticket - I found it the other day - it's 2013120310016896. I think the main reason the article wasn't tagged was that it never mentioned the article in the ticket. There are a couple of (minor) issues with the ticket which meant it didn't fall into the really easy category that I'm happy to deal with so I let it be at the time. Dpmuk (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Dpmuk! Incredibly helpful. :) EMCracing, he was written and asked the name of the article and never responded, but there's an issue beyond that. I'll pick up the ticket and communicate with him again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
EMCracing, this is done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, thank you! EMCracing (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: Blocked Article About Me & How to Get Rid Of It.

Hello, I must apologise, as I am not familiar with using Wikipedia and hope I am doing this correctly. I am writing about the page which is supposed to be about myself, Adele C. Geraghty, but which actually doesn't have that name as a heading. Instead it has the name or names of the person who set it up, which are: Pohick2/Susan Alice Buffett. I am an author and editor and this article has been on Wikipedia for several years. I would like it to be removed or redone correctly. It is very embarassing to have people find this when they search for me. The content is incomplete, poorly stated and not sourced correctly. Also, it appears that whoever this person or persons is, they have been blocked for being a sock puppet. I am not completely familiar with this term. Can you help me, please, to do away with this page and perhaps someone else may redo it correctly one day? I would appreciate any assistance you can give me and thank you very much, for your time. Intimatewitch (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I find Susan Alice Buffett easily. This seems to be done correctly.
By contrast, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Pohick2 should not show up in Google, and does not (for me). Also, I believe that page will be blanked in due course as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I've just tagged User:Pohick2/Susan Alice Buffett for deletion - hopefully that shouldn't show up in searches anyway. If/when it's deleted, hopefully that will make the specific problem go away. If not, we can look into other ways of dealing with it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The page in question appears to be a sandbox that was used for various drafts without being renamed from the first one. I see it has been deleted now. The latest draft—the one in question—was also edited by a couple of other users, Democ53 and Intimatewitch13.—Odysseus1479 08:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for pitching in on this. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Aviation photos serial copyvio guy from years ago

From WP:ANI new report of AirportExpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) copyvio of many aircraft related images scraped and falsely attributed. There was a case with a serial sockpuppeteer who did that many dozens of times, from years ago, which I worked on and I think you did. Can't recall the case / user name. Do you remember anything? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Aww, damn it. ANigg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and his merry little sockpuppet farm from 2007-2010. But After Verybluesky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in 2010 I lost track of them. If AirportExpert is him again, and the patterns seem to pop like a flashbulb, there's a four year gap in which I doubt they stopped editing. We must just not have noticed, or noticed the pattern. Aaaaaaaaaa.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue who that even is! I have just began editing on Wikipedia about 5 months ago! Do not accuse me of a crime that I did not commit! If it is such a problem, I will stop uploading pictures, but do not accuse me of being a sock puppet!--AirportExpert (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert

But you are a sockpuppet and admitted it. :/ Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msloewengart/Archive. The question is whether you're a sockpuppet of other users as well. You say you just started editing about 5 months ago, but the account you admit having previously used is only 1 month old. What were your usernames before?
Uploading copyright violations is entirely a problem, AirportExpert. You must not upload images that we can't use in accordance with our copyright and and non-free content policies.
Georgewilliamherbert, you have quite a memory there! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

My old account was User:Msloewengart and has been retired and has not been used since the creation of AirportExpert, and would never be used again. I am not a sock puppet! --AirportExpert (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert

AirportExpert, I don't think that disagreeing over terminology is the best way forward here, but let me explain why taking offense at being accused of being a sock puppet is not likely to be helpful for you. Our sock puppet policy explicitly forbids using a new account to "circumvent a block, ban, or sanction." At the time you created your account, User:Msloewengart was blocked. It was blocked on 3 January for 48 hours. You created your new account on 4 January. Your original account was blocked on 14 January for one month. You used your new account to edit during that second block. This is sock puppetry. You have been permitted to continue editing with your original blocked, but it does not change the history of your account use. Getting upset about it isn't going to do much good. Instead of being upset, it's better to simply explain your history and identify honestly if you have also used other accounts.
This question is being discussed at ANI, as you were notified. It's an important one to resolve. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

FAC help for Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution/archive1.

I came across at least one instance, so far, of close-paraphrasing.

I could use your expertise with evaluating the article or helping defer to where else this could be reported for additional help.

FYI, it wasn't the nominator's fault, the current nominator is relatively new to the article itself, and unfortunately the prior user that had contributed significantly to the article, has since retired.

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Just want to echo's Cirt's request. "Help us Moonriddengirl, you're our only hope". (Not literally true, but anything for a Star Wars quote). --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Anything for a Star Wars quote. :D I'll try to take a look at this later today. It can take some time for this kind of review, but I'll prioritize it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Moonriddengirl, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Didn't make it last night, but looking now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking notes. It entered the article here. I am now running contribution surveyor so that I can more easily isolate and analyze edits to the article by the editor who introduced it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Okay, Cirt, HectorMoffet, I find no additional issues. I was not able to view every source, but I was able to view many, and paraphrase seemed fine in all of them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Adam Kalinowski

PooH16 (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Hello , Could you please state what is exact problem with this page? And with this article ?

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stuart Holliday may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • for the [[George H. W. Bush]] [United States presidential election, 1992|re-election campaign]].<ref name=outofdate/> From 1993 to 1995, he was Regional Director for North Africa, the Middle

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

I wanted to tell you that DEFAULTSORT is a magic word. You are sopposed to write is as {{DEFAULTSORT:Holliday, Stuart}} (With a : and not with a |) As you did in this edit.

I don't want it to come out like I'm criticizing you... I'm just wanted to "teach" you.

Great job on cleaning up copy-violations btw. (tJosve05a (c) 18:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Josve05a. :) I suspect this is a matter of "re-teaching", as it's been years since I believe I last had cause to use that magic word. I couldn't remember how to do it, and since what I did worked (courtesy I now suppose of the {{Defaultsort}} template somebody created as a work around) figured I must have guessed correctly. :) Assuming you have fixed it, thank you for the repair. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

IMDB etc

I can find material from this set of edits[3] at IMDB[4] but I haven't a clue as to which came first. As the editor has had problems before, I don't want to suggest that this is copyvio without being very sure. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering that he has subsequently copied from Destination America, I think there's no reason whatsoever to presume that he authored those descriptions which were subsequently copied from him - especially since he'd have been describing some episodes that are not released. I've blocked temporarily for the Destination America copying and am going to poke to see if we need a CCI here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Tool is down. :P Scaryspoofy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Not sure my 48 hour block is a good one, given how seldom he contributes. If I find this is a long-term pattern, I may go indef pending some indication from him that he understands the policies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll wait for the tool to come back. My quick spot check didn't find much concern, since mostly I see table adding without text. It would be nice not to need a CCI. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm wondering if it shouldn't be an indefinite block. He's had a huge number of warnings for various copyright issues - see his deletion here[5] and his only post ever to a talk page was to warn an IP for vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I extended it to indefinite. He's had his opportunity to correct the issue multiple times and clearly he doesn't care. Wizardman 17:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
No disagreement from me. I'll let him know that the block is not temporary after all. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
MRG, I hope you're right that there's little to worry about! However, the very first one I looked at seemed to be bad, a big chunk copied from here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, i saw some issues, including that one. No doubt he's had major problems. But most of his edits seem non-creative, so there may not be much more to look at. I'll have to check later and see if the CCI tool is working so I can verify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nicholas Rescher

Looks like you did a a great job with the article. Thanks for responding to my request. —Sean Whitton / 09:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the problem, Sean Whitton. :) I hope somebody more familiar with the field will expand information on his professional work, but we actually more biographical detail than we have in the past now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl. I just received an email from Nicholas, granting permission to use his website http://www.pitt.edu/~rescher/ under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. Since you've been rewriting the article, I thought you wanted to know. Check out the notice here: talk page. Grashoofd (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Grashoofd. Thanks much for the heads up. :) There's a template that we use on En Wiki for that situation - {{ConfirmationOTRS}}. I'll add it to the page and take a look at the source to see what can be incorporated. For biographical information, I think we've got most if not all of it, but the summary of his philosophies will be very helpful! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Clunk! :-)

Mail-message-new.svg
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) 16:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

A reply

Mail-message-new.svg
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) 15:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI

I added Special:AbuseFilter/606, which warns a person that their edit may be bugged, so maybe we won't see many/any more of that stupid glitch. Writ Keeper  21:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that would be awesome! :D I hope they fix it soon. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Over-reaction?

Hi, MRG! I was looking at Ħaġar Qim, where Pietru was a major contributor and indeed copyright violator. But I found that the article was a copyvio (by someone else) from the day it was created, so I went ahead and blanked it. Now I'm wondering if that was the right course to take on a high-profile page (these are the oldest buildings in the world, bar none), and if maybe I have over-reacted. Advice? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, Justlettersandnumbers! I'm late on this one. :( That's always emotionally difficult - it's a lot easier to blank content when it's not important. :) But if the content is a copyvio, we really don't have a choice. I will often leave a note on the talk page in such situations, explaining apologetically that I know the article is important but this issue needs fixing. I've written not a few articles because I couldn't bear to delete the subjects from Wikipedia. If you can, you might want to start a stub at the subpage for other editors to assist in building - and at least that way, we'll have SOMETHING when the listing is processed. If I handle it, I'll create a stub myself. Deleting stuff like that makes me very unhappy. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, MRG! Just as long as it wasn't a diametrically wrong move in the circumstances. I'll leave a note on the two relevant wikiproject pages. I might try to start a stub, but my books are there not here. On more or less the same topic, would you mind if I recreated Ġgantija phase, and a couple of other similar ones (probably Red Skorba, Grey Skorba) that you deleted as part of the Pietru CCI? They are fairly important topics in the rather narrow field of Maltese archaeology. Thanks for all you do, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:MW 1935

This attribution templates states that the book was out of UK copyright as of 2005, which seems correct as far as UK copyright applies - however, do we need to worry about URAA here, could the book still be potentially in copyright in the US? If so, this could be a problem if articles have copied text extensively.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh oh. Yes, we do need worry about URAA. Whether that book is under copyright in the U.S. depends on the facts of its publication in the US - as Cornell's lovely chart explains. For a book published in the UK in 1935, its copyright status in the US will be determined by whether it was PD in the UK by 1996 or whether it was also published in the US. If it was not, it will be under copyright . If it was, whether or not it is PD in the US will depend on how it was published. I'm not familiar with this reference work and it doesn't help that we don't seem to have an article on it. I'll see if I can find out about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Nigel Ish, I can't find any reason to believe that source is public domain in the U.S. I've raised concerns at Template talk:MW 1935. If we can't verify that it's PD in the US, this may be a TFD situation, and possibly a small WP:CCI on the articles that use the template. That would be unfortunate. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

ani math

{{#expr: 60 / 24 }} = 2.5 ;) NE Ent 12:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL! It was a long week. My only defense. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • You're not the only one. My Valentine's Day dinner was an inch of volcanic ash. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Holy cow! And I thought I had it bad. I'll take bad snow driving over volcanic ash any day. :( (That said, I'd really like to know what about icy hills makes a car catch fire.) That's terrible, User:Crisco 1492. I hope you and yours are okay! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • (With regards my basic math fail, NE Ent, I woke up at around 7 this morning going, "Wait...." Apparently, this was a matter of some concern to my subconscious. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC))
  • That is... wow. We're safe, the actual eruption is some 100 miles away. But there's ash by the bucketfull. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Ain't saying your math skills have to be perfect after sleeping in until 7. Just pointing out that you don't have do math at all, if you don't want to. Per WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an online arithmetic practice worksheet" NE Ent 13:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah! Handy. :) Sadly, the odds of my remembering how to do it are slim, but you never know! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

w deen mohammed $indbad 408

There was info also removed that had good sources not questionable — Preceding unsigned comment added by $indbad 408 (talkcontribs) 03:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Moonriddengirl, I've tried, but could you help user $indbad408 on this? Thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Audit Guy. Maybe together we can clarify this. :) I was happy to see that he withdrew his threat on the talk page that they could keep it up every day. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Reaching out for support outside of Wikipedia

You have important e-mail 135.196.170.214 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I cannot help you in this way. :/ The only avenue for outreach for volunteer assistance via email is through our volunteer email response system, which is how we previously engaged. If you want to pose suggestions for content changes, you should address your inquiries to info-en-q@wikimedia.org. It isn't that I don't think you have good points, it's primarily an issue with transparency. I can't work with you outside of approved channels. People need to be able to review our correspondence and any actions I take in light of them. (This is why I am responding here and not to your email.) Too, I think you would benefit from having another set of eyes involved. I don't have as much time for working on biographical issues of this sort these days, and you are likely to get a much more thorough and nuanced engagement from somebody who does. Most of my volunteer time is dedicated to copyright cleanup. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

135.196.170.214 (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)I am not "reaching out for support outside of Wikipedia" as you publicly stated here. I was merely following *your* own advice on how to contact YOU - and I was civil at that. What gives? Yes I do have "good points", so at least we agree on that. The reason I wrote to you is because you re-wrote this page. Fyi, that makes you responsible, so again, I would ask you to kindly address the matters that I have raised.

While obviously you feel accused of something by my note here, my intent is simply to advise you how to appropriately reach out for support outside of Wikipedia. (Email is outside of Wikipedia.) I cannot work with you via email, and you'll note my advice for contacting me on my user page says "In almost all cases, I prefer to conduct my conversations about Wikipedia volunteering on Wikipedia." While people are welcome to contact me if they have privacy concerns, I do not by any means guarantee that I will be able to assist through that avenue. As much as possible, I prize transparency, and email sacrifices that.
I'm happy to try to continue to keep an eye on the article to try to help avoid it being made non-neutral in either direction, but I do not have time to take on the review you request even if you raised it with me through OTRS or here. It hasn't got anything to do with your civility, it has to do with the fact that there is other work I need to prioritize. While I am indeed among the contributors to that article - I have attempted to bring balance from both directions - I am not "responsible" for the article. Nobody owns articles on Wikipedia; they are open for editing by anyone and any of the experienced volunteers at OTRS who are willing to work with you can certainly freely do so. If you raise your concerns in that avenue, I'm confident they will receive a fair hearing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

135.196.170.214 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)round and round we go, playing the Wikipedia game. I don't own it, he doesn't own it, she deosn't own it, no one owns it, not my fault, it wasn't me, no one's accountable... not that e-mail, this e-mail, not there, here, don't have to prove a quote because it was probably right five years ago, trust me, I'm busy, gotta take the dog for a walk... wuf! boy oh boy :-) Outrageously funny, I have to say.

Moonriddengirl has been very patient with you and you are responding with insults. If you don't want to go the OTRS route, I suggest you take your concerns to WP:BLPN. I will note that being behind a paywall is irrelevant, there is no requirement that a source has to be freely accessible on the web, it simply has to be identified sufficiently to be accessed in some way. 21:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs)

135.196.170.214 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC) If you see my humour as an insult then perhaps you should take that dog for walk instead :) ...humour aside, do remember that you must PROVE EACH WORD of a quote, not just that a story exists. Errors occur all the time. For example, you have The Times link from "The Telegraph". That is an error. No worries. That's life, but if you are unable to prove the quote then EXPECT that someone will ask for it to be removed, as I have. The more discerning of readers already know that's not vandalism any more than it's an insult. It's a fair request. Let's just leave it at that. I will pursue this another way.

The 'Long Rede'

The full text of this[6] was included in Wiccan Rede. I hadn't seen that and the decision that it isn't copyvio and was working from Lady Gwen Thompson. Do we thus agree it can be used in toto? I've never run into this sort of issue before. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You throw me some tough stuff, Doug. :)
First, I would say that whatever rules Wikisource goes by, we have to abide by our own local policies. And our local policies require that we have to be able to prove that content is WP:PD or WP:COMPLIC, or we can't copy it in its entirety. That looks difficult here. Can we prove that the author disavows copyright or are we able to demonstrate that it was published without copyright compliance? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've asked User:Paul Barlow to reply. He seems to know about this. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it "Lady" Gwen Thompson claimed that the poem had been passed down from her grandmother, Adriana Porter. She did not even claim that Porter wrote it, but that it has been passed on "through" her. Essentially she was claiming that it was inherited folk wisdom, which was consistent with the general Wiccan claims of that era to have been inheritors of some longstanding tradition passed on orally. At wikisource it was decided that this meant that the (presumed) author had disavowed copyright. A member of Porter's "coven" has, I think, attempted to assert copyright in the USA, but has been unsuccessful. Paul B (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright question

Just over a year ago you marked an edit as an unattributed translation in a CCI: [7]. However, the page itself has a notice that the article contains information from the equivalent article on the other-language wiki:

This article incorporates information from the equivalent article on the Dutch Wikipedia.

It seems to me that this fulfills the requirements of the license. However, a strict reading of [8], where it says "should be included in the edit summary" may make the subject of the CCI's edit a violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

I'm curious if you agree that the notice on the article fulfills the copyright requirements, and that no edit on your part was necessary? I ask because I recently OKed a diff [9] from the same CCI which has similar circumstances. I'm wondering if that was in error, and additional edit summary attribution is necessary. It turns out that it is a moot point because a bot removed the content some time ago ([10]), but I would like your opinion on the correct thing to do in the future. ParacusForward (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, ParacusForward. :) The reason for including it in the edit summary is that the history of the page fulfills the attribution requirement for GFDL, as Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia notes. The edit summary is not a nicety, but the minimum attribution requirement. For that reason, I'm afraid the edit on my part was necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Moonriddengirl, your response prompted me to look into this further and I have come to the conclusion that you are correct, and that your edit was necessary. Though I have come to this conclusion by different reasoning. I had mistakenly thought that if the CC-BY-SA license allows reuse or adaption with attribution by hyperlink, it didn't make much difference if the link was on the page itself or in the edit history. In fact, the license also contains language which indicates attribution must be in the edit summary: "at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors." [11]
I am embarrassed to find that this topic has been discussed previously at the talk page of the guideline I linked to earlier ([12]) and is also stated more clearly in the lede. I could have saved you some trouble if I had stumbled across that first. As it is, I thank you for helping further my understanding.
I am considering pursuing consensus to change the "Copying from other Wikimedia Projects" section of the guideline I linked to earlier to make the edit summary requirement more explicit, like it is in the lede; unless you think that is a bad idea. ParacusForward (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Please do not be embarrassed, ParacusForward. :) There's a lot to learn and know about Wikipedia; I regularly find new things myself. It's laudable that you're helping with this at all. :) Making the guideline more explicit may be a good idea - my general feeling is that if you were confused by something, others are likely to be as well. I would just recommend a note of explanation at the talk page if you do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

CCI update

That was a tough one, but at least 2009 is done. Hopefully the next few oldest won't be as tough. Wizardman 03:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yay, User:Wizardman. :D The very next one is going to be a total bear. :/ But I'm amazed by the progress and hope to be able to continue to pitch in more now that there is more going on at WP:CP and it is ignoring {{copypaste}} and {{close paraphrasing}}. (I know we'll pay for that later. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of my WIkipedia page

Hello and warm wishes from Santa Barbara...

I am dismayed that my Wikipedia listing has been deleted....

I do believe this is in error...

What might we do to reinstate this?

Thank you, with best wishes

WILLIAM TOMICKI Editor and Publisher, ENTREE Travel; Newsletter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.125.71 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, William. You're probably talking about the article William Tomicki, which was deleted after a small community discussion as to whether or not the article met our inclusion guidelines. The discussion was here. The article was judged to fail on two fronts - first, it did not demonstrate that it met the "notability" threshold for inclusion and, second, it was assessed to be non-neutral.
Wikipedia is not a web host, but is a collaborative encyclopedia, and it does have specific "notability" standards to determine what individual articles should be included. Notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines on biographies generally requires utilizing multiple reliable secondary sources, like newspaper articles and magazine profiles. Depth and breadth of coverage are both important. An article of this sort would be covered by Wikipedia's guidelines on "biographies of living persons", which in part urges editors to be extremely careful not to include any information that isn't sourced, even if it's true, and also reminds us that biographies particularly must be written from a neutral point of view.
Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? talks about our various deletion processes and what you can do when you believe an article was improperly deleted. With deletion discussions such as this one, restoration is more difficult, as multiple people have agreed that the article did not meet inclusion criteria. Generally, these are overturned only when there is a procedural error - as when the administrator who closes the debate and deletes the article misreads the consensus in the discussion.
Sometimes it is possible to create a new article on a subject after such a deletion, but any new articles needs to correct the errors found in the first. In this case, a new article would need more and better sourcing, would need to avoid quoting from and relying on promotional sources and would need to be scrupulously neutral in presentation. If the new article does not correct the errors in the first, it may be subject to speedy deletion. If more and better sources are not available now, it would probably be better to wait until they are, since reestablishing an article after multiple deletions is considerably harder to do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Question about content to series of articles

Hi Moonriddengirl, I've eviscerated much of Cathy Cassidy as unsourced and unencyclopedic, and wonder about the related articles on her books, which are models of fancruft. My hunch is that much of the content in articles like Cherry Crush (book) has been lifted from somewhere else, but I'm not able to find the sources. Perhaps your extraordinary faculties of discernment can be of assistance. Thank you, JNW (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:JNW. :) That's some serious cruft! However, my extraordinary faculties of discernment have failed you. :D Looking back at the book article, the major fan there seems to be this IP. We see the first evolution of the overblown plot section here. There's little bits of touchup before our IP enters with a major edit, but we can see that while she adds a ton of content, she is building off of what was already there. In that edit and the next, she builds out much of what's in the article today, but while it demonstrates some sophisticated narrative devices, it also has scattered typos and grammatical errors that I wouldn't expect in professional writing ("Things only get wornse", "The idea arose when she was taliking to a friend of hers whose mum was a chocolate-maker.", "has yet to make an apearance", "Paddy and Charlotte recieve the loan"). (Also: [13] - " to live with her his girlfriend") We can see her increasing the level of sophistication of her writing as she goes (such as [14]).
I think what we have here is probably original text written by a talented but naive writer. Given the focus of the books, I'm guessing "teen girl with promise." :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, I think your assessment is spot on. My follow-up question involving this and the similar Gingersnaps (novel) involves plot and character description. We seem to offer some leeway on unsourced plot synopses, but most of this stuff is so crufty as to make one wince, and I'd like to cut most of these descriptions. And I suppose the follow-up to my follow-up is whether the books meet notability guidelines; I'll take a look at that. Thank you, JNW (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be a very good idea to cut most of those descriptions, JNW. :) Fans sometimes want to include every detail and to do so in breathless excitement. It's an understandable impulse, but doesn't necessarily suit the encyclopedic purpose, and, of course, if we detail the plot too closely we run the risk of a copyvio of a different kind. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
There is something to be said for articles like this being used--temporarily--by youngsters who are making an honest effort to sharpen their writing skills. A certain precocity is something to be admired, if only for a few minutes before removing. JNW (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violator is back

See User talk:Guillermo Ramos Flamerich. This is User:Caracas 2000/User:GJRFMorelligu. I've blocked him for now -- any input re: the block message? I haven't gone through his new contributions yet but came across him while going through the remaining copyright violations that I'm trying to finish removing... Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jen. :) Good to see you! Your message sounds very good to me - both of them. If he's conquering his issues then playing Wack-A-Mole with him is a waste of time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Bah, guess what I just found: es:Wikipedia:Autorizaciones/Venezuelatuya -- do you speak Spanish? This is the source of much of what GRF copied. I'm not sure this is concrete enough to allow everything to be copied from their site, particularly given that it continues to say all rights reserved at the bottom (and that the person requesting was apparently only asking about one article initially....). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like someone on es.wiki has expressed similar concerns about the permission issue: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9/Portal/Archivo/Ayuda/2012/05#Im.C3.A1genes_de_Venezuela_Tuya_en_Commons I'm not sure how best to handle this given that my command of Spanish is not good enough that I can write inquiries re: licensing without sounding like a bit of an idiot. You don't happen to know anyone interested in copyright issues on es.wiki do you? I've contacted the user that originally emailed venezuelatuya to see if he can reach out to them again. This is kind of a mess, because depending on whether the permission is sufficient, we should either be deleting about 200 articles on es.wiki or restoring nearly the same number here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not speak Spanish (I speak high school Spanish :P), but Google translate tells me that this would almost certainly be rejected by OTRS. I mean, of course it's useless where it is anyway - there's no proof at all that this is official, that it was issued by somebody in authority, or that they have granted the requested license. We either need it on the website or through OTRS, and it must specify license. :( I hope you get a good response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I have been having the flu for weeks and I need some WikiLove, Mood Ridden. Can you use something like the template on this page: User:Arknascar44/Love Cabal/Template? You can even give me a cupcake too, if you want. Kitty53 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A copyright issue you might be able to help with.

See Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Copyright concerns at Definitions of pogrom. I posted this some days ago, hoping someone familiar with copyright issues would respond, but so far there has been no outside input. Could you take a look? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have put my thoughts there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Length of quote question

No rush, but if you get a moment, could you take a look at: OTRS ticket # 2014020710015791

Short version - a person wants to use a longish quote, with attribution. I think it is too long to be permitted, but hoped you might have some suggestions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm so far behind, User:Sphilbrick. :) My question is who she wants to share this with? Are you sure she wants to put it here? Or might she just be writing us for general legal counsel, which we can't give? I strongly suspect the latter - it feels to me like she wants to use the quote personally. If she does want to put it here, I think it's probably also too long to be permitted, although your recommendations are certainly solid. The more support material, the better! She can't, of course, use the attribution line she suggests there in any case. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, sorry you are swamped. It hadn't occurred to me that she was looking for general advice, which of course we cannot provide. I'll clarify that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


Wikipedia must be ran by communists. "You limit people to much, how can people learn if knowledge is limited" - ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.134.41.255 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Women and Wikipedia: Any interest in doing an interview?

Hi Moonriddengirl. I'm a PhD student at the University of Washington working on an interview-based study of women and Wikipedia. I'd love to chat with you if you've the time and interest. Thanks for your work here in general! --Mssemantics (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Mssemantics. :) Depending on your timeline, I am happy to help out. I'm traveling next week and so would not be available then, but I can set something up as soon as the week after. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your willingness. I know long-time editors/contributors are often badgered with all kinds of requests! I'm in Berlin March 1-8, but we may be able to find some time that week, or we can try for the week of March 10 or March 17. My timeline is fairly flexible. Please feel free to email me via Wikipedia or the address listed on my contact page if you want to discuss more logistics, or we can keep the conversation here. Totally up to you. :) Thanks again! --Mssemantics (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Emailed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

Serial refspam, probable copyvios

Hi again, MRG. There's discussion on at wt:WikiProject Medicine w.r.t. this mess re apparent misuse of Caister_Academic_Press sources. Your input would be valued. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ca' Foscari University of Venice

Hi Moonriddengirl, a new one for your perusal, when time allows. The recent spate of edits by the university's employee appears to include a lot of copyright violations, but the article has gotten long and complex enough to render a simple mass reversion difficult. It's also possible that copyvio problems predate the latest edits. Any light you can shed will be helpful. Thank you, JNW (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

(Moonriddengirl cries.) Okay. :/ Let's look and see when, and if, this was ever clear of copied content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I see two potentially problematic contributors prior to this one. I've blanked the article, given clear problems now, and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 February 21. If we don't receive permission, we should check to see if those earlier edits are also problematic and either way we should really clean that puppy up. That article needs a careful combing for spam. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts, and thank you--you are much more adept at making such determinations, and rapidly. My computer is hampster-powered, and I'm not much sharper myself. And as the man said in the movie, there's no crying in Wikipedia. JNW (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this so close to the source so as to be copyvio?

Jeona Morh has text sourced to [15]. I want to be sure I'm on firm ground before deleting it. The editor may be a sock - they've certainly recreated one article that has been deleted several times by other socks. Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It was a sock. I took the editor to SPI and it was quickly CU'd. Copyvio is a trademark of this sock farm. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File:JadenSmith2013.jpg

My understanding is that the license for this image is not acceptable. If I'm right, what am I supposed to do about it? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, the ND condition in the original CC-BY-ND 2.0 permissions prevents material from being considered “free” for WP’s purposes, while the CC-BY 1.0 licence tag does not match. If the image were used in an article, it could stay under a fair-use rationale (it would have to be reduced to about 60% of its present dimensions), but AIUI as it stands it’s a candidate for deletion. The only other option would be to contact the owners and ask for the file to be released under an acceptable licence, which they would have to send to OTRS.—Odysseus1479 04:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. It just occurred to me that cropping the subject out of the original picture is already a violation of the licence terms, because that makes it a derivative work. Double-plus ungood. 04:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Just F3'd it. I don't normally get involved in image deletions but that one is clear enough that I felt happy doing it - especially as we have a free alternative so it wouldn't be usable under out fair use rules (even if we didn't have a free alternative non-free use would be extremely hard to justify as they're still alive). Dpmuk (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Dpmuk, if you hadn't deleted it, what was the right thing for me to do (assuming I didn't want to delete it on my own)? Tag it for speedy or something else? And would the basis be that it is an unacceptable license? If that's true, the fact that the user violated the license becomes mere icing on the cake.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
If I hadn't been an admin or didn't want to delete it myself then yes I think I'd have tagged it for F3. The thing that ultimately convinced me to delete was the ND license that is incompatible with ours. The fact that it's uploaded under a free license, just not one we can use, made me think that getting permission was unlikely as there seems to have been a conscious choice for that license rather than just some slapping copyright on everything and not really thinking about what that meant. As an aside I'm not entirely sure myself how to deal with it if I did think permission was possible (as I say I don't normally deal with images). The fact that it would fail our fair use policy as well meant there was no possible reason to keep it around as far as I could see. Dpmuk (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thank you for handling that, User:Dpmuk. :) I'm traveling and challenged to get Wikipedia time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Roman888

Hi, Moonriddengirl!

Looks like our old "friend" Roman888 is back and both violating copyright on Malaysia-related articles (see the sequence of edits from multiple Australian IP's geolocating to the Sydney area beginning here), and stirring the usual pot on the Kitchen Nightmares article. I reverted the edit related to Abdul Gani Patail linked above, which was immediately reverted with the edit summary "bad faith edit", a Roman888 classic. He's stopped for the moment, but it won't last long, we know that. I know you take a particular interest in the Malaysian articles and keep an eye on his activities, so I thought a heads up wouldn't be a bad idea. The back-up at SPI is incredible, so it will go stale long before anyone gets to a report there. --Drmargi (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a couple of weeks. :/ Let's hope he gets bored. Thank you for letting me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd think that will do the job. He usually gets bored quickly. I've also warned him off the Kitchen Nightmares talk page, but if he comes back, I may drop by and ask for page protection there, too. --Drmargi (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Charles Cheffins

Hi Moonriddengirl, could you clear Charles Cheffins from the copyright restrictions to mirror this article (or take another kind of action). I already notified that (the first version of) this article is based on a pd-source (and is developed from there), but there has been no response since over a week. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What do you mean? The page doesn't seem to have any copyright problem type notice on it so I'm not sure what you are asking for. There's certainly no "restriction" on it. Dpmuk (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
There was a template added after the article was created, which I removed after I explained (here). Now when I try to link to this article on Facebook I (still) get the following text:
Charles Cheffins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
It will soon be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues. The content should not be mirrored or otherwise reused until the issue has been resolved...
Now I can be mistaken, but I was under the impression, that there is still some kind of invisible copy restriction added to the article!? Otherwise there would be a normal introduction, when I mirror this on facebook... Or I am completely mistaken, and this has nothing to do with wikipedia, but is a facebook thing...!? -- Mdd (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
That's entirely a facebook thing I'm afraid, there's no invisible copy restriction and nothing we can do about it. I guess what happened is when facebook first found the article it happens to have been in the 3 minutes it was tagged by MadamNBot - presumably they follow one of our new page feeds if they found it that quickly after creation. I assume facebook do go back and update what they get from us occasionally but there's no easy way for them to know when to do so, so I assume they do it on some sort of schedule although I have no idea what that schedule is. I think your best option may be just to wait it out although you may try contacting facebook. Dpmuk (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for this info, which makes it quite clear. Consider this resolved. -- Mdd (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Watercress Darter.jpg

What's going on with the ticket for this image? Obviously PD-USGov is not the correct tag. Do we have permission from someone else? Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Jen. :) That's an odd one. We have permission from Patrick E. O'Neil, Director, Ecosystems Investigations Program, Geological Survey of Alabama, who asserts that he is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the image. His email address checks out. There's no indication whatsoever that it's PD-USGov in that ticket. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
What sort of permission/license does O'Neil give? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. :) An important bit of information I left out! It's CC-By-SA 3.0. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What to do when wiki is closely paraphrased?  ;-)

Hey, is there some sort of template for when a new source closely paraphrases or even copies wikipedia so that it is clear that our edit was the first one and theirs was the copy - so as not to claim the wiki editor who did the original work was copying? Here's my situation: Some wording I used in the article Mucho Macho Man was closely paraphrased by an article in Blood-Horse magazine that came out yesterday. What complicates the matter is that Blood-Horse - but a different reporter - was one of three sources for some of the material I wrote earlier. How do I tag this for a future time when someone might think there is a potential copyvio? {{online source}} doesn't seem to quite cut it, because the article doesn't *say* it's citing WP, though I popped that template into hidden text on the talk page to have some sort of ref recorded. The way the reporter worded one paragraph of her article would gut US busted for close paraphrasing, and their last sentence is a cut and paste of ours. Here's the details:

"The Rios sold a majority share in the horse to Jim Culver of Dream Team One Racing Stable, keeping a share for themselves.[13] After Mucho Macho Man's first race, a majority share in the colt was sold to Dean and Patti Reeves' Reeves Thoroughbred Racing of Atlanta, Georgia.[18] In 2012 Reeves Thoroughbred Racing bought out Dream Team One's 30 percent interest and became the sole owners of the colt.[5]"

  • Theirs (toward the end of the article):

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/83466/adena-buys-interest-in-mucho-macho-man?source=rss "The Rios sold a majority share in Mucho Macho Man to Jim Culver of Dream Team One Racing Stable before he started in 2010, keeping a small portion for themselves. After his first race, a majority share was sold to Reeves Thoroughbred Racing. In 2012 Reeves Thoroughbred Racing bought out Dream Team One's 30% interest."

Any help or pointers to a proper template welcomed. I'd like to take this article to FAC and I suspect this will get flagged in that review, so thanks in advance for any pointers. Montanabw(talk) 21:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

(Talk-page stalker here) You can put {{Backwardscopy}} at the top of the article's talk page. Deor (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) (ec) I believe the template you want is Template:Backwardscopy. It has a few names (redirects): you can call it Template:Notacopyvio, or for a more serious case, going beyond plagiarism to infringement of the licence, Template:Reversecopyvio.—Odysseus1479 22:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all, if anyone wants to check the talk page (about 15 minutes from when I post this) to be sure I did it properly? Montanabw(talk) 16:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks fine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you, User:Odysseus1479 and User:Demiurge1000. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  • This tool is helpful. You may mail them mbickel@BloodHorse.com and report about the issue TitoDutta 15:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for everyone's help. I'm not going to bug the magazine this time, as we are basically talking about a sentence or two, and I use them as a source quite often myself, just wanted to be sure the issue was properly noted so **I** wasn't in trouble! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 00:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

From London

St. Paul's Cathedral...
Merry Christmas, MRG, and a very happy new year! Voceditenore

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

CCI question

Hi MRG! Here with another of those CCIs where I'm down to the last couple of articles and can't decide what to do with them, this time in Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20140224. The vast majority of this editor's prose contributions have been copyvio, but I can't find specifically where these articles came from, if they were copied. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the incredible User:Wizardman wrapped this one up, Dana. :) Those cases can be hard, but generally my thought is that when the vast majority of contribs are copyvios, it's time to apply presumptive removal per WP:CV. We have a template for when we blank in such situations - {{CCId}} - but the template is written from the presumption that the contributor created the article and it's going to be deleted. When there's clean content in history, that can be alarming. :D
The reason why it presumes deletion is because policy permits us to just revise the content on the spot, without blanking, in CV circumstances. For those cases, we have {{CCI}}. But this can be pretty shocking to other editors. :/ I have in the past where an article is heavily edited by somebody else sometimes blanked and just put a note of explanation on the talk page with a link to the CCI and an invitation to help craft a usable article. People are sometimes angry at first, but I almost always find that after the initial shock they direct that appropriately at the problem and not at the messenger. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response :) I know that what you have written is true, I just really hate removing information when I can't prove it's copyvio, even when I'm fairly sure that it is. Oh well, on to other CCIs. Dana boomer (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel you. :) I don't like doing that either! Sometimes we just have no choice. I usually just hinge it on their ratios. Somebody who has demonstrably copied 99% of what they added, I'm more likely to presumptively delete. 10%, not so much. It would be nice if they were all that extreme. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

And now it's Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Lionhead99 that I'm coming begging for :) Again, down to the last few, don't know what to do... The few that are left include some pretty major articles, and ones that have had a lot of edits made since the potentially copyvio edits. Thoughts? A straight reversion would be easy, but not sure if it's the best option for these articles... Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Working on it. It's going to take some time, I'm afraid, and I'm out of it for this morning. I'm working on History of chocolate, which actually doesn't have a ton of substance added since Lionhead - so I reverted and am trying to build a better article through a combination of translation from the Spanish Wikipedia (which evidently loves its chocolate) and research. I'll try to get back to it later today! When I look at chocolate, I expect to see a lot more substantive editing after Lionhead's, so I'll probably wind up just rewriting his bits. But we'll see. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: GCE Ordinary Level (United Kingdom)

Right, but in this case, an external website copied the content from Wikipedia. The bot detected that the content was from an external source when in fact it was from Wikipedia and copied by the external website. The external website itself indicates this by the copied content, under the article title, being preceded by "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" on that external website page. --Shruti14 talksign 13:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, to clarify: the content was moved from the main article to the country-specific article, not copied from the previous article. --Shruti14 talksign 13:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Understood that. But the guideline only explains what should be done to provide attribution if there a copy and paste from one article to another if the original article is left empty and turned into a redirect page (in which case a history merge should be done, which must be performed by an administrator). It isn't exactly clear on what to do in this case, which is a partial move of content from one page to another, in which the original article is left intact with new content. A complete history merge would include the history of revisions on article content that is not relevant to this article (such as information on O Levels in other parts of the world that are not connected to the British O Level). I did note in the edit summary that I was moving content. Is there anything else that can/needs to be done? --Shruti14 talksign 13:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Jen Hudak

Hello. I tried reaching you on the Jen Hudak talk page. I wish to begin working on a new version of that article, but would like to use what I'd previously written as a guide. I will be rewriting everything so that it's all in my own words. I'm currently in talks with Jen to get more information about her, but would like to have access to the information and sources I'd used. Is this possible? I understand that what I had previously written was against the Wikipedia policy and understand why, but just want to open a Word document and paste it in to use that as a framework. It would be a big help. Please and thank you. (EGorodetsky (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC))

Hello, EGorodetsky. A good way to get the attention of another editor (outside of visiting their talkpage) is to use the Wikipedia:Notifications system. Basically, by linking to your username as I just did, I triggered this system to notify you that I am talking to you. :) You can notify people through just a standard link: [[User:Moonriddengirl]] works. But there are also specific templates if you want to get fancy with it, like {{ping:Moonriddengirl}} and {{U|Moonriddengirl}}.
I've restored the history of the article so you can access it. In case you aren't familiar with page histories, Help:Page history should help you do this. Please be very careful in constructing your new article - it can be difficult to do so using older versions without creating a close paraphrase and, hence, an unusable derivative work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much. And I completely agree about how it will be more difficult to refrain from close paraphrasing. I just wanted to ensure that I don't forget any information. I will do what that article suggested and read what I wrote and then write without looking at it. Thanks again! (EGorodetsky (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless CCI Contributor Barnstar
Frankly, every one of the 17,000,000+ users or however many we are up to these days could give you a barnstar, and it still would not be sufficient thanks for the tireless work you do behind the scenes at CCI. I appreciate your efforts; thanks to people like you doing that "grunt work", people like me can have fun writing articles on topics we enjoy ... I appreciate that opportunity. I don't understand copyright rules to a sufficient degree so as to feel comfortable assisting at CCI, however in the event you would ever, say, be watching baseball and find a player that you want to know more about, I would be happy to write/expand the article on said player. In all seriousness, if there is something basic I can do that would make your life easier at CCI, please let me know. Thanks again for all you do; without editors such as yourself keeping us legal, this project would not exist. So when I say thank you, I would like to think I do so on behalf of the roughly 116 million people who visit Wikipedia on a monthly basis who have no idea the hard work that you and others perform at CCI on a daily basis. Thank you, thank you, thank you, and did I forget to say thank you. Go Phightins! 03:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Go Phightins!. :) While I haven't done the heavy-lifting at CCI for some time, I do try to contribute (and have some more work to do on chocolate and other articles still!) and I do try to help keep the backlog controlled at WP:CP. It can sometimes seem like a thankless task, and it means a lot when it isn't. :D If I ever run into a baseball player article that needs expanding (especially if I have to gut one for copyright issues), I'll keep you in mind. I don't remember any baseball players lately, but this happens more often than you think! An occasional part of copyright cleanup is repairing the holes they leave in content coverage. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

LINKVIO querry

Hi Moonriddengirl. I have a question related to LINKVIO posted at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Can you please take a look at it? Thanks -- SMS Talk 14:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, User:Smsarmad. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hello MRG, I have what I hope will be a quick question. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lewis Earle Sandt, Pioneer Aviator was speedy deleted as a copyright violation, however the nominator did not provide a source of the copyright. The article (while still needs work) is well referenced with about 26/30 references coming from the 1912/1913. Further to this, the AfC was declined because the nominator thought the text sounded like it might have been copy/pasted from source material (a stock decline through AFC Helper script). So, I have reversed the delete, as if it were copy/pasted the source material is in the public domain and thus ineligible for copyright. My question is: If it were copy/paste Is all that is required a PD-old-text template at the bottom for the sources, or did I just make a grand error. Much thanks for your input, I hope not to take up too much of your time. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:kelapstick. :) If the content is copy-pasted from a PD source then, yes, all that would be required is the proper attribution- and even if proper attribution weren't given, it wouldn't be a copyright problem - it would just be Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Usually in cases of suspected copying, if the contributor isn't around to ask, we'd see a {{cv-unsure}} tag on the talk page. I realize that this is not possible for AFC, since it is in the talk page already. I would not blank or delete an article like that if were listed at WP:CP, but it would be awfully nice to be able to compare the text to the 1987 article cited as source 1. :/ I would simply add teh {{cv-unsure}} template on behalf of the original tagger. I think what you did was probably the right choice - it's what I would have done, pending a source, although I might have asked the user who blanked it if he had found a source somewhere that I'm not seeing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Maggie, just double checking. Some of the writing from source 1 shares a style such as my own (overuse of commas), and probably isn't form something "professionally" done. Since there was no source given for the copyright, and my request on the nominator's page was summarily deleted without a response, I am guessing it was a case of an incorrect "I know it when I see it" style nomination.--kelapstick(bainuu) 19:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Userfy request

Hi, I'm hoping you would waive your magic wand and userfy EDGE on the Net to User:Sportfan5000/Edge on the Net? I'm convinced that more sources are available, especially reviews on their dozens of apps, so would like to keep adding items as I find them. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. Dragons flight (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Dragons flight. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sketching a photomicrograph

Am I just being crazy here?

A Commons admin is arguing that the particular sketch duplicating a photomicrograph doesn't result in a derivative work / copyright infringement on the theory that the sketch is too trivial to be copyright eligible. I really don't see it. I'm tired of arguing, and we could use a fresh opinion as the two of us clearly aren't going to agree. Dragons flight (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Dragons flight. I'm really sorry, but this is really outside of my comfort zone. :( I stay away from images for the most part, as I'm far more comfortable assessing originality in text. Maybe you could talk to some of the other editors who work at WP:MCQ or ask at Commons:Commons:Village pump/copyright? Images just have never been my area. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Idris of Libya and a blocked IP

Would someone take a look at the text I reverted here[16] which is copied from[17]. The IP, 50.157.103.28 (talk · contribs) believes it is copyright free, but I see a copyright tag. In any case it was a huge chunk of copy/paste, even if referenced to the source. A response at the IP's page might be helpful (he's appealing my block). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite the statement on the copyright page, the book seems to me to fall under the universal exemption for US government works; the web cover-page says, “The Library of Congress is unaware of any copyright restrictions for this item.” Regardless, I certainly don’t care for the way the material was added, long verbatim passages sprinkled with references, which imply that the information is derived from the source but not that it’s a direct quotation. There are templates for use where material is copied from PD sources like the old Britannica & DNB, but I couldn’t find a specific one—it would be like Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army but for text rather than images. There‘s Template:PD-notice, which could be enough to make such additions ‘meet minimum code’ … but next there’s the question of using a single source for such a large proportion of the article.—Odysseus1479 19:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that this is really not a good way to write an article. If a huge slab is copied verbatim it should be clear what that text is. I recall asking for sources for an article and having my citation tags removed because it was all copied from the old Jewish Encyclopedia, thus was sourced. But do we have guidelines for this? WP:Plagiarism doesn't seem to deal with this. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I know that basing articles on broad swathes of sources, even if PD, is generally frowned upon (although not by everybody) from discussions when Wikipedia:Plagiarism was created, but I don't know of any actual policy against it. I've heard people complain that Country Studies are too POV. I don't know - I'm not honestly that deeply familiar with them, beyond routinely encountering them at copyright problems board. Bit of trivia - we once got a DMCA takedown for some content that I was able to trace back to a country study. Proud moment for me, being able to show the lawyer that the content they were demanding we remove was not even theirs to begin with. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Article with virtually every sentence sourced to the same book

Sovereignty of Puerto Rico during the Cold War has well over 150 citations to the same book, almost one per sentence. Is this covered by our copyvio policy? Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The closest we come is "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely. (See our Copyright FAQ for more on how much reformulation may be necessary as well as the distinction between summary and abridgment.) However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference (see the plagiarism guideline)." (links omitted, but visible at WP:C :))
Since information is not copyrighted and sweat of the brow is not protected in the U.S., I believe we should be free to base an article entirely on a single source as long as we don't wind up creating an abridgment or too closely paraphrase it. (There are other forms of derivative work, like annotated editions, that I don't think we risk here, given length differentials. :)) (This is copyright standpoint of course - using a single work is not ideal for other reasons.) I'd be more worried if the citations were in order from within the book, which might suggest that somebody is closely paraphrasing, but the way those pages hop around it looks like he might just be getting information and using it to build his own content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought that was probably the case but I've never seen such a heavily cited article virtually all to one book. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Userfying Request

 More information at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please provide me a copy of List of Iranian International footballers with dual Nationality in my own sub-userpage? Amirreza talk 08:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Issue with content added to conflict article

Technically, films like Predator are a variation of Man vs Man anyway... maybe I should mention it there.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

PD or not PD? That is the question...

Hi MRG. I've recently deleted the page Malin Craig as a copyright violation of this book. However I was fairly unsure at the time, and another editor has also questioned my decision, so I thought I'd check with someone who knew what they were doing (that's you, BTW). The book in question is published by a US Government body, and so may fall within the public domain, although it's not clear to me whether the author retains a copyright on his work in these circumstances (WP:PD is fairly unedifying on the subject). Would the copied text be usable under PD terms, and if so, would you mind letting me know so that I can put the article back? Much obliged, Yunshui  08:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It comes down to who William Gardner Bell is and whether the work was done as part of his duties. :) The government may publish material under copyright, and if Bell is a contractor then his book could well be.
So, the "about the author" section on the book states that Bell was career military who, after leaving service, went to work for the United States Army Center of Military History as an historian. The copyright information at [18] seems to be waffly about copyright status of their content - on the one hand, they imply public domain, but on the other hand they explicitly refer to non-commercial use. :/

Unless otherwise noted, information presented on CMH Online is considered public information and may be distributed or copied for non-commerical purposes.�Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. If copyrighted or permission restricted materials are posted on CMH Online, the appropriate credit is given. Visitors wishing to repost or use such materials for their own projects should make separate arrangements for permission with the owner.

Bell's bibliography makes clear that he authored content in some of his books as a private citizen (one of his books is about a cowboy), but this has all the feel of "federal work" to me. However, there's no question that they gave him "appropriate credit" for the work. So I don't know. It's very likely, Yunshui, that this is public domain (although I don't see any sign in the article's history that it used the proper attribution template, which would have made it at least plagiarism).
Moving beyond that, though, even if that particular text is a copyright problem, the article really shouldn't be deleted. Article deletion per G12 is only applicable when the entire history of the content is corrupt. :) This article was around for a few years before the content was added to the article - for instance, [19] is original text. In such cases, {{copyvio}} can be used to facilitate cleanup or the content can simply be reverted.
While I am not a lawyer and I cannot give legal advice (requisite disclaimer :D), I can freely tell you what I would do. :) What I would probably do if I found this article listed at WP:CP is revert the content back to the older text (retaining the updates to categories and infoboxes), with a note on the talk page explaining the issue with plagiarism and the concerns about the provenance of the text. If it can be determined that the author was a federal employee who wrote this book as part of his task (and not simply as a side project, say), then the text can be used, but it would need the proper attribution template. If the website itself were more clear that content was public domain and didn't mention "non-commercial" in their reuse allowances, I wouldn't hesitate to just put it back and attribute it. Note that the contributor who originally added the content has a history of copyright issues and was unfortunately indefinitely blocked in 2009 for being indiscriminate with copypastes, drawing without regard for what was public domain or copyrighted. :/ That's probably what I would do now, if I were you. And I'd ask the person who tagged it for G12 to please check the history before using that tag and use {{copyvio}} instead if the history includes clean content. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Good advice as always; I'm going to do exactly that. Thank you very much indeed for the help. Yunshui  11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism concerns with Korean dramas

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Plagiarism_of_Ostensibly_Unreliable_Sources:_Eight_Examples. You may be interested in this WhisperToMe (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, User:WhisperToMe. :) I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi I am upset that you have removed my content from ultimate fight night as it was not copyrighted I changed it and made it my own. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC).

Ok

Ok I understand I just didn't like being threatened with being blocked as I am new to editing and didn't mean to, Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC).

Restore

Could you think about restoring the match listings please As that is verified info and quite important as well thank you Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok

Ok thank you and apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukejordan02 (talkcontribs) 22:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Advice, again...

Hi MRG. Would you mind taking a look at File:Postnow Angst book cover German translation of Postnov, Strah.jpg? We don't have an article on the book, so fair use isn't applicable, but I'm thinking it might be acceptable as the image is almost certainly PD. That leaves the typeface and publisher's logo - the type doesn't look as though it's complex enough to create a new copyright, and I believe {{PD-textlogo}} might well apply if the logo appeared on its own. Do you think this is a useable image, or should it stay off until the book has an article and it can be uploaded under fair use? Cheers, Yunshui  07:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right. I'm not familiar with the painting, but the odds that the publisher unearthed a novel Henry Fuseli seems unlikely. :) I don't see anything creative in that organization. But honestly I'd check at WP:MCQ if you have any uncertainty. Images are not really my area - I'm much more confident with text. And I would feel terrible if I steered you wrong. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll file an MCQ if there are any further issues raised, but since the uploader is already planning to write an article about the book the point will hopefully become moot in the very near future anyway. Thanks as always for the advice. Yunshui  10:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Some food to help you...

Cheeseburger.png ...stand that T.P. guy. Cheers. Hispalois (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Hispalois. :) That's very kind. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI

One of your discussions seems to have gone offwiki. Bazj (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I've made a statement at Talk:East–West dichotomy. People get angry, and they can say whatever they like in their blogs, regardless of the truth. Well, not legally. But it's hardly worth pursuing the libel. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I hope it doesn't get to you. A couple of years back I had an encounter with a monomaniacal editor which totally drained my enthusiasm for wikipedia - it's a pain. Bazj (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that, User:Bazj, but happy that you're still here! I think that kind of thing is one of the biggest challenges we face. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

Trying to correct layout of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:The_Tudors_of_Penmynydd

Please advise how to set it to display properly or do it for me. This lineage appears in various articles but is all jumbled up and I would like it corrected.

Thanks.Mhakcm (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Mhakcm. I'm very sorry, but I'm not the right person to help with this kind of thing. :) I'm not all that good with templates, and I've never used the family lineage template before. I would suggest that you might ask User:Llywelyn2000. He created the template, and if you tell him what the issue is may be able to help fix it. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The University School of Physical Education in Krakow

Seems like a clear copyvio from [20] (a bit less know after my c/e of first sentence or two), do you concur? I have looked at author's other recent articles and they seem fine, so hopefully an explanatory note on this will prevent this from happening again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Piotrus, and thanks especially for looking at his other edits. :) I've removed the content you had not rewritten and left him the copyright template for "new" contributors - it's meant to be friendly and fairly comprehensive without overwhelming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing Text from Manikganj Govt. High School

Hello, I am Shuvo Saha made this new page named Manikganj Govt. High School, and the writings you have saw that you think I've copied are absolutely wrong. I wrote that description from where i have copied this. I didn't think, for a school i have to write the same thing again. The whole articles and information was in Bangla. So, I had to translate them into english. The page i have created is for my school, which established in 1884, and no one yet created any page in wikipedia. So at first i made a map where i put all the description in wikimapia. Then i have created a facebook page of my school https://www.facebook.com/MGBHS , i used the same description as i have no other source of information. and then when i came to wikipedia, i have seen no pages been created in wiki, so i did. If you want a clean article, please help me regarding that with your information and you can correct it by writing the actual facts. Why did you removed it. I appreciate that you work hard for wikipedia, but you should realize that correcting things never mean to delete. Correct it if i made any spelling mistake or anything. Here no copy right has been issued. The author is me. and no one else. Please give the source document of problem. Otherwise do not remove or delete anything. Please, leave a message Shuvo Saha(Talk)

Thanks. --Shuvo 07:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


Dear, I'm really sorry. Maybe i was bit rude when i wrote my message to you. Please help me regarding this. Yes I wrote that and i do have the copyright. Please undo that Remove by doing whatever it requires. Please help me. If you want, I can delete the source article from where i have copied this. Please undo the thing you did on Manikganj Govt. High School .

Thanks a lot --Shuvo 17:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saha7 (talkcontribs)


Dear Moon, I hope its your name :) Okay so this is where i wrote that description from where i copied it to wikipedia > http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=23.860339&lon=90.002945&z=18&m=b&show=/object/history/list/?object_type=1&id=12494869&lng=en&search=manikganj%20govt%20high%20school see you will get my user name. And i have translated it from our school book. It was in Bangla, So I had to translate it in english. If you say, i can delete the one i have posted in Wikimapia as i was the person who wrote that. Sorry, that I'm taking your time. And thanks a lot as you are replying me so fast. Hope I'm not disturbing you.

Thanks Shuvo 20:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saha7 (talkcontribs)

Help needed, please re: Red Skelton

If you can remember back close to 3 years ago, we had a foundational copyright in the article that dated from 2006. The vio came from Red Skelton's official site in 2006. I worked with the article a lot to replace what had to be deleted and added my own information & refs.

I haven't done any real work on it for a while, but was taking a look at it, thinking about whether to submit it for GA. Now the reverse is true--the Skelton website has copied a section of the WP article and put a 2014 copyright notice on it.

Start reading at: "Skelton introduced the first two of his many characters during the show's first season. Clem Kadiddlehopper was based on a Vincennes neighbor named Carl Hopper, who was hard of hearing." and continue down to the end of the section there and here on the article.

This was my own work over a period of time and my edits can be checked--they pre-date the Skelton website. This was the only 2014 edit I've made so far--replacing a dead link.

How do we set the record straight?

Thanks!! We hope (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

PS-the Skelton site also borrowed this File:Skelton dood it 1942.JPG for their main page. As you can see, it was originally uploaded in 2011. We hope (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm on it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
A giant Thanks!  :) We hope (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Your habit of incremental editing and clear edit summaries there is a huge help, as is WikiBlame. :) I have tagged this as a backwards copy at the talk page, with evidence, that should help clear any copyright concerns that may be raised. For you to have copy-pasted their content, you would have had to get it from somewhere else and make dozens of changes in it that you then slowly, step by step, changed back. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It's sort of a matter of "self defense" because many times, I have bunches of tabs open from places like Google News Archive and am trying to make sure I don't get too close with paraphrasing. :) The most recent article I've done a lot of editing on is Ruth Etting, and trying to keep what happened there straight was a job. Days after the shooting, she was sued for "alienation of affections" by her pianist's second wife, so you had 2 things happening--the shooting aftermath and the lawsuit against her. It's good to know all of my habits aren't bad ones! Thanks a bunch once again ! :) We hope (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Attribution to deleted material

Where someone requests a copy of a deleted article in order to post it elsewhere, e.g. to Wikia, what if anything needs to be done about attribution? Do the original authors lose any CC-BY-SA rights when their material is deleted, even if it is resuscitated elsewhere? That seems wrong, but I don't see how to provide an attribution trail. JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, John. :) Attribution is satisfied by a list of authors, so what I usually do in such cases is just copy out the history list. It can be filtered to remove non-substantial edits, but that often is more labor than it's worth. You can remove bots if you want to, but can really just give it to them as it is. When they are posting it on a Wiki, I usually suggest that they put a note in the edit summary directing people to the talk page for the full list of authors. If it's on a regular website, the list can be appended to the page itself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
User:JohnCD, due to my failure to add User to your name on first go, you may not have been notified of this reply. Sorry! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
No, my bad, I was watching the page and saw the response - I should have thanked you. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

List of agglomerations by population

I removed the paragraph stating you copied (thief!!) from another Wikipedia article. Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution, you add in the edit summary that you "stole" from the hard work of others or add the {{copied}} template to the talk page. I'm not sure what is the best way, but the few times I've come across this, it was added in the edit summary.
I keep seeing you around, but I've never been on your talk page before. Finally nice to say hello. I do have one problem. I see that devious Crisco 1492 hangs out here. Now I know where you get your "ripped off" style of writing. :) Bgwhite (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Bgwhite. Nice to see you, too. :)
I'm afraid that there may be some misunderstanding. :) I didn't copy anything from anywhere to that article - and what was copied by somebody else wasn't from Wikipedia. :) What I did was close out a copyright problems board listing by getting a licensing statement from the guy whose website was copied. I added attribution for that external website - http://citypopulation.de/. If you follow the link you'll see that's not local.
I'm familiar with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia - at this point, I am the second highest contributor to it. :D But this is an entirely different situation. When we use compatibly licensed content from other websites, attribution is required. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Looks like I will have to do the walk of stupidity. I arrived at the page because it had fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}. That shouldn't go in articles. I changed it to use [[Special:Diff/297548840|this edit]] (this edit). It is trivial in this case, but I try to keep template programming code out of articles. There are some wild ways people attempt to use the code. Bgwhite (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for fixing that, User:Bgwhite! Usually this is done with a template ({{CCBYSASource}}, but I substituted the template this time so that I could link to the Terms of Use of the website. That's obviously where I messed up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The French Counts of St Hubert, Saskatchewan

Hi MRG - This article (currently nominated for GAN, which is how I stumbled across it), was substantially copied from an article published in 1980. The main editor of the article notes on the talk page that he was given permission by the author (via e-mail) to copy the article to WP. Do we need an OTRS ticket from the original article author for this, or can the editor forward the e-mail to OTRS? Without OTRS verification, isn't it copyvio? Pinging User:Gating as the main author of the article; I'm also going to be posting on the talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Dana boomer. Yes, we need verification from the author. He can forward the email to OTRS, but whether or not we can accept it there depends on the language of the permission (often, these are just "for Wikipedia" or "I give permission for you to use it", which isn't acceptable, unfortunately) and the origin - whether we can clearly associate it with the author. An acceptable permission must authorize our necessary license; it doesn't have to be written exactly like Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, but that's an example of a permission we can use. :) In the meantime, I'm afraid that the content needs to be blanked with {{copyvio}}. :/ User:Gating, if the permission is explicit to the license and you forward it, please let me know. Otherwise, you will need to contact the original author and ask him to grant us licence in usable terms if we are to retain the content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, but "Help!" again

Back at Red Skelton. Am trying to enlarge the lead and was doing some lookups when I hit this "bump".

  • First paragraph of Hollywood Walk of Fame page. is identical to first paragraph of our Skelton page.
  • "In Skelton's lifetime there was some dispute about the year of his birth."-in our "Early years" section.

The site has a 2014 copyright notice (hello, again? :)). Wayback Machine has only 1 crawl and it's from February of this year. I went back to where it had been cleaned of vios in 2011 and the first paragraph of the article plus the first paragraph of "Early years" are a match for the ones on the Walk of Fame. I think it's another case of reverse copyright but need your opinion and help for it. And I'm beginning to think someone doesn't want me to finish this and put it up for GA. :/ Thanks, We hope (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Geez. Insert cliche about imitation and flattery and the connection between the two here. :P I'll look into it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Instant smoking gun for backwards copying. I will build off of that. I expect to be able to report good news. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, We hope. :) {{Backwardscopy}} placed with what I believe to be solid evidence. Took me 30 minutes, pretty much precisely. It's a little time consuming, nailing these, but worth it to avoid content being lost that doesn't need to be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Once again, a big thanks! Too bad these sites just don't acknowledge where their text came from. It's not like they're violating copyright when using material from here; all we ask is attribution. We hope (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

ANI discussion concerning IP sock farm copying from Charles Esdaile The Peninsular Wars

This has been quite a problem for some time, see WP:ANI#Europa Universalis vandalism and copyvio from Charles Esdaile - need range block. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yikes, User:Dougweller. :( I am barely familiar with range blocks - I have only done or two, and with great fear and trembling. There used to be a tool that would help you determine collateral damage, but I can't seem to find it now. I can see if anybody who can take a look at the ANI listing on IRC. It looks like you're taking about 187.14.224.110 through 187.15.73.173, is that right? Organizing it from least to highest will make it easier for a blocker to assess the range. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm irked no one has responded. Busy now, will do something later. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Too much collateral damage. Maybe some sort of filter will work, I don't know that much about them. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I found Snowolf on IRC, and he very kindly investigated. He said he would explain that at the ANI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Editor with long history of image copyvio

I'm wondering if we should indef this editor, see User_talk:Canadaolympic989. What do you think? On another tack, you might want to look at WP:RSN#Is an anti-Mosque organisation a reliable source for Child Grooming. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm waffly on that one, Dougweller - most of the deletions seem to be orphaned non-free content. Given his recent justified rant on AN, I'm going to ping User:MER-C. Thoughts?
And thanks for the updated re: the RSN. I think more eyes on this situation is important, and I appreciate your seasoned approach to these issues. :) I don't often have to deal with this kind of thing - it's really just not much of an issue in most of the articles I babysit. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking a user script edit to show a dialog box on the upload form might be in order. As pointed out above, most of the deletions are for orphaned fair use and only some of these are problematic. MER-C 02:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. I just wish the editor was responsive. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Done: [21][22]. I've gone for something a little more intrusive that shows up on every edit. MER-C 03:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant idea. I had no idea we could do that. I liked your warning on his page also. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ditto. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've also pulled his autopatrolled and reviewer flags for the same reason. MER-C 13:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Article deleted "Diane Meredith Belcher"

Hello,

There is no Wiki article on the famous organist Diane Meredith Belcher, and I would like to create one.

In starting to do so, I came across this info: "22:01, 17 December 2007 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) deleted page Diane Meredith Belcher (CSD G12: Blatant Copyright infringement)"

I'm wondering if this is pertinent to the article I want to write.

Thank you.

Giovanni GiovLDL (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Giovanni. :) Given the highly specific name, it seems pretty likely it's the same individual. However, the fact that we once had an article on the individual that was deleted as a copyright problem does not prevent you creating a new one. In these cases the problem is not with the subject, but only with the content we had. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Article deleted "European Commodity Clearing (ECC)"

Hello Moonriddengirl,

I'm sorry but I only now got your recommendations regarding the article "European Commodity Clearing (ECC) I wrote and which you deleted because of copyright problems you were assuming. In fact there is no copyright problem because I wrote the original text myself. I know you can't verify that. That's why I placed a release on the external website the text was taken from (http://www.marketswiki.com/mwiki/European_Commodity_Clearing_AG_(ECC). On the bottom you can find the copyright guideline. Now that I did this, I would like to write the article again. Do I have to write the article again or is it stored somewhere? I hope there won't be any further mistakes.

Thank you Ursula Goetze (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've replied at your talk page, but in short I'm afraid that one person who contributes to a Wiki cannot release content by multiple authors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I see the problem. Our problem is that the content was provided by one person that was logged in with different accounts. But it's no use to tell you that because I totally understand your point - I will rewrite the article. Do I have to create a new article or can I use the page that I already created? Thank you for your effort. Ursula Goetze (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Image taken off Google street view allowable for reuse on Wikipedia?

  1. File:Eland90.PNG taken off Google Street View
  • Hi MRG, just curious if this is a grey area? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi, Dave. :) Well the licensing tag there is clearly inapplicable - fair use screenshots are only permitted to illustrate the software, and the licensing tag says as much. The image isn't used in the Google Street View article at all, but in Eland Mk7. The image isn't historically significant, so there'd be no reason to use a non-free image from Google Street View of the tank in the tank's article. But I don't honestly know that much about Google Street View. [23] indicates there are restrictions on reproduction, but I don't know if Google Street View images are copyrightable. If I were you, I'd ask about that one at WP:MCQ. --18:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
      • (talk page stalker) Dave, I would be 100% astonished if Google Street View images were not copyrightable, as essentially the rig is still controlled by a human, with the ability for creative input which would affect the final image (i.e. speed to drive, how high to post the cameras, what angles to position the cameras, etc.). For this particular case, we definitely need a free image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for Office Action

An email was sent to your wikimedia account a few hours ago requesting for an office action on an urgent basis. TrangDocVan (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the editor's other edit, you may want to look at Wikipedia:ANI#India_Against_Corruption_disruption_yet_again. --NeilN talk to me 17:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
At my talk page this editor claims " 1,03,000+ edits 832+ still working accounts" - and calls another editor a chutiya[24]. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

By any chance do you know about non-Wikimedia copyright issue?

Hello,
By any chance do you know about non-Wikimedia copyright issue?
My this post was entirely copied by someone here. Firstly I posted at their comment section and asked them to remove the post. They gave one of the weirdest reply I have ever heard I will not remove because I have written the URL from where I copied (please check comment section of the second link)
Now I tried to follow the second option, reporting to the host, i. e. Wordpress. There I need to file a formal DMCA notice. Here is the DMCA form. There in the form I must provide my full residential address, phone number. But the surprising thing is, at the end of the form they are asking to me to acknowledge I acknowledge that a copy of this infringement notice, including any contact information I provided above (address, telephone number, and email address), will be forwarded to the user who uploaded the content at issue.. Now, why should I share my full contact details with that pirate? I'm stumped. --TitoDutta 20:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm sorry to hear about that situation, User:Titodutta. The law requires that you give sufficient information for the person to contact you in case of legal challenge to your takedown. I can't give you legal advice, but I can offer you a relevant link: [25]. He's sharing his own approach, and it sounds to me like a good one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please note in Wikipedia we follow some Manual of Style guidelines to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Unfortunately some of your edits did not follow MoS guidelines. According to WP:OVERLINK— A link should appear only once or twice in a page. You should not link every time.

But I have noticed every time you sign your posts, you link your user page and talk page. The worstly affected page is your own talk page, there you have linked your user page and talk page in your every message. I think it is a clear violation of WP:OVERLINK. --TitoDutta 15:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer: For clarification, it was a joke, do not take it seriously. Source: Original creation.

LOL! --~~~~

Can I get a 2nd look at these articles?

Man: whence, how and whither, a record of clairvoyant investigation is a recreation of an article I deleted for copyvio when it had a different title. Admins can see the old article at [26]. At first glance a lot of it seems unattributed quotes, some material copied from [27] and possibly from and other pages at this url. I'm also concerned about K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater. Hate to be a pain, but I really feel I need a second opinion. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You're never a pain, User:Dougweller. :) Which doesn't mean you don't find tricky stuff sometimes. But I'm always happy to try to help.
You didn't actually link to the page the content is copied from, but I'm doing a spot check through the article. :) There's clear plagiarism off the bat from [28]. That source is PD, so that can be fixed.
There's a ton of direct copying from the book itself, as reproduced at [29], but with a publication date of 1913 that's PD, too. More plagiarism. What I'm seeing in that article at this point looks like plagiarism, not copyvio. But if you've found something that is copied from a modern source, that changes the landscape. Off to look at the other article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
More plagiarism - [30] gives us the whole section beginning "In man divine powers are latent...."
I removed a massive blockquote. The article says the letters were published in 1941, and so they cannot be presumed to be out of copyright. We'd need to verify.
And I found more plagiarism: [31].
There's copying from Hodgson Report. It's unattributed, so it's a copyvio. Reparable. Likewise, Morya (Theosophy).
So what I'm seeing at this point is a massive issue of not understanding Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I do see the copyvio in the history of the second article, but it looks like he corrected it after your removal. That said, it's a wall of text, so it's not impossible I missed something substantial. :/
I'm happy to talk to him about how to avoid plagiarism issues, if you'd like. And if you think I missed copying from a copyrighted source, please let me know! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I would appreciate it if you counseled him. In the Man whence etc. article, the first paragraph of the introduction is copied from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia which is copyright.[32] I've deleted that. Then he copies material from [33] which by William Walker Atkinson and probably out of copyright although the version I've linked to says "Copyright © 2009 by Indo-European Publishing All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without the prior written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or review's. The present edition is a revised version of 1931 of this work under the title Fourteen Lessons in Yogi Philosophy and Oriental Occultism, published by the Yogi Publication Society , produced in the current edition with completely new, easy to read format, and is set and proofread by Alfred Aghajanian for Indo-European Publishing." He even gives references to some of his copyvio. He then quotes from Bruno with no quote marks, quotes from Leadbeater. It takes work to see when he's quoting. Eg "when the Human Kingdom is traversed, and man stands on the threshold of His superhuman life, a liberated Spirit, seven paths open before Him for His choosing" is a quote but he doesn't indicate that. He's causing a lot of work and writing not very good articles. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Doug. They say the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is copyrighted, but transcribing an article verbatim from the Catholic Encyclopedia and publishing it online doesn't constitute originality. :) We have literally thousands of articles copying from that source: (see); it is attributed with {{Catholic}}. That content should be okay with attribution.
A 1931 book would be iffy. It depends on where it was published and under what conditions whether it's copyrighted in the U.S. as well as whether content is copied from the original or the revised version. But the Atkinson material was actually published earlier than that - 1904, 1903.
No argument about the articles not being very good - they're a mess of pov, if nothing else.
Before I address him about plagiarism, it would be good to figure out if there's copyvio still too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I just discovered he'd used the original edition in any case. But we need to change New Advent if it's not copyright, as we imply it is by the wording in the article. What always bothers me about attribution is that the reader doesn't know what exactly is being attributed. And I had a nasty experience when I put fact tags on an article that I didn't realise was copy and paste from the Jewish Encyclopedia and had them removed on the grounds that it was sourced. This is a pain. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
He wants me to restore the bit from the CE, but as I'm against such copy-paste I'm not happy doing it. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, it's not to be done anyway without attribution. :) But I've left a personal note supplemental to your earlier one explaining the specific issues of plagiarism and licensing violations. Let's see if he fixes the content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Article regarding a US federal court opinion flagged as infringing

Hi, I'd like to point out this discussion of a recent article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014_March_24 As explained in that thread by both me (law student) and user Brianwc (law professor), the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Hemi_Group_LLC) was incorrectly flagged as infringing copyright. The article is about a federal court opinion, which is not copyrightable. Furthermore, there was already correct attribution and citation. I'm having a hard time convincing Justlettersandnumbers that the article is beyond simply fair use -- it CANNOT be infringement when all federal court opinions are not copyrightable and hence in the public domain, which means it can be freely copied, even without attribution, anywhere at any time, no matter who hosts the text.

I have an assignment due for a class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Program:University_of_California,_Berkeley/Cyberlaw_(Spring_2014)) which requires me to edit this article. Please unlock it and restore it to the last version.

Thank you! Bundaberger (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Bundaberger. :) It's processed. As a matter of future reference, when you copy or closely paraphrase content onto Wikipedia from a public domain source, we request that you acknowledge the duplication either through explicit quotation or through the use of an attribution template. I've added one to this article - {{PD-notice}} placed next to the reference tells people that the source is public domain and that substantial content is duplicated or closely followed from it.
We do sometimes run into situations like this, where a website hosts public domain content but their own copyright reservation tag confuses editors as to the specific page. FindLaw is an excellent service, but unfortunately they don't offer much clarity to the public there. :/ I've scanned through their Terms of Service and Disclaimers looking for anything that explains that they do not in spite of their published tag claim copyright over the court judgments they publish. Maybe it's buried somewhere, but it's unfortunate that they don't make that obvious.
Anyway, good luck with your class. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

proposed profiles William Mandeville AUSTIN and John Alfred HIPPLE

Dear Madam,

With good will, I tried to put on wikipedia the beginning two personalities profiles , William Mandeville AUSTIN and John Alfred Hipple. The systhem swept this effort, I am sorry. Please accept, Madam, my respectful greetings. Pierre-Francois Puech — Preceding unsigned comment added by PUECH P.-F. (talkcontribs) 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nicholas Rescher

Hi Moonriddengirl:

I am informed by Lars Curfs of WIKIPEDIA that you have edited the article on me. If you indeed are responsible putting this article into shape I would ask you please to consider four corrections:

1. On page 1 under MAIN INTERESTS the article lists aesthetics. This is ironic because while I have written extensively on every other area of philosophy I have done virtually nothing with aesthetics. Instead, the field that should be lists is EPISTEMOLOGY (or, if one prefers, Theory of Knowledge), where I have done a great deal of work.

2. The entry CAREER says I began my career as an academic at Lehigh University in 1957. Actually, my first teaching appointment was as an Instructor in Philosophy at Princeton for the 1951-1952 academic year.

3. The entry PHILOSOPHY speaks in line 7 of “medieval and late Arabic logic.” The expression “and late” should be deleted. All the texts I dealt with were medieval.

4. The entry PHILOSOPHY speaks in the last line of model syllogistic. This, however, should read MODAL syllogistic with an A in place of E.

That’s it as far as correction goes. Many thanks for attending to these points.

Sincerely, Nicholas Rescher

P.S. As regards that entry “Notable Ideas” at the outset of the article, it is not really for me to say. But if someone did ask me I would myself list primarily two items:

  • the theory of logarithmic returns (in scientometrics)
  • the conception of vagrant predicates (in epistemology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.57.84 (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Information from primary sources is generally deprecated on this site, and nobody in particular is in charge of any article. That said, I was easily able to verify Nº 2 above from the Princeton Philosophy Department’s historical roster and an article in Lehigh’s Brown and White. Unfortunately I’m not familiar with the method of referencing used in the article to make the appropriate edits at Nicholas Rescher#Career myself, with any confidence of success, but perhaps another TPS, with the necessary technical knowledge, can do so.—Odysseus1479 06:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I've made some changes, but not all of those requested. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Demiurge1000. :) I had not touched the infobox - it's not my field, so I don't feel comfortable editing the "notable ideas". User:Odysseus1479, sorry if the sourcing style is opaque. If you can't figure it out, that probably means I did it wrong. :D I rechecked the source and cleaned up the dating of the Arabic logic. The "late" was my misinterpretation.
Professor Rescher, as Oydsseus notes, no one in particular owns any article and I claim no expertise over your work. It's not an area with which I'm really familiar at all. :) You may find it easiest in future to suggest your changes on the talk page of the article and place {{request edit}} (curly brackets and all) next to it. This will attract a bypassing editor to take a look at them and assess them against our local policies and guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Where to report possible copyvios on Commons?

Is there a place on Commons like WP:Copyright problems where things can be reported for investigation? There is a user who has input several images claiming "Own work". One had a copyright notice in the metadata and has been speedied; the others look very professional, and Tineye finds some of them elsewhere on the internet, but I don't think I have enough evidence actually to nominate for deletion. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Note from a page watcher - If it is for the same uploader, please report it at Commons:Commons:AN/U, if for a larger pattern of copyvios, drop a note at Commons:Commons:AN or raise a more general or complex query at Commons:Commons:VP/C. -- (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, AN/U sounds like what I want. JohnCD (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Fae. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Mac & Devin Go to High School

You know a copied plot is not worth deleting a whole article. If you see something you think is a copyvio then just remove it there is no need to try and get the page deleted. Koala15 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Replying at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but what is the point of some review if we can just remove the plot and not waste anyones time? And what is this review supposed to do? Koala15 (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio K.H. letter

Hello Moonriddengirl. You deleted a part of the article K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater. I’m sorry, it is wrong. Author of the first Letter Kuthumi gave a permit on free using all his Letters. He wrote in Letter XXXIX (Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom, First Series, Adyar, Madras: Theosophical Publishing House, p. 106) that "everyone can take free something, the whole pages, from any my copied letter." Make undo please. Thank you. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, you wrote, "I'd recommend that you scan the page and email it to the volunteer response team who process and log copyright permissions. If you'd like to go that route, I'll be happy to give you the address." I've Letters (including Letter XXXIX) in PDF; it's need to examine Letter XXXIX for a permit of the Master Kuthumi. Thank you. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Appendix (transferred from PDF)

LETTER XXXIX 1

YOU may, if you choose so, or find necessity for it, use in "Man"2 or in any other book you may chance to be collaborating for, anything I may have said in relation to our secret doctrines in any of my letters to Messrs. Hume or Sinnett. Those portions that were private have never been allowed by them to be copid by anyone; and those which are so copied have by the very fact become theosophical property. Besides, copies of my letters – at any rate those that contained my teachings – have always been sent by my order to Damodar and Upasika, and some of the portions even used in The Theosophist. You are at liberty to even copy them verbatim and without quotation marks – I will not call it "plagiarism". . . . From the right point of view, if you will know, it is only the expression of another person's original ideas, some independent sentence, a thought, which in its brief completeness is capable of being constructed into a wise motto or maxim, that could be constituted into what is regarded as plagiarism – the pilfering of another person's "brain property". There is not a book but is the shadow of some other book, the concrete image, very often, of the astral body of it in some other work upon the same or approximate subject. I agree entirely with Dr. Cromwell when he says that "true talent" will become original in the very act of engaging itself with the ideas of others"; nay, will often convert the dross of previous authors into the golden ore that shines forth to the world as its own peculiar creation. "From a series of extravagant and weak Italian romances, Shakespeare took the plots, the characters, and the major part of the incidents of those dramatic works which have exalted his name, as an original writer, above that of every other in the annals of literature." Thus not only you, a chela of mine, but anyone else is at liberty to take anything, whole pages, if thought proper, from any of my "copied" letters and convert their "dross" into pure ore of gold, provided they have well grasped the thought. Show this to . . . who was already told the same

K. H.

1 Transcribed direct from the original at Adyar.

2 The book, Man : Fragments of Forgotten History, by Two Chelas in the Theosophical Society, published in 1885.

SERGEJ2011 (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Moonriddengirl. You wrote, "If the page is published legitimately online (that is, if the book is printed somewhere licensed to display it and we can see it there), then that may suffice." It's Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom 1881—1888. It's labeled, "Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Microsoft Corporation". All right? SERGEJ2011 (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The book there is in Open Library under CCo 1.0 Universal license i.e. Public Domain Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom. Let me make undo in K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater, please. Thank you. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Please see in K.H. Letters to C.W. Leadbeater (modification on 2 April 2014 at 09:02) references №№ 10-15 basing upon Jinarajadasa (1919) i.e. Jinarajadasa, Curuppumullage, ed. (1919) Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom, First Series, Adyar, Madras: Theosophical Publishing House. In 1941 Jinarajadasa was quoting the Letters first published in 1919. If summarize it, copyvio was not. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your expertise is greatly appreciated

Would you please help me out? I always assume good faith, but I also know how hard it is to write original articles based on multiple references, free of copyright violations. That's why all instantaneous entries are a red flag for me, warranting further analysis. Ozhistory (talk · contribs) created Rescue of Jews by Catholics during the Holocaust in one sweep on 12:02, 4 April 2014, with +113,615 characters. He/she also created Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany in one sweep on 12:18, 22 November 2013, with +42,887 characters. I'd like to make sure that we have the legal right to keep it, after what I've run into at the "List of individuals and groups assisting Jews during the Holocaust." See my post at Talk:List of individuals and groups assisting Jews during the Holocaust#Copying within Wikipedia for my Detector results. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 15:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys. The new Rescue article was in my sandbox for months, as I was contributing to other articles on similar themes, I'd include the relevant quotes and vice versa. So it might seem like an instantaneous creation - but it's not really. Similar story with Nazi persecution article. Theyare partly the product of a problem encountered on the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany page where we have needed to trim, but have been reluctant before separate articles were created to take the load off. Let me know if I can help. On the List of individuals assisting Jews page, the existing text appears to me to have multiple referencing issues, and I too was suspicious of copright breaches (and at least of poor citing). I have made some additions from more reliable sources. Ozhistory (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Good timing, User:Ozhistory. :) That's a not uncommon red flag for material being copied from elsewhere, but clearly you are a person with a very active sandbox! Does that allay your concerns, User:Poeticbent? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but a very active sandbox by itself does not allay my concerns automatically because the material can still be copied from elsewhere. Maybe not at once... I agree, but even there some posts are not an uncommon red flag, i.e. 23 September 2013‎: +8,538 and‎ +5,567 in less than 3 hours. Another single day, 10 September 2013:‎ +3,073, +1,521, +806, +2,402, +808 in four hours between 03:25 and 07:34 (well over +8,610 in total)... even more the next day, and so on. I don't have the tools nor the resources to go over them. I can only hope that this is just a talent for writing and nothing else. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 00:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC) — But I would like to thank Ozhistory for starting to trim the copy-paste at the "List of individuals and groups assisting Jews during the Holocaust" article. Face-smile.svg Poeticbent talk 00:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fair enough. I did a spot check - nowhere near a major portion of the text given its size - and did not find any copying through Google or Google books. I only found the content in Wikipedia articles (and mirrors), and only Wikipedia articles that he had edited. :) This of course can't preclude copying, but it's a good sign. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl. I feel better already. Poeticbent talk 03:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I wouldn't transfer text where I hadn't viewed the source material, hence the pattern you observe, Moonriddengirl. These are crossover topics where I have come across better sourcing/material than was in existing articles - and as mentioned, partly an effort to reduce a very long article on nazi germany... and partly of course just an area of recent interest/reading on my part (and which I found was poorly covered - or not covered at all on wikipedia.Ozhistory (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

More Whoniverse fun

User:G S Palmer's desire to push his OR POV returns, reverting twice(so far) a valid template [34], [35]. (This after he deleted all the tags such as "citation needed" for totally unsourced OR sentences! I brought this up on the discussion page..[36]. But fear not, because there is a WP:MEAT at hand...[37]!

Also, after he removed a WP:RS that would have provided WP:NPOV [38], I brought it up on the discussion page [39]. Whereupon, he almost immediately did this [40]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.48.255 (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. That's not "meat", per se - that's what we call canvassing. It's not appropriate. I'll have a word with User:G S Palmer.
That said, aren't those tags redundant? :/ Are there "inappropriate or misinterpreted citations" that are different from the "original research" tag, or "unpublished synthesis", "unverifiable speculation and unjustified claims" that are? Is there actually speculation about future events, or is that just more concerns about original research? I'd encourage you to be selective about which claims best represent the dispute and stick to those. Multiplying them won't help - it will likely just muddy the waters and turn away uninvolved editors who might otherwise be willing to help resolve the concerns because it looks like overkill. If you think each of those tags is a clearly distinct issue, I'd recommend explaining how they are distinct problems on the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Allow me to respectfully disagree. User:Mezigue has been an almost constant element of the discussion over there. "Appropriate notification" is defined as: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article AND/OR Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". My notification of Mezigue fell well within both of those categories. G S Palmer (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Please reread the nutshell, G S Palmer. There was nothing neutral about your notification to Mezigue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
So am I a canvas or a piece of meat? This will give me existential issues. Mezigue (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I apologize. I merely tried to notify him in a way relevant to his previous position in the discussion. G S Palmer (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Mezigue, I wouldn't let it impact your day. :) Just, please, try not to escalate. As I mentioned at User talk:G S Palmer, maybe an WP:RFC would get it done. Alternatively, as WP:NORN isn't drawing people, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard might work. But I'd really recommend succinctly and neutrally summarizing key points of dispute before doing either and updating the WP:NORN listing with what you've done if you agree to try a different forum. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
There was already a posting there; it didn't get any notice: [41]. G S Palmer (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────, Well, User:G S Palmer, that's frustrating. :/ Looking at the listing, I wonder if the problem is that it focused too much on who is doing what and not enough on what the actual dispute is about the material. Concrete issues are easier for people to address - "Is this a reliable source for that statement?"

And, oh, I find the listing, and that seems to be quite a bit of the problem:

Administrative close. There are at least four other editors who have taken part in these discussions. Please feel free to relist with them included. It is unfair to have a DRN volunteer manually sort them out, manually notify each of them, and then create a summary section for them. Also (though I might not have closed this listing for the following reason), as currently stated and responded-to this is very close to being a conduct dispute - e.g. "I don't like what he's doing" - rather than a content dispute - "I don't think that edit X is correct and we can't agree on that" - and DRN does not handle conduct disputes; if you choose to refile, it would be a very good idea if you were to focus on specific edits which are in dispute, preferably illustrated with diffs, rather than generalized problems with the article, and steer wholly away from raising issues about other editors' conduct, motives, POV, biases, editing practices, etc, either in listing the article or in response." Says User:TransporterMan.

The problem seems to be exactly that - focusing on the issues might get some progress here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the IP has reached three reverts again: 1A and 1B, 2, 3A and 3B. G S Palmer (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

RE: Harvington School

Dear Moonriddengirl, Please can you restore Harvington School. 1> There is no 'copyright' on the page and 2> I have been acting as an agent thereof. I have left messages on the talk page, but have not heard anything back. If in doubt please contact admin@harvingtonschool.com, aevans@harvingtonschoo.com or tweet @harvingtonprep

Brtles (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've left a note for the editor here. --NeilN talk to me 20:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, User:NeilN (and User:January). I've left another note at the named account as well. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, me again. So what is the process? The Head of Harvington School has sent an email to the email address via that 'blanked' page that leads to the copyright confirming the situation. Please can you put the page back now. Or if not please can you detail instructions as in a, b, c ? Brtles (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, only the history was taken from the school page. Everything else I wrote myself utilising other sources such as the department of education and the independent schools association etc etc. I was going to add the references on but am unable to edit it as you have locked the page. I used other schools as a template for the wikipedia style also. Brtles (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As an additional please can you add the school to this footer as i'm having difficulties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_in_Ealing Brtles (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Knotty question of fair use

Hi Moonriddengirl. Say, what's your take on including parts of lists in articles such as The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History and Who's Bigger: Where Historical Figures Really Rank and 100 Greatest Britons and List of 100 greatest NHL players by The Hockey News and so forth? All four of those articles are about publications where the core of the work is a list of 100 things, and we include the first 10.

IMO this is pushing the edges of fair use and I'm agin it. But I haven't haven't gotten any traction in the (very unpopulated) discussions at the pages in question.

Is this worth worrying about or not, in your view? Am I overthinking this? Is this a sort of least-of-our-worries no-harm-no-foul situation maybe? Herostratus (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Have you read MRG's essay Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, Herostratus (particularly the section "What copyrighted content means for Wikipedia")? I won't presume to anticipate whatever MRG has to say about the specific examples you've cited, but that essay is a good general overview. Deor (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Deor. Also worth reading here, Herostratus, is WP:NFC, specifically Wikipedia:NFC#Text_2 which lists unacceptable uses of copyrighted text - " A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner." (I'd read the whole section.) If you find lists that do not comply, you should probably blank them (or blank relevant portions of them) for listing at WP:CP, although I wince every time I see one. :/ I used to support including the top X of these lists, but one of our attorneys also pointed out that the top X are really the "heart" of the matter and thus likely to exceed fair use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Well butter my buns and call me a biscuit; that's just what I was looking for. With this I will certainly blind with science the benighted. Thank you sincerely!
Reading thru that stuff, I sort of get the feeling that lists mechanically compiled by polling, whether of the general public or a group of experts, are probably not copyrighted. Simply publishing the work of other people does not grant copyright, I guess. If the people being polled signed something explicitly assigning their rights (if any) to the pollster, that'd be different. Possibly this is implied. Doubt it. It's hard to know if any list based on a poll is truly mechanically compiled or if they nudge around in editorial, though. Still, I'm not intending to go after the BBC or Hockey News lists cos those are polls. Herostratus (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a tricky area, Herostratus, and there's room for debate there. Our attorney thought that they might constitute a concern because the polls generally have some measure of creativity - for instance, the pollster compiles a list and ask for votes among them. But there's no establishing law that I know of. While I don't hesitate to act on clearly creative lists and am content to leave behind clearly uncreative lists, I honestly tend to just stay away from anything that falls into that grey area unless I'm put in a position of having to speak up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Help Needed

Hi Moonriddengirl, I am Tamravidhir. I hope that you remember me. Anyway, Moonriddengirl I need help from you. Nowadays I hardly get time to edit, and even if I do then I edit occasionally. After a lot of effort I had tried to reconstruct the article, Bade Achhe Lagte Hain. But later when I came back after nearly one year I saw that most of the references and the information has been deleted so I again reconstructed it. But recently there have been some edits which I fear may lead to an edit war. There is an IP address user (117.203.114.134) who has been trying to overlink the article by adding links to the pages of major geographical places such as Dubai, UAE and even terms such as TRPs. He also made certain edits to the plot, but that was not the basic outline, if that would be added then other IP address users would try to recreate the entire plot. I have summarise the plot to a large extent, well as much as I could. I had left a welcome message on the user's talk page and had also left the links of some pages which may help him or her. Except this I had also made the user about overlinking warned the user not to over link the article. The user has also been editing the cast section of the article. He has been deleting information, adding information and rearranging the entire section which makes it look clumsy and confusing. For e.g. in India, many Hindu (not in every regional Hindu culture) children, especially those in west India, carry the name of their father as their middle name and all women after marriage carry the name of their husband as their middle name and also their surname. But as Bade Achhe Lagte Hain is a soap opera, a character has got divorced, remarried or their marriage is in ruins thus many add several names for a single character. The middle names of few important characters have been included but the user has been deleting info, adding wrong info and making it look clumsy and confusing even after a warning. And this has been done for some two to three times. And what is more mysterious that there have been similar edits by several other IP address users, soon after the edits by 117.203.114.134. for evidence you can refer the following links:

I fear that these are sockpuppets. I am also afraid that this may lead to an edit war. As you are an admin and you have been helping since the time I joined, I would like you to look into the matter. Thank you so much!--Tamravidhir (২০১৪) 08:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please Moonriddengirl I need urgent response and help. It has already led to an edit war. | The recent edits by 117.203.116.166 are also an evidence. I have warned of the suspected sockpuppets (117.203.116.166) on the user's talk page. I need urgent help. I am helpless. When replying please leave a talkback template on my talk page. Thank you! --Tamravidhir (২০১৪) 09:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:Tamravidhir. :) What you're dealing with here is probably not sockpuppetry - but an unlogged in user whose IP keeps changing. This is common from same areas, but also difficult because it means that messages you leave for the user may not be seen by them. They may not return to that talk page to see them.
What you should do in all cases where there is any suggestion of edit warring is leave notes on the talk page of the article itself and, if the IP does not see them or respond, reach out for assistance in dispute resolution from others. For example, you might ask (neutrally, of course) for somebody else at Wikipedia:WikiProject India to review the situation and determine what they think. If consensus can be reached and the IP can be informed in no other way, the article may need semi-protection. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
But Moonriddengirl what about the sockpuppetry? --Tamravidhir (২০১৪) 11:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Tamravidhir, if there's sock puppetry, that makes a huge difference, but we need to know what account. As I said, just editing from an IP that changes is not in itself sock puppetry - sock puppetry requires intent to deceive or to bypass restrictions. If there's an account that this person uses, or if we can show that they have been warned and are evading a block or sanctions in one of their IP guises, then sock puppetry enters in. Otherwise, it's just a person who is frustratingly hard to talk to. Now that in itself can become a reason to semi-protect a page, but unless what they are doing is obviously unconstructive, we have to have consensus. I have no doubt you are right and know what you are talking about as far as names of these characters are concerned, for instance, but I can't act because of that. If I do, I'm judging the content dispute and I'm no longer an uninvolved admin. :D If you establish consensus and can link to it that the inclusion of the full names is not warranted in the article and the person doesn't get the message (probably because they change IPs regularly and don't see the message), semi-protection will push them to the talk page to find out why they can no longer edit. At that point, they will learn that consensus is required. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, sorry but I did not understand you. Could please tell me what to do and where in a more simplified manner. --Tamravidhir (২০১৪) 11:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, when an IP is editing articles, it generally isn't sock puppetry even when the IP changes unless the IP is a registered editor who is editing logged out or unless he has been blocked under one of those IPs and is working around it. Some people just don't have accounts, and some people have IPs that change regularly.

It is hard to talk to IPs that change regularly. We do block them sometimes when they are vandalizing articles, obviously, but we can't block them just because somebody disagrees with them even if we think that somebody is right, because it shouldn't matter if I think you are right. As an administrator, I'm not supposed to decide that. (It's different if it's clear vandalism, as we define it at WP:V. That is community consensus, and I can act on that.)

The thing to do is show if you are right by getting other editors to review your reasoning. If they agree and the IP keeps editing against that agreement, then we can semi-protect the page in the hopes that the IP will come back, see they can't edit, and go to the talk page and find out why.

Please let me know if that's not clear, User:Tamravidhir. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

But where can I reach a consensus? --Tamravidhir (২০১৪) 11:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
On the talk page of the article. If people don't respond to your note there, you can go to the WikiProject perhaps (perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject India would be a good one to ask) and say, "I have asked for feedback at [[Talk:Articlename]]. Can somebody please come give their neutral opinion on the issue?" That kind of neutral request for feedback is okay. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much! :) --Tamravidhir (২০১৪) 11:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thank you so much Moonriddengirl for your guidance. Tamravidhir (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nicholas Rescher article

User Moonriddengirl Wikipedia Rewriter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moonriddengirl

Hi Moonriddengirl:

I am informed by Lars Curfs of WIKIPEDIA that you have edited the article on me. If you indeed are responsible putting this article into shape I would ask you please to consider four corrections:

1. On page 1 under MAIN INTERESTS the article lists aesthetics. This is ironic because while I have written extensively on every other area of philosophy I have done virtually nothing with aesthetics. Instead, the field that should be lists is EPISTEMOLOGY (or, if one prefers, Theory of Knowledge), where I have done a great deal of work.

2. The entry CAREER says I began my career as an academic at Lehigh University in 1957. Actually, my first teaching appointment was as an Instructor in Philosophy at Princeton for the 1951-1952 academic year.

3. The entry PHILOSOPHY speaks in line 7 of “medieval and late Arabic logic.” The expression “and late” should be deleted. All the texts I dealt with were medieval.

4. The entry PHILOSOPHY speaks in the last line of model syllogistic. This, however, should read MODAL syllogistic with an A in place of E.

That’s it as far as correction goes. Many thanks for attending to these points.

Sincerely, Nicholas Rescher

P.S. As regards that entry “Notable Ideas” at the outset of the article, it is not really for me to say. But if someone did ask me I would myself list primarily two items:

  • the theory of logarithmic returns (in scientometrics)
  • the conception of vagrant predicates (in epistemology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rescherpa (talkcontribs) 13:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:Rescherpa. There is a response to your original note at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Nicholas_Rescher. Please let me know if that response leaves any lingering confusion or concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy Wikibirthday

Is it weird to feel respect and caring for someone you have never met?

Don`t think so.

So I took this yearly tradition one step further and I baked "cough" bought "cough" just for you (in a sense, my wife and i will eat it but you get the point).

Wiki Birthday cake.jpg

Sorry is turned and just in case you can`t read it it says "Happy W Bday MRG"

I hope you appreciate it as much as I anticipated this day for the last twelve months.

Happy WikiBirthday my dear mentor and friend. Zidane tribal (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks beautiful. :D Thank you, User:Zidane tribal. I hope you and your wife will enjoy on my behalf, and I will bask in the knowledge that cake is being eaten in my honor. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You are very welcome and thank you for the star, also i noticed you got contacted by someone whose article you edited. How cool is that.Zidane tribal (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hello! I have a question for you concerning copyright, particularly whether images and audio created by Federal employees of prisoners in Federal custody are public domain by our standards. If an audiovisual conversation solely documented by the Federal Bureau of Prisons is released anywhere (in this case the subject is John Gotti in recorded interviews with his visiting daughter): who really owns the copyrights to the images and audio? Gotti, the daughter, or whomever records it? We would have no record, even a written transcript of the conversations, but for the source. And if it were recorded by the U.S. Government, would the audio portions be not PD when the images are by our strict standards? It's their (or our if you're a U.S. citizen) audio equipment they're using to begin with, and in the course of their official duties using government resources. Doc talk 09:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Doc9871. That's a tough one! Standard disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and I can't give legal advice. But I'm willing to share my speculation. :) And also, some links. Speculation is all I have, because as far as I know, this has not yet been settled in law.
Beginning with a link: [55]. The basic principle is that copyright comes into being the minute something is fixed. Conversations (with or without visuals) can't be copyrighted until they are recorded. This is complicated by the premise that the person being recorded may have to consent and that if more than one person is recording the conversation ownership in copyright may be disputed (see [56]). Gotti and his daughter may have some claim to rights over the discussion (especially in the unlikely event that they had pre-written their comments), but not the images.
Leaving aside that complication, the question of Federal source comes down to whether the person who recorded it did so as a part of his or her assigned duties. If they were at work and just happened to videotape this, then it wouldn't be government owned. If they were told to, it would.
I suspect this is probably PD Gov; if I were weighing in on a WP:PUF discussion, I'd suggest we keep it under that argument. But if I wanted to upload it myself (which would put me personally in legal jeopardy if I were wrong), I would myself run it past WP:MCQ for further opinions. There may be somebody there with more updated information on the current stance on copyright in recorded conversations. It's been probably three years since I did any research on that question. I tend to be cautious on this question (since it's the liability of the uploader, it's to be taken seriously) but unless somebody told me "No, they've settled that you can't do that," I'd probably be willing to upload it myself as there's a pretty strong "good faith" argument for.
Hope all that make sense. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent input, as always! I certainly don't plan on uploading any of it, but I was curious since it's Federally created stuff. Cheers :) Doc talk 21:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Cupcake (1).jpg Happy Anniversary, Moonriddengirl!
Wishing you a happy wiki anniversary. Thank you for all you do for the projects. You are an inspiration. :) Msannakoval (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio site?

Just found [57] - do you know anything about the site? Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I know that it's owned by Ron Unz of Palo Alto California who is evidently affiliated with an organization called One Nation/One California (according to their whois). It was registered in 1997. They assert that content is licensed, but offer no easily located information for DMCA takedown notices, which seems legally questionable. :/ I suspect they're iffy under WP:LINKVIO, but have not encountered them before. They seem to be using frames to display some of their copyrighted content at least, which may ease liability they would have for infringement on that content but which also means we should be access it wherever they're finding it, hopefully posted by the owners. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Rába (company) (copyvio)

May I ask for your help, please? The article of Raba has been tagged recently because of copyright violation. However, I would like to tell you that I have just moved an old text recently from page of Rába (automobile) (it has been there since 2009, see its revision history [58]). I do not what to do it is not clear for me where I can "defend" myself before someone starts to accuse me. Thank you. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Fakirbakir. I've removed the content because it was in fact an issue under our copyright policies.
But I'm afraid that there was also a copyright problem in the way you moved it. :) Content on Wikipedia is not public domain; it is licensed for reuse and modification. But to reuse it, you have to give credit to the source. The people who place content here agree that a link to the source article is sufficient, and this is given in the edit summary when you place the content. For instance, I myself tend to say, "Content copied from [[article]], which see for attribution."
This not only makes your copying the content legally compliant, but also protects you if there are problems with the content - it makes it obvious where it came from so the actual contributor can be identified.
In my removal note at Talk:Rába (company), I have identified where the content came from. In the future, if you copy content from one article to another, please follow the process described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you have copied content from one article to another in the past, even if it was a long time ago, please go back and add that attribution now. The only time we can copy content without it is if we are the sole author of the material in the other article as well. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I always learn something new here :), now it is clear what to do. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Trademarked title

If the text of an article entitled "Foo" includes the statement "Foo is a registered trademarked term of XYZ Corp", is there a problem, if the article is otherwise OK for references, notability etc? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

While I am not a lawyer and I cannot give legal advice, my understand here is that we're talking about the nominative use of a trademark and so we have no issue in entitling an article, say, Kevlar. There's no competition here or possibility of brand confusion. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The particular case I had in mind almost certainly fails WP:NOR and WP:NEO, but I am glad to know the general principle. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to follow this conversation but can't really understand the point of the original question, nor how Moonriddengirl's comment completely answers it. JohnCD, exactly what sort of problem do you believe there would be in the scenario you describe? Are you worried that, because Foo is a registered trademark, it would be a legal problem if Wikipedia didn't include a statement to this effect, and are therefore asking whether the statement you cite is sufficient to solve this problem? Or rather, are you assuming that Wikipedia is under no obligation to label trademarks, and are wondering if it's a promotion/NPOV problem that the trademark is conspicuously pointed out in this case? While IANAL, I'm familiar enough with the principles involved to know that Moonriddengirl is right when she says that our use of a trademark is purely nominative, and so there is no problem using trademarks as titles of articles. But beyond this, it's important to note that we also have no obligation to mention that a particular term is trademarked, or who the owner of the trademark is, in the article text itself. Of course, we can provide this information if we believe it's helpful to the reader, and we probably should do so for particularly notable trademarks which are relevant to the article topic. But we certainly shouldn't be listing all possible trademarks of a given term, or those unrelated to the article topic. (Remember that trademarks are exclusive only to a particular type of product in a particular jurisdiction. "Foo" might be a registered trademark not just of XYZ Corp, but also simultaneously of a hundred other companies.) —Psychonaut (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I had no particular issue in mind - I answered a "helpme" concerning a sandbox page about a newly-invented term which had a statement like that at the end and found myself with a vague, unformulated worry about whether there could be possible issues, so I came to the fount of all knowledge. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Psychonaut, re-reading the question, I may have focused too much on the title and drawn some inferences about the question based on the complaints I most frequently deal with at work. Your answer is much better than mine; thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)