Jump to content

User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

WP:Quotations

Hi, You're an expert on plagiarism. I wonder whether you'd mind reviewing this page, for which there's a proposal (at the talk page) to promote to style-guide status. It was linked earlier today to MOSQUOTE, but I removed that link pending improvements to the page and further discussion. Thanks. Tony (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Copyright is more my area than plagiarism, but I've some familiarity with both. I'll head over once I'm properly awake. :) My alarm clock may have said 6:30, but I know what 5:30 feels like (stupid day light savings time). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Jafeluv's talk page.
Message added 14:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re welcome

Admitedly it was was more the subject that intrugued me ;) but yes, I'll have a look some at of the more straightforward pages and go ahead with cleanup if it seems clearcut. Assuming I should wait for further comment on that one. Misarxist (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Review request

I'd like to borrow your eye for a little while, if possible. Would you mind reviewing Talk:Linda Esther Gray/Temp to see if you think that it has been rewritten to be sufficiently different from the source. IMO User:Tuckerj1976 has done a good job rewriting, but I'd appreciate your opinion on whether there are instances of too-close paraphrasing. It's listed at March 12 CP. – Toon 18:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's okay. I don't see any text from that source original enough to constitute an issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
That was my verdict too. I'll go ahead and move the new version in. Cheers! – Toon 19:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Linda Esther Gray

Just a quick thank you for reviewing the re-draft of the above article so quickly. Thank you! Tucker talk 19:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for taking the time to do the rewrite. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Maley

Hi. Thanks again for all your help. I rewrote, I think substantially, the Maley article. Hope it passes muster. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Answered at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:quote

Hello,

I saw your comment that you were reluctant to change the page because of its reading in parliament. We have no consensus at the moment, so in actuality, if you change the page, consensus may change. I am watching the page closley, and then changes ever closer:-) Please be bold and change the essay as you see fit:-).174.3.107.176 (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Iowa Soldiers' Orphans' Home

Hi, I skimmed your copyright guidelines, but what do I need to do to make sure the page isn't in violation. CTJF83 chat 00:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've removed the content for now while we discuss it. Give me a minute, and I'll give you a detailed response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, what you have to watch out for here is creating a "close paraphrase" which is a form of derivative work. The original copyright holder has to authorize these.
While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. If your rewrite follows the original too closely in either element, it can be a copyright problem.
Consider some of the following examples (I'm skipping around in the article; I haven't read it all the way through). The source says:

By the mid 1870s, most of the Civil War orphans had grown up and left the Home, but there were many other children still in need. The Home began accepting orphans from all over Iowa, and well as children from poor or broken homes and lengthened its name to the “Iowa Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home and Home for Indigent Children." Over the next few decades, the facilities of the Home were expanded and redesigned to accommodate the new arrivals...

The content you placed in the article said (citations omitted):

By the mid 1870s, most of the Civil War orphans were grown up and left, but there were many other children still in need. The Home began accepting orphans and children from poor or broken homes from all over Iowa's 99 counties. Over the next few decades, the facilities were expanded and redesigned to accommodate new arrivals.

Perhaps in looking at them side by side, it will be easier to see that you have closely followed the structure of the original here as well as including some of the same language. The last sentence in particularly seems only to be altered from the source by one word. The second sentence shows more rewriting, though it starts off too close to the source.
Here's another passage to consider:

Although the Home was self-sufficient and virtually its own little village, it was a part of the Davenport community as well. In the early 1900s, the “Orphans Band” marched in local parades and gave concerts. The annual summer picnic on the grounds of the Home was a real Davenport event, enjoyed by all. Children were fostered out or adopted by local families, and many of those who were not chose to remain in Davenport after ‘graduation’. The city was proud of the Home, and there appears to have been little stigma attached locally to being a former resident.

Content you placed in the article said:

Although the Home was self-sufficient and virtually its own little village, it was a part of the Davenport community as well. In the early 1900s, the “Orphans Band” marched in local parades and gave concerts. The annual summer picnic on the grounds of the Home was a real Davenport event, enjoyed by all. Children were fostered out or adopted by local families, and many of those who were not chose to remain in Davenport after ‘graduation’. The city was proud of the Home, and there appears to have been little stigma attached locally to being a former resident.

This seems to have been copied verbatim, without any rewriting at all.
So that it will not constitute a derivative work, this material would have to be completely rewritten, which means both restructuring and changing the language. (You have to be careful not to just substitute synonyms for existing vocabulary; even if you change every word, if the creative structure is the same you may have a copyright problem. That's why unauthorized translations from copyrighted foreign works are copyright infringements, even though every word in them is changed.) The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". You can incorporate a few direct quotations, if necessary, but only a few and only if they are clearly marked (by quotation marks or block quote) and are used for good reason. (See WP:NFC for some examples.)
Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be public domain or permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution.
Please let me know if you have more questions about this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thank you, I'll rewrite it. Are you going to be online for a while in case I have questions/issues? CTJF83 chat 00:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
It's late in the day for me, so I won't be here consistently, but I always check back in a few times, barring unexpected problems. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'll start on it after dinner, and will link you to my sandbox when I'm done for review. CTJF83 chat 00:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
All right; sounds good. Take your time; better to be thorough and get it in one go, and the article is not in danger of deletion at the moment so there's no rush. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here, but I've just come across another article you've had a hand in as an example: Phebe Sudlow. There is some very close paraphrasing of this source. For instance, the source says:

In 1859, Phebe was appointed assistant principal at Grammar School Number 2 and District School Number 3 . Her yearly salary was $350, less than the set wages for a man in the same position. By the next year, at the age of 29, Phebe was principal of both schools—possibly the first woman principal of a public school in the United States—at $400 dollars a year.

The article says:

In 1859, Sudlow was appointed assistant principal at two of the elementary schools in the district. Her yearly salary of $350, was less than the wages for a man in the same position. By 1860, at the age of 29, Sudlow became principal of both schools and was possibly the first woman principal of a public school in the United States.

The source also says:

On April 21, 1869, a convention of school administrators and teachers was held in Des Moines, Iowa, to discuss current educational issues. Mr. Kissell, who was by then the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, ran the meeting, and Phebe, whose name was beginning to be known in educational circles, gave a presentation on the teaching of language, which by all accounts was well received by the largely male audience.

The article says:

On April 21, 1869, a convention of school administrators and teachers was held in Des Moines, Iowa. Abram Kissell, who was now the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, ran the meeting. He had Sudlow speak, giving a presentation on the teaching of language. Her speech was well received by the largely male audience.

In my view, this paraphrasing is too close: while some words are changed, many creative phrases remain the same and the paragraph and sentence structure is generally identical. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I should stick to books, so I can't just copy/paste/paraphrase, I have to do it all. CTJF83 chat 00:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said at your talk page, I've blanked that one until it can be rewritten. Yes, copying & pasting leads many people astray. I'm afraid content has to be completely rewritten, and it helps not to have any of the original on the page to start with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Well I guess you might as well look at the other articles I've started (laid out nicely on my user page) I will assure you that neither History/Neighborhoods of Davenport are an issue, cause those were sourced from books, and I obviously can't copy and paste those. CTJF83 chat 01:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Ready for review User:Ctjf83/Sandbox CTJF83 chat 02:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
All right; I will come review it at some point today. And I'll take a look at some of your other articles to see if additional work will be needed. Sometimes book sources can cause problems, not because of copying & pasting but because of close paraphrasing, but certainly online sources are more typically a problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe User:Ctjf83/Sandbox 2 is ready too. CTJF83 chat 19:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I have several more entries on today's current listing at CP, but will come over when I've caught up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm moving my review to your talk page, as mine tends to get quite long under the ordinary course of affairs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're watching me, but I rewrote the issue section, and hope it is ok now. CTJF83 chat 04:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw the above post cause it is in the middle of the talk page :) CTJF83 chat 18:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the bump. :) I do have your talk page on my watchlist, but the few times I checked in it wasn't for me. :) And you're right; I missed this one! I'll come right over. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. Help?

Hate to drag you into my first official edit war, but I am not sure what to do here.Can you look at Talk:The Avery Coonley School#Mascot and please advise? He is also opposing my TFA nomination over this with what I think is a false accusation. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#April 12? What should I do? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we should rather quickly get feedback on the non-free logo usage. I'm afraid images are not my specialty, but I'll see what's up at the TFA nomination and try to run down an image admin with experience if it seems like one could be used. I'll clarify the issue at the talk page that the logo is not replaceable by a non-free version (itself) under the OTRS release. Unless you license it, it's not non-free.
Generally speaking, though, try not to panic. :) The use of non-free images is a gray area; I've had content deleted myself that I had written a FUR for as violating NFC. Just state your case in your usual civil fashion and wait to see how consensus falls. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I have ask admin User:J Milburn to take a look and offer an opinion on whether or not it can be used under the logo rationale. If he thinks not, or if consensus otherwise develops at the TFA that it does not, you should probably jettison it unless you do feel that the school would want it under CC-By-SA. I suspect that the article will remain stellar without it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. One thing is for sure: you learn something new here everyday. . . . . --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BS

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for all your help on Iowa Soldiers' Orphans' Home and helping me to fix potential copyright issues. Your help is greatly appreciated, thanks again! CTJF83 chat 19:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I appreciate the work you've put into rewriting it. And thanks for your patience when I overlooked your notes. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick question for the expert - an IP has added a large amount of novel descriptions here. Aside from my concerns regarding the overly promotional nature of the wording, I'm worried there may be copyright issues with the descriptions - they sound like they've been taken right of the back jacket of each book. Is there a quick way to check that there are no copyright issues with the material added? Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Experienced, anyway. Copyright is a pretty big field; I learn more all the time. :D (And I run swiftly from image issues.) Ordinarily I would run a google search for snippets of text. And, in this case, that paid off. :) Whether they're from the back of the book or not, if they're previously published we can't use them without verifying that they're free. Other times, I might ask either the contributor or somebody who might be able to access the books. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Cleaned up; explanation left for IP. Thanks for following up on this! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank me? No way, you did all the work! Cheers for the help, Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Checking in

How have you been? I know i've been gone for a while. Life has been a wild ride. SilverserenC 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it always? :) I'm feeling under the gun and pressured to catch up, as usual. On the plus side, though, I'm seeing more really good contributions at the various copyright fora! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm back to my old haunts at AfD and creating requested articles from scratch. I've got a few projects i've been working on that should give fruit soon. :3 SilverserenC 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Sense of accomplishment is always good! :D I haven't participated at AfD in a long time, and I'm not getting to write as many articles as I'd like. :/ I keep telling myself that once I catch up a bit more on the copyright work, I'll indulge. That said, I've written a couple of bug articles recently that I enjoyed, Sweetpotato bug and Pheidole purpurea. There wasn't much information out there on the last guy, but I found the pictures fascinating. That poor "major" worker's head looks so heavy! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Both of those are really awesome looking articles. :o I'm impressed. Yeah, don't lose yourself in just the copyright work. If you'd have fun doing an article every once in a while, then go do it. Don't bog yourself down with just one thing. You can see what i'm currently working on over in my sandbox. Admittedly, my interests are rather varied. SilverserenC 00:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
They certainly are. :D The Migralepsy article looks pretty interesting. I'd never heard of that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I got it off of requested articles. Most of the stuff on there is junk, really, stuff that belongs as subsections in other articles, but every once in a while you'll find some gold. SilverserenC 00:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think i'm ready to submit the Migralepsy article, what do you think? It look good? :3 I'm going to try and get it into DYK. SilverserenC 01:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Alosio again

Hi there. I'm sorry to bring this issue to you again, but it seems the alleged subject of this bio has a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He has taken it upon himself yet again to add back copyvio/poorly sourced text to "his" biography despite being told not to do this by me (and you) several different times. I offered to help them rewrite the content if reliable sources were presented but the editor never came up with any and just kept adding back the same copied content. Due to their rather snippy message to me some months back, I advised them to contact OTRS and to basically leave me alone since they don't want to heed my advise. Your help and/or advise would be greatly appreciated in this matter. Thanks! 22:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I had watchlisted the page, but probably would have forgotten why by now! I've blocked him with a recommendation that he read the copyright policies prior to requesting an unblock. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry it had to come to that, but thank you. Pinkadelica♣ 00:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Me, too. :/ Maybe he'll decide to work within policy, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you do the wiki thing for a living?

(redacted per WP:NPA) MLauba (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Query re tools

Hi! Sorry to bother you, but while going through one of the investigations I came across a different established editor who may have made some rather problematic edits. However, the editor is very much a wikignome, so has large numbers of small edits, making it difficult to track down the edits which potentially matter. Other than the Windows software, which I tried but wouldn't work on my computer (my computer is feeling a tad sensitive at the moment), is there another tool to highlight major edits? - Bilby (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and eep. Yes, Dcoetzee continues developing his program which is also currently housed at [1]. When you first run it, you get all edits, but there are tick boxes at the top which will eliminate (most) reverts and minor edits. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks heaps - that's what I need. I'm hoping it is an isolated problem that can be cleaned up without any fuss. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Toon05's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

If you're about...

...you might have something to add here. – iridescent 23:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy St. Paddy's Day

Happy St. Paddy's Day, Moonriddengirl

Have a Happy Day, Moonriddengirl, :D Malke2010 23:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And to you, too. I completely forgot to wear green today, though. :/ Fortunately, I was not punished for it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy St Patrick's Day!

We don't celebrate it where I live, but still ^_^.

Hello Moonriddengirl, Narutolovehinata5 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Always a good reason to be festive! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted "File:Single Power Gate cover.jpg"

Hi, I saw you deleted that file and I don't understant the reason. It was a cd cover used in the article for that single, so it was a copyrighted image used under the law of the Fair Use, like we do with all album covers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerefis (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There was no picture there. It was tagged as a page in file space to which no image was attached. I checked the article just to be sure. It wasn't an issue with the FUR; it was just the lack of an image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats weird, I uploaded the image myself and there were no problems. I was watching both the article and the file, and there were no changes. It should still be there. Anyway, if there is no problem with the image, I will just upload it again. Thank you.--Nerefis (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no problem with the image at all. :) Maybe there was some kind of computer snafu that lost it? It doesn't seem to have been deleted by anybody else; the only thing in the deleted history is your placing the FUR and User:Sfan00 IMG tagging it for lack of an image. If you upload it again and want your FUR back, let me know. :) I can pull it up from File:Single Power Gate cover.jpg. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

ACE Adventure Resort

It turns out that the main author of this page, User:WELDWiki may be a representitive of the resort. This would probably make the article deletable. However I would welcome a second opinion on the matter. Please feel free to answer here, or on my talk page, or the article talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, your notice about the copyright being held by "WELD" is certainly suggestive of a WP:COI! Good observation. I'm a bit hamstrung in my ability to weigh in, though, because I'm not allowed to reveal any personal identifying information about people with whom I've communicated through the OTRS system. I will say, though, that if there is WP:SPA behavior and non-neutral text, some kind of action would certainly seem appropriate whether the contributor is affiliated or not. I've left a COI warning at the talk page on that basis and mean by it to suggest nothing at all about the user's identity.
Currently, while such editing is "strongly discouraged" it isn't actually forbidden, but if the article can be cleaned, it should be. If you don't want to neutralize it yourself, maybe you should list it at WP:COIN? If it doesn't seem notable, there's always AFD. I don't know that I myself would feel comfortable doing much more, as I never feel quite right wearing my "contributor" hat and "OTRS agent" hat at the same time, unless there's something really egregious going on. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I understand you don't want to create your own conflict of interest. I'll pursue other input. Thanks for your help. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. :) But I do routinely trot things that I find to WP:COIN. Haven't had to do so in a while, but it's a way to make sure that the community can review the content without my stepping over my own line. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Blanking, just a note

Hi. :) I just wanted to drop you a private note following your ANI notice. The whole thing at Will Hanrahan was unfortunate, and it would have been nice if he had been wiki-savvy enough to explain his blanking, but please remember that in accordance with Wikipedia:Vandalism, blanking is not regarded as vandalism where reviewing the content makes the reason for the blanking clear. BLPs are listed as a specific example where such blanking may be legitimate. As WP:BLP says, "When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this might be the subject of the article attempting to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article." I don't know whether this guy is really the subject of the article or not, but it's a good idea to review the content that is being blanked when something like this happens. As here, for instance, the removal of the words "and narcissist" might suggest legitimate concerns. Anyway, I know that recent changes patrol can be challenging, and I appreciate the time you put into it...I spent a lot of time there, a few years back, and I remember how frustrating it can be...but I just wanted to note it for the next time you encounter a situation of this sort. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

*Nods* Your absolutely correct moon, and i am not particularly proud of the way this was handled myself. Personally i noticed that cluebot was being reverted, and that the page was blanked while doing so. I failed to notice the username which implied that the editor was the subject of the article, and i could have sworn that the uw-delete had a section explaining what to do with BLP issues. However, seeing the edit history of that template it has never been there altogether. Frankly, i didn't notice the issue until John dropped me a notice regarding the BLP issue.
I guess this (again) proves that to much vandalism patrol can cause tunnel vision in the end. A few regular breaks to cut trough the addiction should prove useful. And of course watching if blanked pages are BLP's might work as well. After all, Wikipedia didn't crash and burn during my 3 month wikibreak :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe something about BLP issues *should* be in uw-blanking. That's a good idea. And a change of scenery is always a good thing. I don't go so far as to walk away from Wikipedia, but when the copyright work overwhelms me I'll write an article or two and get a second wind. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
There! Subject broached. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I actually proposed that on JohnCD's talk page, and he suggested a separate template for this with the reasoning that most blanking would be pure vandalism. Both idea's have its own merits. Adding it to the blanking templates would almost certainly guarantee a 100% reach, but at the same time it would be prone to imitators and false positives. A separate template would require manual addition, but would likely cause less errors. Though i admit that i lean towards 100% coverage myseld.
Also, my absence was caused by Force majeure - taking form in a mountain of work that left me exhausted during the evenings \ nights. I figured that taking a break altogether was a better alternative then risk making a load of errors - with the added possibility that stress would cause me to snap at people. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that Ticket:2010030910053125, which you're dealing with, is under discussion at WP:MCQ#Unable_to_add_photographs. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Completed investigation

Hi! Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wasimawan seems complete, but I'm not sure of the process from here - thus I'm handballing it in your direction. :) If there's something I should be doing just let me know. - Bilby (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

will hanrahan

Dear Moonriddengirl,

I am most grateful for your help in watching the Will Hanrahan page. I am indeed, Will Hanrahan. If you wish to confirm this, please email direct by first visiting my company's website and navigating your way to the email.

As background, the vandals work specifically said one line which suggested something quite grotesque and which falls into the category of harassment. I have lodged my views with the Police. If this is not repeated, I will not make my complaint formal. I have noted the discussion about the matter and have no wish to enter into the debate. Put simply, harassment represents two or more unwanted 'attacks' by phone, email or web. I hope the vandalsim is not repeated.

The sadness, for me, is that Wikipedia is a wonderful thing and whenever whomsoever added an article about me I was very pleased. There were one or two, minor factual errors and I hate the photo (!) but it was fine by me.

The vandal is clearly someone with a problem and I simply wish that he is kept from raiding the page. His work was brought to my attention by a solicitor working for us checking one of our TV programmes for possible errors.

I would be most grateful, as I am not familiar with Wikipedia's protocols, if you would contact me direct rather than through this public access forum.

Again, many thanks Moonriddengirl.Willhanrahan (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page; note to me, check back at Ticket:2010031910038089 (viewable only to OTRS agents). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your knowledge :)

When you have time, can you answer User:Logical Fuzz's final question at User_talk:Theleftorium#More_on_WP:COPYVIO_on_TV_series_episode_lists (the "property" part)? Thanks, Theleftorium 15:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Have time; coming now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Colette Rossant article

Did I miss a statement that a Wikipedia administrator would delete this article in "x" days? If so, I apologize. If not, for future, please make that a regular, clear policy: "As per [wik-referenced] policy, we will delete this article by "x" date: please take action in advance to avoid such." None of us are paid Wikipedia contributors, editors, or administrators, and it would be more than encouraging to contributors to receive such support. For myself, I have been incredibly busy otherwise -- but could have marked my calendar to get this done, had I received a deadline.

Looking forward, please do not fully delete the article. Please keep it in suspension while I take the actions recommended by you and Toon.

Further, I may come back to you for clarification: I found the links and instructions provide by you and Toon very confusing, cumbersome, and off-putting to sort through

Lastly, please give me a new (and generous) deadline!

Awaiting your further advice --Aboudaqn (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we have standard processes for addressing copyright concerns. The note you received from Toon is a "template" or form letter used for such situations. It does not specify a deadline because the date of resolution is variable. Sometimes, articles that appear to constitute copyright problems are deleted immediately. But the note left on your talk page does say, "The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted." The notice left on the face of the article also contained information about addressing the concerns, and it said, "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it may be deleted one week after the time of its listing." (Bold text is in the template.) While we appreciate that you are a volunteer, as are we all, the one week deadline has been long agreed upon by the community as a fair allowance of time for rewriting copyright concerns or supplying verification of permission for them. Occasionally, the deadline is extended, but only if we are told that additional time is needed.
The note that I left you is also a template. If you find the instructions in any of these templates confusing, it would be helpful if you could explain where and how the confusion occurred so that I can see if others also find it necessary to clarify these and we can arrive at better language.
If you supply permission for this text, the article will be restored. That you may do at your leisure. You are also welcome to create a new article with original language. If you have need of the text with which you had been working, I would be happy to e-mail it to you, if you have e-mail enabled. Just let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK Stuff

Do you do reviews for DYK at all? I'm just wondering, because i've been helping out in making the March 17th nomination Norrie May-Welby long enough and with the right references. I did so a while ago and messaged the original answering admin, Gatoclass, about it and asked if s/he could re-review it. Since then...there's been no response. Would you be able to re-review it instead? SilverserenC 20:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't, and I don't have the script that's used to verify length installed. (If I were more tech savvy, I'd install it, but I'm scared to break what I've already got in my monobook.js :) As you can see, we've had some issues :/ I've got something in there now, even though it's not approved for this, that's supposed to tell me the size of prose. It doesn't. I don't know why.) It's not about to run out of time, is it? You get something like five days for those? If you've got time, I'd suggest waiting a day and if nothing's happened ask one of the other contributors who is "verifying" hooks if they'd mind checking the length. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's been a day and four hours since I left the message on the nomination and a message on his/her talk page. So... :/
Couldn't you just look at the prose manually? Copy it into the tool that's on the DYK page? SilverserenC 21:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't use that to verify the length, according to Wikipedia:Did you know/Article length. There is a way evidently to scan with that without the monobook script, but I'm not really familiar with the protocol at DYK (having only submitted a few articles of my own). Would you like me to find one of the regular DYK reviewers and ask them to have a look? I'd be far more comfortable helping out that way. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and thank you. I've not been sure who else to contact, which is why I went to you, since you're pretty much the only admin I know (or that remembers me). SilverserenC 21:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem. :) But you don't need an admin for this; any contributor can do it, according to Template talk:Did you know. I'll see who I recognize there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi there. Talk page stalkers are useful, wouldn't you say :)

    Prose size of the article: 2425 B (408 words) "readable prose size". That certainly seems to pass the DYK limit. On the other hand, this article might not pass WP:BLP1E... NW (Talk) 21:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The event is still developing though, considering it only happened two days ago. If you factor in the fact that zie might end up suing some aspect of the government because, at this point, they won't actually give up the certificate, this becomes significantly more than a single event. Besides, doesn't a ground-breaking event get some more significance than, say, a person who was murdered? I think it should. On that note, I should go see if there are any new news articles about the developments in hir complaint. SilverserenC 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I responded on the nomination. I put other references in that work as well. Question: I just realized, do I actually get half-credit or something for expanding? T'was just wondering. SilverserenC 23:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If you have the time, could you also check out the Pitcher (container) nomination? It's also March 17th. SilverserenC 23:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you're asking me or NuclearWarfare, since he verified the length of the last one. :) DYK is not really my area, obviously. The 17th is just two days ago, so I'm sure somebody will pick it up soon, if they haven't already. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Doraha Fort

The rewrite includes the following:

This fort is now popularly known as the RDB fort amongst tourists and photographers [1]

This doesn't seem to be supported by the cited source, as I don't find the text string RDB anywhere. However, I do find an almost exact match for this text at [2]. Presuming this to be the source, you must properly attribute it as well as enclose in quotation marks text you have copied. All previously published content is presumed to be copyrighted unless it is verifiably not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments. Quality Check (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Singingdaisies/Nrswanson

Hi MRG, See: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Singingdaisies#Background for an update. The links in the update will provide the background to the latest turn of events. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. :) I know you'll notice if problems resume, so I have no concerns whatsoever on that front. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Costello Tagliapietra

Hello, Moonriddengirl. I wonder if you can advise or help with a situation I haven't encountered before (maybe I'm just lucky :)

In August I created Costello Tagliapietra by translation from the corresponding Spanish WP page. If you look at the page history you can see that a user called Beefcurtains keeps deleting bits off the page. In my most recent revert I commented on this behaviour in my edit summary, and Beefcurtains is now bizzarrely claiming "ownership" of the page (or subject matter) in his/her edit summaries.

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to assume good faith in this case, and I have better things to do in life than to play these silly games with him/her. However, it seems a shame for this article to finish up purposelessly truncated. Do Wikipedia administrators have a way of dealing with situations like this?

Best regards, -- Hebrides (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've only encountered ownership a few times in the past; not fun. I've restored the contents and written a note to the contributor that may clarify. I'll keep an eye on things, but it would be helpful if you can continue as well for a bit. He or she may persist a bit further before beginning to work within the community processes to deal with whatever may be his concern. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Your comment on his/her talk page is much better than I would have done – let's hope the reaction is positive. The page remains on my watchlist, and I'll keep an eye open for changes. Really grateful for your help and support. -- Hebrides (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the encouragement

Hi Moonriddengirl, I just wanted to drop in and thank you for your kind and patient attitude towards me. It's a refreshing departure from much of the admin interaction I've seen in the past, where communication/explanation can range from brusque to nonexistent. That (and some of the other abuses of power) is one of the big reasons I'm not a more active member of this community. I'm just glad there are people like you to counter the God-kings, trigger-happy deletors and blockers, and various other power trippers. Keep up the good work. Nemokara (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement. :) And, again, for going out of your way to take on a new process to report a problem. I've encountered some pretty unpleasant people here myself, but there are also some very nice ones. If you do decide to become more active, I hope you'll encounter more of those. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ronnie Govender

Possibly the South African bios made in early 2006. Somehow come a long way from my initial enties such as Navanetham Pillay but others are just as they were 4 years ago. Taprobanus (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

  1. Shanti Naidoo - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. Karthy Govender - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  3. Ronnie Govender Taprobanus (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  4. Jody Kollapen
  5. Amma Naidoo

Images question

Hi Moonriddengirl, I have a question about images. User:Amchishalachembur has uploaded many images, all as "self-made", but they are all official looking portraits of Indian people, from different time periods, with differing qualities, see here. In short, I think they are scans or taken from Internet pages. Do I need to list all the images individually or is there a process here that resembles the Commons procedure of nominating many pictures at once for discussion based on the contribution as a whole? I saw WP:CCI but this seems more about text and about stuff actually in articles (and it looks a lot more serious than discussion), but the images are all orphaned. Any advice? Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't really have an analogous process to the mass deletion, I'm afraid. :/ I think there are probably two options here: bundle them together at WP:PUF; bundle them together at WP:FfD with an explanation of the unusual circumstances. I've done the former myself, and if you decide to do that, let me know. I'll be happy to divide up the list and share the legwork. :) CCI would work, but only if several of them can be confirmed as copyvios. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Many image copyvios give their actual source, but these images have no description/date/author whatever, and that makes it tedious, you're right :) I think I'll try the route of a custom request at WP:PUF and see how that works out. Thanks, again Hekerui (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
You want to start at the top, I'll start at the bottom, and we can meet in the middle? I need you to start the listing so I can add new images to it, though. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd try a novelty and just start a new subsection at the March 21 PUF page that explains that all images are questionable. Then I'll leave a note on the user's talkpage inviting discussion. No good? Hekerui (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, typically these images are supposed to be tagged, just on the off chance anybody happens upon them and has input. :) Tagging them is easy when they're orphaned, though, and I'll be happy to run through them myself once you open the section so that I know what it's called. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
So, I created the section and will simply use {{puf|log=2010 March 21}}. Best Hekerui (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems like we've met in the middle? I started at the bottom. :) I'll see if I can get User:MER-C to produce a list of these images. He has some magic that lets him do so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks for the help. I notified the uploader and now it's a wait and see what happens. Regards Hekerui (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you actually need to provide a direct link to each image nominated on the PUF page so that reviewing editors can make individual comments if they wish and not have to go through the toolserver to get a link for an image. ww2censor (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I've asked MER-C to give us a list. He has some tool he uses that makes nice ones, complete with links, for CCI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. I added some sources which indicate most of these images could have been speedied per WP:F9. ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Good job! They still can be. :) Once the list is complete, I'll take care of any F9ables. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, why wait? With the tool Hekerui linked above, I can easily see what's what. That only leaves one image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this copyvio?

I just removed a link to a webpage with a copy of a Daily Mail article, it's been restored claiming it isn't copyvio[3] (in fact the only thing relevant to the article itself is a 'blog response' which I think fails WP:EL anyway, this is someone trying to save a crank article about some supposedly ancient texts called the 'Kharsag Epics' which are only recognized by UFO fans, etc). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an issue under WP:LINKVIO to me. I've replaced it with a link to the actual article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I apologize, I didn't know about LinkVio. However, it should have been replaced with the correct one, like Moonriddengirl did, not removed entirely. SilverserenC 20:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Not only does the article not mention anything called the 'Kharsag Epics', it fraudulently reported what the archaeologist said about Goebekli Tepe which is why it isn't used in our article on Gebekli Tepe, which is why I've removed it again. Please read WP:EL. Thanks. And thanks, Moonriddengirl. Dougweller (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Good luck working things out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Billy J.P. Moses

Thank you very much. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, User:VernoWhitney claims my page is using copyrighted text. But the text she claims is copyrighted appears no where else aside from Wikipedia. 76.87.125.57 (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That it is no longer published there does not efface copyright protection. See User talk:NorthernNine#Copyright problems for both proof of prior publication and instructions for the proper means of handling this. It is better to remain logged in while editing, incidentally. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. I did not know this. Thank you for explaining this to me. 76.87.125.57 (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Phebe Sudlow

Can you move the contents to User:Ctjf83/Sandbox? Thanks, CTJF83 chat 20:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ready for your review please (we can continue the convo on my talk) CTJF83 chat 22:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Giorgi Latsabidze.jpg

I notice that you closed the OTRS ticket relating to this file as successful, although this image is still tagged {{OTRS received}}. Can you please check if it was correctly licensed (I'm having difficulty disentangling the ticket) and proceed accordingly? Thanks! Stifle (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember that one. Sure, let me dig it up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Boy, no wonder you're having trouble. :/ There are two separate e-mail chains, which become entertwined when the client responds to me in the e-mail chain which didn't involve me.

Okay, as we both know there were issues at first with verifying the origin of the permission and the authority.

Okay. The e-mail chain at Ticket:2010030110005861 gives permission for

File: Giorgi LatsabidzeDVD.jpg (emails #1, 3, 4, 8, & 9); photographer Raya Cohelio
File:Giorgi Latsabidze.jpg (emails #6, 7, 10); photographer Raya Cohelio
File:Giorgi-Latsabidze-Photograph-Los Angeles.jpg (email #11); photographer not clearly identified. Raya Cohelio?
File:GIORGI LATSABIDZE 06.jpg (email #12)

Because when I entered this chain at e-mail #13, when the client addressed me specifically, I didn't realize that there were other images involved. I didn't read through the first 12 e-mails, and he had only asked about ongoing concerns with File: Giorgi LatsabidzeDVD.jpg. My closure of the thread was related to that outstanding question.

The official address confirms the photographer and contact address for File: Giorgi LatsabidzeDVD.jpg, but does not mention the other images. We do know that the address issuing permission for all three images is approved, per e-mail #19. We may need clarification of creator for File:Giorgi-Latsabidze-Photograph-Los Angeles.jpg.

The other e-mail chain is at Ticket:2010021810011191. It gives permission for:

File:Giorgi-latsabidze---.jpg (emails #1, 2); photographer Ric Smith
Special e-mails permission for logo: #9, 10, 19
File:Giorgi latsabidze.jpg (email #3); photographer Ric Smith
File:Giorgi-latsabidze13.png (email #4); photographer Ric Smith.

There was some back and forth making sure who everybody was and that all letters were connected to the source, following which all three of these images were logged as permitted.

So, I believe that the clear statement of copyright ownership and the connection of the e-mail address should liberate File:Giorgi Latsabidze.jpg. If you agree, we can mark that one. The one that's still got a question mark is File:Giorgi-Latsabidze-Photograph-Los Angeles.jpg, as Raya Cohelio doesn't seem to have been named as the copyright holder. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll amend File:Giorgi Latsabidze.jpg now. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Great. I'll write Raya Cohelio about File:Giorgi-Latsabidze-Photograph-Los Angeles.jpg, just to be sure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Another copyvio question

How about this [4] which has been copied to George Aaron Barton. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Eep! I don't know how I overlooked this! Yes, it's a copyright problem. Listed at CP. Good find. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Asylummusicmanagement

No problems; I originally declined the UAA with the proviso that it really belonged at COI/N. Had it been moved there, he would have likely been blocked for that reason.

Usernames that sound like that, suggesting both promotional intent and role usage, both backed up by the edit history, are indeed problematic but do not automatically engender a block, at least not from me. I like to see evidence of a connection between the entity in the username and the subject before I impose a username block. If the username policy isn't violated, they can always be blocked for COI. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Lately there have been a lot of this sort of thing with people not understanding how the username policy works and thinking that we'll just obligingly block anything that sounds like that; as you may notice at my talk page I've gotten a couple of other ones on that recently (and if you think I get a lot, look at User talk:Rspeer (he's one of the foremost advocates of a gentle approach to enforcing the username policy). Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Platform Tennis

The subject Platform Tennis has been deleted (I believe in December 2008) due to a supposed copyright violation in the history portion of the entry. The history used was from a informational packet about the sport and was for common use. The copyright was mistakenly assumed to belong to Bulletworks Platform Tennis which had a .pdf of the packet posted on their website. I am looking for the proper way to restore "Platform Tennis" as it has been a sport existing for over 75 years and played by over 200,000 people. can you please advise on how to go about doing so. Thank you Bobconsidine (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two options here. The first would be to write a new article on the subject using entirely original language. Previously published sources should be used to verify information, but not a source of text. The second is to verify permission as previously set out (but do note that since we last spoke, our licensing requirements have changed. The material must be licensed at least compatibly with WP:CC-By-SA in order for us to use it. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission). Verification is necessary no matter who first published it. All creative text is protected by copyright under US law unless it is explicitly released, copyright expired or ineligible, as with US Federal government works. If Bulletworks Platform Tennis is not the originator of the text, permission must come from the author of the informational packet. If the informational packet cannot be proven to predate the Bulletworks Platform Tennis website pdf, then we will need them to verify that they do not assert copyright. Since you do seem to go quite some time between edits, I'll duplicate this on your talk page to be sure that you can easily find it. Please let me know at my talk page if you have any questions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Could the article be restored minus the History? I can easily have a sport historian rewrite that portion. Bobconsidine (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that very little of the article seems to have been original. Much of it duplicates other web pages, such as this page and this one. It looks as though websites dedicated to this sport freely pass around text, which isn't going to make determining the point of origin easy. The only other content in the article is the opening three sentences. If you'd like this, I can "userfy" them for you in your user space for further development once I've identified who authored them. Please just let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. I will be happy to provide any documentation needed. this page was written by Jackie Brown for the informational packet. Jackie is also the owner of Bulletworks, a platform tennis court builder which is why it is published on her site. this one This standard information has been used within the sport for as long as I can remember, The APTA is governing body and I could get any documentation from them or have these portions rewritten. Bobconsidine (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian Capital Territory Debating Union

Hi,

Following your help on World Universities Debating Championship, can you check to see if the correct permission has been revived for this section Australian Capital Territory Debating Union#Some ACTDU History... taken from the ACTDU website.

Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I could not find any sign of permission logged for this material either under ACTDU or the full title. The website does not release the material. I've removed it pending verification of permission. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


Just to let you know that I have opened a ANI about this page and JJJ999 here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Australian_Capital_Territory_Debating_Union.2C_User:JJJ999.2C_121.45.216.232_.26_121.45.196.175. Codf1977 (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP issue - user claiming to be article subject.

Hi moon,

I noticed you were editing, so i hope you don't mind if i ask your assistance with a BLP article and someone claiming to be the subject of the article? It seems we have an IP user claiming to be Jeffrey Caissie, and he requests that his page should be removed due to inaccuracies. Im not sure if it is true or not, but he complains about the death date, and about the name of his daughter (Incidentally the daughter would be his cat, and since he is talking he obviously never died). An IP added this information along with the mainpage of a newspaper, though i cannot seem to find the particular article, even though it should just be a year old. Seeing it is not being handled in the most "optimal" way so far, might i ask if you have some time for this? If you do, this is the talkpage with the discussion. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Another one? :O Okay. I'll come see what I can do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
How very bizarre is this? I guess when he found the vandalized article, he thought to just undermine it completely? In any event, it seems that the article is being cleaned up, and I've left him some potentially useful links. Good job figuring out where the "death" information entered; does seem to have been vandalism! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. It seems that the situation improved quite a bit during the time i was typing, but i is a good thing you left the user a short note. There is nothing like figuring out you are apparently being a corpse, and subsequently running in the problem that you have no clue as to how this should be undone. I have no clue if this was an attempt to delete the article, or if this was just vandalism utilizing the lack of a reliable source. Even so, the information was completely unsourced, so whatever the reason - the article is cleaned up :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree; and he'll know next time what to do rather than claiming himself a zombie. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_20#Template:De_and_others

check out the template discussion, [5] i thought you would be interested given your essay on referencing foreign language wikis. Pohick2 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, you threw me for a minute with that one. Given the conversation there, I presume you mean the guideline Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I did help compose that one, and it does reference interwiki copying. :) Anyway, so long as proper attribution is provided, I don't have strong feelings on the additional use of this template, though it is my opinion that its use is self-referential and should be avoided, just as we do not source information to other articles within our local project. I've got enough to do, though, so I'll leave that for people who do have strong feelings about it to work out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Zoologische Mededelingen

Hello Moonriddengirl, I have found a free content that have not been used on Wikipedia yet: Zoologische Mededelingen and I have added this information into the article about this journal directly. --Snek01 (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting! Looks like it could be a valuable resource. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Carson Award

I work for Audubon's Women in Conservation Program and have the rights to use the website content (www.womeninconservation.org) for our wikipedia page. I understand that a lot of the wikipedia page stems from the website, but I also work on the website so I created the content in the first place. I tried to insert footnotes to site the website. Please let me know how I should proceed in getting the page back up on wikipedia. Thank you! --Audubonwic (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I have provided more information at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


Can I recreate the Rachel Carson Award page with content similar to what was previously there but with extensive footnotes and citations? That way credit is given to womeninconservation.org and Audubon's copyrights. Thanks! Audubonwic (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

FOCUS 6: The integrated Modular Wind Turbine Design Tool

So I blanked this page earlier to be rewritten as they had cleared most of the copyvio but not all. They have now rewritten it at their temp page and it looks good to me. Is there anything I can do at this point or do I just leave it to an admin to move the pages around? I figured I'd ask since I'm sure this won't be the only time this situation comes up. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily, it's fine to leave it until it closes, but there's nothing wrong with moving it early. I would come do it now, but frankly I'm swamped with trying to get Second War of Scottish Independence (a subject about which I knew nothing yesterday) to some kind of conclusion). If you have time, you might check with User:CactusWriter or User:Toon05 to see if one of them can take a look and move it, if it is ready. (Tell 'em I sent you! :D) If not, I'll try to remember to look at this later, after (a) wrapping article, (b) finishing the India cluster, and (c) taking a look at the issue raised above, which if I am remembering correctly is Poland-related. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No worries then, I'll stop bugging you and just put a note on the SCV page. Good luck with the rewrite. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
You're not bugging me. You're fully welcome to stop by any time you need assistance or have a question. If I don't have time to do more than answer at the moment, I promise I'll let you know. :) Meanwhile, I'm dreadfully afraid that there's far more to this Scottish war than I had imagined. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI, I took care of the FOCUS article, it's fine. And if there's one thing you can count on (as the English half of me is well aware), it's the stubbornness of the Scots when it relates to our English oppressors. :P – Toon 14:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
LOL! Well, it's fascinating reading. No offense to your Scots side, but it seems like infighting was nearly the ruin of you all. :D However, I'm only up to the captivity of David II, so I don't know what's coming next. I had no idea what I was in for. This is (truly and literally) epic. Thanks for taking care of the FOCUS article. I will mark it off of my "to do" list with gratitude. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

An IP 202.164.157.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has randomly been tagging articles as copyvios without providing any sources or logging on the notice board. I've reverted them as I know a couple of those articles aren't complete copyvios (though I can't say specific sections aren't). Could you take a look at those please? It could just be someone who contributed to the Kozhikode article which you cleaned up today, doing some pointy edits as an IP (geolocates to Kerala). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure! I don't know why I didn't get the "you have messages" banner sooner; I've been working on Wikipedia for hours, and I'm only getting it now?!? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, if it is pointy, it's not wrong. :/ At least, not so far. I found tons of copying in Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India. I'm currently searching through A. P. J. Abdul Kalam to see if the content I found duplicated there started with us or with the source I've located. Tedious work, but worthwhile if it keeps us from deleting stuff that is rightfully ours. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The Kalam article was the one thing I was sure about as not being a copyvio -- I've been monitoring it for a few months and did a copyvio check a while back, but I guess I was wrong! I did a basic check of the rest, but I couldn't find anything, maybe I need to refresh my copyvio checking skills. I didn't mean that pointy stuff shouldn't be looked at, but it was the source of my skepticism because of so many tags within a few minutes without any sources. While you're at it, could you also check Guduru Venkatachalam, I know it's a copyvio, but I can't find a source for it. It looks like a copy of some newsletter or publicity material, I couldn't find most of the text on the primary source. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't take it that way. :) If you thought it shouldn't be looked at, I presume you wouldn't have brought it to me. :D I'll be happy to take a look and see if I can find a source for Guduru Venkatachalam. Right now, I'm keeping WikiBlame very busy. It's still digging through A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. Lots of edits there! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Off-topic: I had never heard of WikiBlame before. That looks like it could be rather helpful. Any reason it's not listed as a resource at WP:Copyclean? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Verno. You are most welcome. :) It just never occurred to me to do so! It's easily accessible under the "history" tab of any page, as the second url in: "Revision history search". If you want to add it, go for it! Otherwise, I'll try to do it myself (if I remember) once I finish this cluster of articles and look at the ones above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Huh, silly me. I guess I never really looked at the first two External tools listed on Page history. <shrug> I'd say if it's that obvious it probably doesn't need to be mentioned (I hope I'm not a typical case). And now that I think of it, I don't really know where would be the best place to mention it. Well, at least I know about it now. :) VernoWhitney (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've used the tool to check problem edits, but I've never used it for copyvios, so for the "non-regular copyvio checker", it might be helpful. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it myself, here, along with a few others that should be included. Please feel free to add anything else that looks useful or to ask me if you think something might be! Trust me, if you haven't noticed, Verno, somebody else hasn't either. I only just realized today that this tool could be tweaked to list the author by first and last names. Given that, I'd like to think there's no shame in overlooking the obvious. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

George Aaron Barton

Hi Moonriddengirl, Thanks for your encouragement despite my recent copyright problems with the article. I have re-written it entirely a few days ago and posted links in the right place, I think. Would be ever so grateful if you could estimate a timescale for it to come back online, or if there's anything else I might have done wrong or can do to correct. Thanks and Kind Regards! Paul Bedson (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Generally these articles are listed for seven days before they are reviewed. I have a bit of a hefty "to do" list today, but will try to expedite that if I am able. I appreciate your taking the time to rewrite it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I've moved into article space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

All cause of you

The Special Barnstar
It seems like so long ago when I first came to this page, but what you showed me then is something I haven't forgotten. You displayed such a happy kindness and helpful passion towards this project that I was encouraged to join and become a regular volunteer. As of this edit, I've made 10,000 contributions - a number which wouldn't have been nearly so large if it wasn't for you. Thanks greatly for everything! My best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow! That's very kind of you. :) Congratulations on your achievement and thanks so much for the day brightener. 10,000 contributions is some serious commitment. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANV

Okay, so who do I go to in order to get protection for the Blackmore AfD page which has been completely disrupted by the IP's persistence in re-raising something that is totally irrelevant to the discussion? ----Jack | talk page 13:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's multiple IPs to the same page, you go to WP:RFPP. If it's the same IP and you can document cross-IP harassment in such a way that clearly you are dealing with the same user, you take it to WP:ANI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
RIght. So when would I use WP:ANV? ----Jack | talk page 13:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
For clear and obvious vandalism and spammers. Some recent listings that resulted in blocks (randomly selected) include Special:Contributions/121.120.132.239, Special:Contributions/86.181.4.26, Special:Contributions/Googar123. The board is for listings where an administrator can easily look at the diffs and say, "Yes, this is vandalism", then look at the user or ip talk page and say, "Yes, he was sufficiently warned" and conclude that a block is necessary to prevent ongoing disruption. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. It looks as if ANI is the right forum for the sort of problems I keep getting. By the way, I like your username. ----Jack | talk page 14:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Yes, ANI is probably the best place for more complex matters. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

oyye..

did you go ? --Vishnu1.218 (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Some users on AfD

I'd like to file a report on User:Lời chào và lời chào, User:Joker264, and User:SuperHappyPerson. They are all newly created accounts that have been going around, together, on AfD nominating articles for deletion and then all voting delete on them, generally with the same exact wording as every other vote they have cast. Examples of this would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Paul and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyman Abrams.

Where should I go to file such a report and can you help me file it? SilverserenC 20:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! WP:SPI? I haven't looked at all of their contribs, but the examples you pose are certainly worrisome. It would be worth determining if they are actual socks. I haven't created very many SPI listings myself (in fact, I can't remember if I've created any, though surely I have by now), but I'll be happy to help if you run into any problems. Alternatively, this might be handled at WP:ANI, though SPI would run the possibility of a checkuser to verify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll start at WP:SPI. If it is determined that they are not socks, then i'll take it over to WP:ANI. Something should be done about this, regardless of whether they are socks or not. SilverserenC 21:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, i'm going to do WP:ANI. I have no actual evidence of sockpuppetry as of yet. An ANI report might have an admin find it for me. For now, it's just an incident, not sockpuppetry, as I do not know who the original users are. SilverserenC 21:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
True; you never know who'll pop by at ANI (though I'd guess the original user would be the one that registered first. :D) I think it's a pretty good forum for drawing attention, though sometimes a bit chaotic. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, ANI is better, none of the 3 seem new, I suspect someone else is the puppetmaster. Some of this is probably in retaliation for user:Bwilkins deletion of an article by Joker264. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted Text use question

So I'm trying to help out a user who is interested in using material from Roscosmos, but all they have (that I can find) regarding their copyright and use is a little blurb in the lower left corner of their main page. Do you read that as being any use beyond a regular copyrighted reference? Or maybe they have some terms/conditions that I'm not finding? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't find any other terms. I'm afraid what they do have is not usable for us, since they don't set out any terms for reuse. For instance, are derivative works authorized? Without something explicit, I don't believe we can import their text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
That's what I figured but I appreciate your double check. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ze evil symbols are tricksy, tricksy symbols they are

How do I go about getting the rescue symbols and DYK symbols on the top of my user page to not overlap like they are doing right now? SilverserenC 01:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Phew! I suspect I'm the wrong girl to ask. I'll take a look and see if I can figure it out, but I'm very non-tech. :D Maybe I'll surprise myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
If you use {{ARS-userpage}} instead of {{ARS}}, it seems to move it elsewhere. But I didn't try using it with more than one article, so I'm not sure if it works with multiples. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that worked well enough. I guess i'll just have to keep them in separate spots like this. Oh well, good enough. Thanks for your help, O admin goddess. ^_^ SilverserenC 01:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

DR Guduru Venkatachalam

I am the son of Dr G V Chalam and also author of the wikepedia article. I admit the content was drawn freely from the biography available on GVChalam100.com. The content of the site is written by members of our family and is hosted by my nephew and Dr Chalam's grandson, Anand Kollipakam. Following the placement of your copyright infringement notice, a notice has now been placed on the home page: You are free to share (copy,distribute & transmit) and remix (adapt the work) Designed and Hosted by Anand Kolipakkam" I hope you will find this adequate to lift the copyright infringement notice as soon as possible. If you have any further queries please write to me at gudurug@hotmail.com or anand.kolipakkam@gmail.com or anandk007@yahoo.com.

Regards Gopal54 (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr Guduru Venkatachalam

Thanks a ton Gopal54 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Would you have some time pls to look into this issue? In October 2009 I created a couple of articles about the African Movie Academy Awards (AMAA), including a list of African Movie Academy Awards ceremonies, highlighting some of the main events of the ceremonies and the nominees & winners (the articles were written by me, using my own words, and I did not copy & paste anything from anywhere). One of my main sources for the nominees & winners was the official website of the African Movie Academy Awards. Since October 2009 the content and the URLs of the AMAA website kept on changing, and thus I had to fix/adapt the references on the wikipedia articles accordingly. Now, to my surprise, the official AMAA site has copied & pasted the entire wikipedia text which I wrote last year in October unto their own website (e.g. here). Here's my question: what can be done to ensure that these wikipedia articles which I created won't be tagged for copyright-infringement, given the fact that it is the official AMAA site that copied from wikipedia? Amsaim (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Let me go take a look. I'll get back with you in just a few minutes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
This one is looking good. Between their dating their pages and internal evidence, I think this can resolve without problem to you or to Wikipedia. More in a few minutes. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I have tagged the ones I saw that were problems, the various lists. If I've missed something, please let me know. I'm so glad you caught this early; it might have been much more difficult to verify later, if they had cleaned up some of their content clues. At this point, you may wish to politely request that they comply with our licensing terms as they are actually in violation of your copyright. :) In the spirit of "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", you might just let them know that you are glad they find your work of value and would appreciate acknowledgment of their source. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for some suggested approaches to the situation, although it isn't often that I've seen us have to write the subject for this! I'll add them to that list of Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, which will be helpful if they mirror your content without credit in the future. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Just as a final note on the issue, they are now listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc. If they should comply, by acknowledging the Wikipedia source, please let me know, and I will update. If they should copy your content in the future, please feel free to make a note on the talk page of any article they've copied pointing to that listing at Mirrors and forks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your swift assistance. Thanks also for including this issue into the Mirrors and Forks list. Meanwhile, now that the issue appears on the list, is someone from wikipedia going to contact the AMAA site about this, or is it up to me to do that? Plus, how would the case have been if the person/admin at AMAA had "properly stolen" the info off wikipedia without the internal wikilinks and references, and without placing the date of creation on the AMAA site? Amsaim (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
No, contacting them is up to the contributors to the articles. While any contributor can contact them, nobody has any authority except major contributors of the content, since the copyright doesn't belong to Wikipedia, but to you. If they had properly stolen it, it could have gotten messy. People tend to presume that official sites are copied from, not the other way around. The first thing I noticed was with the 5th annual, where you changed a word and they used it as you changed it rather than as you originally wrote it, but other contributors aren't always as willing to accept that kind of thing as obvious as I am. There was one article I encountered where there were multiple changes between the original and the copied version by several contributors, and another user still persisted in calling it a copyright problem. (Quite frustrating!) The more evidence we have the better. :) If there were no evidence at all, we could have tried writing them nicely and asking them to clarify where they got the text. We have had cases where they've responded honestly that, yes, they did copy from us. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. I'll follow the steps outlined here to contact the site. Thanks again for the info. Amsaim (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wayback Machine

Thanks for your answer. I use archive.org all the time for my day job, so I've come across it before. They don't archive a whole website at the same time so whenever you follow a link to another page it takes you to the closest date, or sometimes even kick you out to the current website if they haven't archived the page you're looking for. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for giving me the heads up on that. I'd never touched wayback prior to starting copyright problem work on Wikipedia, and had no clue it would betray me in that fashion! Most of the time, I can find an archive of the page itself, but for that one I could not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Another potential copy vio

This one's a stub: [6] vs. Bolesław Polnar. Not sure which one came first but at first glance the website does not appear to be a Wikipedia mirror [7].radek (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I think I got another one: [8] vs. Zenon Grocholewski, end of first paragraph to beginning of third only I think so can be reworded if it is.radek (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Good morning (here, anyway :)). I'll come take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Good morning to you as well. Didn't mean to start your day with copy vios (it's early here too).radek (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
My day almost always starts with copyvios. :D The first one I've verified is a problem; internet archives show they had it first. I'm about to check the second one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll scale this one down just to a one sentence stub which can be sourced independently and maybe expand it later.radek (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I'll delete the copyvio from history to reduce the chances of inadvertent restoration. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Internet archives are not cooperating with Zenon Grocholewski. :/ My next step is to check the history of the article to see if the material was added in one whack or evolved. If it was added all at one time, I'll check to see if subsequent changes brought it more in line with the source or away from. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not looking good. The text entered our article in 2005 all in one chunk. The first substantial change, here, mere days later altered the content away from the website, which means that if they had copied from us they would have had to have done so between April 19th and April 22nd of 2005. I believe that, yes, this is a copyvio that needs to be rewritten. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This [9] might be a common source for both - is it just the portion of the text I mention above that needs to be re-written or the whole thing?radek (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
You'd get different answers to that, based on who you ask. Ideally, the whole article should be restored to its first edit and rewritten from there, since the subsequent versions have all been unauthorized derivative works. You get the same effect, though, if you remove the duplicated text and replace it with something new. Material added to the unauthorized text should not be a problem as long as it doesn't intersect with the unauthorized text. And if I don't have enough caffeine in me yet for that to make sense, please let me know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try to get around to fixing it sometime soon though it sounds a bit involved. Thank you very much for all the help!radek (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for finding the problem. :) I've removed the text from this article. That'll allow you to fix it at your leisure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And another [10] vs. Artur Rojek. Like with the other one, I'm just going to cut it down to a one sentence stub for now.radek (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

ooof. +1: [11] vs. Stanislaw Nagy. Might wanna start looking into who created all these.radek (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

[12]vs. Franciszek Macharski.radek (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! You're on quite the roll. I'll see what I can find out about point of origin as soon as I finish this India-related cluster documented below. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I think most of these regard Polish archbishops and cardinals and they all seem to come from the Catholic News Agency website. If I can find a bit of time today I'm going to start rewriting those articles that I've noted already.radek (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
These should be all fixed now though I haven't had time to add refs to Macharski yet. Thanks!radek (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

recreating the title 'the kreative company'

May i please recreate the same page with same title without using the site name in the subject matter? If at all, then I shall use it as a reference, within the reference tabs.

Thanks. Please reply on my page. TKcAli (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Susanna Walton article

Hello Moonriddengirl. I wonder if you can help.

A recently created article called Susanna Walton should actually be named Susana Walton, but I cannot move it because there is already a page Susana Walton which is a redirect. Originally it was a redirect to her husband, William Walton, but I've changed it to redirect to the Susanna Walton article in the hope that WP would then let me do the move.

The error message says that I need an Administrator to sort this out – I wonder if you could do what’s needed? Best regards -- Hebrides (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. :) Let me take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Done. But that's really strange; I thought that the Wikipedia software would allow you to move an article into a space that had only ever held a redirect. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you :) -- Hebrides (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at GW Simulations's talk page.
Message added 21:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW… 21:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey there; I was wondering if you could have a word with User:Wikidea about his contributions. He doesn't seem to understand the limits placed on fair use of material as quotations, as seen here, and I worry it is a copyright violation. Ironholds (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Good morning! (though it wasn't when you left the note :D) I've left my two bits awt User talk:Wikidea#Copyright. If he's only doing court judgments, I think we're probably all right. Thanks for following up on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Wikidea 12:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing the redirect at Kharsag Epics. This epic continues as he's now created Kharsag which I shall probably have to take to AfD also as there is virtually no serious mention of such a place, all of this is just another way of approaching the same topic. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Indian women philosophers

I have nominated Category:Indian women philosophers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Women philosophers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Automatic Archiving - RS/N

Hi. An issue related to noticeboard automatic archiving is currently under discussion in RS/N Talk. Given your apparent experience in this area, anything you might have to offer in that regard is solicited and welcome. Thanks. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have weighed in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Attribution long-after-the-fact?

Please see User talk:Xeno#De and others and comment if you could. Thanks! –xenotalk 12:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Attribution?

Hi Moonriddengirl. I am here to ask you about wikipedia attribution.

  • First question: If you're restoring some text from an old version of a page, is simple attribution by saying "Note: info copied from old revision of page ..." in the edit summary enough, or do you need to write anything more? (please just tell me the minimum required to be sufficient attribution)
  • Second question: If there's a paragraph of text which has been copied on many different pages, and you want to copy it onto another page, which of those pages should you attribute?; should it just be one of them?; does it have to be all?; which one should it be? (again, tell me the minimum required)
  • Third question: If you've translated a chunk of info to work on from another language wikipedia, if you simply put a notice saying "roughtranslation of ..... article", is that enough attribution or not? (again, please tell me the minimum required)

Please reply--Theologiae (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :)
  • Are you restoring text from the old version of the same page? If so, then attribution is already in the edit history. While noting that you're restoring text from an old version could be a good idea, no further attribution is required. If not, minimum attribution required is a direct link to the article. You do not have to note that it is an old revision of the page, but it's probably a good idea.
  • You should attribute it to the one that had it first, as the first contributor of that content is the copyright holder. All other articles using it are derivative thereof, which is fine, but attribution to them is unneeded.
  • Minimum required: in edit summary, a direct link to the article in the other language Wikipedia. "Rough translation of" should be sufficient, though I myself always add "which see for attribution" in case the point isn't clear. I personally also advocate the use of a talk page template, and sorry if that's TMI. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, can I just get some things clear:
What is TMI?
What happens if you don't know which page the original version of the info you're attributing came from? Can attributing any of them help?
If in the edit summary you just put a wikilink, is that fine? Let's say this. You're copying some text from Italian cuisine. Can you just put "Some info copied from Italian cuisine"? Is that enough?
Also, what happens if you've done edits in the past in which you forgot to attribute?

Reply, and thanks :-)--Theologiae (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

TMI means "too much information." You asked for the minimum, and I couldn't resist offering a bit more than that. :) You should really find out which came first, if you can, though I know that can be challenging. Wikipedia:WikiBlame can help. If you can't figure it out, then I would suggest you pick the one you think comes first and, in your edit summary, direct people to see your article's talk page. There, note that the information is in multiple pages. Your example would be fine. Just the wikilink, without some explanation, wouldn't be, since people wouldn't know what you meant by it. :) If you've forgotten, you can go back and do a "dummy" edit--I usually insert or remove a whitespace--and note it then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks:-)!--Theologiae (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Assessment requested.

Hi. If you have a spare ten minutes, would you be able to review these Terms of Service and the discussion at Talk:Sponneck, and give an opinion on whether copyright is retained by the creator? Thanks! – Toon 20:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Yup Section 8 says "you grant Ancestry and its Affiliated Companies a royalty free, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted, transferable, worldwide license to" ... do stuff, but the copyright rests with the uploader. Elapsed time: 3 minutes. Did you see, by the way, the fourth user box on User:Amalthea? I second that emotion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Oh, and definitely thirded! – Toon 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
In that case - "if you feel like giving me, a lifetime of devotion".
Derek R Bullamore (talk)
I think I just heard something go straight over my head... – Toon 21:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
LOL! Aw, you guys are making me blush! I wouldn't be "Moonriddengirl" either if not for you and the other people who help out. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association

Hi MRG (can I use that acronym?)! Can you take a look at New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association whenever you have time? I quickly went through it and didn't find any copying (except for the Governance section: [13]), but I'd like a second opinion. It's listed at the bottom of this CCI. Thanks! Theleftorium 21:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Checking it out now. :) And I'll answer to almost anything that's meant kindly. MRG is perfectly fine. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I can see why you sought a second opinion. It follows a bit closely through the first paragraph added here, but in my opinion does not quite cross the line except for with the following:
  • First, the plan was triggered by dissatisfaction with competitive balance between schools, particularly in the football programs in public and non-public schools in the northern part of the state.
  • The plan was triggered by dissatisfaction with competitive balance between schools, particularly in the football programs in public and non-public schools in the northern part of the state.
(first from the article; Second from the source) That's the kind of thing that I would simply rewrite as I'm going, with a note in edit summary something like: "revising to separate from source". Then I'd make a note at the CCI that there was a single sentence, revised. Meanwhile, that duplication from [14] is concerning. Looking more into that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

What to do with a biased, unchallenged user?

There was a recent AfD that I stumbled across that I considered to be a rather obvious case of conflict of interest on the nominator's part. That was when, because of the explanation from the nominator, that I was reminded of the Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines article. I had done an AfD for that too recently and it also easily came out as Keep. I looked it up just to make sure, but I was proven right once again that this user had a grievous conflict of interest in these articles. And it's really not all that surprising that User:EditorASC does, considering that his personal life seems to be deeply involved with aviation as it is. However, his persistent belief that there is no credulity to either these two articles or Aerotoxic syndrome and the long-running disruptions that I looked up him making and is documented on the talk page of Bleed air just proved the truth to me even more.

And then he made these ridiculous changes to Aerotoxic Association over a series of edits, which completely slanted the article to seem like there was no possibility that any of this was real and that there is significant interest against it being real. This is actually not true, as the sources say that no real study has been made. Thus, I reverted his changes and explained on the talk page about it, in general, so not directly to him. I believe that he has a conflict of interest that is not helpful to these article, but there is not enough evidence right now, I don't believe, to file an ANI report about it. So, what are my options if I want to stop him from ruining these articles, since I can't be around all the time to keep them safe? SilverserenC 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. If you believe someone has a conflict of interest and he is not open to cordial discussion with you (always the first step), probably the best place to take it is WP:COIN. Other editors will have a chance to review the evidence and may step in if they find it appropriate. Alternatively, I might suggest WP:NPOVN, but I'm a bit hesitant for a situation where a contributor is working across multiple articles. I don't do much at that board, and I don't know if such situations are addressed there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, i'm going to give him the chance to respond on the talk page. But if he just reverts it back without saying anything, then i'll take it to WP:COIN. Thanks for the info, I didn't know about those noticeboards. SilverserenC 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey there, just wanted to drop you a note to say thank you for your work on New Economic Model: you always go above and beyond. I might see if there's a DYK in it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and I'm so glad to see you expanding it! I'm afraid I lack the background to do it justice (and, today, a bit short on time to boot), but it did seem like a notable subject. Just couldn't be sure that Roman wasn't hiding his sources, as he threatened to do. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Cheers - the CCI is showing up that about 95% of his substantive contributions were copyvios, so I think those assumptions are pretty safe. Anyway, I've nominated the DYK hook now; please change it if you can think of a better one. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow. I'm so glad you caught that problem. And that you've been cleaning it up. :D Lately, there's been more assistance at CCI, as a result of which we're down to 22 listings from nearly 30 at our high. I really just can't understand why he'd put so much work into socking to introduce copyvios when he could simply have written the content in original language. We've had some contributors who had language challenges that at least helped explain the persistent problems, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I'm really rubbish at thinking up DYK hooks. I've had a good many articles that interested me that I didn't try because I couldn't think of anything. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Lemon Pipers

Please could you have a look at recent edits to this article. There is an abundance of POV in the updated wording of the past fortnight or so, which is an issue in itself, but I wonder if the majority of the text has been copyvio lifted from elsewhere. A quick Google search by me revealed nothing of note, but I still have my suspicions. The article now needs some work to get it back to a NPOV status, but I do not want to start that process if more sinister undertones are afoot.

Actually, "More sinister undertones are afoot" sounds like an album title to me - possible ideal for The Undertones ?! Thank you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Looks suspicious to me, too, and sounds like a fabulous album title. :D I'll poke about and see what I can come up with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any signs of duplication, and I've spot-checked google and google books. Doesn't mean that there's not something I missed, but honestly I kind of wonder based on other edits if we are dealing with an experienced music writer (who also happens to have consulted on a video game). I'll leave the guy a friendly greeting and break the sad news to him about our core policies. :) I think you can probably safely bring it in line without copyright concerns. (Knock wood.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - much appreciated. Looks like I'll be piping my lemon for a few hours at some point; or is that a plumbing based sexual perversion ? Cheers,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
LOL! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
[User:Auxiliadora 1] --Auxiliadora1 (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Having done mentioned edits, information provided does not contain any known coyviol and is not lifted from elsewhere.

Redirecting and disobeying a AfD result

There was an AfD that closed recently, the N.I.N.A. Afd. The result was no consensus. However, the nominator of the AfD, User:Kww, then redirected the article after the AfD closed, against the consensus made in the AfD. I reverted this and left a message on his talk page. He responded on my talk page. I know that he is wrong, but i'm not sure exactly how to word my response or what policy to quote. What should I do? SilverserenC 21:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Have to fix supper. I'll be back soon! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Supper cooked and consumed. :) Redirecting has traditionally been regarded as a form of keeping (as has merging). It used to say so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions ("If the decision is KEEP (including any variant such as NO CONSENSUS, REDIRECT, or MERGE)...."; if I had more time online this evening, I'd look to see when that changed). Redirecting is not necessarily circumventing consensus at the AfD, unless redirecting was considered and discarded, but if you object to the redirect undoing it is quite proper while consensus for that is decided at the article's talk page. All in the spirit of Wikipedia:Redirecting and WP:BRD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
There is now a redirect discussion at N.I.N.A#Redirect discussion to which Silverseren has been specifically invited. You can come too: I was surprised that redirecting triggered such an angry response.—Kww(talk) 16:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but having come into it this way, so to speak, I would kind of not feel uninvolved. :) With respect to the response, while I don't think there's anything at all wrong with what you did, I gather that User:Silver seren was seeing it as maybe something akin to prodding after an AfD closure as keep or something. Certainly, I can imagine cases where redirecting right after a "no consensus" closure at AfD might seem to have been done in bad faith, but it's always a good idea to start with a presumption that it wasn't. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review, right?

This AfD just closed. From my viewpoint, it looks like it should just be closed as no consensus, but it looks like the closing admin went on the side they believed in. If I want to contest this decision, taking it to deletion review is the next choice, right? SilverserenC 05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, if you've already talked to the administrator and he or she disagrees. (Haven't followed the link, so don't know which applies here.) As WP:DELREV says, "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look." Pretty much everything on Wikipedia starts with an attempt at cordial conversation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And another copy vio

Krzysztof Krauze vs. [15]. The article on Polish Culture seems to be an original by Ewa Nawój and dates back to 2004. The Krauze article was created in 2007 by User:Dr. Blofeld with most of the copy vio stuff in it already.radek (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've got to run right now, but I'll take a look at this in an hour or so. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
All right. I had blanked it before I'd gone. I left a note for the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It should be fixed now. Let me know if it looks alright. Thanks!radek (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your deft hand is needed

If you have a chance in the next few days, could you help me out at Talk:Benjamin Robbins Curtis#Perhaps source too close? - Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like the one you found is addressed. I'll run the article through a few mechanical detectors to see if I can pick up any additional issues. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what's fun to do?

Hitting Random Article to look for articles that have little to no sources and then finding sources and references for them. ^_^ SilverserenC 03:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I used to do something like that. :) When I first got to Wikipedia and was figuring my way around, I would hit "random article" and improve it if I could. :D I got a lot of mileage, too, out of the listings at Wikipedia:Cleanup. There's a lot of work to be done! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for New Economic Model

Updated DYK query On April 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New Economic Model, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Attention to Malaysian politics. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Attributing pictures and images

I was wondering, if you put a picture from the commons onto a wikipedia article (i.e. copy-paste the title, and then place it in the article) if you have to attribute the author of the pic, 'cause no one (neither do I) does it, so I was wondering if you have to or not? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as someone can click on the image and be taken to the image description page (which should have a source, copyright tag, and author), there is no need to attribute inline. Sometimes it is appropriate to do so, especially with artworks, but such a thing is not necessary. NW (Talk) 13:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Powell

Thanks for the clarity on this, Moonriddengirl. I will exercise "great caution" when adding or deleting info the pages. Will add even more verifable links. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKILAWORKSONGS (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point.

Thanks for the clarity on this. I see your point. I will add more verifiable info on the pages that I edit. Thanks again!

--AKILAWORKSONGS (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi again, I'm sorry to bother you with this but I'm not at all sure where to ask this at. I got a newsletter telling me that a company is selling articles written from Wikipedia] I would think that a company making a profit from the work done here would not be allowed per copywrite provisions. As you can see, they are selling 10 books so far that are apparent copy/paste of articles from the project. The costs are amazing to me. This company also has an article in Wikipedia VDM Publishing. I just find this really strange. If you put the above company name into a search you will get all kinds of hits on them, Alphascript Publishing and Betascript Publishing. Is this kind of behavior allowed, I mean to copy the work done here, with the errors and even templates, into a book for profit? The reviews of the few books I looked at were all negative. I just thought I should bring this to someones attention and you were the first I could think of that would know if there is a problem and what to do about it. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, this kind of behavior is allowed under Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content as long as they meet licensing terms by providing proper credit to Wikipedia's contributors and retaining free license over their own publication. It's pretty reprehensible, in my opinion, that they are charging such outrageous prices for what should be free content, but from a copyright standpoint they're okay. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a shame since they are making money, lots of it by the looks of the cost, off of a lot of volunteers time. Oh well, thanks again. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks, will review!

the BLP section is helpful. thanks! --AKILAWORKSONGS (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Body piercing

The article Body piercing you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Body piercing for things which need to be addressed. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I could use your copyright wisdom in a problem I have with the article Joe Bonner. The article reads like a copy-paste from an offline source, and it's asserted in the references section that it was submitted by the author ("Mobley, M (Apr 2000). Sugardaddy Jazz & Blues News (cover article) – Denver CO – submitted to Wikipedia by author Michelle Mobley 2007"). Is this note in the references section enough to verify the copyright status of the text, or should I e-mail the author to contact OTRS for verification? The author hasn't made any edits since 2007, it seems. I'd appreciate any advice on how to proceed with the article. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll come take a look in just a minute. I'm wrapping up a note. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yikes. That's a problem. :( The note in the references section is not enough to verify copyright status. WP:C says, "If the material, text or media, has been previously published and you wish to donate it to Wikipedia under appropriate license, you will need to verify copyright permission through one of our established procedures." So, yes, we need to verify permission through OTRS. There are two basic approaches here: we could blank it with the copyright problems template while we try to contact the original contributor/author to get that verification; we could revert back to the last version before that text was entered. If we go with approach number two, I'll be happy to see if I can add some more sourced content in the meantime. I hate to see articles gutted for reasons like this. My least favorite CCI is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Rcpaterson, because we know that the contributor was the author, but the publisher has not granted permission, so we can't have the text anyway. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a messed up situation, but I guess the publisher has the right to do that As for Joe Bonner, I guess I'll remove the copyrighted content and post a note on the talk page, and then send an e-mail to the author so that they can verify the permission. Thanks for the quick and insightful response! Jafeluv (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yup, under many publishing contracts, the publisher has that right. I'll see if I can build on the article a bit over the next few days. Thanks for following up on it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Annette Arkeketa

Can you check out the situation at Talk:Annette Arkeketa? Is this response really enough? Doesn't she have to state that she releases the text under the CC-BY-SA license, so that it can be used on other websites that copy information from Wikipedia? Happy Easter! Theleftorium 22:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not really enough. We need specific licensing. I've blanked it and will address it with her. And Happy Easter to you, too. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks! It seems User:Ink Falls has transwikied a lot of her contributions so it'd be nice if we could get her to release that content. :) Theleftorium 23:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Working on it, it seems. I'll try to take a look later to see what other articles need to be blanked or have content temporarily removed. If you get an opportunity, would you mind helping with that, too? I haven't looked at CP today (I don't think; it's been a long day :D) and I've got an article up for GA. This is not as ordinary for me as it is for some people (I seldom take articles through any kind of peer review), so I'd like some time to work on feedback. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I had already gone to bed when you wrote that (partying makes me tired...). Good luck with the GA! :) Looks like the situation has been solved now. I'll restore the articles soon. Theleftorium 08:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyvio?

I cleaned an unref BLP but it seems that the text of Kip Tiernan is very similar to the first ref cited. Could you take a closer look at it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Nice to see you. :) I'll be happy to go take a look at it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Look like you're spot on with that one, Piotr. Blanked and notified. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I also think that Rosie's Place has similar, if maybe not as pronouced problems, from same creator / source: [16]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion appreciated regarding episode summaries at copyright violations talk page

Hello there. I have been disagreeing with another editor about WP:COPYVIO at 90210 (season 2). He claims he is putting the summaries in his own words, but I disagree. My full analysis of the issues are here on his talk page, but here are a few examples. I have bolded where his words match CWTV.com. (Note: these are the less obvious ones! Sad but true.)


His words: Navid and Dixon devise a plan to stop Jasper seeing Annie, but never expected the outcome of a school drug search.

CWTV.com: Navid (Michael Steger) and Dixon (Tristan Wilds) devise a plan to eliminate Jasper (Zach Sherman) from Annie's (Shenae Grimes) life, but never anticipate the outcome of a school drug search.


His words: Naomi returns from her vacation in St. Bart’s excited to spend time with Liam.

CWTV.com: Naomi (AnnaLynne McCord) returns from her vacation in St. Bart's excited to spend time with Liam (Matt Lanter), which leads to the two getting up close and personal in his newly built boat.


His words: Annie and Jasper profess to take their relationship to the next level.

CWTV.com: Annie (Shenae Grimes) and Jasper profess their love for each other and decide to take their relationship to the next level.


His comment to me was that these were the only words which could be used ("You do bring up some good points. However, it's hard to not write things using the same words as they might do as they're the only words that can be used in that sentence, my descriptions are much shorter.") Since then, he has posed this very simple question on the copyright violations talk page:

  • Is copying edit summarys from a TV guide or Their website considered a violation?

Since you helped out Theleftorium with a copyright question I had on his talk page, I thought I'd ask for your opinion. I would appreciate it if you would be willing to add an opinion/response to his question. Of course, I understand if you would rather stay out of it. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've responded to his question at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations, explaining that we cannot copy or closely paraphrase previously published summaries. Thanks for following up with him on this. The examples you give above certainly demonstrate a misunderstanding of copyright policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all your help. You have gotten pretty involved, which I didn't anticipate but truly appreciate. As you can see, the editor is a bit difficult to reason with. He doesn't seem to understand what copyright is, and deems it fine that he "wrote" summaries which, by an amazing coincidence, identically match another source. I'm not even sure he knows what "in your own words" really means. Thanks again. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Funny; I was just writing that same thing. :) No problem with my involvement; this is what I do on Wikipedia quite a lot of the time. It's not always fun, but somebody's got to do it, and it might as well be me. I'm just always glad to see other contributors keeping an eye out for these issues, especially in television related articles, as the problem there is rampant. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in over there. *blush* What are the chances that CWTV would actually give him/Wikipedia permission to use the summaries here? Just curious... --Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem. It's open for anybody. :) I'd say the chances are slim, but you never know. Any permission they grant must be processed through WP:OTRS, who will make sure that CW provides a necessarily broad license. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Htein Lin article

Just a note to say many thanks for checking and installing the new version of the article on Htein Lin. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Thank you for rewriting it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

90210 season 2

Hello, I have written this:

Annie has isolated herself through the summer worrying that people will find out about the hit and run accident. Meanwhile, all the other students were being made attend summer school after she phoned the police about the after-prom party at Naomi's house. Adrianna runs into Teddy Montgomery unexpectedly , her ex-boyfriend who is a new student at West Bev. Dixon finds out that Ethan kissed Silver before he went away. as opposed to the one that's already there (I don't know where it came from I didn't write the following)...


"During the summer, most of the students at West Beverly were forced to attend summer school after Annie anonymously called the police to report Naomi's post-prom party. During the last weekend of Labor Day, Naomi, Silver and Adrianna hang out at the Beverly Hills Beach club. There, Adrianna runs into an old boyfriend named Teddy Montgomery, a tennis player and new student, while Naomi finds him irresistible. Navid also plans on spending his first romantic night with Adrianna, but jealousy gets in the way, and Dixon learns about the kiss between Ethan and Silver. Meanwhile, Annie has spent the summer isolating herself out of guilt for the hit-and-run accident that she committed, fearing that someone will discover her terrible secret. "

The first is what I wrote, the second is a random one that was already on the page. Is that appropriate? If so, I will begin writing my own summaries on the sub-page for final approval. Jayy008 (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. That's looking pretty good, but the first sentence could use a better overhaul to avoid the structure of the original. Rewriting from scratch works best when you use not only your own language, but also your own structure. You might write something like, "Wanting to keep the secret of her hit and run accident, Annie has spent the summer avoiding others". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
That's really good thanks. I hope you don't mind if I ask you every now and again. Also just letting you know the ratings were sourced, but it seems every week when someone added the new ratings w/source they remove the previous week, makes no sense to me, but I'm just letting you know they're correct. Jayy008 (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't mind at all. I'm happy to help you work on it. :) When I work copyright issues, I often develop a kind of tunnel vision, so I'm really only focused on that. I hadn't even noticed the ratings. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I really appreciate it, what I'm going to do is re-write all of them, then link you to the sub page for you to take a look at once they're all done, I'll keep them very brief though. And yeah, I notice because I use Wiki to check ratings, not really any sources in the UK that tell you about ratings. Jayy008 (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I think I've done my very best, it took me a while, but I've done it all Here I've removed alot of un-important information and added bits that I think are more detremental to understanding the ep, without making it a a paragraph of spoilers like they were before. Please review :). Btw, as the user above said about me being unreasonable, I'm not, I just prefer when somebody reverts my edits that took me ages to do, post on my talk page a reason. Jayy008 (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'll try to come take a look at it in a little while. :) I'm trying to get some formatting done on an article up for GA, but will put it next on my "to do" list. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Ga = Girls Aloud? And that's brilliant, I really appreciate how helpful you are! :) Jayy008 (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Happy if I can help. :) GA = Wikipedia:Good articles. It's a peer reviewing process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
My bad lol, please post a message on my talk page when you're done reviewing 90210 please, so I can respond quicker, thanks again for all your help, I will reply tomorrow. Jayy008 (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've put it through a mechanical detector, from the bottom up. It found issues with episode #15 and this source. (For the most obvious example, "Meanwhile, Silver and Teddy go on their first official date but Silver finds it difficult to deal with Teddy's past"; "Meanwhile, Silver and Teddy go on their first official date, but Silver finds it difficult to deal with Teddy’s playboy swinging past". Episode #12 picks up [17] (one example, the opening sentence: "Navid is convinced Jasper pushed him down the stairs and asks to Adrianna to help reveal the information." This differs by one word.) Episode #11 hits [18]. One example: "Navid wakes up in hospital, but has no memory of what happened.", which is very similar to "Navid wakes up in hospital but has no memory of who pushed him down the stairs") Episode #10 picks up [19]. For the most part, that rewrite looks very good to me, but there are problems with text like, "Naomi is caught kissing Jamie by Richard and his mother, forcing her to come clean about her original motives to Richard." The other site says, "Naomi is caught kissing Jamie by Richard and his mother, forcing her to come clean about her plans for CU admission." These sentences end differently, but the similarity is otherwise pretty clear. I stopped the check at this point, because it seems that you may want to work them a bit further. Remember that language and structure are both protected by copyright. Sometimes, these short passages are far harder to rewrite in your own language than longer text. One trick I frequently use: flip the sentence. You can't overrely on this, because superficially rearranging content doesn't eliminate copyright problems, but you could with that last one say something like this: "When Richard and his mother find Naomi kissing Jamie, she admits to him...." That's about as far as I can go. I've never seen this show, so I have no idea, really, what she admits to him or what her original motivation might be.

Why don't you try working these a bit further, and I'll scan them again? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

All the ones you've told me, I've worked on and I'm glad because they're better now :). Also I've made extra modications to a lot of them but episode 6 where it says "after he rescues her from a bad date" might come up as bad to you but I can't think of anything else to write there, other than that, it seems better. Let me know :). Jayy008 (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Good. :) I'll come take a look at them in just a little while, I hope. I want to get some of my "chores" done first (that is, WP:CP) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
No rush, I just appreciate it, I also sourced all the ratings too, I thought it would help bring the article up to standards. Once you've gone through will you do the same as before please let me know on my talk page but have details on here, thanks. :) Jayy008 (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem; will do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I ran it through two different mechanical detectors and didn't pick up any issues, so I've put it in article space. If a contributor should find problems, please just ask him or her specifically to point out where (unless it's obvious), and I'll be happy to help you more with rewriting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
That's brilliant, I got there in the end lol, thanks again for all your help I couldn't have done it without you! Jayy008 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sudlow

Ok, I totally rewrote it from general notes I took on a notebook, so no copy and paste, please review it at User:Ctjf83/Sudlow. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 02:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy to do so. I'm working a bit slow today, but I'll put it on my list for as soon as I make some real headway on today's batch at WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My Recent Additions at Institute of Charterd Accountants

I would Like to bring it to your kind attention that the website you have quoted has actually copied the content from wikipedia. That Statutory Monopoly list was my original contribution. If you see the history of the article you will note that this list when it was originally added is older than that website you are quoting. kindly revert at the earliest.R.Sivanesh Proud to be an Indian (talk)

Thanks for your note. I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
As per Google Search Engine the page you have quoted only appeared on 16 February 2010. But I have added the Statutory Monopoly Paragraph on 10 February 2010 it self. Hence this proves that the wikipedia Content is older and that there is no copy right violation. For more information please visit http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9MS_W8bLTA4J:www.shuchita.com/courses/chartered-accountant-ca.html+inurl:http+www.shuchita.com+courses+chartered-accountant-ca.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in —Preceding unsigned comment added by SivaneshR (talk • contribs) 03:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

/* 2010 presidential campaign */

Please delete this section. The sources quoted are biased and half truths. Kittyna (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you get better soon. I'm sorry I don't know much about editing and tried to learn. I will just have to let it go this time. Thank you for your attention. God bless Kittyna (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and I've given you some more information at your talk page. I would be happy to work with you further if you decide you'd like to give it a shot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Body piercing

I've responded to you and added a few more comments. Sorry to hear about your migrane, I know what a bitch they can be because my wife suffers badly with them, too. :( If you can't get to the GAN immediately, don't worry, I won't fail it if it hits 7 days.

P.S. What is this "mechanical detector" you spoke of above regarding the 90210 episode summaries? Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Migraines are the pits. :P I'm lucky to have some good meds right now, but they do slow me down. This morning is starting off promising (knock wood).
Either way, I'm very motivated on this GAN. I watchlisted that article after finding vandalism in it back in February 2008, and every time I'd do the reversion of more vandalism would think, "It's a shame somebody doesn't clean this up." In December, I figured it was time. That article averages 2,000 hits a day and is 6690 on the most viewed articles of Wikipedia. If it's going to get that much attention, it seems like we might as well try to make it good. :D
Since I mostly work with copyright issues, mechanical detectors are a big help to me and would probably be a big help to you in GA review, I'm sure. I use a couple of mechanical detectors to help figure out if there are major issues. This one is the best. In addition to analyzing current versions of articles, you can get it to analyze older versions by putting in the permanent URL. If I have reason to suspect problems but that tool doesn't find any (or if I'm checking a smaller passage), I also frequently use this. That one does not exclude known Wikipedia mirrors (or Wikipedia itself), and you have to remove markup, including footnotes. Both of those use relatively large chunks of text and neither of them will pick up close paraphrasing or check google books. The second one has a kind of advantage with google books. Since it doesn't exclude Wikipedia, you almost always "hit". For example, scanning the new lead section for Body piercing finds this among other issues: [20], us and a mirror. But I can go up to "more" and ask it to then scan google books for that passage. (Of course, the pain of not excluding mirrors is obvious when you scan for older text. Give a Wikipedia article a month, and it will be in dozens of places around the web.)
Anyway, I will come over and address your new comments as soon as I finish checking talk page updates. I do appreciate your time. :) I've only taken a couple of articles through the GA process, so it's a good learning experience for me, too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Redirects?

Hi Moonriddengirl. I was just wondering something. How do you "undo" a redirect in order to create an article. i.e. Architecture of Italy is re-directed to Italy#Architecture, but if you want to create the article how do you do it? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) When you hit a redirect like that which lands you in a section of an article, use your browser's "back" arrow or button. It'll take you to the top of the article, where you'll see the text (in this case) "(Redirected from Architecture of Italy)". When you click on the wiki link, it will take you to the redirect page without redirecting you, and you can edit it like any other page, just removing the redirect text and typing your article in the edit window.
And now that I've told you how, for future use, I'll give you a link to save you the trouble: [21]. Click on it, and Bob's your uncle. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks--Theologiae (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Woncheuk

Hi, I just noticed you deleted Woncheuk Ticket:2010022610013647, please note I typed this article and can assure that there was no copyright violation. If it was mirrored on another site and has been deleted as a result that is a farce. I am not pleased that my hard work that has been duly cited is being deleted and would like it investigated further please and reinstated. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 11:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. While you contributed to the article, you did not create it; it was created on 11 August 2003 by User:Acmuller. The Wikimedia Foundation received a complaint from the copyright holder. There can be no question that it was a mirror of Wikipedia, as at the time the article was created in 2003 it actually cited the page it copied as a source. While you built onto the article, at the time it was tagged for copyright problems and at the time it was deleted it retained all of the language from that original edit. This constituted an unauthorized derivative work, I'm afraid. There had never been a version of the article that did not contain this copyrighted text. You would be welcome to create a new article on the subject, and I would be happy to retrieve for you the text that you had contributed, but the article cannot be restored unless we receive permission for the foundational material. Given that the website owner personally wrote us to complain about the usage, this seems unlikely. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
salvage my inclusions please and I will rework. I hope ur migraines have ceased.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 14:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I am much better at the moment and hoping to keep it at bay for a while. :) I am in the process of salvaging this material for you and will let you know when it's all up and ready. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay. It's at User:B9 hummingbird hovering/Woncheuk. This is everything that was in the article that you wrote as well as infoboxes and external links, which don't require attribution and are not copyright concerns. You had slightly modified the existing text, but only by a couple of words, so I'm afraid that the introductory passage is not usable. I do hope that this will be helpful in creating a new article. I appreciate your willingness to do so; it's always a shame to lose content over copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed 3 YouTube links from our Göbekli Tepe article and an editor is replacing them insisting the burden is on me to prove they are copyvio. See [22] Two are excerpts from programmes broadcast on the French/German cultural channel ZDF (their logo looks like 2DF) [23] and the 3rd is a personal reconstruction - this one may not be copyvio but is surely the same as a personal website? The actual link is [24], this is from here [tp://www.youtube.com/user/AjPuj#p/search] and is an obsolete version of version 2.0 which he describes here [25]. While writing this I've concluded that it is probably not copyvio, but is no different from a personal text website so probably doesn't meet WP:EL. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

LINKVIO seems highly probable with the first two, and I've removed again. The third I've left, but I suspect you're right at WP:EL. Since that one is not so much a hard-wired policy issue, you might want to take it to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard for consensus? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. This was one of those instances where I was pretty sure I wasn't going to convince the editor on my own. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

ISBN

Hi. I was wondering one thing. Since virtually every single copy of every book has a different ISBN code, I was wondering which one to use if you quote a book? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Use the ISBN that correlates to the edition of the book you reference. That way you know page numbering will be the same. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
ISBN numbers vary between editions, but not between books of the same edition. Moonriddengirl is right, if you get the ISBN number of a different edition (even of the first edition of a different country) you may find that the page numbers differ. I've never checked but I suspect this may be a problem when using Google Books preview as when I then use the Amazon link for the book it always takes me to Amazon.co.uk Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't be linking to Amazon anyway, since it links to a specific vendor and privileges that vendor over all competitors, small and large (I shall refrain from any lengthy rants on predatory megacorporations destroying entire industries). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

More on 90210 (season 2)

Sorry to bother you again, but I think you need to further discuss editing with Jayy08. He is having ownership issues and feels that only your "approved" version of the summaries is allowed. I corrected numerous typos and ambiguities, which he reverted. His comment: "Please do not re-write or change the summaries in anyway, I do not own the article or claim to, it's just that they're the only ones approved for use." Thanks for your help. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I hope I didn't give him the wrong impression there. I'll have a word with him about it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Another comment by him: "so before you make changes, get them approved by the "Moonpiggirl" so the page isn't protected again?" Sorry to drag you into this. I am removing the 90210 (season 2) page from my "watch". I just want to apologize again for causing you so much trouble. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, dear. By any name, I would rather not have to approve any and all changes to 90210 episode summaries; I don't even watch the show. I'm sorry to see you removing the page from your watch, though, but certainly understand if you feel it's best. Copyright problems are constant in tv show articles, and they can use all the watching they can get! And you didn't cause me any trouble; we're collaborating on the project, which is what I'm here for. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It was just a bad red-direct on my part, which I corrected as soon as the user informed me of it, all I'm saying is, all the work I've done, and how much time it took, this particular user asks you if what he writes is okay, considering before all he wanted to do was remove the content, rather than help re-write. Jayy008 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The vandal has been blocked and semi-protection is possibly on it's way, so there's no need for me to edit the page anymore or keep an eye I guess, but I never said Logical Fuzz couldn't edit it, by the way, I think I'm right in assuming, but I'm not sure, that you're supposed to try and resolve issues before reporting them to admins? Well that's what one told me anyway, that you shouldn't trouble an admin unless it's absolutely neccessary not run to them and post on their page every 5 minutes when you have a problem? Jayy008 (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, I thought it was on your talk page, but I left you a note at User talk:Logical Fuzz#90210 - season 2.. I thought I'd lost my mind for a minute when I could find it; I'm working on that GA and having multitasking issues. :D I appreciate the sentiment, but we should keep the basic purpose in mind here: the production of a free, reliable resource for readers on notable subjects. If a change seems in keeping with that, it probably doesn't need review. My work here is largely spent making sure that the "free" part is really free. We keep copyrighted content out of the project to protect the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia itself and also to protect our downstream reusers. If there are copyright concerns, I am more than happy to give an opinion if requested. If there are other concerns, I may not be the best person to talk to, since I don't watch the show.
I think LogicalFuzz probably came by my page about this because of my conversations with you, Jayy008, and not because of my admin status. It may be that he, too, was thinking I might have misled you into believing an admin has to approve all changes to the episode summaries now. But since the copyright issues have been resolved, no further admin review is necessary. It's all business as usual from here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Haha, yeah, I wandered why you did that too, no matter though, I'm watching your page so I discovered it. I agree with you, the only reason I reverted his edits is because his were in the middle and I couldn't leave those out, but as soon as he told me about the changes he made, I reverted all my edits and just reverted the latest IP vandal, which you can see in my history and I told the user so, however now he refuses to edit it because he thinks I'm claimy ownership again, thanks for all your help, I don't edit television shows, and maybe this can be a reason, it's much more stressful than music, maybe I should stick to that! Jayy008 (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Contributions

I was wandering if you could help me with a side issue, in my contributions it says a plain number, is there a way to look at an exact number of contributions I've made? Reply when you can, thank you :) Jayy008 (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry, hastiness, I found it! Thanks in advance though! Jayy008 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Taproot Theatre Company COI question

Hello Moonriddengirl,

I'm writing with a question regarding a COI citation on the page for Taproot Theatre Company. It says:

"It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter."

Reading the article, it seems objective to me. So I'm wondering whether you (as an experience WP editor) can provide some insight for me? I ask because I am going to be writing a similar article on another theatre company, and as a new WP writer (though long-time reader) I obviously want to avoid any pitfalls.

Thanks,

Brad Winkler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleywinkler (talk • contribs) 21:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Brad. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for doing your research before you get going. :) The problem with COI editing on articles is that it isn't always obvious when content is non-neutral or when it is based on "original research". Take a couple of examples of content that could be a problem from Taproot Theatre Company: "Taproot’s Acting Studio was founded in 1992 to provide affordable, encouraging and artistically challenging classes for children and adults interested in learning the craft of acting." Who says the classes are affordable, encouraging and artistically challenging? These are all subjective evaluations, and such content can well seem promotional when it is placed by somebody who could well be presumed to have reason to want to promote the company (as with this individual, whose username is "TaprootTTC"). Too, that particular article says "As of early 2008, over 1 million students have seen Taproot’s social-issue plays" and "TTC reaches approximately 30,000 audience members each year through more than 150 performances." We don't know if these figures are accurate or if they have perhaps been inflated to make the company seem more successful than it is.
The COI tag does not mean that anything in the article is not true, but it exists to alert readers that the article may have issues and that its claims should be taken with a grain of salt. This is particularly true with an unreferenced article like this one, since we have to take the contributor's word for it. All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources that can verify their information. But even when reliable sources are cited, contributors with a conflict may not always choose the best sources to represent their subjects. For example, I've seen political articles edited by representatives of the candidates who work to exclude criticism or negative press.
If you are involved with the theatre company you want to write about, you should first read over WP:COI and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. If you think you can edit without conflict, you will want to be particularly careful to cite reliable sources to verify your information and to remain strictly neutral. You should avoid subjective analysis of the company, its success or its performances. You might include sources criticism, but unless the criticism is balanced I would probably recommend against it. That is, if people say only good things about the theatre, you might want to just sidestep critical evaluation in case it seems as though you are creating an unbalanced article. While all contributors are required to remain neutral, Wikipedia's contributors do tend to be more skeptical about the contributions of those involved with their subjects, based in part on experience with those who would like to use the project for advertisement.
As a final piece of advice, I'd suggest a good read through Wikipedia:Your first article. It can help you avoid some of the common pitfalls first time article writers face. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks very much; I do see the point you raise about about that copy -- it's not as blatant as "Taproot is the best theatre company in Seattle," but it is subjective nonetheless. It's not obviously ad copy, and wouldn't be out of place for an organization's mission statement, but not quite journalistic in tone either.
I will look over the references you gave me, and I'll let you know when I've written my article. I'd be honored to have you as the first to bleed red ink over my work! *smile* from Bradleywinkler (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Body piercing

The article Body piercing you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Body piercing for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Hi Moonie

I was in the neighborhood and thought I would stop in and send some love your way. Hope things are going well in the copyvio wiki-world. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Backatchya! Good to see you and know that you're all right. I always worry when people disappear, even though there could be many very good reasons for doing so. :D The copyvio wiki-world continues to march on, though since you were last here we did take a giant step forward with a brand new process board, WP:CCI. It really seems to be helping the community get involved in clean up. Though it is, of course, woefully backlogged. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Aya Gozen

Hi there. I'm not sure if you continue watching articles that you've dealt with but I left you a reply on Aya Gozen's discussion page. I'd like to continue the conversion there rather than on personal talk pages (I don't log onto Wikipedia too often). Thanks in advance. :) Sake neko (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have almost 1500 articles on my watchlist, but I do not watch every article listed for copyright problems. I can barely keep up with what I have. :) I'll go check it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I've spotted a copyright violation on the Italy page. Go see Italy#Environment. Does this page seem similar [26]? I think it's a copyright vio (the info was inserted by User:Brutaldeluxe.)--Theologiae (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved--Theologiae (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've reminded him not to even temporarily import copyright content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

CCI Smartk1987

I've left a message on the talk page for the CCI for Smartk1987. Your opinon would be appreciated. Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Opined. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not just the average CV rules and regs editor...

...suddenly seeing you in a whole new perspective. Well done on another GA. — CactusWriter | needles 07:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :D I never expected to be rewriting that one. After watching it for vandalism for almost two years, I finally decided to fix it up. That said, I'm feeling guilty for having neglected CCI while I did so. I've mentally promised it time today. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I just have to say because it struck me as funny: I have helped four articles reach GA. One is for a book I've never read; one is for a musician I've never heard; one is for a medical process I've never experienced, directly or indirectly. With this one, well, at least I do have pierced ears. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
And I'd assumed that this is really you. This is the internet, after all! What an interesting topic. – Toon 11:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
LOL! There did turn out to be quite a lot to it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly! So many of the articles in which I find myself interested and editing, I have no experience with in real life. Maybe that's the point. But it's funny to think someone might actually try to construct a profile of an editor from their contributions -- which, in my case (and yours, obviously), they would get an odd splattered polymorphic ink blot. — CactusWriter | needles 18:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep, it's dangerous to make too many assumptions about people based on the articles they work on. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Seizure prediction

This article appears to be (at least in part, I didn't read the whole way through) a close paraphrase and at times word-for-word copy of a book the author contributed to. As this mirrors what little I know of the Rcpaterson situation I was hoping you could weigh in with your thoughts on the matter since I don't know exactly what the CCI situation was or how relevant it may be to this case. 15:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore this if you want, they've agreed to rewrite the problematic areas of the article. Also, thanks for the award and congrats on your GA! Good times all around! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Oops! I wasn't ignoring it on purpose. I was doing something else when it came in and forgot! The deal with Rcpaterson is that he did not have license from his publishers to reuse his own content. Sometimes authors don't sign exclusive licensing deals, and sometimes they do. Once it came out that Paterson did not have the right to reuse his own words, we had to start working on removing them. It's best to have the author rewrite the material unless he can verify that he is authorized to reuse it through the usual donation procedures. I enjoyed coming up with the award; wanted to think outside the box. :D Thanks for the congratulations. It's a fun change from my usual work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't think you were ignoring it on purpose, I just meant you could ignore it now. You always seem to have umpteen dozen things going on. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Good. I wouldn't want you to think that I would just blow off something like that. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Six Dales Trail

Hi, Thanks for removing the apparent copyvio - but I'm puzzled as to where the attribution of the rest of the earlier article survives. It now looks as if I created the article in the first place, which I didn't, nor added the images. I'm not that familiar with copyvio procedures, but I'd have thought that the original creator should be visible somewhere. Perhaps I'm missing something? PamD (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

AH, on re-reading your edit summary it makes sense - sorry about that! PamD (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I didn't mean to confuse you. :) If you'd feel more comfortable about it, I'd be happy to make a note at the talk page, too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - that might be useful, in case anyone else - like the original editor - is baffled! PamD (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. :) Thanks for fixing the problem, by the way. When possible, better to retain than delete. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Kristina Davis pic

I see that you keep putting a notice on the picture of Kali Rodriguez as Kristina Davis. I know that you are trying to do your job, but the problem I am having is that more than one actress played the role of Kristina Davis, and Kail Rodriguez was notably known for the role like Dylan Cash is for Michael Corinthos III, so could you please take the notice off of the file (file:KalirodriguezGHkristina_davis.jpg‎) Jester66 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think that the use of two non-free images for this one character is excessive. Our non-free content policies require that we keep the use of non-free imagery to a minimum. I've explained at the deletion debate why I feel this one is inappropriate. If you disagree, you can say so at the deletion debate, where you will have a chance to convince others. At the end of a week, an uninvolved administrator will determine the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-uploading deleted photos

We were having a discussion on Commons about authentic photos that I had personally taken that were deleted, and how I can/should go about possibly re-uploading them. Can we please continue that discussion? Thanks. 98.24.128.231 (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, no response at all????? And just so you know, I'm not able to sign in under my screenname because I'm restricted from making edits, but my screenname is Akhenaton06. 98.24.128.231 (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I missed your note here and have now responded. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Christine Shin rewrite

Hi. I'm wondering whether the rewrite of Christine Shin is sufficient. I posted a diff at WP:Copyright problems/2010 March 28, but after you had cleared that day. Would you take another look? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take a look, certainly. I didn't review the issue myself when I saw that another administrator had cleared it. Be right back. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, no, that's not good. :/ I've rewritten the problematic passages that I saw. If I missed anything, please feel free to fix it. Thanks for letting me know! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking again. Hopefully I can gain experience in this area soon and stop dumping tasks in your lap. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday

Happy Birthday MoonRiddenGirl
This editor is a Most Perfect Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain and Cigarette Burn.

For 3 years you have been here, working hard and being an role model for everyone in this great project, a useful advice when asked and a lead member of this project; but most important a marvelous and lovely person. Happy Birthday. Zidane tribal (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy first edit day from me too =) –xenotalk 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations :) Hekerui (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all! Three years feels both incredibly long and brief at the same time. Surely I have been here forever? :D (Mmm, cake!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, I almost forgot to put that all-important cigarette burn on your Book of Knowledge! Physchim62 (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoot! A Cigarette-burned book! Thank you very much. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You can have a silver star as well if you want, or a lapel ribbon, but somehow I think coffee-stained cigarette-burned books are just that bit more – how can I say it – Wikipedia! Physchim62 (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm being dim, but...

...did you forget to delete this? You noted here that you deleted it because the copyright concerns remain, and you left the user a cup notice here; yet the article endures. Have I missed something? – Toon 18:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't miss anything; evidently, I did. :) Deleted. By the way, are you on OTRS these days? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Good thing I'm nosy then. And yes. But only for things which don't hurt my brain too much. – Toon 18:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, good thing. :) And rats. Not that I object to your being on OTRS, but only because I'm trying to think of some other suckers volunteers who might like to help out. We've got tickets nearly three weeks old in permissions for English alone. :O --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it's all in the marketing. If we keep calling each other "agents" and be all secretive, people may think it's something interesting - and once they have access and realise what it really involves, hopefully they'll feel obliged to help out anyway :D – Toon 19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Does one have to be an admin to become an OTRS volunteer? Hekerui (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe so, although it can be helpful. I'm not an admin on Commons, which means sometimes I have to track one down. OTOH, admins aren't that hard to find when you need one. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been wondering the same thing. m:OTRS/info-en recruiting says volunteers "should be experienced sysops on one or more Foundation projects" (emphasis added), so does that mean it's a case of just applying and finding out if they're desperate enough to take non-admins? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I didn't even notice that. :/ I was invited to raise my hand and just kind of blindly volunteered. I can ask how hard and fast that rule is of Cary. As of this moment, we have 455 permissions letters on Commons and 82 on English, not to mention the ones on other languages. (Those tend to be shorter, though.) We could definitely use some competent assistance there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I was asking since I'm good at German and have some experiences with image licenses (that are not from Japan). Of course I'm not an admin. Would you mind telling me when you find out whether they want non-admin volunteers? Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to mention it here! I did hear back, and Cary says that they do want non-admin volunteers; they evaluate each on a case-by-case basis. :) Being good at German would certainly be a plus! Primarily, working the permissions queue involves looking at a letter, looking at the image or article and deciding if the permission is sufficient. If it's clear on the licensing terms and it's clearly connected to the point of publication (and plausibly the copyright holder; sometimes photo subjects send this rather than the photographers), we send them a thank you and drop a template on the image/article indicating we have permission. If it's not, we send them a form letter (usually) pointing out where the problem is and asking them to fix it. I'm not an admin on Commons, so once in a while I need to run down an admin there to resurrect an image that's been deleted, but most of the time that isn't an issue, as I said. I'm not entirely sure what they look for — the OTRS admins make the call themselves without discussion with the volunteers — but the few requests I've seen go through have been far less fraught than RfA. Usually it's a "Hi, I'm open" followed by a question or two, a couple of days of silence and then a decision. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) Oh yes, certainly much less fraught than RfA - and the result isn't publicly announced either - just to you via email. Frankly I don't even think RfA is comparable. Any comments on the nomination page are taken into account by the OTRS admins who make the decision in private. While "no big deal" is a huge lie with regard to RfA, it is God's honest truth when referring OTRS. And that is coming from an atheist who really doesn't like to mention the "G" word. – Toon 02:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you need people to do permissions work, I'll stick an application in. I don't think I have the character to do more sensitive work (and I'm sure the Office doesn't think I have the character for more sensitive work!) but I should be OK for routine permissions. Physchim62 (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I wondered about you. :) We could certainly use more people to do permissions work, and i don't doubt you could help tremendously. If you think that people might judge you not temperamentally tepid enough for the sensitive work (:D) just be sure to specify that you're raising your hand for permissions only. Permissions rarely get fraught, except when we have to gently say, "Thank you for licensing this image of Mick Jagger, but we don't believe that it belongs to you." You can always skip those. I do sometimes have to bite my tongue to stop myself from asking people if they've read the directions. (Metaphorically speaking, that is. Bitten tongues are not really trustworthy preventatives of rash typing.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
'Tis done! Physchim62 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The College of William & Mary School of Education

Hi MRG. How are you? :) Do you think the the history section of The College of William & Mary School of Education is too closely paraphrased of http://education.wm.edu/about/dean/history/index.php? Theleftorium 20:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I will come take a look directly. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Borderline, I believe. If not for the history, I'd be less likely to say so, but "due diligence" means acknowledging prior issues. I've just rewritten it where it stands. If you think it needs more, please let me know or feel free to chip in. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought it was a bit borderline too. Thanks for the rewrite! Theleftorium 20:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Second verse, same as the first

Another image question... I believe I am providing accurate advice, but figured I should ping you all the same: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Non-PD images which don't link to their image description page. –xenotalk 01:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a messy question and one I've never considered! Theoretically, we need to make the image description page clickable, per Wikipedia:REUSE#Images and other media. If not, we need at minimum to note the licensing terms and authors (for most if not all licenses). Yikes. I'm not entirely sure what to say about that. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

SCV Template questions

I figure you're the one to ask since you seem to do most of the WP:CP clearing (at least in the month since I've been working here). So far (I think) I've just been using l:"Article blanked" on all of the articles which are blanked whether it's because of close paraphrasing or donating permission issues. Should I be making more of an effort to actually mark them as r:"Permission plausible" when they assert permission and only use the other one when it's a rewriting issue? Would that help when you review them a week later? Also, I don't think I've ever used d:"Copyright concerns remain" because it's deleted which pretty much takes care of the problem, or h:"Article cleaned, still needs a history purge", since as far as I know we only purge history for copyvio when asked to by the copyright holder. Are there times when I should be using those but I'm not? Just looking for feedback. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! It doesn't really make much difference if you note permission is plausible or not, except that it can be helpful if the permission is asserted somewhere other than the article talk page. If the contributor tells you at your talk page, for instance, it could be a real help. I agree with you about "d'. The only time I use it is when there has been a plausible indication of permission, and particularly if there's been an assertion of an OTRS communication and I can't find that letter. If I use {{cup}} on the talk page, I usually use "|d". I do plenty of history purges, but we have no consistent practice for this here. (Evidently, on the French wiki they purge all of them!) My own rule of thumb is if the copyvio is extensive and/or has been in history for a long time, I purge. It is based on what I think to be the probability that a copyvio will be inadvertently or intentionally returned to article space. I also may decide it based on what I think is the potential of harm. If a handful of plot summaries have been copied into a list article of TV episodes, I'm less likely to history purge than I am if an entire BBC news article has been reproduced. With SCV stuff, I'm less likely to history purge if I think that the content probably was placed by the copyright holder. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
MRG, {{SCV}}'s d option does not refer to {{Cup}} :)
When I was working on SCV before getting the bit, I'd use d for articles I was tagging for CSD G12, in order to keep track of what happened afterwards - too often a less clueful admin would decline a G12 (eg. because the source was GFDL-only) without then blanking and posting at CP, so I'd then follow up on that one. Obviously I have less of an issue with that since I got the bit
For history purges on SCV items, let's face it, it was a good idea but it never picked up, simply because nobody is bothering to perform the purges that get requested (myself guilty of this). Nonetheless, I think any entry that got listed at SCV (hence started as a copyvio) and subsequently rewritten should, consistently, be histpurged. Just my 2 cents, and with my current lack of activity, it's not as if I had any say :) MLauba (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks both for your feedback. I'll make more of an effort to differentiate between the l and r tags, but I think I'll continue to ignore the history purge unless/until someone tells me it bothers them (and I just watch the files I tag for G12 so I keep track of them that way). VernoWhitney (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The (accidentally) hidden archives

Hi. I see you've manually done some archiving for the Wikipedia:Non-free content review page in the past, and so wonder if you could spare some time to straighten things out. I was looking for a past discussion and couldn't find it in any of the archives. I searched through the page history and found the dastardly dude wot made the shameful words disappear, ClueBot III!

Easiest way to see the problem might be to go here, then add an 'c' to the search text. If that goes well, you'll see a dropdown showing the archive pages listed.

Look! There's an "Archive5" and an "Archive 5". And only one is linked from the project page. (The ones with spaces)

Anyway, too angry about one result to trust myself with trying to fix it. Could you?

Shenme (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Fixed! That one was actually human error. :) The person who opened archive 5 did so at "Archive5" instead of "Archive 5" (which is the spacing used in previous archives such as Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 4). Because the archive box links to the proper spacing #[[Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 5|September 2009–present]], those early manual archives didn't show. Glad you noticed the problem! Those archives might have been hanging out there for good otherwise. I've merged the contents to the proper spacing. Sorry that one of the results was disappointing to you. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 13:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

URAA, US copyright, and such

Hey Moonriddengirl.

Having a bit of a ill week, and am now no longer able to think clearly. This, combined with my usually enthusiastic but patchy knowledge of all things copyright, leads me to your talk page. I wonder if you might be able to see clearly what I mean.

So I nominated this file for deletion, and bunged the word URAA in there. Looking back, that can't have been what I meant, which is actually the CTEA (pray forgive me). So the file should be deleted after all, I think, despite the news from the US referenced by the keep !voter. Maybe. Perhaps you could confirm? I'm happy to start a new PUF.

Incidentally, is there any way in which the URAA does affect uploads? I'm sure interested now.

Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid with images you are wandering afield from my specialty. Looking at the Commons list for determining copyright of non-US photos, I don't see how this image can be PD if it was photographed in 1930. It would have become PD in the UK in 2000. Presuming that the answers to the questions in that list are 1:yes; 2:no; 3:no; and 4:no, it seems that it will be PD in the US in 2026. That said, I know that on Commons, there is not consensus at this point about how the URAA impacts uploads; see Commons:Public domain#Uruguay Round Agreements Act. I really don't know if there's been any discussion on Wikipedia about it, but I know what it says at the guideline on Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Restored copyrights.
All that said, I do have go-to folk. :D I'll see whose shoulder I might tap to get more information on how the URAA affects image uploads on Wikipedia and Commons and any impact on this image of CTEA. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to answer a few points here. Firstly, Jarry really did mean URAA in the deletion request! This is a UK photo, so URAA is relevant. The most important thing with the URAA, and the one that everyone agrees on, is that foreign images like this one are exempt from the requirements of copyright notice and copyright renewal to be protected in the U.S. The problem comes because the U.S. does not use the rule of the shorter term: this means we get exactly this kind of situation, an image which is PD in its source country but still protected under U.S. copyright, even though there might be no realistic risk of a U.S. copyright being asserted. To be frank, I've completely given up worrying about such files on WP after a big fight with a set of truly obnoxious Australian editors (several of them admins). It will need a diktat from the office to resolve the policy issue. Mind you, I think the commons idea of a template to tag these files is a good one – at least that way we know where they are and how many we have. As for Golan v. Gonzales, it is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia, as neither we nor our potential reusers are "reliance parties" (people who were using foreign images before 1996, basically): nevertheless, some editors will insist on loadly proclaiming it as the end of the URAA and the beginning of complete freedom to upload what they like from among foreign images, just as I've seen many, many such arguments in the five years I've been interested in WP copyright issues!
Sorry I can't give you a more clear-cut answer, but this is really a policy issue and the policy (in practice) has never been too clear on the matter. Physchim62 (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Physchim62. And good to see you. :) I had some idea this was a messy question on Commons, but I just don't do enough with the images here to really follow the trends. I've still never managed to work out when and how we allow or don't allow pictures of living people on Wikipedia. It all seems so arbitrary. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I keep you're talk page watchlisted, because you seem to get the really juicy copyright problems popping up here! ;) And, as for living people, I see you've got a really juicy one (rights problem, that is) lower down the page... But to come back to the URAA problem for a second, there's obviously no consensus at the moment for a mass deletion of these images (and we're talking tens of thousands), not even on Commons. Personally, I would agree that we probably have more pressing copyright problems to deal with while we're waiting for some sort of consistent policy to emerge. Physchim62 (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Physchim, I swear I'm going mad. I must say, I've had only slight and not immovable problems getting similar images deleted before (but then, I've only processed maybe 70 or so, and not all needed proposing for deletion). You're right, the problem is pretty large and messy, but I for one would like to see Wikimedia making a point of not silently breaking the law, so I'm going to have a look into how it can be dealt with en masse (i.e. not in a way that wastes human time). Thanks again, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 15:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response - in short this has been an endless dispute on Commons. I come down on the same side as Psychim, that we should delete all images whose copyrights were restored by the URAA (at least until such time as there is a change in the law). Some others agree on Commons, but so far motions to delete all such images have met with no consensus. However, many individual images have been deleted based on the URAA and other factors. As such, there is no consistent precedent to look towards in such a deletion, and it should be evaluated on its individual merits, while taking the matter of the URAA as a significant factor in favor of deletion. Generally such images are deleted unless there's some champion arguing that their utility exceeds any legal risk. Here on the English Wikipedia, though, the URAA is comparatively little-known, and if it's kept I'd seek a second opinion from Commons.
One thing I will say is that if we keep images of this nature, then we need an equivalent of Commons' Not-PD-US-URAA tag to keep tabs on them so that we can revisit them later as necessary. An important question to consider is whether such images should be movable-to-Commons or whether (like {{PD-1923}} images of foreign origin) they should have to stay here. Dcoetzee 01:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio Warning Templates

So after getting this response at WP:AIV I decided that there should be a final warning template for copyvio, since after only a month working copyrights I've come across quite a few who upload nothing but copyvios and I'm far too used to using form paragraphs to write out messages by hand to all of them. I was thinking of changing {{Uw-copyright4}} to something resembling {{Uw-vandalism4}} instead of a redirect to {{Uw-copyright}} (which resembles a level three warning) as it is now.

The multiple levels of copyright warnings were done away with back in '07 with this explanation, but this is the second time I've been told I need to give a final warning before an admin will step in. Does this sound like a good idea at all? If it sounds good in this neck of the woods I'll probably boldly change it and see if anyone at WT:UTM complains about it. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That probably stems from lack of familiarity with standard practices. Unlike garden variety vandalism, persistent copyright problems after any warning are subject for blocking. My only concern with retooling {{Uw-copyright4}} is that I am afraid that it might confuse those administrators who realize that copyright infringement (a violation of our most basic Terms of Use and one of the most demonstrable needs for tool use to prevent continuing disruption, since ongoing copyvios can put the project into legal jeopardy) only requires one clear warning before block. These blocks are not punishment, but the clearest way we have to convey, "We mean it. You must stop." I wouldn't want to actually make escalating warnings part of the procedure here. Alternatively, it might be time for a meta discussion of some sort, at WT:BP, WT:AIV, WP:AN or WP:VPP, just to make sure that we're all on the same page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
(Oh, yes, I'd be happy to either launch such a discussion or join you in it, if you think it's a good idea. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC))
(And another P.S.: I've taken the liberty of removing your final warning to him, as I have blocked for two weeks. Please forgive me it that was overstepping and feel free to return it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC))
I appreciate that. I only put it there for whenever he returned I wouldn't run into the same issue at WP:AIV. I'd appreciate a discussion somewhere about it so that I don't have to call on you whenever I find one. I've been told that AIV is the best place for me to report continuing offenders since after one warning it's explicitly vandalism, but I have no idea if the admins that work there would follow a discussion there. I'm also not quite sure how to broach the subject, so I would also appreciate you kicking off the discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll be happy to. I only have a few minutes on Wikipedia right now, but I will make it a priority for later today. I can do the community discussion thing. I've had lots of practice. :D People don't always respond, mind you, but I know where to publicize it and how. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks.VernoWhitney (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, obviously this conversation didn't happen yesterday. :) My day kind of derailed, and this day hasn't gone much more according to plan. I will try to launch something in the next few hours, but want to prioritize WP:CP with the time I'm here so that it doesn't fall even further behind. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I've raised the question about copyright blocks, the appropriate venue for requesting & the number of warnings required at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Copyright blocks. Feedback there would be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat related to the above, someone opened a discussion regarding the content of the warning message at WT:UTM#uw-copyright. I thought you or one of your other talk page stalkers might be interested since this is kind of copyvio central. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

See the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BlackJack's website. BlackJack has used his own personal website extensively throughout 18th century cricket articles often copying near verbatim from his site. I questioned the reliabilty of his website and he now claims[27] that his website can't be removed as a source or else it would breach WP:COPYVIO and hundreds of articles would be deleted, this almost appears like bribery to me. So my question to you is does BlackJack have any copyright 'rights' if he himself has released the information onto Wikipedia? --88.111.52.108 (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. If he authored the material both there and here, then he has released that content like every other contributor under our licensing terms. The attribution here is sufficient. If other contributors imported his material (presuming it is properly licensed at the source), then he might have a point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Article

friendly nudge :) CTJF83 chat 17:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I'll visit it soon! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Changes CTJF83 chat 02:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
On my to-do list right after today's WP:CP. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: A favor?

I can certainly take a look and see if there is anything I could do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I dropped him a message in Polish, we will see if that triggers any replies. He claims to be Polish-Canadian, so I'd assume he should be able to understand English. I see he also created a Polish entry on himself, this is also a copyvio - I reported it to the Polish Wiki copyvio section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio block request

Any chance you could take a look at RockyRob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated uploading of copyvio material - most recently here with all summaries copy/pasted from scholastic.com. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll go take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Possibly a child? I've blocked for 31 hours and left my usual block notice, with a somewhat simplified explanation. Let's hope he gets it. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
That was my guess based on the editing pattern, which is why I waited until the 4th time it happened to try AIV...where it sat for four hours before anyone even took the time to say no (sorry, I'm feeling the need to kvetch, even though I already posted this at the Village Pump). Anyways, what I mean to say is Thank You Very Much. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the VPP listing is probably going to wind up with instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright violations for ANI reporting. The ping-pong game between forum boards needs to stop. :/ Meanwhile, feel free to stop by my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
And you're still welcome to bring them to my talk page, but unless it's reverted out I've gone ahead and changed the policy accordingly, noting it at the VPP conversation. If you need to list somebody at WP:ANI, you can preface it now with "Policy says bring them here." :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Rouge admin, changing policy to suit her purposes (and everybody else's, but that's beside the point) ;) Physchim62 (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Me? :O But also due process wonkery, in that I reported myself. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

AtlanticVerde really seems to have it out for me, as if me alerting him that passing off a copyrighted photo is somehow a slight against his entire existence. I'm glad you gave me unsolicited back-up...people like that just don't get it. I'm basically just waiting to see if/what AtlanticVerde does when he gets back from vacation. I hope it's constructive. Otherwise a long-term block may be the only option. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) When I saw his vandalism on your userpage, I figured it might be personal. His reverting you to retag an article for PRODding is pretty egregious! If he continues after his vacation, a block will almost certainly be in order. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir Robert McCarrison

Can you look at this new page, I am sure that the page quoted is licensed correctley - would like you to view to confirm before I remove tag.

Thanks

Codf1977 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll wrap up the single CP listing I'm in the middle of closing and I'll come take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Yup, licensed correctly. :) Since we don't have documented proof that it was placed by the copyright holder himself (even though it almost certainly was), can you also place {{Dual}} at the bottom of the page when you remove the tag? That keeps us all in line with licensing requirements. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I have done that. Codf1977 (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for helping out with copyvios. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Question/Weird legalese

You know about copyright, so I have a question about this Commons photo. I had checked the license when it was uploaded from flickr, and with it being a Commons image I added it to the pages on the English, Simple, and Japanese Wikipedia. Now I just received a message on my talk page about how the image can't be used on the Japanese Wikipedia because some firm has all the rights about photos of players like him (?!) and prohibits use of the images on the Japanese Wikipedia. Can a company claim the rights to someone's own work when it's about a living person? Can a company prohibit use of free stuff on Wikipedia (and wouldn't that open the option to all languages, including the English version, if it's accepted in one language)? Isn't the jurisdiction of all Wikimedia projects Florida or something? Please help, this is really strange, and I kind of resent companies attempting to mingle with other people's free stuff. I'm sorry in case you are not the right person to ask, but I'm not sure who else to ask. Thank you! Hekerui (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not had much to do with Japanese copyright law, I'm afraid. From a copyright standpoint in the United States, they can only control the image if they own the copyright. If somebody else has snapped the photograph, copyright does not belong to them. I can see that Japanese copyright law is different from that in the US at Japanese copyright law, in that "performers" have some ownership in copyright there. According to our article, "Live performers have the transferable economic rights of fixation (control over recording), making available (control over publication in interactive media such as the internet), and diffusion (control over diffusion by wire or broadcast)." I don't know if what's going on here is that in Japan the subject of this photograph must also consent to its display.
Since the note you were given was vague, it's also possible that you're running up against personality rights here. Japan is notoriously strict about these. See, for example, [28]. I'm trying to dig up more information about this, but thought I'd better go ahead and save what I've got in case I lose connection or something. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
And, wouldn't you know it, my very next search hits pay-dirt? [29]. It seems as though there is a "portrait rights" dimension of copyright in Japan. Evidently, this is the article on it in the Japanese Wikipedia: ja:肖像権 Since I don't read Japanese at all, I tried google translate, but I'm afraid that I can't trust its results. :) [30]. I've found a few sources discussing the phenomenon. This one is widely referenced in various blogs. See it in action here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It's just possible that the J-League is talking about performers' rights, as Japan has a very wide definition of "performer" and "performance" (much wider than the international definitions). However, I think it's much more likely that they're talking about personality rights. These are both strongly protected and extremely valuable in Japan: to give a case close to (my) home, the Catalan football club RCD Espanyol signed Shunsuke Nakamura mostly on the basis of the huge marketing income they could generate from his image in Japan. It is normal in most countries for a professional footballer to grant an exclusive licence over his (or her) personality rights to the club for whom they work and play, in return for a share of the income generated. So, while it is not technically a question of copyright, I can see why the J-League would object to WP (especially jawiki) saying that these images are free for commercial use when they are patently not. Physchim62 (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, MoonriddenWikiBirthdayGirl ;), the U.S. has some protection of performers' rights as well: it comes out of the URAA, and can be found at 17 U.S.C. 1101. The protection only applies to musical performances, unlike in most other countries where it applies to the performance of any "artistic or literary work" (e.g., theatre productions). Physchim62 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a form of performance right that's a bit more familiar to me, though I've done even less with sound than images. I don't remember why at this point, but I once I had to do some reading into The Martin Luther King Jr. "I Had a Dream" speech issue. But it's certainly alien to me to think that simply, well, having an image is a form of performance. :D Anyway, one of the things I like about this place is how much I get to learn. I had never considered that there might be a legal reason for the blurring of faces in Japanese photographs. I've done almost no reading on personality rights. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the checking. It's not a performance, I agree, it's a fan image of him walking, and if this assertion is true then the image couldn't even be hosted on a Wikimedia server or flickr. Anyway, I'm thankful for your effort. Hekerui (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem with personality rights is that they vary enormously between jurisdictions (even between states in the U.S.). On enwiki, our General disclaimer specifically states that we can't guarantee anything about reuse and personality rights; the Commons disclaimer says the same thing, but in Legalese! Don't forget as well that jawiki can set whatever restrictions it likes on image use: if they don't want hassle from the J-League over photos of players, that's their business and there's nothing I, Moonriddengirl or even the WMF Office can do about it. Physchim62 (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I tagged it with commons:Template:personality, which is designed for precisely this purpose. :-) Dcoetzee 05:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please retore my contributions

The lactoperoxidase system is known to be safe[22] It doesn't not attack DNA and is not mutagenic. This is not the way I remember the text was written.

You also deleted references that were added to the article and you deleted a reference I added to the article. Please restore the edit history just for this weekend so I can restore the missing content. While removing the copyright violations a lot of important material vanished somehow. Mary Foster (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


In addition, lactoperoxidase may activate carcinogenic aromatic and heterocyclic amines.[26] This was not the way it was written. A lot of information that was not a copyright violation was deleted. Mary Foster (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Another option is starting a new page. You could restore the old version on a separate page like in a sandbox then after it is approved then it could be added to the article. Mary Foster (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There remains one section with copyright violations. Mary Foster (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you. I seem to have blundered badly in that cleanup in not actually removing the bulk of the contribution that needed to be gone. :/
What I had done (or, rather, intended to do!) was restore to the last version of the article prior to the introduction of copyrighted text, following which I gave my best effort of re-adding all content by other contributors than the one who added the copyrighted content in the first place, except of course that I could not restore material that interacted with his text in such a way that it formed a derivative work. Some of the content and references did disappear because of that, but the content that had originally been there remained and the new content you and Boghog2 had added was retained as far as I was able. To repair my own blunder, I have split out the content again, but I have left the split material viewable for a week (albeit hidden from publication; the content can be mined from beneath the blanking template). There's more information at Talk:Lactoperoxidase#More cleanup. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm done with restoring the missing content. I request my user page be deleted. There are copyright violations in the old versions. Mary Foster (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This is to confirm that I am also finished restoring content, so please go ahead and delete Lactoperoxidase/deleted revisions 2010-04-11. Thanks for your help. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

War of the Independents

Hi, my name is Dave Ryan and I was wondering why War of the Independents was deleted? It is my project and it is still forthcoming. Thanks! Dave Ryan davidwryan2002@yahoo.com http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=709125543 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.194.204 (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The article was marked for deletion on March 21, 2010 by another contributor who explained his rationale at the creator's talk page. His explanation was "Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. All I can find is online chatter about this long delayed project. I cannot find any WP:RS that would allow it to pass WP:N"
That's a little jargony, but in plain language what he's saying is that while the subject may be notable at some point, it is not yet of enough encyclopedic notability to meet our "general notability guidelines". Typically, we require that subjects be mentioned in multiple reliable sources to indicate that they are suitable for inclusion. The general notability guideline is viewable at WP:N. There is a special one for Wikipedia:Notability (books). His reference that it "Fails WP:CRYSTAL" is basically just meant to point out that the series does not yet exist. Subjects of existing products (like movies or books) are more likely to meet inclusion guidelines than subjects of planned products, particularly since some planned products fall through.
The specific kind of deletion requested here is what we call a PROD. It's unusual in that articles that have been PRODded can and usually will be restored whenever anyone requests them back. But it's a step that you should consider carefully. Not uncommonly, restored PRODs wind up at community deletion debate, and if the community decides to delete the article it can be a little more complicated to create a new one. You might do well to wait until the comic series is actually hitting the shelves, when there are reliable sources such as reviews that can be cited. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


Well, whomever gave you this information is ill informed. I printed a War of the Independents edition 2 years ago and am working on a bigger graphic novel version presently. He could have easily contacted me but took it upon himself to delete it. Not very professional for someone so jargony! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.194.204 (talk • contribs)

That could possibly be from a lack of reliable sources and also from the general condition of the article, as the first sentence described it as an "upcoming" mini-series that "will be published". I don't believe many Wikipedians contact article subjects or those related to article subjects, unless you are also User talk:Hombre amigo, in which case he gave the requisite seven days notice. As I said, however, the PROD procedure is unusual in that you have only to ask to have it restored, whereupon the tagger can make the decision if he wishes to pursue other avenues for deletion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't create the page but I have gotten quite a bit of emails in response to it's deletion so if it could be restored I would appreciate it. Thanks

All right. I have restored it and have given the requisite notice to the tagger. If he decides to launch a deletion debate, the article will be tagged, and I'm sure he'll notify the creator. If you're interested in participating, you might want to keep an eye on the article. Deletion debates typically last a week. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dale Pollock

Thank you for your help with the edit of the Dale Pollock page! I really wasn't sure how I was supposed to get around the copyright issue. Chadwick28 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm happy if I can help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

World Currency Unit

BabababaJ

Thanks for your help after I cleaned up World Currency Unit for some reason it became noted as copyrighted material although it had been on Wikipedia previously. I gather I may have used the reference incorrectly. I will try and avoid such errors in the future.

The world currency cleanup is my first project, which I was motivated to do after "Bancor" redirected me to a "World Currency Unit" article I deemed extremely restrictive to the point of being conceptually wrong. I have also added an article on the "Wocu" and would appreciate it if someone were to giver me feedback on it as it is my first article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babababababaj (talk • contribs) 12 April 2010

Hi! Well, first, it actually is copyrighted material, just not copyrighted to the source that the bot detected. :) Wikipedia's contributors retain copyright in their own text. But we can reuse it all we want as long as we give them credit. If you aren't sure how to do that, you're more than welcome to come by my talk page, and I'll be happy to give you a hand. In this particular case, it did cause some confusion about the copyright problem the bot thought it detected. Until I realized that it had previously been published in another article, I did not realize that they were copying us without credit, and sometimes content is mistakenly deleted for that reason.
I've had a look at Wocu, and while I am woefully unfamiliar with the subject (I took one course in economics in my first semester of college, quite some time ago :D), it looks like a very good start. I've made a few small changes to it—-formatting—and tagged a few projects on the talk page that might be interested in helping develop it. And, by the way, if you're looking for contributors with interests similar to yours, you might want to check one of those out. Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics seems to be pretty active, and they might have some information at their project page that you'll find useful. Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics also seems active and involved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010601/ldh4.htm
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_21&oldid=1136162238"