Jump to content

User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55→Archive 60

Re: LaBiancas

Hi, Moonriddengirl. Regarding the LaBianca page, I remember working on it years ago but I don't recall specifics except it was probably poorly written as I was a newish editor. If there is close paraphrasing/copy pasted content, I do apologize but again, I don't recall setting out to do that. My PC is currently broken so I'm only able to edit through mobile devices which makes editing a large article difficult. I'll attempt to go through and rewrite the content I added but it may be slow going. I apologize for this issue. 24.72.173.203 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The above message was written by Pinkadelica. For whatever reason, staying logged in on my iPhone is impossible. Pinkadelica♣ 21:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Indonesia–Iran relations and Indonesia–Uzbekistan relations

FYI: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Gunkarta. I've marked off those two from the CCI. MER-C 02:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah. We're already there. :/ Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Players' Theatre, etc

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for all your effort researching the copyvio situations at Players' Theatre and elsewhere. I'm deeply impressed by the quality of your work and your interactions with other editors. You are a great asset to wikipedia. All the best - Pointillist (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I really appreciate that. :) I'm sorry that you had to wait so long for resolution there. We've got quite a backlog. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
It was only after I took a quick look at your contributions that I appreciated how much work there is in copyvio. I meant what I said in the barnstar message! If I wasn't so busy in real life right now I would try to help. - Pointillist (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Arab Archery

I'm not sure what the problem is, since this one source, "Saracen archery," seems to have been used by some of the other authors I've cited, and you indicate I have a copyright problem in quoting or using their materials. Also, Latham's 1970 work is based on a 14th century manuscript, which is certainly free from copyright as well.

In the section about using the thumb ring, this is a major difference between Arab Archery and archery in the West. The item is explained by Latham in Saracen Archery, and by other sources as well, including the Wiki link for "Thumb ring." The engineering between using the thumb to hold the arrow and string, and the use of three fingers, is also self-evident in the reason why Arabs shoot on the right hand of the bow, and Westerners shoot on the left hand of the bow. And indeed, the indication and citation to the section of Latham is taken from only one paragraph, which certainly falls within the legal stricture of "Fair Use."

However, if you want to cut the entire section out, go ahead. However, I don't understand the other copyvio hits, such as the image of Darius, which is taken from another Wiki page on archery.

One of the main concerns with Wikipedia is that it has a Western orientation and bias, and while there are several items on archery, nothing on Arab archery itself, only on Turkish and Japanese archery, which are very different traditions.

However, if you want to eliminate the entire page on Arab archery, so be it. I believe that I am within the copyright guideline and fair use, but you are the WIKI editor, so your judgment is final. Hadden (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I've responded at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

Help needed from Mooonriddengirl or ANY TALK PAGE WATCHER ADMIN

I need help from an admin, an editor was adding copyrighted content and moved an article without discussion. I tried to revert and then manually moved, BUT, I mistakenly moved it to the title with the bracket at the end, can someone move it to Dabba (film))--> Dabba (film), article. I mean, delete the last bracket. You can revert recent re-addition of copyvio too. Tito☸Dutta 12:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 A plate of Dosa for you
Here is a plate of Dosa for you. Dosa is a South Indian food and is a fermented crepe or pancake made from rice batter and black lentils. Hope you'll like it.
Thank you.

Tito☸Dutta 12:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

I understand you specialize in copyright issues. I would be grateful if you could take a look at a copyright issue that I have attempted to summarize here. This started when Agilista (talk · contribs) posted the message "The main image on this site is a direct copy of my company's original material. I want it taken down immediately." I am not sure whether "my company" is meant to indicate ownership. Thank you. --Boson (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've left a note and flagged the images on Commons for incomplete permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Got your message. Thanks for the info. --Michael Haephrati (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

artie kornfeld

please advise who changed my husbands page.(drastically) We know all of his history is verified. It is as if someone wanted to cash in on all Artie's achievements. The change history does not show anything done in 2013,but we know it has..... Please help.

CAroline Kornfeld (<redacted>) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.52.195 (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Caroline Kornfeld. The change history of the article shows susbtantial modifications in 2013. :) See [1]. Each line begins with the date of edit before identifying the editor and the size of the change, along with an explanation of why the change was done (if one was provided).
I see that there seems to have been some dispute earlier this year in that article about how it should develop, and it looks like there may have been some misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works, given that one of the edit summaries says, "Replaced resume that a jealous stranger wiped off.I assert all material is fact check and submit it is my property,this site and must not be edited ./"
Unlike a personal website, content on Wikipedia does not belong to any individual. It may be edited by anyone within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (see WP:5P for a brief overview of these). All content in Wikipedia articles is supposed to be verifiable to a published source, and it must be neutral in presentation. Every time somebody presses save when editing Wikipedia, they explicitly agree to our site's terms of use, which requires that their content be licensed for changes by others.
I'm not personally familiar with your husband's career, but I do not see anything in his article that seems negative. However, if you believe it is inaccurate, you might want to review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism issue

As an admin well respected for their copyright infringement work I was wondering if you could provide an impartial opinion here: User_talk:Other_Choices#Plagiarism about whether copying the text highlighted in bold here:[2] constitutes plagiarism/inappropriate copying (there is no real noticeboard for discussions of this type as far as I can see). Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi @IRWolfie-:. :) I do not think the paraphrasing rises anywhere near the level of a copyright issue, but some of those striking phrases should be originally worded or attributed WP:INTEXT. If the sentences had begun "According to author (date)..." I would consider it fully okay. As it is, it looks like it could be repaired by changing a few things, perhaps such as:
According to Bobrick's 2005 review of astrology in history, astrology was then being taught for the first time since the Renaissance at the university level in western countries, including England, France, Russia, Germany, and the United States.[1] He estimated that there were then around 15,000 full-time and over 200,000 part-time astrologers in the United States.
Unless there are other issues, I would probably repair rather than remove an instance that brief. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject India

Namaste! Moonriddengirl,

Behalf of WikiProject India I am inviting you to join our WikiProject.

Please note

If you join WikiProject India, we will happily give you—

  • Lifetime free access to JSTOR.
  • Support in any dispute (merit of your arguments etc don't matter. We'll just go and support).
  • Guaranteed Adminship in next six months.
  • 50 Barnstars per month.

And
If you become one of the selected editors of the year, you will win—

Or,
We can give you none of these things. Truly, we can give you almost nothing. WikiProject India is a Wikiproject who are attempting to improve everyday and YOU can help us. Now, you have to decide whether you'll join or not.

Thank you. -- Tito☸Dutta 20:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC).


Note
This invitation contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please use this invitation template carefully and avoid using it for new editors.

Nice invitation. :D I don't think I'll be joining any projects at this point, though. Copyright seems to be all I have time to do at the moment, until WP:CP is miraculously caught up and all the listings at WP:CCI are completed. In that magical day, I will probably start writing articles on jazz albums like there's no tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio problem I'm unsure about

Could you take a look at the copyvio report regarding Los Alas Chapel that I've posted at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 August 28? It appears to me that the content at the cited Web site antedates our article, but I can find no definite indication that this is so. I'm especially confused because the bottom posting on the site's blog page announces the existence of Spanish and English Wikipedia articles, but it is dated April 7, 2010, which is before the creation of the en.wp article (and before the extensive expansion of the es.wp article with the content that's in question). On the other hand, the earliest record of the site at the Wayback Machine is for February 2011, but that archive just may not have gotten around to the site before then. The article's creator is blocked (by you!) for a user-name violation, so I don't know where else to turn. Deor (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oi. That's a weird one. Looking at the Spanish article in March 2010, there's no sign of an interlangauge link to us ([3]). It was added in that huge cluster of edits following the blog post. I wonder if the blog started with the observation that an article existed on Spanish (which was true) and, upon discovery of that, the editor came over to expand the Spanish and add it to English and then updated his blog. I think pretty strongly that this is probably the creator - he was soft-blocked for a name violation and could easily have come back.
I believe that he probably translated the Spanish text in English "live" on Wikipedia and then went back to his website and used the translation there. If the content was already available in English, it wouldn't have made sense for him to begin by pasting the Spanish article here ([4]).
I do not trust Wayback with the dating of the site, as it is linked here in April 2010. Wayback estimates a lag of up to six months, and I have seen what seem to be greater.
Since the English is a translation of the Spanish, let me look to see if it seems like the Spanish content was copied to the Spanish Wikipedia or if it was written there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
All evidence suggests it sprang fully formed from the head of Zeus. What I look for are signs of incremental changes - when those exist, and it makes the material more like the external site, I assume it was composed here and placed there. In this case, it looks very much like he just ported over his own content.
Can you drop a note, @Deor:, at User talk:Balandraninventa asking him to place the license release on his website or to email OTRS with it? If not, I will, but I'm not sure if this would cause some anxiety in him, given that I soft blocked him years ago. :D I have a form letter I use at User:Moonriddengirl/vp, although it might require some tweaking. You're welcome to use it or any part of it that you like if you do write him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. Yes, I'll leave a note, but since the user hasn't edited since 2010, I doubt that s/he will see it. Another thing I noticed is that the Web site's credits page credits the translations to Ireland Idiomas, which seems to be a study-abroad program for Spanish kids wanting to learn English and which also seems to offer "Servicios de Traducción" (though that page of their site is currently empty). Would that create any copyright problems for the articles on the English, French, and German WPs, or would the translations be work-for-hire and therefore under the control of the author of the Spanish text?
I guess my main question is, Is it worthwhile to keep the copyright investigation open, or should I just revert myself, assuming that everything is on the up-and-up? Deor (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's very worthwhile, Deor. :) We don't ever assume things like this are on the up-and-up. Policy requires verification and, where there is doubt, production of new cotnent. Whether or not they have the right to license the translations would depend on their contract and the governing law whereever the contract was signed. If they assert that they have a right to license it, we will almost certainly take their word for it...but with that assertion on the record, it becomes a dispute between them and their translators if there is ever challenge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing Copyvio problems at Khoka 420

Hi MRG. There are still revisions that include a straight cut-and-paste fromthis review from the Times of India - if there was similar text from a blog, it might have been copied from that source. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, @Shirt58:. :) The blog in question ([5]) is actually very different from that review. I'm pretty sure the blog copied from us. But can you tell me where to find these revisions? I'm happy to revdelete them, but if you know already it would save me time from searching. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Holy confusing messages sent by a established editor who should know better by now, Batman. The revisions I was referring to were from that Times of India review, and have already been rev-del'd. Nothing more to do there as far as I can see. Apologies for the fuddle-up. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Stuff happens. :) (c.e. the note below) I'd rather you ask me to take out a copyvio that has already been taken out that not ask me to take one out that hasn't! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Harry Birrell

Hello, I can't really remember visiting that page. I haven't even once copied text from another website, I don't do that sort of thing. And, I have created over 20 articles and absolutely none of them have been popped up with the copyright situation.

ActorBoss (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Note left at your talk page, with my apologies. I left my note for the wrong person. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright resolve: Phoenix Islands Protected Area page

Dear Moonriddengirl,

Thank you for your message regarding copyright issues for the Phoenix Islands Protected Area page. I am, however, a designated agent of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. I work for the Phoenix Islands Protected Area initiative through the New England Aquarium, a collaborating partner, and am in charge of administering the social media and online content for PIPA (for example, I am an administrator for the Phoenix Islands Protected Area Facebook page and regularly contribute posts to the Phoenix Islands Protected Area blog on the New England Aquarium website, pipa.neaq.org). Therefore, I am authorized to use the text from our website, www.phoenixislands.org (as I am, myself, partially responsible for that content, including editing and maintaining the text for the pages and managing the photo gallery). If you need me to send you an email from my Aquarium email address, please let me know where to send it. Otherwise, please reinstate the page with my additions. Next time, I kindly ask for at least a small advanced warning, as I had been actively editing the page for some time and I believe that all of those changes will now be lost.

Thank you for your understanding!

Sincerely,

Etaylorneaq (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Erin Taylor Conservation Projects Assistant, Phoenix Islands Protected Area Initiative New England Aquarium 1 Central Wharf Boston, MA 02110 617-226-2185 etaylor@neaq.org

Etaylorneaq (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright: Phoenix Islands Protected Area

Hi Moonriddengirl,

I was forwarded your message to Ocean.conservation by my boss, who is the owner of the Ocean.conservation account (she is the manager of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area Initiative through the Aquarium). We are working on taking the appropriate steps to donate our copyrighted materials from www.phoenixislands.org for use on the PIPA Wikipedia page.

However, for the documents you cited as having been sources of material in your message to Ocean.conservation, I'd like to know how to go about licensing that material. We are authorized to duplicate that content because the New England Aquarium was a contributor/co-author to those documents (such as the UNESCO World Heritage Nomination dossier), but obviously we are not in charge of the whole UNESCO website and so can't add text to the webpage. Should we just include those documents in an email donating copyrighted materials affirming that we own copyright to those documents? Please advise on that process.

Also, could you please identify the exact text you found to be directly taken from those documents? I ask because all of the duplicated material that I had added to the PIPA Wiki page came straight from the www.phoenixislands.org website. I'd just like to be on the same page about the other portions of the article you found to be from the sources you cited in your message to Ocean.conservation (your statement: "Research into the issue disclosed that quite a lot of it seems to be taken from official publications such as [1], [2], and [3].").

Thanks!

Erin

Etaylorneaq (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Hi! I've afraid I've been procrastinating on this, but wanted to give you an update. I received email in July verifying that, as of the end of July, all lyrics that are licensed from LyricFind now feature a prominent LyricFind "LF" logo (see e.g. [6]). They also assured me that although they accept corrections on these pages, any corrections they accept will be delivered to the licensor, and not merely republished without any scrutiny. That's all the information I need to correctly filter the links - just need a little bot work to clean things up. Dcoetzee 19:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence there, @Dcoetzee:. And it's nice to "see" you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You too :-) FYI User:LyricsBot has finished removing all 4495 links to user-contributed content on MetroLyrics - only verified licensed content should remain at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:MetroLyrics song, currently 15893 links. Dcoetzee 03:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Would someone please take a look at WP:ANI#Editor(s) adding categories from strategy games to articles? There's some standard copyvio going on but also the use of categories/labels taken from a strategy game without attribution, is that copyvio? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ignore this - it exploded into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turgeis and a lot of copyvio removal by me. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What's the inline "public domain" template again?

Hopefully you might know -- I'm going to use a sentence of public domain content from an NIH website here, it states that it's PD. Isn't there a template I can use to tag that content as copied verbatim? I've seen it before but can't find it now... Zad68 03:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, @Zad68:. :) I can never remember where the specific ones are, so I just remember Category:Attribution templates. That takes me to Category:United States government attribution templates, where I don't see a specific one (oddly). In that case, I'd use {{Include-USGov}}. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
That's the thang, thanks!! Zad68 17:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Help (maybe)

Hi, Moondriddengirl, me again. I found we have a page for one Saki kaskas (he composed the song calista), but the page format and language suggest a copyright issue. I can find no immediate copyvio int he article through a google, search, but I definitely want a second opinion here before I right this one off. When you get a moment, can you (or tps'ers) check it out? I would appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The Copyvio Detector says “No violation detected” but looking at the comparison page it found I see that a fair bit of the text appears to be barely paraphrased, just changing first-person quotes to third-person. (BTW the article definitely needs a capital K in the title, aside from all its other issues.)—Odysseus1479 08:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That is part of the problem: the article is just enough in a bad shape to blip on the phased radar of BLP issue(s) as a potential target, yet the material is just enough altered that I am not sure whether it needs to be fired on or simply hailed and warned, such as it were. And you're right about that "k" - if nothing else, thats gonna have to capitalized before this is over. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow. :) Complex! This is the third article we've had on this gentleman. The first one, in 2006, was G12ed for copyvio at the proper capitalization. The second one was deleted when the author blanked it after pasting it into his userspace. This version was a recreation of that one, except oddly missing the "BLP primary sources" tag. (I added it back.)
I have restored the history of the second version, since it is necessary for attribution. There's little change between the versions - superficial merely. I have removed the closely paraphrased content because that is far from usable under our copyright policies. I have cautioned the second creator about our copyright policies and cautioned the third about pasting content from one Wikipedia article to another. I then moved it without redirect to Saki Kaskas.
It's probably worth keeping an eye on this article, given the long-term issues it's had. I'm not at all sure if this guy is notable, but I'll leave that to people more familiar with that genre to assess. :)
Thanks for noticing the issue, User:TomStar81 and for finding the problem, User:Odysseus1479. You guys made it easy. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Puzzling diff

Puzzled why you reverted my attempt to fix a typo in my own answer on a talk page? [7] I'm trying to sort out how one gets to the bottom of the mess at the article over mere links and some people who were quite rude to me and very uncivil. I've been editing wiki a very long time (7 years, over 50,000 edits 100% clean block log, all should mean something around this place) and I really am rather frustrated at the attitude of people around here these days. I've done a bit with fair use of images and also have done my share of working on copyvio issues (I helped clean up the ItsLassietime sock) for god's sake. I'm not stupid. You and I have even worked on some issues. What is with the feeding frenzy all of a sudden? Montanabw(talk) 19:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) MRG reverted herself instantly [8]. It was obviously just an accidental click of rollback. I've done that several times. Voceditenore (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. :) I would have left you a note, @Montanabw:, or used "undo" so as to note my reason in my self-revert edit summary, but I was trying to check my watchlist on a mobile device and I just can't really function on those tiny buttons. I am just now getting back to a real machine. I wasn't actually even trying to look at that page - I had watchlisted it when it popped up on ANI several days back, but noted that the issue seemed to be in hand. I hit "rollback", I presume, when trying to hit the article link above or beneath it. (I note, by the way, that you seem to have removed somebody else's comment here when adding your own; I'm sure that was inadvertent. You might want to put that back. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It used to happen on my watchlist when I was using a (now replaced) hyper-sensitive mouse. My most embarrassing one was reverting an admin on AN/I :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
LOL! Fun. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
You are forgiven, I hate little screens. The article was at ANI? Why no notification at the article itself??? I am the person who mostly maintains that article, so why was I not notified (now I'm seriously pissed, but at other people...) Montanabw(talk) 02:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The ANI discussion was here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Voceditenore. That's the one. I tend to zero in on ANI sections I notice that mention copyright issues, but I actually don't jump in unless there seems to be a need for me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I found it with a search on the topic; the frustrating thing is that the result of no notification on the article talk page or mine (a breach of wikiquette) resulted in a slew of users previously unknown to me (save the last one to appear) who immediately dove in and started yelling at me in all caps, which led me to believe I was subject to some sort of trolling or meatpuppetry on that article. The issue appears to have been resolved for a bit, but I am unbelieveably frustrated that again the "off with their heads" approach is used for the pettiest of disputes. Sigh. "teh wiki" seems to have lost its collective mind recently and it seems that all misdemeanors are now felonies. ()bigger sigh...) Montanabw(talk) 00:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Hi,
May I draw on your boundless knowledge of copyright issues?
I recently found that Kaapvaal Craton seemed to contain copyvio. I went to the article creator's talkpage and found that they are now inactive, but you had warned them (in April 2012) about copyvio problems on Pilbara craton. Scrolling further back up the talkpage there were other copyright concerns raised by other editors. So, I went and picked a large addition at random; I picked this. Turns out it's copied from this paper. So, it's fair to assume that there's a broader copyright problem here. What's the best way forward now, in your view? Is a CCI necessary? I certainly think it's worth revisiting anything substantial written by Valich. bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's not good. :( I always do a spot-check in such cases. My own rule of thumb is that if I find 5 issues not previously addressed, I'll open a CCI. In this case, I took yours as #1 and #2. I found two more articles with significant outstanding issues and then a third that had had issues which somebody else cleaned up. Since those three were the first three I looked at, I consider that quite enough. The CCI is at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130908. I will notify the contributor and a few interested projects. Can you please flag Pilbara craton with the sources you found? You might consider a similar approach to the one I took at Talk:Carnivoramorpha. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to assume that any of his content is safe, under the circumstances. Thanks for following through. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's good and bad. On the good side, a lot of the geological content seems to have been directly lifted from papers, abstracts, conferences &c so the tone is very recognisable - not the usual tone of enwiki content. On the bad side, although I can get round most academic paywalls, I can't get many of these sources.
So, for instance, over on Superior craton I've removed several sections which were definitely copied (where I could read the source), but... the remaining sections just look like they were copied but it's impossible to verify at this point. What would you do in this situation? I suspect the safest course of action is to nuke the whole thing.
Thanks for your suggestions! bobrayner (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
We presumptively blank with an explanation of why, usually, or (if possible) just remove or replace the text. There are templates for that and everything. :) {{CCI}}. If I have found sourcing for some, but not all, of it, I will usually revert if I can and use my own template: User:Moonriddengirl/CCIr. With content this old, unless you can replace it, it might be best to just use the {{copyvio}} process and explain on the talk page what you've found and why you have cause to suspect the rest. Our policy supports presumptively removing content in these case - we know this person has copied loads of text. We no longer have any reason to assume material isn't copied. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of my page on TTS for Digital Television

Re: Wikipedia:Text to Speech in Digital Television ‎

Hi,

I noticed you have deleted my page on Text to Speech for Digital Television and I have to say I am baffled as to why. I have personally been involved for many years in that topic, something of key importance to blind people, and steered an international standard through a complicated negotiation with industry. I have an interest in the topic but not financially and as the article was very much neutral and non-commercial, I can't for the life of me understand why it got deleted. It has proven very useful in raising awareness of the need, including with audiences like the BBC Trust who only a few years ago was convinced by manufacturers as part of the YouView negotiations that TTS in a telly was not feasible technically or economically. I would therefore politely, but with insistence, request that this page is restored. Do note that the policy you quote (G6) under which you deleted the article does IMHO not at all apply to this page.

Guido GuidoGY (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Your article was not deleted - it's at Text to Speech in Digital Television. What was deleted was the redirect you left in Wikipedia namespace from Wikipedia:Text to Speech in Digital Television, which according to your edit summary was an error: "In error moved to Wikipedia section instead of mainspace". (Among the G6 criteria, of course, we find "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace") --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks and apologies for getting confused. I had forgotten that I had put that page in the wrong namespace originally and now that mistake has once again misled me! Thanks for the clarification. GuidoGY (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
No problem. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Input desired re permission to use material

I could use your input. Short version: after removing some material as a close paraphrase, the editor arranged to get permission from the copyright owner. However, that permission statement is not the usual, it permits material to be used only if it is used exactly. That clearly conflicts with our requirements, but rather than simply say no, I'm trying to see if there is a middle ground. I think we can accept that if material is in quotes, and has a reference, it clearly identifies that it is the words of others, and other editors here will respect the quotes and not edit within the quotes or remove the quotes. However, we cannot make such a requirement for downstream users. I don't know whether that will change the view of the copyright holder.

The entire exchange is at my talk page. You can skip down to the "To Whom it May Concern:" line without missing much, but I'll understand if you need to read the whole thing.

My hope is that if the permission statement were on file with OTRS, we could use longer passages than we otherwise might.But I worry that I'm trying to be too clever.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried the same thing once, @Sphilbrick:, and it wasn't accepted. :/ I'll come take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, much appreciated. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Images

Hey MRG, how are you? Question--what do you make of all the images in Charles Keeping? It could be argued that they illustrated the subject's work, but not that they "illustrate an article discussing the book in question". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that looks like a clear violation of WP:NFC#UUI: "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary." :( I'm traveling and can't read through the whole article, but is there any sourced discussion of the covers themselves? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

National Parks Service brochures

Would you be kind enough to check whether the advice I have tentatively given at Talk:Grand Pacific Glacier is correct? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) Generally, when there's a by-line, I try to check to see who that person is and what their relationship is to the agency in question, even when I'm suspecting and hoping that's right. It looks like User:2over0 located the text elsewhere, and it does seem to have been a commissioned piece. Unfortunately, the authorship of the photographs can be more complicated. :( I would usually trot that by WP:MCQ to see if somebody could help, and it seems 2over0 suggested that, too (along with helpful image search suggestions.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI-

You're mentioned here and I don't think the editor bothered to let you know as I wasn't notified either. We hope (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

NFC question

Hey, MRG, good to talk to you again. I have a NFC question. I'm looking for an image to insert in an article I have up for GA review and cannot find any which are not copyrighted. Since the person the article is about is dead, then a NFC photo can probably be used but the problem is that all the photos I can find are on websites where they're probably used there in violation of copyright law. Can an image satisfy NFC if its source is itself a copyright violation? I can't find anything which specifically says no, but the provisions of the copyright policy which say that we can't link to copyright violations would, in spirit at least, seem to cover this, too. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC) PS: What if it's at least arguably used under fair use at that site? — TM

Hi. :) This is probably a good one to ask at WP:MCQ, since it's more to do with local convention than law. For me, the real question would be what you know about the origin of the image. I have taken book covers from websites that do not own the rights to them, but feel comfortable with that since I can still accurately fill out all the copyright information. You'd want to be sure, for instance, that you aren't taking an image owned by Getty or another agency of the sort. :) If you pick out an image or two, you could ask the folks at MCQ about those specifically. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

See here. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've dropped the {{copy-paste}} tag on the article and put a note on the talk page. The list itself is not likely to be copyrightable, since it strives to be complete, but the commentary is a different matter. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Understood. That editor, given the copyright note he or she removed from their talk page (as shown in the link above), is likely to remove your note. Given my recent (and only thus far) experience with that editor (the Kiss article), he or she is also likely to revert or simply remove the copy-paste tag. Flyer22 (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I am watchlisting the article and will talk to the editor if that happens. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I thought you meant you'd left a note on his or her talk page, which is why I mentioned that it would likely be removed. But now I see that you meant the article talk page. Oh well, LOL. Removal may also happen there.
Anyway, thanks for your help on this matter. This seems to be a new editor who has a long way to go before having a good grasp on how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see! :) Well, removal of a note from your talk page of course indicates that you've seen it. This one is a pretty obscure copyright issue, though, so I would regard this initially as not in itself indicative of future problems. Such a list would ordinarily be okay - it's the annotations that create the problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Trinidad & Tobago Television & Gayelle

Hello Moonriddengirl,

My contributions on Gayelle & Trinidad & Tobago Television, could you restore my last edits? I am aware of some of the violations and willing to clean it up. The problem is that I don't want to type over all that I written before. The plan is for the edits to be restored and then clean up everything.

My country does not have a good record in preserving history so acquiring history about Television before the year 2000 in our country is scarce.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyronR (talk • contribs) 07:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have responded at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Press photos from eBay and the public domain

Just wondering, is the licensing claim for this image (an old press photo being sold on eBay) correct? I've seen a few other uploads like this, but it all seems too good to be true. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 01:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

(TPSer) The problem I see there is that since it was taken in 1972, there's no way ebay is the original publisher or source. With the info given there's no way to tell what was published or not in 1972, or whenever it was first published, which is not necessarily the year it was taken. PumpkinSky talk 03:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm with you, User:PumpkinSky. :) Date of publication is key there. That said, if I were a betting woman, I'd be betting that it was a publicity photo that was disseminated around the date it was taken. I just wouldn't upload it myself without making sure, and that can be hard to do. :/ Even though the picture is on Commons, if you're interested in how to determine date of publication, you might want to get some opinions from WP:MCQ? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not primarily concerned about the date. It seems plausible enough to me, given what we know about Bellamy's playing career. I understand that it could have been published some time after he retired, or not technically "published" at all, so there's still room for doubt. But for the sake of my question, let's assume the date is correct. Is it true that the lack of copyright markings on the physical print would put the photo in the public domain? It seems like there must be a catch. There are all kinds of old newspaper photos on eBay; I've personally handled a few, and not all of them have copyright markings. But I wouldn't feel comfortable uploading them to Commons. Zagalejo^^^ 20:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The way the law used to be written, if material was published without a copyright notice, it had no copyright protection. The difficulty is in determining if photos were published. :/ I actually got attorney feedback on this one at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1, and I was told:

It is likely that promotional materials, including production stills or posters released to promote a movie, released before 1978 are in the public domain. Public domain status can be ascertained by asking several questions:

Did the image contain a copyright notice? How was the exact image released?

Was the image release “general” or “limited?”

The question of newspapers may be more nuanced. I'd really ask about individual cases at WP:MCQ. Well, really, I'd stay away from the area altogether. :D But that's mainly because I've got a lot of other things to do, and so it's just easier to stay out of the huge cloud of uncertainty. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. Zagalejo^^^ 21:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Botticelli "Young Woman from Frankfurt"

Hi Moonriddengirl.

I've asked for a page move at Talk:Portrait_of_a_Young_Woman_of_Frankfurt_(Botticelli) because this young lady really wasn't from Frankfurt.

Sterling work on copyright. I'll have a good read. 185.29.167.60 (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the kind words. :) My only involvement in that article was resurrecting what I could after copied content was removed. I'm not really familiar with the work itself. As a general rule of thumb, articles are placed at titles where people are most likely to look for them. Whatever the sources commonly use to discuss this work should set where the article is published. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ron Stewart may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[New York Rangers]] in that year. He spent part of the 1971-1972 season with the Vancouver Canucks]], but returned briefly to the Rangers. He spent his final year, 1972-1973, with the [[New York

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

James Hogan - CEO on his wikipedia page has 2 totally different dates for his birthday

thanking you kindly Emina ninadenovo@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.224.43.170 (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Without a source and his being a living person, I've removed them both. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Amaryllidoideae

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

I've also left a comment at Talk:Amaryllidoideae. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

SHUAA

Hi there, I saw your comments on the SHUAA Capital wp page from Sept 14th. I work for the company and was wondering what we need to do in order to create a 'normal' corporate wikipedia page with content that is correctly referenced and not in breach of any copyright law/wp policies. I am not familiar with wp and have not created or edited articles here before so would really appreciate some guidance. Is it the case that only persons not associated with a particular company can contribute to that same company's wp page? Fanny Modin (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Fanny. :) The first thing we can do to eliminate the copyright issue at SHUAA Capital is get official license from your company to use its text. I left a fairly detailed note at User talk:JSMarcoms about how this is done, and your help with that would be very welcome.
Once we have permission from your company for the use of their text, we can remove the copyright template, but some of the material in the article - while perfectly fine for a company's website - is not really appropriate for Wikipedia. Taking one line somewhat at random, for instance, we find "Mr. Schutzmann has been widely recognised for being the first to pioneer and promote international best practice investor relations in the GCC region." We would need a source that isn't your company to verify something like that. As a basic rule of thumb, we can only use "primary" sources (that is, sources that are generated by the company itself, such as its website or press release, or by affiliates of a company, such as organizations with which it deals) to add basic information to articles. Anything which might seem to praise the company or its employees would need to be sourced to a newspaper or magazine article or other source that is independent of the company and has a reputation for fact-checking. Quite probably the whole "notable personnel" section will be removed or reduced to a list.
It is possible for people who are involved with a company to help contribute to the article about that company, but we ask that you follow certain procedures in doing so. I would recommend reading a few pages - Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. A lot of the material in them will be redundant, but I think it's still probably a good idea to read all three, as they were crafted independently and contain some unique information. Essentially, we encourage you to generally use the talk page of the article to propose substantive changes and to only make uncontroversial edits yourself. When proposing changes, please keep in mind that our articles are meant to be neutral summaries of what reliable, independent sources say about notable subjects, not business resources. It is extremely helpful to point to a reliable, independent source if you want to propose the addition of substantive content. I see SHUAA Capital is in the news quite a lot, so that shouldn't really be a problem. Just remember to avoid press releases. :)
Please let me know if you have any questions about any of this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello again, many thanks for the reply, very useful indeed!
One of the options we were exploring was to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the template text found here: [9] as you suggest in your reply to User talk:JSMarcoms. If I have understood correctly this would allow us to use text from the website and reference it? Do you know how long it would take for this to be approved? Would this mean that we can also use the logo?
Regarding the text in the article, what I would propose is to rewrite a shorter, neutral version stating only the facts about the company and reference the website plus a range of articles to back it up. Would this resolve the issue in your opinion and and is there anything else we can do to make sure that everything is done in a correct manner?
Thanks again Fanny Modin —Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
'Cause you're dilligently awesome with what you do for the 'pedia. Best! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmmm.... so why did that happen? I just copied and pasted from Wikipedia:Barnstars#General_Barnstars... Best! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) when u sign ur reply, thx 10:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Biosthmors! Did you try to put a diff in? I find barnstars often don't like external links. :) What I usually do is add the text on the first go around and then go back in a second time to add the diff or external link. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't even try to add a diff! I think the trick in that case is to put {{}} around the equal signs, if I remember correctly. I had this happen to me the other day as well at User talk:Jmh649. I would guess this is a recurrent problem for people here... :-/ Kind of a "big" problem, if you ask me. O well, I guess I can look into it later. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) when u sign ur reply, thx 11:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Biosthmors are you doing these barnstars with Twinkle or no? The {{{1}}} is a parameter that is expected to be filled in. Twinkle does this for you automatically if you use it to give them out. If not you have to edit the barnstar and replace that with your message. Zad68 19:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmm... I'm not using Twinkle. Thanks for the info. Might have to play in my sandbox. Best! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
All this stuff is mysterious to me. :D Thank you again for the kind words. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi MRG, there's a discussion happening here on Commons regarding the copyright status of CT scan. Every so often there's a deletion discussion like this over medical imaging. According to this essay on Commons, it's an unsettled issue as to whether such images are copyright-able, and if so who holds the copyright. Is this an area you know anything about? If so it'd be great to have your input. The thinking that I agree with so far is that such images are made mechanically and without any creative or artistic intent or input, and as such would not be copyright-able. Thoughts? Zad68 19:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:Zad68. :) I'm afraid that all I really know about it is what our legal interns wrote up for m:Wikilegal/Copyright of X-Ray Images. They noted that they could not find precedent, but also expressed some concern that they could be held to be copyrightable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Good morning

Please restore User:My76Strat/Accolades. Thank you!—John Cline (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Somebody else got there first. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

May I ask another favor, please?

Hi Maggie. Thanks very much for all your help with the Transwiki request last year. It was a heck of a lot of work and I sincerly appreciate your efforts and everybody else who helped. I'd like to ask another favor if you don't mind. I have something of a concern regarding these four edits (one, two, three and four), which are related to this conversation where I was trying to help the person avoid something like this. I obviously have no interest in being involved with it anymore. Would you mind taking a look to see if the edits are appropriate? Thanks very much for your help. 64.40.54.237 (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. WP:SOCK says, "Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction." It's very true that registered accounts are preferred and it's probably not a bad idea to track in some way which IPs have been used by the same person, but I'm concerned that the "sock" label is intrinsically an accusation of misbehavior. Policy does not seem to support that using a dynamic IP is in itself misbehavior. An alternative tag that avoids the implication of bad faith would seem to be a solution there. I don't do much with multiple accounts - any talk page stalkers know if there is such a tag or how these things are usually handled? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion is good enough for me. Thanks for taking a look. 64.40.54.4 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

144.137.67.12 (talk · contribs) has returned, and seems to be again adding copyvio culled from various sources and patched together, eg [10] and [11]. I can't recall if these are copyright free or not. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:Dougweller. :) There's a copyright reservation statement on the bottom of the first that says © Copyright 2010 Auburn City Council. All rights reserved. :) I'll take care of it and him, but you can process Lionhead99 socks, too, right? So if you see him in the future, you can RBI? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I'd completely forgotten about Lionhead99, we need something on the talk pages of these articles. I'll try to do that. Sorry. I wish at least a couple of days would go by without my reverting copyvio somewhere! Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I know that feeling. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Addition to Nerine

I'm a bit concerned about recent additions to Nerine which were translated from the Spanish Wikipedia. I'm not quite sure how to use the plagiarism detection tools (is there an explanation somewhere?). You might like to check this article before I or others work at copy-editing it into passable English. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Alas, we don't really have any good tools for detecting that kind of thing. :/ These are the tools that we most commonly use, but those that search externally look for precise duplication of text. Running text through translation and back may change enough to evade their detection.
In these cases, the first thing I know to do is to spot-check the sources. I had a look at the sources that were linked, and I didn't detect any issues there. That's not definitive, though. I checked the Spanish article to see if the history raises any red flags - the fact that it was created and heavily edited by User:CASF is discouraging. :( As you yourself pointed out, User:EnCASF is responsible for some pretty serious issues here. I did a comparison of earlier versions of Amaryllidoideae, deleted because of content he copy-pasted into it from his sources, and the Spanish version of that article, which he also heavily edited, and I'm happy to see, at least, that the English version was much longer. I don't see the content I specifically identified as copy-pasted in the translated version of the Spanish article. It may be that he works properly on Spanish Wikipedia but copy-pasted English material here due to his lack of facility with the language, given sentences like "Hope I respond your question!" and "(I am quite bussy to enter every day...I will try to continue my job this weekend)". Certainly he can communicate quite clearly enough for conversational English, but since he cannot write it at professional quality, perhaps he augmented here with content that expressed what he could not.
That said, it is within our policy to remove all content added by serial copyright infringers (see Wikipedia:Copyright violations), and I think it may be justifiable to remove any content translated over from Spanish Wikipedia that was added by him. I've looked at two three four of this guy's articles now, and every single one of them is a blatant copyright problem. (I just tagged Cyrtanthus and Iridaceae.) I'm going to launch a WP:CCI on him. We will probably need to purge everything he added here. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. At least it's a fairly short one: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/EnCASF. If you want to help with that, it would be so appreciated. :) We have a huge backlog. If you don't know how the process works, after reading the instructions there, please just let me know and I will clarify anything necessary. I've also asked the project at large to help out, and I have notified him both here and on his home wiki. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

User requesting upload / permission help for image

Hi! Occasional editor User talk:MarVelo left a note on Talk:St. Thomas the Apostle's Church (Detroit, Michigan), claiming to have received permission to use a historic (but, I assume, copyrighted) photo of the church, and wanting help sorting out how to correctly upload it. The page is on my watchlist, but probably not too many other people's; I don't have the expertise to help, and I'm not really even sure where to send him. You happened to be that last person to post on his talk page, and I recognize your name - could you drop him a note to at least tell him where the right place is to ask? Thanks. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Happy to, Andrew. Thanks for going the extra mile to get assistance for the guy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

List of best-selling music artists in the United States

Hi,

I wished to clarify that my change on the list affected only Pearl Jam's RIAA certified sales. If you count these certified sales, you'd coem up with 32 millions (including EP "Merkin'Ball").

Thank you MARSELIMADHE (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Translation copyvio?

Hi Maggie :) Italian Apocalyptic Cult "Rosary Prayer Group” looks very suspicious to me, but I don't quite know how to investigate it. It was created on 17 September in a single large chunk by the same editor who created it:Il Gruppo del Rosario di Amantea, which was deleted from the Italian Wikipedia as copyvio, also on 17 September. The book from which the copy is alleged to have been made is no-preview. The English article has been prodded by reason of all sorts of other problems. What's the best thing to do here? --Stfg (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You are amazing at succinctly and usefully summarizing a problem. :) I have gone ahead and blanked the article with a note of explanation at the talk page, after looking into the situation in Italy. The template is pretty much designed for situations like this - strong reason to fear copyright, but not enough certainty to G12. I'll leave a hand-crafted message for the contributor and list it at CP. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
You are amazing at effectively and efficiently solving a problem! :)) Thanks very much for doing that so quickly. --Stfg (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) She's really good at it. There's an extract from the book published here. I'm afraid I don't have the stamina to read through all of it, but parts are definitely directly translated in our article. Compare:

Some months after the murder, Lidia Naccarato said that everything had happened in accordance with Daniel’s prophecy (“And after sixty-two weeks, a Consecrated one will be killed, without there being in him any sin” 9, 26).

The same had been said by the theologian of the group, Felice Naccarato: “the episode well fits the prophecy of Daniel according to whom a consecrated one would be killed because he was possessed by the devil. That is the fruit of reflections subsequent to the event.”

“And after sixty-two weeks an Anointed shall lose his life, in whom there is no sin.” Daniel 9, 26

On 6 December, 1988, 47 adepts of Turin confessed their Creed in a letter to the examining magistrate: “...

with:

Lidia Naccarato alcuni mesi dopo l'omicidio dirà che tutto è avvenuto secondo la profezia di Daniele ("E dopo sessantadue settimane sarà ucciso un Consacrato, senza che in lui sia colpa" 9, 26)

Lo stesso ha dichiarato il teologo del gruppo Felice Naccarato: "all'episodio ben si attaglia la profezia di Daniele secondo cui un consacrato sarebbe stato ucciso perchè di lui se ne sarebbe impossessato il male. Ciò è frutto di riflessioni successive all'evento verificatosi".

Il 6 Dicembre 1988 47 adepti di Torino hanno confessato il loro Credo in una lettera al Giudice istruttore: "..

It looks like a clear G12 to me. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, you're really good at it, too. :) Good find! In his message in Italy, he claimed permission which he was going to verify. I don't know if he can or not, and I don't know if it ultimately matters to the content given the material itself, but I'd give him the opportunity to do so. I'll add this to the talk page of the article, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, things have gone further that. :) It's already been rewritten. (Thank you, User:Voceditenore.) No reason to retain the material if it's inappropriate for other reasons, so I've deleted. I'll restore it to history if permission arrives. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Roman888

Hey, Moonriddengirl,

You may recall from some while back (largely 2010) and editor named Roman888 against whom there was both a significant CCI case related to copyvios on various Malaysia-related articles and a concurrent sockpuppetry case where a sizable sockfarm was identified editing both the Malaysia articles and several related to shows with Gordon Ramsay; the latter were where I became involved. Roman was site banned in March, 2011, when the two hit critical mass at the same time. Some time thereafter, he relocated to Australia and began socking using IPs registered to Telestra. Mkativerata and I began collecting evidence he was running a second IP sock farm, and those accounts were blocked as well. One of his favorite topics apart from Malaysia was the question of whether updates on the status of restaurants featured on Ramsay's shows Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares (UK) and Kitchen Nightmares (US); he initiated or was party to several long, often disruptive discussions regarding including the open/closed status of the various restaurants (see Archive 2 for the bulk of them; Archive 3 for his return as the IP sock). Despite a lack of consensus, attempts at canvassing on his part, blocks galore and a litany of WP:RS and other policy-based reasons for not including the updates, he continued to push the issue from time-to-time before finally going quiet.

And now he's back. He just started a new discussion, crafted to follow his line of thought while sidestepping policy, including an exhortation to ignore the archived discussions, regarding updates on the Kitchen Nightmares article. I happened to check in shortly after he posted it, before there were any responses, so I reverted it and tagged the newest Telestra IP's talk page. But I doubt he'll give up with out more fuss than that.

Sorry to be long winded! I wanted to give you a heads up because Mkativerata is gone now, and I know you were very involved in the CCI case. History says he'll head for the Malaysia articles shortly, and try to stir more (ahem!) on the KN and RKN article before he's done. I'm going to let the admins who indeffed him and enforced the ban know he's around as well, and if need be, head to SPI. --Drmargi (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to keep an eye out but am not around as much as I'd like. Hopefully it won't be quite as intense an invasion this time! (I wish Mkativerata were not gone. :() --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about copyright issues, could you take a look at this user's question? AioftheStorm (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sent him (or her) to WP:MCQ. Thanks for looking for help for him! That was nice of you, and above and beyond. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to respond myself but couldn't, thanks for helping him.AioftheStorm (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

CCI update

Such a small one, yet such a pain to get through. Glad it's done. Wizardman 03:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yay. :) Congratulations. Wikipedia should give a parade for you. The barnstar I left you is embarrassingly inadequate but entirely heartfelt. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 10:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

X-rays again

You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Commons_is_really_messed_up and related discussions. There's an interesting (to me) suggestion that the WMF tell us exactly what it's prepared to defend as reasonable in court, and what it's not, so that people can suit their practice to this stance, but I'm not expecting that to happen any time soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. :/ The legal team is pretty conscious of limitations on what role they can play with the community given conflict of interest issues. Earlier in our history, there are more examples of guidance from the WMF saying, "This specific thing is okay" and "This specific thing is not okay", but they really only give broad information these days. I always hope that users remember that they are individually liable for their actions. WMF does have the defense of contributors policy, of course, but even that doesn't permit them to actually represent individual users in court. They can't. They already have a client. WMF is in a very different position than the uploaders of images are. If they're challenged over the use of allegedly copyrighted content, all they have to do is take it down. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Another one?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think this may need to be looked at: Trevj has noted on the talkpage of Frances de la Tour the possibility of an ancient copyvio, even though archive.org doesn't have her website archived far enough back to be sure. I think the suspicious edit is this one from 9 September 2006, given that (a) some of it is word-for-word the text now on her webpage and (b) Orbicle seems to have been a serial copyright violator, on a quite impressive scale (mostly image uploads). Questions: what to do about that article (if anyone agrees, that is); and whether her/his other contributions also need to be checked? I hope, of course, that this is just a false alarm. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the investigation a bit further. I was in the process of placing {{Copypaste}} on the article page but after checking the copyright violations advice I decided to mention it on the article talk page in the first instance. -- Trevj (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with that. :) I'll do the quick acid test. BRB. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Update: this is now "be back soon" - lots of interruptions. But I'm thinking this is a backwards copy for reasons I'll explain (if I confirm) in about 30-60 minutes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. :) It can be a little startling to encounter a backwards copy on an official website, but it occasionally happens. When I look at the edit that Justlettersandnumbers, I look for content that was already in the article at the time it was expanded, and I note this:

She is best remembered for playing spinster Ruth Jones in the hit Yorkshire Television comedy Rising Damp. De la Tour did not get on well with her Rising Damp co-star Leonard Rossiter, and subsequently she has declined, for the most part, to be interviewed about this period of her life. But she told Richard Webber, when he wrote his book about the series in 2001 ('Rising Damp: A Celebration'), that Miss Jones "was an interesting character to play. We laughed a lot on set, but comedy is a serious business and Leonard took it particularly seriously, and rightly so. Comedy, which is so much down to timing, is exhausting work. But it was a happy time."

I look at the suspected source and see this:

she is best-known for playing spinster Ruth Jones in the successful Yorkshire Television comedy Rising Damp. De la Tour told Richard Webber, who penned a 2001 book about the series, that Ruth Jones "was an interesting character to play. We laughed a lot on set, but comedy is a serious business and Leonard took it particularly seriously, and rightly so. Comedy, which is so much down to timing, is exhausting work. But it was a happy time."

That raises flags for me. Looking back further, I see that the quote was introduced here, a couple of weeks before the rest of the content. This is a big sign to me of backwards copying, since it is unlikely that the editor copied the quote first (as an IP perhaps) and then returned weeks later to copy the rest. :)

A few more signs of natural evolution would make me confident in asserting this. So I look next for content in the suspected source that postdates its September 2006 placement on Wikipedia, and I find, "In 2007 she appeared in a West End revival of the farce Boeing-Boeing." That sentence was added to our article in February 2009. I can scan a bit forward from there, and I find this edit - the "source" reflects that change. And this edit. The "source" reflects that change.

The earliest archived version I can find of that article is October 2009. This can be off by six months or so, but I believe that they copied the article from Wikipedia sometime between that archived date and mid-July, when the last substantial edit before their archive was made.

Thanks much for finding the issue, Trevj, and for noting the point of introduction of the text, Justlettersandnumbers. :) It's almost as important to rule out copying as it is to confirm it, since it may save us losing the text unnecessarily at a later time. I'll put the backwardscopy template on the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. Justlettersandnumbers, the original contributor may be okay. It's not unusual to see people who have copyright issues with images who do fine with text. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you -- Trevj (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's a relief. But sorry to have asked you to spend time on it. Thanks for doing what you do, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Group edit notice

Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Drafts and click on "Create a new draft", don't save, at the top of the page you'll find few quick links which are being displayed by "preloaded text". A group edit-notice is needed to apply it in every draft subpage, Might be very helpful to work quickly. Could you create a group edit notice for Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Drafts taking content from Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Templates/Draft-editintro? If you do, delete Draft-editintro page under G6 or G7, else, again I need to request someone. --Tito☸Dutta 19:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I overlooked this one earlier. :( Did somebody already do this for you? It looks like they probably did. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

IP copied my work into article

Hi Moonriddengirl

Today I noticed that back in April 2013 an IP editor copy/pasted the contents of one of my sandboxes into an article without attribution to me. It's been a while since I've done much editing, so I'm not sure if I can undo the edits now, because the page has since been edited. The article is Will Young, my sandbox is User:Matthewedwards/Sandbox/Will Young, which I last edited in November 2011, and the offending insertions to the article are http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Will_Young&diff=548196797&oldid=547079498 .

What can be done to rectify this? Thanks Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 05:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Matthew. I'm sorry about that - it can be really disconcerting when people take your content from a private workspace without telling you. :( I've seen this before and experience suggests that the people who do this generally don't mean any harm - they see good content and want to get it out there. Often they're inexperienced and may not realize that the polite thing to do is to ask you or at least tell you. And certainly the contributor seems not to know that he is legally required to attribute you. Any content you place anywhere on Wikipedia is freely licensed for reuse anywhere else - including in sandbox - but not without meeting the terms of license - and I've seen dismay over this kind of thing enough to know that it's not good practice not to check first.
There are two things to do here - first, we need to give you proper attribution, because your copyright has been violated. Second, we need to let the contributor know that this is a violation of copyright and that it's better to collaborate in these situations than just take.
I'll help repair the attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
The IP in question is stable - it has been editing the same suite of articles for a long time. Based on the overlap in all contributions and particularly in this sandbox (but also others: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) it seems to be User:StJaBe.
I imagine he or she will see the discussion here through the notifications system, but I would recommend direct outreach. Do you want to approach the contributor to talk about this, or would you prefer that I do? I'm happy to do so, if you'd like. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

RAN image question

Hey, I've come across what appears to be a very thin line copyright-wise. I was looking through Richard's images and game across a grouping where the CC license was added with the rationale, "I authorize anyone to use my Find a Grave images in Wikipedia or their own family research, under the creative commons attribution license cc-by-2.5, where the attribution is 'Richard Hrazanek'." To me, that sounds like you can only use the images on Wikipedia, and they would qualify under the F3 deletion criteria. However, a look at Hrazanek's find a grave profile notes that he wishes to use the CC-BY 2.5 license, which is fine for wikipedia use. Is it a simple rewording for all of them, or should I delete them? I deleted about 4 or 5 until one on commons noted the discrepancy, which brings me to here. They are good images, and hopefully they can be kept, but I'd want a second opinion. Wizardman 18:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(tps) I would hope it is as simple as contacting Richard, noting the discrepancy between the CC license and the stated limitation. My guess is that he would agree to amend the wording, and clarify that the CC license is intended, or (less likely) confirm that his intended license was narrower, in which case they need deletion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Sphilbrick! I agree. We need to make sure that Hrazanek understood his license. I think Wizardman is planning to try to check on that. We ran into each other briefly on IRC. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

SHUAA

Hi again, have created a temporary entry for the SHUAA page that was placed under investigation a few weeks ago due to copyright issues. Would you be able to have a look please? Many thanks Fanny Modin (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. :) That resolves the concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Need copyvio issue opinion

I saw yesterday that Rules of Acquisition was up for deletion and went to comment on it, when I realized that the article was fully reprinting (in exact words) all the known Rules developed through the Trek fiction universe. This screamed the same type of problems we have with Top 100 lists - the "rules" (though at times may mirror real-word adages) are creatively generated as part of the copyrighted Trek fiction, and two licensed book republish these. Irregardless of the AFD, I removed the list but that change was reverted. Could I get your opinion if that list is a copyright violation? --MASEM (t) 16:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not only a problem, but a long acknowledged problem. :/ When issues are contested, {{copyvio}} is a good way to go. I've applied it and listed the article at WP:CP as well as leaving a note at the talk page and the AFD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Question for your alter ego

Who would be a good WMF staffer to ask about this, aside from Eric? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Backwardscopy with blacklisted site

While reviewing Aaron Ruben, I concluded it was a backwards copy. I tried to explain on the talk page, but the site is blacklisted and would not let me identify it. I tried converting "." to "(dot)" and that failed. I was even unable to use the Wayback link. I tried the backwardscopy template and it failed.

If there a work around?

I'll provide a link to the Wayback page in the edit summary.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I could even list it in the edit summary, will try again.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
tvrage [dot] com/person/id-40493/Aaron+Ruben? Is that the one? I'm copying the way OlYeller21 did it in edit summary. If it's a different site, I wonder if [dot] would work, instead of (dot)? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
That worked, thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Potential copyvio

Hi, just a note: I removed this stuff from the article Aatish Taseer and have done nothing more; just bringing it to your attention in case you're interested in checking whether it was indeed copyvio, or something like that. I'm not too interested myself (it was unencyclopedic content anyway), so feel free to ignore this. Thanks for all your help ridding Wikipedia of copied content. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Added in October 2011 by an IP from Yale, at least some of the wording appears to have been cribbed from a July 2011 Amazon-user’s five-star (and only) review.—Odysseus1479 03:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
It's concerning that the IP that added it included so much more text. :/ I did a spot-check, but didn't find any other sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Album covers for articles about bands?

Hello, Moonriddengirl. I left a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, but no one responded. It might be a copyright problem, so I'm going to ask you, if that's OK. The page Hot Rize uses a scan of one of the band's album covers in an infobox. It is my reading of the fair use rationale that such scans are acceptable for an article about the album, but what about an article about the band? Cnilep (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) According to the guideline at WP:NFCI, cover-art may be used “for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item” (emphasis in the original, if I read it right), which would appear to exclude the use of an album cover to illustrate a band. Now guidelines aren’t necessarily binding in ‘edge cases’, and I suppose a cover featuring the only available portrait of the band members might qualify for that article—if the sense of “that item“ can be stretched to include the subject of the artwork, as well as the more obvious reading that refers to the enclosed recording. I have no idea whether or not other images are available in this case, but if they are I’m sure that would be preferable. (I notice that Hot Rize (album) does not show the picture.)—Odysseus1479 06:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that pointer, Odysseus1479. It sounds to me like the image should be removed. I see this footnote: "The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician; in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article." The album is listed in a discography on that page, but not discussed. Cnilep (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Capture of Damascus (1918)

Hi an IP editor has marked Capture of Damascus (1918) with the copyvio tag, but then did nothing else but update the talk page. The main editor has tried to remove the tag, which has been reverted in an attempt to allow the IP editor to respond. It now seems that the IP is not a regular contributor so the article is in limbo. Can you give some advice on how to move forward, possibly on the talk page where a discussion has began. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be happy to. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Copy Vio Questions

Dear Moonriddengirl: I am writing about several articles that have been tagged by Psychonaut, specifically this one:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Gwendolyn_Audrey_Foster

The text here is public domain, from a website I created for Foster many years ago, and can be used by anyone. I release it here, if that does any good, as being absolutely public domain with no copyright violation even possible, since it was my own original work, and was never copyrighted in the first place. It's simply text I wrote for the piece.

I am aware that the article lacks inline references, but these can easily be found on the web, and I am not an experienced Wiki editor. Perhaps someone can come in and clean this up, which would be nice. But there is no copyright violation here. - Best, Wdixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.67.125 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) AIUI the work automatically accrued copyright when it was published without an explicit licence, regardless of your unstated intentions—or at least the precautionary principle requires us to so assume. I believe you will have to contact WP:OTRS and submit a “ticket“ to the “Permissions queue“, identifying yourself as the author and formally releasing the material, for the content to be deemed acceptable here.—Odysseus1479 00:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Odysseus1479! I managed to overlook this one earlier. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of UCSI University for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UCSI University is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCSI University until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there, thank you for leaving a message on the talk page. But there's three choices with the Monsignor Fraser College article like delete, rewrite, or merge, but merging the school with the board article is plain easy. Discuss this in the Talk:Monsignor Fraser College page. Happy Thanksgiving from the North! FreshCorp619 (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, hate to be rude, but sometimes, i've seen many people copy and pasting. It's okay if I can rewrite many articles in the near future. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for help. FreshCorp619 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
UPDATE - I've seen many people added/copied St. Mary's Catholic Secondary School and Neil McNeil High School. Care to add these (Copyviocore)? I found this from User:Bearcat at 06:02, 7 June 2009. FreshCorp619 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

To impress you, i've clarified St. Mary's Catholic Secondary School as blank. Thanks for the method! :D FreshCorp619 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for help. I'll find a way to rephrase it like para-phrase future articles... In short, Thanks. FreshCorp619 (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Monsignor Fraser College

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Monsignor Fraser College requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.bdcconline.net/en/stories/f/fraser-john-andrew-mary.php http://www.tcdsb.org/schools/msgrfrasercollege/aboutus/SchoolHistoryandTradition/Pages/default.aspx https://www.tcdsb.org/schools/msgrfrasercollege/Academics/Pages/default.aspx and likely others. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

That article could be deleted or redirected. FreshCorp619 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Clean up crew.

What's up there MoonRiddenGirl, i've gathered a team of Wikipedians: User:Secondarywaltz, User:PKT, User:Bearcat, User:ClueBot Commons, and User:WhisperToMe to form the Article Clean-Up Task Force to rewrite and cite sources I listed from the Copyright investigations page. That way, the articles people or I wrote/created, could prevent copyright issues or deletion. Thanks! FreshCorp619 (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you join in the fun! I'm doing other things a bit often. FreshCorp619 (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Not me! Not that BOT! Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Scarfaced Charley

I don't know if you remember Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Scarfaced Charley from over a year ago – I see he was also blocked as a Sockpuppet. I worked a bit on helping fix some of those. Yesterday I found that Scarfaced Charley had made a duplicate Campaignbox template and therefore some relevant articles were using that Template:Campaignbox Little Rock while others were using the preexisting Template:Campaignbox Advance on Little Rock which follows the WP:MILHIST convention of naming campaignboxes in accordance with the campaigns defined by the American Battlefield Protection Program unit of the National Park Service. That site is currently unavailable because of the Government Shutdown, but can be verified in Google's cache.

I merged the content into Template:Campaignbox Advance on Little Rock, updated all the articles to use the correct campaignbox template, blanked the duplicate template and tagged it with db-t3. I had originally also put a redirect to the corrected template, but I couldn't figure out how to make both the redirect and the db-3 tag work... Hopefully I've done it correctly. Does this situation indeed qualify for speedy deletion or does it need to be brought to TfD?

Also, there's one talkpage comment at Template talk:Campaignbox Little Rock. What's the proper way to handle that? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Complicated situation. I went ahead and deleted it. I think that's proper under the circumstances. If anybody objects, which seems unlikely, we can bring it back and go through TfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering if maybe you missed this notification of the discussion. Its a bit complicated as it involves both US public domian / copyright issues, and what to do with images that might be fine in the US and for Wikipedia's purposes, but potentially cause future legal issues for the Australian uploader. - Evad37 (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Evad37. :) Thanks; I did miss it. I'm afraid, though, that I can't get involved in that one due to a conflict with my work. User:Nbound wrote me at the liaison@ address, so I'm involved on the Wikimedia Foundation side. That said, image issues are not really so much my area anyway. If I were involved in that conversation as a volunteer, I would considering asking some of the people who are active at WP:MCQ. Those guys generally know their business. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Captain Charles Cooper

Hello Moonriddengirl, I attempted to make a page for an American hero by the name of Capt. Charles Cooper. My page was deleted and and I am unsure why. If you could help me out that would be great! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.163.68 (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm afraid the page was a problem under our copyright policies, as content published in the article was also published at [18]. (While that page is no longer published, fortunately we can still see it in archive: [19].) For example, the article began as follows:

Capt. Charles "Chuck" Cooper was born on 19 September, 1957. He was assigned to the 160th in October, 1989 and served as a 2nd flight platoon leader in Charlie Company, 1st Battalion. He was known as a great leader, destined to command a company and battalion. His easy, "get along with folks" attitude, all-American looks and his constant smile made him a joy to be around. He was a great pilot and officer who loved his job, his soldiers, and this mission.

An editor noticed the issue shortly after the article was created and flagged it to your attention. Quite probably you did not notice the notification of the issue on your talk page. In those days, the only way to find new messages was to come back to Wikipedia.
There's no problem with creating an article about the gentleman, but I'm afraid that language must be clearly separated from sources except in limited quotation. If sources are demonstrably public domain, content can be copied from them, but must be clearly flagged. That particular website was marked "© 2008 NSA 160th. All rights reserved" and so was not public domain. Wikipedia:Copy-paste talks about some of these issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:CCI#Requests

Do you think you could review the America789 case I added at WP:CCI? I feel like I will have a very productive week if I can start working on this case this weekend. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Per my note at the CCI request, I would if I could, Marcus Qwertyus, but the CCI tool is not cooperating right now. I've tried it several times on several different browsers, and it never gets anywhere. The account is not old enough for the kind of issues I'm seeing, so there may be a glitch. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm having issues as well even though it pulled up America789's information just fine last week. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
It's still not working. I've asked User:Dcoetzee, who created that insanely useful tool for us, if he can have a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

D-Code (DJ)

Hi, Moonriddengirl, its me again. In what feels like a 'getting too familiar' message, I have another music article I'm concerned about: D-Code (DJ). As with the last two times I thought I'd look into the song's musician, and as with the other two times the material read a little too much like it came from someplace other than Wikiepdia. In this case, that someplace else appears in part to be ovguide.com and biographies.net, both of which have a copyright insignia at the bottom of the page. I'm sorry to lean on you again, but when you (or tps'ers) get a moment, can you follow up on this and see if it is in fact a copyvio? As always, I would appreciate it (and again, sorry for always coming here with suspicious articles). TomStar81 (Talk) 10:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) It's hard to say which came first, but easy to say that either way it's not at all appropriate for us. :/ That article was a huge issue under WP:BLP and WP:V. On closer reflection, the WP:NPOV issues also jump up. I've trimmed it down to what I could source, although it would be nice if more of those sources were secondary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm beginning to get the very bad feeling that I could haul in a massive NPOV/BLP/V/NOT catch by simply looking at the articles for the people on my entire playlist. Obviously some of the musicians like Beethoven would be well tended to but I am growing increasingly concerned about what the rest of the pages would look like :/ In any event, thanks for the help.
The Editor's Barnstar
For expertly cutting down the questionable content on the page D-Code (DJ) to bring the article in compliance with our article policies and guidelines I hereby award you The Editor's Barnstar. You've definitely earned it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! That's very kind. :D Music articles are frequent offenders, copyvio-wise, but I don't think they hold a candle to TV articles! Those plot descriptions are just too easy to copy-paste. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this a copyvio link?

This[20] is being used as a reference - is there enough copy at the link to call it a copyvio link? Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Everything on that site seems to be a copyvio, it ought to be blacklisted. And I would say 20 pages is a linkvio. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
You may well be right about the site. We've had other sites blacklisted for copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Groves

Hey, just a quick thanks for your informed (and really rather clever) conclusion regarding this - I was a bit taken aback to find that the University of Westminster had obviously liked my bio so much that they'd copied it over to their new site, and when I realised it meant my contributions (ironically, submitted originally to deal with original copyvio!) had themselves been mistaken for copyvio, I was a bit at a loss. Spotting my grammatical error and using it as evidence was so simple yet so inspired that it could have come out of a modern-day Agatha Christie book! Thanks again. Mabalu (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, User:Mabalu. It's my great pleasure. :) I have spent a long time working on copyright issues, and it always makes me happy to be able to clear our content. I've developed a few techniques along the way for checking these things. Once in a while we just can't be sure which way the copying went and have to remove content on precaution, according to policy, but I hate doing that. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

International Vedanta Society

Dear Moonriddengirl, Thank u for being so kind in editing/checking the article which i created about the International Vedanta Society. Before i start let me introduce myself to you. I am Swami Prahladananda, a Joint General Secretary of the International Vedanta Society- a spiritual charitable organisation. I am a regular reader of wikipedia which i find very useful to find answers to many of my quaries about science, arts, spirituality and different things. u can say i am a fan of wikipedia. I thought that a prominent spiritual organisation whose members are active throughout the world needs to have a mention in wiki. I am not an expert in writing articles specially in websites. I have written this article based on the website and official blogs of my organisation. Although there are many news articles in different vernacular newspapers about this organisation( hindi, bengali, assamese) i didnt mention them because i was not sure whether it is acceptable in wiki or not. Also i am not an expert in writing articles in websites. But since I am authorised by my organisation to deal with media both print and electronic, i try to put as much information which people may find useful to know more about the organisation. I also understand that since I am a part of this organisation u may find my observations a little one sided but I have tried by best be put things in as much neutral perspective as possible. Since I am not a big expert about internet and its tecnical aspects as i have mentioned earlier i invite everybody including u to be a part of editing this article. If u want i can scan and send u the news reports mentioned in different vernacular print medias to u. But i dont know whether u will understand the language or not. Also I can assure u that all the information in this article are from authorised source which are entirely owned by my organisation. So there will be no third party issues. Wish u all the best. 115.250.95.158 (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Swami Prahladananda. I'm glad to hear that you find Wikipedia useful. I appreciate your effort to improve the article and am happy to share some information with you about how you can best do that.
First, as you are associated with the organization, please read our conflict of interest guidelines and our Frequently Asked Questions page for people associated with organizations. (Clicking on the colored text will take you to them.) We welcome your assistance with the article but generally prefer that you not add substantial content yourself. Our purpose with our articles is to neutrally summarize what reliable, unconnected sources say about notable subjects - that is, we're really more interested in what the news articles in vernacular newspapers say about it than we are what it says about itself. :) Wikipedia:Verifiability explains a little more about this, as does neutral point of view.
While it may be appropriate to add some content from your organization's own websites, this usually has to be modified to meet our policies, and we can't add it directly unless your organizations licenses it so that we can. Content published on Wikipedia is licensed for use and modification here and elsewhere, including commercially. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.
If you are able to grant this license in one of the ways described there, we may be able to restore some of the content that was removed, but we won't be able to restore all of it. Material like "Commencing its journey from Guwahati the north-eastern part of India, the Society has within a short span spread to different corners of the country and also touched many hearts abroad" is not really in keeping with our intent.
Please let me know if you have any questions about any of this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Request to have the information on the page overhauled and replaced with accurate information.

I'm of the group the Flatlinerz. If you need to verify this I'll give my contact information in private. For years there has been inaccurate information on Wiki (propaganda) about Horrorcore and the Flatlinerz

I want to clarify something and I'll be as brief as possible.

Our concept of Horrorcore is a complete union of rap and horror films. This includes the instrumentation (cinematic horror instrumentation), the lyrics, artwork, especially videos, and style of dress. Redrum created the name Horrorcore to give a handle to this style of entertainment. If an artist doesn't meet the criteria mentioned above which are the components of what Horrorcore is made of, then it's unfair to call them Horrorcore. You can't call Rock music Rock music and no one is playing a guitar.

When it says that "Horrorcore gained prominence when"... it's misleading. Why not write that the first usage of the term Horrorcore was on the Flatlinerz album? This is a fact. A fact in which some people who writing are about what Horrorcore is on the page is trying to hide. (redacted)

There's Acid Rap, Ripgut, the Wicked Sh*t, Grim Reality, and a few other names that the other so called pioneering Horrorcore artists have named their music before the Flatlinerz. The only reason why Horrorcore isn't being respected as our name and style of music (creation) is because of the propaganda that artists spread which people believe. The artists want to be able to use the name for it's notoriety without having to give us credit. Most of them hate us because we were doing something similar to what they were doing and gained more popularity for it. They are envious of us. It not fair that Horrorcore is being used as an umbrella term for everybody and we don't even get credit for it.

Any rapper that is mentioned on the page that never had a song which they called Horrorcore, that was based on horror, had cinematic horror music to it, and video for the song based on horror prior to our release is not Horrorcore because that's what Horrorcore is.

Horrorcore is not just gruesome lyrics, it's an entire package.

If you can help it will be much appreciated.

Dark Hip Hop (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Stalkers

Hey all. So, Moonriddengirl hasn't been on in a few days. You know what would be cool? If we all cleaned out the backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems just to surprise her on her return. There's already good progress on that, and it shouldn't take too long to clean if we really work at it over the next few days. Wizardman 04:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Awww. :) I have noticed your work over there, User:Wizardman. You are amazing. I hope you know that. I'm going to try to poke at it a bit this morning after checking out my talk page and anything else urgent on my watchlist, plus checking to see if the CCI tool is working again. I left a message for User:Dcoetzee, but haven't had time to see if he's been able to respond yet. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Question re: Henry Panion

Hi Moonriddengirl, can you ascertain whether the Wikipedia biography preceded that of the subject's website, which is close to a dead-on copy [21]? If not, it's possible that the Wiki article has been a copyright violation from the outset. However, if the subject's website mirrors Wikipedia's then our article would just require clean up and improved sourcing. Thank you, JNW (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:JNW. I can't find any evidence that we came first, and the contributor who placed the content has a history of copyright infringement around that time, according to his userpage. I've removed the content I saw that seemed to be an issue. If I missed anything, please let me know. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much--that was my take, too, but I wanted to check with you, given that the subject's web site has a copyright notice of this year, and the questionable content here was added earlier. Great work and much appreciated, as always. Cheers, JNW (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkbalk

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Talk:Gaudiya Nritya.
Message added 03:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Need some help dealing with this as it's beyond my skill levels. —SpacemanSpiff 03:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:SpacemanSpiff. :) It looks like this one has been addressed at the moment by the stubbing of the article. However, I suspect the most recent flagged source does postdate our article. The original copyvio is clear, but the author immediately replaced the article with what seems to have been original text. If the text was still in the article, I'd be poking at edits like this to see if there were text matches that predate. Reverse copying for an article like this is always going to make things difficult. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The stubbing is part of an ongoing edit war between two editors not involved in the copyvio cleanup, so I don't know how long that will last. The thing here is that most of the content appears to originate from one individual and therefore it's difficult to figure this one out. I'll keep a watch, but these things are making my eyes hurt. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Reposted here, from my user talk page, originally posted to me by Ansegam (talk · contribs), doesn't give a source for the copyvio so I didn't know where else to report it:

Hello, I am the author of the article "Historical inheritance systems" and its related sub-articles, such as "systems of social stratification". I am afraid I may have infringed the copyright of some articles... Please, can you check it out? I do not have the intention of infringing any copyright, If I have done it it's been just a mistake on my part and I would inmediately delete it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talk • contribs)

Quite busy at the moment, will try to take a look soon and/or notify other parties who are experienced in these matters, — Cirt (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talk • contribs) 13:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could have a look? — Cirt (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Heading over. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Moonriddengirl! I reviewed my article "Systems of social stratification" and I found that most of the content I paraphrased was available for free in the Internet -I mean, those works were publicly available for those who wished to read them. I also paraphrased books which were not free; however, I paraphrased those passages that could be read in Google Views of those books, so I think I didn`t publish anything unfree. The only exception are two short sentences from an study made by Adam Kuper about the Sotho people, and of course I marked the two short sentences I was paraphrasing. I hope this means I am not infring any copyright. Thank you very much for your help. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talk • contribs) 13:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Contribution Surveyor back online

Migrated to Tool Labs and fixed, online at [22]. All on-wiki links to it should be updated. Let me know if you experience any trouble. :-) Dcoetzee 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick note on Gun carriage

If the copyvio was from the first three of the four sources listed then it's not copyvio as those are PD sources. If it was from the last, of course, that's a different matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) The verified copying is from the book Artillery: an Illustrated History of its Impact by Jeff Kinard, I'm afraid. I put a sample on the talk page. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Ouch. Ah well, it was a faint hope. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Tulsa_Air_National_Guard_Base#Air_Force_Plant_3

Moonriddengirl,

I noted some questionable text on the article above, and a quickie google search indicates that it may be from globalsecurity.org. When I started to dig into it, I noted that the editor who added it has had previous contact from you. So, I thought you might be interested to take a look. Thanks! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Philippe. He is subject of a WP:CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819. I've noted there that concerns were found and verified in that article and have now been cleaned up. Unfortunately, we've got quite the backlog going there - the issues was flagged and the CCI started in August, but cleanup has not really progressed. We just have too many. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Opinion requested

Hi MRG, would you please see the discussion at WT:SHIPS#Copyvio problem, Feel free to comment. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


Charlotte Canda

I included a poem about the subject that was written in 1899. I believe this is now in the public domain? If I am mistaken please remove it. Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The introduction to the poem, although short, is a very close paraphrase of what I assume to be your source; try to put it in more of your own words and, if you can, provide a little more context. (Was the poem well known, or often quoted? IMO including the whole thing–which is more about the monument than the subject—is a bit excessive: I’d rather see about four lines quoted, whichever best illustrate your point.)—Odysseus1479 02:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Moonriddengirl, hope that you are enjoying your edits. I am editing as well (actually creating a new template).

Enjoy.Bangter (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You, too. Welcome, Bangter, and please be mindful of copyrights. :D Please try not to be discouraged by the current AFD nomination. It's just a matter of figuring out what everyone agrees is the best approach to documenting these places. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Noakhali_District

Hello MRG, back on the 13th jan 2013 you cleared out a mass of copyvio at Noakhali_District. A lot seems to have been readded see this edit in particular http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Noakhali_District&diff=565732275&oldid=565731411 . Note the tell-tale citation numbering which shows it has been copied back in from another site which has copied/mirrored old WP content such as this blog. If I as an ipaddr try & clean up, it will probably get reverted...perhaps you could take a look? rgds & thks 78.105.28.140 (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for finding this and telling me about it. It's cleaned up again, and I've added it to my watchlist rotation for a time. Banglapedia. :/ A constant problem! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

I mentioned your name ...

... at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreshCorp619. I've not looked at the contributions of SPVII DrFresh26, but fear that they may merit scrutiny. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice job!

Thanks for cleaning up my article. I will work on the copyright issue for Yuko Nii with Immunonuclear. Afterward may be you can clean up that article too. Best Regards, Terrance Lindall (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yuko Nii Article

I posted this at the bottom of the bio page on www.wahcenter.net:

"The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

I hope this does it so the "possible copyright violation" can be removed. Thanks! Immunonuclear (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(tps) Looks fine to me so I restored prior version.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Here is some lunch for you, with Russavia and Trijnstel Bangter (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

CCI at Commons

You may have an interest in a Contributor copyright investigation I did at Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Uwatch310.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. :) Not being an admin at Commons, there's not much I can do to help, but it seems you identified a pattern. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on this question I've posed? I could really use your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:Nightscream. I would, but everything I would say has already been covered. :D In a nutshell: given the lack of explicit permission to modify them and commercially reproduce them, we have to treat them as fully copyright reserved. Maybe someday there will be a legal case that establishes differently, but so far there has not been (to my knowledge, and I've researched this a bit...though not lately.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Old copyvio (talk page stalkers welcome)

Just stumbled upon [23]. Text still present in the article with only a few tweaks. I don't think anon's claim passes our requirements, so - remove most of the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately. If it were a registered editor, we could try to go through permission, but that doesn't work with IPs after any length of time. Removed. Thanks for spotting that, Piotr! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

A strange one

Hello Moonriddengirl. Khazar2 kindly gave me your name as a person to run this issue by. It concerns a new George Harrison biography written by Graeme Thomson, which noticeably reflects a lot of content that I've put into Wikipedia's Harrison album and song articles since January 2012. I first brought the matter up with Quadell over on his talk page a week or so back – (since archived). A few others weighed in there and on my talk page (and the conversations then spilled over onto other users' talk pages). My objections to Thomson's book are stated in an Amazon review for the bio (as user HariG), which is the link I gave on Quadell's page and elsewhere.

I realise that Amazon doesn't offer much of a preview for the book, certainly not sufficient to compare the areas of overlap I'd mentioned. What makes it so obvious to me that this author has used Wikipedia content as a foundation for his text is his use of sources that I brought to the articles and have never seen in any of the (many) existing books and publications discussing George Harrison. In some cases, the actual structure of the author's discussion about a particular event or album mirrors the order of points given in the articles. From what I've seen, at times he's loosely paraphrased text – but it's still close enough for me to recognise the overlap with the articles (admittedly, in part because I wrote them, and the antennas are up, so to speak). Would you have any advice about this, about what could and should be done?

Users Yeepsi and SilkTork have suggested adding Backwardscopy templates to relevant articles, and I intend to write to the publisher with a list of the areas where Thomson's text obviously mirrors the articles on Wikipedia. (With the latter measure, I confess it's just too depressing to even look at the book right now, so it's not something I've exactly jumped on with any urgency. Same with the Backwardscopy option, actually.) I'm confident that there are many more instances of the author's text reflecting Wikipedia's – again, through the give-away of those previously unused sources – than I've detailed in my Amazon review.

As a short-term measure, to at least alert Amazon's customers, I'm hoping that the review remains visible on the page there. It seems that's the only voice we have in the outside world. If you felt inclined to do so, and I'm so grateful that others have, I'd really appreciate it if you could vote "helpful" next to my Amazon review. That's the only way to ensure that the review continues to be featured (helpful equalling "popular", of course). Knowing the book publishing industry as I do, I can't help thinking that some with a professional interest have hit "unhelpful" next to the review, and "helpful" next to others, in an effort to have it demoted and out of sight. That could be slightly paranoid of me – maybe customers just don't find it at all helpful(!). On the other hand, publishers and authors do do this, just as those with a vested interest write "reviews" for movies available on AppleTV, iTunes and elsewhere. Sorry to go on – any advice you've got would be very welcome. Best, JG66 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear about this. I'll try to "upvote" the Amazon review, but will need first to create an account, as I don't have one at Amazon UK.
If he's actually copied substantially from your articles and hasn't credited you or otherwise complied with your license, then you may have a claim against him. I'm not a lawyer and would not be able to advise you legally even if I were, but it's indisputable that our content is not public domain, and unless his taking of your work is insubstantial or constitutes fair dealing, he needs to meet the terms of your license. Your license does permit commercial reuse and modification, but only if the terms are met.
If I were in your position, what I might do myself is contact the publisher with an exhaustive list of similarities and a permanent diff to when the content entered our articles, explaining why you believe that this constitutes an infringement of your work. A variation of Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter could be used. Again, I can't offer legal advice, so I can't say if this is the best approach. If you have any doubts whatsoever, you probably should talk to an intellectual property attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction (or the publisher's). I don't know if you could make an economic recovery, but you might at least force licensing compliance in the book.
I think {{backwardscopy}} is a good tag for the article if for no other reason than to prevent it's being used as a reference or your content being removed as having infringed on his.
Dreadfully sorry you've been plagiarized! :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thank you so much for that. If there is one positive I've got from this episode, it's opened my eyes to how helpful the community is in situations such as this! I'm usually so focused on article content, I tend to be quite blind to that sort of thing.
As you say, a list compiled for the publisher, accompanied by a variation of the Standard license violation letter, is a good way to proceed. (Unfortunately, the only precedents seem to be websites, but we'll see how it goes anyway.)
I don't really feel that I have been plagiarised – even though it's me who has added the content in question, and I'm (unsurprisingly) the one for whom the overlaps/mirrors seem the most obvious. I feel he's ripped off all of us – a free encyclopaedia. If he did a deft job of hiding his tracks, or better, if he acknowledged Wikipedia as a source, then that would be different.
Thanks again, Moonriddengirl. I could be wrong, but I think there's a good argument to be taken up with Omnibus Press, the book's publisher. Since as far back as I can remember, their name has been strongly associated with books about the Beatles. So, even aside from what I believe are quite blatant examples of an author failing to acknowledge a significant source for his work, there's an angle worth pursuing based on their standing ... Best, JG66 (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Announcing

Because I have to share:
[24]

Thank you to everyone who has worked to make that happen. Truly, it's crazy how happy this makes me. It's kind of overwhelming.

Now, off to WP:CCI. (oooh! And if I can, I will write an article this weekend!)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I am so proud of you guys. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That is awesome!!! Congrats and thanks to all who made that happen. As far as CCI goes, I've been working on WP:Contributor copyright investigations/Virago250 and am starting to get a bit stuck. There are less than 15 left, but I think most of them will need either presumptive deletion or the selective trimming of excessive quotes, neither of which I'm all that good at. If you had time to pop in and take a look, it would be appreciated. Also, Wizardman and I are discussing possibly tag-teaming one of the larger CCIs, either the oldest one or Racepackets. Thoughts? Despite the previous few sentences, I really do think you should take the weekend to enjoy your success of killing the backlog at WP:CP - it is an amazing accomplishment! Dana boomer (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations! MER-C 12:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It looks like we're going to take a stab at the Racepacket CCI. A little over 200 articles left; with several people it shouldn't take long. If anyone's interested. Dana boomer (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

David LaChapelle Article: Can "Rvt. Copy[v]io To Last Clean" Go Back To 23 May 2013‎, Not 20 March 2012‎?

On 23:46, 9 November 2013‎ you did a "rvt. copy[v]io to last clean" for David LaChapelle to a 14,205 byte version of 23:47, 20 March 2012‎ by ClueBot NG. It appears that your main purpose was respond to Justlettersandnumbers' remark on 21 October 2013‎ that there was "massive insertion of copyvio material from https://web.archive.org/web/20110203033722/http://www.lachapellestudio.com/about/ by probable WP:COI editor." At https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_67#David_LaChapelle, Justlettersandnumbers notes that users "Michael Mockler," "PASSIST," "12.40.226.82," and "Dlcstudiony" may have WP:COI.

However, in reverting so far back, you deleted a lot of good-faith edits between 29 March 2012‎ and 23 May 2013‎. In particular, you deleted my 9 April 2013‎ WP:NPOV edits bringing the article from 9,805 bytes to 52,285 bytes, which followed WP:VERIFY and which deleted any previous WP:COPYVIO detected. I have no WP:COI with the David LaChapelle Studios.

Could you please revert the article to its 23 May 2013‎ version (which looked something like https://web.archive.org/web/20130524115318/http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/David_LaChapelle), not its 20 March 2012 version? TIA. -ArtPhotoLover (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, ArtPhotoLover. I'm really sorry that your work was tainted in that way. :/ I'm afraid that your 2013 version includes content derivative of the source. You added a lot, but some of the original copyright issue remains. When copyrighted material is interspersed with new, we have a problem. The new work remains a derivative work of that source - the original author retains the exclusive right to authorize modifications of his material.
I'm really sorry, but there's only two ways to get rid of such copyright issue - revert the article to the stage it was in before the infringement entered or rewrite it to remove every trace of the copied text or material built on the copied text. :/ The article was blanked to permit that rewrite to happen if anybody was interested, but no rewrite was proposed. When copyrighted content is not easily extricated, reversion to the last clean is how these listings are usually closed - editors are given an opportunity to clean up the article, but unfortunately seldom do.
What I can do is resurrect sections that you added that do not correlate to the previous content. I have done, which brings back quite a lot of your content. If in the future an article on which you have worked is blanked for copyright issues and you have the chance, you can best avoid losing content by joining in the effort to clean the copyrighted content in the "rewrite" space linked from the template itself. You do have to be careful in such cases to eliminate material built around pre-existing copyvios, but a lot of otherwise lost material can be salvaged in that way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring some of the content I added. Although I stand by my statement above that I "deleted any previous WP:COPYVIO detected," it is possible that I missed some copyvio. I am willing to further "extricate" the copyrighted content from the 23 May 2013‎ version. How can I access the editable text of that‎ version to proceed (it's "lined out")? -ArtPhotoLover (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I had no intentions of suggesting you deliberately left copyvio in the article. :) You didn't, however, replace it all. I can restore it temporarily if you want to try to resurrect more, but you need to be careful not to pick up the content that predated yours. Would you like temporary access? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Temporary access is what I seek. With gratitude -ArtPhotoLover (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It is restored, ArtPhotoLover. :) Please let me know when you're finished and please be careful, as I mentioned, not to pick up content that predated yours. For instance, you need to be careful with the paragraph beginning "After establishing himself as a fixture in contemporary photography...." as this predates you and is problematic. We can't retain the original or material derivative of it, although we can certainly use sentences that you added distinct from that pre-existing content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Kalyani - copyvio?

Apologies for using your page as a general noticeboard, MRG. Can anyone see the source used in Kalyani: India's Longest Running Public Health Campaign? I'm pretty sure that the article is a copy of it. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot. :/ Unless somebody else can, Sitush, I would suggest {{cv-unsure}} for the talk page and perhaps a conversation with the contributor, explaining that we can't copy content and expressing your concern. Of course, there's plenty else wrong with that article, but that's a totally separate matter. If I had more time to review it, I might suggest that it needs a fundamental rewrite. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It does need a rewrite but that is difficult without being able to see the source - I'm doing too much other research as it is. I'll tag it now but would be grateful for a note if any stalkers can assist. - Sitush (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've just been looking at this after seeing Sitush's message. As is typical of the copyvio we found with the IEP, there are chunks copied verbatim or very closely paraphrased and/or overly long direct quotes from multiple sources, e.g. [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Given the track record of Indian authors, the book listed may well have plagiarised from these sources too. There are a lot of give-aways that this was cobbled together by combining various chunks, e.g. the ungrammatical "Was the first step towards bringing about change." immediately followed by the highly polished "Kalyani’s research has looked at belief systems and attitudes surrounding certain gender sensitive practices." I think this should be blanked with {{Copyvio}}. Shall I do it? Voceditenore (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good work. You win the Deerstalker and Meerschaum Pipe Award for today! For reasons I cannot fathom, we don't have a Dirty Raincoat Award Yes, given what you've found, the thing needs to be blanked. - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Done! Listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 November 20 and note left on contributor's talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you wish to set this article on the correct path. You highlighted a copyright issue and I believe I proved that the material does not have a copyright and gave links to that effect. You then again marked the article as, "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." - Perhaps you are right, which leads me to some procedural questions. Can any editor delete an article and mark it with this if he/she feels it requires it? If yes, then is it only up to an administrator to check the copyright and restore or delete the article? For instance, you are not an administrator and you put tag an article, can you then you yourself restore the article or does it have to be an administrator? Finally and more to the point, WHY did you tag the article before discussing it on the talk page? That is what I believe usually happens in Wikipedia, first we discuss and then take action. Thanks for your time. Politis (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I will reply at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's perfect. Thanks for your swift response. Politis (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

November 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] from autumn 1941. He studied classics at [[Christ Church, Oxford]] and served a stint in the [Airborne Artillery.<ref name=dt>[[The Daily Telegraph]], 27 May 2012 [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bigg Boss 6 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |[[Bihari people|Bhojpuri]] star.<ref name=What/>ref>{{cite news|title=My audience are the reason for my success - Dinesh Lal Yadav|url=http://
  • The diyaas can be shaped from the wet clay even manually. Team Blue :Passed Team Red :Members?(??% bet of the weekly luxury budge

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been puttering on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Imtitanium today and have it down to five articles. I'm down to the ones that I don't know what to do with - more presumptive deletion may be necessary? Would you or your talk page stalkers have time to run through the last few? Also, amazing rewrite of International Federation of Eugenics Organizations - above and beyond the call of copyvio cleanup! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Assertions like these aren't very credible because he has been indeffed and CCIed for a second time. Given that the editor's edits have other problems, I'd go for the presumptive removal. MER-C 11:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I had hoped to respond to this yesterday with an "All finished!" but, alas, it's always more a timesink than I anticipate. :P That said, ALL FINISHED! Again. Dana boomer, any time you hit a wall on one of these, please feel free to let me know. I know the last couple can be particularly difficult, and I'm certainly willing to pull my weight, WP:CP and RL permitting. :)
In terms of International Federation of Eugenics Organizations, thank you. :) I never like deleting notable content, and time permitting try to leave a stub especially when I don't think a replacement will be quickly forthcoming otherwise. Time hasn't really permitted much in a very long time. But with articles like that one where you can't just read a quick reference and pithily restate it but have to actually research, oi. It's a rabbit hole. :P Seems like not much has been collected about that group. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Your deletion of "SMS/800"

Hello Moonriddengirl,

You deleted the page "SMS/800" in 2009 for a copyright-related reason. Do you feel that the entire topic is off-limits to have an article about, or was there something specific in the article that violated copyright? Do you know what the copyright claim is based on? The subject matter of "SMS/800" is a regulated telecommunications entity that subcontracts for an important FCC function of operating toll-free telephone numbers, and for which there is at least a good deal of public information, and I feel that there should definitely be a Wikipedia article about it. Would you have any opposition to re-starting this article?

Thanks, --Wykypydya (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(tps) Wykypydya, there's nothing inherently problematic in writing an article about SMS/800. That specific article was deleted because it essentially was a copy of some material under copyright. Avoid that, and you'll have no (copyright) problems.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
That's it in a nutshell. :) It would be great, Wykypydya, if you or anybody wants to start a new article on the subject! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

user:EnCASF

Hi. According to this message, CASF pass away a couple month ago. Cheers. Ganímedes (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Ganímedes. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Did i do it right?

Hello once again, i tried to do what you told me about copying within Wikipedia on this article (i have added the template on the talk page too). I hope i did it right? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks perfect, User:HistoryofIran. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That's good to hear, thank you :). --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Editors from European commission adding copyvio

See WP:ANI#European Commission editing on own subjects. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Linking to external images

I'm not clear about our policy here. Using the external links template, can we link to for instance [32]? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does that look like Patrick Stewart? Our policy is that if we link to something being used elsewhere under fair use, we should not strip it of the context that makes its use fair. To quote relevant portion of WP:C: "Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use." If the image is non-free, a bald link to it is likely to be an issue under WP:LINKVIO unless greaterachaeology owns it, just as linking to a famous work of art they're hosting would be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd be surprised if they did own it. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Moxy asks "Question - So to be clear a picture of the bust that was made with public funds and is on public display in museum is still a copyvio?". Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Forgot - I wasn't sure if you were joking, but yes, lots of people agree that looks like Patrick Stewart, others go a bit further and say he looks Indian! Dougweller (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Potentially, yes. Depends which government did it and if (for instance) it was the US government if it was done by a contractor or by a federal employee in the course of his work. In terms of display in a museum, although some countries do allow freedom of panorama, what constitutes a free space differs by country - some might regard a museum as "free" whereas others require outdoors display and some, like the United States, do not permit sculptures to be photographed under that clause at all. I know nothing about this bust; the bald link at greatarchaeology.com says nothing about who made it or under what circumstances or where it was photographed. Evidently, the image was hosted on their website to facilitate discussion here: http://archaeoblog.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_archive.html. It doesn't say anything about its origin either. What information does User:Moxy have about who made this statue and where it is physically located? (And, no, I wasn't joking. :) I had missed all the talk about that one.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello - seeing this on my notices - There are 25 busts in many locations they were made by Dr Jim Chatters and Dr Thomas McClelland. The casting has a copyright on it... but most of these are on display in public places as seen here. Could this not fall under WP:NFCCP as there is No free equivalent in this case? I think all would agree that a visual representation would be a great asset to our readers. -- Moxy (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The website of the firm representing Chatters and McClelland for these is at [33] (although I see it says closed). There's another problem. This reconstruction is controversial and has been used to push a caucasian Kennewick man. So far as I'm concerned, if we use any images we need to use a range, eg this one], and if we can't, then any use of images is pov. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright/Permission Question

Hi Moonriddengirl- Does this video clip require permission/OTRS approval to upload? I feel like it probably does, but was curious since it's on the White House website. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:Godot13. :) I think it actually might not - it says "public domain". If you have any doubts you might ask at WP:MCQ, but if the White House says it's public domain on their website, I think that's as good as anything they would send us at OTRS. I would comfortably upload that myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks Moonriddengirl!-Godot13 (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl- One more question about copyright: could you please point me to resources that will tell me which world paper currencies are public domain and which are copyrighted? I do volunteer research/digital archiving at the Smithsonian and would like to know what to prioritize (i.e., can be uploaded to WP/Commons). Many thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:Godot13. :) I think Commons:Commons:Currency might be helpful to you. :) I'm afraid I don't have any really good resources other than that, but if you need to know about a currency that isn't covered there, I'd ask at WP:MCQ and see if anybody knows. Sounds like a great opportunity! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

RE: Mention on AN

Sorry, didn't see your mention until just now. (I guess mentions show up in Echo but are not sent via e-mail? That kind of sucks.) I will say that the issue with Google was that according to their Terms of Service, searches made via automated means are prohibited, period. I don't know if a grant or the weight of the WMF would be able to change that (though I'm sure Google would be willing to make at least some concessions to the WMF, given their "not evil" philosophy and that I'm pretty sure they've officially shown approval of the WMF's mission/partnered with the WMF in the past).

As far as Yahoo!, which MadmanBot uses, the WMF is charged a small amount per search. Upping the number of searches could obviously increase the financial burden on the WMF considerably, which is why that's never been done (except for Coren's modification made in the past that searches not just the page title but a few excerpts from the page to find violations).

Now, unfortunately there's been little progress with the iThenticate modifications, which is pretty much entirely my fault since I've been so negligent in my MadmanBot rewrite/work has been going so terribly. Hopefully this will change in late December/early January (according to the release schedule at work), at which point I can finish that rewrite and we can start talking about new parameters for the bot in a BRFA. I believe we want to continue doing new articles only for the time being while we test new heuristics and sources, but checking old articles/new edits have been discussed; I think iThenticate was fine with that. You could possibly benefit from discussing that with Ocaasi (talk · contribs); he's the ideas guy, I'm just the (itinerant) implementer.

Feel free to ask me if you have any questions/more ideas; since I'm semi-away, it might be best to leave me a {{Talkback}} or send me an e-mail if you do. Cheers! — madman 01:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You should be able to get e-mails when mentioned by checking the appropriate box under “Notify me about these events“ in the Notifications tab of your Preferences.—Odysseus1479 02:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, good call! Thanks! — madman 02:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the update, User:Madman, and the assist, Odysseus. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked users upload of copyrighted images

  1. File:EileenaLee001.JPG (screen capture from TV with station logo intact) by Groyn88 (talk · contribs)
  2. File:4 Babar Curise Missiles on a Truck at IDEAS 2008.jpg (given that his past uploads of several images using different cameras with no consistency, I'm inclined to believe that it isn't his own work) by SyedNaqvi90 (talk · contribs)
Hi, User:Dave1185. :) The first one is a pretty clear speedy deletion candidate, and it's been deleted accordingly. With the second one, I'm afraid that there's not really anything I can do without a matching source. I would recommend you raise your concerns at WP:PUF for review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Transcript/extended quote

In terms of copyright/fair use, where are we about quoting 9 lines of a broadcast news interview? The transcript itself wasn't published, that I could find so far, but its content can be verified by (unreliably) published videos. It helps the reader's understanding of the approach and behavior of the subject of the article. It could be explained with quoting just a line or two, and I wouldn't complain if you recommended that. --Lexein (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:Lexein. It would be really nice if there were some specific guidelines on what percentage we can safely quote, but there really just isn't. :/ It depends so much on the multiple factors of fair use - including whether it's central to either document and whether it's transformative. Looking at the example, it seems like it's the entire "skit" (such as it is), which could be in itself a problem, and there's little transformation - there's not commentary about the incident, for instance. Is there any sourced commentary you could add about the incident itself or that makes its illustrative purpose clear without original research? If so, you may be able to justify using more, but if not, I would suggested cutting it down to the line or two. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to punt, because I couldn't say for sure about any sort of transformation. As they say, when in doubt, leave it minimized. Thanks, --Lexein (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

Potential sockpuppet of Levineps

Recently, User:Oriole85 (contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps (contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That does look like some heavy quacking, especially given his recent effort to get his categorization restriction lifted from User:Postdlf. If you've notified multiple people, though, I'm going to leave it to one of them. Sock puppetry is not really my area. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I've got a rather difficult one I would like your opinion on. At the Ontario highway photos discussion here, there are a couple of arguments. One argues that the US has not adopted the rule of the shorter term, and that therefore Canadian crown copyright expiration doesn't affect copyright status in the US. However, it is also argued that, in this case, the copyright holder (the Canadian government) is, by expiring the crown copyright, explicitly as the copyright holder releasing the images into the public domain, which as the copyright holder it would have every right to do. Both arguments have merit and this is a tough one, what do you think? Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) Understanding that I am speaking for myself, as a volunteer, and IANAL. And that's a tough one, I agree. (And there's the additional complication of this: Wikipedia:Granting work into the public domain. But we still accept PD releases at OTRS, so I'm setting that aside.) I think what relates here is WP:Crown copyright:

When Crown copyright expires on a work in its country of origin, the work enters the public domain in that country, but it may still be copyrighted in other signatory countries of the Berne Convention because these other countries apply their own laws, which may have longer copyright terms and not even know the concept of a "Crown copyright". (See e.g. Sterling 1995 towards the end, section titled "Protection of Crown copyright in other countries".) An exception to this is UK Crown copyright. Although UK works on which the Crown copyright has expired also could still be copyrighted elsewhere, the British Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI), which manages all Crown copyrights on behalf of the copyright holder (the Crown), has explicitly stated in an e-mail to Wikipedia that they consider UK Crown copyright expiry to apply world-wide.

One of the users in that discussion seems to imply that he received an email with a similar intent. If so, it would seem like it needs to be tracked in WP:OTRS before we can consider it a blanket release. Without that, and unless it is explicit enough, it seems that Crown Copyright only provides an exception for UK Crown Copyright, which is not the same as Canadian Crown Copyright in spite of the shared queen. To retain the content otherwise, I think, would require broader review than just a couple of people at WP:PUF. It could have ramifications for the guideline which I think would warrant broader consensus myself. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What to do with this?

Eye On The Past? It seems way out of scope to me. ww2censor (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It has already been deleted. ww2censor (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry for not responding. :) When I saw the redlink, I figured that it had been addressed. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I recall that as part of my CCI, you were able to contact a WP attorney to clarify some issues. Am I able to somehow contact them myself, or via WMF, to clarify some new issues which I feel are very significant? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Light show. This actually crosses over into my official role. :) You can write to liaison@wikimedia.org (which is an email box currently manned by me), and I will submit it to them for review. It can sometimes takes several weeks, if they are able to assist. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
After my question, I noticed that all of my uploads have been tagged, implying that it's not simply a legal or even a copyright question after all. --Light show (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Francis de Erdely.jpg

Taking a photograph does not give you ownership of the painting. The photo Francis de Erdely.jpg was deleted. I took the photo of the painting that I own. Nate2808 (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Conquest (1937 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • seduction of the Countess Marie Walewska ([[Greta Garbo]]), who is married to a much older man (([[Henry Stephenson]]), but she resists until convinced that giving in will save Poland. After her

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Mind looking at this?

Conquest (1937 film). The plot is very much like the one at IMDB and appears to have been there since the article was started. Thanks, We hope (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) The plot section was added here (it was actually started a bit earlier than your link :)), and I can't confirm that we predate, so I've rewritten it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!! We hope (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

On cut-and-paste articles on other Wikimedia sites

What's your take on how attribution and copyrights should be handled cross-wiki? I've recently come across Old revision of Nam Kỳ Lục tỉnh which is a a cut and paste article on the article of the same name on viwiki (with the unused template transclusions making it quite obvious) and I'd like to know what actions are typically taken when associated with the various levels of severity in copyvios. For example, is this egregious enough for revdel, or does it have to be more blatantly obvious with a Google search, or should this be left alone in edit history with the changes noted; in short what actions/judgements do you normally take wrt copyright policy? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to say also that on WP:NPP it states "{{db-foreign}} or {{db-a2}} should only be used in the situation (not very common) where an article from a non-English-language Wikipedia has been cut-and-pasted here. That is not allowed because it loses the editing history, which we have to maintain for attribution to the original authors." Yet I feel more often than not non-English contributions are just as important to Wikipedia (content/notability-wise) as English contributions. And again the WMF wants to retain more editors. What do you think about the language of this information page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects, attribution is required in an edit summary and with {{translated page}}. There is a tag at Talk:Nam Kỳ Lục tỉnh. You can fix the missing edit summary with a dummy edit. Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm also considering moving the page to the alternate name "Six Provinces of Southern Vietnam", but I'm not completely sure what our policy on article naming is. I just feel that that is a better English rendition of the title, but what do you think? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Flatscan. :) TeleComNasSprVen, if you think they're more likely to look for it at that title, I'd recommend moving it. The redirect will ensure that those who look for it in the Vietnamese title (unlikely) will be able to find it. The actual policy is at Wikipedia:Article titles, of course, but it's pretty straightforward...except where it's not. :D WP:UE seems pretty clear, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I have sent you an email; to consider at your leisure. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

EU documents

Hello Moonriddengirl :-), I was looking at a G12 speedy on Environmental noise directive - it takes data from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/directive.htm, and the link at the top of that page leads to http://ec.europa.eu/geninfo/legal_notices_en.htm and the PDF - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:330:0039:0042:EN:PDF - which does say (Article 4) - commercial use, and (Article 6) needs acknowledgement. Thus it's very close to CC-BY - Can you give me your opinion whether that PDF does enough to release for Wikipedia use?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ronhjones. :) The one thing it doesn't seem to mention (unless I missed it) is modifications. The CC licenses we accept explicitly permit modification as well as reuse. :/ What I would do with that is blank it with {{copyvio}} and drop a personal notice to the contributor, explaining the issue and suggesting they seek clarification from the publisher. If the publisher is willing to include the right to modify on the website, then we're gold. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Article 6, Paragraph 2b of the pdf, while not a no-deratives clause, is definitely not compatible with our license. The question is whether that applies to the document in question and that seems for less clear. Dpmuk (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks all for input - I thought it was close (but no cigar!). Typical Brussels... Beats me why we keep paying them...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up National Arbitration Forum

Hello,

I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to rewrite several copyvios that had been in the article for years. I will now have to get to work to include other perspectives about the National Arbitration Forum to satisfy WP:NPOV. Again, thank you for your help in removing the copyright problems. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Hi Moonriddengirl,

We would like to advocate for MusicBlvd.com, a competitor to MetroLyrics, both licensed lyrics providers. We are trying to get Wikipedia to verify that MusicBlvd.com is indeed compliant with copyright and and lyric licensing laws.

You can see MusicBlvd's response here - Dear Wikipedia, We Love Musicians More than Lawyers.

This is in response to this Wikipedia thread by other editors https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Music_Blvd_lyrics_Links

MusicBlvd.com should be added under the "Lyrics and Video" section in the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs

Can you please help us in setting the record straight?

Thanks

Trystanburke(talk)

Hi, User:Trystanburke. I'm sorry, but I don't have any special authority there. However, I can say that your post on your website is not usable under our general approach to copyright. Anyone can create a website and post content on it claiming to be from third parties granting them legal license to material. Unfortunately, while many people who wish to place content here are within legal rights do so, we do sometimes have people claiming authorization they cannot prove. This is why we require that license be confirmed by the parties themselves. If MusiXmatch wants to publish something on their website clarifying the terms of any license have extended their license to you, that may be helpful. Alternatively, they may be able to email info@wikimedia.org from an email address clearly associated with their domain clarifying the terms of their license. But please note that even if the copyright question is cleared up, that doesn't guarantee that MusicBlvd.com will be added to that section. That's an editorial matter for volunteers who work in that area to determine, if they feel that the links are useful to the pages they might appear on, beyond the question of copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Arab Archery

I'll try to start a new page on Arab Archery without the copyright problems. Can you send me the previous deleted page on "Arab Archery" without copyright questions so I can start again with the external links and other housekeeping items?

Thanks in advance.

Hadden (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Actually at Arab archery. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Demiurge1000. :) User:Hadden, I can certainly give you the categories and links; they are below. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-creative content from the article
References and bibilography
  • "Compound bows first appear in Mesopotamia in the dynasty of Accad (ca. twenty-fourth century B.C.)," W. F. Albright and G. E. Mendenthall, "The Creation of the Compound Bow in Canaanite Mythology," fount. Near Eastern Studies, I (1942), 227-29, citing H. Bonnet, Die Waffen derVölker des alten Orients (Leipzig, 1926), pp. 135-45.
  • Lawrence, Lee. 2003. "History's Curve." Saudi Aramco World. September/October 2003.
  • Nicolle, David. 1991. Rome's Enemies (5): The Desert Frontier. Page 19.
  • Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. 1971. "The Symbolism of Archery" Studies in Comparative Religion, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Spring, 1971).
  • Lawrence, Lee. 2003. "History's Curve." Saudi Aramco World. September/October 2003.
  • Latham, J. D., W. F. Paterson, and Ṭaybughā. Saracen Archery: An English Version and Exposition of a Mameluke Work on Archery (Ca. A.D. 1368). Page XXV.
  • Kennedy, Hugh. 2008. The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live in Da Capo Press. Page 115.
  • "Fédération Arabe de Tir à l'Arc"
  • Faris, Nabih Amin, and Robert Potter Elmer. Arab Archery. An Arabic Manuscript of About A.D. 1500, "A Book on the Excellence of the Bow & Arrow" and the Description Thereof. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1945.
  • Grayson, Charles E., Mary French, and Michael J. O'Brien. Traditional Archery from Six Continents The Charles E. Grayson Collection. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2007. A brief overview of traditional archery -- East Asia -- The Islamic Crescent -- Tribal Asia and Oceania -- Africa -- The Americas -- Europe.
  • Latham, J. D., W. F. Paterson, and Ṭaybughā. Saracen Archery: An English Version and Exposition of a Mameluke Work on Archery (Ca. A.D. 1368). London: Holland P., 1970.
  • Lawrence, Lee. 2003. "History's Curve." Saudi Aramco World. September/October 2003.
External link
Categories, template

{{Archery}} [[Category:Archery]] [[Category:History of archery]] [[Category:Weapon history]]

Cold?

Best wishes
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. :) But not too cold at the moment! It is 10:00 p.m. and 68 degrees in Raleigh right now. North Carolina. So unpredictable. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

Am I allowed to use the second image in this article? I want it for the propaganda section on an article I am writing on the sexual violence during the Rwandan genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy solstice-related (aka winter-in-the-Northern Hemisphere) holiday(s)!
To my very good Wikipedia friend, I wish you a joyful "winter in the northern hemisphere holiday" or "northern solstice day(s) in the southern hemisphere holiday", whichever of the holiday or holidays you celebrate (all or any)! Invertzoo (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


Jayadevp13 is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Also have a very Happy New Year! - Jayadevp13 06:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Dougweller (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.

Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Happy New Year! MER-C 09:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow! That's awesome news. :)
And thank you all for the holiday wishes above. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

Lol, not sure where to post. Anyhow, Happy New Year and a question. Are there guidelines for an editor to delete another editor's comment in the talk page, if that other editor created a user name to post a single inane comment and then unsubscribed from their temporary username? Politis (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

From as far as I know, you can delete comments only from your own talkpage. However, I don't know about threats or other stuff. The only thing I know is that all of the Wikipedias are different. For example, a Russian version of the same site, prohibits users to delete any comments even from their own talkpages unless they are harassing, threatening or as you described above inane comment. There was an episode that I eye witnessed here when someone put a vulgar comment on someone's talkpage, like two months ago, his account was blocked, but the comment remained. However, let me know if I misunderstood the point. I too am trying to help.:)--Mishae (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The inane comment is not offensive, just inane. The user who wrote on 27 December was, "Idaeananvil". But two days later (29 December), that user does not exist anymore. Therefore since that user is probably a troll or a practical joker, I was wondering whether we could delete his comment on the talk page. If any doubt, no problem if we cannot. Politis (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There are guidelines, User:Politis. :) See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and especially the section WP:TPO. It seems like that user still exists, though - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Idaeananvil. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Nikolaos Martis

I added some refs and fixed some dates. I was surprised that the Greek sites say that he was born in 1916, while the Greek Wikipedia says it as 1915, which should I trust? For now, I established it as 1916, therefore to avoid future confusion, however your input is needed. If you want to, you can move this discussion to the article talkpage. Also, I have translated some sources, though my Greek is bad. Do however check for copyvio please, although I am certain that I did the correct way. Many thanks in advance!--Mishae (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Greek media obituaries give for his DOB 1916 [34]. I therefor think English Wikipedia has the correct date. Politis (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Politis. :) It's all down to what reliable sources say, User:Mishae, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source, no matter what language. So if Wikipedia says one thing and the sources say something else, go with the sources.
Thank you for expanding the article again, Mishae. I have no reason to check for copyvio unless you especially want me to. While we may check to see if there are issues when the same contributor puts content into the article, I don't see any reason for concern when somebody else does. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Question II

Sorry this got archived while you were having festive fun. Am I allowed to use the second image in this article? I want it for the propaganda section on an article I am writing on the sexual violence during the Rwandan genocide. The paper which printed it is now defunct, as the editors and staff are in prison for genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to be sure we're talking the same thing, I'm seeing the second image as the cartoon.
That's a complex question. The fact that the paper is defunct doesn't mean copyright has expired. The fact that a person is a criminal doesn't mean that they don't have any legal rights at all. Beyond that, I don't see any information there about who owned the copyright -- the publishing newspaper might, if it was produced in-house, but if it was licensed or if it was a work of a staff member who did not relinquish copyright to his or her work, then it could belong to an individual. Rwanda is a Berne Convention signatory, so we have a copyright agreement with them, according to Wikipedia:Non-US_copyrights.
I think you'd probably have to rely on WP:NFC to use it, although it won't hurt my feelings at all if you want to ask at WP:MCQ. Images have never been my area, and it's possible that somebody there will know a reason why it's clear. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Dmitri Jurowski

O.K. Since you are awoken, can be so kind to test the above article for copyvio and/or close paraphrasing? You see, a bot have labeled it for copyvio, but another user removed the tag, while another user issued a concern that it was legit and not bots mistake as I mentioned on @Ironholds: talkpage, who mentioned you there, but I decided to ask you it myself instead... Either way, in my opinion the bot was wrong, and two admins have no doubt to believe that he is, but one admin believes that the bot was right and everyone around him is wrong. Can you check for close paraphrasing (which was user @Mogism:'s main concern), and let me know if there are any too-close paraphrasing. Many thanks in advance.--Mishae (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mishae. If two admins believe the bot was wrong, I'd rather put my focus on the 18 day backlog of content at WP:CP. :/ Those articles are generally blanked and need admin attention. If the one who thought it was an issue would like a second opinion as well, I'm happy to see if I can help. Otherwise, if the tag has been removed and not replaced, it seems like the matter may be resolved? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
O.K. Many thanks.--Mishae (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, now two admins think that my article contains close paraphrasing. First, one admin was saying that the bot is correct, while the other one removed the copyvio tag, and a third was saying that my text is not close paraphrased. Now he is kindoff siding with the one that said that the bot is correct, and in the mean time someone made a substantial edit to my article, so that it probably doesn't look like a close paraphrase issue any more. However, I would like you to comment on user @Ironholds: talkpage, and bring your opinion to the table as well (not to mention that he was waiting for your input there for a day).--Mishae (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay; as a courtesy to you, I've weighed in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's plagiarism, but not sure if it's copy vio

In the article Economic history of the United States, section on the Gilded Age [35], beginning with the sentence The "Gilded Age" of the second half of the 19th century was the epoch of tycoons. It's copy pasted from a book, according to this site [36] from "Outline of the U.S. Economy" by Conte and Carr. It's also on other sites such as this [37]. The book is apparently a US gov publication but I don't know if that puts it in public domain. The linked site states "has been adapted with permission from the U.S. Department of State.", which would imply that permission to copy is needed.

Is it a copy vio?  Volunteer Marek  06:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:Volunteer Marek. :) I'm not sure why About wrote that. :/ It's from Country Studies, which are PD. I found the content here: [38]. I've tracked the text at least as far back as April 2006 (it's older than that, but I stopped looking there). It wasn't uncommon then for content to be added without note of explicit copying; the guideline was not adopted until 2009. :) I note, though, that there has long been a tag in the references section, which is sufficient under Wikipedia:Plagiarism, although the link was broken. I've changed the link to an archive from 2006. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you!  Volunteer Marek  10:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi MRG, I hope all is well and you had a good Christmas etc. I wonder if you could advise on a matter of copyright in lists. Crisco has pointed out (in this thread) that a list page I've done some work on may fall foul of copyright rules. Could I ask if you'd be good enough to comment on my talk page about whether using the BFI list is acceptable or not? Many thanks indeed! - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2014

Dear Moonriddengirl,

Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.

I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia; may our encyclopedia make information and education available, without charge, to everyone in the world.
All the very best from Invertzoo (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ashton 29

Hi MRG. Just a courtesy note to let you know that I've taken this user's unblock appeal to AN, under the standard offer. All the best - and a happy new year! Yunshui 雲‍水 09:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you. :) Weighed in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Mirror template

Hi, I vaguely recall seeing a template for situations where an external source mirrors our article. I've just come across what may be an example - compare this source to our article - but am unsure whether (a) this is actually confirmation that the source mirrors us and (b) if it is, then what the template should be.

The article is not good even now and it seems possible (gut feeling) that we've actually lifted it from the source at a date prior to it first being archived by Wayback. I'm unsure how to confirm/deny this. - Sitush (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, btw, it is obviously not a reliable source but that is a different issue. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, User:Sitush. :) I think what you're looking for may be {{Backwardscopy}}.
That's a tough one. We can't rely on the oldest day of archive to exclude copyvio, since (a) Wayback may lag by up to 6 months, (b) Wayback doesn't get everything on the web, and a page may have been added to rounds after it existed already, and (c) even if Wayback is already archiving a site, a page may seem younger than it is if the URL changes after its creation. Wayback can be a useful tool, of course, but works best when it can just confirm copying because it predates our content. :)
So, I look back in the history of the article to see if large chunks of text were added, and then I look to see if changes moved the content to be more or less like the external site.
And here's our problem - the content was copied, no matter what the date is on the archive. The person who pasted the content added the URL, so we know the URL existed first. Just to confirm, we look at the change he made five minutes later - the content becomes less like the source, as he alters a sentence. (I would guess the source used to have parenthetical citations, which he also removed.)
So, I think your gut is right on here. I'm cleaning it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure

Hello! I see you are active at WP:SCV; I was wondering if you wouldn't mind closing this discussion at WP:NCR. Consensus has been met, we just need official closure so I can promote the article in question to GA status. Here is Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/guidelines#How_to_close should you need it. Thank you! — MusikAnimal talk 21:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have been closed since you asked. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

2nd Opinion on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eugenia Lean

Trying to clear out the SCV from 4 December and would like a second opinion on this one. Personally I think it's still close enough to constitute a copyright problem but as someone other than the original creator has tried cleaning it I'd like a second opinion if you'd be as kind as to supply one. Dpmuk (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! :( I don't know how I overlooked this, User:Dpmuk, with the handy little "you have new messages" things at the top of the page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries, looks like I got a second opinion by someone else deleting it! Dpmuk (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Arun Yadav

  • Hello. Page by this name was earlier deleted in 2010 for copyvio (ref this). I just wanted to inform you that I have created this page with sole purpose of redirect. Trust this will be in order and you will approve of it. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. Cheers AKS 12:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:Arunsingh16. There is no issue with creating pages for content that was deleted as copyvio as long as the new content is not a copyvio. :) Redirects and even articles are perfectly fine and do not need pre-approval. Thanks for editing! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

308 word quote from Newsweek - too long?

See [39]. I also think it's too long in general, but the editor insists it all has to be in the article. Thanks. Hope you had a good break during the holidays! Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it very probably is too long. :) I note he says in edit summary that there was no response to his note on the talk page - it might be helpful to talk to him about the value of combining paraphrase and quotation. Generally, if somebody is willing to enter into dialogue about it, I think it's a really good idea to join them so that they move forward with a better understanding of the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I've been distracted - an ArbCom case naming me, just now a sock/stalker, etc. I will do that though. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, dear! That would distract me, too. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks both, I've posted to his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Louis J. Posner

what the what? Honestly, I think it all needs to go away. Tell me what you think. Dlohcierekim 16:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That one really confused me for a minute. :) I've reverted the copy & paste move and semi-protected the redirect.
I don't really know. Looks like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Joseph Posner closed as no consensus. So unless there's a more successful AFD, it's not going anywhere. :D But the edit war going on there is pretty strange - do you think semi-protection would be appropriate, User:Dlohcierekim? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I did and undid. I am recusing myself as I cannot be objective. I thought 170 was another Lawline sock, but I think it's just a wikignome that walked into the mess unawares. The other IP stopped after I blocked him long enough to take a breath. (the quacking was hurting my ears.) Dlohcierekim 16:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
LOL! He asked for a move on the article, and it seems like a sensible request, so I moved it. Not a total wikignome, though, given this. But I really don't know much about the subject, so i don't know if it should be included or not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Burbles, shaking head, staggering from the scene of the calamity. Dlohcierekim 16:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Setting aside for a moment the whole sock puppetry thing (both the 108 and 170 IP editors are pretty well implicated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lawline), the move seems to have messed up a couple of links. Talk:Louis_J._Posner - the Talk page for the newly renamed page - redirects to the article; and in addition does not carry over the (fairly extensive) discussion that existed at the Talk page under the prior article name, Talk:Louis_Joseph_Posner. There is also much older discussion material in the history at Talk:Louis_J._Posner. I don't know what needs to be done, but it seems to be something! Otherwise, the move is fine with me; what's really stunning is how by dint of sheer persistence and puppetry, this blocked editor seems to be able to muck things up enough that he's able to restore several articles to his preferred versions! JohnInDC (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As an immediate (& provisional) fix, I redirected Talk:Louis J. Posner back to the active and still remaining page at Talk:Louis Joseph Posner. It's clumsy, and it really doesn't do to have a Talk page with a different name than the article, but it seemed like a better short term solution than letting new discussion take hold and fork off on the old, and obsolete Louis J. Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, JohnInDC. Your immediate & provisional fix worked. I've now moved the page - it didn't happen automatically because there had been content at the former page. Another alternative (also provisional) would have been to copy the content over to the new talk page. Either way, as long as conversation continues uninterrupted, there's no issue. :)
The older discussion at Talk:Louis_J._Posner was already copied over to the new page, so it's all still there. But I've done a history merge anyway. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Abilene paradox

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

Hi, User:IjonTichyIjonTichy. :) I don't know why the site was blacklisted, but the thing to do in that case is request whitelisting for either the website or the specific page. I'm afraid I don't do that much with blacklisting - but it seems that it was added to the global blacklist by User:Vituzzu here in late December. According to the log, he says it's widely spammed. Directions for requesting whitelisting are here: Template:Blacklisted-links#What_to_do_next. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

LINKVIO question

Hi MRG, I reverted this edit earlier today as I think it may be in contravention of our WP:LINKVIO policies. Can you let me know if I've taken the right course here, or if I'm justified in the revert? Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
That's great - many thanks! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Three things

Hi, MRG, Happy New Year! Sorry to bother you yet again. I came here to say three things, but I see that JohnInDC has already said one of them, about the Posner talkpage. I posted here a while ago about what appeared to be a copyvio at Carlos Lopes (Guinea Bissau) and Atameru. I've just removed what is (I think) more or less the same copyvio screed from that article for the second time; Crisco 1492 dealt with it the time before that. Two questions: should the user be discouraged in some way from continuing to add the same sort of stuff? And do you think that it is likely that the copyvio is in fact foundational, that this version was copied from here or an earlier version thereof? In case that isn't enough, could I ask you or one of the faithful watchers to take a look at Academy of Art University? It seems to me very probable that this edit in 2006 was copied from here rather than vice versa, but I can't prove it through archive.org. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Justlettersandnumbers, and Happy New Year to you as well. :D Always happy to hear from you. I've indefinitely blocked Atameru. I would prefer a limited block, but when the user returns so infrequently indef is generally our only option. It should catch his attention enough to at least engage on the issue, but there's also the chance that the article will next need semi-protection. The oldest form of the UN bio I've found, which was cited at creation is [40]. It looks to me like it's probably a close paraphrase of this. I've tossed in a basic rewrite, and i'm out of time. I'll have to save your last question for later and hope somebody else gets it first. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I trawled a little further through her contribs and came upon this. (see this for instance.) I have no doubt that she is a representative of the school adding content to the article from their materials.
I can show that the content on the external site would have had to have been copied (if it were) from our website within a month of its addition. See [41]. Note that our article was changed to read "His tenure" rather than "His vision". The original still says "His vision."
Given that Wayback cautions that there may be a 6 month gap before pages are archived and that they can't help at all when sites are rearranged (if it has a different domain pagename), we can't use lack of earlier archival to exclude copying. So, what we have is:
  • Duplication of content at the original site (strongly indicative that they had it first)
  • Inappropriate content for Wikipedia (strongly indicative that it was written for another purpose)
  • Early changes to the content on our site predating the archive are not reflected on the site (indicating the content is older than the archive indicates)
Policy at WP:C requires caution with copyright. Those three factors lend to removal of the material. Justlettersandnumbers, would you like to do the honors? And I don't suppose you've ever put any thought into being a Wikipedia:Copyright clerk? :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm constantly amazed at how good you are at this, thank you for making it seem so easy. I've done something at Academy of Art University, no idea if it was the right thing or not, criticism welcome. As for your last question, that really took me by surprise! No, I hadn't thought about it, particularly as I seem to be out of my depth here most of the time; but now, if I may, I will read and think about it a bit, and reply later. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Benson Bobrick, The Fated Sky: Astrology in History (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005), p. 7.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_53&oldid=1168305266"