This is an archive of past discussions with User:Moonriddengirl. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have stayed cool and tried to solve the matter and I guess that I succeeded in resolving the dispute. Thank you once again. :D --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I will cry. I am frustrated. See this. The user is so reluctant. See what he writes on my talk page:
"just because someone calls themselves a "news" site does not mean they are one or meet the Wikipedia reliable sources. Please stop turning the Wikipedia article into a giant promotional blurb and fan page . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)"
User:Tamravidhir, you are both edit warring, and that has to stop immediately. I know you mean well, but you can't keep reverting somebody just because you disagree with them. The changes that User:TheRedPenOfDoom are making are not vandalism; he just disagrees with you. But neither of you has been using the talk page of the article to discuss your differences. That's where discussion belongs. That allows other users to read your dispute and help settle it.
You both need to stop reverting each other's changes (completely or partially) and talk about it on the talk page. You can use WP:3O or another dispute resolution method if you need to to get others to help you settle the matter. But stop reverting. Talk about it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Whether that's true or not, User:Tamravidhir, that doesn't make it okay to revert. :/ There are only a few things that let you keep reverting - they are listed at WP:3RR. Even if he's wrong, you need to get "consensus" to show that. Try to talk about it with him with an open mind and if you two can't agree get other people to help you. Otherwise, the article may be protected so neither of you can edit it (often in what you will think is the "wrong" version) or one or both of you may wind up blocked. This isn't good for anybody or the article. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. i am extremely sorry, for a while I lost patience, but he is too reluctant to listen. i would beg and request you to tell him properly about WP:RS, I can't understand why he calls all references of Bade Achhe Lagte Hain as unreliable. As you are an admin, I need your help. Please I know that you might not want to get involved but please. --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the tags as they are irrelevant, the sources are not unreliable at all and the content is encyclopaedic. --Tamravidhir (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Tamravidhir, you say "for a while I lost patience"? Since I told you to stop reverting and you read my note, you have reverted him two more times. :/ The involvement I take here isn't going to make you happy - since the way things are going I will either wind up protecting the article or blocking you for edit warring. I've told you how to resolve the dispute the right way. Revert-warring is not the right way. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
User:TheRedPenOfDoom, I appreciate that you have stopped reverting. The tags would be appropriate to flag the dispute, but at this point they would need to be added by somebody else, as you are also in danger of crossing WP:3RR. You may have already crossed it, but certainly would with your next revert. I'm not at all interested in blocking anybody here - I just want you guys to talk. It's clear to me even if not to each other that you're both working in good faith here and want to improve the article, even if you disagree with how that's done. Take it to the article's talk page, RedPenofDoom and User:Tamravidhir, please, and get others involved if you cannot agree. You both do good things for Wikipedia, and it's best for Wikipedia if you both keep doing them without edit warring. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
As per TheRedPenOfDoom's suggestion I have deleted the Music section which did not have reliable sources and he claimed the section to be WP:UNDUE weight. --Tamravidhir (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That may be a good compromise, User:Tamravidhir. I'm glad that you are trying to work with him. :) Please, talk to him about it on the talk page of the article. Article talk pages are important, since articles do not have "owners" and when you discuss disputes there you make it possible for others to help out. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I hope that now the dispute would be resolved. He has pointed out some mistakes and I have asked him to fix the errors. Thank you so much Moonriddengirl, and sorry for whatever I did.Being an editor for last 2 years I should not have done it. I am shamed. I promise that it will never ever be repeated. --Tamravidhir (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Tamravidhir, shaming you would never be my intention. I know that you are a hard worker who really cares about making good articles, and you have done so much to improve Wikipedia. Because of that, you got upset. I think probably everyone does sometimes; certainly, I have done. What's needed is a reminder to calm down and approach the matter differently. It can feel like an emergency when somebody makes something "incorrect", and sometimes it is, but usually it is not, and it's almost always better to take the time to talk about it and get other people to help resolve disputes. If this were easy, we would not have so many pages talking about how to do it. :) I hope you will continue working on that and other articles and just remember to slow down when things start getting upsetting. I am grateful to you for stopping to reconsider your approach and putting an obvious effort into working with him. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much Moonriddengirl but I just can't makethe user understand. Comments made by producers, and other crew members aof the show with reliable sources are acceptable. Even the plot section is acceptable as long it is summarized. Wikipedia tells that Michaelangelo created David by cutting out what was not David. I have tried to maintain it but the user tell it as unacceptable. Even information about the show taking major leaps with a impact on the show's TRPs and shooting with reliable sources is unacceptable as per the user. And he talks very very rudely which is more disappointing, and this is not the first time. The user tells :
such wonderful nuggets as "Kapoor had to introduce the five-year leap" (oh really? had to because of a court order? had to because of a gun to her head? )
You tell me Moonriddengirl, what to do? I just can't make the user understand, I am fed up! --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:Tamravidhir. It would be nice if people were always courteous, but it doesn't work that way. :/ Sometimes people sound more impolite to us than they intend; I myself try to ignore the tone of comments and just talk about the issues, although this is sometimes hard to do. Sometimes, though, if you are very polite yourself, it seems to encourage other people to become more polite, too.
As I said above, if the two of you do not agree, the next thing to do is to neutrally ask somebody else to help you reach consensus. This has to be a neutral request. You can't say, "Please help me convince this guy" or anything like that. You have to say something like, "Please help us settle this disagreement." If it sounds like you are trying to get somebody to come help you, that is a problem under "canvassing" policy. WikiProjects are a good place to go for help sometimes, although when there are only two of you in a debate you can also ask for help at WP:3O. That is a board especially for asking a third person to help out. To use that board, you would need to create a section on the talk page of the article (which is, remember, where disputes about pages should be primarily discussed - not on your personal user talk pages) and neutrally describe what you disagree about. You can share your opinion on what is right on the talk page of the article, and it's a good idea to ask him to share his as well. Then the third party can read both of your opinions and decide which they agree with. You may be able to reach consensus that way. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I think that the matter has been resolved...but I am still sceptical. But I will keep my fingers crossed. --Tamravidhir (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you give me some advice on the copyright status of banknotes? Just seen an editor scan and add them to an article, I vaguely remember this was not acceptable so I've reverted the addition as a precaution. WCMemail19:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl,
Thank you. I do not recall copying and pasting, there are only so many ways one can write about laws. I did wonder if using them as a source was OK. I figured someone would come along and inform me. I have learned how to respond to comments, which is nice. Julia Clark (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok
Ok I understand I just didn't like being threatened with being blocked as I am new to editing and didn't mean to,
Please do not blank out harvington school page
Dear Moonriddengirl, please do not blank out harvington school. There is no copyright infringement.
If you have any queries, please contact the school.
Spinning Around, today's featured article on the main page
Hi,
Thanks for you help the other day with Belle. I was just copyediting Spinning Around, which is on the main page and wanted to check something so I followed a link to one of the sources. The article text is very close to the source in wording and structure, but I didn't want to remove it as suggested on the copyright page since the article is today's featured article. You seem to be well up on the ins and outs of copyright infringement on Wikipedia so I thought I'd ask your advice..
Here's the text in the article:
British artist and photographer Katerina Jebb came across the hotpants in a flea market where she purchased them for fifty pence. She gave them to Minogue, who wore them in a photo shoot for her website and then to a fancy dress party. One night before the shoot for the video, a last-minute search through Minogue's wardrobe was conducted to find a suitable outfit and the gold hotpants were singled out. The media attention the clothing piece would garner had not been expected by Minogue, who said "I never imagined what impact a 50p pair of hotpants would have."
and here is the source:
Legend has it that these now iconic hotpants were discovered by photographer Katerina Jebb at a flea market and cost just 50p. Kylie wore them in a photo shoot for her website and then to a fancy dress party, before they were re-discovered in a last-minute search through her wardrobe the night before the video was to be shot. The amount of attention this garment attracted was unexpected. As Kylie says, "I never imagined what impact a 50p pair of hotpants would have ..."
Hi, User:Bellamora. Yes, that's a bit close. It's not a substantial amount of text, but I would recommend rewriting it a bit - especially through the precise duplication of "wore them in a photo shoot for her website and then to a fancy dress party. " :/ I've managed to skirt the "what to do when it's on the front page" question through my contribution "first thing in the morning" pattern, but what I would have recommended is revising it and leaving a note explaining the issue of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for the contributor or on the talk page. If that's an isolated issue, that's probably all I'd do. It can happen. But if there are more widespread problems in the article.... I hope there are not more widespread problems in the article. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I've done as you suggested. I doubt the problem is endemic in the article as most of it is reportage. Bellemora (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Updates 20 April 2014
. . . continued from here. I am still trying to report it to Wordpress team, and they are saying, my full contact details including phone number will be forwarded to the abuser. Good then, why not embedding a Google Map and mark my residence in the report? Looks like, I am inviting them for my wedding. They have no scope for individuals. I may surely share my full contact details including mobile number, but will their team give me security if I face harassment later? — that's the question I have asked now. Thank you very much that you don't threaten to forward all contact details to the abuser when someone comes to report any simple and clear copyright violation to you. I know where the shoe pinches. --Tito☸Dutta02:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Titodutta. :/ As I said, they are required to give enough information to that guy to contact you. The law isn't specific on how much information that is, and it looks like they're going overboard on it. I can only repeat that [1] looks to me like sensible advice, and note that he recommends: "If you are worried about your privacy and need to file a DMCA notice, I would encourage you to provide your full information but use an address where you can be contacted but isn’t a place that you live or work at. The same goes for your phone number." It doesn't have to be your home address or even your address. It just has to be place you can be reached. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello — could you peek at an article built from copy-and-paste content which might not cross the threshold of originality for copyright? An external Website posted a page listing model numbers of equipment, simple lists of bare model numbers. A Wikipedia contributor used some of that external content, made minor changes in format, and created a Wikipedia article from it. Such a minimal stub has a variety of obvious issues, but the copyright question isn't quite so obvious. Are model numbers, or plain lists of them, too obvious and unoriginal to be covered by copyright? The article in question is List of heavy equipment equivalents, created in 2012. Thanks for any time you can spare. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, 50.181.30.121. :) From a copyright standpoint, I think we should be fine here. The selection of the items is not likely to be creative, and the information is purely factual. The structure doesn't seem to have creativity issues, either. While I am not a lawyer, I would be comfortable marking that one clear if it came across WP:CP, based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. :) Thanks for considering and checking into it! --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for those corrections in the WIKIPEDIA article on me. However, one item got lost between the cracks:
The entry PHILOSOPHY speaks in line 7 of “medieval and late Arabic logic.” The expression “and late” should be deleted. All the texts I dealt with were medieval.
Note that this is just a correction. Do please arrange to have it made.
Hi. I wonder if I could ask for your non-lawyer, no responsibility advice about something?
I'm getting quotes from several professional medical illustrators for an anatomy image I'll be commissioning. I explained that I would want the image to be released under a Wikipedia-compatible license. The first quote has come in and at the end of the letter they said "Please note that we retain the copyright to all created work, but that you may use the illustration as you see fit." If they release it under CC-BY-SA, do they still, technically, retain copyright? (I presume so, since they would be retaining the right to attribution, and control over sharing.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Anthonyhcole. Sure! Any time. :D Basically, yes, they still retain copyright. WP:C says, (striking links, 'cause i'm lazy like that): "You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain so licensed until they enter the public domain when your copyright expires (currently some decades after an author's death)." All that matters is if they explicitly grant usable license. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I swear I'll read WP:C before coming here again. --19:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don’t know anything about signatures, but I think I can help with your second wish. The Oscar photo is hosted on Commons, which generally observes the copyright laws of the country of origin, and the piece‘s being on public display in Australia makes it non-copyrightable as a subject for photos there. The statue in the AMAA photo does not appear to be a public exhibit, and moreover the file is hosted here on enWP, whose copyright policies generally follow US laws (conservatively or cautiously), which don’t include “freedom of panorama” (except for buildings). If the design of the statue has been released into the public domain or is otherwise free, I expect the photo can be kept, but evidence of same would be required: the default assumption is that it’s copyrighted. If the photo is exempt from consideration as a derivative of the statue under Nigerian law, it could be uploaded to Commons—but you might have to do some legwork, citing ‘chapter & verse’, to get it cleared there, because Nigeria isn’t one of the countries for which they have a ‘nutshell’ copyright policy.—Odysseus147904:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Well, the Nigerian constitution exempts the capture or broadcast of copyrighted works that were/are placed in a place that can be viewed by the public. The picture of the statuette was taken at 2013 AMAA ceremony, so uploading the image is appropriate and not breaking any law. Infact, generally using a copyrighted work for educational purposes, research purposes, private use, review or for reporting current event is allowed as long as the title and author of the work is accompanied with it. Here is a link to prove it. I don't think there is even any law covering autographs signed. the deletion is so unjustified, and she deleted a lot of images as well because of her personal suspicion. Like really?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's the basic situation, User:Jamie Tubers - content on the English Wikipedia must meet the copyright laws of the United States. On Commons, it must meet the copyright laws of the United States and the country of origin. Content you place here must comply with our policy, including our application of fair use (see WP:NFC). In terms of your claim about exempts the capture or broadcast of copyrighted works that were/are placed in a place that can be viewed by the public", can you tell me what specific section you believe supports this reading? If you're talking about section (d), can you verify that this statuette was permanently displayed for public viewing? If another section, it would need to apply to photographs, and not just broadcasts.
As a general rule of thumb, though, you should know that now that it has been confirmed that you have violated our copyright policies on numerous instances, policy permits the removal of any content you have added to date - "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." (WP:CV). We try very hard to avoid removing content that we don't have to, but sometimes it may happen. Mind you, it might help substantiate your claim that you are the photographer of some of those images if you answer my question at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Jamie Tubers and demonstrate that you do have high resolution copies of the pictures you uploaded, including intact camera metadata. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I was refering to (a) and (c). the (d) talks about reproduction (it requires the work to be permanently situated in public). But (c) talks about capture in film and broadcasts (and it doesn't require permanent situation). Isn't Wikipedia a type of broadcast? besides (a) already permits use for reports on current event or review as a fair use (And the AMAA article is a report on current event). The thing is, Nigerian constitution is not so sophisticated that they list out every possible situations that things can be done, they are made to be related with similar situations. You can ask any Nigerian legal personnel.
About the investigation page, I don't intend posting anything there. No point, since they blocked me before listening to any explanations in the first place. Since you said all my free images were deleted cos of WP:CV, it's fine. And I'm asking again cos I'm not clear on this, is it a copyright infringement on Wiki to upload a signed autograph? And do you mean that if my country allows the upload of AMAA statuette image, It still doesn't suit wiki but I can upload it on commons?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No,Jamie Tubers, Wikipedia is not a broadcast - a broadcast is "the distribution of audio and video content to a dispersed audience via any audio or visual mass communications medium, but usually one using electromagnetic radiation (radio waves)." C does not apply to us. You cannot upload it to Commons if it is not legal in Nigeria and the United States, and based on the document you linked it and your description of the taking of the photograph doesn't seem to be legal in either.
Fair use is subject to Wikipedia:Non-free content and must conform to that. Even if you believe it would be legal fair use in Nigeria, it is not usable here if it doesn't not conform to our policy and guideline.
What I'm hearing from you with regards to your other images here is basically that you are continuing to assert that the low-resolution images you uploaded were originally taken by you, but you aren't willing to verify that. The reason why this concerns me is that you don't just have a history of uploading content from other places, but of claiming you were the photographer. When you uploaded this file as File:Residential area Abuja.jpg., you wrote in the file description "i took the picture". When you uploaded this picture as File:Lagos Apartments.jpg, you wrote in the file description "i took the picture while in Lagos". I trust you can understand why it is difficult for us to accept your word that you have taken the more recent pictures that have been deleted as having been published elsewhere, when you will not demonstrate it. You said on your unblock request that these early copyright violations happened because "I wasn't familiar with the copyright rules" - but you didn't just upload stuff that was copyrighted, again, you actively and personally claimed that you were the photographer. Are you saying that you are NGB and ita.stephen? If so, I can easily reach out to them to try to confirm your claim.
You said at your unblock request that you had stopped uploading copyrighted images once you understood our copyright policies, but the last image you uploaded was this one, which you claimed was "from a free published source" - can you explain why you thought that was a free published source, given the copyright symbol on the page? Is there something else on that website that caused you to think it would be okay to upload? That was less than a month ago, as File:Omotola Jalade Ekeinde Invest Africa.jpg. Knowing why you thought that was a "free" source would be very helpful. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
About the pictures; I would've have loved to prove it! I'm familiar with one of the accounts (the one on Flickr), the other one - I don't know (but may belong to someone I know as well). But for the claim to be confirmed, I'd have to tell these guys that Jamie Tubers is ME. That doesn't only translate to me coming out as a wikipedian, I'd have to reveal my identity as well. It's just not worth it! So don't bother. Thanks anyway. I will definitely get to snap pictures again during the holidays; and this time, I will upload them on wiki before giving it to anyone that loves it.
Jamie Tubers, that's mainly because of my continued concern that you seem to be claiming to have photographed all of these images, even now. This matters far more to me than a single image that may not be usable for other reasons. (I refer you to Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons.) WP:AGF is not a suicide pact; it's one thing to be unfamiliar with copyright policy and even copyright laws. It's quite another thing to say you photographed something you did not. In terms of the website you say that you're not sure that you know, Stephen.ito uploaded the picture in August 2008. You wrote that you took the photograph in April 2013 - "2013-04-23". This was not an "autofill", and it certainly was not the date you uploaded the image (that was in December) - you typed this in the description box. Please be straightforward about content you add to Wikipedia, with accurate information about sourcing. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
This now includes a full copy from the New International Version which is copyright, not sure if there's a solution. I don't know about the Hebrew as it isn't sourced, but that is probably out of copyright (it says original Hebrew which led me to discover that our article on the Book of Exodus doesn't even mention the earliest texts of it). Thanks Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, User:Dougweller. Does this not exist in out-of-copyright translations of the Bible? I know the UK regards the King James Version as in copyright, but it meets our standard of being free in the US. :) I would assume the Hebrew is okay, and we generally can just replace copyrighted Bible verses with free versions. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Fine, I'll ask the editor to do this. I just wondered if you knew if we had a standard solution, it might be useful to have a list of translations that can be used. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a list of translations that can be used anywhere, but I found [2], which handily indicates the copyright page of modern translations and does give date of publication for a number of older editions. I only recall this coming up once before, so I do not know if any editors have created lists. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed it but he put it back, quoting "the text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without the express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 25 percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted." The Song of the Sea is 18 verses, but I'd be surprised if we haven't quoted over 500 verses between all our articles. How do we deal with this? It's got to be a common problem, not just with the Bible which at least has a lot of versions. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The last time this came up was some time ago, and the standard that was applied was across articles, not in a single article. So far as I know, we haven't received much guidance on this from the legal team, although I could put on my work hat and ask for a meta:Wikilegal analysis if you'd like to request one. But Mike Godwin, when he was our attorney, did have us remove content from the DSM (some version) when the publisher complained about the cumulative impact across articles, for what that's worth. (That was painful.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what the DSM is (that's a dab page), sorry. I have no idea how we would figure out how many verses we were using, but if we just ignore it then we are essentially saying copyvio is ok from Bibles. So maybe we need to have it somewhere in our policy. Bottom line is that it bothers me. It may be worse with one version of the Torah, if that's copyright. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
For me, it's a "choose your battles" situation. I try to prioritize the more significant dangers, but that doesn't mean that I'm not concerned about other stuff. Just...well, we can't keep up. And sorry for the disambig link. :) It's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - basically, editors had been using descriptions of mental illnesses from the DSM across multiple articles, and the APA complained that cumulatively it represented a substantial taking. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl. A few weeks or months ago I came across a post, almost certainly by you, explaining that it is a mistake for administrators to apply temporary blocks to serial copyright violators, and that blocks should instead be indefinite. The post explained that this was because, unless and until the blocked user gave any indication that they understood the problem, they were likely to continue the copyright violations, which would often get overlooked for months or years. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find this post. If it was you who made it, or if you know who did, could you help me locate it? Since reading it I've seen at least a couple temporary blocks of completely uncommunicative copyright violators, and I would like to show it to the blocking admins. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Did not happen over the weekend due to a really inconvenient illness in my family. :P (Not dangerous illness - just very uncomfortable and grumpy-making.) I'll poke it at today a bit and ongoing. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The article First Aid Kit (band) has been deleted and restored a few times. Last time it was restored, previous revisions that were restored included copyright violations deleted as such[3], as well as many early revisions pertaining to a completely different band of this name (which, if they were notable enough for an article after all, should probably be at a different location from the band now covered in the article). As for the copyvio material, it was restored to the article after its last undeletion in this edit. Some of its DNA may still be in the current text, although successive changes seem to have washed most of it away.
Thank you, User:Hegvald. I've cleaned it out again; I think the last time it was entered probably in good faith lack of awareness of why the content was removed. :/ I've put a note at the talk page explaining. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 28 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hi, Psychonaut. :) As a general rule of thumb, I would base that on what the CCI disclosed at large. The more copying we've been able to verify, the more likely I am to lean to presumptive removal of content where we aren't sure. In this case, it looks like he mostly added sources? It might be worth in this case removing text he added, leaving sources for text that predated him, and using {{CCI}} on the talk page to invite people to review. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems you're right that this user was mostly adding references rather than text. I'll remove or reword any novel text from this article and mark the CCI as closed. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Transclusions on CP
Hello, Moonriddengirl. As always, you are doing truly yeoman's work on copyright problems. I noticed this edit in which you removed the 4/20 page and added the 4/21 page to the main page list. There is one unresolved issue on the 4/20 page, which nominator TheGGoose asked me about on my talk page. (I guess I fooled him into thinking I know what I'm doing around here. 笑) I wasn't sure if you made a mistake, or I just failed to discern your intent. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, User:Cnilep - my mistake was not updating the 20th page. :) (I thought I had done that.) I cleaned the article before removing the daily listing - [4]. I see that TheGGoose's note was from the 28th, before my changes. I'm guessing what confused him was when it fell off the 'older than 5 days' list and did not appear in the top section as due for closure. Alas, our bots have disappeared. :( I asked bot operator User:VernoWhitney about it two weeks ago, and he indicated it could be a while before he gets to work on it. I don't suppose you have any skills with bots? (she asked, hopefully). Until we get the bot back, pages are routinely falling off the rotation, which is why I added the hidden comment in hopes of avoiding stuff getting missed altogether. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Great; I'm happy to see that the work-arounds are working, but sorry to say that I don't have the knowledge to edit bots. TheGGoose will presumably be happy to see that the issue he flagged has been addressed. Thanks again, Cnilep (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Help
Sorry to disturb you once again but User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom is back with edit warring. I am asking the user not do delete information from the article Bade Achhe Lagte Hain but the user says that it is pure promotional blurb. I have also asked the user to discuss on the article's talk page first but there's no response from the user's side. The user's literally harassing me. I am going to look out for a third opinion but I would also need your guidance. Please help! Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I went through WP:3O, but it says that there must be a discussion regarding it on the talk page. Bu the other user is not responding and is just going on saying that it is promotional. I would request you to take out some time and look at the article, especially the introduction part and the plot and the shooting part, and inform me whether it's promotional and against the rules laid down by Wikipedia. Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:Tamravidhir. You didn't leave a message at the article's talk page until 4:25 UTC, after your second message here. :/ The first step is to try to talk to other people on the talk page. And then you wait. If he talks, you try to come to an agreement. If you can't come to an agreement in spite of reasonable effort on your part to see his point of view, then you try to get others to help resolve the problem. If the other person doesn't talk to you, then you have different approaches, but you need to give him a few days to see if he persists in editing without talking before concluding "the other user is not responding".
In terms of your last question, looking at just one piece of content removed, I cannot see where [5] substantiates the claim that "The show became one of the most watched shows of 2011, helping propel the Sony Entertainment Television India network to number two in the rankings". Since this is not obvious in the source how we know that the show was one of the most watched of 2011 and helped propel Sony Entertainment Television India to anything, I do not believe that removal is vandalism. I am not interested in debating my conclusion with you, just to be clear. I have no intentions of getting involved in content discussions related to the article. I feel it would be grossly inappropriate for me to do so, as I would no longer be able to respond neutrally.
That said, proper communication is important. In fact, sometimes the difference between vandalism and not-vandalism is the use of an edit summary. (This is not to suggest that failure to use an edit summary is always vandalism, but removal of sourced content without explanation is regarded as such when the reason for removal is not apparent.) I am happy to see that User:TheRedPenOfDoom has been subsequently using edit summaries on his removal to help avoid misunderstandings. I would encourage you both to lay out your positions on the talk page so that the matter may be properly resolved through conversation or dispute resolution. Both of you should keep in mind that edit warring does not require three reverts; if there's no sign of efforts to resolve a disagreement except through article edits, then edit warring may be occurring and blocks may follow. I'd recommend you review WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and consider the use of the talk page essential. It's not always possible to agree, but it should be always possible to disagree reasonably and to use the dispute resolution processes where necessary to resolve issues. Refusal to engage in consensus building is in itself disruptive. Consensus building is sometimes hard, but it's the best path forward. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:Hackery21. The same page that tells you I deleted it tells you why. :) It was a copyright problem, and it was listed for more than 7 days for somebody to fix it, and nobody did. Unfortunately, the contributor who created that article was a serial copyright infringer, copying content from multiple sources into articles on Wikipedia. When such copying is discovered, it is either removed or, if it cannot be simply removed, the article is blanked to allow the community time to either obtain permission to use the text or to write it over from scratch, without copyright problems.
While that particular version of the article was deleted, however, there is nothing to stop somebody from writing a new article which fits our policies and guidelines. If you are unfamiliar with these but would like to start an article, I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article. In brief, you should rely on reliable sources to verify information included about the subject, make sure the information is included neutrally and without including your own thoughts on the subject, and make sure that the article is written in your own words, except where you may use brief, clearly marked quotations to establish context or attribute a point of view (see Wikipedia:Copy-paste). --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, Hackery21, writing about family members can be really challenging. The community suggests that you don't in case your relationship with him makes it hard for you to write neutrally or to stick to sourced facts. (I'm sure it's difficult if you know something about somebody not to include it because you can't prove it.) See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. While writing about family members is discouraged, though, it isn't forbidden by policy. In such cases, I think it's a really good idea to submit an article through the Wikipedia:Article wizard so that before publication it can be reviewed by experienced editors. (The Article Wizard isn't just for this kind of thing- it's a good idea for people in general who are working on their first article. It can help you avoid a lot of the issues that can result in your first article being quickly deleted because these reviewers will tell you if they see problems.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:Abhishek191288. I'm afraid I don't really remember, but we can still evaluate the situation. :) Given similarities in their editing patterns, I think there's little doubt that you are right. Copyright issues are clearly ongoing - with content like this (which you already removed) taken from [6] and this - and this in spite of a temporary block for copyright issues in April of last year. Even if he were not a sock account, a block at this point would be appropriate, but I believe we have ample evidence in crossover contributions that he is. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
CCI info
There are a lot of new files for this CCI. Have tagged everything that I thought might be questionable. Think George had been doing this a while back but it looks like he's been tied up with college. Didn't realize just how many there were until this. We hope (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding that CCI, can it reviewed after a few years, especially in light of the fact that many of the deletions were erroneous? For instance, We Hope's unconcern with Wood-Beatty image rationales, subsequent noting of copyfraud by Corbis and others, which that editor relied on to delete over a hundred photos; or their impression that "U.S. copyright law" is merely a "concept." Of course I realize that mistakes in my numerous uploads have been made, such as my estimating a photo was pre-1978, when you discovered it was actually taken in 1979, or my error in not finding Life magazine copyrights. But I question We Hope's statement: "Have tagged everything I thought might be questionable." The statement would be more accurate if it stated, "I have tagged everything." Can they simply continue to ignore AGF and keep otherwise valuable images off commons due to the probably outdated CCI? Just asking. --Light show (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, User:Light show, User:We hope. First, Light show, please be sure to review WP:AGFC, which is the relevant portion of the "Assume Good Faith" policy that deals with copyright issues. Ordinarily, I would assume that new uploads after a CCI has begun are fine, but unfortunately there have been additional issues since your CCI started; you were blocked on Commons in November due to ongoing copyright issues. That means continued caution may well be appropriate. I realize that you believe that the standard of care required is unnecessarily high (and outright rejected the standard of care suggested by one of the WMF attorneys at your CCI), but this is not a view embraced at large on our projects. While I have long noted that you add many valuable images, I believe that requiring review of your images prior to transfer to Commons is probably very appropriate given issues here and there and the so-far unwillingness of any Commons admin to reinstate your contributing privileges there.
User:We hope, it's a truly unfortunate thing that we do not have many people on English Wikipedia who work in images to help out with reviewing image-based CCIs. :/ I truly do not know what to suggest here - any talk page stalkers know a savvy image admin who can look through these more recent uploads and see if issues are ongoing? --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
My trick for images is a google or tineye reverse image search and generally trying to find the oldest and/or largest version of the image (if a copy) that comes from a reputable news/journal/book site to try to identify the photo credit or details needed to evaluate the copyright nature. I do note that if we can't verify certain things, like if the photo is PD-old, we generally have to assume non-free. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Note that I did not "reject" what the attorney said, but pointed out that they were discussing different types of photos than were the issue. In effect, I was extending copyright protection to "production stills" and posters, that the attorney said were usually not copyrighted. Just wanted to clarify that. There was nothing I disagreed with. --Light show (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The attorney recommended certain practices to verify that the content is public domain, and you have so far as I can tell adopted none of them. :/ If you do not disagree with her, why not? --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, all of them have been adopted. If you want to start a new discussion using more neutral language and specific examples, I'll reply. --Light show (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
My attempt was to use accurate language, User talk:Light show. :) In terms of adopting all of her recommendations, she specifically mentions three things: "Did the image contain a copyright notice? How was the exact image released? Was the image release “general” or “limited?”" - looking at your most recent upload, File:Tim Rice - 1981.jpg, I see a date, but none of the other information she suggested you need to determine copyright status. The image you uploaded itself says that the picture was for use in a single news story - specifically, Sunday, December 13, 1981. Where in the image description do you describe how the exact image was released and whether it was "general" or "limited"? What research did you do to determine if the release was general? --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The fact that it was taken by the press and published in a newspaper is proof that it was "released" to the "general" public. FYI, the term "limited" publication in most cases relating to that question have included examples such as an author's private manuscript being given to a publisher for review, an architect's drawings, and other documents obviously intended to be kept private. --Light show (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
What you have there seems to be a private transmission of a photograph; how do you know that there was no copyright notice on it when it was actually published in the paper? Have you been able to review the publication to determine if the image was in fact released and released with no copyright notice? --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
A photo given to a newspaper, book publisher or magazine, for the purpose of general publication, is not a "private transmission." More on this can be read here. Another example of a "limited publication" would be advance copies of a speech given to the press before it was presented. Of course such confidential materials would be "limited." Note that in Warner Bros. Entertainment v. X One X Productions, (2011), the court affirmed that such photos were in the public domain because they had not been published with the required notice or because their copyrights had not been renewed, and the mere dissemination of such photos constituted a "general publication". And this fits the basic definition of publication per the U.S. copyright law, that "publication does take place if the purpose is further distribution, public performance, or public display." I believe Carl Lindberg and Avenue have discussed that also. In addition, unless the photo was taken by a publication's staff photographer, a publisher's copyright to their publication does not automatically protect the photos they purchased. Photos have a totally separate copyright registration.
But if you'd like to digress a bit, and focus on the heart of the matter, the middle ground for most of these copyright issues is located somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean, midway between the U.S. and Europe. While the U.S. has clearly defined, longstanding, well-legislated and very strong copyright laws, Europe's are not. As Commons editor Stefan4 explained, Copyright registration doesn't exist in Europe and there is no such thing as "renewing" a copyright. A copyright notice has no legal meaning except for old Polish photos. It's also why it's usually only U.S. courts and businesses that go after massive music, video, photo or text infringers in other countries. --Light show (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Masem, some of the uploads originate with wire services such as AP and UPI. Library of Congress tried to determine the copyright status of their photo holdings from the services and posted the following information for both. APUPI :
In an attempt to determine if [agency] registered any copyrights and if those copyrights were renewed, Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed. However, the Library’s legal office has advised the Division that photographs published with proper copyright notices between 1923-1963 may be protected if properly renewed, while works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office. Additionally, researchers should be advised that determining the copyright status of photographs can be problematic because of the lack of pertinent information, and researchers often have to make calculated risk decisions concerning the appropriate use of an image when its copyright status is unknown or ambiguous."
Some who were active with Commons DR haven't been active at Commons for a while. My thought would be Denniss, who is a Commons admin and I believe is also an editor here. For the record, Denniss was not the blocking admin of the user at Commons. He was operating under two user names and Denniss blocked the old user name account. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been active both here and under his Commons user name but isn't a Commons admin. Maybe one or both might be able to give some time to this. We hope (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I'm extremely concerned when I see that Light show/Wikiwatcher1 is continuing to upload images without properly verifying their copyright status. After being blocked at Commons for failing to properly vet their uploads, the editor has simply resumed uploading here; while their recent track record is better than the practices which resulted in the Commons block, it took only a cursory review to find gross errors. For example, File:Sid Caesar - Coca - 1973.jpg is an absolute botch from top to bottom.As the file description notes, the photo was taken by Ed DeLuga, a photographer for the Chicago Daily News. The reverse of the image shows it was published in the Chicago Daily News. This is a news photo, not a "publicity photo", and the source copy was apparently part of the newspaper's "Morgue file". Unless the Chicago Daily News itself was not copyrighted on publication, a rather unlikely practice for a major newspaper, this is plainly not a free image; the uploader's analysis raises some fairly basic WP:COMPETENCE issues. File:Victoria Fyodorova - 1980.jpg is not so bad, but still includes plain errors. Although the image is identified as a 1980 publication, it carries a copyright tag useable only on pre-1978 photos, and is categorized as a pre-1978 image. It's also described as both a "press" photograph and a "publicity" photo, which are, of course, entirely different things. File:Malcolm McDowell - 1977.jpg is similarly PD-tagged and categorized as a pre-1978 publication, even though the earliest date stamp on the source copy is 1981. And, with errors like these so easy to find, it's hard to have the necessary confidence to rely on the uploader's claims of "no registration" for files like File:Tim Rice - 1981.jpg.
Peter Youngren WikiPedia Page
My name is Rob White and I am the Business Administrator at World Impact Ministries, USA.
In context of the "History" section of the Wikipedia entry under Peter Youngren, there are several misrepresentations of facts. Some, though sourced, are possibly libelous.
First of all, the "copyrighted" content that was deleted is now in the public domain from the website PeterYoungren.org. Please see the updated notice on the website that this material is not copyrighted (http://www.peteryoungren.org/impact/about_peter/ ).
Also, please note the following errors:
1. Peter Youngren's first marriage did not end in divorce in 1982.
2. The report of Youngren fathering a child has been reported to the appropriate Authorities/Police as libelous and unsubstantiated.
3. Youngren did not step down as President of Open Bible Fellowship due to any discovery of fathering a child.
4. Youngren's Wife Taina Youngren has not been sentenced to payment of 49,000 Euros nor did she receive a jail sentence. This matter was dealt with in Lahti District Court in Finland, August 2013 and all criminal charges were removed.
We have been seeking legal advice regarding the sources. Thank you for your consideration.
My request is that you undo your last two edits ...
Hi there, I would also like to add that the constant changes in the bio of Peter Youngren is violating some terms in wikipedia's own words on BLP's in that it's "not a tabloid" or place for spreading "titillating claims about people's lives."
"Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material."
Can I borrow your eyes (and expertise) when you get a moment?
On a trip down memory lane I noticed that Poznan Science and Technology Park, an article I axed a while back of copyright grounds, was recreated. Not usually a big deal, our policies allow for that, however I got concerned when i went to see what the differences were and found at least two paragraphs from the deleted copyvio version that appear to at or near verbatim recreated in the new version. I'm not sure how close an article has to be to its formerly copyrighted self to be an issue here, but I'm concerned about it, so I thought I'd ask someone to look into it. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, TomStar81. I've had a go at the article with some general cleanup. :) The site that was copied formerly seems to be gone, and while I can access it via Wayback, I can't find the particular text that was copied. However, looking at the article in general, it reads to me like the creator was trying to rewrite it in original language. It altered considerably through most of the text. Since I couldn't find matches, I think it's probably okay - that said, I have revised considerably including adding more sourced content. I wasn't sure if the park was notable, so I searched to find out. Now I am. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Plagiarism report
Hi
I'm the person who documented the routine plagiarisation of DramaWiki by Wikipedia articles on Korean dramas a few months ago, with examples which you then deleted. I just found that the article My Tutor Friend 2 has a "Plot" section entirely lifted from its second *cited* reference (the harsh 'Korea Times' review).
(FYI, the critic's right - the movie's pretty bad.)
Thank you. I'm not entirely sure where that came from originally - it was cited to the Korean Times and also published there. Either way, it didn't start here, so I've removed it. :) You can remove these copied plots yourself, by the way. Any editor can. I would simply recommend noting in the subject line why you are doing it and putting on the talk page something like {{subst:cclean|url=DramaWiki}} (or whatever source is used). That will let people know why you removed it. :) You can see Wikipedia:Copyvio101 for more about this and other options. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Spectra Energy Edits
Hi Moonriddengirl,
The Spectra Energy Wikipedia page (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Spectra_Energy) has some outdated information. I was hoping you could please let me know the best way to have this page updated.
Would the best way be for me to provide you with the updated information (and sources) here? or is there another way to do so?
Hi. :) Recommended processes are at Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. You can also see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. You can correct or update simple data yourself, if you cite your source, but if you think there is any chance that the content may be controversial you would be far better served putting your recommended changes and sources on the article's talk page and adding {{Request edit}}. This will invite and uninvolved editor to review the recommended changes and make them, if they are policy compliant. I really do appreciate your interest in working within the site's policies and guidelines! --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyright on species descriptions?
Hello dear Moonriddengirl, it's me Invertzoo, asking for your insight again. Here is a discussion copied from my talk page, many thanks for any light you can shed:
"Thanks for the thanks! Just a small point, is it right for me to quote a description exactly from an original description, as I do in Plocamopherus maculapodium - citing the source. The original paper also gives details of internal anatomy and radula plus more details. I'm trying to create a resource for getting a quick look at the species in each genus, plus hoping we will get an image for each. Rudman's Sea Slug Forum is no longer active and I think Wikipedia has a great role to play interfacing the people out there taking photographs (lots of them now) with the scientific papers plus accumulating knowledge of distributions. There are many undescribed species, Gosliner's team added about 91 last year alone. The taxobox structure provides such a neat navigation system. BernardP (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)"
"Hello Bernard, thanks for asking that important question. The basic answer is no. I am not even vaguely an expert on copyright matters, but here is my 2 cents worth: at Wikipedia in the gastropods project we do sometimes quote some descriptions verbatim from some very old sources (sources that were published over 75 years ago in the US are OK I think under US copyright law), but we can't do that for a 2006 description, unless for some peculiar reason it is in the public domain. And even when it is allowable to quote something verbatim, you must put it in "quote marks" as well as giving it an inline citation. Actually, come to think of it, I believe small direct quotations are allowable from almost anywhere, but they can't be more than a line or two, not great chunks of text. Someone who really knows about copyright issues is User:Moonriddengirl -- you could ask her anything about copyright problems that you need to know. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)"
"I've been on copyright classes and there is the clause of "fair usage". It seems to me that part of a species description within a paper describing the species and several others might well come under that heading. Such descriptions are quite precise and it is really not sensible to be rewriting them if they are good and no new information is available, as in the cases where I've used them. Is there a way of tagging Moonriddengirl into this discussion? There is also the consideration of whether there is copyright in this case as the paper itself is freely available. [7]. With some scientific journals moving to a free access model I suspect that such copying may be permissible. BernardP (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)"
Hi, User:Invertzoo, User:BernardP. I'm sorry for my delay - I had a lot of family activity over the weekend and then a busy day at work yesterday. :)
Unfortunately cc-by-nc is not compatible with our license, BernardP. :( Well before I arrived on the scene, the community decided to allow commercial reuse of our content to encourage its dissemination as broadly as possible, even in areas where others might have to charge for replication to offset their expenses. Our WP:NFC guideline and policies are deliberately constructed narrowly in part to help avoid pushing the line and also to make sure that content is usable internationally, where fair use or fair dealing restrictions may be very different. (This is part of our commitment to marking non-free content, so it can be identified by reusers.)
I understand that coming up with original language to convey species information may be difficult, but I'm afraid this may be necessary. While the US copyright laws that govern Wikipedia do not protect non-creative speech, the threshold of creativity is very low, and creative elements include not only descriptive language but also facts chosen and the order of facts. For one example of how low the threshold is, consider American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans ([8]), where even taxonomic classifications are found to be copyrightable. In one specific example selected to demonstrate the creativity, the Court noted:
Number 04267 reads "guided tissue regeneration--nonresorbable barrier, per site, per tooth" but could have read "regeneration of tissue, guided by nonresorbable barrier, one site and tooth per entry". Or "use of barrier to guide regeneration of tissue, without regard to the number of sites per tooth and whether or not the barrier is resorbable". The first variation is linguistic, the second substantive; in each case the decision to use the actual description is original to the ADA, not knuckling under to an order imposed on language by some "fact" about dental procedures.
It might be helpful to think of it in comparison to photography. A nature photographer does not create the Pheidole purpurea when he takes a picture of it; presuming it's alive and free to move about, he doesn't choose its placement or pose. But though his photograph may be merely capturing what is there, with no special filters or recognizably artistic elements, it is still protected by copyright under US law. Or looking back to the document I have linked above, maps. Maps are recorded observations of natural phenomena, but they are explicitly protected by US copyright law.
While there may be an interesting legal challenge here, Wikipedia is conservative on questions of copyright law. In the absence of verification that these are public domain (such as a legal precedent which we might use to determine consensus - I have not seen any myself, but would love to), I believe we should treat them like other copyrighted content and restrict our usage to brief, explicitly marked excerpts, employing original language instead in general principle. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much MRG for your very detailed and helpful reply. I don't know if Bernard has read it yet, but I left a note on his talk page telling him you had replied at length. Thanks again, and all good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyvio that may lead to an experienced editor's indefinite block
At WP:AN#Proposed topic ban for 2 editors there is discussion of an article whose original form may have been related to something published by the revisionist Institute of Historical Researh (pardon me while I go vomit) by the Holocaust Denier Mark Weber. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 May 9 where I've added a link to a discussion with a comparision of the article and the material it may be copied from. This is an issue which has involved a large number of editors and hundreds of hours I'd guess and 2 AfDs. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, you have deleted a page recently for copyright issue, the page of Francois Raffoul. If there is redundancy or duplicate text with an attached link to his university public page, why not delete that link? Would that not resolve the problem, if indeed there is some duplicated text? 201.192.97.154 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Thank you...
Hello, 201.192.97.154. I'm not sure what you mean by "delete that link" - perhaps you mean to delete all content copied from a specific source? If so, this can sometimes resolve copyright issues, although sometimes copied content is so embedded in a page that it must be started over.
The article in question was covered for over 7 days with a note explaining that it might be deleted after a week if either (a) permission was not provided for the text, or (b) the content was not rewritten by somebody. As a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, Wikipedia relies on volunteers to do the necessary maintenance work for articles. Unfortunately, nobody chose to rewrite the content. Quite frequently, I will choose to rewrite content myself if nobody else does or to at least leave something, but in this particular case I did not because I was personally unsure of the suitability for inclusion, given that this particular subject does not seem to have advanced much since the community determined he did not meet inclusion guidelines at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Raffoul. --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
We might not need it. :) Looking at the history, there've been a few proposed changes rejected but not much that is outright vandalism or BLP stuff. Personally, I'd be inclined to see what happens. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm constructing a list of collegiate societies and noticed that you deleted a page for Tau Sigma Delta on some copyright concerns. May I see it? I'd like to correct the problem, as it is a legitimate society for Architecture and Allied Arts, part of the ACHS, and clearly is notable as there are many, many similar societies with WP pages. Really, just for curiosity, what could they have done that caused you to delete them? I'm unaffiliated with them, but intrigued now. Jax MN (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:Jax MN. :) What they did that caused deletion is copy content from [9]. (Archived versions available here.) This copying was detected by a bot and flagged for review; the contributor was offered an opportunity to rewrite the content from scratch, but did not. It has nothing to do with the notability of the subject, but entirely to do with compliance with our copyright policies. You are more than welcome to create an article on the subject as long as any information taken from copyrighted, incompatibly licensed sources is written in original language and structure, except for brief, clearly marked quotations. (Text taken from public domain or compatibly licensed sources may be used more liberally as long as any licensing conditions are met and it conforms to Wikipedia:plagiarism.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
As I reconstruct what happened here, my assumption is that this was just another newbie WP editor that walked away from our encyclopedia after a brush with The Rules. He/she didn't try to de-plagerize the page, eh? So simple to do, but sometimes life, unfamiliarity with our website or our zealotry get in the way. And I've always had trouble with the 7 day rule for non-disputed items like this. The original writer without a doubt wants publicity for his or her organization. So everybody concerned loses when we rush to delete. --Regardless of what a bot says.
Had recently gone through copyright.gov to check on this File:June taylor dance 1958.JPG taken in 1958 by the Detroit News and found the paper didn't renew its older issues. So--that relates to File:Mike Todd - 1956.jpg this 1956 photo taken by the paper. I've changed the license to PD-not renewed and listed the results of the copyright.gov search. Does the "Do Not Copy to Commons" tag stay on this one or not? Thanks, We hope (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you can remove that one. :) I really appreciate your continued focus here, User:We hope. I know it's thankless work (believe me) and feel guilty that I can't give you more support. :/ Unfortunately, images are just not my area. I wish we had more people who could and would help out. :( --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input--will remove the tag. Thought it would be OK to do it, but wanted to check first. ;) I have Skelton up for GA at present, which wouldn't have been possible without your help, due to the two online sources copying from it without credit and putting their own copyright notices on WP's work. We hope (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hoping you can clarify a few questions and apparent contradictions related to copyright and commons.
One of countless images like this one, uploaded to En/WP out of necessity and licensed as PD, are tagged with an ominous-looking warning notice: DO NOT TRANSFER THIS FILE TO COMMONS. Within the added text it includes a condition, until the file is thoroughly investigated it should not be moved to Commons. That's sort of like a STOP sign with small print underneath saying "unless you're careful."
Is that a contradiction or redundancy, being that an entire section called What not to transfer is linked with every "Copy to Commons" tag, such as on this image? And those tags state clearly, "Please thoroughly review the copyright status of this file and ensure that it is actually eligible for transfer to Commons."
The "What not to transfer" section makes no mention of CCIs as a factor to consider. However, images like Carroll O'Connor have already been tagged with the CCI rationale, and the reason for deletion was never fully explained.
Not to overburden you, but in light of the fact that only a few of a hundred or so PD images uploaded to En/WP this year, like the previous ones, have actually been deleted, shouldn't the CCI be concluded? It has already been the primary cause of my being blocked from Commons and now has prevented even En PD images from being moved there by others, not to mention the ugly warning notice defaces image pages that general readers see. Thanks for any reply. --Light show (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Light show, the CCI will be concluded when somebody has finished reviewing it. I'm sorry that there is a backlog, but you are not alone - you're not even the oldest, not by years'. And we have precious few people on Wikipedia who are willing to work on image-related CCIs. We have far more attention to text CCIs.
General readers do not see the warning notice - they don't show up in articles, only on the image description page. As the new Multimedia Viewer comes into play (currently accessible under "Beta" features, if you wish to try it), they will not see it even when they click on the image. The George Segal article has been viewed 22,446 times in the last 30 days. The image page has been viewed 152.
The CCI is not the primary cause of your being blocked from Commons - the primary cause of your being blocked from Commons is concern about your uploading habits, which is the cause of the CCI. You were blocked in 2013 for ongoing issues, not older ones. I glanced at your talk page, and it seems like a file was deleted there just a few weeks ago (Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ann Sheridan - 1939.jpg) because it had a visible copyright notice on it. You uploaded that file in October 2013 and cropped the picture immediately to remove that copyright notice. You did this with your standard notice that "See also film still article, which explains that publicity photos were traditionally not copyrighted" and a link to Commons:Template:PD-US-no notice which claims that there was no copyright notice.
You upload many good images, but behavior like this is just really hard to interpret in a good light. :/ It makes it very difficult to trust that you are doing any diligence at all and in fact leads me to wonder if you are actively trying to disguise evidence of copyright. It's hard to interpret removal of the visible copyright notice on that image in any other way. But whatever the reason these kinds of things occur, these kinds of things are the cause of your block on Commons and the cause of your CCI. --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm concerned that we are not being as responsive as we should be to Category:Requested edits. While I have some thoughts on how to proceed, I'd like to discuss them with some of the "regulars" and it isn't trivial to even identify them.
If we had a lightweight version of the Copyright problems page, with the key features being that items would be added to the page automatically (driven by the {{Request edit}} template), and we closed items by adding an icon indicating the resolution, with a signature, we would have the ability to identify who is working on them, and how they are resolved. It would be easier to thank those who help if I know who is helping.
I don't have the coding expertise to do it myself, but I'd like to find out who does, to see if CP would be a good model.--S Philbrick(Talk)12:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, User:Sphilbrick. :) The WP:CP page was already up and long running when I stumbled upon it in 2008 (I think). It's evolved since then, of course. I'm really confused by your question, though. I'm unaware of any unresolved Category:Requested edits regarding that page. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place? And copyright problems listings are closed with an icon indicating the resolution and a signature. :) Why would {{Request edit}} apply to reporting copyright issues? I think I may just be really not understanding you here. :D (For instance, I know you know about the icon and signature, because I've often seen you use them.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't want to bore you with the details, but I will :)
You probably know that WP officially discourage editing by people with a COI. This isn't new, but there's been a bit of activity recently, on Jimbo's page and elsewhere, in connection with the related intense discussions about paid editing.
In theory the solution is simple. We ask people with a COI to post the desired edit on the article talk page. If it is an active page, something will happen, but if not, it could sit for months. To aid that process, we ask editor to add a template, which adds the request to a category. While nowhere near the same traffic as CP, the backlog is three months, and it is only that short because User:CorporateM did a one man backlog drive and cleaned out the oldest ones.
We ask editors with a COI to follow a process, then we as a community fail to respond in a timely manner when they do what we ask. I think we can do better, but working on an improved process means I first need to know who is doing what now. That isn't easy to figure out, and I thought if there were a page for requested edits, which was deigned similar to that of CP, it would be easier to keep track of who is helping, and encouraging more help.
My overly simplistic goal was to find the person who designed CP and ask how we could design a parallel process for Requested Edits.--S Philbrick(Talk)15:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Ahh! All is clear now, User:Sphilbrick. :) I'm afraid that I'm not really sure who designed CP, but whoever it was, they moved on to other projects years ago (either off Wikipedia altogether or to other areas of focus). The basic set up seems to have been in place as early as August 2003, but I bet there's older edits that were lost years ago when whatever catastrophe cost us some of our history. It was very rudimentary, but the same basic idea as we have now: [10]. When I stumbled upon it in 2008, it had all the templates that we're familiar with and handled both images and text. I moved to separate out images because we had other venues for that and because the backlog was horrendous and I was the primary person working there. (Sometimes only person.) At that point, though, we didn't have icons & signatures to show who worked on what. We struck out issues as they were resolved, best I recall. I think the icons and signatures were my idea, but at this stage, who remembers? (Apologies, fellow copyright workers, if I'm wrong there and am stealing your thunder. :D) But, honestly, the reason we don't have a huge backlog at the moment is because we have a very, very small group of people who don't give up. Well, we do have a huge backlog, of course- but it's at WP:CCI. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll check with user:Hasteur who has been active with wp:AFC and seems to know how to do stuff. I haven't all that active at CP recently, but it seems to be under control. And CCI, I knew about the Energizer bunnies Wizardman and MER-C but I just stumbled across the work of Dana boomer. Holy cow, I was impressed by the wok on one CCI, then poked around and see so much more.--S Philbrick(Talk)16:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@User:Sphilbrick If all you want to do is be able to easily identify other editors interested in helping out with Request Edits, I think AfC sets up a good model for that here by simply asking participants to sign their name. If you want to be able to review recently accepted or declined Request Edits in order to make sure they are done properly that might be more complicated, but I think it might still be possible without much help from a technical expert. We just need a page just like this one that is sorted by date, but for other categories[11][12]. In my opinion, if 3 editors spent 1 hour a week (lets say) on Request Edits, that would be more than plenty and all that is needed to eliminate any excuse for COI editors like myself to make edits in article-space besides the clearly mundane stuff (assuming the reviewers make the right calls). CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Awesome. :) I did a lightweight CCI this morning - on User:Suzycue1234. Any talk page stalkers aware of issues surrounding beauty pageant contestants? They've been popping up on my radar over the last year or two with serial copyright issues, and I'm wondering if there's some kind of COI ring or something that I don't know about.... --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
There is something funny about this... I had a look through that account's deleted edits and found a lot of stuff with maintainence tags dating before the articles' creation. A quick search of the list of deleted files found nothing. MER-C05:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Constantine of Berat
Hello Moonriddengirl! In 2009 you seem to have deleted Constantine of Berat on the grounds of copyrights infringement. I immagine that the relative article of Robert Elsie was copied mot-a-mot. Can you please give me a copy of that article so that I can check whether there is anything I can save from it before I start it myself? Thanks! Regards. --Dojumatufeps (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm afraid I can't give you a copy of an article deleted for copyvio, Dojumatufeps, without becoming liable for the copyright issue myself, but the good news is that I don't need to. :) You can still see the contents at the page that was duplicated - http://www.albanianliterature.net/authors_early/berat.html. :) There were only five edits to the page before it was blanked, and three of those were bots or tags. There was no substantial content added by others.
Thanks for pointing out the issue with Robert Elsie - it looks like it has altered enough that at this point it's more of an issue with close paraphrasing and probably not with enough similarity to require much modification, but I'll do an actual human review when I have a chance. [13] I'm not here for long this morning. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for lightning arrester
Thanks for the copyvio cleanup on this article. I felt sort of ambivalent about it. Someone went to the trouble of putting that info there, and it was helpful. OTOH, as I make my living doing this (Japanese>English translator), it bothers me to see the words of someone else used without credit. Maybe when I get some time I can go back to that article and try to recreate a summary with proper attribution. Anyway, thanks again. I think this is my second interaction with you, and you were quite nice the last time too. (Also thanks for the Signpost message -- I wasn't even aware of that. I'm going to look and see if I can get it delivered to me too.) Margin1522 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Is this copied from Linkedin & are they therefore copyvio
This [14] seems to be copied from [15]. I've already deleted a lot of material copied from an article by his ex-wife. I'm sure the editor has a COI but what is interesting, ignoring the copyvio, is the use of "fake" journals as sources (journals on Beall's list of questionable, scholarly open-access publishers), an issue I've raised at the AfD. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't view the full listing, evidently, without getting a full account at LinkedIn, which is more than I'm willing to do. :) What I can see doesn't look like an issue, but I may be missing important passages. As a basic rule of thumb, reproducing a sequence of job titles or publications is not usually going to be an issue unless they are a limited selection thereof - so "Key publications" is a creative favor in determining a list, as compared to "Complete bibliography". And, wow. That article is incredible! --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
His Linkedin profile says
<truncated>
Given that the editor added blatant copyvio before, I'm assuming this went Linkedin to us, but just wanted another comment. This is all pretty flagrantly promotional. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so, it's a quote and is credited to the source. That's the difference. It's also a short quote. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Easiest thing to do here is eliminate the concern. Truncated. :) There's certainly enough creativity in that to count, so I've removed it. I'll leave a note for the contributor. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
There's no specific number. :) Whether or not something is a copyvio is a very subjective thing, and it isn't dependent on word count at all. I didn't remove it because I think it is or is not a problem, but simply because it's not needed anymore. So, no need to worry about it either way - I've handled the issue in the article. --User:Moonriddengirl16:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
3rd time
As I mentioned at the Admin coaching page, now I have applied for the third time meta:OTRS/Volunteering#Titodutta. I don't know why my application gets rejected everytime and no one comments there. I do not inform anyone about my application. Tito☸Dutta17:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, User:Titodutta. I'm sorry I've not seen your note on the Admin coaching page. :( Lack of comments is not unusual - the admins make the decision regardless of what comments are left. It's not a "vote" system or consensus system; it's up to them. What I would recommend doing if your latest request is denied is writing to the admin team or at least the one who declined and just asking them for their reasons and what you can do to better prepare for undertaking this work. Looking at your application, though, I have an idea that it might be an issue that you state you see it as a learning opportunity. It is, but OTRS works differently from most of our other work areas. You don't get a mentor and there is no way for you to easily just observe what other people are doing. You are simply put to work, so they probably want to know that you know what you're doing before you start. :) To work on permissions, for instance, it would be helpful to demonstrate that you understand licenses that can be used and copyright laws and processes. Linking to some of the work you've done on that area on Commons and Wikipedia demonstrating your knowledge would probably help. (You can still do that now for their review this time.) In terms of info-en, you would want to demonstrate that you are helpful to people in the general help queues - the help desk, perhaps, or the Teahouse. That queue is mostly about answering general questions about Wikipedia and directing people to appropriate policies and help forums on the project itself. This is not as rigorous a process at RFA, but you should offer diffs to demonstrate the quality of your work so they will know that you will be helpful once turned loose on your own. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
3rd opinion
On my talk page, I uploaded an image of a product of which I did the photography. File:Grands canned biscuits.jpg Are we really forcing all products to go under fair use? This doesn't seem right but a tagger is very persistent in stating so. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER13:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, User:Dennis Brown. While images are not my area, I think Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Utility_objects probably has the right of it - copyright applies to the printed label. :/ In this case, it seems easily complex enough to attract copyright protection. I don't know about the logo, but the photograph of the biscuit is in itself creative. This is not our call, but simply the way the law on such items works in the U.S. I'm afraid he's probably right on that one. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Jeez, I will just go delete some photos then. Unless it is a photo of a tree, it would seem to follow under this. It seems we are interpreting like Commons, which I've already quit uploading to, and disagree with. Thanks for your input. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER14:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, User:Dennis Brown! I wish that my answer could be different, but I think their interpretation on this issue is probably soundly based in US law.:/ If you take a picture of an item that includes trade dress (including distinctive labeling) incidentally as part of a larger image, it may be de minimis, but when the point of the picture is to demonstrate the thing in itself, we don't have that shelter. Fair use is all we have. Parfums Givenchy, Inc. v. C & C Beauty Sales found that this box was copyright protected because of its package design, which seems a lot simpler than the package design on the product in question here to me. You said in your deletion summary that you disagree with this "interpretation of copyright law" - how do you think it should be interpreted differently? --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
As it means that virtually any photo of any product could be considered a copyright violation. They still retain all rights to their trademarks (and obviously patents) but claiming it must be under "fair use" strips the photographer of any credit and limits the scope of their work unreasonably. I am not convinced that this is the intent of the law. This would mean there is no way to ever show an image of the product without it being fair use, regardless of source, and there is no way to represent the concept in a general article (canned biscuits), as fair use won't allow it. That was the only reason I uploaded the images to begin with. Regardless, I won't argue. I've just chosen to delete the image and won't upload any more commercial photography. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER14:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't strip the photographer of his rights - they just don't extend to the copyrighted elements of his picture. This is an issue of derivative work - the new photograph attracts copyright of its own, but the underlying item retains its own copyright. Canned biscuit could be shown without copyright concern, but not with copyrighted elements - for instance, without a label - such as in Sardine (food). The can itself is a utility item. --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi MRG. I'd be grateful if you could look at the latest comment on my talk page from someone who's added a sentence near the start of my article. Do you have a view?
Hi, Paul. I've removed the sentence; we might note something like that in an article if the press thought it was worth reporting on, but otherwise it doesn't belong in the article. Our purpose is to concisely and neutrally summarize what reliable sources say about notable subjects, not to shoehorn in trivial facts or our own implicit commentary. I'll explain my removal at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry to do this but I have to revert what you have did to the edits of user:121.97.142.144, when he/she reverted the edits of User:124.6.181.166. The revision of the first anon is valid since the latter is a longterm vandal. User:124.6.181.166 has been adding the category "programs acquired by GMA News TV" on several Korean drama articles, while in reality, they have not been acquired, since GMA News TV is a news channel, and not a general entertainment network. -WayKurat (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, MRG, and nice to hear from you again. I had tried to post my comment under the notice at WT:CRIC but I started a separate section for any discussion about cricket articles. Certainly those two Bangladesh history ones look as if they've received a copy-and-paste and I'll review them soon. Thanks and all the best. Jack | talk page11:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
An important request
Dear editors I have created this page SEDS APSN article on order by SEDS-India to spread the awareness of space science and the importance of Student group this cannot be fulfilled by SEDS original page so a new page is required as per the present situation here. I wanted that students must create their own groups for polling their knowledge and for that campaign I require Tis page - SEDS APSN . But I cannot understand why the editors don't understand the psychology of general public of North-East India where space science is justa joke to great extend and people only know Space means NASA. Such a closed view.
Bishalbaishya2012 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Bishal Baishya
Hey, Moonriddengirl. You likely got a ping via WP:Echohere. I take it that this matter is nothing to be concerned about copyright-wise? Or have you simply not looked into the matter yet? As always, I appreciate your help. Flyer22 (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Flyer22. :) <blush> Anyway, that's a problem. Never mind the overuse of quotations without transformation, there's traditional straightforward copy-paste. I've indeffed and blanked both articles. Your help cleaning up after it, if available, would be much appreciated! As is your finding the issue. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl. In a day or so, I'll see what I can do to help. Just ping me if you need specific help on a matter regarding this or something else. Flyer22 (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Moonriddengirl. I have seen you be independent thoughtful and cautious about copyright issues. Can you please share your thoughts on the copyright issues? here? It boils down to whether content explicitly released "without"/"free of" "restrictions" should be seen to be implicitly restricted <sic> to non-derivative use. It seems to me that a release with no restrictions means no restrictions. I asked you here about a bunch of state PD stuff but didn't hear back. --{{U|Elvey}}(t•c)23:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I'm also aware that "public record" and "public domain" don't mean the same thing, and that the right to copy is not necessarily the right to make derivative works. I'm not saying that their copyright reservation is definitely valid, but I can't say that it isn't, in the absence of some clear legal interpretation that it isn't. And, yes, it's more liability than I'm willing to take on, since I don't want to be the target if New Jersey comes looking for the liable party. :/ If there's a clear legal ruling somewhere, the uncertainty goes off the table, and that's fine by me. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm also "aware that "public record" and "public domain" don't mean the same thing (though a long long time ago I hadn't learned the distinction), and that the right to copy is not necessarily the right to make derivative works." Those aren't the issues. Per http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1420364.html a 2009 decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court, records obtained via OPRA may be reproduced including for commercial purposes. but that's not a ruling on derivative works, so it seems to me that the best evidence for which way such a ruling would go is the without obligation language, but if I were you I probably wouldn't take on the liability of saying what it means either. At the time that I asked you, I had forgotten that you were not just copyright -clueful; you were staff too. No reply needed. FYI, I did ask the NJ Records Council but they declined to discuss the issue. I can share the inqiry and reply if you are curious.--{{U|Elvey}}(t•c)05:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
An editor stopped by my talk page asking about the deletion of their draft article for copyright reasons and I believe I am handling their questions related to that. However, they brought up a concern that the History and Tours sections of Old Mission Beach Athletic Club RFC may be a copyright violation as the Club's history webpage matches the Wikipedia article. However, I think this might be a case of OMBAC copying the Wikipedia article versus the other way around. I did some checking with the Internet Wayback Machine and the club's history page was quite different back in 2013, while the material on the Wikipedia article was added back in 2007. I told the editor that I would have another admin whom specializes in copyright issues confirm my findings. So I thought of you. =) Can you check into it and see whom might have copied whom? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, Gogo Dodo, I agree with you that there's some copying from Wikipedia, but it looks like the copying goes both ways. :(
As you note, the history entered here. Very similar to the site as it is today, but with some notable differences. A few months later, we see this edit, which introduced the sentence "1993 saw OMBAC battle Northern Transvaal powerhouse club, Roodeport, to a 18-17 narrow defeat. Roodeport went on to dismantle several other clubs and rep sides in the region." That sentence is in the external source. Along with the wayback results you already have, that's enough for me. It's unlikely that our editor copied their content with minor changes, including omitting that sentence, and then he or somebody else came back two months later to restore it. That part seems to have been authored here.
However, at the time the content was added, the history was at a different location (fortunately it was cited in the article). I ran its old location through Wayback and found the 2006 version.
In the past, OMBAC has toured Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Tahiti, England, Scotland and Wales. OMBAC has also hosted a number of foreign touring sides including the French National Champions of 1991, Toulouse; and Llanelli, the runner-ups to the Welsh Club Champions of 1990 and Welsh Club Champions in 1992 and '93. In 1994 OMBAC hosted and defeated such world powers as the Orrell Rugby Football Club from England and the Brothers RFC from Brisbane, Australia. In 1995 OMBAC was on the losing side in a very physical game with another top English side, the Sale Rugby Club. In 1996 OMBAC played host to one of Argentina's top club sides, Cuidad Universidad de Buenos Aires (CUBA).
In the past, OMBAC has toured Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Tahiti, England, Scotland and Wales. OMBAC has also hosted a number of foreign touring sides including the French National Champions of 1991, Toulouse; and Llanelli, the runner-ups to the Welsh Club Champions of 1990 and Welsh Club Champions in 1992 and '93. In 1994 OMBAC hosted and defeated such world powers as the Orrell Rugby Football Club from England and the Brothers RFC from Brisbane, Australia. In 1995 OMBAC was on the losing side in a very physical game with another top English side, the Sale Rugby Club. In 1996 OMBAC played host to one of Argentina's top club sides, Cuidad Universidad de Buenos Aires (CUBA).
It looks to me at a scan like the sections beginning "Over the years" and "In the past" have to go immediately, unless we get permission. The stuff above that is close paraphrase that needs to be rewritten, as it is closely paraphrased with some limited runs of precise duplication.
I'm not sure how to proceed with this, but I've found that user Doc thompson has been adding copyrighted material (as well as a lot of original research) to the Gardner Fox page. I'm in the process of removing this, but I thought that an admin should be alerted, and as you're the one who blocked him previously you seemed the logical choice. Please let me know how we should best proceed. Euchrid (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this article. I recently did a little editorial cleaning up work, but became suspicious that the bulk of the text has been copied and pasted from another site. Sometimes it is difficult to know whether other sites are merely mirroring Wikipedia, but I guess that this is probably not the case here. Many thanks,
Thank you, Derek R Bullamore, you were spot on. :/ This was copied wholesale from AMG. No doubt they had it first - I found places where parts of the AMG profile were copied years ago, long before the pasting of the content here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Others getting copyright wrong
Another data point supporting the notion that copyright is hard. If even the US Chamber of Commerce gets it wrong, no wonder some editors struggle.
I wanted to ask you about a troublesome CCI article, but before pinging you, I decided to see what you were working on which led me to the GregBard issue. By bad luck, the first entry I looked at had several problems, which colored my views. My subsequent reviews haven't turned up more copyright issues, although I found problems with uncited claims, bare urls, and other reference issues. I see the indef block, and some discussion about what should be in an unblock request. I have two thoughts, which I want to run by you in case there is any merit.
First, a declaration that he will abide by copyright policy seems a waste of words, as there is some question whether he fully understands policy. I would prefer to identify a process he would agree to follow, e.g. never copypaste except for names (to ensure correct spelling), and after an edit, running the duplication detector to see if any inadvertent copying took place, with a promise to check with someone if more than n consecutive words are used and the contention is that it is still ok.
The second aspect is a SMART commitment to helping at CCI. I do not think it is reasonable to say he cannot work on anything other than CCI, but I'm mulling a commitment that half of all edits would be related to CCI issues. For example, pure list articles are less apt to be copyright issues, so one task might be to identify list articles, which someone could them review as a group. Half might be too much, but I think we could find some level of involvement which would be a reasonable request.--S Philbrick(Talk)14:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that we need to be sure that he understands and agrees to abide by copyright policy. His declaration that he disagreed with our approach and so chose to act differently is concerning; I'm much happier to find out that somebody didn't understand the policy than that they did understand and it deliberately disobeyed it. The latter attitude always makes me worry that they'll only follow the rules as long as they think somebody is looking. :/ In terms of "smart" commitment, that makes sense to me. Policy actually says that they may be required to do the cleanup entirely before being unblocked, though, so I'd be okay with that, too. I noted yesterday that he had actually restored one of the copyvios User:Nikkimaria removed when she flagged the problem, leaving it in display for an additional year +. However, I would honestly never take it on myself to unblock somebody in that position without consensus. He's consumed a ton of time from User:Wizardman and User:Diannaa, and I would worry that it would be grossly unfair to them and others who do the work to let him continue without making sure that they are fully confident he won't waste more of their time. That there are now dozens more articles that must be reviewed than there were a year ago is bad enough. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I sent an email to the editor, hoping to engage in a discussion of how to become unblocked, but no answer. No response as of yet, which is too bad, because some of the articles need more than just cleaning. Not asking you to do anything, just an FYI.--S Philbrick(Talk)19:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
GordyB investigation
Hi MRG, re the notice placed on WT:CRIC. I've looked at the cricket articles in the list and I believe the only one presenting a problem is the Bangladesh history, but that has now been resolved. The "dateline" was certainly a copy-and-paste from another site which may or not be entirely reliable. The other cricket articles listed need more sources but I haven't seen anything that looks suspicious. The information seems to be correct and I don't have any issues. All the articles are within the scope of CRIC and I would hope they will be improved in due course. I'll put a list of them on WT:CRIC. May we therefore conclude that the cricket part of the investigation is complete?
Looking at the wider investigation, I have no interest in rugby league but I notice that many of the listed articles are about British RL clubs and grounds. I've browsed some of these and they generally show a distinct lack of sourcing despite containing quite a lot of information which must have come from somewhere. Some of the stuff I've read creates the impression of original research because of subjectivity and I would say that there is a lack of literature about rugby league and that contributors are writing from their own knowledge. Cricket has a huge advantage here as there is a massive cricket literature and online presence. One RL book which is mentioned in a few places is The Grounds of Rugby League by Trevor Delaney (1991) and, for your purposes, it would probably be worth running a comparison with that if it is obtainable. I would suggest application of WP:V across British rugby league articles to try and encourage the RL project to dig out more references. Jack | talk page05:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:BlackJack. :) I really appreciate your looking into this.
First, let me note that I'm not sure the full scope of the cricket section. CCIs are not segregated by subject, but instead by the listing of articles, according to the size of the change. The cricket part will be over when all articles related to cricket have been reviewed and either found okay or not okay as marked on those two lists. But I don't know if some of the articles that don't have "cricket" in the name are cricket-related - the biographies, for instance. :)
Anyway, I'm afraid that there are still some issues. I did a random check in the ones that are identified. I clicked on this: July 2009. A text search from that material finds this was posted in February 2009. So I know he didn't write that text, but got it from somewhere else - the question is where? My gut says it's probably another Wikipedia article. The person posting on Yahoo probably got the material from the same place. Searching finds the content here in December 2008. It entered there in October 2008, but my red flags are rising that it didn't start there, either. Sure enough, I find it was here in September 2008. A revision history search verifies that's the article of origin. See [24], for instance ("overtaken by hockey"). That content evolved there naturally.
So cleaning up just that one edit requires that somebody provide the legally required attribution for the content that Gordy copied from other editors. So I do that. While I'm at it, I will also attribute the copying into the other article. And then I need to look at the other diffs for that listing.
This work can be pretty tedious, but now at least that edit is copyvio-clear, as it is our position on English Wikipedia that attribution can be supplied after the fact (I understand that some other projects treat that differently). I'll go ahead and finish that listing so nobody has to duplicate that labor. :)
I'll go ahead and finish reviewing edits to that article so I can close that listing out.
If you review the listing for an article, can you please annotate what you've done at the CCI talk pages? As long as the listing isn't annotated, the investigation remains open into that article, and somebody will eventually be checking it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done with Cricket in Canada. Every substantial edit was copied from another Wikipedia article - attribution is all supplied now, so that content is okay. :) After the first edit, it got much easier, as the origin articles were obvious. All I had to do there is verify that the text was in the origin articles before it was posted into Cricket in Canada and then, having verified that, supply the required attribution in the edit summary and on the talk pages. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
El Médico
Hello:
La expresión "El Médico" (o "El Doctor") es un nombre común en español para referirse a los médicos. Que el cantante Reynier Casamayor Griñán use como apodo dicha expresión, no creo que sea suficiente para apropiarse de una denominación común de todos los médicos, por eso trasladé la biografía del cantante a su nombre original. Además, hay otros productos culturales con la misma denominación:
The term "El Médico" (or "El Doctor") is a common name in Spanish to refer to the physicians. The singer Reynier Casamayor Griñán I use this term as a nickname not think it's enough to appropriate a common name for all doctors, so I moved the biography of the singer to his original name. There are other cultural products with the same name:
Hello! I am terribly unfamiliar with DCM policy and procedure and have a user with some questions. I see you are actively involved with copyright issues on WP and thought you would be a good person to ask. Would you be so find as to come to User_talk:Kvihill#Mediation_.28statistics.29 and provide input? Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
A copyright issues has arisen at the above address. As our resident expert, would you care to comment, one way or the other? BMK (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, BMK. I really wish that I could give you a definite answer, but images are not really my area, and I am not comfortable with Light show's approach to this content. I see he noted that I edited film still - I did, to correct some serious errors as I described at the CCI opened under his former username. That article is not policy and does not have the weight of policy. It is not a reliable source, any more than any other Wikipedia article is. I approached one of the Wikimedia Foundation's attorneys for some general guidance on the question of these images, and she suggested some general practices at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1#Attorney reply. Long after that CCI was started, we continue to find problematic images - such as this one on English Wikipedia and this one, where Light show cropped the "copyright" mark out of the image. (He is blocked indefinitely on Commons.) Many of Light show's uploads seem to be perfectly fine - this one may be - but many of them have not been. I attempted an RFC/U in 2012, but it failed to gain enough participants to reach consensus and judging by the File:Ann Sheridan - 1939.jpg photo on Commons where in October 2013 he cropped out the copyright notice on a photograph that he tagged "PD-Pre1978", under claim that it had no copyright notice, it had no influence on his behavior. With respect to the particular image, Ken, you might check with WP:MCQ. Sorry. :( --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
About the CCI, can comments or questions still be added there, in the blue section? Being boxed off in blue it seems to be closed. --Light show (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I like to keep things simple, where possible, but since you took to time to point out the Ann Sheridan image, "which had no influence on my behavior," let me note that there was no valid copyright notice on that image, as it only had a "c" and date with her name, not the studio's. I doubt if anyone can find any copyright notice to any publicity photo ever registered under the name of the celebrity. It would have been simple to explain that, but being that I'm blocked there, anything tagged for any reason always gets deleted. Also, is it always necessary to subtly ABF comments about my uploads, ie. where Light show cropped the "copyright" mark out of the image, thereby accentuating the negative and mostly ignoring the positive? --Light show (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
A c in a circle was a valid copyright notice for images and visual materials and the copyright doesn't have to be held by the studio, it can be held by whomever, including the subject. Cropping it out was definitely an act of obscuring the copyright. Further, copyright notices don't have to appear on the image itself, they can appear on the back of the image. This is all prior to the change of the copyright laws in 1978, when the necessity for any copyright notice was totally eliminated, and any published work was assumed to be copyrighted once published, whether or not it had a copyright notice on it or not. BMK (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That section is "background". If you have additional comments, you can make them at the talk page or place them beneath the blue section to make clear that they are not part of the background section. I'm not assuming bad faith - I'm reporting the conclusion of the deletion debate. Beyond that, though, I've been open about my feelings on your standards of licensing verification. If you think you're being treated unfairly on Commons, you should negotiate an unblock there. --Moonriddengirl17:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the help with the copyright question with the article. I have removed the two sections in question. Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I've been really busy for the past week. Thanks again! -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Always happy to help where I can. :) I was amused for a minute, though, after I realized I was misunderstanding the title here - I thought - "I took part in an RFC on the Old Mission Beach Athletic Club?" Wikipedia jargon. It becomes normal. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Spectra Energy - Page Updates/Edits
Hi Moonriddengirl,
I was hoping you could help in updating the Spectra Energy wikipedia page (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Spectra_Energy) with the following edits. I have provided sources for each suggested update. Thank you in advance for your assistance!
EDIT 1:
First sentence of first section
from:
Spectra Energy Corp is a S&P 500 company headquartered in Houston, Texas, that operates in three key areas of the natural gas industry: transmission and storage, distribution, and gathering and processing.
to:
"Spectra Energy Corp (NYSE: SE), a FORTUNE 500 company, is one of North America's leading pipeline and midstream companies. Based in Houston, Texas, the company’s operations in the United States and Canada include more than 22,000 miles of natural gas, natural gas liquids, and crude oil pipelines; approximately 305 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas storage; 4.8 million barrels of crude oil storage; as well as natural gas gathering, processing, and local distribution operations. Spectra Energy is the general partner of Spectra Energy Partners (NYSE: SEP), one of the largest pipeline master limited partnerships in the United States and owner of the natural gas, natural gas liquids, and crude oil assets in Spectra Energy’s U.S. portfolio. Spectra Energy also has a 50 percent ownership in DCP Midstream, the largest producer of natural gas liquids and the largest natural gas processor in the United States."
EDIT 3:
The information box should be updated with the following:
Revenue should be changed from: 5.351, to: 5.518
operating Income should be changed from: 1.763, to: 1.666
Net Income should be changed from: 1.184, to: 1.038
EDIT 4:
The last sentence in the HISTORY section
from:
In 2011, Spectra Energy achieved record net income and surpassed its earnings target by more than 7 percent. And, in 2011, the company increased its annual dividend to $1.12, representing a nearly 8 percent increase.
to:
In 2013, Spectra Energy achieved net income from controlling interestes of $1.04 billion, or $1.55 diluted EPS, compared with $940 million, or $1.43 diluted EPS in 2012. Ongoing 2013 net income from controlling interests was $1.10 billion, or $1.64 diluted EPS, compared with $938 million, or $1.43 diluted EPS, in the prior year.
EDIT 5:
At the bottom of the OPERATIONS section, please add:
Spectra Energy also operates The Express-Platte Pipeline System which begins in Hardisty, Alberta and terminates in Wood River, IL. It includes the Express and Platte crude oil pipelines.
EDIT 6:
Under the LEADERSHIP section, the first sentence
from:
Gregory L. Ebel (born 1964 in Ottawa, Canada) is president and chief executive officer of Spectra Energy Corp and a member of the company’s board of directors.
to:
Gregory L. Ebel (born 1964 in Ottawa, Canada) is president and chief executive officer of Spectra Energy Corp and chair of the company’s board of directors.
Hi, 64.95.214.18. :) To request edits to a page that you don't feel you should change yourself due to a conflict of interest, you just need to post your request on the talk page - in this case, Talk:Spectra Energy - along with the following code: {{request edit}}. Please use the curly brackets and all. This will attract the attention of interested editors, who will evaluate the content for appropriateness. Most of these look pretty straightforward, so I would imagine there will be no issues. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22 and I aren't sure if it's actually a WP:COPYVIO to link to it: we had a brief discussion on her page and she directed me here. She thinks it might be okay to still link to it/use it as a reference for the article. What's your take on this matter? Is it okay to restore the full-text link? meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. :) This question would hinge on who is hosting the material - what is "xa.yimg.com"? Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that they host the material with permission, that they have license to do so? Do they permit users to upload files, which would lend to the possibility of it being used to host illegal content? From what I can determine, it seems to be a user server provided by Yahoo with no editorial control at all - [25]. It doesn't look promising. [26] I think you made the right call. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so, as I understand it the film itself is believed to be a copyvio, ala Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill. Without having seen the film, I'm wondering why people aren't assuming fair use of the broadcasts. Is it too substantial? I imagine a lot of documentaries use snippets of broadcasts, but I'm guessing this must be a different animal, perhaps without transformation? :) But that doesn't really matter - what matters is the interpretation of WP:LINKVIO, which contains a potential legal element as well as an ethical one (that shedding a bad light thing). It encourages us to consider context. Based on context, I would be more likely to retain IMDb than the archive link, but I'm puzzled by the IMDb itself. Never mind the copyright of the content within the documentary, I've never seen IMDb display a whole film. :/ The IMDb article says they've been doing that since 2008, so I just missed that bus. From a contributory copyright infringement standpoint, I personally doubt that we are at much risk for pointing to the IMDb, unless we are specifically pointing out the video. This is true regardless of whether their hosting the video is a copyvio (hosted without license) or the contents of the video are a copyvio (taking substantially from other works without affirmative defense). The reason for this is that it is standard for film articles to point to the IMDb, which contains substantial information beyond the video link, and the intent of the link is not to spread the copyvio. The Wayback page is different, in my opinion, if we believe that the contents of the video are a copyvio. As an official site, it was created primarily to spread the film and hence our linking may contribute to that. Your mileage may vary - this is not a hard and fast situation, as with a lot of text-based copyright issues, as it is context dependent. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The film credits CNN, NBC etc, but it also credits Barack Obama and I'm sure he didn't give them permission for using a newsclip of him. I take your point. IMDB is probably ok (although self-created so I'm still thinking it's the producers of the film's way of getting people to see what is simply a conspiracy theory propaganda film). But not the other. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Per a comment by an editor that he "mainly copy and paste" from other articles here, can you review Easy Goer? I was trying to help this editor clean up his writing, but now that I realize he was probably copying verbatim, I don't want to get caught up in a mess. Plag tracker flagged more than just wikipedia here, if that helps. I'm hesitant to take action directly because this user is already mad at me for trying to clean up "his" work. Montanabw(talk)22:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I know persian and I want to let pages which they are about Persia have audio pronounce. Now I'm asking you for any suggestion about this. If there is a special article which needs Persian pronunciation I will be happy to do.--Freshman404Talk15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
A user page (see hatted section titled "words of wisdom") contains large sections of copy-paste from a book series that is explicitly copyrighted by these copyright holders. I have notified the user here, but they claim (a) they have only used short quotes and (b) the material is in public domain, both of which I think are obviously not true. Since userspace content is covered under the same copyright violation policies as article space, how to proceed? Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I've asked him to remove the content, without which I'll have to blank it. Those quotes go far beyond the brief excerpts we allow, and we are more, not less, strict with user space. While we do let people host brief quotations from copyrighted content on their user pages, thousands of words is well beyond brief. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Where to start?
I ended up here after a roundabout session of link clicking.
It started with a Google StreetView session looking around the site of the Ottawa Science Museum, trying to follow train tracks through the Ottawa area. This led me to ask "what's that big radar dish?' which Google informed me was an "FPS-20". That led me back here to the Wiki, where I found something like a dozen articles on variations on this design, which I've spent some time cleaning up to make the single Bendix AN/FPS-20.
While searching for other links that might point to one of these many duplicates, I somehow ended up here, and I followed it because the text in the article in question seemed to be assembled from other sources without any editing. Looking at the history on that page led me here.
So there you go, train tracks to you. Small world!
If I am reading that page correctly, my concerns about these articles are shared about 5000 times. But when facing a task list that long, what is one to do? I am mildly concerned that the material in question forms the backbone of many of the topics I'm personally interested in, the history of electronics and avionics in the 1940s to 60s. Removing them wholesale seems like a bad idea, but so does leaving them "wholesale", as they appear largely to be material one can easily find in Google. I certainly don't have time to edit them all, I've written perhaps 7500 articles in total in 12 years, it would take me another 10 to get through this list!
I'm open to any advice you might have. Or pointers to better places to discuss these issues.
Hello, Maury Markowitz. :) I apologize for my delayed response - a combination of health, work and family obligations have severely undermined my online time recently. WP:CCI is supposed to work on the assumption that many hands make light work. We don't have many hands, so it doesn't quite play out that way, even though it's a valid philosophy. :D But I can find other cliches that work, too - let's go with "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." If you have time to help out with any of the pages listed there, you will be doing a great service to that CCI. If you can only manage a couple and don't care which ones, I'd say go with the ones near the top - they are the most likely to be the worst offenders. But even if you grab from the middle of the bottom, chipping away at it will nudge it towards completion and make it less daunting for the next person who thinks about helping out with it.
There are a couple of ways you can be a huge help here. If you have access to some or any of his sources, just check them. If you find copying, and his content is still in the article, blank the page with {{copyvio}} (with reference to the source and a link to the CCI, if possible) and list them at WP:CP. That will probably result in the articles being stubbed, if interested editors don't help with clean up. They have generally a week, sometimes more based on backlog. If you feel like it, you can also just reconstruct the article yourself, bypassing WP:CP altogether. (I'm more likely to go the WP:CP route when there are obviously interested editors.) The longer unusable content remains in those articles, the more time our volunteers will waste polishing what we can't keep. I hate having to go in to an article where somebody has been working hard only to have to tell them that the base they've been working on is corrupt and we've wasted their time. :( --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Was adding a bit here today and came across this website which pretty much took the first paragraph of Songwriting and composing as a copy and paste. The site has copyright notations. According to the page, it was last changed there April 27, 2012. A look at our article page for April 1, 2012 shows the text was here at the time. I tried the Wayback Machine for older versions of this page, but the site has not been crawled by them. Could you please leave a note at the talk page to indicate that they "borrowed" from us and not the other way around? Thanks! We hope (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Per your instructions I have made a statement at the bottom of the Ronald Kirklin page www.qmfound.com/Ronald_Kirklin.htm on the Quartermaster Foundation website indicating that the Wikipedia page of the same name is not in violation of copyright. Ehrentitle (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Otto Hirschler page deleted
Hi, I was wondering why the page on Otto Hirschler was deleted? He was my grandfather. I understand it may have been for copyright violations, so if you can point out the problem, perhaps I or someone else can fix it.
Hello, Docman52. Unfortunately, the older article was created by a serial copyright infringer on Wikipedia who was actually forbidden to edit Wikipedia at the time he created the article. However, its deletion does not bar anyone from creating a new one. :)
If you encounter any difficulties or have any questions, I would recommend visiting the teahouse, which is meant to provide a welcoming environment for newcomers as they learn their way around. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, User:LeadSongDog. :) I think that there's little doubt it came from somewhere (the "top" that was removed is a dead giveaway of HTML somewhere), I can't find it - I've looked at the archives of the official website and don't see it there. This was obviously copied from the same source - same text, same useless "top"s scattered throughout, but it postdates the material on Wikipedia by years. I found a slight bit of close paraphrasing from here, but nothing really substantial at a glance. I found some text matches to this, but the article predates that, too. At this point, unless somebody wants to rewrite it proactively, the best approach would probably be to add {{cv-unsure}} to the talk page. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I couldn’t find any sourced or earlier matches, either—still, quite a few pieces here & there. Incidentally I notice that the first paragraph of the History section—nothing to do with the edit linked above—is a dead ringer for that in the official site’s Background page.—Odysseus147903:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Potential copyright issue I have not encountered before
Hi MRG! I would like to ask your advice about Draft:Catfish Hodge - Blues Musician which has text substantially taken from [29]. The source text states it has been reproduced on Oldies.com from a book (The Encyclopedia of Popular Music by Colin Larkin) which according to Oldies.com is licensed from Muze. I was trying to work my head around this logically, but its been a long day and I just confused myself even more. I am unsure who the copyright owner is and how reproducing this on Wikipedia sits with our licensing conditions. Any help would be very much appreciated. Bellerophontalk to me20:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I should add that I am aware the text of the draft is highly promotional in tone, and I am not suggesting it should be incorporated into a live article, regardless of the licensing implications; however, better understanding the copyright implications will assist me in advising the author how to move forward. Bellerophontalk to me21:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:Bellerophon. :) I often look at copyright issues in complete isolation, so I understand that approach. :D We would need verification of license or PD status from the copyright holder of the book (generally the publisher or author) to use the content. Even if the material is licensed such that it can be reproduced on Oldies.com, we have no official indication that this license extends to us or is compatible. The copyright holder would need to follow the process at WP:DCM. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm working on the Tanzania article which contains the image File:Amani-TT4798.jpg. I just wanted to confirm that the permission was given by the artist/copyright holder. (In my experience, when people see folk/naive/primitive paintings, sometimes their copyright alarm bells don't go off -- just want to be sure everything is legit.) Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Calliopejen1. What we have with the first one is a batch permission from the website owner claiming explicitly that when he purchased the paintings copyright was transferred. (The OTRS agent who handled the release had explained that photographing the painting would not give him rights to it, so he did explicitly claim to own copyright to the painting itself.) The second one, alarmingly, offers no information on license of the sculpture. The person who sent the permission licensed the photograph and only asserted that the sculptor "is aware of my edit and is happy about it." It's clearly a derivative work, and we have no confirmation of license from the sculptor. :( I'll ask the tagger to get a specific release of license from the sculptor. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
In the law, it's context dependent, User:Dougweller, so hard to say. In our policy, it's not okay to quote all of anything that's copyrighted - WP:NFC explicitly permits brief excerpts. This is, of course, because one of the factors of fair use considers amount and substantiality. 90 words from a 400 page book may be okay; 90 words of a poem, probably not. (Length is not a sole factor in any case; all factors must be met. Our policy is deliberately simplified and conservative.) The legitimacy of use of a translation is likely to be stronger if the focus is on the translation and not the original - for instance, if we're working on the article on Dorothy Sayer, we are likely to have better cause to quote extensively from her Dante translations than we are to simply use her translations to illustrate the article on Dante itself. If we're using a translation simply because we don't have one, we are more likely to be superseding than transforming. And the case for need is weaker, much as it is with photographs of living people, because there's nothing to stop us translating the source material ourselves. (You don't mention the copyright status of the underlying work, so I'm just assuming that it's out of copyright, but the translation is not.) Anyway, as to the general principle, based on policy alone, I'd be inclined to remove anything that copies the entirety of something copyrighted and replace it with paraphrase and brief excerpt, as permitted, where its usage conforms to WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. On his own talk page he is still thinks he can get basic changes in our policy. I'm tempted to just ignore him. But I'm still not sure what to do about translations and the image. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
] (7.3-12.4 % of [[fish measurement|SL]] and 15.3-21.6 % of [[fish measurement|SL]]) respectively) and the shortness of the distance from its [[Fish fin#AnchDorsal|dorsal-fin]] insertion point to
Hi,
I want to thank you that you have not deleted the article but revised it, although only 5% of the original article are left. In my opinion, it's now missing a few important facts relating to the band. I'll see if I attach this again, but Justlettersandnumbers has already proposed the page again for deletion, sometimes I wonder if he would just annoy people? But that's a different story.
Hello, Irukandji85. It can be hard not to take things personally on Wikipedia sometimes. I've experienced that myself. I'm confident that Justlettersandnumbers wouldn't nominate the article for deletion for any other reason than that he is concerned that it doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. These nominations sometimes lead to improvement of an article. The best material to add to the article at this point would be additional reliable sources, and it looks like a couple have popped up in the deletion debate. :) [30] and [31], for instance. It's a really good idea to avoid putting too many links to the kinds of sources we do not prefer. Previously, the article included a lot of links to blogs, which we do not regard as reliable and seemed pretty promotional, which is not the approach we go for here. More links to and information from online newspapers would be stellar! --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Could use another opinion, no rush
Could use another opinion. Do not feel any obligation to support my tentative position, I'd be happy to hear that the article is OK.
Number 04267 reads "guided tissue regeneration--nonresorbable barrier, per site, per tooth" but could have read "regeneration of tissue, guided by nonresorbable barrier, one site and tooth per entry". Or "use of barrier to guide regeneration of tissue, without regard to the number of sites per tooth and whether or not the barrier is resorbable". The first variation is linguistic, the second substantive; in each case the decision to use the actual description is original to the ADA, not knuckling under to an order imposed on language by some "fact" about dental procedures.
It might be helpful to think of it in comparison to photography. A nature photographer does not create the Pheidole purpurea when he takes a picture of it; presuming it's alive and free to move about, he doesn't choose its placement or pose. But though his photograph may be merely capturing what is there, with no special filters or recognizably artistic elements, it is still protected by copyright under US law. Also helpful for comparison and discussed in the case I linked above: maps. Maps are recorded observations of natural phenomena, but they are explicitly protected by US copyright law, even though no one could disagree that a certain river of a certain name is located at a fixed position in the landscape.
I will summarize my problems. I do not see noticeboards specialized for civility at dispute rezolution. You can find the dispute arbitrated by another IP# here (86.x.x.x).
Please answer on my talk page. It iz faster that way, because I do not need to poll your page, or even know that you are awake. If I do poll your page, and I am on a different IP#, then I can look closely at colours. Also, I get one piece of spam every three months or so, and it's not because of filters. Bohgosity BumaskiL75.152.119.10 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have changed the original note to which I responded above. This is generally not recommended for several reasons, but the most practical one is that the odds of anyone rereading an old note are very small. The only reason I noticed what you had done was because I happened to look at the history of my talk page and saw you had made two consecutive edits and reviewed changes. :)
Wikipedia is entertaining, because even policy seems dynamic, unless you've been here long enough to remember some of it. The most practical reason for me to change my wording, move points, add a point, remove my suspicions of hiz personal problems, etc. wuz to get to my point quickly and persuade anybody looking on that something should be done here. Nobody else seems to care. Thank you. 75.152.119.10 (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I do not have any time to investigate this matter. There's quite a lot of backlog in the area where I work, and I need to focus on it. The civility noticeboard was closed as a bit of waste of time a while back. If you think incivility rises to the level of a personal attack, see WP:NPA. Recommendations for handling personal attacks are included there. Less severe incivility may be handled by the processes described here and in subsequent sections. If you have any other questions about how to pursue dispute resolution for such incidents, you may wish to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HD. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I want you to issue a final warning that asks him what an appropriate penalty should be if my accusations are sufficiently accurate, and he continues on the same course. If he doesn't offer one, then you can guess based upon similar cases, or I can take it to WP:ANI. I do not want to, because some people act az they do for attention, and attending them makes them act worse. Take your time. I do. 75.152.119.10 (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Your original point does not communicate itself better if your intended recipient never reads it because they consider it done. :) I'm afraid, however, that I'm going to disappoint you here - as I said, I don't have time to investigate this matter, and I will not issue warnings to anyone without investigation. I would need to reach my own understanding of the context and the situation before determining whether a warning is required and at what level. I need to put the limited volunteer time I have into copyright work. I've given you the best advice I can, but I will not be involving myself in this further. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Puramyun31. I've replied to you at Commons. :) It's not related to which project I use as a volunteer, it's simply that I do not always get to respond to my work talk page messages on the same day they are left, although I aim for a 48 hour maximum turnaround, barring holidays. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this article, which you appear to have cleaned up a while back? It looks suspiciously like a copyvio once again. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!08:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. :) I think it's worth seeing where the permission request goes. If the issue is not resolved through permission (always best), it may be best brought to WP:NFCR, since it's a "fair use" issue. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Oceans 11 Movie Article
I know you haven't posted to this article but knowing your attention to detail can you resolve or address this issue. The registered user insists on using the term "pinch" in the article for the device used which is a slang term but he keeps wanting to include the link to the actual physical process not to the actual device itself which is actually called a z-pinch (major ownership issues with this guy moonridden. I love the movie but do not agree with showing links to incorrect info. He needs to either correct the link or don't use a link in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.88.186 (talk • contribs) 22 July 2014
Hi. :) This is a good area for dispute resolution. To begin with, you use the the talk page and if the two of you can't resolve it you reach out to neutral third parties to assist. I'm afraid I don't have time to do that at the moment - I don't even have time at the moment to keep up with my regular duties - but WP:DR has a lot of good suggestions! If you can't reach resolution on the talk, WP:3RR might be a good place to go next. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I see Edwin Andrews Air Base at WP:SCV. I that User:BrownHairedGirl has identified it as a CP, so I was tempted to use the template in SCV to mark that it was at CP. However, at CP, I see it in the bot list for 2 July, but not in the standalone list.
I think the process is that we can archive an SCV date when everything has been handled, and adding it to CP counts as being handled, but I'm concerned that if I mark it as handled at SCV, it will fall through the cracks.--S Philbrick(Talk)20:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You helped, User:BrownHairedGirl, by marking it as a CP. :) What I usually do, User:Sphilbrick, if it isn't independently listed at WP:CP and it's been less than 7 days since it was marked is list it under the proper day and close the SCV day. If it's been 7 days since it was marked for CP, I just process it as though it was also at CP. What matters is that notice be in place for 7 days. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Kelley Hunt
Hello again. I am in the process of creating a new article for this blues pianist. However, I noted the following message when trying to open a new article page -
11:59, 9 May 2009 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) deleted page Kelley Hunt (Listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over seven days: http://web.archive.org/web/20070809031636/http://kelleyhunt.com/biography.html).
Am I all right to proceed ? (The proposed article is presently in my sandbox). Regards,
Looking at the history of this article, I see you were instrumental in cutting off the last bout of disruption. The IP's are now back, tossing around unsubstantiated accusations on the talk page. I've tried to put a halt to it but I don't think that will be the end of it. Can you please have a look? --NeilNtalk to me14:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
And blocked, I see. :/ My general rule of thumb is to give this person latitude in raising valid issues at the Robert Garside talk page, but he knows very well how to use OTRS if he needs help and he is not permitted to edit Jesper Olsen (runner) because he is indefinitely blocked. He knows how to appeal, if he wants. Once in a while, he just seems to go off the rails. Thanks, User:Callanecc. And thanks much, User:User:NeilN, for staying on top of it. Sorry I didn't get your note sooner, but at least he used the opportunity to demonstrate clearly to everyone that the disruption would only continue to escalate. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I will be more careful next time. I had edited the last article which was mentioned and removed copyright material from that. Sulaimandaud (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Em really sorry for that i thought i was removing, might have been got stuck some where else and then forgot... believe me em really really sorry
Sulaimandaud (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
How to move an article: Thanks
I have been looking for the information on how to move an article for years. Sometimes it is just essential that an article be moved. Thanks for the pointer to Help:Move. For some reason I had not found that. Perhaps I was using the wrong search terms. It is such a relief to me to finally know how to do it. Perhaps you know how I can communicate a response to comments such as yours, which [posted to the bottom of my talk page.] The only way I know is this way, i.e. posting a new comment on your talk page. Is this the correct (best) way to do this? Nick Beeson (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The problem with that is the NC condition, which prohibits commercial use. Wikipedia-compatible licences permit reuse by anyone for any purpose, which excludes the Creative Commons versions containing NC or ND.—Odysseus147908:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Breaking copyright news
It's (potentially) a big enough deal that I'll tease it by linking without explaining. OK, got ahead of myself. Lawsuit filed, I thought it was lawsuit won.--S Philbrick(Talk)19:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer22. :) Not being all that experienced at SPI, I just checked to see if the old problems persisted in that edit, and it doesn't really look like it at this point (I didn't find any copyright issues). If you notice the old behavior returning, can you let me know? If so, I'd greatly appreciate it! If you see identical content, we may want to file at SPI. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.
Copyvios at Harare International School, Bernard Mizeki College, Watershed College and Midlands Christian College
I have just reverted the above four articles to just before a copyright violation (from the respective schools' own websites) occurred. Or in the case of Bernard Mizeki College, I have merely excised the offending text. It seems that the policy now is to oversight the intervening changes. Could I ask you please to do the honours? Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!09:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Ohconfucius, for finding and addressing all that. :) The additional moppy bits have been done - revision deletion (as this was all substantial), notices on talk pages where appropriate, etc. Sorry for my delay! My internet connection was not what I had hoped in my London hotel. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Gustavo Deco
Hi Moon, The potential copyright issue with http://cns.upf.edu/gustavo/ has been resolved by rewriting the flagged paragraphs under the Training section. Would you kindly remove the notice and restore to the new, changed version. Many thanks in advance. 07:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLKringelbach (talk • contribs)
Thank you, MLKringelbach. Additional changes were necessary to avoid too closely paraphrasing. I've taken a stab at that myself. There is more information on the talk page of the article about the permissions, which seems not to have completed the permission process. It may be necessary to supply more information about that. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks! All the best: RichFarmbrough, 14:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC).
Facebook photo copyright status
Hello,
I hope you are in a good health and spirit by the grace of God. I uploaded a couple of images at Facebook. My own image, taken by me. Now, I want to upload one of those two images at Commons to use at my userpage. Can I upload directly? Thank you in advance if you reply to it and double thank you if you don't --Tito☸Dutta18:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:Titodutta. I can't say that nobody at Commons will challenge you to prove the connection, but I would (upload it directly if I were you). It's the same name, which should help, and if there's any question (if you're okay with that) you can just put a note in your "about". :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio
Dear Moonriddengirl, I was sent here by Dougweller (Cf. our discussion, here and here). He brought to my attention that there are copyvio problems with my earlier articles on WP. Many of these were created at the very beginning of my editing here, and I realise that I should've gone back to them after I had a better grasp of the copyvio rules, but alas. I'd like to help clean up this mess (as much as time permits, I'm afraid I've been very busy with studies lately and have barely logged in on WP). How do you think we can move forward from here? Many thanks, Yazan (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Yazan. How extensive do you believe the problems may be, and how long do you believe that they were ongoing? It could help determine how much review is necessary. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Yazan. The thing to do then is to immediately clean up those that you believe are direct copyvio issues. I've cleaned up Al-Ahmadiyah Madrasa which was a direct copy-paste. You can get an example of how this is done there. Those are the most urgent, and if you can't work on it immediately it would be helpful to let me know that as I would like to make sure they are promptly addressed. The poor paraphrasing issues can be handled a bit more leisurely, depending on how large the issue is in individual articles. I'll try to take a look today and see what the scope is there to help us best determine what to do. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Coal gasification
Hi, Moonriddengirl. As you are expert of copyright issues, maybe you could look the Coal gasification article? That article was marked for an investigation of potential copyright issue and it is listed here and discussed also at the article's talk page. For me it seems a backwards copy case, but I appreciate if more experienced people in this field could voice their opinion.
I am also disturbed about comments copied from my talk page and discussing me instead of the topic, and I am wonder if there is a valid basis to remove it from here and here.
Just to be clear I disclosure my role in this issue. I was the editor who back in 2009 split the coal gasification topic from Coal and Coal gas articles. Relevant text was moved from these articles and not sources outside of Wikipedia. Concerning text from Coal the relevant notification tags were put on the talk pages. Unfortunately it was not done about text from Coal gas article back then (it is done now). I thought (and still think) this as a technical action as I did not added any new text from outside Wikipedia. The moved text was (that time and still is) largely unsourced and it was correspondingly tagged by me. However, by my understanding this is not a reason not to split articles as we have separate policies WP:V and WP:RS to deal with unsourced text. Therefore, I was confused when notification tag was put on my talk page implying that I have added copyrighted text into Wikipedia, instead of original authors. I have also a feeling that {{Copyvio}} needs some redesign. First of all, it creates welcoming text for newcomers which I think is not suitable for five years old cases or editors being active for eight years. Second, for persons not dealing with these issues frequently it is not very clear where the discussion is going on. Right now it is under filling instructions (as editing link) but it would be probably more useful if there will be also a bolded link to the discussion at the top of template (similar to AfD, CfD etc templates). I have to admit and I am sorry that I did not find the relevant discussion page before several days later another editor pointed to it, and therefore asked clarification at my talk page. Consequently, it created more misunderstandings.
Adding this information here is only for a full disclosure of my interests about that article. If you think this is inappropriate, please remove it. Beagel (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Beagel, I concur that the copying is backwards and have closed out the listing on that basis.
With respect to {{copyvio}}, the language for newcomers is not actually part of it - it's part of {{Nothanks-web}}. All the copyvio template does is make it easier for people to paste it, as they otherwise tend to skip that part. {{Nothanks-web}}is designed for newcomers, and I will sometimes modify it when using it for experienced editors myself, but I'm afraid that it may not be possible to create templates suitable for both populations (new and experienced) and have them properly used. As I mentioned, people tend to skip that part, and I'm afraid that asking them to check the experience level of the user and identify the date of the supposed copyvio may simply lead to their noncompliance or their use of the wrong template. :/ It seems personally to me better to assume newcomer, as experienced editors can more easily adjust their understanding of the template than the wrong way around, if you follow what I mean. :)
I can understand your point about discussions on AFD, but I don't think the {{copyviocore}} template should necessarily work that way - copyright cleanup very seldom involves discussion at all. Almost always, they involve text being identified, people either supplying or not supplying permission, and us either removing the text or annotating that permission was supplied after a week. The section in "Can you help resolve this issue?" was designed so that the most common outcome was listed first - that the content was placed by the copyright holder himself. The second bulletpoint links to the talk page for discussion. HOWEVER, if you would like to propose a redesign, I think the place to do it is probably Template talk:Copyviocore.
Thank you very much. It was helpful and I think your changes made it clearer how to deal with these issues. I have one more question about another article titled Mazut. Most of its text was added by anon user back in 2009 by this edit. Although this edit was never attributed (no edit summary, no talk page entry), it seems that it was copy-pasted from an outside source (e.g. formatting; notice: "Please refer to producer’s own web sites for confirmation of this fact", etc). There is a number of commercial websites which includes this text but it is very hard to say which one is an original source and which one is a backwards copy. What is the right way to deal with this? Beagel (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll tell you step by step what I do with those. :) I look at the language for obvious tells. If there's a "we" or "see figure 1." or anything like that, I zero in on that area to see if it can help me find the original source. If there's not (in this case, not so much), I grab a sentence at random and do a web search to see if there are any sources that immediately catch me eye as likely to be authoritative. I saw a couple of potentials and zeroed in on them - http://www.lgcfuel.com/lgcother-products/, for instance. I could instantly eliminate all the ones I found because they use the lead of the article as well, and the lead of the article was already there when this text was entered. If the lead of the article wasn't already there, I'd try wayback to see if I could confirm which came first. In this case, though, my next step is to look to see when the first modification to the chunk of text occurred, and how soon after its appearance. In November of that same year, some of the text was removed. So I do a web search for that text. If I find it somewhere, then I know either we copied it from them or they copied it from us within that narrow window. (I have other factors I would use then, including Wayback if needed, to help me determine.) But there's no sign of that text anywhere on the web or Google books. At this point, I think probably we're dealing with original text, but just to be sure I look a bit further. The next substantive change is [34]. At that point, the article lost the following: "Grades of Mazut Represent (Generally) the Sulfur Content". I do a search for that, and everything that pops up is an obvious mirror except [35], and when I go to that I find it's a mirror, too. :) It attributes. So, at this point I would drop the investigation. If I still had suspicions, I would tag the talk page with {{cv-unsure}} so others know my concerns, in case they can find the source. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Fruit of the poisonous tree?
Hey Moon! I was just curious if you have any take on the issue raised in my last paragraph here. I remember a discussion about this once, but can't put my finger on it. When I have a thorny/nuanced copyright thought my first thought of who to bounce it off of resolves on you, but please feel free to tell me you're sick of being everyone's go-to copyright sounding board.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. First, great apologies for my delay. I should have put up one of those "traveling" notices, but laughably had no doubt whatsoever that the London hotel that told me I would have free wifi meant that not only would they not charge me, but it would work. I expected to be able to keep up with things from there and found I couldn't even get my email to load. :/
Anyway, I am always happy to provide a second opinion. Especially for you. :D
196 Bishopsgate. :) I feel guilty, though - it was a beautiful hotel, and the housekeeping staff were lovely. Philippe has stayed there before and loved it. They just couldn't manage to get the wireless together in my room. Some other people who were staying in other rooms had spotty issues, but were far more functional than I was. (That said, I would only advise night owls to stay there on the weekend. There was a pub a door or two down, and their music was quite, quite loud on Friday and Saturday night!) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks as always for responding Moon. I was actually asking if you had any comment on the issue raised in my last paragraph, or remember where past discussion about it took place – "A grey area is that you learned about the material and accessed it through the copyright violating source, and would not have cited it but for finding it and thereupon viewing it through that means of access. That fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree issue is a bit a thorny. I remember seeing a few discussions of it years ago and as best I remember to the extent there was any consensus, it was that we can only go so far in our efforts to avoid this problem; that it's simply not feasible to self-ban ourselves from using a reliable source once its applicability and content is known to us just because the manner of access was through a third-party's improper conduct."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't remember where past discussions have taken place, but agree with your conclusion. I'm not really sure it's worth digging around for them. :) There is no policy that I know of that addresses how we access our information, aside from the general exhortation to break no local laws in the Terms of Use. That makes sense - we are all individually responsible for our own behavior. There's certainly nothing in WP:C that says you can't use such information. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyright issues
Ok, I understand. Thank you. I will try to write my words on all the articles. I have a question: if I want to write the words of a company, artist etc., how should I do this without being copyrighted? SicaSunny (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) First, use no more than is necessary (as opposed to convenient) for the purposes of the article. Consider making it a footnote rather than putting it in the body text. In any case, enclose the text in quotation marks or block-quote templates, and attribute it to the original source, so that it’s absolutely clear who wrote it. If your source for the quotation is secondary, e.g. a newspaper article, be sure to cite that as well. Place the material in context with relevant commentary: don’t create whole paragraphs or sections containing little or nothing but quotations, even if the individual excerpts are all short. The relevant policy is at WP:NFC#Text; the style guideline & advisory essay linked there are also recommended reading.—Odysseus147919:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
50.181.30.121 (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Liobagrus somjinensis 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.
Done, User:NeilN. 3 months. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC).
--Tito☸Dutta 18:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)