Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Wikipedia

User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 58

< User talk:Moonriddengirl
Latest comment: 9 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 05 August 2015
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60→Archive 62
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hello my dear Moonriddengirl, it's always a pleasure to visit your talk page. Here is the thing I want to ask you about. A user copied and pasted a gastropod species description from a new paper into a species article. The user believes that he can do this, because 1. he is one of the authors of the paper, and 2. he is the editor of the journal. Is that or is that not a copyright problem?

The species description he copied is currently in the article Conasprella edpetuchi, and also in a fork of that article which is at Dalliconus edpetuchi. Needless to say the fork is a problem in its own right and needs to be deleted. The user left a note about this on the talk page of the first article.

Thanks for everything, Invertzoo (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) Chiming in, since MRG has been silent for a few weeks. My take: Unless the paper he's using was published under a compatible free license, then that text cannot be used here verbatim, regardless of his authorship of it. If he wants to donate that text for use, he can of course follow those steps, but if it is a published paper, the journal it is published may not appreciate that. The approach I use in cases like this is to essentially state the above, with the sentiment that if they are the copyright holder, they should (hopefully) appreciate that we take extra precautions to protect their intellectual property, since the Wikipedia license allows anyone to take what he's added here and use/re-use/sell/parody it for any purpose beyond his control (and while he may not mind it being here, he probably doesn't want any of that extra to happen). As to the second part... that's more concerning. It looks like there's a scientific debate playing out in article titles. That's the kind of thing that needs rein-in. CrowCaw 23:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Crow for your reply. This afternoon I turned the fork into a redirect. One thing to understand is that User:Shellnut is both one of the three co-authors of the paper that described the species (and thus he is one of the co-authors of the species), and also he is the editor of the journal/magazine that published the paper. That creates a COI of course, and thus I suppose he should not be editing this article at all. But either way, we need to determine if the journal The Festivus is published under a "compatible free license". How do we determine that? I have a copy of the journal but there is no indication on the masthead what kind of license it is published under. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Somewhere in the first 2 pages (typically) is the copyright statement. If "all rights reserved" appears, then it is non-free. If a copyright statement appears without further clarification, then we'd assume it is fully copyrighted as well. Of note, I found This online, with instructions for submitters to the journal. The last sentence suggests they do wish to retail all rights. CrowCaw 20:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much to both Crow and Moonriddengirl. First rate advice as usual! Much appreciated, Invertzoo (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I have come across the article Delaware, Ontario about a small village outside of my hometown, which a user has expanded a great deal without providing any sources at all. At least one large portion of text is directly quoted from a book (noted in the article, but still inappropriate), and I am concerned that the user has lifted portions from other works, although my quick searches have not revealed anything. Would you mind taking a look? Ivanvector (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ivanvector. :) I can see why you would be concerned! I have done a very thorough spot-check and have found no copying outside of that massive quote, and since that source is public domain it's not a problem from a copyright perspective. I can't be sure there's not any copying from a source I can't access, but I've come up empty with what I can. This guy is editing again, I see. I wonder if he could produce sources to verify any of that content? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Heya,

in order to get more users and get some good editing going on the Wikispecies admins have created a Facebook page for the group. I just wanted to check would this be a reasonable use of the Logo? for the Wikispecies project. On this Facebook page. Any advice would be appreciated. Cheers Faendalimas talk 02:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Faendalimas! I'm sorry for my delay here; this is my volunteer account, and my time for volunteering has been pretty restricted lately. I'm afraid I can't really answer you directly but I can tell you who to ask! If you write to trademarks@wikimedia.org, they should be able to help pretty swiftly. :) Thanks for reaching out, and please let me know if I can be of further assistance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou for the help. Cheers Faendalimas talk 03:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

For reasons that I assume will be obvious to you, I suspect that Sutton Forest Public School (except for the first and last sentences) is a copyvio of the source cited in the article. That book is unfortunately not viewable online and is sufficiently obscure that it's unlikely that a request at WP:RX would help. What does one do in such a situation? Deor (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually OCLC 221082963 a.k.a. OCLC 221319750 is shown as held in several major Ozzie libraries. The odds are a helpful local Wikipedian in Sydney, Wollongong, Barton, Newcastle, or Canberra can be persuaded to visit one of them. Alternatively, you could presume an infraction and rewrite it entirely in your own words. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Advice taken, LeadSongDog. :) I've rewritten it. Hi, Deor. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinion

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi :) I came here thanks a very nice user who told me you are the person I need to speak. I would like your opinion on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_locations_in_Once_Upon_a_Time Clearly, it is copied from the Wiki without mention or anything else. But apprently, you are able to determine what to do :) 77.193.106.198 (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. :) I see that the article has been deleted, so this particular problem is no longer a problem. Content can generally be imported from other Wikis where licensing is compatible. It's okay to import content from Wikia, but only with full attribution. On the other hand, it is not always appropriate to move content from Wikia, which is dedicated to certain topics and may explore a level of detail beyond what we'd usually put in our encyclopedia articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Society for Marketing Professional Services Page

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Since I am new, I was searching for pages that already exist that I may be able to contribute to. I searched for the Society for Marketing Professional Services (SMPS) since I am a member of this organization. I noticed that a page previously existed and was deleted. I did review your policies about copyright but I wanted to ask if you could tell me why the old page was deleted so I don't make the same mistake in attempting to create a new page. SMPS has not asked me to do this. Any advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Bitsybubbles (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bitsybubbles! I hope Moonriddengirl doesn't mind if I offer input here, I'm watching this page because I made a comment further up. The page Society for Marketing Professional Services was deleted because it was copied from the organization's website, which is a copyright violation. We have to delete content that violates copyright to comply with United States law, and if there is no content left that does not violate copyright then the page will be deleted entirely. If you would like to create a new page on the organization, you can create a new article in that space, but you might want to instead start your page in our "draft" workspace, at Draft:Society for Marketing Professional Services, and when you think it's ready you can submit it for a review through our Articles for Creation process. Also, since you've mentioned that you are a member of this organization, you might want to be familiar with our plain and simple conflict of interest guide before you start to edit. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector! Your guidance is much appreciated. Thank you!Bitsybubbles (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Input needed regarding a possibly-free technical report cover

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This image File:ISO-IEC-9899-1999-cover.png is currently up for review at NFCR. I believe the image would fall within PD-text (on the assumption that the two logos are also within PD-text - both exist at Commons). A user asked if the amount of text might be a problem, and I wasn't sure. As most of the text appears non-creative, I would think this would not be copyrightable in that nature, but I wanted to check first. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Masem. If that popped up at WP:CP, I would curse the day. :) The creativity in that passage, if any, is extremely low. It's highly formulaic. If I encountered it as an editor in an article, I'd shrug and move on because I personally do not believe it would be protected by copyright. The issue with it being at WP:CP would be that I may take on some responsibility if I declare it public domain and it turns out I'm wrong. With text, I would rewrite it under our version of the precautionary principle ("If in doubt, write the content yourself...."), but with an image, that's not really an option. My instincts here would be to make a note on the file description page for downstream users that we believe the content is public domain but that reusers are encouraged to make their own determination and to evaluate with an intellectual property attorney in their area if they would like to use it outside the realm of fair use. I'm not keen on labeling PD content as "fair use", though, so alternatively if somebody chooses to tag it as PD, the alternate note can be added - reminding that Wikipedia can't give legal advice and suggesting people check with yadayada. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will make sure tag that appropriately regarding the text. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Was I assuming bad faith on your part?

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, as I read your reply at AN, I'm wondering if I was not assuming enough good faith on your part. I certainly didn't mean to single you out. I now see that it would have been better if I had made that clear then.

If your reply means that one can only AGF up to a certain point, then I agree. I am afraid that AGF is so rigid that it breaks too easily, or encourages hypocrisy. For that reason, many years ago, when I was more active as a mediator, I therefore inserted the little word "for" - see User:SebastianHelm/principles#AGF. — Sebastian 00:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sebastian. On my first reading, I took your statement very literally when you said my interpretation was "a bad faith interpretation", and I must admit that did upset me. My response was meant to defend my own integrity - my interpretation is honestly what I believe, not duplicitous. I tried very hard to reach peaceful resolution of this matter, but failed abysmally. If anything, I feel like I was derelict in my duty for not more proactively stopping what I saw happening.:(
I actually started to stop by your talk page to discuss the matter personally, but it occurred to me that I might not be interpreting the statement in the way you intended - that perhaps you meant not that my interpretation was made in bad faith, but that it was assuming bad faith on his part. I started to clarify at AN in case you did mean the latter, but rereading my statement decided that it really worked either way. I did my best to assume good faith on his part, beginning by approaching him several times on his talk page to ask him to modify his interactions with this user. At this point, I'm still not sure that he's not operating in "good faith" - in the sense that he may absolutely believe what he's doing is best for content - but I believe that his intention nevertheless is to defend his territory from outsiders, especially young, American outsiders who don't share his political beliefs. He may think it best for content if he does this, but I think it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia or what's best for the project.
In any event, I do appreciate your stopping by. Feelings are easily hurt on the internet, and it's kind of you to clarify your intent. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your nice reply. It's an interesting topic: Where is actually the border between good and bad faith? How does it apply when we're faced with someone who believes what they are doing is best for the community, but does consistently refuse to accept any input that clashes with their opinion - as is a common occurrence here? Maybe the difference shrinks to that between "they can't help it" and "they won't change". I see from your reply to Anna that you tend towards the first, which is AGF in my book.
As for my statement at AN, I did not mean to imply even a hint of anything like duplicity; all I meant was that in my impression, the cited statement did not look for good faith in the other editor's behavior (which is my understanding of AGF, as linked above). My use of "hypocrisy" above referred to myself, in the sense that I might have not applied my own principle and overlooked something positive on your part, and indeed I did not acknowledge your patient search for a peaceful resolution. Incidentally, I can very well relate to your experience, since I have fond memories of the same user, from many years ago, when he necessitated my first mediation - before I even thought I could do any mediation - which led me on a path I found very fulfilling. — Sebastian 03:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
If you read the discussions further up on this user talk page, you'll see good faith extended again and again to the editor which is returned by posting walls of text and who admittedly didn't read the replies MRG offered. She went well beyond what most folks would tolerate and I'm sure I would have asked the editor to never post on my talk page again if he carried on this way on that page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Liz, I see. (Now at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 57.) — Sebastian 05:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio notice of Matt's Monsters.

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, As you can see, I managed to write the show info on Matt's Monsters on the temp page and update character info to avoid copyright using my own words and close paraphrasing. Now that the info is next to the title, the Synopsis is no longer needed. Let's see if this works. Agentmike41 (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledging extensive quotes in an article

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Draft:Soft robotics was deleted as a copyright violation, and restoration was requested at WP:REFUND by SirJamesHunt. I went through the draft finding and removing passages copied from several sources, while leaving the framework and references in place to facilitate a possible reconstruction, and Fuhghettaboutit removed some more. The requester has now explained at User talk:JohnCD#Soft robotics that a group of researchers in the field set out to make an article, quoting passages from their various papers. It looks a promising article, and I would like to help them.

The paper which was the source of the largest number of quotes, here, is actually released under CC-BY. It was my impression that a {{CC-notice}} template at the end of the article would make it legal, but Fuhghetttabout it says on my talk page that more specific attribution is needed; and anyway it is desirable in order to avoid plagiarism. Assuming that the authors of the other papers quoted make a suitable copyright release, the same issue will arise.

So my question is, where an article incorporates whole paragraphs copied, with a suitable license permission, from a previously published work, how should that be acknowledged in the article? It looks as though we need a variant of {{CC-notice}} that says "This paragraph incorporates text from this source... " Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey John, Moon. That's not quite what I said, but I've clarified at your talk page in the section you linked above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


Thank you Moonriddengirl (talk) for your support. We are still discussing a number of possibilities at JohnCD's talk page (talk) → [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJamesHunt (talk • contribs) 20:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio question

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello M. Last year you were helpful in explaining a copyvio situation at this thread Talk:Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century#Copyright violation. If you have the time would you please take a look at the conversation I started here Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Question regarding a list article waiting for approval. The situations seem similar to me but - a) they might not be or b) things may have changed in the last 10 months. Whether it is a thing to be concerned about or I am way off base any input that you can give will be appreciated. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 23:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, MarnetteD. Thank you for noticing the issue; I've removed the list and explained my reason there. I really dislike that we have to do that, but those lists have commercial value - they sell books. While we can reproduce and compile lists of facts, creative lists are explicitly forbidden by WP:NFC for that reason.  :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this and for your response. It is always good to have an editor like you who is willing to share their knowledge and experience. Thanks for your help and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 14:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Tom Frost

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Moonriddengirl,

Since you are the OTRS-agent who originally death with the ticket related to the images created by Tom Frost I would like to inform you about Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Tom Frost. Given the complaint this seemed like the best course of action.

Regards,

Natuur12 (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Request check for close parpahrasing

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Moonriddengirl. There has been an ongoing dispute about the paraphrasing at Rose–Baley Party that I think will take someone like you to sort out. Are you willing to take a look? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have pretty limited time for volunteering at the moment, Rationalobserver, and these can be huge, but I will come take a look and I will try. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reviewed and put in my thoughts there. I agree with those who have opined that there is some close paraphrasing that does not rise to the level of copyright problem. I've explained there why and how I think such things may be addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sahajanand Saraswati

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi MRG, long time, no pester :) I've just found a massive chunk of copyvio at Sahajanand Saraswati. I've removed it but I think something might have to be done with the history. Can you help? - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've also just removed this from Ambala district. MRG, I regularly remove copyright violations, which are a particular bane in the existence of India/Pakistan articles, but I'm never sure when a manipulation of the history should take place. Is there any decent clarification for this? - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Sitush. :) Decent clarification? Probably not. It's not really strongly codified. I tend to follow most of the principles at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins which, nota bene, I probably wrote. (Maybe not. Not trying to steal attribution, just acknowledging. :)) I rev delete under two circumstances, usually. (1) If the content is recent and revision deletion costs nothing to the transparency of the article (we lose a few diffs of minimal content) or (2) If the content is extensive and restoration (inadvertent or otherwise) seems likely. Having myself once accidentally restored a copyvio somebody else had cleaned, I know that this can happen. (Copyvio introduced at point A; second copyvio introduced at point B; somebody notices copyvio at point A and removes it; somebody notices copyvio introduced at point B, and I revert back to position A.) In the olden days, before revision deletion was created, we dealt with this by selectively deleting the histories of articles and compiling a GFDL-compliant list of authors, but revision deletion retains that list for us. I don't do it automatically, but I suspect some do it more liberally than I do and others less. In the case of Ambala district, you've got only one substantial text addition after the introduction of the copyvio, and the copyvio is quite extensive. I would rev-delete that. (In fact, I did.) In the case of Sahajanand Saraswati, we have the copyvio being deliberately reintroduced, months after you removed it last, and it also is substantial. Another good candidate for rev-deletion (done). And also semi-protection, if it comes back. Whoever you're dealing with there is patient. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for sorting it out and for the explanation. It strikes me that passing the buck to you is the best solution, so it is just as well that I do not have the admin stuff! - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Flowers for you!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Flowers for you!
I just wish these could be real ones. Thank you so much for your advice on the Rose-Baley article. I know how busy you are and really appreciate you taking the time to give us such a detailed and helpful analysis. As always, you're a guiding light. Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:European Darts Council

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Please would you help. This draft is, as far as I can tell, a word for word translation of http://www.dartn.de/EDC and thus I suspect a copyvio. But I am not clear on the law of translated material. Fiddle Faddle 18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

gentle nudge   Fiddle Faddle 15:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Fiddle Faddle. :) I tend to do my talk page from the bottom up for no reason I can coherently explain. :) Always been that way, at least as long as I can remember. And now with notifications I try to get those before my talk page. (I don't always.) I just ran out of time before I got here this morning, and, too bad, because I could have spared you some time! This one is an easy one.
The right to authorize translations belongs to the copyright holder of the underlying text. If it is a word-for-word or even a very close translation and the source is copyrighted, it is for our purposes no different than if it is copied or closely paraphrased in the same language. Unless the source is public domain or compatibly licensed, we cannot use the translation. I see no indication that that particular source is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I shall forever think of you as a bottom up girl ~giggles~ and I will flag it for deletion unless you have already. Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kacey Wong

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

This edit introduced a pastiche of copy-paste from a number of different sources, and I have now reversed it. I put a speedy tag on it but it was ignored for the best part of 24 hours, so restored an early stub version. However, it seems that the current practice is to oversight the offending text, so I would request that you do that. In fact, I think it would be better if it was deleted outright. FYI, I have a "clean" version waiting in the wings, so if you would see fit to delete it so I can move the clean version into place. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:Ohconfucius. :) I can't delete it outright, because G12 only applies if content is corrupted to the beginning, but I can certain rev-delete! Done. Of course, you're welcome to copy-paste your new text on top of it. Thanks for locating the problem and salvaging the article! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it's happened again. :-( -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I have cautioned the user. It's not the same one who placed the content before, so he may be unaware. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Does it require oversighting? -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I almost missed this. Sorry. I think it's not critical. It's a smallish amount of text and was promptly removed, so odds of inadvertent restoration seem slim. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Moonriddengirl - It's been so long and I've done so many fixes I don't remember the specifics - let me review and I will advise. It's likely I saw that the BAYADA article was rejected but only needed a few simple fixes with a few notability citations to be acceptable for uploading. I probably assumed this was the same as helping fix an article in the AFC backlog queue, since once the content is uploaded the presumption is that it is licensed freely to the site, per the terms of use.Timtempleton (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Truth*

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

May one be right to-reight a wrong?

Or does that just make a eleft? My sincere regards, Drazardous.DraZarDouSc8leS (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ann Packer

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I saw you deleted my additions to the Ann Packer article. You mention copyright concerns. Any quotes were footnoted. Like a lot of stuff on Wikipedia the existing article was fairly crappy and it not do her justice. Firstly, it was badly written and most of it seemed to be anecdotal. I just reorganized it. I am not sure what your copyright concerns were. Is there an appeals process? If there is not I won't bother in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Hutchens (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I will reply at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

William M. Plater

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Moonriddengirl, Would you be willing to weigh in here [2] as to whether this is a copyright problem? Thank you. 32.216.140.250 (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nomination of Deema Shehabi for deletion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edison (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Loren Reid

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your nice message. My current students created the page. I have a hard time getting them excited about wikipedia. If you finalize the page and make it live I think my students would get excited. This would help to show them the usefulness of their contribution. That is, that people care and their sharing of knowledge is real and tangible. If you make it live let me know if there is anything else they need to do to help polish up the page. Great hearing from you.I would love to tell them on monday that their page is official :) 174.237.129.216 (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You have stated my article on Aloke Dasgupta as Copyright problem

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Moonriddengirl,

I Shetketu Mitra is employed to the famous Artist Aloke Dasgupta. I have his permission to create and upload contents. All the contents provided on the page are free source. All linked to my employer's webpage. Please let me know how to unblock the restrictions that I have regarding the creation of this page called "Aloke Dasgupta".

With Regards, Shetketu

I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ann Packer

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just noticed your comments.

These are very simple sentences. Would it not have made more sense to just delete them rather than everything I changed?

Ann packer claimed that she was the favourite for the Olympic 400 metres in a Youtube interview. I just changed that quote to one of the favourites. Please delete.

In terms of the other sentence I am stating facts. Please delete if it is problematic.

I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

HAPPY WIKIBIRTHDAY

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Double sorry this year, i`m a week late and no cake u.u.

But happy day anyway, here`s some cookies since i know you like them jajaja.

  Cookies!

Zidane Tribal has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.


To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I`ll take one, i hope you don`t mind the mess.

 

Zidane tribal has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Also i found out your REAL birthday is in July. I`ll be here to celebrate it with you.

Happy day lovely Girl who dress in rags and opals.

Zidane tribal (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank, you, Zidane tribal. :) You are always so thoughtful, and it is such a pleasure to see you. I hope all is well in your life. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Menace Demarco

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl. Regarding the history scrub of Menace Demarco, I encountered VRTS ticket # 2015010510001101 today, which may be of interest. --B (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, B. :) If we get confirmation of that (stuff like that occasionally does happen), we can log it and restore the page. Your response there sounds spot on to me. :) I glanced at the FB comments from the last day prior to that email and didn't see it; maybe he used private messaging or something. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

DYK for Bob Meistrell

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Roxane Butterfly

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding Roxane Butterfly, I processed ticket 2015012410013376, which seems to be valid. I'm a little confused, though, when I look at the copyvio report. The report claims that the infringing text was from [3], which is a third party site and I would normally inquire further ... but I can't find any relevant text on that site and the duplication report seems completely useless - it only matches a few words. Does the copyvio duplication report cache the text or does it retrieve it live? I'm guessing/assuming that the text disappeared from the other site sometime in the last few months. (Though I have restored the article because copyright was the only reason given for deletion and that appears to be resolved via the OTRS ticket, if you would like to re-delete it for G11, I have no objection.) --B (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, B. :) While others might feel differently, I tend not to mix copyright with other issues, so I would not redelete for G11, but I support your tag wholeheartedly. :) Your assumption is right on; it's quite common when content is legitimately copied from an external website that the first thing that the person who posted the content will do to address the issue is to remove the content from the external website. Unfortunately, this doesn't help us. When I (at least) notice this happening, I generally have to explain that copyright doesn't terminate when publication is withdrawn and that we still need verified license. Generally when you don't see text that has been removed for copyright reasons - unless you suspect vandalism - it usually means the external site has changed. Sometimes (like in this case) Wayback will straighten that out for us. Sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, you generally have to use other factors to determine. An internet search might find other mirrors of the site, or you might look at promotional language, or you might simply have to rely on the experience and reputation of the tagger and what response (if any) we receive from the contributor. We run into a similar issue when an article is flagged for resemblance to a book that is not available for preview. Years and years ago, when I first started working copyright, a bureaucrat pointed out to me the prohibition in WP:C against taking chances: "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." On the basis of that "if in doubt" provision, I make a stronger effort to replace such content with something we can retain, even if just a stub. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I didn't check Wayback. They credit her site, so I'm fine with the explanation that it (go to http://www.roxanebutterfly.com/ and click on "Bio") was the original source. We have OTRS permission for that text, so copyright isn't an issue. I have added a prod because, well, the more I look at it, the more awful it looks for an encyclopedia article. If I had seen this article anywhere other than coming to it from an OTRS ticket, I probably would have deleted it on sight ... but like you, I'm more hesitant to mix copyright with other issues. When I'm doing an OTRS ticket, I try to only represent whether or not the copyright question is settled and not take administrative actions on other issues. --B (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

DSM-5_codes

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi MRG, I see you've previously been engaged in discussions around the APA's copyright assertion on DSM-5. I haven't seen a clear explanation of where the line falls on lists, but would you please have a look at DSM-5_codes. It may be fine, but I can't tell. Thank you, LeadSongDog come howl! 21:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, will you look at the time? .... :/
Okay, no. I won't run away. :) There is no clear explanation, LeadSongDog, because like a lot of copyright stuff it's nebulous. Wikipedia:Copyright in lists is the best I've got.
With respect to this case, 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, 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.

We've got also Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Association, which affirmed the right of AMA to claim copyright in a book of codes and accompanying descriptions of medical procedures. (cf. this brief, and, more currently:
  • the CDC's stance on the copyrightability of diagnostic codes at [4]: "The ICD-10 is copyrighted by the World Health Organization (WHO)External Web Site Icon, which owns and publishes the classification. WHO has authorized the development of an adaptation of ICD-10 for use in the United States for U.S. government purposes. As agreed, all modifications to the ICD-10 must conform to WHO conventions for the ICD."
  • Something quite similar in this PDF by the US Government office Centers for Medicaire and Medicaire Services: "There are over 7,000 service codes, plus titles and modifiers, in the CPT-4 section of HCPCS, which is copyrighted by the AMA. "
A couple of court cases affirming copyrightability of taxonomic descriptions/diagnostic codes and two government agencies affirming copyrightability of diagnostic codes and descriptions. In this case, we're seeing copying not only of codes but of language. At least some of it. For one example, chosen kinda at random: "cause considerable harm to others (e.g. forced sex, physical cruelty, use of a weapon, breaking and entering, stealing while confronting victim)" takes me to Google books where I see every word has been copied, although mildly rearranged ("breaking and entering" has been reversed from "stealing while confronting victim".
If this were blanked and listed at CP, based on the above, I'd have to process it as a legitimate copyright problem unless somebody could produce something demonstrating otherwise or unless on further searching I found something to clear it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
So, the page is at least rather scary, given the APA's attitude on enforcement. While I don't much like the idea of blanking, we may need to do something about it to clarify how far the detail in these blurbs can go without begging for trouble. If we're not already there, we must be close. Student editors, particularly, seem to be filling in more detail every time we turn around. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, LeadSongDog, the page is at least scary. I believe it should be blanked, because I don't really see any other option. My blanking it means I probably won't be able to process it, but c'est la vie. It's done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, now we'll see how it develops. At least this will show our good faith during any discussion with the APA. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Gunther Holtorf

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Thanks for your edits on the article. There seems to be some confusion, though, when it comes to how many km/mi Holtorf travelled. The "official site" says 900,000 km (i.e. 559,353 mi), other sites say "almost 900,000 km" or "556,000 mi" (i.e. 894,300 km) and others yet say "884,000 km" (i.e. 549,400 mi), so maybe we should say "approximately 550,000 miles" (with a convert template) in the article. The mention of Guiness Book of Records also seems to be a mistranslation. The only source for it seems to be an interview with Holtorf himself in Spiegel Online where he says "ein Eintrag ins "Guinness Buch der Rekorde" ist in Vorbereitung", i.e. that "an entry in GBoWR is being prepared", which is not the same as a confirmation that the submission has been accepted by GBoWR as a world record, or even that GBoWR have received such a submission yet. Thomas.W talk 17:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Thomas.W. Feel free to use the approximate language and the convert template. :) Works for me. With regards to Guinness, the second source for that sentence says "550,000 miles and 215 countries later the Mercedes - nicknamed Otto by Miss Holtorf - has made it in to the Guinness World Record books." ([5]) Not being from the UK, I'm not generally familiar with it, but is the Express considered broadly reliable? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they misinterpreted the interview with Holtorf in Spiegel Online? Since Holtorf himself doesn't claim that it has been accepted as a world record, only saying that an entry in GBoWR is being prepared, I think we should wait until we get some confirmation fron GBoWR before claiming that it really is a world record in the article. Thomas.W talk 18:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I can add that a search on "Holtorf" on the Guiness World Records web site ( http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/ ) returns nothing ("No results found"), while searches on "Gunther" and "Günther", to make sure there are no alternative spellings of the family name, only return records that have no connection to Holtorf. Thomas.W talk 18:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Although I'm always a little uneasy putting something in an article that differs from what the source says, I'm comfortable with the language you put in the article. I'm not really that sure of Express. I wish I could understand this 2015 interview I just added, but it's much, much too fast for me to hope to follow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to ping you, Thomas.W . :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Written about in Iceland, too. But I really can't use that: [6]. Just noting for my own interest. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have sofar listened to just over 20 minutes of the interview, that is about half of it, and the only interesting parts sofar is that he met his fourth wife Christine, whom he spent most of the time on the road with, after putting a personal ad in a newspaper in Germany, seeking someone who wanted to see the world, and that he refers to the natives of Kenya as "die Schwarzen", on radio, which would not be politically correct in the US or UK. I was afraid that it would be in Bavarian German, since it's on Bayerische Rundfunk, but Gott sei Dank it isn't, it's in "standard German". I'm taking a break now, and a cup of tea, but intend to listen to the rest of it later tonight. Thomas.W talk
Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks for fixing Organ transplantation in China. I looked up the article after viewing a TV program on the subject, broadcast on an Australian national TV network on 7 April (which accounts for the spike in page views on and after that date). It's a pity that the article was in such a bad state for such a long time - the refs weren't visible - not a good look for WP! Anyway, I've now added an EL to the TV program. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to repair it, Bahudhara. :) It always makes me unhappy when people's copyright problems taint work being done by others. I feel bad for them! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Un Canadien Errant -- English Version

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Moonriddengirl --

Two things:

1. I noticed in a wiki discussion that I was given credit -- by you, I believe -- for most or all of the content of the article on this song. But that is not true. I only provided the literal English translation from French, and the new English song version -- see below. Someone else provided all the historical information.

2. You may have had nothing to do with removing my credit as the writer of the new (2011) English version of the song Un Canadien Errant, but FYI I restored it. I wrote the new version because I love the song and was very disappointed with the Gibbon version. It took me parts of three days to do a "singable" version that adhered closely to the original, and as you can seen from the editing history I continued to improve it for a while. I didn't copyright my lyrics because I wanted people to be able to perform it anywhere, any time, without concerns for copyright violation. As you can also see from the editing history, I made sure that the copyright issue was taken care of prior to publication. In the interest of history, accuracy, and because I spent some significant effort on the work I would like to retain my writer credit in the wikipedia article. Brian Puckett <redacted>

Best regards, Manfromtexas (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Brian. Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Moonriddengirl. I came across a copyright issue that spans two pages, so I'm not sure how to deal with it through the templates.

The draft Draft:Hedda Gabler (2014 film) was created September 25, 2014, and the same material was added to Hedda Gabler (2014 film) on October 2. There is an edit summary stating that permission for the plot summary would be mailed. Sure enough, there is an OTRS ticket on the draft talk page. However, more than just the plot summary is copied from this source, which predates the Wikipedia draft. I am thinking of history merging the draft with the mainspace article, moving the OTRS ticket template to the mainspace article talk page, and rewriting whatever is not part of the plot summary to be less promotional. Does this seem right to you?—Anne Delong (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That seems exactly right to me, Anne Delong. :) I've read the OTRS thread, and it is very specific that permission is for the plot alone. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, it took a little fussing, because the copy was pasted over a redirect about another topic, and then the page was moved to a new title, dragging along edits about various other films. I ended up with two pages, Hedda Gabler (2014 film) and s rather rudimentary Hedda Gabler (filmography). I found that I couldn't copy the OTRS tag, so I had to copy the contents of the article talk page to the draft talk page and then move the draft talk page, but it worked once I figured out what to do.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to move to dated pending and received categories

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, I know that you work more with article-related permissions on OTRS than with image-related permissions, but I wanted to alert you to this proposal. I haven't really given much consideration to how to incorporate article permissions into what I am proposing (or whether we should even incorporate them at all). I would like to propose that we move to monthly {{OTRS pending}} and {{OTRS received}} categories and that we have a bot help out with automatically tagging images for deletion where the tag has been in place longer than the current {{OTRS backlog}}. The purpose of this exercise is twofold: (1) it reduces potential duplication of effort in checking on images and (2) it prevents images for which we do not receive appropriate permission from sitting around longer than need be. My idea is at Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Proposal to move to dated pending and received categories and I would welcome your input. Thanks, --B (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This is kind of a left-field question...and it's not necessarily Wikipedia-related,it might be more of a larger, ethical-edge issue. But it comes after years of trying to talk my kids out of listening to music that was clearly pirated. Supposing a Youtube song video is preceded by ads sponsored by what seem like major corporations? Home Depot or similar? Can we assume these were approved by the artist or the music publishing company that holds the rights? No hurry - it's just that I can't figure it out from G-searches. Hope you're enjoying spring, Novickas (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) Can we assume they were approved? I would say not based on the ads preceding the video. The only time I think it would be safe to assume the publisher is involved is if the account posting the video is the official account for the artist/publisher/rights-holder, and even then it is tricky to confirm that: anyone can create an account called "Official <artist name>" which will stay there until someone discovers and reports it. CrowCaw 17:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Crow. I agree with you. Novickas, like many websites, Youtube maintains a passive approach to copyright issues. While Wikipedia has processes to clean up copyright issues no matter who identifies them, Youtube responds to copyright issues only when the copyright owner points them out. I'm no expect on advertising on YouTube, but it's my understanding that people who upload videos may choose to monetize them with streaming ads and that these ads are targeted to the geographical location of users, so it's not so much that an advertiser is sponsoring a specific video as the video uploader has opened the door to ads and the person viewing the video fits the demographic. YouTube may demand proof of commercial rights to content in videos prior to placing ads, but they may not. I did a quick search for "full album", as these are almost always copyvios on YouTube and found an Avenged Sevenfold album hosted by a person who openly acknowledges "this is not my music...it is property of A7x...i did not make any of it...i just put it together", and that video is fronted by an ad. After watching said ad, I reloaded the video--and got a different ad. :) I doubt the advertisers have any real idea what videos they're fronting - it's far more by the numbers than that, I think. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Crow and Ms. M. It wasn't the answer I was hoping for :( but it's better to know. Regards, Novickas (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago25 comments8 people in discussion

Hello. I mentioned you and your advice at User talk:Gamaliel ‎and User talk:Adam Cuerden - about the user we were talking about, user:WPPilot's edits. Gamaliel is one of the main editors on Signpost and Adam is main editor responsible for Featured content at Signpost. I pointed out the issue in both places. I don't know if I succeded to explain how the correct attribution has to be done. I don't know that either. If it has to be done in the edit summary, then it is too late now. WPPilot is ideffed now, so I guess somebody else has to do this now. Hafspajen (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Hafspajen. Anyone can fix this. :) What needs to be done is a null edit on page(s) with a note in edit summary noting the copying and wikilinking the source article. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia talks more about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I am confused now, Moonriddengirl. As I generally was; for the last month. What you are telling me here is that (list all possible things: )
1) there is not a problem here?
2) that I should fix it?
3) that I should ask someone to do it?
4) That I should ... do .. what...?
Hi, Hafspajen. Sorry for confusing you. What I'm saying is that any problem that there is here based on copying from one Wikipedia page to another without required attribution is reparable, in a process described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and that you are certainly able to help repair it. :) There is no one whose responsibility it is to repair such issues unless it is the editor who made the mistake, and you say he is indefinitely blocked. Like everything on Wikipedia, it relies on the labors of volunteers. You can ask others to repair it if you like, but honestly whether they do it or not is likely to depend on their interest and their capacity. Some have one but not the other; others have neither. We've got a perpetual backlog in copyright cleanup (I bet we have literally hundreds of thousands of articles waiting for review), and I know of no copyright clerks or admins who are likely to have capacity themselves to pursue this particular cleanup project on their own. You can request a WP:CCI if you think the issue is extensive enough, but that's where the backlog largely is - so I'm afraid that if a CCI is opened, it isn't likely to be quick. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, there IS already one investigation open, maybe it can be simply added... here- (?) I think if I ever return, (this is just cleanup edits) I probably start working on copyright issues.... User:Crow was trying already to involve me here. Sigh. Hafspajen (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, think I understand- null edit can be done by adding and then deleting a space (as fas as I remember). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Xanthomelanoussprog, thanks. :) Hafspajen, the page you link to is on the process board for single article issues. If you think the issue is widespread enough to merit a community-run copyright cleanup, please review WP:CCI and request assistance there. That said, again, that process is backlogged; there are investigations that have been open for years. If issues can be handled without that, it's certainly better. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
With the risk of soundig stupid: I always believed that copyvio was not allowed. I thought that was a serious issue, that it was taken seriously. I tryied for a long time now to explain this to both for the user, with very little sucess, to the Signpost main editors, with very moderate sucess. I thought it was a serious issue... maybe I was wrong? Hafspajen (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen, based on what above are you concluding that copyvio is allowed or is not taken seriously? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe I am only tired and sad. Maybe I don't understand this. I was fighting this issue for too long. What I understood now, that it is only one person's responsability: the person who actually commited copivio. The others may or may not care: "likely to depend on their interest and their capacity". I understand this as: yes, there is a copvio issue here. I think this is clear. From here onward I don't understand how to handle it. Possibly we don't need to do nothing at all? Hafspajen (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hafspajen, with a site like Wikipedia, we are all volunteers, and people who choose to take responsibility are the responsible parties. I can share your frustration and weariness, but I have no magic solution. :) The best I can do is tell you how to request review at the appropriate forum if you don't want to fix the problem yourself (that's WP:CCI). I wish I had the capacity to shoulder this and all the other copyright problems that come Wikipedia's way, but I don't. Due to issues in my personal life, my time volunteering is sadly truncated, and I spend almost every minute I have on here working on copyright problems. (I miss the days when I wrote an article every other day. Those were good times. :)) I know that there other volunteers who are similarly sinking in copyright work. Just look at the number of names we have listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. People care and care quite deeply, but there's just so few of us and so much to do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I should start my springcleaning working with that Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations... I might became wiser after a while ... who knows. Thank you for your patiece. Hafspajen (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Hafspajen, if would be wonderful to have more hands over there. Every so often, I post an appeal somewhere - usually on AN - and every person who picks up the work helps! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, OK. I can't promise anything 100%, I need to re-think this for let's say some weeks. For just two days ago I felt nothing is keeping me here any more... I stopped caring for most of the things I have done here. But this issue is interesting me enough now. Hafspajen (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
MRG, Hafspajen, I am just this far from asking for a CCI for WPP – he has four strikes that I know of, and I haven't finished looking. I don't know what the problem is here, but if a CCI would help then I'll go ahead and request one (but tomorrow ...). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers: WPP wrote entries on the Featured Content page of the Signpost by cutting and pasting from the articles. There's probably very little trace left, as a lot was rewritten by others (sometimes it didn't make sense!) He restricted himself in the main to the Featured Pictures section. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

At the top of every issue of the featured content report, it says This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted to featured status from [date] to [date]. Text may be adapted from the respective articles and lists; refer to their page histories for attribution.

I'm getting a bit annoyed. Under my watch, FC turned from something where everything was copy-pasted blindly to where most things are rewritten. I changed the header because consistency with using quotes to attribute wasn't happening, but, otherwise, I think we've been managing fairly high-quality reports for a while.

I'm seriously considering giving it up, because Hafspajen has been deoing everything in their power to fling drama everywhere. Misquoting me, quoting me out of context, trying to pull me into disputes.

I'm largely on wikibreak, and I'm still having to deal with major wikidrama, and it's been going on for months. I cannot handle this.

Hafspajen: Drop the stick and step away. Please. This would have blown over three months ago if you hadn't made it your sole crusade to keep bringing it up over and over. And not to Gamaliel or anyone who could do anything, but to as many formerly unconnected people as you could drag in.

I don't ask for a lot of time off of Wikipedia. But when I am taking time off, it would be nice if I wasn't getting constantly pulled into squabbles anyway through being tagged, pulled in, criticized for not doing things when I'm not freaking here and, worst, regularly misquoted and made out to have opinions I don't have.

I wanted two months where I could just spend the little time I had for Wikipedia making sure Featured content worked, so I could spend time with my mother. What happens? Constant drama as Hafspajen actively picks a fight with another FC contributor, then brings people into it until he reacts, and they can use that as reason to ban him, throwing in a few other issues which never get discussed with him as everyone's rushing to help Hafs who started it.

I didn't want to say anything, but that it's still going on, and Hafs is actively opening new threads everywhere still is getting ridiculous. I have an anxiety disorder, and I don't want freaking Wikipedia to be causing me anxiety on top of everything else. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I concern with what Adam has said here. At no point did this user communicate to myself or User:Go Phightins! or User:The ed17 any problems they had with the way FC was being composed. In fact, they have steadfastly refused to participate in any attempt on our part to address the interpersonal issues they had with other FC contributors. This is clearly motivated by this interpersonal drama. Gamaliel (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That may be true (I'm on the sidelines here) but it's immaterial. Anxiety attacks can be prevented by properly following the license in the first place, which means proper attribution. So one way or another this needs to be fixed; it were better if it hadn't happened in the first place but that train has left the station. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I carefully made sure that it was clear the Signpost recycled some material. Also, you not using your admin powers against someone you were too involved with (as evidenced by your bizarre claims of promotion) has also left the station. I think you should lose your adminship. But I'm done here Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you. But that works out, cause I don't know what you're talking about either--"promotion"? But there's a CCI in the works, if it hasn't already happened, which means, simply put, that you are wrong. Now, feel free to bring my adminship up at AN: please put your money where your mouth is, or just shut up with your unfounded accusations. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Drmies_and_WPPilot Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: As a minor point of possible interest, you don't mean a null edit, you mean a dummy edit. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mudwater. :)
As to everything else above, I'm really a bit overwhelmed here and quite dismayed by the level of distress this situation (which seems to be larger than I know) is causing. I deal with copyright issues. These can become very heated and very personal, especially in areas where copyright & plagiarism get confused. They aren't the same thing at all. It is entirely possible to have a copyright problem with no plagiarism and it is equally possible to plagiarize without copyright infringement. Copyright is a legal question; plagiarism is a social one. With this particular situation, my involvement is simply on the question of best practices. With regards to WP:CWW, there are reasons, when taking is substantial, that it's a good idea to put a note in edit summary. (IANAL. This is my lay understanding.) Our licenses both require that attribution be given equitably in terms of prominence and placement. CC-By-SA notes that "at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors" and GFDL requires that the History section include new authors. Because of our TOU, our authors consent to be attributed by wikilink rather than by names, which simplifies this considerably. The question arises around when contributions are substantial. I can quote a sentence from, say, WP:NPOV without putting a note in the edit summary linking to NPOV. There's no plagiarism, because I'm quoting. I'm not misleading people into thinking that the text is my own. There's no copyright issue, because the taking is not substantial; what I'm doing falls well within fair use. The more substantial the content becomes, and the more central to what I'm saying, the higher the burden of giving equal prominence to attribution of those authors. Whether an excerpt from an individual article would require that level of attribution is something only a court could determine; there's no hard and fast rules at all to determine when use is fair. Edit summaries are cheap. It's easy to eliminate doubt, so that these larger excerpts don't risk skirting the line.
But this is not, in my firm opinion, a moral issue. When any effort is made at attribution, you're clearly dealing with good faith, and there is certainly room for intelligent disagreement on questions of copyright. If there weren't, there wouldn't be so many court cases related to it. This particular problem, at least, seems to me like the kind of thing we should be able to discuss calmly, without people being upset or feeling harassed. This makes me feel like there must be more going on here than I understand - not just with WPPilot, as it's quite clear there's more there, but in general. And I'm so sorry to see unhappiness and ill-will among people who are just doing their best to build a great encyclopedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ekta Parishad

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I noticed that you removed some text from this article which was copied from the website of the organisation. I think I can send a permission about this text, as I am working for this organisation. Would it be OK? I am a long term editor here. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Yann. Absolutely! :) I know you know your way around Commons, so I'm sure you're familiar with Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. They can also put a release on the site itself, of course. We recommend in that case getting the release archived so that we don't ever run into lost permission later. {{Text release}} is the way to go in that case. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Morton Gould

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, MRG. I was just looking at the Morton Gould article, and came across the Library of Congress page for his collection there. As part of it, there's a striking publicity photo dating from 1963, which has more information about it here. It doesn't seem to fall under the staff photo exceptions listed here, so I assume it's still under copyright. There's currently a photo in the article dating from later in his life (1980s?) - do you think adding a second non-free photo would be excessive? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:SarekOfVulcan. :) I wish that I could help, but I'm afraid that I'm really not the one to ask about that; I'm not active at all in fair use image questions and have not uploaded a fair use image of living person in years because of my own confusion about our community standards. I have no clue whether that would be regarded as reasonable or not. If it were me, I'd take it to WT:NFC just to get other opinions, I think. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for your help! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

DL001E - DL-001 Primer on Intellectual Property

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey,

I'm interested in volunteering in the IP area of this Wiki. I'm willing to take courses so that I can contribute in a valuable way. I'm looking into this course: https://welc.wipo.int/acc/index.jsf?page=courseCatalog.xhtml&lang=en&cc=DL001E#plus_DL001E. What do you think? --Syed Kazim (Talk | Contribs) 20:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Syed Kazim. :) Unfortunately, my firewall software won't let me follow that link. :/ It indicates it isn't secure. I was able to find what I imagine is the same class through a Google search at [7]. Anything that improves your understanding of US copyright law is helpful, certainly. You then need to modify what you know to account for Wikipedia's approach to it; I've known a few attorneys who have been a bit thrown by our policies, which are intentionally conservative. We don't test boundaries there. :) You could probably also pick up the basics through the Stanford guide at [8], esp. including the sections on Copyright FAQs, The Public Domain, and Fair Use. This should be supplemented with Wikipedia:Copyvios, Wikipedia:NFC, WP:C, Wikipedia:Plagiarism, WP:CWW, Wikipedia:Copyright in lists and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. A good place to get some experience is at WP:SCV - infractions there are generally quite fresh, so you're less likely to run into false positives. (And, when you do, it usually means content was copied from another Wikipedia article - sometimes without attribution - which is a copyright problem, too!) Would be delighted to have more assistance in this area. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Corensearchbot

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl. The CorenSearchBot seems to have stopped functioning. I think it has something to do with the Yahoo search engine, as discussed at User talk:The Earwig#403 error. I have posted a message on Coren's talk, but thought it best to notify you as well. Thanks for any assistance you can offer in getting this quickly resolved. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yikes, Diannaa! I'll see what I can do. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring by Hanswar32

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Hanswar32 (talk · contribs) is the subject of an edit-warring report that was archived without response from any admin, and only a single and brief response from any non-involved editors.

You had blocked him, and then removed the block after he promised, "I understand that I have been blocked for edit warring which I shall avoid in the future. Please note that I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still getting familiar with my surroundings. Instead I will seek to resolve disputes through the avenues outlined and provided for me."

He decided to continue with the edit-warring a month later ( [9] [10] [11] [12]) and has continued through the past month (including [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]), more than a year later. I am planning to take the case to ANI, but thought it might be best to notify you first and get your thoughts. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, please note that Ronz has grossly and in what seems bad-faith, mischaracterized and falsely portrayed all those diffs cited to achieve whatever personal ends he has in mind. I adequately defended myself against his half-truths and whole-lies in the report above and it would be pointless to redo that here, so please have a look and pay particular attention to the last few posts in which Ronz desperately and shamelessly tries to prolong the discussion with frivolous and unfounded claims. Although I'm disgusted by Ronz' behavior and have in fact warned him on his talkpage for his seemingly continuous obsession/harassment [26], I'm actually not disappointed in the least that he contacted you because of my respect for you as a reasonable admin. If anything, I hope you can advise me on how to prevent Ronz from continuing to harass me. Thank you. Hanswar32 (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Ronz and Hanswar32. I'm afraid I feel very underinformed to really have thoughts here. :/ This is evidently a fairly large dispute over how pornography articles should be handled, and it looks like it hasn't been settled since my minimal involvement over a year ago. (If it has, there should be a consensus to point to?) It looks like there was a 3RR violation on April 12th ([27] [28] [29][30][31]), although this was stale by the time the 3RRN was opened. Leaving aside all questions of other edits for the moment, please, Hanswar32, what's your take on what happened there? I have no intention of blocking you for crossing 3RR a month ago, but it would help in my general response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response and you are spot on about this being fundamentally a policy dispute, one in which Ronz is trying impose his views/opinions on through bullying tactics by making false allegations & fabricated accusations to mask his agenda. I'm glad to cooperate and answer any of your questions and I apologize in advance for cluttering your talkpage but please allow me to cite the following that I have written from the archived report above in my defense to give you a better background on what has been going on:
Extended content
  • I'd like to cite this talkpage [32] in addition to my own talkpage [33] as evidence that I've been involved in productive discussions over disputes which support my commitment to avoid edit-warring and utilize avenues available for seeking consensus. In particular, I would like to quote the following from my talkpage from January: "if Hullaballoo insists on edit warring and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge our offer of reconciliation and reverts my edits, then I'll just open a request for input on the article's talk page and settle it there." The dispute with Hullaballoo was effectively toned down afterwards, possibly thanks to this. The four 15-month old examples that Ronz cites above as evidence of my edit warring with Hullaballoo are extremely poor ones since Hullaballoo was making a blatantly false claim that the source failed to mention what was stated in the article. If he had simply checked the source, he would've noticed the information staring him in the face plain as day. After pointing that out numerously and imploring for a 3rd party to get involved, he ceased his disruption, likely after checking the source himself and silently acknowledging his error. The reason I say that this is a bad example to demonstrate my dispute with Hullabaloo is because our dispute stems to a fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of sourced awards he deems lack notability, while the example above was a misunderstanding to say the least, which was resolved relatively quickly and not reflective at all of any past disputes with Hullaballoo that were longstanding...Ronz also claims that my talkpage is full of editors trying to resolve disputes with me, which is another misrepresentation as the only two users I've ever disputed with since the original ANI from the first days of my account a year and a half ago are Hullaballoo and Ronz, with long stretches of truces with Hullaballoo in-between usually following some sort of discussion where we agree to disagree.
  • You do realize that your own behavior will be scrutinized as well? The evidence you cite above points to your edit-warring behavior and continuous revert of my edits. Two highly credible and experienced editors (Morbidthoughts & Nymf) both disagree with your inappropriate tag on the article's talkpage [34]. You've also been a complete nuisance on other talkpages [35] with not a single editor who agrees with you or your interpretations. I hope you stop your disruptive behavior, and I for one don't plan on edit-warring with you and am content to let the discussion take its course on the talkpage and gladly have any of the other experienced editors eventually remove your inappropriate tag. If you want to continue edit-warring and revert my edits, that's your prerogative....It didn't take very long for another impartial editor to remove your tag [36].
  • What your comment does clearly demonstrate though is Hullaballoo's insistence on edit-warring/reverting by ignoring what I and many other editor's have established and agreed upon in numerous talkpages. After such discussions take place, Hullaballoo goes into hibernation mode for weeks to months and suddenly develops amnesia or plays dumb (I'm not sure which one) by doing massive reverts across a large number of articles as if discussions never took place. Scalhotrod and I, along with various other editor's have done our part by discussing the issue, coming to an agreement/consensus, and applying appropriate edits to the articles based off this consensus with Hullaballoo all of a sudden waking up from hibernation and having to repeat the cycle once again by reminding him and rediscussing the issue over with the same results. How you were able to conclude that I am blameworthy for allegedly failing to resolve a dispute with someone who exhibits such behavior as Hullaballoo through your observation that Scalhotrod justifiably reverted a single page from among 6 pages Hullaballoo decided to impose his fallacious views on despite documented overwhelming opposition to them is beyond me. If you're so eager on finding a resolution to something which is clearly only bothering you, go ahead and report the source of the problem which is Hullaballoo and leave those who engage in discussions over the matter and come to an agreement over it alone. I'm sure you were also aware that this discussion was about to be archived and so to keep it active you decided to post a frivolous comment with information two days old that you were fully aware of the entire time.
  • Hanswar32 now continues edit-warring directly against his promises to stop: [37] --Ronz....Ronz Is this another pathetic troll attempt? Or just a desperate attempt to prevent this discussion from being archived? As a liar, I'm not expecting you to answer those questions since you've already ignored/failed to address anything previously mentioned above. And since you are a liar, I'm sure you already know what I'm going to say regarding the diff you cited, so don't read into this as me feeding the troll, I'm merely mentioning for anyone who happens to read this without checking the diff for themselves that the edit cited is completely benign and void of any warring (it involves no other editors, it's not an undo/revert and not even a restoration of disputed material taken off the article by an opposing editor) and Ronz, the troll/liar, knows this but is harassing me. I've gone ahead and formally warned you on your talkpage to stop your disruptive behavior/harassment. Keep it up, and you'll probably add on to your already multiple block history. --Hanswar32
  • Another revert [38] --Ronz...You conveniently missed reading the edit summary which I purposefully left expecting your continued harassment and specifically wrote to the editor that I'm not going to revert you to be absolutely and unambiguously clear, and I didn't. I've already warned you on your talkpage, so if you keep harassing me and continue with your pitiful lies, nothing would be more satisfactory than seeing you endure another prolonged block to your history. --Hanswar32
The above should give you some insight to my and Scalhotrod's history with Hullaballoo particularly in bold and the reason for my April 12 reverts. It's my understanding that the 3RR applies to a single page over 24 hours, and whatever the case, regardless of the technicality of it, I seek to uphold the essence of the rule by avoiding confrontations and engaging in discussions to reach consensus as cited extensively above. Ronz however has failed to address or respond to anything in any satisfactory method, if at all, because he knows that what he's doing is a pathetic troll job to silence/harass an editor he disagrees with and it would be my pleasure to embarrass him once again if he decides to continue on with his foolishness and make a false report to ANI. Hanswar32 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hanswar32, you're right; I didn't look closely enough. I saw the date and clear reverts and didn't notice the page title. So, no 3RR violation, although there is edit warring - but it's your contention that you're reverting across a swathe of articles to enforce consensus? Why not seek dispute resolution if somebody is repeatedly violating consensus? (I have to admit that I'm still not looking that closely. When at a skim I see stuff like "Ronz Is this another pathetic troll attempt?" I'm not reading. Not unless I'm evaluating for WP:NPA. I'd much rather concisely discuss the problem and focus on solutions.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
To be quite honest, the reason I haven't investigated or explored seriously the idea of seeking dispute resolution specifically in regards to consensus violation is because there is no centralized crystal clear consensus to point to. There are several various discussions on numerous talkpages where an agreement between several editors including myself have been reached and we edit based on that. The only editor who had an issue with it was Hullaballoo up to about a month ago when Ronz suddenly appeared in the picture. And dealing with Hullaballoo, although frustrating at times, is not that bad because he usually informally agrees to disagree and edits other articles for a few weeks/months at a time before reappearing again and having to repeat the discussion somewhere new with the same results. This method has been working flawlessly for the past year and a half without incident and as such, I found no cause or motivation, neither did any other editor who agrees with me I suppose, to seek dispute resolution. But for the past month, ever since Ronz has shown up from seemingly nowhere, this harmony has been disrupted by his bullying/harassing behavior as he refuses to acknowledge the non-centralized consensus that exists between numerous editors over the issue. I cited a few talkpages in the report above where he's been a nuisance and went on and on talking to himself after every single editor disagreed with him and Scalhotrod can bear witness to this. Hanswar32 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

My guess would be that you're assuming there is consensus on one side, and others feel differently - either that there is no consensus or that consensus supports them. I am guessing because I have zero familiarity with the Wikipedia approach to writing about porn stars and the primary issue here seems to be about what awards to include and whether to mention nominations.

If I'm right, I suspect that the lack of a concrete discussion lends to this. If you have consensus to point to, drama diminishes. (Drama never disappears on Wikipedia; most of us are dedicated to volunteering in one area or another, and invested people get excited when inevitably disagreements happen. Occasionally, contentious practices are challenged. Unpleasant sometimes, but a healthy part of Wikipedia's lifecycle if handled correctly.)

I'm not endorsing your perspective of what's going on here or Ronz' perspective because I don't have time to wade into a rancorous, long-winded dispute in an area where I have no experience whatsoever to try to form an opinion. But I will say that your heightened language here about Ronz doesn't help your case. Ronz has been editing for over 9 years. That doesn't mean he's perfect, but he's not a drive-by who has taken a dislike to you. :) I don't believe he's here just to make your life miserable (WP:AGF swings both ways :)); it's far more likely that he genuinely thinks you're doing something wrong. You asked me above to advise you on how to prevent Ronz from continuing to harass you - based on that AGF assumption, my advice is to civilly prove that you're not doing something wrong. Get that consensus nailed down.

When I entered this discussion tangentially over a year ago, I was told Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography was moribund. If that's still true, it doesn't have to be. Anybody can get it into shape. Evidently, there are at least a few of you who have strong opinions on how pornography articles should be written. Have an RFC; craft some guidelines. Answer the question here. This approach has the advantage of long-term de-escalating drama (after some initial legwork) while also helping to standardize the encyclopedia's approach to a specific subject area.

Your other alternative, I suppose, is batter it out at ANI or whatever forum this eventually winds up in and see who lands on the wrong side of a block. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Moon, if I may, the situation with Ronz is one similar to with SqueekBox from last year where they took a stance regarding their interpretation of BLP policy specifically in regard to articles that dealt with adult film performers. This case is no where near as tendentious and there are signs that Ronz is far less rigid in their interpretation, but its seated squarely with Ronz. Furthermore, Hans is not the only User that objects to some of Ronz sourced content removals. That said, there seems to be a discussion that might work this out at the Porn Project Talk page. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that's always the best approach, Scalhotrod. :) Nail it down, and there's no confusion about what the agreed-upon practice is and who is working with or against consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

cci

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for the message you left on my talk page explaining the cci issue. I replied to it on Friday, but only realised today that you might not see it! Would it be better for me to paste my note here? Fulleraaron (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

copyvio and other problems?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This: [39] is copied verbatim from this source. Note also that the citation given at the end of the third paragraph, after the words "to realize the coup d’état against President Árbenz" is false. It pretends that the source is Cullather, Nicholas (1994) Operation PBSUCCESS: The United States and Guatemala, 1952–1954 rather than the actual source the text was copied from. This suggests there may be other problems in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I just saw that that book is a collection of Wikipedia articles. Nevermind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

OTRS question

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Could you tell me if the ticket for File:Statue of King Sejong (4273003660).jpg applies to the image and statue, or just the image? Freedom of panorama in South Korea is limited to non-commercial use, so if the statue isn't included in the ticket I'll need to nominate the image for deletion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There seems to be some conversation that occurred outside of OTRS and some of the ticket is in Korean, so I'm missing some context, but it appears to only cover the photograph--there's no mention that I see of that or any other statue. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Images of currency

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

[40] Argentine copyright law applies to images of currency but copyright expires 25 years after being published. Am I right in thinking that all images on this page are copyvios? WCMemail 20:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Think I've figured it out, they're all low res images, with a fair use rationale. I've advised the guy who uploaded a higher res image to do the same. Please just ignore this. WCMemail 20:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

YGM

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi M. You've got mail. :/ -- Diannaa (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MRG

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Your MRG (talk · contribs) redirect was moved as part of the SUL finalisation! Apparently a user on fr.wiki who hasn't edited since 2006 trumped your claim. Sad. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It's the end of an era. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Attribution question

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I was reviwing the article Fandral, especially the character biography part. Turns out, it is very heavily pasted from another wiki [41]. I understand this isn't a copyvio, but I think that the material is so substantially similar that we should really be giving some credit to the Marvel Wiki. Is there a way to do that or should I just leave it alone? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If we really did copy from them and not vice-versa then it does need to be attributed or it is a copyright violation (since we aren't following the terms of their CC-BY-SA license). We have {{CCBYSASource}} to use for attribution (generally placed at the beginning of the references section). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Critical here, of course, is the history of both articles. :) Our article's bio section seems to have been pretty well established after 2008, with this big text dump. At the time, their article looked like this. (They bury their "history" tab under "edit"). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Global revert

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Long time no contact, so I have a problem. I'm not sure that such a thing exists for admins, but a few days ago I was looking at File:Angouleme 1872.jpg that appeared to be mis-identified and is similar to this image File:Duhauron1877.jpg, so I edited the global uses of File:Duhauron1877.jpg which used the "wrong" town identity. Today a user posted that the image was correctly used but its name and original identity appear to be incorrect. Some uses did not identify the town while others used the town name in town and other article. So now if the user is correct my edits should be reverted and I suppose all references to the original town should be changed and the file renamed. See User talk:Ww2censor#Louis Ducos du Hauron's picture : Agen vs Angoulême ?. I don't even remember all the language wikis where I made the edits and even if you are able to revert them globally I should still make corrections based on the now correct identity including renaming File:Angouleme 1872.jpg. Surprisingly back in 2006 the image was promoted to Featured Picture on the enwiki per Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Old Angouleme under it now wrong identity. Please advise? ww2censor (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, ww2censor. :) Alas, I know of no way to globally revert. :( However, you might want to bring up the conversation about the location of the image at Commons, as the images are hosted there, for them to consider and potentially rename the files if they determine that they are misidentified. The process for requesting a renaming is listed at Commons:Commons:File renaming, but I kind of feel like I might in this case bring it up at WP:VP because of the long-established nature of the images and the uncertainty around the location. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
On deeper review, ww2censor, I have to say that you seem to have stumbled over something. The identification of this as Angouleme is all over reliable sources ([42]), but some few mark it differently ([43]). Could be an interesting conversation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Somehow I assumed that global revert was not a possibity, so if I have made an error I will have to revisit each use individually. The user who posted on my talk page makes some very strong points and I am inclined to believe him but I may be able to visit Agen this week so I will try to find the location and take a photo to compare what he wrote with the uploaded images. Besides your links I found this Kodak publication from 1954 whom one would normally assume to be accurate but we have seen such long term errors in the past. I am actually a commons file mover so can easily change the file name, however, I want to be certain before doing so. Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
This Google street view of Agen almost certainly proves the identity of the existing images is incorrect. The canal is hidden by the trees in the foreground, but I will still try to visit and take a photo from a bit more to the right for better building relationships if there is a view through the trees. ww2censor (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It is impossible to take photo from same location as the terrain is highly overgrown with tall trees and vegetation but most buildings are identical as are their relationship, so the incorrect location identity is proven beyond a doubt. I will revert my previous edits and review all other uses. ww2censor (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
For more details of my investigation see c:File talk:Duhauron1877.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fort Washington Fire Company

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article Fort Washington Fire Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Tiny department with 1 station covering a small township.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zackmann08 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, I stumbled upon this copyright investigation by accident when trying to copyedit Laura Cornelius Kellogg and finding lots of word-for-word plagiarism. I have access to most of the sources in the article (I'm a librarian) and am planning to try to paraphrase or delete copied content. So far I have just one question after reading the instructions -- what is the bold "N" before some articles in the lists of Articles that are part of the investigation? For example, Laura Cornelius Kellog has one. Thanks! Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sharp-shinned.hawk. From a quick look, the pages marked with N appear to be those created by the editor whose work is being investigated. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's a bit more likely to mean "Copyvio began at page creation," as per the big bold N on your watchlist. The watchlist N means,"This edit created a new page." • Arch♦Reader 00:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you - either way, or both ways, the N doesn't relate to me trying to fix the page :) So, I'll proceed boldly to try to help fix some of these copyright violation problems, N or no N. Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, EdJohnston and Arch♦Reader. :) And thanks so much, Sharp-shinned.hawk, for your interest in helping to clean up that CCI! We can use all the help in that area that we can get. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

about 15 days since UNESCO followup email

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Absolutely I will, User:ArchReader. I've been away from my inbox for most of the last 10 days, so I've double-checked, just in case the notice of response missed me. So far, nothing. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Fort Washington Fire Company for deletion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Washington Fire Company (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Zackmann08 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Peer review and document improvement request

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for reliqushment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules.


Rgds. Mahitgar (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mahitgar. I've glanced, but I don't really understand how you intend that page to be used. Can you clarify? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

While drafting the document I prefered that it should be useful on multiple front and probably that seems to be the reason that document is looking bit difficult to understand.

You can refer to this rfc on meta where in the point raised is in context of Indian Copyright law, If we just apply Creative Commons licences without additional documentation, some legal gap is likely to remain (for wikimedia purposes). Affidavit part of the document intends to fill that legal gap.


As said at Rfc this document intends to keep issue within section 21 of Indian Copyright act allowing relinquishment of copyright at the same time reducing probable gap between other sections of the Indian copyright act and open free licences; to the extant possible.
1)Affidavit part of the document intends to work similar to commons:Commons:Email templates where in a single email will be sent to Indian Copyright office and copied to permissions-commons-At-wikimedia.org
2) customised affidavit by attaching the same with apropriate declaration to commons:Template:Self or a similar template. As of now on mr- wikipedia I have done the same by making template w:mr:Template:स्वतः which along with verbatim copyright reliquishment declaration (as expected by indian law) states that the reliquishment declaration is subject to both to the customised affidavit and to the respactive chosen free license.
If the gaps between CC licences and Indian Copyright act are small enough and can be filled with a customised affidavit by attaching the same as said above will make the affidavit usefull in this way also.
3) On mr-wikipedia we are contemplating that a link to this/such document be provided in localised upload wizard.

If you have still any doubts please let me know. and thanks for your supportive response.

Mahitgar (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Block

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, how my girl doing?

I know this is not your main area of work but, what can i say? your amy go-to girl.

The IP user 198.90.15.66 has been blocked a couple of times, at least, i don`t know if he has operated with another IP, anyway, he keeps vandalazing pages. I think third time is the charm and he should be blocked permanently.

I await your response and thank you in advance. Zidane tribal (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Zidane tribal! So nice to see you. :) Apologies for my delay in response. I've had little internet access for the last 10 days or so. IPs are seldom indefinitely blocked, as they can switch from individual to individual. It looks like that's a shared IP to begin with; some edits are constructive, although the bulk seem not to be. If it returns, a more extensive block is probably appropriate for logged out users only, but since it's been dormant since the 1st probably best to leave it for now. Thanks for cleaning up after it. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I see. Well i`l keep an eye on it. Thanks as always for bestowing your wisdom on me. Zidane tribal (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Harrassment

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

???????????? What's all that??? I'm contributing to Wikipedia for years and I never had issues of this kind. Whats your problem anyway?? Look like an adm. power ego trip. If I did some things that are not permitted like copyright, please assume good faith and dont accuse me like you will for a vandal. Thanks. TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

????????WHAT DO YOU TALKING ABOUT??? WHICH ARTICLES???? I changed Jacqueline Simoneau to be sure there is no copyright. For the Pan am Games articles, everybody is copying past Games articles, such as the Olympics, majors games, etc. the same damn content so there is no reason to change it anyway. WHAT SHOULD I DO JESUS LORD CHRIST??? What do you want me to do??? I’m just f948*!$!*$ tired of being accused of something without knowing what is REALLY wrong.
@TheGreenGiant23:, what is "really wrong" is that it is a violation of copyright to place blocks of text onto Wikipedia which have been copied from external copyrighted sources. For example, I found that text you have used to create recent biographical articles about Philippe Guertin, Philippe Gagné, Maxim Bouchard, Jevon Balfour and Justina Di Stasio was copied directly from copyrighted websites. (You will notice that these websites state at the bottom of their webpages "Copyright © Diving Plongeon Canada" or "© 2015 Canadian Olympic Committee. All Rights Reserved.") I figure that this is a simple misunderstanding on your part -- perhaps a belief that national olympic team websites are public domain. However, that is not the case and the text must be removed and/or rewritten. The copyvio text has now been removed from these five articles, but the others you recently created must now be checked. We would appreciate your help in removing any copyvios in those previous articles before you create new pages. If you have questions, please ask. Regards — CactusWriter (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I send a message to Crow. Waiting his answer. TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Vera Bate Lombardi

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello
I notice you edited/re-wrote this page a while ago after it was subject to some OR/Copyvio problems; I'm wondering if the same thing has happened again. I left this note for the new editor; would you mind also taking a look at it and see what you think? Thank you in advance, Swanny18 (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Goodness, Swanny18. That's pretty remarkable! I've done a thorough spot-check and can't guarantee I haven't missed anything, but I don't find any sign of copying from other sources. That doesn't mean it didn't happen; it could have happened from books to be sure. Given incremental edits like this one, I think you're probably right that there's some OR going on. Content like "The Teck boys were known for their good looks and Rosa Baring cannot be regarded as a 'shrinking violet', given that her husband divorced her in 1885 on the grounds of her adultery (though we cannot assume that she was entirely to blame)." is pretty extraordinary.
I might suggest pointing the editor to WP:NOR with a friendly explanation of why we have to remain quite close to our sources and not speculate as in this edit. If the editor is reproducing somebody else's speculation (properly paraphrased), they need to name that source, preferably within the text itself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Fwd: [Ticket#2015061510019271] Volunteer service hours.
Message added 17:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BenYes? 17:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
I am so pleased to award you for cleaning up copyright concerns; particularly the ones on shetland (cattle. I am also please as it was suggested by you! TheMagikCow (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

About my articles

Thank you for informing me about all the facts about copyright and etc. Yes, I apologise from all of you that, I had some problems in the past about copyrights of some photos and few articles. I think, all of them due to lacking knowledge about those stuff, because most of them did when I was just became a wikipedian very early times. But, now I have fixed all those wrong things and only my words are writing on created pages and existing pages. It is true that I got facts from many books, online newspapers, journals and other audio visual media, but I didn't cut and paste them. I photographed the photos that I uploaded now, but there were few incidents very early that I get directly from internet. But now, I can assure that recent photos that I uploaded are photographed by me. But, I never paste articles recently anywhere, only with my writing skills, I created the pages. So, apologize about previous copyright violations, but it will not be again.

Thank You...(Gihan Jayaweera)

How much, if any,of the translation at Tel Dan Stele can we keep?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There are a couple of obviously useful lines mentioning Israel that would be good to have in the article. I've deleted the text, you can see it at [44]. Doug Weller (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Oi, Doug Weller. I wish I could give you a definitive, but I can't. :( Arguably, the translation is the heart of the work and thus most likely to attract protection, but only a court could say for sure. The fact that the work itself is so brief is problematic; with a longer work, you can more comfortable quote bits and pieces, and it's hard to selectively quote a total of 13 brief lines. Any way to selectively discuss disputed passages, with sourcing? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Have to think about this. It's as I recall 2 lines that are the main issue, the mention of Israel. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Eranbot Project and Interested Wikipedians

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Moonriddengirl, you seem to be keen on issues of copyvio and I could use your help. There is a group of us trying to promote the use of Eranbot. It uses Turnitin software (iThenticate) to look at all new en:wikipedia edits. Thus, it has a broader scope than CorenSearchBot and identifies copyvio issues in a different manner. As a relative newbie, what is the best way to recruit help and not distract or detract for existing copyvio efforts? I presume the +700 watching this page would be candidates. Would a message on the talk page suffice (that seems rather generic)? Your advice very welcomed.--Lucas559 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lucas559. I imagine the bulk of people watching my page aren't actually watching my page, but did so once upon a time and have forgotten. :) The few people watching my page who have an actual interest in copyright work are likely to be slammed with the work that we already have. WP:SCV, WP:CP and WP:CCI are perpetually backlogged (the last with likely thousands of listings dating back 5 years). I carry an ongoing add for copyright cleanup work at the top of this page for a reason, but it seldom seems to attract newcomers, and my occasionally efforts to rally newcomers at WP:AN seldom amount to much. All of this is, I'm afraid, amounting to, "I wish I knew." You might try at WP:VP, but I'm not sure if you will get much response. You could also see if the WP:Signpost is willing to feature another article on it, which might attract some newcomers. Good luck in any case, and I'm glad to see that you are interested in helping with copyright work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I am very keep on starting to help out with copyvio clean up work, and have done so with drafts (AfCs) for a while (see my CSD-logs, or ask on IRC, I tend to ask for RD1s a bit...), but I have never signed up or done anything "structuralized", so to speak. How and where can one "begin" helping out? It seems like you have to be a Copyviocleaner-clerk or something to help out everywhere... (t) Josve05a (c) 03:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, User:Josve05a. I would be delighted to have you pitch in. :) You don't have to be a copyvio clerk to do much; while there are some tasks that copyvio clerks need to do, all of the jobs at WP:SCV are open to anyone and almost all of the jobs at WP:CCI are open to anyone (all except opening and closing CCIs). There are many jobs at WP:CP that are open to anyone - investigating issues for validity, cleaning up copyright issues, etc. User:EranBot/Copyright/rc is also open to anyone and is pretty easy to do. Both WP:SCV and User:EranBot/Copyright/rc are generally easier than WP:CCI work because the content is brand new. While we do pick up mirrors (especially when content is moved from one article to another, which is of course a problem in itself if it's not attributed), false positives are somewhat rare. As a general rule of thumb, we try to clean up as we go in those areas rather than listing at WP:CP as that just postpones the backlog. I use WP:CP more for entrenched copyright issues, where interested editors may actually do a rewrite, or where permission is likely. You are very, very welcome to ask any questions about the work at any time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
user:moonriddengirl thanks for your advice and support. user:Josve05a if you use the User:EranBot/Copyright/rc on the most recent watches it makes for quick reverting and less complicated copyvio analysis. Often it's obvious copy and pasting that can be undone. I leave a note in both the edit, the talk page (something like {{subst:Cclean|url=}}, and ping the editor. It would be great to have you working with eranbot.--Lucas559 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Lucas559, pinging the editor is great, but please also leave a note; the talk page note is an important record of issues to help us track when problems are persistent. :) It's also important to give them notice of the potential for block if they continue. I always check the history of a user for earlier issues when dealing with newly identified problems to see if additional action is necessary. Template:Uw-copyright-new and Template:Uw-copyright are typically your best bets, depending (obviously) on whether or not the user is new. It's also a really good idea if reverting for you to check the history of the editor to see if they've got a history of this, as a WP:CCI may be necessary. Unfortunately, some people do this over and over and over again, and the longer we go before catching that the more time must be wasted by people cleaning up their histories. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Copy pastes

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi MRG, I came across Kareena Kapoor Khan and Angelina Jolie Pitt which were copy-pasted from Kareena Kapoor and Angelina Jolie respectively. One was reverted earlier and I reverted one now. I haven't been around for a while and I don't know if things have changed on this front. Do they need rev-del? It's a boat load of unattributed content that's sitting in the history of both redirects now. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) A revdel could be done, or a tiny edit to the article, attributing the copy in the edit summary, would also satisfy the license. (Personally, I've always questioned the usefulness of redirects like these, where you have to keep typing after the target name is already a match, just to get redirected to the shorter name!) CrowCaw 19:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Didn't see this earlier and completely forgot about it. It seems to have been a one-off case by an editor, so I'm just leaving an edit summary now. I think the redirects were created after someone moved the pages, but I don't really care enough about that. —SpacemanSpiff 03:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Empty duplication detector reports

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I don't know whether you are the copyright software detection expert, but even if not I bet you know who is. I know that CSB is maintained by Coren, (which is not an issue here) but I now realize we have more than one tool working and I don't know who is responsible for the other one.

Several articles were tagged today as possible copyvios, but the duplication detector report comes up empty. One useful article to look at is Human rabies treatment is that was tagged by both.

The CSB template contains a link to a duplication detector report which is not empty, as well as a Copyvios report which is not empty. However the tag at the top of the page has a link to a duplication detector report which is empty as well as a Copyvios report which is not empty.

This is not a one-off situation. Most of the articles listed in User_talk:Ali_qahremani have empty duplication detector reports. It is clear that the software is finding overlap or it wouldn't be doing the tagging but it seems to be failing to provide the correct report. Any thoughts?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, Sphilbrick, I'm definitely no software expert, but I can see the superficial cause of the problem: in the blank report, the wp page url is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rabies_treatment; that does not lead to a Wikipedia article. In the "good" report, the url is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rabies_treatment, which goes to our page on that topic. Why the link in the first is malformed I can't begin to guess. Is the "other" detection bot this one? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I do not think so although I'm not sure. I just started looking into Aranbot issues but I spent less than half an hour on so conclude too much at this time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I see that the link was added by Ian.thomson I'll ask them. I see that the others were also added by Ian.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Phil sent me a message about this. I'm afraid all I can do is verify that Ali qahremani's articles are all copyright violations (not possibly, but absolutely and truly so). I check for copyvios by Googling random portions of the text in quotes (and in Ali qahremani's case, finding complete exact matches), and making sure the source predates the article. I then load up the article and the source side by side and read through both. Sometimes I copy and paste the article text and suspected source over each other in notepad to more readily spot differences if they exist. I couldn't begin to guess what's up with the software, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Ian.thomson Given the observation of Justlettersandnumbers, I wanted to make sure that when you put together the template that you are adding the link to the Wikipedia article correctly. In other words, can you eliminate the possibility that you malformed the input. For example if you look at the malformed link it has the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ portion twice is it possible you are just supposed to enter the short name of the article in the bot as the prefix while you actually copied the URL from the address line and it's doubling it up?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs)
@Sphilbrick:: I used twinkle to add the db-copyvio tag. The only address I put in was the source address, not any Wikipedia article's address, so I could not have malformed the Wikipedia address. When I put in the source address (using Twinkle), I copied the source URL from the address bar (right clicking it once to select everything and selecting copy, instead of manually highlighting and using Ctrl+C, as the latter sometimes misses something), and pasted it into the Twinkle form. So the addresses I put in should not have been malformed either. It's either Twinkle, the dupe detection software, or something else software related -- not me. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Isaiah Anderson

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Moonriddengirl: Isaiah Anderson may have copyright problems71.47.9.186 (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick glance says that, yes, indeed it does. I hate sports articles. :/ (Only because I find sports mind-numblingly confusing and/or dull.) Thanks for pointing it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

MRG, Maggie, and TPSs

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Can you please take a look at Nashik, I just removed over 40K of copyvios added by multiple editors over the past two days and have semi protected the page for another two days, left a talk page note and I am newbie-warning the multiple editors involved. Once the clean up started, I realized I could use some help for the following reasons: (1) Over 250 revisions of copyvio additions over the past two days, while rev del seems ideal, I'm not sure of the ramifications of deleting so many revisions. (2) Looking through the individual talk pages, it appears to be a class project or something like that and I'm not sure where to go for that as I don't see any instructor or other info. (3) Just some watchers would be nice. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been able to attract the attention of two members of the group, discussion here. Feel free to chime in. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow. I'll come check it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, User:SpacemanSpiff, it looks like you're handling that beautifully. :) I've revdeleted. It shouldn't impact anything; it's all a short sequence filled with copy-pasted content. I'll try watching the page, too, but feel like you've really covered the necessary messaging. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; yes, it's good that this group has responded positively, unlike a few others I've dealt with in the past, so I'm hopeful. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Paul Fisher

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

How do I tell between :

You've advised him on copyright in February and again just now, but the plain fact is, he doesn't care because he's not here for the wiki, he just wants to big-up the board of trustees of the University of Denver. He's just taken the OTRS as licence to not give a $..t.

His donations would, under other circumstances, be copy-edited within an inch of their lives to wikify them from their current resumé-like state. Most have received speedy tags for spamming, notability, or copyvio. He's certainly not donating for the benefit of Wikipedia, but for the benefit of the UoD. He's not interacting with the wiki beyond the ctrl-v end of his cut-and-paste from the UoD's material. He pays no attention to any of the abundance of advice you, or any other admin or editor, has given on his talk page.

I realise we may disagree about some of his material but his current material will need your constant attention with the mop. I appreciate your work with the mop but feel it's being wasted on this guy. Bazj (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC) (glad to have got that lot off my chest)

Hey, Bazj. :)
I don't really know what to make of the copy from the History Makers - it's why I asked him to let me know the sources of the material he's copied. It's possible that UoD originally authored that content, and it was mirrored by History Makers. Also possible that it was not.
Even if it did originate from UoD, the copyright permission doesn't give him any special powers as an editor, so inappropriate content from him should be handled just like inappropriate content from anybody else. It just takes copyright off the table. He should be placing that tag on any talk page of any article into which he places material from UoD sources so people know that copyright is not an issue. I'm a little baffled that the template has not been used correctly. I think it's pretty easy, but he's omitted it frequently and sometimes puts it in the wrong place. But I have to assume good faith, because there is no reason I can think of to omit that template on purpose. It certainly doesn't make his life easier. :/
As far as the approval is concerned, we've done this before; university historians are often just historians...pretty much like us. This one seems to be a good bit less Wiki savvy than some I've encountered. It might be worth having just a regular person conversation to explain on a very basic level a little bit about notability requirements and neutrality concerns. If that doesn't take, we sometimes have no choice.
Anyway, I'll give it a go. I probably can't sit on it consistently, but maybe if he has questions or confusion, you can help? :) It would be appreciated! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll try. But having put in a fair chunk of effort on Emmit McHenry (who really is noteworthy) to find it was built on copyvio sent me over the edge... It's just as likely that HistoryMakers and UoD both picked up a resumé from the subject and neither owns the copyright to be giving permission. Bazj (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Thanks for your interest in the Eranbot project [48]. Feel free to leave comments to improve its interface or efficacy. Lucas559 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Mkmillenium

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, we seem to have an editor who is a serial uploader of copyright images to Wikipedia. Mkmillenium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Currently blocked for removal of cited text after final warning. Talk page access is in danger of being revoked too. He was editing the Celestyal Cristal article, adding a large section of that vessel's accident. The section was overly promotional, and also contained at best very close paraphrasing if not copyvio text from a different source (World Maritime News) but attributed to Seanews.tr - It's a bit complicated. I will admit to one error in that I added as short, neutral bit about the accident into the vessel's history without realising that Mkmillenium had already added the accident section, which may be the reason this editor deleted it twice, but no edit summary was left so I can't be totally sure. In any case, after being given a final warning it was deleted again, which is why I blocked. The block is for a week, but in the meantime, there's the image problem. Would it be worth raising at ANI for a CBAN on uploading any images to en-wiki? Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Mjroots. I've had a word with him, as he's pretty new, but we'll see what happens. The removal of deletion discussions without any evidence of effort to resolve the problem is really concerning. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Talk page blanked at least twice overnight, so I've revoked his access to it. Jeez, you just can't help some people, can you? Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I'd given him the warning for removing three FfD listings without bothering to address any concern, and given that he's blanking his talk page, it seems clear that he knew what was expected of him, or at least find out if he had bothered to read the note(s) before blanking. —SpacemanSpiff 06:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks that way to me, too. I'm not optimistic. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The block has expired. Let's see if he's learnt from it. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Mjroots, I see he still likes things neat. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
He's entitled to do it, but has been told that blanking means any messages are read and understood. A blank talk page always invites investigation into the history of it. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

American Association of Adapted Sports Programs

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

We are the American Association of Adapted Sports Programs, Inc. (AAASP). I am - BluStormz - and I am authorized to represent the organization in the following request:

As you are the individual who deleted our page, we ask, is it possible to repost it, or must it be recreated from scratch? What can I provide by way of our permission to do so - clearing you or whoever may help us get it back up, of any copyrights issue?

I am not familiar with your process, I apologize.

Thanks VERY much.

BluStormz — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluStormz (talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, BluStormz. Copyright issues with the material can be resolved by licensing it, preferably at it is source. Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials talks about how this is done. The easiest way is to put a note on the source page releasing it under compatible licensing (as explained in more detail there), but there is an email release that can be used alternatively.
There are additional issues, however, that you need to be aware of. First, Wikipedia's purpose is to be a neutral compendium of what reliable sources that are separate and distinct from the subjects themselves say about notable subjects. We have pretty specific rules about what is a "notable subject" - notability is not the same as importance, but really boils down to whether or not a subject should be included. You should review WP:ORG, as this is the notability guideline that relates to organizations, including non-profit organizations. Any article about an organization must demonstrate how its subject meets those notability standards.
The article as it existed was sourced solely to your own websites, I'm afraid. This doesn't demonstrate notability, and it doesn't meet our verifiability standards. If the article had not been deleted on copyright grounds, I'm afraid it would have been deleted for those reasons, unless it had been quickly modified to fit Wikipedia's purpose.
For that reason, I would not necessarily recommend in this case that you work to resurrect the old material, although if you license it you may be able to use it for parts. A proper article should be fitted to Wikipedia's purposes and not just copied from the source.
We strongly advise people not to write about themselves or organizations to which they are connected. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This is because it can be difficult for people to write with the required neutrality and it's hard for them to avoid writing about what they know but can't verify. On the whole, the deleted article did a very good job of remaining neutral in my opinion, but I would still recommend that if you want to submit an article about the organization you do so through the drafts process.
In that case, you create a draft and submit it for review to experienced editors, who will evaluate it against our policies. If it does not meet them, they will make recommendations of how to improve it so that it does. If it does meet them, they will move it into "article space."
If you're interested in doing this, I'm happy to talk further about how it it's done. If you want to use the old article as a base, I can restore and move that to draft space for you to work from, although I'd need you to resolve the licensing issue first. It really starts, though, with making sure you can meet the notability requirements. If you do not yet have sufficient coverage in news media, magazines or unrelated industry websites to demonstrate notability, it's better to wait until you do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we check to see if the original Italian is copyvio here?

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Editor adding material in both Italian and English and then translating. [49]. Thanks Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Doug. :) Yes, unless he's the sole author of the content on the Italian Wikipedia (whence it comes), that's a copyvio. Let me check and see; if he's not, I'll have a word with him about attribution requirements for translations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. He's done quite a bit of this, I just hope he's improving the articles! Doug Weller (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Oi. He's done it again. I've had another word with him. Hope it won't be necessary to block. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I have now indefinitely blocked the user. I have left him notes on three consecutive days trying to get him to stop creating copyright problems and attribute the ones he's already created, and he has not engaged. Instead he has continued copy-pasting content from various articles where he pleases. I do not know if he has language issues, but there doesn't seem to be any other option. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Doug Weller. I really don't understand the path this guy is taking. First, he ignores friendly conversation, then he lies, then he starts rapid socking. Over something that should be so easily resolved. It's perplexing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
We attract more than our share of weird people. As you may know if you've chatted to any CA staff yesterday or today. Doug Weller (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Paulie_Zink

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can you please take a look at this article - it is newly created so perhaps I am jumping the gun - but it is full of what I think is copyvio and I am not sure how to deal with it. The subject, although not my cup of tea, has claim to notability so I don't want to appear draconian (still I feel bothered by it more than usually). Is there a tool which can help to make the situation clearer. I left some comments on the Talk page.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Peter. :) I think you did not jump the gun. :/ Content on Wikipedia needs to conform to our copyright policies from the start; I have blanked the article (now in draft space) and left a note at User talk:Taoyin2004. I hope not to be too bitey! If you happen to see him asking questions there, please feel free to jump in. :) He may be a bit alarmed to find the page blanked in spite of the explanation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I thought it being moved to Draft was enough for the moment but live and learn. I certainly don't want to chase the person away but I was confused/put-off by the cut-paste from multiple sites (not at all easy).Peter Rehse (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Johnny Mercer article

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This is Paul and I had planned some serious work on Johnny Mercer; gave the article a read-through today, and it seemed to me that at least parts of it were "borrowed" from elsewhere. Grabbed the phrase "Mercer liked music as a small child and attributed his musical talent to his mother, who would sing sentimental ballads." and put it into search, winding up in these 3 major spots:

The World Heritage and Project Gutenberg articles have ref numbers exactly where our article does, but no idea as to who copied from who. Where do we go from here? Thanks! We hope (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

From here, we do a revision history search to see where the content entered. Did it look like it did in those sources, or different? If different, did it evolve to look more like those sources or less? If the former, reverse copying is likely. Let's see what I find with that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Before that, the World Heritage Encyclopedia and Gutenberg, which copy from it, can instantly be eliminated as mirrors. World Heritage sorta kinda acknowledges it, although they can't quite manage to do it right for some reason in spite of repeated requests:

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.

They get that they need to attribute. They just don't seem to understand that the way they're trying to do it is legally WRONG. Anyhow, so that leaves the other source. Back to it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

We see the germs of the line I've chosen to trace enter our article here in 2006. Fortunately for us, it was very different. So how does "Mercer liked music as a small child. His aunt told him he was humming music when he was six-months old." get to "Mercer liked music as a small child and attributed his musical talent to his mother, who would sing sentimental ballads. Mercer's father also sang, mostly old Scottish songs. His aunt told him he was humming music when he was six months old and later she took him to see minstrel and vaudeville shows where he heard ?coon songs? and ragtime"? Incrementally.

This is enough for me. It's highly unlikely that we copied bits and pieces wrong and then eventually made them right. Lacking other evidence, I call this the Walk of Fame copying from us, We hope. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for unraveling this! We hope (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The articles 2017 UEFA Champions League Final and 2017 UEFA Europa League Final are similar in nature and information (at this stage), there is no copyright violation going on.

I can provide the following sources for the articles:

That's all. Chanheigeorge (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The said articles can be traced back to the previous seasons, e.g. 2017 UEFA Champions League Final to 2016 UEFA Champions League Final and 2015 UEFA Champions League Final etc., 2017 UEFA Europa League Final to 2016 UEFA Europa League Final and 2015 UEFA Europa League Final, etc. I am heavily involved in writing the articles, including (and in particular) the intro paragraphs, although I would not claim to be the sole author of these articles (I started to edit them a few years ago). So I guess I can claim to be copying (largely) my work repeatedly in these cases, and would have no problem if other people were to copy my work. Chanheigeorge (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I will provide attribution the next time I edit those articles. Thanks for your information. Chanheigeorge (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Skookum1 again

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I recently removed these attacks and threats from Skookum's talk page because there were explicit attacks (again) and this time, Skookum1 escalated to threatening to out the real names of other editors. I would like to suggest removing talk page access. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. :/ Let's see if it comes back. If so, that may be a necessary step. If it was a final shot fired, I would prefer not to risk escalating to other channels. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

More paraphrase issues with user Epeefleche

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

You might want to look at the "controversy" section of the article on Brian Leiter, which is now almost entirely the creation of Epeefleche. It used to look like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&oldid=662603591

Epeefleche began a massive and controversial rewrite in late May. Some editors accused him of retaliatory editing. He has tended to belittle other editors and just revert when it suits him. Another admin, mdann, on the TALK page has pointed out that some of what he wrote does not even match the sources, but in the "controversy" section of the article, it looks like he is paraphrasing again. Thanks for your time.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Philosophy Junkie. If you've observed close paraphrasing in that article, can you please point out the sources involved? It's very helpful in investigating, and if you've already observed it I wouldn't need to do the checking myself. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
So one of the sources is this blog post from the Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/controversial-philosopher-will-step-down-as-editor-of-influential-rankings/87797. The blog post says: "Brian Leiter, the philosopher who has come under intense criticism in recent weeks for his caustic rhetoric, will step down as editor of The Philosophical Gourmet Report, an influential ranking of philosophy departments." And it also says: "Mr. Leiter’s combative tactics on his blog and social media—he called one philosopher “a disgrace” and said she works in “a shit department”—fueled a protest that prompted the change. Hundreds of philosophers signed a statement saying they would not complete the surveys that inform the publication’s rankings as long as Mr. Leiter was its editor."
The other source is the Chronicle article, which the blog post itself references: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Man-Who-Ranks-Philosophy/149007/. This article says early on: "Over the past year, for example, the Manhattan native has told one fellow philosopher that she is "a disgrace" who works for "a shit department," has threatened to sue another he dismissed on Twitter as a "sanctimonious arse," and has suggested on one of his three blogs that still another professor should leave the profession "and perhaps find a field where nonsense is permitted.""
Here is what Epeefleche wrote in the article:
"Concern about Leiter intensified when he was intensely criticized in 2014 for his caustic rhetoric.[8] He was cited by colleagues for combative tactics on his blog and in social media, which included his calling one philosopher "a disgrace" and saying she worked in "a shit department".[8][44] He also threatened to sue another philosopher, Professor Carrie Ichikawa Jenkins, Canada Research Chair and Professor of Philosophy at the University of British Columbia, whom he referred to on Twitter as a "sanctimonious arse."[8][44] On one of his blogs he suggested that yet another professor should leave the profession "and perhaps find a field where nonsense is permitted."[8]
"This, in turn, prompted concern about Leiter's continued management of the Philosophical Gourmet Report. In fall 2014, philosophers at University of British Columbia organized a boycott of the PGR after Leiter sent what they called a "derogatory and intimidating" e-mail to one of their colleagues, whom Leiter claimed had attacked him.[7] Over 600 philosophers, including 30 members of his 54-member Advisory Board, signed a statement in 2014 that demanded that Leiter relinquish control over the Report's management.[26][45][46] Hundreds of philosophers signed a statement saying that they would not complete the PGR's surveys that inform the publication’s rankings, or otherwise assist in assembling the rankings, as long as Leiter was still its editor."
A lot of this seems rather close. Ironically, some of it is also wrong: the source says 24 of 56 Board Members sent a letter to him (not 30 or 54), not that they signed the petition, for example.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it does, Philosophy Junkie. :( I'm suspecting that expanding the CCI is going to be necessary, but I'd like for him to have an opportunity to respond. Being familiar with the subject, are you in position to clean up the paraphrasing issues? Or put a {{close paraphrasing}} tag on the article? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
When I have tried to edit the 'controversy' section in the past (several editors on the TALK page think it is too long), I have been reprimanded by Epeefleche and had the edits reverted. I can try again, but perhaps a senior admin like you (you appear to be a very senior admin!) can also intervene on the TALK page to make clear there is a problem. Thanks.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. If you're embroiled in a content dispute there, then it could be more challenging for you to address the paraphrasing issue. What I typically do where I have copyright issues mixed with something else is work very carefully on first pass to make sure that I am not losing the meaning of content in rewriting and then address other concerns in subsequent edits or address copyright problems and then use tags and the talk page to point out my other concerns for others to address. In your case, adding {{close paraphrasing}} to the article itself and explaining why on the talk page may be the way to go. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not have any experience with tags or this kind of problem. In general I edit entries related to philosophy and philosophers, and most are not nearly as prone to controversy as the Leiter entry. If you were to note the paraphrase problem on the TALK page, it might help. As I mentioned, Epeefleche tends to ignore and bully editors who disagree with him, this has been going on for awhile.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Roosevelt Skerrit

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, I recently found the article Roosevelt Skerrit riddled with copied text from a government source since February 2014. I tried to revert the article in a previous version but the contributor keeps re-adding the text. I left the contributor some notes regarding copied text. On my talk page he responded saying permission for the text has been given while saying he/she was the subjects reputation manager, which trigged my COI alert. This goes a bit out of my normal Wikipedia activities and am therefore not really sure what to do. I was hoping you would be willing to have your experienced eye look at this. :) Crispulop (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Crispulop and Moonriddengirl. I have taken the liberty of looking after this matter. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your speedy response and cleaning up this and some additional articles! Crispulop (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Image

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What is the rule around this image [50] Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:Doc James. All of those images are relying on a misleading "fair use rationale" claiming that the entire article is dedicated to discussing that specific work of art. It isn't. I've flagged them all for disputed fair use rationales. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

compatibility query: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

msg from Robzwop

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Good day Ma'am - I'm writing to you today because someone at wikipedia is practicing favoritism regarding the extension DyingScene.com. I am unable to use this extension as a valid citation source due to the fact it was blacklisted over 7 years ago. How can DS not be considered a valid news source when sites like punknews.org and absolutepunk.net are? They do more interviews, album reviews, exclusive premieres and publish more original content then either of those sites. This week, an admin deleted a page I created because wiki will not accept DS as a valid source. Please instruct on what avenues we must pursue to get justice in this matter, thank you. Robzwop (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Robzwop. Having seen the conversation at your talk page, I am responding there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I was delayed in posting my response only to edit conflict with User:Tokyogirl79. I agree with the excellent advice given to you by her and by User:MelanieN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Marlene Clark

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Moonriddengirl,

It's me again. I have a question concerning the article on Marlene Clark. Will my account be temporarily blocked after the issues on that article have been resolved? I'm asking you this because, after all, you're an administrator.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Paulie Zink page

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

hi Moonriddengirl,

i am so sorry about inadvertently changing your name. i am very confused about the talk pages so i will go very slowly and hope i don't mess anything up from here on forward. again my apologies. thanks so much for letting me know.

thanks for your clear reply. i am going to start from scratch after i review all off the articles you have sent me along with some other suggestions. i started the wiki adventure and i got a message from those people with more suggestions about what to study.

a Paulie Zink page has been restored. it only has one sentence currently but some other people have gone in and added links and improved the sentence. i am happy with that. what would you advise? deleting the page in the draft mode attached to my name? and starting a new one?

having asked you that, would it be possible for you to delete the page and help me create a new working draft page? and i am sorry to ask you for so many instructions, but then to give me instruction on how to get to the draft page? i will look around meanwhile but i'm not sure how quickly this will reach you.

i plan to study wiki's guidelines first, before i begin working on the page so it may very well be automatically deleted as this will take me some time. really appreciate all of your guidance and support. taoyin2004 Taoyin2004 (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Paulie Zink

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

thank you Moonriddengirl, i would welcome your help. and yes, you are correct with what i did. i didn't know the proper format to link or credit the wiki pages properly. i did add the references in, in ( ) at the end of places where i used the material from the Yin Yoga and Monkey Kung Fu pages. if you can help me make it right that would be great, otherwise i was planning on going back to some of the books i have and looking for specific material and references to use from there. i can also work on changing the wording from the other article pages, referencing those pages while leaving the jist of the idea in tact.

i posted a reply to you on that other page. most of this is the same as i wrote there. as you can easily tell i don't know how to even use the message functions here so i hope this gets to you in a timely fashion. i'm trying to model your note above re: user name. let me know if is works on that other page.

i will read though the formatting and using material references you listed above (from the other page conversation). any suggestions about what to read first will be most appreciated. 

And is everything i wrote previously about Paulie Zink available to you?  if so, perhaps you can guide me on what to use.  otherwise my plan it to start from scratch and to proceed slowy.  i am in the process of looking at some of the other bio pages on wiki to help familiarize myself with what wiki likes to see.

is there a template i could use and follow? also regarding your question about copying material from any other sources. i did use some wording and explanation from a book written by Paulie Zink. There is minor word changes and i as planning to go back and work on fixing that even more. Is it permissible to use quotes and refernece those? i'm guessing wiki doesn't want too many used however. again many thanks!  :) Taoyin2004 Taoyin2004 (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I will get to this as soon as I can. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi MRG, no rush. i did add in one line about Zink's relationship with Cho Chat Ling. i referenced one of the books i have that zink co-authored. when ever you get a chance would you take a look at it and let me know if i am doing things correctly. i was just testing it out i also wrote Prehse (?) and asked him to review it also. thank you. i am working my way through all of the advice you all have given me and reading the pages on wiki that all of you suggested. Taoyin2004 (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yin Yoga

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

hi Moonridengirl,

thank you for your explanation in removing the material. i took it from the Yin Yoga page where an experienced wiki editor is working to improve the page. i am new to this. Please help me move within the requirements of wiki without having to re-invent the wheel. i have been assigned a mentor through the co-op and would ask you to please help shorten my learning curve. May i ask you to review the two pages and let me know what i need to learn to avoid future issues? respectfully Taoyin2004 (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll reply at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


hi mrg,

i left you some notes... i think on my talk page. anyway. please delete the Paulie Zink page you moved and stored. i followed your advice and have notes from it for ideas to work on. thanks for your help. Taoyin2004 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Train members articles

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed the articles for the members of Train for Hector Maldonado and Jerry Becker were created again in spite of notability issues, and that Jimmy Stafford's article was removed. I have redirected Hector and Jerry's to Train (band) and requested on the Talk: Train (band) page that people discuss before restoring the articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Fans will be fans. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's me again

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello again!!

It's Hitcher vs. Candyman. Just thought I'd ask if you'd please assist with some understanding concerning Wikipedia policy? I understand that most of the questions you've had to answer probably relate to copyright info. However, what I need your help with does not concern copyright. I only want to ask for your help personally because you are a administrator. I completely understand if you're the wrong person to ask.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Hitcher vs. Candyman. I'll do my best. If I turn out to be the wrong person to ask, I will try to help you find the right person. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. It concerns the article, Michael Richards. You see, I keep writing on his "Personal life" section that he dated an actress by the name of Ann Talman. However, this editor keeps erasing the information about Richards and Talman's relationship, claiming it to be gossip. I don't believe it is gossip because I have used reliable sources such as People Magazine and the Los Angeles Times to verify their relationship. Still, the editor erased it. Which is why I came to you because I truly don't want to start an edit war against this editor.

There's more. This editor wrote in an edit summary that "Wikipedia is not a collection of celebrity dating histories." If that's true, then why are relationships mentioned on the "Personal life" sections of other celebrity articles such as Al Pacino#Personal life, Miley Cyrus#Health and relationships and Reese Witherspoon#Relationships? Please note that I am aware of the policies, WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy and WP:Wikipedia is not about winning, so I am willing to cooperate what you (or any administrator) have to say on the matter.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Hitcher vs. Candyman, first I should tell you that administrators don't have super editorial powers. We're supposed to enforce consensus; everyone has an equal voice in policy.
Beyond that, I will say that not getting in an edit war is smart. :) There's no compelling reason why this has to be settled right this very moment, so you've got time to draw others in for dispute resolution.
Generally, when you find yourself in a back and forth of this sort, the next thing to do is to take it to the talk page of the article and ask the other editor to discuss their concerns with you. If you can't reach consensus, you go into dispute resolution - in this case, a third opinion (3O) might do the trick. But it starts with the two of you trying to talk it through between yourselves. I'd put a note on the talk page explaining why you think it warrants mention and ping him to see if he is willing to share his thoughts why not.
Another good forum to get opinions on biographies, of course, is WP:BLPN, but I think that's probably better for cases where the material is controversial. While I know People is not regarded as fully respectable in some quarters, I think the LA Times is probably fine in that regard, so I think this is more a question of whether it's significantly notable in his life to merit mention in his biography, hence my recommendation that you start with 3O. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'll report it to the talk page, but that's as far as I'll go. And you're right, there is no reason why this has to be settled right this very moment. Again, I just didn't want to start an edit war. I'm glad I came to you instead. :)Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy if I can help, User:Hitcher vs. Candyman. There's a lot that's easily resolved if we just talk to each, I find. Not everything; I mean, I can't even agree with my husband what to watch on television most nights. :) If it's worth it to you to pursue it further (or if you get into a dispute that is), politely discussing and then seeking other opinions is really the best way to resolve most issues on Wikipedia. The rare exceptions are set out at WP:3RR. But remaining calm, civil and to-the-point, I think, are key. I suspect you'll do quite well with that. I've found you pretty easy to talk to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Joeyc91 and sock puppets

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am sorry to bother you, but not sure who else to address; Sock Puppets of Joeyc91 are making unreasoned reversions in the Article: Italic peoples, and trying to provoke an Edit war; Agilulf2007 (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Agilulf2007. I can tell from the history that he's been there, so I've semi-protected. Is there specific reason to believe the new account engaging there is Joeyc91? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for responding; Concerning the specific reason, thats a good question, the message from Lavezzicavani1 was written in the same manner as those by Joeyc91 and the IP address that was first used on the article seems to be from the same vicinity as those others previously used by Joeyc91; But i will try and talk with Lavezzicavani1 maybe we can reach a consensus; Thanks again; Agilulf2007 (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Arab Archery

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please review the item at: Talk:Arab archery/Temp and see if it meets your guidelines now. Thanks! Hadden (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Hadden. I will try to look at this tomorrow. I've moved it to User:Hadden/Arab archery, though, as we really can't leave it in article space even in the talk region. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeokaiwei CCI

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl. More bad news I'm afraid: Yeokaiwei has been editing as an IP. In fact there's far more IP edits that there is logged-in edits. The IP is 118.200.99.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). We will have to expand the CCI to include diffs from that IP. Can you help with this step? I don't know how to do it. Thanks (and sorry), -- Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Done, User:Diannaa. :( Looks like at least the top stuff was already caught and cleaned up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! This case can be quickly resolved, as the editor cited all his sources. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The barnstar you created, and have earned

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For not only addressing copyright violations, but taking the time to rewrite and improve compromised text. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. :) That's very kind! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Moonriddengirl,

I have been editing the Wikipedia page for my husband George Ranalli. I have never done this before, and I did not realize there would be copyright issues regarding the reuse of information from his professional website. I would so appreciate some guidance on the quickest and easiest (for a Wikipedia novice) guidance about how to resolve these issues.

Thank you so much for your input. Any assistance is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Anne Valentino 69.86.66.202 (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've replied at the talk page of your account. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

George Ranalli

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, Moonriddengirl, there appear to be multiple copyright violations recently added to this article, which account for the promotional tone. This is complicated by the likelihood that the biography is being rewritten by Mr. Ranalli's wife. I've left messages with the editor, and at the article's talk page. Any assistance you may provide would be most welcome. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:3CF7:E4A2:6CC5:354F (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a fairly short article, but the copyright problem and the COI need to be addressed. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I've been tempted to restore the 'administrative leave' business again, but have left it be while you handle it, not knowing whether Mrs. Ranalli has contacted you or Wikipedia privately with a rationale. That said, I have no clue why it's necessary for us to know that she has a PhD in psychology, in her husband's infobox. :) Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
She has not; I've checked OTRS multiple times. :/ I'm currently wavering between WP:RPP and WP:AIV. Or WP:3RR, I guess, although she'd need a clearer warning. I don't want to be unkind, but she's completely ignoring commentary at this point. I'd prefer RPP, but I'm afraid they'll just tell me to take it up elsewhere. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Probably not clear-cut vandalism, but it is edit warring, and the complete lack of communication cements the WP:OWNERSHIP impression. I'm thinking of putting a coi tag on the article for that reason. You can go to the COI noticeboard, but things tend to be processed slowly there. I'd opt for the administrators noticeboard, where it's more likely to be seen and acted upon. At this point, especially given your copious warnings, I think it's blockable. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, it might be vandalism, especially since no explanation has been offered.... 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I really would prefer not to assume that, but it's difficult to know what to do when no engagement happens. :) I've brought it up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#George_Ranalli. I hope somebody there can help figure things out. And it's off the internet for me! Thanks for bringing up your concerns with the article; it's kind of hard to know how to proceed when somebody just won't talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your prompt action on the Italians article. Denisarona (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Denisarona. :) Indefinitely blocked, of course. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Apple Leisure Group Page

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Hi,

I am a little confused at to why most of my edits made within the last two days were marked as spam. I understand the "copy and paste" deletions and can definitely revise those, but nothing I posted was with the intention to spam or promote. I simply listed everything I know about this company and used sources for all the facts. I am new to wikipedia and wanted to start editing articles and subjects that I am familiar with and had little or outdated content. Please help me figure out what I did wrong so I can revise and provide information on said subject without breaking guidelines.

Jdelpeon (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Jdelpeon

Hi again,

Thanks for the feedback. Although I completely agree that further revision is definitely needed in the Apple Leisure Group article, I must clarify that the Algdev account was NOT mine, and although I do admit using their deleted page edit as a template, I edited as much as I could and took out unnecessary parts and links. I am a college student and the subject matter does not "pertain to me", regardless of how knowledgeable I am with this company from my hometown. I would agree that most of the time it's best not to edit something that I am familiar with. But, it is one thing to revise an entire previously-completed article given "familiarity", and it is another to use said familiarity to provide as much information on a subject where there was previously none at all. I'd like to think that that is the whole point of Wikipedia, I can use my foundation of knowledge on a certain subject and other people can edit and build off of that. To reiterate, the article did need some fixing, but to delete ALL of the information I posted seems unfair, as the majority of the content was accurate, cited, and relevant. I'd be happy to work with you to find a way to present this information in an appropriate way.

Thanks again, 

Jdelpeon (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Jdelpeon

Hi once again,

Thanks for the clarification on the deletion. I can assure you that the past account did not belong to me. And I will do my best from here on out to provide information in accordance to policy.

Thanks for your help, I appreciate it, Jdelpeon (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Jdelpeon

Thanks Again for the feedback,

I'll keep doing my best with the citations and sources.

Jdelpeon (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)jdelpeon

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

George Ranalli

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Moonriddengirl, I apologize for delayed responding. I wasfiguring out how to reply!! I appreciate the input from you, and your colleagues, and continue to research sourcing for "awards" and "exhibits" sections of "George Ranalli" page. As I said previously, this is unfamiliar territory. Parenthetically, the awards section of George Ranalli page was drafted by someone else, and I am happy to contribute sourcing. I've read the reference materials on feedback "neutral tone," which is understandable, and don't think there is any confusion between "neutral tone" and "promotional" tone at this point. At this point, I think it is reasonable to contribute relevant sourcing and some factual information to the page from a neutral perspective. I'm still unclear whether copyright issues remain. (I don't understanding every comments, and its difficult to track feedback from several people at once, plus how to relay to whom and where. I'm working on it!) Please advise about any clean up in that area. In terms of the twice deleted, and twice replaced post, my thought is the information is of a temporary nature, and therefore, not relevant. I'm also looking at other similar types of pages in this context for guidance, and its not the kind of information included in professional academic or employment chronology. Thank you again for your input69.86.66.202 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Sincerely, Annevalentino

Thanks for your note. I'll respond at the talk page of your account. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sock IPs

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, I must have missed something, whose sockmaster's were those edit-warring sock IPs you have been blocking on Gaulish language, Sicels and other pages? They are apparently back again as 87.13.247.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I would have reverted/blocked them myself, but I apparently don't know the backstory here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Fut.Perf.. :) That's User:Joeyc91 who was first blocked for a bizarre unwillingness to attribute when copying from or translating from other Wikipedia articles. Once he began socking, I realized that it wasn't only Wikipedia articles he was copying from - he's copying from encyclopedias and books and articles, as well - sometimes copy-pasting the English and sometimes translating them directly from the Italian. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed who blocked that user last time! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

.

Latest comment: 9 years ago28 comments4 people in discussion

OK; tell me how to help you with copivio. What can I do? Hafspajen (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Depends on where you want to help out and what you want to do. :) For starters, WP:SCV is badly backlogged, to the point that it's clogging WP:CP, in spite of the valiant efforts of a few editors to keep on top of it. (User:Crow goes gangbusters.) It would be fantastic if you could help clear some listings there. If you're willing to help out there, you can start with the most recent days, which are generally the easiest (low hanging fruit getting picked first), or start at the oldest and look at the stuff other people either haven't wanted to touch or haven't gotten around to. There's detailed instructions on the top of that page, but it basically works out to figuring out, if there's duplicated content, whether or not that's an issue. Is it creative? Is it compatibly licensed/public domain and attributed? (If not, attribute; drop a word to the creator explaining.) Is it a straightforward copyvio or can it be repaired? The most complex listings in my experience are usually those where it's hard to determine if the content is creative and those where we know it was copied from somewhere in Wikipedia but have trouble determining which page is the source. That tends to happen with series articles, where people quite understandably think they can just snatch the old text to start a fresh page. There are other places you can help, so if you want to consider options, let me know! You'd be most welcome. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, forgot to invoke thy name, Hafspajen. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh well.:) Try ... WP:SCV. Probably will make a mess of it and come back for help, as I usually do in the beginnig with almost everything. Hafspajen (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
GOSH: That's a long list. Hafspajen (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it is, Hafspajen. Hence our dire need. :) Feel free to take the easy stuff, and there are other users who I believe can give great guidance if I'm not around - to name three off the top of my head, User:Justlettersandnumbers, User:Crow and User:Hut 8.5 do great work in that area. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If it's already tagged for deletion, Hafspajen, you don't need to do anything. :) It will go redlink when deleted, so we know it's done. If it doesn't go redlink by the time the page is complete, it may be necessary to do something more with it- but SCV pages are finally reviewed when the corresponding CP page is completed. That means that even if there's one or two such listings left at SCV, they will get picked up in a week or few. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, Hafspajen, sometimes you wind up tagging it for speedy deletion or blanking it with {{copyvio}} yourself. Sometimes you remove stuff or rewrite it. If you remove stuff or rewrite it, I'd recommend using {{cclean}} on the article's talk page. CorenSearchBot notifies contributors itself of copyright issues, but sometimes you need to say more. For instance, if they try to rewrite it and don't do it well, you might need to leave them the template that {{copyvio}} generates to notify users when you use it. Or you might want to copy the cautionary language from Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for them. If they copy from one page to another and the Bot picks this up by finding an external mirror site, you can leave them {{Uw-copying}}. That template assumes that you will have repaired attribution for them. :) If somebody does this habitually, I sometimes stop doing that and basically just tell them to do it themselves, but this is one of the more difficult areas, I think, for clerking WP:SCV. Some people do not take that requirement seriously, but it's a legal mandate and required by our wmf:TOU. If the person seems really confused and is very new, I will sometimes leave them {{uw-copyvio-new}}. I also have a home-spun template that I never put into official circulation because it's wordy (like me) and generally rare: User:Moonriddengirl/vp. This is when people say "I'm the copyright owner" but you need to blank the article until they verify that.
 
Articles living dangerously....

--Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hafspajen, that   Works for me. :) (And, yes, I meant invoke like an angel. The idea that you can speak somebody's name and they know you're talking about them is mystical to me. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

OPss. OK, I will be back, if I get stucked. Please have some patience with me, I am a slow learner. But once I get it, I manage. Hafspajen (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, you're doing a great service to the project and one I especially appreciate. You get all the patience you need. :) Especially because there are areas where I require great patience myself. Translation extension markup? Scares me silly. Oi. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


  • 1) How do I mark the entry?
  • 2) Shall I give him some day to fix the problem?
How shall I handle it? I am not an admin, you know, by the way. I can't delete anything. Hafspajen (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Amayra Concepts, Ola Aina and Jake Clarke-Salter are word for word copivio. On top of everything, Ola Aina was proposed for deletion, twice. Somebody removed the tag. User:MrTranCFCVN created the last two. Hafspajen (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry, Hafspajen; I've been away from my keyboard. :) If way too close means, you think, almost but not quite a copyvio, I'd go with {{close paraphrase}} with an additional note of explanation on the talk page. If you think it is a copyvio, I'd go with {{copyvio}} so it will be blanked for review. If it's a total copyvio, you tag it {{DB#G12}}, and an admin will review it. With an editor like User:MrTranCFCVN, who has been editing for two years, it's always a good idea to look at his history and see if he has done this before. If he has, and he has been cautioned, we may have a larger issue. In this case, it seems this is his first caution, so he may simply not have known. He's got an issue with cutting & pasting between pages, though, so I'll talk to him about that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


  • Well, it was Saturday, after all... Yes, please, talk to User:MrTranCFCVN, iI think he is trying to do his best, thoug.
This redirects to itself... ? Is it re-created? Can't check, don't know what this is. Hafspajen (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Hafspajen. Scorepedia, like Wikipedia, has an article history, which makes it easier to check. It is licensed under CC-By-SA 3.0, though, so content from Scorepedia can be used on Wikipedia as long as it is properly attributed according to Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If it's not, it's a copyvio. But I'm assuming you're talking about List of Varèse Sarabande albums - the thing to do there is look at the first post in the series for edit summary. I always check the edit summaries, especially when the CSB is removed. User:Darkwind is experienced and knows how to attribute a split, so he documented properly that he took the content from Varèse Sarabande. Comparing the histories of the source article and the external source verifies that it was on Wikipedia first. :)
This, by the way, is how we most often find unattributed splits. If Darkwind had not known how to split, we might have had to check to see if there was an article on Wikipedia from which the content had been removed so it could be attributed and he informed at WP:CWW.
I got no idea with the last one. User:Crow, with the listing for Malayan local elections at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2015-07-25, I'd usually look for some very subtle variation in title. These do seem to be identical. You see any difference. Does CSB do this often? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • CSB sometimes self-matches articles with apostrophes in the title (e.g. [51] ), as WP codes it with the ' but Yahoo codes it as an escape character, so the bot sees them as different pages. Never seen it do this before though, and Coren is likewise baffled: [52]. CrowCaw 23:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hafspajen, it's a preparatory article is probably WP:TOOSOON. I'd recommend a WP:PROD on that one with a friendly note to the editor explaining that we don't go that far ahead in articles. It's a noteworthy subject, but not likely to meet notability guidelines until closer to date, since there's probably not many sources discussing it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
My head is spinning. Never knew that there was so many problems on Wiki. I will take a break now, just to recover, for today. But will start again soon. Hafspajen (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, that's unfortunate. :/ Hopefully he won't be too discouraged. He seems to be brand new. OTOH, I have to wonder if he's returning from some other account. It's unusual for a legitimately brand new account to dive in to an area like that with new articles on franchises, I think. By the way, in response to an earlier note, the administrative work here is neverending. Back when I had more time, I used to write an article every other day (or that was my goal) to keep the administrative stuff from overwhelming me. Now that I have less time, I can't really do that - the backlog demands. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

AMResorts and Apple Leisure Group

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm concerned by the SPAs on these two articles. Would you say PP or an SPI is necessary? —George8211 / T 15:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I share your concern. I'd say at least an SPI, George8211. If there's not sockpuppetry, there's at least meatpuppetry. The connection between the name of the account that sprang up immediately after my block of the COI name issue of User:Algdev and the name of the president of the AMResorts is not lost on me, although it could be coincidence. I cannot believe it is coincidence, however, that these articles have received so much new focused attention from named accounts that are also paying token attention to other articles. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Anon IP adding unsourced material to WP:BLP

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Moonriddengirl, I have been editing this WP:BLP for awhile: Lisa Brennan-Jobs

An anon IP is adding unsourced information to this article stating that the subject is married. It may very well be true, but I cannot find WP:RS that confirms the topic. I did one mass revert with a note in the edit history about using sources, but the IP user restored all of the edits again without references. I do not want to get into an edit war over this issue. At the same time, this is a well-known person and thus I have been trying to keep her biography accurate. Either we need to find sources that confirm this information, or somehow convey to the IP user that the WP can't add information without a source. I am not calling for a block per se but for the intervention of an admin (I've seen your work before and am a fan). Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Classicfilms. :) Thanks for your kind words. :D The best thing to do always is leave a note of explanation on the talk page of the user, if the IP is the same especially, as many new and unregistered users don't know about edit summaries and sometimes genuinely do not understand why their changes don't "stick." (We get emails asking us that question a lot.) If they persist after the note on the talk page and their edits are a BLP problem, like this one, you can keep removing them and then list the page at WP:RPP or request a block at WP:AIV. (While WP:EW prohibits doing too many reverts in a 24-hour period, of course, it does allow exception for protecting BLPs, if the issue is clear, like this one.) Or stop by here. :) I'm not on as much as I'd like to be, though, so I'm not as quick as those forums usually. It's also a good idea to just check and see what else they're up to. They've done something similar at another BLP, but in this case removing sourced information and breaking a reflink. I've fixed that, too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl - and you see why I am a fan. You are always so helpful! I really appreciate this detailed explanation and I've made a copy for my archives. I have never really understood the process very well and you have explained it so clearly. I also saw your response on both this page and the other page. So I will do the same in the future. One final question - the comment that you left on the user's page - it looks like a template to me. Where would I find templates like this one? Thanks again for your help and for clarifying that 3RR doesn't apply for clear cases of vandalism like this on a BLP. Also just as an fyi, you may want to keep Lisa Brennan-Jobs on your watch list since the film about her father is coming out in October and I suspect there will be cases of vandalism cropping up over the next few months. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Classicfilms, may I suggest enabling Twinkle (go to your Preferences page and then the Gadgets tab)? Once the preference is saved, and you go to a user's talk page, you'll see a new warn tab at the top of your screen. Clicking it will allow you to choose all kinds of warnings and notes and the appropriate level. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. --NeilN talk to me 15:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I wish I could come up with a better word than this - but ... wow! The Gadgets tab is quite nifty :-) I enabled Twinkle as well as a few other options. Yes, I see what to do now and thank you so much for the tip! I will copy and paste this full thread to my archive. I will certainly contact you if I have any further questions. Thanks Neil! -Classicfilms (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Twinkle rocks. :) Thanks, User:NeilN. Classicfilms, with Twinkle you may never need to know this, but another handy tip: most templates have hidden text identifying them. So if you see something that looks like a template, just click edit and look to see if it does. In this case, the one I used identifies itself as <!-- Template:uw-biog1 -->. Template:uw-biog1. Voila. On the rare occasion that the content doesn't identify the template, you can try through searching templates. I'm not sure if you're familiar with how to do an advanced search, but it's all explained at Help:Searching. I use the advanced searching parameters regularly to help me find notes left on user talk pages. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah ha! Most excellent, I like the advanced search option. Now I've learned two new things... Thanks to you both Moonriddengirl and Neil, this has been an exceptionally beneficial class. I will add this post to my archived version. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As a new user I logged in as Arlstone and found I was in over my head in editing "Chimney".I worked in heat transfer and chimney research from 1946 to 1985. For my kids who might wonder what I did, I wrote a narrative with many links, some to old copyrighted publications. Some of these could be more appropriate than those currently on this and other topics such as fireplaces and creosote. All are on a CD and most would be better "References" than those presently in"Chimney" I am 98 years old and have no desire to become involved in a monster project as an editor, but I would like to have some references to my work added to Wikipedia. Could I send you a copy to review, and get your help with copyright issues to add some useful technology on chimneys. Thank you in advance Richard L. Stone stonequin@gmail.com Arlstone (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Arlstone. :) I am responding at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ConsensusDOCS

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, when you have a chance, would you look at this article? It appears to be riddled with longtime copyright violations, and I'm not sure if they date from the article's inception. Thank you in advance, 2601:188:0:ABE6:2CE7:9FE7:32F1:AC2A (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yikes! Flagged. It may disappear speedily, but at least the copyright issues will be handled regardless. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:2CE7:9FE7:32F1:AC2A (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with 'Chimney"

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I appreciate your reply and suggestions. After checking TeaHouse there seem to be many good choices for help. My primary interest is the engineering aspects of prefabricated small metal chimneys rather their architectural features. Thanks Much Richard L. Stone Arlstone (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with 'Chimney"

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I appreciate your reply and suggestions. After checking TeaHouse there seems to be many good choices for help. My primary interest is the engineering aspects of prefabricated small metal chimneys rather their architectural features. Thanks Much Richard L. Stone Arlstone (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Photo question

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I've been in contact with Network Rail re the acquisition of photographs of Wadhurst Tunnel for use in the Hastings Line article. They have sent me a photograph of each portal, with the note that it is hoped that the photographs are useful in the Wikipedia article. I made it clear to Network Rail during my correspondence with them that any photographs so released would need to be on a compatible licence for use on Wikipedia or elsewhere, including commercial use. By the release of such photographs to me, can we take it that such permission has been granted. I'm minded to upload the images to en-Wiki rather than Commons as it seems that I might not have sufficient permissions to upload there. Network Rail nave now closed the correspondence as the deem my request answered. What advice would you give in this situation? Mjroots (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mjroots. I'm afraid that even on English Wikipedia, a permission that does not specify license is likely to be rejected. :/ If I were you, I'd forward the permissions letter to OTRS, cc'ing the company, and allow the OTRS agent to do the routine follow-up if they deem necessary based on the precise language of the text. Or you could just reach out to them with profuse appreciation and a final note that we will be delighted to use the images if they verify their willingness to release the content under CC-By-SA (with a link to said license). The language OTRS uses is more vague, but I usually like to make it easy by giving them the specific license:

Images and other media are usually only allowed on Wikimedia projects if they are under a free license (such as certain Creative Commons licenses). You can see the allowable licenses at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses>.

If we are provided with a clear statement that the copyright holder is releasing this content for redistribution under an allowable license, then the content may be used on Wikimedia projects. The email template at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT> can be used if needed.

I know it can be difficult getting people to be specific (sometimes they resist fiercely), but I think the fear is that they will come back later and claim that they did not understand the terms of the license or even that their note that they hoped the images would be useful on Wikipedia was clear indication that they did not intend to allow the material to be reused elsewhere.
If you would like an OTRS agent to do the routine follow-up and you want to, you're welcome to let me know when the email is sent and under what title, and I'll look for it and expedite it. I won't send the form "More specific statement of permission" but will tailor it such that they know it's been touched by human hands. :) Templates work well in some instances, but when they are slightly off I think they sometimes fall into the uncanny valley, so to speak - that is, it's really offputting to get an obvious form letter with no tailoring to the case. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I've forwarded the email to the permissions-commons address under the title "Fw: Photgraph request - Wadhurst Tunnel [Incident: 150722-000303]" if that is of any use. Forgot to mention my Wikipedia identity in the e-mail though. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
OTRS Ticket#2015080310018255 refers. Mjroots (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Looking now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get to it sooner, Mjroots! I didn't really visit my talk page early enough today. :/ But I have sent an email out to you and to the copyright holder's representative that I hope will do the trick. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem, will look in the morning. Heading to bed now. Mjroots (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Cardiff to host 2017 UEFA Champions League final". UEFA.org. 30 June 2015.
  2. ^ "Cardiff to host 2017 Champions League final". UEFA.com. 30 June 2015.
  3. ^ "Solna to host 2017 UEFA Europa League final". UEFA.com. 30 June 2015.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_58&oldid=1182428919"