Jump to content

User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Nearfield Systems Inc.]

Thanks very much for your kind assistance with this. The link to which you pointed me is something I think I've needed for a while, a concise step-by-step layout of just what I should do about copyright issues of this sort. I'm going to make a note of the page and use it in the future (believe it or not, I've started writing these links on the wall of my home office -- messy, but relatively effective and permanent, at least until I repaint). I do appreciate your assistance and I think we have done everything we can for the article's creator. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure; I'm glad I was able to help. :) And I must note that tomorrow, there will be no CP. :O That's amazing. Of course, it's because Dumbbot is down, but it's still amazing. (When Dumbbot comes back, plagues will reign down from the skies....) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ricardo Montalbán

At the end of the CAREER subsection, the article covers Montalban's spinal injury, but didn't note that he was paralyzed from his 1993 surgery. While searching sources, I stumbled across a reference that was copied into this article. I've documented what I propose to change on User:Mgreason/Sandbox. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll come take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

University of Western Sydney un protect

Thanks for un-protecting University of Western Sydney, Moonriddengirl. I don't doubt there will be plenty more vandalism, but also the page may get some much needed extra input from a wider group of people. T568dx (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Also, there are no other merges I have done, I will keep your instructions on this for future use. T568dx (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem was not with ordinary vandalism, but with a persistent attack launched by a single individual with a shifting IP. I hope s/he has gotten bored so we can keep the article unprotected. If not, and s/he returns to old games, we won't really have any choice. :/ I don't like seeing articles locked either. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am i the process of writing a copyright page for eLib content and will publish the link when I am ready to clarify the situation. Thx for the insights. Link: eLib Copublishing (still working on it). cheers, --Gego (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Earl Holliman

In my User:Mgreason/Sandbox, I have a proposed addition to Holliman's early years in this article, which was sparse. Also, I received a note on my talk page from User:Coppertwig:
I'd just like to point out that we also have to be careful about large blocks of copyrighted text on talk pages and in sandboxes.
Should I not include the source on my sandbox page for your review? Mgreason (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope Moonriddengirl doesn't mind if I sneak in here. I have this page on my watchlist.
Anyway, you really shouldn't be duplicating large amounts of text from other sources. It doesn't matter whether it's in article space or user space; it's still a copyright violation. It seems that all of your sources are available online, so you can just link to them.
By the way, the Nationmaster article is just a mirror of an old version of the Wikipedia page, which contained many unsourced statements. Someone later edited the page with the edit summary, "Earl Holliman and Anthony Earl Numkena are seperate persons". Zagalejo^^^ 08:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind at all, Zagalejo; input is appreciated. :) A link is fine; I can compare with that. Technically, we shouldn't place copyrighted material on any space in Wikipedia outside of the WP:NFC. This is why when I've been discussing passages with you that are problematic, Mgreason, I limit the amounts and put them in quotation marks. And Zagalejo is right that the Nationmaster source is not reliable; they're a notorious wiki-mirror, so it's basically like citing Wikipedia, which we can't do. :) I'll go look at the sandbox version now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

New message?

I received a talkback saying I had a message on your userpage. I can't find it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was a Wiki glitch? The last talkback I placed on your page was on the 21st, right after my first message to you above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

pleasure Ridge Park High School

Hello. :) Is there any chance you could capitalise the title of this article? Apparently because it is the first word that is in lower case, it doesn't let me move it to a page with the correct capitalisation. T@nn (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I may need help with that one. :) I thought I could do it easily by moving it to my userspace and then moving it to article space, but, no, it went right back to where it was. I'll try again and then call on somebody else. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I've requested assistance at WP:VPT. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Amalthea fixed it; evidently there was some code in there telling it to lowercase; see [1]. I didn't even know such was possible. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Neither did I. Thanks for your help. :) T@nn (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done--O'DELAQUATIQUE (talk) (contributions) (e-mail) 16:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bombardier Capital

Hi,

You have put a copyvio on the article Bombardier Capital with a reference to an article it is supposed to be extracted directly. I went to see that article and it is nothing like Bombardier Capital. I would like then to understand what made you put that copyvio ? Pierre cb (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at the paragraph in the source beginning "Established in 1973." Almost all of our article is directly copied from or closely paraphrases from that paragraph. Ordinarily, I would revise such material when it is uncovered, but this particular article is part of a much larger clean-up project. (If it is not revised by other contributors, I will certainly do so when it comes current at WP:CP.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see. I was looking more at the rest of the article which has a fair number of references. I hope someone will review this article before any deletion as it is a worthy subject. Sorry I'm not really into that subject and cannot help do that. Pierre cb (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Unless another admin attends it, it won't be deleted. I'll just clean it up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. Pierre cb (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony DeSantis

I think I'm starting to understand the change in sentence structure that you've been talking about. I've added proposed content to my User:Mgreason/Sandbox page. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again

Just so you know, I'm male, not female. I'm referring to your recent deletion of They can't hear you scream in space.--O'DELAQUATIQUE (talk) (contributions) (e-mail) 19:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. But the "deletion summary" is automated there from a pull-down menu; it's written to make no assumptions. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Pull-down menu? No means to be difficult (I leave that to the vandals), but do you mind giving me a copy of that list?--O'DELAQUATIQUE (talk) (contributions) (e-mail) 19:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure; happy to. :) Hang on a minute, though. I've forgotten where it's stored, but I can find out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--O'DELAQUATIQUE (talk) (contributions) (e-mail) 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Took me longer than it should have to find it (I was checking for the original creator, who I believe has exercised his right to vanish), but once I remembered that I could just check my monobook, I got it. It's here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I copied it to my own.--O'DELAQUATIQUE (talk) (contributions) (e-mail) 19:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I suspect it's really only useful for admins (can't quite remember if it has any other functionality than during page deletion), but if you're looking for good tagging scripts, there's always Wikipedia:Twinkle. I still use Twinkle sometimes, but I used it quite a lot when I first became active on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Georgina

There is a reason that I have gently tried to prod you away from using Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) to discuss the Georgina DAB issue. It boils down to the risk of getting caught up in the age-old debate over disambiguation of U.S. place names. Until it was merged with [{WP:NCGN]] recently, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) effectively served as the focal points for debates over U.S. disambiguation, with a large contingent believing that all placenames should always be disambiguated, regardless of actual need for disambiguation, and others taking the contrary view. The ideological battles were so unending and circular that the talk page got tagged numerous times with the {{Round In Circles}} template. One of the reasons Canadian editors developed a separate Canadian naming convention (at one point there was a joint U.S.-Canada guideline) was to get away from that quagmire, and since then we've typically kept Canadian placename disambiguation discussions far far away from WP:NC:CITY (now WP:NCGN since the merger). If you keep the discussion over there, some of the American editors may start chiming in with their views, and with all due respect to them (they are all very smart and capable editors), the thoughts expressed will have a lot more to do with their views on U.S. disambiguation than with WP:CANSTYLE, and you may end up with lack of consensus on anything. I could be wrong - that's just my expectation. I hope that helps. I wasn't trying to be a school marm over there.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. I had no idea that this was contentious! My main reason for keeping it where it was was out of respect for GFDL issues; since an editor had already given an opinion, I thought it better to leave it where it was, even if I had misplaced it. :) But I will close the section and move it with an appropriate edit summary noting origin of comments. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
All right; I have done, with a pointer to the conversation. I have no strong opinion on the best place for this article, but I would like to see the matter resolved. Georgina can't point to Georgia or Georgia (name), as incoming links are already skewed for Georgina, Ontario. At best, Georgina would have to become a disambig in itself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Supervised editing

Hey, I just spotted this in the Signpost and it reminded me of your heroic efforts with Mgreason:

In a proposed decision now being voted on by arbitrators, Coren has proposed the creation of a new type of arbitration remedy, "supervised editing", which an editor may be placed under when he or she does not "engage other editors or the editorial process appropriately". A designated supervisor would be permitted to revert or refactor the edits of the other editor at his or her discretion, ban the editor from articles, or require that the editor propose any substantial content edits to the supervisor, who will make the edits on his behalf. After the period of supervision terminates, the supervisor will submit a report to the committee who will revise the remedy that placed the editor under supervision. -- (Source)

It seems like this tactic may be gaining wider currency as a way of dealing with problematic editors. I guess that makes you a trailblazer. :-) Dcoetzee 03:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, based on my experiences, I think it stands a good chance of success, if the other party is willing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Alderbury

Hi, I think you deleted our page on Alderbury because you thought there was a copyright issue? This was posted by the local history group, who own the copyright, and we cited this at the bottom of the page. The article indicated the source, and we had also indicated that we are the publisher for the book. Maybe you would be kind enough to restore it for us? pmh1000—Preceding unsigned comment added by PMH1000 (talk • contribs) 22 February 2009

Hi. I'm sorry, but putting a release on Wikipedia itself doesn't verify the release of the material in a legally usable way. Even if the editor who placed the text had been logged it, it would have been insufficient because we have no process in place for verifying identity at account creation. Verifications of release must be done externally. There was a template placed on the article for a week before the text was deleted with instructions for verifying that release, but I would guess that no one from your group noticed the directions prior to the closure of the listing. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure. If you need assistance with this or any of these steps are unclear, please let me know. Once you have verified the release, the material can be restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I will try to sort out the paperwork for licensing. PMH1000 (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nataraja and exoticindia.com

Sorry about that -- I forgot to contact OTRS. I have forwarded the e-mail from exoticindia there now. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for your efforts in this regard.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
For all your good work on WP, and in particular for your patience in dealing with issues such as this: Talk:Technical Alliance#Copyvio?. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) And particularly for your encouragement being so well-timed! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Undeleting an article?

Dear Moonriddengirl,

Thanks to the magic of wiki-working, I was 'rescued' from what a friendly Wikipedian, after I had an article deleted. The reason was 'run of the mill pressure group' with not enough notability.

I picked you because of your intriguing name. Would you be willing to look at my talk page and see how I 'gave in'? Would you be willing to repair the article on Forum for Stable Currencies? Or help userfy it first of all?

Looking forward to your response,

your Wikipedian baby and most willing learner,

Sabine

Sabine McNeill (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm online and looking into it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay. The article was deleted via "proposed deletion". It is standard procedure to restore those on request, and I have done so. However, I've also userfied it for now to allow the concerns that led to its deletion to be addressed. If the article remains in article space without attention, it may be nominated for a deletion discussion, and if it closes for "deletion", establishing it anew will be much more challenging. You can find it here: User:Sabine McNeill/Forum for Stable Currencies. Having noted that, I'll now start yet another message with some recommendations, as I may not be able to personally repair the article but might give you some pointers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay. You've been here for a while, so please forgive me if I tell you something you already know. I'd rather overexplain that miss something important.
Articles on organizations of all kinds are governed by the notability guidelines at WP:ORG. Paraphrasing closely from that guideline, non-commercial organizations are generally regarded as notable if (1) they are national or international in scale, and (2) information on them is verifiable through reliable, independent sources. This isn't restricted to print sourcing; web sources can also count, but the rule of thumb is that these must be independent of the forum (no press releases) and "reliable" by Wikipedia's definition. Websites hosted by you would not work for this, obviously.
I'm on limited time tonight, but I've added one RS. A google book search shows several potentially usable hits. These look independent and reliable, though some of them are redundant and not all of them will do much good. Can you explain what this one is talking about? Google news has what seems to be 3 good hits, here, but I can't access two of them (the other one, I utilized). I'm a pretty conservative article creator; I like lots of sources to nail notability. Even to me, though, it looks like you've got a good start. I can't guarantee it, but I think you'd stand a chance. Can you by any chance access those subscription-only print sources? Those could go a really long way. The book hits are proving a bit sketchy.
The second problem, of course, is your involvement with the subject. I'm willing to help you work with such sources as we can find, but on the conflict matter you might wish to seek feedback at the conflict of interest noticeboard. More than once, I have seen contributors with conflict ask the volunteers there to review articles in sandbox and move them into article space if they are judged to be neutral and adequately sourced. Usually, the agreement of volunteers seems to forestall the ugly "COI" tag that can be dropped on articles otherwise. You would do better to neutrally seek feedback on the conflict issue at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN) than to ask me. Administrators have no particular weight on judging such matters, and contributors at COIN are likely to have more experience evaluating such things.
Another resource you might want to look into is the Article Rescue Squadron. Their project has a talk page, Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. (I see they've already made contact with you. :)) The contributors to it may be willing to offer you and feedback and assistance, too.
Must run! Non-internet life calls. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to take the liberty of moving this conversation to your page, since mine archives fairly often. I'll pick up there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Massive Copying

In going through articles to wikify, I stumbled across contributions by User:Siraj ud daula which have been copied from Banglopedia and or Bangladesh paper encylopedias. Investigating further shows a huge number of these also done by anon IP editors which I suspect is the same individual but just not logged in. I base this on the edit pattern of straight text copy from the same sources. See my recent contributions for what i mean by "massive". Is there some way to quickly / easily deal with this? I've been going through one by one and reverting or tagging for CSD-G12, but I suspect that pretty much all the major contribtions from this user, and some linked IPs are copy paste jobs from copyrighted sources. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wish there were a quick and easy way to do this, but I've yet to find one. :/ Let me take a look and see how a big of a problem you're dealing with here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That's massive all right. Where are you in this clean-up process? How can I best help? Do you think this is the kind of thing where we may need to try to recruit additional assistance such as at AN? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
You've gone all quiet. Did you run off in despair? Not that anyone could blame you. :) I'll resume your project in a minute (after folding some laundry).--Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
One thing I will suggest, with a job of this size: tag them now, clean them up later. I've created a subsection for listing them at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 February 26. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm here. Didn't check in until just now. Not originally realizing the extent of the problem, I wasn't tackling it in an organised fashion so I don't really know how far through I am. I won't be able to take up this task until much later today and probably won't pick up any messages until then so if you don't hear from me, it's just the reality of real life. -- Whpq (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the reality of real life. I know something of that. :/ Anyway, I'm on it at the moment, and I hope I'll be able to put a good dent in listing them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


Some organisation, on your page, if you don't mind, MRG. We seem to be dealing with the contributions of:


--Tagishsimon (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind in the least. :) I am going through the contributs of the named account, bottom up, and if I identify a copied sentence (which I can generally do pretty quickly) listing it at CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm putting together a page with a single link to one instance of each of the articles edited by all of the users. I'll create a sub page and we can start working through it. I'll ignore the named user for now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That sounds great. I'll continue running through the articles by the named contributor at the moment; we can easily remove those already tagged when we get to it. Thanks so much for your help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Canonical list as at circa 19:10: User talk:Moonriddengirl/Feb26 articles to check --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Great. I'll take a look at it in a minute; I've fallen behind due to a work phone call. Pesky real life. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I check - are we happy with removal of copyvio text as has been done here by User:Whpq. (Sorry - can't remember if CV text must be deleted ... is it acceptable in the article history?) --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It is, although sometimes it's best to delete it. It's good to make a note at the article's talk page; if you want to do so, I've just made a brand new template based on the one I use: {{cclean}}. I don't always place it, though; it depends on how likely it seems that somebody will accidentally put it back. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. You so totally deserve a sorcerer's apprentice or several, and that was just too large a mess to walk away from :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm done. Feel free to delete the page if you want to tidy up your userspace. I'll leave you to decide whether & how to contact the user; I've been up to long & can't string words together reliably. It was a pleasure. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, bravo. Well deserved rest and barnstar. :) I am very grateful. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations on Nusrat Shah article

Well, at least now I know have a source for that info ;) As I was wikifying the article, I reworked the intro and the "Early Life & Conquests" section, so I don't think those should be in copyright violation any more. The section that is in copyright violation is the one that I had put an under construction template. If you remove the text there, I can just pick up where I left off. ~ Bighairything (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I will as soon as I am able; if you want to get started, you can work in the linked temporary space meantime. :) Sorry for interrupting your wikifying. If you check out the section immediately above it will give you some indication of what's going on with that article and quite a few others. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Didn't even notice the underconstruction tag! Kind of speeding through these, just to block publication of as many copyvios as possible here prior to clean up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I'm glad it's been found and dealt with. Thanks ~ Bighairything (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to explain where I'd been going wrong. I'll try and remember to notify the contributor every time from now on. All the best. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Judge Kevin M. McCarthy

Thank you for your messages. I have been away for several weeks and did not see the message until the article had been deleted (four days ago). I would appreciate being able to have access to the deleted text so that I could use it to rewrite a new article which addresses the concerns you've presented. It may take me some time to rewrite the article, using improved sources and layout. I do feel it needs to be done, and the finished article will meet the wp:bio criteria for notable elected officials. Thank you. Reward (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I can't restore the copyright infringement, but will be happy to userfy for you the original text you incorporated. I hope to be able to get to this in the next several hours and will notify you when it is available in your userspace for your further development. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I have obtained written permission from the University of California, Hastings School of the Law, allowing use of material from their biographical page. Therefore there is no infringement. How should I present this permission to you? Thanks very much for your help. Reward (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. In order to verify their identity, it's important we receive an official permission letter formally releasing it under a GFDL-compatible free license. Dcoetzee 09:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
As Dcoetzee says. :) Is this permission in e-mail, which is much quicker, or in print? If it is in e-mail, it's probably best to just wait for the Communications Committee to receive it and restore the article entirely. If it is in print and will have to be snail mailed, let me know, and I'll go ahead and give it back piecemeal so you can put up something pending the full release. If you have any questions about the verification procedure, please let me know. I'm not on the Communications Committee and cannot process or access your letter to them, but I've walked through the procedure often enough to have an idea how it goes. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I have just emailed the received permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, along with a brief history of the issue, the original title of the article, and my username. Thanks. Reward (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Restoration

If you wonder why no one reviewed Jimmy Norman, it was misteriously removed from the nominations page. I restored it. Hekerui (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd. :/ I figured they just hadn't gotten around to it. :) That place can be slow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Found it, here. I presume it was an accident. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why my articles on Habshi rulers of Bengal have been deleted?Where have they been copied from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.48.90 (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Replying at editor's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Whpq (talk) has given you a plate of poutine, for outstanding speed in the elimination of copyright violations.! You see, these things somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a plate of poutine! Enjoy! Thanks for your help in cleaning up the massive copying.

Spread the goodness of plate of poutine by adding {{subst:BlankWikiLove|border=blue|bg=cream|image=Poutine.JPG|article=a|item=plate of poutine }} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Moonriddengirl, thank you for your tireless (and unfailingly civil) efforts on the copyright front: a huge contribution to Wikipedia. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. :) I try to keep patience. Most copyright infringers, I think, are working from a misunderstanding of copyright laws or unfamiliarity. And it's good to hear from you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Center for Earth and Planetary Studies

Hi Moonriddengirl! Thank you for the new beginning of Center for Earth and Planetary Studies. I've wanted to translate the article into German and found the copyright-error! Excuse me, if my english wasn't not so good!--Druffeler (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Thank you for finding the problem. :) That article had been a copyright violation for quite a long time! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Parviz Gharib-Afshar

Please see Talk:Parviz Gharib-Afshar. The creator of the page needs help with a copyright concern. -- IRP ☎ 03:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy if I can help. I'm there. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, the following pages might be also worth checking: Decision tree complexity, Certificate complexity (see the copypaste tags) and Piotr Indyk (see the talk page). Some other dubious contributions such as this have already been handled. — Miym (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm now working on modifying Decision tree complexity to respond to this concern re document (see also html version). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote Decision tree complexity and think I pretty well eliminated the copypasting. I deleted the copypaste section from Certificate complexity, then merged it with Certificate (complexity). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice, Miym, and thank you for your help Coppertwig. I'll take a look at Piotr Indyk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi, This message is to seek advice about creating page. I want to add information about my company www.jobeehive.com and not very sure about how Wiki works though I tried uploading it quite a few times but nothing worked. I wuols be pleased If could help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlinesneh (talk • contribs) 09:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Replying at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

IABP

Dear Moonriddengirl,

I tried to publish and Article about the International Association of Business and Parliament in order to disseminate its purposes and goals throughout the net. I am heading the activities of the IABP in Brussels, where appearance on the net is important factor when doing networking. When I tried to copy paste text from our website, the text was deleted, I understand that, when I tried to re-write it in completely different form, it was deleted again. What form of text shell I produce in order not to be deleted. Since I am one of the executive persons in the IABP, I have the right to write and produce all kind of articles. Please tell me what do I need as allowance in order to be able to publish the article on Wikipedia since I think that it is important to have information about the association.

Thanks for your help

Tsvetomir Svilenov —Preceding unsigned comment added by IABP (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. One of the problems you encountered yesterday was in where you were trying to rewrite it. Many of your edits were to the how-to guideline Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You can see this by looking at your contribution history, here. (Edits to the actual article do not show because it has been deleted.)
If you want to donate material from your website to Wikipedia, you can certainly do so. The directions are at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The easiest way to note that donation is to place a release at the external site. If you do not wish to place a release at the external site, you can also communicate through e-mail with the Wikimedia Foundation. If you have any questions about how to verify permission, please let me know, and I will happy to clarify the matter for you as much as I am able.
Alternatively, if you'd like to create an article in your own text, you are welcome to do so, but please be careful to do it in the proper location, at International Association of Business and Parliament. But we do ask that you do so within our conflict of interest guidelines. Essentially, Wikipedia does not exist to disseminate the purposes and goals of any organization, but only to document encyclopedic details about organizations and subjects that meet our notability guidelines. (In this case, WP:ORG.) It isn't impossible for you to contribute to this subject so long as you do so within that the conflict of interest guideline. For one example, your previous version of this article indicates, "We believe that each individual can therefore make a direct, beneficial contribution." It might be appropriate to indicate that the organization believes such, but it should not be written in the first person, which would imply that this is Wikipedia's belief. Wikipedia is not a webhost, but rather a communal attempt to build a neutral reference resource.
Please let me know if I can clarify any of this or be of any further assistance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Tawera Nikau

Thank you for your good work in cleaning up the copyright issues with this page. I took one look at it and was kind of lost about what to do as I didn't want to simply rip out most of the article. Regards, Mattlore (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm happy if I can help. That one is still perplexing me, but the clearly copied stuff is gone and the possibly copied stuff has been rewritten, so we should be safe. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whew, that was one fast revert of vandalism on Plagiarism!

Thank you. Beat me out by a hair. Keep up the good work. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And you. :D That one is on my watchlist, so it's always just a matter of when it was vandalized versus when I hit "refresh." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Preston Haskell

When you have time, would you review this article in my User:Mgreason/Sandbox? Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look at it today, probably within the next few hours. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleon Skousen

I appreciate your assuming good faith on this matter... if it were caught by certain Cleon fans I don't think they would have responded so kindly! Now I that I know that website is a mirror, it won't be happening again. Guldenat (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Crunch Bunch

When you have time, would you please review this new article in User:Mgreason/Sandbox 1? Mgreason (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for my delay in response. I've been offline for most of the day. I'll be happy to take a look at it tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray Joseph Cormier

That was the fastest action I have seen by anybody involved with the subject in the last eight months. Your edit is definitely an improvement. Thank you. :) DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Aw, shucks, 'tweren't nothin'. :) I didn't do much, really, but change out the template. As I said, I happen to be watching Stifle's page this morning because I'm waiting for a response to another matter. I'm happy if I could help, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
They have been created by various Wikipedians over the many years as need develops. Just as a sort of interesting aside, they are also subject to deletion like articles, with their own deletion debate process. They go to WP:TFD, rather than WP:AFD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations Help for John F Kennedy High School

Hello Moonriddengirl,

I am a professor at SJSU, I have been tasked with developing a narrative analysis (qualitative scientific method) in regards to data and information provided for the John F. Kennedy High School page. I have provided the citations to the best of my ability given that WCCUSD provides an online SARC report only in compliance with NCLB and having conducted interviews using standard oral history techniques (protocols developed by Dr. John Creswell's Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, And Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd. edition), Sage Publications), I am concerned that the page is still listed as not having citations, but moreover, how exactly would those be provided given that lack of scholarly reports developed for this type of information.

Your expertise would be much appreciated. Please call me or email me regarding this issue. Thank you for your time.

Nzoffel (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Nicholas <contact info redacted>

Replying at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello Moonriddengirl,

A couple of things, he gave me that document and neither he nor I realized that it was placed on the WCCUSD webpage. Had I known this, I could have referenced it. Because I thought that it was an unpublished document, I included it as a part of his interview analysis. So, the pdf you reference was authored by Mike Peritz, who also was the main contributor to this pages information, hence why you might find text overlap. In essence, he quoted himself.

As for my affiliation with the school or perceived conflict of interest, I am not officially associated with JFK High School. While I was asked to serve on a 501c3 board (Eagle Foundation) and then asked to conduct a narrative analysis to provide information for its history to be used as a learning tool and on sites like wikipedia, I am covered regarding these possible conflicts under San Jose State University's Institution Review Board as a certified researcher.

Thank you for your understanding, this is a lot to take in and I am trying one-step at a time. At this point, I have secured copyright and Mike Peritz's permission for the ".pdf" in question (I have an email from him which I am going to upload as a file just to make sure).

The sooner I can get the page released, the sooner I can add those ref tags.

As for the citation stuff in general, this is a really interesting issue, given that it does not readily fall under APA, MLA, or Chicago guidelines (which covers quite a bit). I know it might seem strange, but could you please call me via my office line <contact info redacted>, as a professor I have some questions that I am having difficulty articulating by email.

thank you nicholas 17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Nzoffel (talk)

Replying at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I had already uploaded those when I sent you the message, is there a way to delete the uploaded documents? --nicholasNzoffel (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how is this for a solution to the existing problem? What if you release the page for the day, the document in question is part of WCCUSD public record and I have the express permission of the copyright holder, Michael Peritz. I will add all the necessary references to existing documents, make proper in-text citations, now that we are aware of the documents were posted on the WCCUSD site, and offer some proper apa citations (now that I know what to cite). It seems that citations and the uploading of files is what the problem is and it is something that I can fix if given access to the page. --nicholas Nzoffel (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl,

The students really liked the response, it provided some great conversation. Also, there has still not been a responses, nor a release of the page, any thoughts? --nicholas--Nzoffel (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Moonriddengirl, the message subject was: Fwd: Re JFK History thank you for your attention to this. --nicholas--Nzoffel (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

One last thing, do you beleive that this addresses the copyright and citation issues. Just want to get an informed opinion. --nicholas--24.4.204.16 (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If the communication committee is happy with copyright, everybody is happy with copyright. :) Sourcing is a little more open to opinion. Personal communication may be a fine technique for scholarly research, but as I've said, it's a problem with our "original research" policy. This policy is Wikipedia-specific because we do not have any method of verifying the identity of contributors, and the only way to maintain verifiability is to cite to sources that readers can check for themselves. They can't do that with a personal interview. You could fix that, though, by publishing it on the school's website. While it would generally be better to have sources not connected to the primary, they are at least then verifiable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cope India '04

If you look closely, the second website is hosted by NIC(National Information Center) India, which is under the information and broadcasting ministry. Its sole objective is to share information in public domain..(J J Parikh 17:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parikhjigish (talk • contribs)

Hi. Do you mean the National Informatics Centre? If so, according to this, the material is not public domain. It says, "Material featured on this Portal/Website may be reproduced free of charge after taking proper permission by sending a mail to us. However, the material has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context." Material on Wikipedia must be either public domain or licensed compatibly with GFDL, which allows modification and does not require requesting permission by first sending an e-mail. Also, the base page of the second website, [2], is clearly marked "Copyright© All rights reserved with Indian Air Force." If you don't mean the National Informatics Centre, can you provide a link to a National Information Center that verifies public domain? That would be very helpful in clearing this up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

ContributionSurveyor: CeeGee

Hey! Just letting you know that my run of my tool ContributionSurveyor on CeeGee was successful and I've posted the results to User:Dcoetzee/ContributionSurveyor:CeeGee for your evaluation. She has over twice as many edits as Mgreason, so I had to split it onto two pages. It seems to have done a pretty good job of identifying her major prose contributions. Hope this helps. :-) Dcoetzee 01:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't looked yet this morning, but as of last night she had not responded. Meanwhile, I'm still considering a WikiProject Copyright or something. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: St. Maurice School

Hey, I think I understand what you're saying, and I've changed the things you've pointed out, but there's only so many ways you can say some of this stuff. Can you take another look and let me know if it's acceptable, or if there's anything alse to be addressed? Thanks muchly, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC).

Sure. I'll take a look at it as soon as I'm properly awake. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ContributionSurveyor: OSUHEY

Hey, I noticed you nominated several articles created by OSUHEY on CP, so I did a ContributionSurvey run which you can see here: User:Dcoetzee/ContributionSurveyor:OSUHEY. Dcoetzee 05:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That tool of yours looks like it's going to be very useful. :) Fortunately, he hasn't been here that long, so I was able to go through his manually. Massive problem, as you can see at Special:DeletedContributions/OSUHEY. (Took me a couple of hours on cleanup.) Currently, he's blocked for continuing to violate copyright after warning; he copied & pasted two new articles last night. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - could you please take a look at this discussion [3] (and the one above it)? There seems to be quite a bit of confusion there, and I'm not clear about Fair Use. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. :) I'll see if I can offer input, and if not I'll see if I can track down somebody who can. (I'm better with text.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Have offered input. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I loved the bit above that where someone was arguing it could be used because it 'probably' was ok. dougweller (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
He very much wants to include that link. :) I first encountered the situation over a week ago at WT:C. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Please check Talk:École Normale de Musique de Paris/Temp, rewritten by me and let me know if this is insufficient. CeeGee (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I will look at it in just a minute. I'll head over to your talk page when I've done so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed clarification. I guess I get the point now. :-) I reworded it following your proposals. I hope it is clean now.CeeGee (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for reinstating the article. CeeGee (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure which of my translations from Turkish may cause copyright concern because I was not aware of that as I did it. However, as I can judge now, it is unlikely. In any case, I'm gonna pay special attention to the copyrighted materials even by translations next time. Cheers. BTW thanks for the nice words about Turkey. CeeGee (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI, Need help with article patrollers

Thanks for that [4]. I feel flattered even so I just tried to wrapp up what I was observing from the point on it started, tried to summarize, give my 2 cents and put an end to it (when I thought that no further achievement will or could be made over there). And please, no sorries. Hope you enjoyed your lunch :) . The best from --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I did, thanks. :) I think it's great that you tried to cork the drama, but as we all know by now sometimes it continues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
A big thank you for dealing with all those vandals and deleting pages during the time non-admins couldn't edit! :) Versus22 talk 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :D I didn't get much done, though, before Wikipedia went "read only." (Very peculiar little interlude, that!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Haida copyvio-ism

I just saw your work on dumping copyvio on Saltspring Island. I've long been bothered by the content on Haida that always seemed very OR, and it turns out it is - the Museum of Civilization's. See what's on Talk:Haida and also note the "Mongols and Japanese" edit war, which is also copyvio (and also from someone else's copyvio, I'd bet). I'm way too POV to "get away with" such a mass copyvio dumping, even though COI and AUTO aren't involved; must my own historical/historiographical .... prejudices....maybe I should be so shy about it, copyvio is copyvio...there are some additions/changes by myself and other editors so it may not be boilerplate copyvio, but originally it was, and much still is, other than phrases and adjectivss tacked on or particulars corrected/cited. Many of the Tlingit pages are also, it seems, from one main source, though how word-for-word I haven't determinedstudied - see Culture of the Tlingit....I'm not patient enough, and/or tolerant of puffed-up truths, to want to take the weedwhacker to it. There are lots of other examples, often with the same eco-tourism-cum-p.c. but brochure-style copy, but Haida is a glaring example, especially because it's from a major museum....Skookum1 (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take a look. If the copyvio concerns are verifiable, the article will have to be tagged. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I've located what seems to be the point of introduction of the infringement, and I have blanked the necessary segment, listing the matter at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 March 9. If regular contributors to the article do not secure permission or revise the text in temporary space, an administrator (whether I or another) will close out the matter after seven days, either by revising the text or restoring an earlier version. Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. (By the way, I am not reading over the talk page related to any edit wars, because I strongly prefer to keep tightly focused when working copyvios. This prevents my developing even an accidental bias. If there is another source used for text currently in the article that I have missed, please let me know.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

DJ Preach

please can you tell me why you deleted my article yesterday. do you realize how much work i have put on this? preach@relic-rec.com

Eurasias (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DJ Preach, it's still there, but the request has been declined because the main body of the article was copied from [5]. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright for our policies on using previously published text. Even if you are the owner of that text, we need verification of permission through our processes before we can accept it. In addition, before the reviewer declined for that reason, another reviewer had commented here that the text was promotional. User:Tnxman307 said, "I'm sorry, but your article appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. If you still feel that this subject is appropriate for Wikipedia, please rewrite your proposed article in the form of an encyclopedia entry. Encyclopedia entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of published, verifiable sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the item being discussed." You might wish to review Wikipedia:Your first article for ideas how to address such concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

re Jimmy Norman

Yeah, place those types of questions on the review page, to keep it all unified. I will see about helping to look for a free-use picture as well. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Omega Chess

You made a change to Omega Chess for copyright reasons, but comparing the new version with the previous version, I don't see any differences. Bubba73 (talk), 13:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I see that you may be working on it right now. Bubba73 (talk), 13:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. :) I deleted the infringement. The entire section on "Advanced Omega Chess", which infringed on the site you identified, is gone. The deleted version, which contained the infringment, is stored at Omega Chess/deleted revisions 2009-03-11. All that remains are the versions of the article that existed before the IP pasted content from that site. (Thanks for helping clear up that problem, by the way.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see. Now there is no trace of the copyrighted material, even in the article's history. Bubba73 (talk), 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

tirex resources

hey, its me again. quick question.

There are a few articles that I know that needs tweaking? Do you know of any wiki writers that can write articles, that is compliant and article won't be deleted? If so, what will be the costs involved. Let me know and I can contact that person or if it is yourself.

thanks

Newdesignnow (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)newdesignnow

I don't know any writers for hire on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. As far as I'm concerned, I'm already pretty fully committed to working on copyright concerns on the article; I'm afraid that doesn't always leave me much spare time. But there are a few potential sources of assistance for you. If you'd like to learn to work on these yourself with mentorship from an experienced Wikipedia, we have an "adoption" program at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. There, you might find an editor who can work closely with you as you learn the ropes. Less formally, you might also look at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. There, you'll find editors who have expressed a willingness to help out. You do want to be careful, though, who you approach. :) Not every Wikipedian removes his or her name from that list when no longer available. In the "toolbox" on the side of every contributor's user page is a link called "user contributions." If you click on this, you can see when the contributor last edited and get an idea of how active an editor is. There is also a forum there where you can post specific requests: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Newdesignnow - one possibility you may consider is either Wikipedia:Reward board, where you can offer other editors money to complete tasks, or Wikipedia:Bounty board, where you can offer Wikipedia donations as incentives to complete certain tasks. However, you should be warned that if consensus holds that your topic is not considered notable, even the best efforts of an editor can do nothing to prevent its deletion, and it would be unfair to not reward them for this work in this case. Dcoetzee 21:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, Dcoetzee. :) I had no clue there was a bounty board or a reward board! Newdesignnow, perhaps you'll find someone there who can help out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thank you both for your input. I will try the rewards approach. Very lucky to find great assistance!

Newdesignnow (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)newdesignnow

Hello, Thank you for your comments regarding the copyright problems. However, as I am the Curator/Administrator of Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame, I do hold the copyright for this material. How then do I grant permission for Wikipedia to allow the use of this information on the Hall of Fame's Wiki site? As for the book 'They Led the Way' by Mary Oswald, the Hall also holds the copyright of this material as well. How then do I need to prove this to Wikipedia?

Sincerely, Justin Cuffe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cahf (talk • contribs) 16:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have followed up at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
You helped me out last week with a copyright problem; I was astonished, looking further, at how much you do on this front. For being so prompt, thorough, courteous, and awesome :) Gonzonoir (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! That's very kind. :) I was happy to lend a hand. As I said then, it's one of the advantages of a big Wiki, that you have people working in all kinds of areas. And I'm often asking for assistance from others. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom Coughlin Jay Fund Foundation

When you have a chance, please review Tom Coughlin Jay Fund Foundation at User:Mgreason/Sandbox. Thanks for all you do. Mgreason (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be happy to. I may not be able to get to it today (had a busy work day), but if I don't I'll make it a priority for tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

CSD for images

Regarding your note, I tagged them as redundant, not identical. The three images are not in use (and have not been since upload in August), are not likely to be used, and are redundant of each other. Much like calling someone of one gender a girl, woman, or female, which are not identical, but we don't need to use all three, as that would be redundant. I take CSD #1 for files at its word, which is redundant. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken rollback on WP:AN

I am sorry I mistakenly rolled back your edits on WP:AN, I THOUGHT I had click the link to the page itself, but when I looked up, I had clicked rollback by mistake. Either my browser, my mouse or my fingers aren't behaving this morning. Anyway, whoops and sorry!! Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. No harm no foul; it's an easy mistake to make. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick response. I have looked through the Copyright Permission document on here and I am not sure that the Hall of Fame would be willing at this point to grant unrestricted copyright over to Wikipedia. Perhaps it is then best to remove the articles posted that you feel might be an infringement. I would appreciate knowing which ones before you proceed to remove them are.

Thanks, Justin Cuffe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cahf (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

For opening The minor children's names thread, you did it much more neutrally than I likely would have as well. -- Banjeboi 11:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) Good luck reaching consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ayse Nur Zarakolu

Updated DYK query On March 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ayse Nur Zarakolu, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Victuallers (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoot! Thanks for telling me. Good for Ayse. :) (Talk about tunnel vision; I'm so focused on WP:CP today that I almost didn't even see this!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi there. I noticed you are one of the most active admins at WP:CP. I for myself have little to no knowledge in that area and one user contacted me for a page where I used {{copyvio}} because I was not sure it was a G12 CSD. Could you maybe head to User talk:SoWhy#Samma Dynasty Copyvio Notices and offer your insight on how to handle that issue? Thanks in advance! Regards SoWhy 17:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be right over. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, it is most appreciated (as is all your work in that area). :-) SoWhy 19:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ayşe Nur Zarakolu

Hi! You're welcome. I noticed your article on the DYK yesterday and wanted to fix some Turkish spellings. It is nice to have a Turkey-related article in Wikipedia written by a non-Turkish person. Thanks so much for your work. Now, I've got to maintain my home work on Raymond Charles Père as promised. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! I rewrote the portions that were in concern. Would you please check it and let me know for the case I have overseen something. Thanks. CeeGee (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I will take a look; thank you. For some reason, I didn't get the "you have new messages" bar, so I was unaware there was anything waiting on my talk page until now. Sorry! (Now, like everyone else, I'm caught up in whatever bizarre bug has disabled editing Wikipedia. Recent changes looks very odd, with no new material added for nearly 15 minutes!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review and your detailed comments. As I can see the "point" is more complicated than I assumed some days age. Wow. OK. I will try to reword the paragraph in concern. However, I need a little more time to do it, and as I have only limited freetime during the weekdays, I would do it on the weekend. I hope this will be not too late to prevent the article being deleted totally. Besides, I appreciate your tutorship really much. :-) Cheers.CeeGee (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're great.:-)CeeGee (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I reworded the passage you mentioned. Can you please take a look at and comment. Thanks. CeeGee (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure. :) Give me just a minute; I'm in the middle of history merging something. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to thank you for your patience. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Gastropods copyvio problem

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_very_large_and_widespread_CopyVio_problem.21. I figured you could help. :-) Dcoetzee 22:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. That is one scary section name. I'll go take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, FYI, the ContributionSurveyor report on GrahamBould is available. Per your request I excluded all articles listed in the Molluscs of New Zealand category hierarchy. Unfortunately it's looking like there are quite a few left over articles with substantial prose contribution from him. :-/ See what you think. Dcoetzee 09:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Discouraging! I'll make a note at the project page. They seem to be fairly pessimistic about the whole process over there. The contributor who first disclosed the problem seems to think it might take a year or more to clean these up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much Moonriddengirl for helping us along with this so much. I guess we already have one convenient list by using the subcategories of Category:Molluscs of New Zealand. I thought as a start we could commence with the subcategory gastropods, and simply assign an alphabetical section to each of the taskforce members. This would be an experiment to see how well it goes (or not). Then if it is not really very workable or ceases to be workable after a month or two then we could go with the bot idea.
Yesterday evening I went through nearly a quarter of the list that Dcoetzee created (very useful). it made me realize that the whole Category:Molluscs of Australia also is almost certainly just as much of a CopyVio problem with about 400 more articles. I am also thinking that many other of GB's articles may be problematic too, but I don't have the time to check any on other subjects.
I was wondering if we could put cleaned-up articles into a new (temporary) invented category such as maybe: "Category:Gastropods of NZ" so that all of us could find them all in one place? What do you think of that idea?
Best to you and many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to help as much as I can, although this is out of my field. :) The temporary category may be a good idea, although there's always a chance somebody will object and nominate the category for deletion. At that point, a list might serve just as well. I would explain the purpose of the category, and that it is intended to be temporary, at the category page itself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother

I think we have another Surabayan copyright issue (sigh, etc etc) - if you could please see if I have been unfair on the IP number that ignored my warnings at Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember please feel free to rap my knuckles if I have been unduely whatever - but this one was intransigent - unless IP's cannot see warnings maybe? SatuSuro 12:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm off to take a look at it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is very embarrassing but it looks like some appropriating from the website has been done by changing text slightly - to catch out those like me who look for straight copies :( - what bothered me was when i was adding comments to the 222 ip talk page was the even more flagrant WP:NOT items were being added SatuSuro 13:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's often the way it goes; sometimes people don't understand how much they have to change, and other times they don't want to be bothered. :/ (The WP:NOT items, of course, have to be handled separately. With those, I'd recommend neutrally requesting feedback possibly at a Project page to see what others think should go into the article. In that case, I would explain what I object to and why on the article's talk page so consensus can be built there.) I'm looking at the material, and there's certainly a huge chunk of it. I have not yet been able to determine how much of a copyright issue the current text represents. I see some duplication under the "vision" section that will need to be removed. (Once I figure out if other material is a problem, I'll take care of that.) The list of prize winners is not copyrightable as long as there's only names and what they won for, so from a copyright standpoint that's okay. I have not yet located a source for the "Academic Facilities", which is the main section of concern. Can you by any chance identify where that was drawn from so that I can compare? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
My big problem is that I consider sections 10 and 11 not really valid text - not on copyright but on my reading of WP NOT - but will try for a bit to see if I can ascertain what is going on with the Academic Facilities - it doesnt seem to fit - so in the end maybe its less of a copyright issue than I thought and my tags that I placed are in the end the issues - insufficient citing - so maybe its a deadend issue as far as copyright after all - (it maybe that the 222 person is in fact a native english speaker with the capacity to precis the web material to get around things)  :( - even more embarassing SatuSuro 13:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
They may not be appropriate for the article, but they just have to be addressed separately. :) WP:C is a foundation policy, and I try to keep it very distinct from anything else I do. There are issues with the "vision" section, though. I'll address that. If you find a source for the facilities to which we can compare, please let me know. My search of the website didn't show up anything, but it's possible that I missed it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Big problem is the editor has created the 'ethics' thing - it comes from neither the English or Indonesian section - and being uncited and no sign of it on the website - maybe it is an WP:OR issue? A problem is assuming the individual might be writing from a written source and not from something on the web, :( SatuSuro 13:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It's possible. In your position, I would explain my problems at the article's talk page and then ask for feedback (you should make your question neutral) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indonesia--just say, "There is a question about the development of this article; feedback at the talk page would be appropriate." Then I'd leave a note for the IP editor pointing out the section on the talk page and asking him to participate. That way, you can develop consensus as to whether or not that material belongs. Alternatively, you can request a reliable source, and if none is provided within a few days, restore to verifiable text. If it is a legal matter--if somebody is saying something bad about a living person, for example--unverified text must be removed immediately. If it is not, we can sometimes allow time for verification to be provided. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bingo - section 10 = http://io.its.ac.id/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=33 - hope youre still there :) would you like to do the honours? one way or other? SatuSuro 13:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still here. :) Give me a minute, and I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - thats a good start - the land of Cygnis,the late Moondyne no Djanga, Gnangarra, Hesperian, SatuSuro, et al is truly in the land of nod time - thank you for your patience with me and the damned Indonesian project (dont let me start) - appreciate your hearing it out - I will return at some point - and see what the tags get (the indonesian project has many tags from me - the articles stay the same for years after the tags :) - cheers and thanks SatuSuro 13:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hope you have a good night. :) It's my pleasure to help in any way I can. And, believe me, I know your frustration. I, too, have asked for feedback and waited to no avail. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that - on the Tasmanian project I once waited 2 years for a response on one article - but hey There are no deadlines - my user page has very few userboxes - but it has I like the sound of deadlines rushing past SatuSuro 13:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Two years. Now that is patience. I love the userbox. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Should have got off by now - I waited for 3 years to get permission to research in Java in the 90's - etc etc - sabar is what my javanese friends offered as advice, and some editors on this place are gila(crazy) - so maybe instead of almost changing my user name to sttrider or striderr (user change name - I reverted my request this PM minutes after putting up strrider ) I should change from 'new years day' (satusuro) to Sabardangila - (hey that sounds good... hmmm..) Patient and crazy - im off before I rant further - cheers SatuSuro 13:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Or simply "crazy patient." :) My patience tends to wear thin after a week or so. I have no real idea how either your current username or your potential one are pronounced, but I've always thought that SatuSuro must be very pretty in sound, if it is spelled at all phonetically. I like either that or Sabardangila better than the sttrider variants. :) They're striking, at least to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not so sure - the IP user is reverting, adding more and ignoring - time to block I would say :) SatuSuro 14:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Okay. I'll check it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I used my rollback - the material is straight from the web page - clearly thinks no one to answer to - boring - probably never get a word out of them - SatuSuro 14:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
As I am getting to or at WP3RR even if he she or it (it is a surabaya IP) is the issue - I am off to find a nice drink and book - I am out - cheers SatuSuro 14:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to try modeling the proper way to format the material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Good luck to you - with a talk page section like this i think i should find my copy of raymond chandlers the long goodbye - thanks for your patience with all this SatuSuro 14:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

undo

Please undo this. cygnis insignis 02:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

For what reason? Have I misquoted you? I'm currently searching for the diff at ANI in case I have made a mistake. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have found the diff. As near as I can tell, I have quoted you and attributed you correctly. I'm not sure why my quoting your statement is a problem, but I am willing to consider striking it through if it is for some reason offensive. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to give attribution, to draw attention to and link my user name, to point out who said it rather than what was said? Are you unfamiliar with "discuss the edit, not the editor"? cygnis insignis 02:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I always give attribution; it's precise, and it's good scholarship. I'm sorry if you feel my quoting your question is in some way uncivil. Since you originally asked the question, I had no reason to imagine you would not wish to take credit for it. I'm still unsure why this should represent a problem, given that the question was asked publicly on Wikipedia and remains a part of the "public record" as it were. I'm afraid I can't see anything horrible about either the question or the response. Meanwhile, please remember not to alter talk pages except in accord with WP:TALK. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
There. I hope that will resolve your concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have not, nor could I, object to you quoting me. I am here to make improvements, not draw attention to myself. Please answer the questions above. cygnis insignis 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I did answer your question, but I'll repeat it: "I always give attribution; it's precise, and it's good scholarship." (Unless you mean your second question, in which case, "No, hence the link to the policy from which its drawn." But quoting somebody is not discussing them.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
My version was less distracting, it focuses on the content. I'll repeat that the quote itself was not the problem, it is misleading to keep suggesting that it was. Please take some time to consider how unnecessarily naming editors may be counterproductive. cygnis insignis 03:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. You might also consider this recent example of naming names when serious accusations are being made. That is l[a]ying on the "public record", as you have it. cygnis insignis 03:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC) [typo or not]
Cygnis, no offense, but it seems like you are being oversensitive here. I looked at the diffs and I don't see anything wrong with how Moonriddengirl quoted you. Attribution is best practice. However, I do understand your position; Recently, another editor referred to me in a talk page section where there was only supposed to be a discussion of the topic in a neutral manner and turned it into a discussion of editors instead. But seriously, if she had not named you, I wouldn't have known who to thank for asking such a great question! Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I must admit I remain completely confused about the core issue here. I didn't accuse you of anything; I answered your question in what I hoped would be a friendly and useful fashion; you several times requested an answer at ANI, and I attempted to give you one. Naming you was not unnecessary. I quoted you. Attribution is required under GFDL. I don't quote anyone on Wikipedia without naming them and/or providing a direct diff. If you simply feel that my talk page comment lacked focus, then I'm sorry, but while improving articles is encouraged, altering others' talk page comments is not. The comment that I wrote, though typically wordy, is also public record, even if you could have said it better. Nevertheless, for whatever reason my linking your name with your words may concern you, I have already withdrawn it on your request in the manner recommended by WP:TALK.
That said, please be careful about accusations against others. You accuse Celestra of "lying" in this edit, but offer no details to substantiate this accusation. Celestra expressed an opinion (preceded with the words "I think") that your handling of a situation constituted a continued copyright problem. Whether Celestra was right or wrong in that opinion, I don't see how that can constitute a "lie", unless you can s/how that s/he falsified information. An error in opinion, if s/he made one, is not a lie.
And thank you, Viriditas, for your efforts to smooth troubled waters. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Firstly: I made a correction to my previous post. And what s/he insinuated on ANI was that I did something worse than copyvio, that is an unsubstantiated accusation that has not been refactored. Secondly:You have put forward further misinterpretations of my statements, I did not say your post was unfocused - I replaced my name with three words. The idea behind my statement is not mine, a concept that seems alien to you, but a diff would have sufficed if you insist on closely adhering to something that is largely ignored. And lastly: This 'case' and 'determination', has already produced drastic consequences in our community. I have seen newer good faith contributors scurrying off to fix things that are very probably unproblematic and certainly not copyvio. I wont be supplying the diffs, lest some thug or juvenile decide to make an example of them in that quasilegal arena AN/I, then see them crucified on scant or non-existent evidence at a TOL wikiproject. I have had little success in communicating with the legally-minded editors, and suppose I will just have to grit my teeth until this storm blows over. And wait for some mindless zealot to show up and suggest that 10 words in one of my stubs constitute a copyvio of three sources, or worse, 'concealing' that by 'rephrasing'. You may gain something by rereading my posts, and assume they are the product of good faith and much thought; I've done my best to explain them and understand your views. Regards, cygnis insignis 16:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
If I have misinterpreted your statement that "My version was less distracting, it focuses on the content" as indicating that my version was more distracting and did not focus on content, then I apologize. I'm not sure how else to interpret it, but evidently I am missing some nuance. I do adhere to GFDL and plan to continue at least until and unless Wikipedia follows through with its conversion to CC-By-SA this summer, at which point I'll adhere to it. It's possible that you might gain something by doing similarly (that is, in rereading with a similar assumption). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: sandbox

Thanks, and that's fine. I don't actually remember what I was attempting to do, so no issues or hassles. Jude (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Hawaii concerns

Hi. I've been closely following the discussion on AN/I about "A very large and widespread CopyVio problem", and for some time now, I have been concerned with the majority of articles and subcats containing articles in Category:Royal Family of Hawaii. I'm not here to point fingers at the particular user, but they have been warned several times and they understand the problem. Obviously, you will discover who they are if you investigate the issue, but I would like to know how to proceed. Whenever you have time, please contact me, or if you feel the need to ask someone else to look at this, that's perfectly fine, I just want to get it resolved. Some of the sources the particular editor has used may or may not be in the public domain, but I haven't investigated that angle and it may be doubtful as most of these books are still in print. But if they are, would this be a plagiarism issue rather than a copyvio? I'm not entirely sure what to do, so I look forward to hearing from you-or someone! :) Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Eep! I missed this. :/ I'm sorry for not getting back with you sooner. I'll take a look and see what input I can offer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you supply me, please, a couple of examples of articles that are a concern? It would make it much easier for me to investigate. I've popped in on a few articles at random, but I haven't been able to identify specifically a problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure. I should have provided them in the first place. And your response time is very quick! I'll get back to you later tonight. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Later tonight works. :) It's past bedtime in my part of the world. I'm dawdling. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Great. Thank goodness you aren't doodling. :) Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
No real talent for it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going there. This conversation is over. Good bye. :) Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ack, I'm nowhere ready to address this as I'm working on a GAC, and you've got your hands full anyway. Hopefully, I can return to this soon. Thanks for putting up with me. :) Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for interacting. :D Frankly, I find it cheering that there are others who care about copyright problems. (By the way, in case you're interested, I have just launched Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup.) Whenever you're ready, please let me know, and I'll be happy to give it my attention. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that's wonderful idea. When I'm ready, I'll submit my request for review to the project. Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mollusk CopyVio

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Ah, now I start to understand the "herding cats" analogy. It would be nice to have the luxury of waiting until everyone is in agreement as to how to go about fixing this, but that could take months, (or forever) and in the meantime nothing would actually have been done. I feel I am right to urge people to start on a simple system right away? I feel that time is of the essence here. Whatever system we use, I figure it can perhaps become more sophisticated as we go along if necessary.

Personally I like your suggestions and I very much respect your experience in this field. If you have any suggestions as to how I might handle the getting people to work together on this better I would be glad to hear them.

All good wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And to you. :) I have just addressed a personal note to User:KP Botany, as I hate to see anyone frustrated with the direction this is taking. Like you, I think that something needs to be done swiftly. I'll note that it is just as workable to me to completely replace these articles with stubs, if your project would prefer. We don't have to keep older versions in history, as long as they have completely new language. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Erroneously accused of edit warring

On Ultraviolet Sound, User:Roux has accused me of edit warring, however, I wasn't. I was attempting to get my point across that I was not edit warring. So Roux decided to be closed-minded and revert my edits as vandalism. I posted a question about it at User talk:J.delanoy, however, I stopped receiving replies, and decided to go to another talkpage (here) where I am more likely to get a reply. If you believe that I was edit warring, then please tell me what edit I made that constituted edit warring. In addition, as you can see from Roux's block log, that he or she has been blocked in the past for exactly what he/she accused me of doing, but if you look at my block log, you will notice that it is empty. If I was actually edit warring, then my block log would not be empty. Because Roux's block log is not empty, I would not doubt that he or she made a bad faith edit. -- IRP ☎ 22:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By the way, I would like to let you know that I removed the external link icon from the internal link in your editnotice. -- IRP ☎ 22:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm actually cooking supper at the moment, but I wanted to let you know that I should be available to try to help you make sense of this within a few hours. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
All right, thanks in advance. -- IRP ☎ 22:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my edit notice. :) I didn't even know that was possible!
First, let me point that edit warring can happen to anybody at any time, really. Even after I became an admin, I was cautioned once about edit warring by another admin when I believed I was removing a clear-cut BLP violation. He did not agree that it was a BLP issue. I bit my tongue, and after things settled realized that he was probably right. I say that before even looking at the issue, so I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just saying that a clean record doesn't mean it can't happen. :)
Okay. Now I'm looking at what actually happened. And detailing what happened. User:Roux nominated the article for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4. You challenged the speedy. Then you nominated it for AfD. Both well within process. Roux reverted you. You did not revert him, but re-added the AfD tag, which he removed out of process. Looking flatly at the face of the article, I don't see any edit warring there. When an AfD is open, the article should be tagged. That was entirely appropriate.
The question, really, is what you want to do about it. I understand that it is offensive to you, but I'm not sure what remedies are available, short of seeking mediation at WP:WQA. Do you have any reason to believe that he would be open to approach from a neutral mediator from that forum? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, at least that should allow others to know that I was not edit warring. The final thing that I would like to address is that when I tried to remove the post from Roux's talk page that made it look like I was edit warring, the user then decided to revert me like a vandal. I am requesting that the post be removed by someone else or at least, please post a comment at that talk page to make it clear that I was not edit warring (since the user seemingly personally dislikes me and does not want me to edit his/her talk page. The user doesn't even bother to read my comments. The user just sees I edited the page and reverts it). As a last resort, I will post a notice at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. -- IRP ☎ 23:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you missed my last post↑↑. -- IRP ☎ 23:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
And so I did. I have left a note for the contributor explaining my view of the situation. I hope that he will be open to considering another view. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP names of minors

I fear unless something is "resolved" in this discussion by an admin the some editors, specificly the ones that advocated and nominated AfD's on this subject will continue to harass the other editors attempting to add value to the articles. Is there going to come something out of it, or what was the point of the discussion? — raeky (talk | edits) 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the point of all discussion is to find consensus. :) If consensus finds that the names belong, then the names stay. If consensus finds that they don't, they leave. I don't believe that it's really my place to judge consensus in the discussion, since I closed the matter at ANI. ANI was an inappropriate forum for it. Since it was not a BLP emergency, it was not an admin matter. BLPN is the place where such things should be decided, since not only admins have a role in determining how that policy applies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
(That said, I think you should be careful about accusing people of "harassment". Please remember to WP:AGF and trust that others are as interested in adding value to the encyclopedia as you are. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

The copyvios never end, do they? :( I'll try to pitch in periodically. Zagalejo^^^ 06:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ask, and ye shall receive...

Template:The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar

Looks like this:

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
This is what your new barnstar looks like! Ariel♥Gold 17:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


Personally I'd prefer the background color a light blue, I had it that way, you can see it here, but it seems every barnstar template has the beige background, so I stuck with that. Feel free to change it if you want yours to be more original! And, if you don't like this, tell me, let me know what you were thinking of and I can re-do it. ~*Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 17:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the blue does look better in the background :) I'm really glad you like it! Ariel♥Gold 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ohio State Senate articles

March 17, 2009

To whom this may concern:

It has come to my attention that you have been policing the Wikipedia articles of the Members of the Ohio Senate, including Joe Schiavoni. I work for the Ohio Senate and request that you do not delete any information or photos that are added to his page. If you come across any other information from outside sources, the majority of it has been sourced from us.

I thank you for your efforts to protect us from plagiarism but ensure that any information that is added by this user is indeed valid information that should not be tampered with. Our main focus is to use Wikipedia in an effort to better educate the citizens of Ohio on their elected officials, and any information that we add is indeed doing this.

Sincerely,

Ryan Monell Administrative Assistant The Ohio Senate —Preceding unsigned comment added by RM82087 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving you permission. This is copyrighted material written by Josephy Schiavoni. How else can I go about ensuring that this does not come up as plagiarism? This is uneccessary and should not be a problem, but please let me know what needs to be done. For my information, what is you actual title and your relationship with Wikipedia?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by RM82087 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you need help

Hey Moonriddengirl

How can I help??

From RobScheurwater (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Do you mean with respect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup? Right now, the project's major goal is cleaning up the Mollusc articles. We're cooperating with Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods on that one, and it's being organized at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. There are detailed instructions there for pitching in. If you don't have familiarity with Gastropods and don't want to work on that cleanup, there's bound to be something coming up soon. Meanwhile, if you're looking for something a little simpler, there's always Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source. If you can find the sources for these, you might be able to figure out if they are free or blatant copyright violations. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup#Category:Wikipedia_files_that_may_violate_copyright. And welcome. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

GB

Hello Moonriddengirl, I checked FishBase before I used it & it says "You are welcome to include text, numbers and maps from FishBase in your own web sites for non-commercial use, given that such inserts are clearly identified as coming from FishBase, with a backward link to the respective source page." It comes as a shock to me to find that this is not OK for Wikipedia. I apologise for all the trouble. I think the best thing is to block me permanently. GrahamBould (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I can understand your confusion on that one. You're not the first to think a non-commercial site could be used here. While it might certainly seem otherwise right now, I really don't like to block good faith contributors. I am confused why you continued after being notified of the problem in February of last year, but I am not convinced that you were deliberately infringing copyright. I myself would much rather see you working with somebody until all can be confident that you understand the copyright policy and the degree to which material must be reworded before it can be used on Wikipedia. (I am currently doing just that very thing with another contributor who had long term issues with our copyright policy; he was indefinitely blocked, but has been willing to work collaboratively on overcoming this issue.) I really wish that you would come to the Administrator's noticeboard and present your side of things. I would personally prefer to have you working with us on the cleanup, and it would be very helpful if you could help us to understand how widespread this problem may be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Roux

Can you please move the post named "Your recent statement on my talk page" to the bottom of User talk:Roux before it is archived? I am afraid that if I do it, there will be a problem between me and that user. I don't even want to touch that page until this is settled. -- IRP ☎ 00:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the purpose of that move. He has undoubtedly seen the note, as he has actively edited. He hasn't responded, but he has also left it with the other notes, which means that anyone who goes to look at the conversation will see that at least somebody else has a different opinion. I agree with you wholeheartedly that you should not edit the page, but I don't see that it would be constructive for me to do so either. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I would hope to find a response some time because I might need to post on that page some time and I won't be able to. If the user doesn't reply, then it won't be possible to get the issue settled. The user has replied to posts at the bottom of his or her page, so I was requesting that someone move it to where the user is looking. -- IRP ☎ 01:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
If you haven't had one yet, you're not likely to get a response. I have voiced my opinion to him, and I really doubt he missed it. When he began actively editing today, mine was the most recent communication on his page. The most recent messages left there before me were by him. When he got the talk banner, I don't think he could have missed it. I believe that moving the notice to attract his notice would be a form of badgering. I strongly recommend that you let it go. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I'll do. I'll forget about it, however, if it arises again when I try to post on that page (whenever I have to), I'll have to report it somewhere. Should I report it here or Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts? For now, as far as I know, the user is probably taking whatever opportunity he or she can to shift an edit warring blame to another editor. I wouldn't trust the user because he or she has a history of edit warring (and actually violating 3RR). -- IRP ☎ 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC), modified 01:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't have any authority of this, so, by all mean,s if you feel you must report it do so at WP:WQA (although that is informal mediation, it's still the appropriate next step). But I do hope you aren't going to take this more to heart than it merits. I don't know your history with User:Roux, but I've had run-ins with other editors (even other admins), some of which have been very tense, but we've managed to move past them. Misunderstandings do happen. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the thread at User talk:Roux and I agree with Moonriddengirl: I think it's best to just try to forget about it. Different editors have different definitions of editwarring. Policy states clearly that editwarring does not just mean violating 3RR but that editwarring can be happening even when 3RR is not violated. An edit can be considered to be a revert if it has a similar intent to another edit, even if it isn't the same in literal content. I don't consider the behaviour as described in that thread to be editwarring and don't see anything wrong with it. I'm sorry you experienced receiving an unwelcome message. However, if another editor considers it to fit the definition of editwarring I don't think they can be absolutely proven wrong. Moonriddengirl posted a message at the bottom of the thread which I feel clears things up nicely. Wikipedia doesn't use punishments. Editors are encouraged to get along with each other, but there's usually no way to force someone to apologize or retract a statement. Instead, we usually move on and hope the behaviour isn't repeated. If such a problem arises again, I suggest trying to understand the other editor's point of view and modelling the behaviour you would like to see. Serious or much-repeated behaviour problems may be worth pursuing with WP:DP, but more minor problems it's often better to ignore. Learning how Wikipedia works in practice can be a long, slow process. I hope you enjoy editing. Feel free to ask me if you ever have questions about how Wikipedia works, etc. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey "copyright queen..."

Sirrah, 'tis right here on page 78

Lookit this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Upjoseph.jpg - --Boston (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Such as it is, my expertise is really about text. :) That said, that's pretty peculiar. I'll see what I can figure out about it and alert some commons admin, either via tagging the image or direct contact. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. "Her Royal Highness, Moonriddengirl, Queen of Copyrights". Sounds about right. — Coren (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL. I never feel the "janitor" label is more accurate than when I'm doing copyright stuff. :D A scepter would be ever so much more dignified than a mop. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, Franamax, that's awesome. :D I may (with full credit) have to enshrine that on my userpage somewhere. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio discussion at Talk:The Lion King

Hi there. Another admin seems to think that selectively deleting contributions from the article history is an impossible task for admins, but if I recall correctly, you did so successfully with Age_of_Empires_(video_game). I'm not an admin, so I'm not familiar with the process of doing so, but could you weigh in at Talk:The Lion King? Would be edifying for both me and the other admin. BuddingJournalist 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll be right over. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying the issue Moonriddengirl, see my comments over there. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A Biology Barnstar for you

The Bio-star
For all the hard work you have so far put into saving so many gastropod articles from possible deletion due to copyvio, I award you this Barnstar, Moonriddengirl.

Invertzoo (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That's a barnstar I certainly never expected to be seeing on my page. :D I'm thrilled by how swiftly the cleanup has been going, and I'm happy to be of service. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Chitons of New Zealand

There are some temp pages left in Category:Chitons of New Zealand, as I didn't notice them before I had fixed the articles in place -- possibly somebody worked on the listing at WP:CP. I suppose deleting is easier than merging, though :) – Sadalmelik ☎ 07:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd imagine that kind of thing is inevitable when we're working quickly through a problem as huge as this one. :) Unless there's been some additional material added, I should be good to just delete them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What now?

Hi Moonriddengirl, What should we do next? Should we look at the Category:Molluscs of Australia? Should we ask gadfium to check a few of the Australia gastropod articles and see if it looks like we have the same CopyVio problem in that category? The Australia category is not as large as the NZ one, thank goodness. I am going to be volunteering in the AMNH museum most of today and then out in the evening, but I will see how things are going tomorrow. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I've raised just that very question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods/Subpage_for_organizing_CopyVio_Cleanup#Time_to_reorganize.3F. :) With respect to the Australian articles, there's a response on the molluscs, anyway. This is exhausting, but it's going very well I think under the circumstances! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with blocked user?

Hi there. It appears that after OSUHEY stopped editing, RollingRock2009 has started with a similar behavior. All of the articles they've created are copyvios of the links they use as references. I was wondering if the user should be blocked due to the amount of violations they've uploaded and if you would delete them. Or would it be best if I brought this to AN and tagged each article by hand? Thanks, §hepTalk 21:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll look into it. Thanks for letting me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. §hepTalk 22:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like I'm late to this party. Seems like you've already tagged them all, and they've all already been deleted, and somebody else has already launched a sockcheck (as I discovered after I labeled him). I'm watchlisting his talk page and will try to help out if he persists. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Guess I should have watched their page as well, I missed the sock investigation. §hepTalk 22:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't there. I tagged it, only to discover that the sock investigation was already active. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again. I've come across RM82087, seems you have too. The account was registered 12:49, March 12, 2009, RollingRock2009 registered 22:41, March 12, 2009. I like to get outside opinions before opening something like an SPI case and was wondering what your thoughts were. Thanks, §hepTalk 06:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems little doubt that it's the same person, not only from consistency of edits, but from the similarity here: File:Schiavoni.JPG, File:JoeSchiavoni.JPG. When he popped up again, I decided to give him another shot at the permissions process rather than just blocking immediately, and he managed to verify permission. I'm utterly perplexed why all the DRAMAZ was necessary. If he honestly works for a politician (and a lawyer) as he indicates, why on earth he would be so unresponsive to a simple paperwork request is beyond me. But I have confirmed that permission was only for that article. If he pastes text into any other article, he has to go through it all over again. I see some suspicious file uploading; I'll talk to him about that. Whether or not to take steps on the sock puppetry, I think, might depend on what he does now. If he contributes constructively, I wouldn't. He wasn't blocked when he originally made this second account, and I suspect it was made in ignorance of rather than defiance of our policies. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
That's good to hear. I am surprised what my state will do when they want their information on Wikipedia. I've begged for pictures before and they always say "The copyright is owned by the state of Ohio, no moifications allowed, NC use only" etc. Maybe I'll send my local guy another email... Thanks, §hepTalk 00:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

William F. Hyland

Hello, I'd like to re-create the deleted page for William F. Hyland, but I missed the discussion (if there was any) over the page's deletion back in January. Do you have any documentation of what the copyright infringement issue was so I can be sure not to duplicate the original problem? Thanks. Offenbach (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There wasn't a discussion; it was a speedy deletion under criterion WP:CSD#G12. The source is visible at the creator's talk page: User talk:Rastarainy. The contents were pasted from [6], which is copyrighted to the State of New Jersey. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

New page patrol competition!

Hi, MoonG. I've just posted a Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Competition! to encourage people to get involved in new page patrol. The main reason I'm telling you now is so that you can quickly let me know if you think it's a Bad Idea. I realize you're probably busy enough already with copyright stuff so you may not have time to participate, (though it would be fun if you did), but other people reading your talk page might want to. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I don't know if it's a Bad Idea. I'm a bit out of touch with that political sector of Wikipedia, so I don't know if this kind of competition is controversial or not. :) It doesn't look like a bad idea to me if people follow that pledge. Meanwhile, you're right that I'm probably too busy to participate right now. We've still got about a thousand articles to go on the Gastropod subpage cleanup, I've got a few dozen on my other long-term cleanup, and I'm working on getting an article through GA review. All of which means that my team would be likely to lose. :D But I hope it goes well for you! You'll have to let me know how it comes out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

BetacommandBot

Hi

I`m sure you have seen and surely someway dealed with the thousands and thousands of Fair Use Rationale Warnings placed by BetacommandBot in albums articles, i was thinking that since the Bot is long gone, we could take them off the articles, a lot of them are no longer useful, what do you think?. Zidane tribal (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Whether the Bot was active or not, if the warnings have outlived their usefulness, they should be good to go. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ummm.. I was thinking more on the line of getting rid of them for being plain old; Taking off the ones that have outlived their usefulness is not only a collossal task but also one i`m not fit to do (having rejected on me every image uploaded), but as you say, if the warnings are still "useful" the should stay. Zidane tribal (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Different ways of describing the same thing, I believe. :) I'm not suggesting you start a project to remove the old ones, just that if they are no longer useful--not relevant anymore--then there's no reason that they should be hanging around. Most of the old BetacommandBot notes I've seen on talk pages are for images already deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hospice care in the United States

Hi - just dropping in to say you're doing a great job on this article. I think it's nearly there - see my comments on the GA talk, for the last couple of things that i reckon need to happen. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, It's Me Again!

Wow, sorry to ask for help again so soon, but I have a problem that I have never encountered before. I wanted to setup a page titled List of The Cleaner episodes, because most shows have a separate episodes list. However, when I created a link, the link just routed back to the show's main page. It turned out that, for whatever reason, typing List of The Cleaner episodes into the search box will route you to the episodes section of the show's main page, the very section I planned to cut out to paste into a new page. Can you help my so that the search item List of The Cleaner episodes will not route to the show's main page, so that I can add a separate episode page? BookManiac42 (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It's a redirect. Redirects are easier when they go to pages than sections, but not impossible. :) Here's what I do: type in the List of The Cleaner episodes. It will take you to the section. Hit "go back one page" on your browser window. It will take you to the top of the page "The Cleaner (TV series)". Underneath the name, you'll see a parenthetical (Redirected from List of the Cleaner episodes). Click on the link in that parenthetical statement, and it will take you to the redirect page. When you edit it, make sure you remove the "#REDIRECT [[The Cleaner (TV series)#Episodes]]<nowiki>" from the top. :Probably an even easier way to do it is to go into [[Special:WhatLinksHere/The_Cleaner_(TV_series)]]. (You can reach that on any article from its toolbox.) Pick out the title from the list, and it won't automatically redirect you. :If you plan to copy content from one page to another, please be sure to make note of it at both the original page and the new page, so that the contributors who own copyright to that content get credit. I can't remember if we've discussed this before. :) In case you don't know, the way that's done is by putting an edit summary at the new article that says something like "<nowiki>Material split from [[The Cleaner (TV series)]]" (please use the wikilink). You leave a note at the source article's edit summary saying where it's gone. Then you'd use a {{splitfrom}} template at the talk page of the source article. In this case that would look like this: {{Splitfrom |page = List of the Cleaner episodes | diff = url of diff of copying the material |date = date and time material was copied}} If you have any questions about that, please let me know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Qaddasiyyah

hi, you had deleted my article of Battle of Qaddasiyyah due to some copyright concerns. Now i have rewrite most of the article that was suspecious of any possible copyright contents. please check it there at Battle of Qadisiyyah and let me know if its okey this time or not. regards. Mohammad Adil (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that this is still a copyright problem. For instance, I see the passage "The Muslims retaliated and occupied such areas again. And again they abandoned them either of their own accord for strategically reasons or were pushed back. This to and fro process had been repeated several times, and this had led to political instability in the Suwad, the fertile area between the Euphrates and the Tigris" that you placed in the section "Persians counter-attack" is copied from this 2005 book. I'm restoring the last version as we discuss this matter further, but as core policy Wikipedia does not include text from copyrighted sources unless we have permission or unless it is used in accordance with our non-free content guidelines--which limits how much we can use and requires that we put everything we copy verbatim in quotation marks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • ok thanks for pointing that out, i edited the war section. now i am going to edit it all.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet checked it all. Are there other sources that have been copied? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm checking more now. It seems like some of this is taken from the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica. This source is usable, as it is in public domain because of its age. It seems like you may have taken some from Khosrau II, which is also okay as long as you give credit for it. You need to make a note when you copy material from one Wikipedia article to another, because Wikipedia's contributors still own the copyright to the text they contribute; they just license it for reuse and modification under GFDL. It would be much simpler for me to help you figure out what you can and can't use if you would point me to the sources you're using for the text you want to place. I'm happy to help you determine if it is licensed compatibly or not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • if i take materail from the other wikipedia's related article, then whats the process, what i should do ?

Mohammad Adil (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's very easy. What you would do, ideally, is place it all at once with a note in the edit summary saying something like "Material duplicated from [[Article X]]". Then you make a "null" edit at the source article saying, "Material duplicated to [[Article Y]]". The first note tells future contributors where to look for credit for that text. The second note helps make sure that the source article won't be deleted in the future. Sometimes, if I think there's a risk of that, I'll also place a note on the talk page of the source article, just to help make sure it won't. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


  • Check Battle of Qadisiyyah now, this time i think there is not a word left of any copy right material. moreover the section Internal Conflicts of Succession is the same as it was in the pre-existing article under the heading Events in Persia, so i guess its okey, i dont know from where the Users have dublicated that section, or may be they have wrote it them selfs.

regards Mohammad Adil (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle_of_al-Qādisiyyah

Since you're obviously more into the subject than I am, could you please check this new anon article version for copyright violations and accuracy? - Mgm|(talk) 18:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue on accuracy, since my only history with the article is in clearing an earlier infringement, but I believe it's okay. The anon contributor was most probably the logged out User:Mohammad Adil, based on the note up here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fish copy problems

Since I have a copy of Ayling's Collins Guide to the Sea Fishes of New Zealand, I am able to check copy problems in relation to this book. I have modified your template for this purpose as follows: {{subst:User:Geronimo20/sandbox/box1}}. Is it okay to carry on, using this? --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure! That's great. I'm so glad that you can check the book. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

I just wanted to thank you for the barnstar - my first. You are very kind, and many thanks to YOU for putting in so much work on 'Great Gastro-Fisaco'.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Linking OTRS tickets

I noticed you mentioned on WP:CP that you haven't figured out how to link tickets. To link an OTRS ticket, you can use [[OTRS:XXXXXXX]] or [[Ticket:YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY]]. You use the first one when you have the seven-digit ticket ID (which you'll find in the URL when logged into OTRS), and you use the second one with the sixteen-digit ticket number (the one that starts with the date). Stifle (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! That seems startlingly simple. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

givemeknol.com

Have you run into this site? It's got a number of ebooks on it and I can find nothing that suggests they are not copyvio. We have 6 links to it. [7]. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless the book is old enough to be obviously PD, I'd say there's no way. My answer to this question would be "probably not." I don't see even an effort to imply proper licensing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've removed them all. I believe they were all placed by the same individual, as they issue from IP contributors User talk:115.75.42.23, User talk:115.75.8.240, User talk:115.75.59.235 and User talk:115.75.5.178. I'm going to go see about blacklisting the site from Wikipedia. If I can remember where and how. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree, we need to blacklist the site or it will be put back at some stage. dougweller (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've asked User:J.delanoy to help me with the blacklisting, since I am technologically fearful. :) Meanwhile, I've written at least a half a dozen publishers drawing their attention to this site. I'm probably not the first or only. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, perhaps I am. I've received a response from one of the publishers that makes it quite clear that this material is not licensed and that they're very concerned about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have done this

See [8] - which I reverted. Perhaps I shouldn't have, I don't know the context. But IMHO it was relevant, and it's one thing removing soapboxing, etc, removing this sort of edit seems wrong. dougweller (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I think that was right. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins recommends such a note. There's no good reason for its removal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
That's my understanding. If he puts it back I shall warn him, but I won't do anything if he leaves it. dougweller (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yerba mate

Thanks for fixing the sneaky vandalism there. Lou Sander (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) Wouldn't it be nice if they'd stick to the obvious? :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hospice Care in the United States

Hey, I anxiously await whatever recommendations, let me know if there is anything specific I need to do, thanksTbolden (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I have to say the review process was worth the wait, I feel Sally Field, "You like us you really like us!" This article really was a team effort. I have some thoughts on his suggestions, I will get back to you and let me know what you think. Tbolden (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Should I be responding to your talk page, let me know. This is a link to pictures of our hospice http://cchnet.net/hospice_facility_tour1.htm But, just to clarify hospice is not necessarily a place but a philospphy towards care so a picture can be hard to find. However, we have inpatient hospice facilities and these are there pictures. I could provide explanation of the rooms if that would be helpful in the images. Tbolden (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of the picture, I think I addressed the first points, I will have to think about the issue related to insurance providers. Tbolden (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

CMS Medicare website will be able to reference all the points we need to make/change. I will work on this. Do we have a time limit because I don't know how much I will get done this weekend. Tbolden (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know quite as much about hospice as I thought, it turns out that the issue of DNR is that a hospice has the choice as to whether or not to accept a patient who is a full code. I believe in the past--when hospice was in its formative years, it really wasn't presented as a choice, you had to be a DNR. So, the sentence as it is written is correct. With all that being said, if a patient were on a hospice which forbid full codes (unlikely), the patient can alwasy change there mind and say they want resuscitation. The patient would then be discharged from hospice I would gather this is very unusual and there is probably little data to back this up, lets say I know it from personal experience. I think, in the future, we could flesh this out in another article (did I just say that!) which is related to admission criteria for hospice---this can vary greatly by hospice as it requires the hospice to determine if there is a palliative plan of care. Does this all make sense? Now....to get those images.Tbolden (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you know I see that you have been busy editing, I will take care of the image issue on Monday or Tuesday, I will not edit anything else, let me know what you want me to do, I don't want to mess up anything you have been working on.Tbolden (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I liked your re-write to the Philosophy and Practices section, my cousin is helping me with some of the edit particulars. Have you ever thought about working for or volunteering for a hospice. You are very interested in this subject and our teamwork on this has been invaluable to the article.Tbolden (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

When I get into work I am going to try and research the exact wording related to code status, my undestanding has alwasy been that a hospice can not discriminate based upon DNR status, its not a matter of choice for the individual hospice, with that being said, hospice's do in some cases deny admission to full code patients but in my experience this has not been official policy of the hospice organization. This is a tricky area. I will have something on this hopefully by tomorrow. We probably will want to edit the part out about hospice's denying admission. Thanks.Tbolden (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't think it would happen that fast! Do you really think FA is a possibility? Yes, I will get on it with the images, code status and status. This has been a lot of fun! Tbolden (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse but I will have the images for you, I wont be in my office until Wednesday and then I can send you something on letterhead giving permission. We can use the images of the unit on the website, I could put a little tag line to if that is appropriate, describing what the room is. Tbolden (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the best picture ever, I will try to get a higher quality photo, my cousin helped me, that is a lot of work! How many pictures do you think it should have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbolden (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl,
I had a question I am pretty sure you can help answer, are lyrics to songs covered by copyright? If for instance I wanted to put some lyrics from my favorite songs on my user page, is there a limit to how much of the song I could use? Nableezy (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yes, lyrics to songs are copyrighted. (Unless your favorite songs are very, very old and hence public domain.) There isn't a hard-and-fast limit to how much you can use, but to be on the safe side I myself would not quote them, but only use a link (if you can find one!) to an officially licensed source. Sometimes MTV, for instance, has lyrics to songs, and we can link to them. The problem is that lyrics fall into our non-free content guidelines, and non-free content is discouraged on userpages. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
But then wouldn't favorite quotes, published in either a book or an article, also fall under NFC? Dont mean to badger, but I have been asked rather nicely to make some changes to my user page and I am running out of ideas :) Nableezy (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they do, but the big difference there is scale. A book is long, and a quote from a book is a tiny piece. Song quotes are usually much larger proportionally. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Would a quote from an individual article by a reporter/editorial be ok? Nableezy (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
MRG being busy for the week, let me chip in: you have to look at a conjunction of two things here, Nableezy. The first is wikipedia's non-free content guidelines, which are predicated on US statute and case law about copyright. The second is our policy on content on user pages - such as Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page? and Wikipedia:User page#Inappropriate content. I know Dweller has pointed you at that last link already. All of these policies point away from using your wikipedia user page to host quotations if the context is subject matter not related to wikipedia - which is what your user page currently is. I do hope you take the advice offered to you and reconsider what you're doing on your user page. Meanwhile, were we answering the question in the context of your own website, then I would point you to our article fair use which seeks to explain what is and is not fair. On your own website, a dare say a quote from an individual article by a reporter/editorial would be okay. But on wikipedia user page, unless you are making a point about wikipedia, it is unlikely to be okay. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The user page guidelines specifically say favorite quotes are allowed. and this whole discussion is because I am looking at changing it and am looking for ideas. I was wondering what type of quotes would be allowed and it looks like lines from songs are not. I understand that NFC is based on copyright law but it is much more restrictive, it would be hard under US law to argue that one cannot use a single line from a song. Nableezy (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I have created a new section Wikipedia:Quotations#Quotations_and_fair_use to try and deal with these issues. I believe that consensus will support the position that fair use quotation that is limited in extent is okay for user pages, but the claim of fair use is weaker than it would be in an article. I also opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:User_page#On_quotations. Dcoetzee 19:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
That's helpful; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

←Thanks to you both for helping out here. :) I'm finding it harder than I had hoped to sneak onto Wikipedia. I'm off to try to finish off the day at WP:CP while I can! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotations and fair use

Hey, just thought I'd invite your review and contributions of the new section I added at Wikipedia:Quotations#Quotations_and_fair_use, since this issue seems to come up a lot for you. No big rush or anything, I know how busy you are. Thanks! Dcoetzee 21:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I will, of course, be happy to. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

response from sarajo41-advice

Hi Moonriddengirl

Thanks for your advice, I will take it into consideration for future messages. Thanks for telling me.

Please leave any responses in my own section

Cheers

sarajo41Sarajo41 (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

M,

Now that I understand the context of your concern, I've little objection. I hadn't thought it could be read that way, but ...

As for using an inactive talk page, well, I didn't follow the usual user "talk" link, but rather got there,(ie the wrong place) from somewhere on your user page. Just what the sequence was is now lost. I rarely leave comments, especially in a back and forth editing situation, without looking at a user's page, which accounts for a somewhat odd route to a talk page. Sorry about that. It need not have been especially confusing, and so there may be no need ror a remedy, as I'm rather easily confused.

It's a good essay, and well worth including in official WP stuff, though because didactic and not directive, it's probably best as an official "supplement". Very nice work. ww (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And now, after going back to copyright to see where we stand, a linguistic observation, perhaps of interest to an Eenglish major (do you belong to P.O.E.M.?) and writer.
Nouns take the definite article in most cases. The dog, the last ice cream cone, the least worthwhile Shakespeare play... Proper nouns do so as well. The First National Bank, the Department of Labor, the amazing Tesla Electric (or whatever its official name is), the NRA or the IRA, the Cisco company, the Red Sox (as between NYY and RS, the only team for whom real human beings could possibly favor), ... But not all. For instance, EPA has decided something or other, General Electric has lost bond rating points, WNYC has produced some neat radio programs, ... So far, so mundane.
The fascinating bit is that one can perhaps observe the shift between the first case and the second. I became aware of this with NSA. Which some familiar with the agency refer to as NSA announced, or NSA, as usual, had nothing to say. Others, equally familiar with them, say, The NSA is well known to be mysterious, The NSA's new SHA design is probably an improvement, ... It appears that WP is in such an bubble condition. My ear says that the Wikipedia is correct, even thought there are many language variants and a tree of derivative sites (eg, .source, .news, .ictionary, ...). But I notice that I also use WP without the article, thus, WP depends on editors, WP quality is decreased by too much fact tag bombing, in the example above, ...
Trying to watch this happen is like an itch on one's cerebellum. You're sure it's there, and your fingers tingle to scratch it, but you can't quite locate it, physically, metaphorically, neurologically, ... Kind of like the sneeze that's (almost!) arrived. Time is suspended in some Proustian way.
The slow change of Sassaurian parole is theoretically significant, dominates language evolution if he was right, is on the wrong time scale for nearly all human observation and so is nearly invisible to individuals, but just might be noticeable in situations like this. The White Whale nears!
Best wishes. ww (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. My experience with the copyright policy is that, generally, if it can be misinterpreted, it will cause confusion. :) Anyway, as I said at WT:C, I'm very much on board with the majority of the overhaul, which I think stands to substantially decrease confusion. :)
Interestingly, Wikipedia seldom seems to take an article, although an article may be used when it is being used adjectively, serving as a descriptor. The way it's used at Wikipedia:About seems standard, although I have seen it used with the article. Perhaps the reason it usually isn't is because it is being used as a title? Wikipedia is a registered trademark. Similarly, I suppose, one would not say "the Nestle's" or "the Nabisco" or "the General Motors." :)
Not a member of P.O.E.M., nor familiar with, I'm afraid. I am far more prose oriented. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That's the Professional Organization of English Majors, headquartered at Lake Woebogon, of course. A little weekend listening should clarify all.
I agree on the "...if confusion is possible, it will occur..." point. This seems to be common when the legal types get involved and begin parsing finely. I also agree that too much clarity in such matters is impossible, but to be striven mightily for. Would that legal writers had similar attitudes. Or philosophers. On that question, do you recall just now what Bertrand Russell (world class mathematician and logician, world class philosopher, and world class campaigner for social justice, won his Nobel Prize for? ww (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah! I've never listened to A Prairie Home Companion or read anything by Garrison Keillor. People have been telling me for some time now that I should. :) Didn't Russell wind the sort of standard "all around Good Joe in the world of letters" literature award? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

could you please confirm whether the content shown in http://zamjose.tripod.com/temple/Ambalapuzha.html is not taken from wiki article [9] and [[10]] Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 13:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Of potential use there is Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 February 26. At the time the material was added to the article, it included the text "Link[http://zamjose.tripod.com/temple/Ambalapuzha.html]" This is quite a strong indicator that the external website predates Wikipedia, as it could not have been linked otherwise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

ABRAMS page

Hi,

Just finished making edits to the ABRAMS Books page, hopefully made it more compliant with Wikipedia's standards, but this is my first edit, so I'm not totally sure. As you left two of the three flags at the top of the article, I was hoping you could review the revised page and remove them if you see fit.

Thanks!

Aiahrachel (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)aiahrachel

Hi. :) Certainly you've done some good work there. I'm inclined to agree with comments left by User:DGG at Talk:ABRAMS Books in terms of further improvements. Some of the text is still not neutral. For instance, "Its long list of distinguished and popular titles...." Who says these titles are distinguished and popular? Who says that the Michael J. Printz Honor Award is "coveted"? Generally speaking, it is a good idea to attribute language that carries a point-of-view on Wikipedia. Such language is common in press releases, but not necessarily in reference material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of content release

"It is completely free to contribute content and to use the stories on your website." - this is what it says about content at [11]. Now it doesn't say anything about modification, plus it says that you have to email the contributor before using it, so I'm leaning towards assuming that the license would not be compatible with GFDL. The article is Indo-American Leadership Confederation and the article is here. What do you think? – Toon(talk) 22:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not compatible, no. I've blanked it, and I've left an explanation for the contributor at his talk page. We'll see what comes of it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Mandarin Christian Church

Greetings, Moonriddengirl: I have rewritten Mandarin Christian Church in User:Mgreason/Sandbox 2. When you have an opportunity, please review it for me. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll be happy to take a look at it. I'm a little unusually busy at the moment, but I will try to get to it later today if possible. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. I finished a new article, this one, Jacksonville Maritime Museum, at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 3. No big hurry, it can wait. I see you're rather busy. Mgreason (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I'm sorry, but my busy schedule has gotten substantially (and unexpectedly!) more busy due to an illness in my family. :/ Would you like me to ask User:Dcoetzee to review these, or are you able to wait a few days (knock wood) until I am more online? I expect Dcoetzee would be happy to help out if his schedule permits. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, Moonriddengirl: I hope your family illness has improved. I have rewritten St. James Building in User:Mgreason/Sandbox 4. Once again, no hurry. I can stack them up like cord wood. Best wishes. Mgreason (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We're in "recovery" now, which seems mostly to consist of making sure my patient takes his medicine and tries to eat. :) I'm off to review the first of the stack! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Making Wp's no-copying policy more prominent and clear for beginners?

Hi Moonriddengirl, This is a very high-up sort of a question, but here goes... It's true that GB never told us "Well, I did not understand that it was wrong to copy stuff when I started contributing to Wp", and I also don't know if anyone else has ever said that, but just recently I have been wondering whether CopyVio as a super-serious problem needs to be a bit more prominently mentioned in the first things a new user comes across on Wp, things like the 5 Pillars [12]? I know that Pillar 3 says at the end: "Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL" but that is a bit opaque for people who don't even really know what a "copyright" is. I suspect that there are a lot of contributors who don't understand that copying sentences and phrases, even if you paraphrase them a bit, is simply totally unacceptable, and against the law to boot. I know that you are putting together new policy pages about all this and I think that's great. How do you feel about whether this issue needs to have more prominence in the most introductory material? Invertzoo (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I once raised the question of whether we could make this more prominent, but it was pointed out to me that at the bottom of every edit screen it says, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted." Beneath the "save page" button, it says again, "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." Then, at the bottom, under "Please note", it says, "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images." I think that the problem is that most people don't read the material at the bottom. I know I didn't for quite some time after I came to Wikipedia. I'm not sure what else we could do, but I do agree it's a serious problem. Most of the problems I encounter at WP:CP are caused by lack of familiarity, I think, and not deliberate desire to infringe. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with you, I think that people don't read and understand the stuff at the bottom of the page for quite a while, if ever in some cases. Plus I really don't think that everyone knows what "copyright" is, or is prepared to go read up about it on the linked page. And as you well know by now, copy and paste from websites is only part of it, copying from books is also a big problem. And I think a lot of people suspect that a light paraphrasing is plenty enough to make the text into "their" prose, which is just not the case. I would like to see something mentioned in the 5 Pillars [13] or any other major policy page that is linked to in any of the standard "Welcome" messages. I also think that when the copyright issue is first mentioned or discussed it really must be spelled out very simply, so that anyone can understand it, maybe sort of like this:

" Do not copy into Wikipedia any phrases, sentences, or paragraphs taken from books or websites unless you are clearly quoting and properly citing them, or unless you know for sure that they are in the public domain or are covered by GFDL. Even if you slightly alter or lightly paraphrase text you have taken from books or websites, this is almost always against the law, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Text from sources must (in almost all cases) be read, understood, and then completely rewritten in your own words. "

I think I will probably try to put together a post about this for the 5 pillars talk page [14]. Best to you, and many thanks for all your hard work, Invertzoo (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with it. :) I hope that you can find a way to help cut down this problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I entirely agree with the approaches both of you are taking. Wikipedia has systemic issues with copy violations. Following are some thoughts I want to float.
At one end, it is extraordinary that a single editor can enter clear-cut copy violations from a small number of sources into thousands of articles over a period of several years, without being detected. Particularly since some of these sources were online. This may be the tip of the iceberg, since Wikipedia currently has no systemic procedures for picking up such copy violations.
At the other end, there are editors who, on the pretext of "protecting Wikipedia" treat other editors who have committed copy violations badly and inappropriately. For example, new articles from beginning editors are being peremptorily deleted by some administrators who offer no assistance to the newbie, but just abruptly charge them with committing a copy violation. This must be devastating for some new editors who have sweated blood to construct their first article, and in all good faith have cited their sources and done what they thought was adequate paraphrasing. How many good potential editors does Wikipedia lose, and enemies make, with this thoughtless behaviour?
And beyond this are zealots, who saddle unwitting editors, who incompletely paraphrase some passage from a cited source, with the very serious, criminal charge of plagiarism. I know how unpleasant this can be, since I was subjected to it myself. There was, of course, a needed lesson there, and I have tightened my editing practice, and used the text compare facilty in copyscape to check my previous edits. But treating other editors in such a high-handed way is uncalled for, and creates a sense of a fraught and unsafe environment for Wikipedia content editors.
If you check articles in Wikipedia with text comparison software, like copyscape, you will not find it difficult to locate examples of incomplete paraphrase infringements of the type I committed. This is not uncommon, and you will find it also among well established and highly regarded editors. The problem is likely to be more serious with offline sources, since these are not so easy to check.
Some key areas are: systematically identifying existing copy violations; minimising future violations; and dealing sensibly and usefully with editors who infringe. I would think the copyright task force Moonriddengirl is developing would be central to this, as would be the development of text comparison software.
  • Identifying existing violations – Copy violations can be cited and online, cited and offline, uncited and online, uncited and offline. Cited and online problems are easy to detect using a text comparison bot which crawls existing articles, returning to the copyright task force a list of suspect articles graded for the severity of the infringement. Cited and offline could be dealt with partially by a bot which returns editors who have used the same source a large number of times. This would then have to be investigated manually. However, editors who infringe with offline sources will also infringe with online sources, so perhaps this step is not necessary. Uncited and online problems can be flagged by a bot which searches the web for infringements in the manner of copyscape, but ignoring Wikipedia mirror sites and blogs. Uncited and offline problems will remain problems. A pilot run over a random sample of Wikipedia articles would give some idea of the extent of the problem, and whether the scans need to run on all articles.
  • Minimising future violations – This should be approached through raising editor awareness and providing editors with better tools for avoiding infringements. I read somewhere, I don't remember where, that it is not Wikipedia's business to educate its editors. If that is so, then copyright infringement should be an exception. There could be guidelines that explain key copyright issues in a clear and friendly manner, and give sensible advice on how to paraphrase properly. There could be a page similar to the help desk, where beginning editors can submit their paraphrases for a friendly scrutiny. There could be a text comparison script added to the edit page, that will check a section against its cited online sources. There could be a button added to the article page that can check the article against all online sources.
  • Finding more functional ways of dealing with good faith infringements – should be easy if suggestions like those above are implemented. Even the zealotry might disappear.
The recent large scale copyvio resulted in a lot of work and a shattered editor. Better Wikipedia procedures would have avoided this. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your very intelligent and well thought-out reply, Geronimo, it is much appreciated. During the last few days I have been thinking on and off about the overall problem of Copyvio on WP, and I came to just a few of the same conclusions as you did (but not nearly in as much depth.) I am sure that inadequate paraphrasing is a very common problem that runs undetected through hundreds of thousands of articles here. Like you I am almost certain that I inadequately paraphrased text in some/many? of my earlier contributions. Of course I am a lot more careful now, but it would have helped me back then if I had at least read the one sentence which I quote below.
As you probably already know about our recent major copying problem, I suspected the editor of outright copying for a very long time, for maybe 2 years, but I did not know how to handle that suspicion. Since I did not have the book I was not able to confirm it, and I hesitated to come right out and ask him if he was copying verbatim because it is rather a serious charge. I did finally notice that one of his articles was copied verbatim from online site SeaSlugForum over a year ago, and I confronted him about it. He fixed that one article and sidestepped my more general enquiry and I did not know what to do after that. Now I wish I had done something as soon as I started getting suspicious, but I would not have know what to do or who to report my suspicions to.
By the way, I have suggested on the pillars talk page [15] that Pillar 4 add (to the end of the paragraph) the sentence:
"Text from sources must (in almost all cases) be read, understood, and then completely rewritten in your own words."
I have also brought up on the relevant talk pages the possibility of including the longer paragraph in the policy pages on WP:Copyright and WP:Copyvio.
User:Durova suggested it would make a good supplemental essay, but I would rather some mention of this go in to policy right up front, for example in the 5 Pillars, which are linked in most of the Welcome templates.
When Moonriddengirl comes back, I am happy to offer to help her efforts to draft, write, or rewrite pages on these essentially important policies as needed. Invertzoo (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm slowly getting into things. :) I'm sure it'll be a few days before I'm up to speed, since I am in charge of a convalescing patient for at least this week, possibly more. :/ Please forgive me if I ramble even more than usual. I'm a bit tired. :)
The closest thing that Wikipedia has to a systemic procedure for picking up copy violations is the marvelous CorenSearchbot, which is not infallible, but which does detect quite a bit. I have considered suggesting that the contributors at Wikipedia:New page patrol make it one of their routine checks. I haven't decided yet if I think that would be helpful enough to pursue it. :)
Wikipedia's administrators are not supposed to peremptorily delete copyright infringements unless they are clear-cut copyright violations such that they meet WP:CSD#G12, although I know of course that some do. There are always some administrators who speedily delete articles out of the CSD process, and I suspect that a good bit of this goes undetected. If there has been paraphrasing or if there is non-infringing content worth saving, they're supposed to list the articles at WP:CP. When a copyright infringement article is simply pasted from an external source, as G12 articles are meant to be, there's probably not much actual effort lost in deleting them, and the tag that they're meant to be provided is supposed to clarify the problem. ({{Nothanks-sd}}) The template advisory that the {{copyvio}} tag generates is really very friendly, {{Nothanks-web}}, but doesn't address close paraphrasing, unfortunately. It might be a good idea to seek consensus on how best to address that, since I have encountered contributors who do not understand that changing two words out of a run of 16 doesn't qualify. I would much rather educate than alienate potentially good contributors. :) (As a college writing instructor, I encountered enough well-meaning plagiarists and copyright infringers to know that some people—even highly intelligent people—have more difficulty grasping the concept and remedies than others.)
Geronimo20, I think that you have some very good ideas about addressing these issues. One of the problems we face, though, is that not everyone is on-board either with the idea that these constitute much of a problem or how to address them. User:Dcoetzee launched an essay, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, but ran into opposition when he attempted to make it a "guideline". (You can read more at the talk for that.) A group of editors has been attempting to create a policy or guideline for Wikipedia:Plagiarism for quite a long time. (Some of your more technical suggestions are far beyond me; I can barely program my remote control. :)) I really like the idea of a noticeboard for paraphrasing suggestions, though I am a little concerned given the response to the close paraphrasing essay that there may be objections I'm not anticipating. Unless you'd like to do so, maybe once I'm back in full swing and have caught up with the work that's piled up for me, I can run the idea up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup and see what contributors there have to say.
Invertzoo, a supplemental essay may be a good start. I'd be happy to help work on one, but we would want first to see what's already out there and whether it would be best to expand an existing or create a new. I've got plenty of material on copyright on my userpage that I've been thinking I might like to make an essay of at some point. Meanwhile, it looks as though an addition to 5P might reach consensus, though I (obviously) haven't been following closely. :) It seems the responders there agree there is an issue, though it may take some prodding to come up with workable language. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, Please do rest up and take care of yourself and your patient as much as you need to, and want to, and scrimp on replying here just as much as you need to as well, it's OK. ......By the way, at 5P someone pointed out to me that the info in my paragraph needs to first be in the Copyright and Copyright violations pages so that 5P can link to those, since 5P is supposed to be a sort of condensation of policy pages. I will look at Dcoetzee's "Close paraphrasing" essay and its talk page and try to see where it stumbled and why. Thanks again and all good wishes to you and your patient, Invertzoo (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

deletion

hi Moonriddengirl;

I was hoping you could undelete a page for me. I just wrote one this morning about Frères des Hommes, a french NGO, but it was deleted really quickly b/c of copyright problems. the thing is that I've gotten permission from them to use their website's content, but i never got the chance to submit their consent before the wiki page was taken down. Can you return the page to me? it didn't take terribly long to make, but id rather not do it again. and i have their permission, so i guess i'll submit that first before reposting the page. is that the best way to do it? thanks Fdhparis (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I can restore the page with a "copyright problem" template on it as a place-holder pending logging of permission. The permission process is a little wonky that way; it's best to already have the article when you submit the permission, but you can't have the article without the permission. Catch-22. :) I'll place a note on the article's talk page indicating that permission is forthcoming. Please be sure that your permission letter (a) issues from a source clearly identifiable with the original publication and (b) explicitly releases the material under license compatible with the GFDL. It's best all around if they release it simultaneously under GFDL version 1.2 or later and CC-BY-SA version 3.0, since we may transition from GFDL around August and most content licensed to us under GFDL from previously published sources between November 2008 and that transition date will have to be relicensed or removed. Please let me know if I can explain any of this better. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. One question about the permission, then. It's a french company, so even though i've talked with them and they completely are ok with my using their content and have given me their permission, for the written permission that i have to submit, is there a simple text or paragraph that i can email then to get their official permission? I'm an english speaker, and even im confused by all the technical jargin. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdhparis (talk • contribs) 13:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like it could be a challenge. :) We have a couple of sample letters that might be helpful to you at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. The complicating factor there is that they don't mention co-licensing because this is a recent problem. I might base it on the 2nd example for text there, something like this:
I would close my letter by pasting the text from the box at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries and asking them, if they agree, to replace "DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER" with the date & their name. :) To keep things simple, before sending it change "I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [images: choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags text: GFDL, v. 1.2 or later and CC-BY-SA version 3.0]" to "I agree to publish that work under the free license GFDL, v. 1.2 or later and CC-BY-SA version 3.0." The chunk on images is only going to confuse matters.
Let me know, again, if I can help. I know this can be complicated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Arilang need help

Hi, I believe that an admin is abusing it's power and gave me undue warning. Could you care to look at my talk page regarding Joel Fitzgibbon? Thanks. Arilang talk 08:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for 24 hours for BLP violations. The relevant diffs are: [16] , [17], [18] and [19]. If you're not an Australian editor, this concerns a current political scandal in Australia where members of the Department of Defence are alleged to have illegally spied on the Defence Minister in the belief that his friendship with a Chinese-Australian businesswoman poses a security threat. The woman has been cleared of the vague allegations that she's a spy and this editor is cherry picking innuendo about her and trying to start discussions of her character. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. :) I'm not at all familiar with the situation, and before I look, let me just note as is linked on my userpage that the processes when you believe an admin is misusing his or her power is set out here. Without having looked, but on general process, Arilang1234, even if it were so I would have no special authority to do anything about it, though I would certainly join you in asking Nick-D to reconsider if I thought he was acting in error. But the first step, always, is to politely discuss the matter with the administrator in question. If a polite conversation (or at least an attempt at one) does not provide satisfaction, additional steps are available. With administrators as with all other contributors, it is advisable to start with an assumption of good faith.
General information aside, specifically, in this case, you've run afoul of the biographies of living persons policy. I do not know if you have ever encountered this one before, Arilang, but if someone has concerns that material you are adding is incompatible with BLP, you should proceed very carefully. This policy has been created both in general sensitivity to the potential for damage to human beings and to protect Wikipedia from potential prosecution. I am not Australian and not at all familiar with the woman, but I agree heartily that we must be very careful in handling such situations. Perhaps you intended with this edit to reach consensus at the talk page, but to an outsider that post itself reads as a problem. The first sentence is an unsourced allegation against the woman herself and also a slur on the man. Remember, I know nothing about this case, but even if it is true, you can't say anything that could be construed as an attack on a living person unless it is well-sourced: not in the article, not on the talk, not anywhere on Wikipedia. Discussing how to handle a matter like this requires some delicacy to avoid crossing that BLP line. It helps to remember that editors on Wikipedia are not meant to start from a point of view of our own—as encyclopedists, our job is to provide a concise and balanced overview of what reliable source have to say about notable subjects and not to take an opinion on what is true of them ourselves. I think from your comment on the talk page that you may at least temporarily have lost sight of that. This question was well within reason. This one was not...not only because you are lodging allegations against the subjects, but because you are not assuming good faith of other contributors.
When you run into a question about sensitive information related to living people, the place to go with it, if the talk page is not fruitful, is WP:BLPN. You still must phrase yourself such that you are not making allegations against living people, but your question should meet a neutral audience. This may be important if perchance you do run into contributors at a specific article who are not interested in neutrally presenting information, but for some reason desire to keep information unfavorable to the subject out of print. (I monitor the article of one politician for BLP who flips back and forth; his supporters and detractors have episodic wars over unbalancing him one way or another. Keeping it neutral is a challenge, and I have been accused both of whitewashing & slandering him in his article, depending on which side I was dealing with at a given time.)
I don't believe that you intended to be disruptive. Although I have only dealt with you on occasion and do not know your overall contribution pattern, on those instance where we have interacted, I've found you willing to work within process once you understood the process. I would support your early unblocking so long as you indicate you understand that you must not restore this contentious material to the article without consensus and that you must discuss the matter with delicacy. However, while I would support your early unblocking, I would not feel comfortable acting on your unblock request, as your note to me at my talk page might give a seeming of bias. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

  1. Thanks for come to my talk page and help me out to get out of the troubles, I appreciate it very much.
  2. Is it possible to create a Helen Liu based on this info Helen Liu has strong links with Chinese army, because I feel that the story has the potential to develop into a major Australian political scandal with many political implications, not just Joel Fitzgibbon, because Helan Liu seems to have befriend people such as John Howard and Kevin Rudd, let alone many Chineses in high places.
  3. Just google Helen Liu, editor can see that she has been mentioned in many major internation media.
  4. You advice is indeed needed because I do not like to be blocked again. Arilang talk 10:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I would prefer you not be blocked again as well. :) But this story, while certainly widespread, seems to be very recent. Are you sure that she is going to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article when the dust dies down? WikiNews is all about current event. Wikipedia prefers articles on individuals who will have lasting notability. If it turns out that she is notable only for this event, and it turns out that this event is a media scandal without much to it, then she would probably not warrant an article under WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. I would strongly suggest that you gather together a list of what you would use as your main sources for any such article and open a discussion at WP:BLPN, questioning how the matter should be handled--whether at Joel Fitzgibbon or a separate article. I have not read much about this, because this isn't really my decision to make, but it seems likely that the scandal itself will warrant mention in the Fitzgibbon article at some point, if it is not already discussed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your timely advice again, well, I am a political minded person, I feel that this event will not die down easily, because the Australian opposition is calling for heads to roll, not only one head, many heads indeed, and the fire is getting very hot. Arilang talk 11:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I know next to nothing about Australian politics. :) I have made a note at BLPN explaining the purpose of the section and also at the existing article to be sure that interested contributors have an opportunity to provide input. I do have to remind you, though, that if consensus is to create an article, you should do so very cautiously without implying guilt of anything on the part of this woman if guilt has not been legally determined. Again, we aren't here to take sides or have opinions. There are plenty of forums for that. We are here to create a scholarly reference work that neutrally represents previously published materials about subjects of enduring notability. (Wikilinks for added emphasis. I'm sure you've read these policies, but as you are walking in a controversial area, I really just wish to encourage extra caution.) No matter how hot fires are, Wikipedia is meant to remain cool. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ping

You've got mail. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiny Core Linux

I have rewritten the article. But due to your continuous copyright violation notices, I have decided to prod it.Pmlinediter (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DumbBOT

Should this change be reverted? DumbBOT is not picking copyvios in Category:Articles tagged for copyright problems. I have left a note to User:Tizio about it. – Sadalmelik ☎ 15:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for catching that! Let's give Tizio time. He's not active much on Wikipedia. If he doesn't respond in another day or two, I'll shoot him an e-mail, which typically gets quick response. :) Meanwhile, we can view the articles directly at Category:Articles tagged for copyright problems. The reason I moved them to the subcat is because all these hundreds of fish/mollusc/etc. articles where overwhelming Category:Possible copyright violations and making that category functionally useless for monitoring other issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Real life

dont you have life outside internet.Are you 24/7 on internet to judge who is violating capoitight laws and not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.11.91 (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

While I do have a real life, I try very hard not to let it interfere with Wikipedia. Did you need assistance with a copyright matter? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

1963 Elephant Mountain B-52 crash

Thanks for looking into this. However you've deleted some of my legitimate edits, which did not construe copyvio (e.g. the map) - any chance you could put the previous version in a sandbox somewhere please? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't restore the copyrighted text, even to sandbox. However, I'll pull up your specific edits. Hold on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems like I lost part of the infobox in trying to salvage non-GFDL improvements (there was a gap before the hidden comment, and I mistakenly thought I'd caught the whole thing). Is that what you meant? I'm not seeing anything else. If so, I've put it back in the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's some of it - the map is still gone, but the GPO coords are still there, so I'll figure it out. Cheers. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I must be blind. :) I don't see the map. I'll pull it up with the copyvio template still on, and you can go salvage it yourself. I'll give you the link in half a mo'. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
All right. It's up and here, 1963 Elephant Mountain B-52 crash/deleted revisions 2009-04-02. Do you see what you're looking for? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
All done, thanks! Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio problem that needs OTRS access

Hi there MRG. Since you are the one expert on copyright I know and since you got shiny new OTRS access, would you mind taking a look at Wayne Schoenfeld? Apparently there is an OTRS ticket for another language version of the text used here (see page history for details), but I cannot evaluate if that covers the translated text as well. TIA. Regards Why oh Why? 08:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds complex. I'll look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The text is released under GFDL to the French wiki from a proper source. The article claims to be a French transwiki, and since the release under GFDL allows modification and reuse, we're clear. I'll put the OTRS ticket # on the talk. Unfortunately, it is not also released under CC, which is going to be a problem when we transition. Quel dommage! (<--Look! French! :D)--Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. (I'd add something French, but I don't speak it^^) SoWhy 10:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a smattering of French phrases—at least a good half-dozen. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I could offer you some Italian maybe: Mamma mia! Che disastro! Yes, despite the fact that my dad is Italian and that I have an Italian name, that's pretty much all I can speak while I'm in Germany (which is, well, all my life^^). But that does not stop me from despising the French. It comes with the heritage - just kidding^^. SoWhy 20:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Btw, back on topic, another small little request if I may: Could you check whether File:Wayne Schoenfeld.jpg is covered in the OTRS ticket? Regards SoWhy 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I will check, but unless it's in rather basic French, I might not know. :) Hang on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The release is specific to http://www.exekoproject.com/wayne-schoenfeld.html and http://www.projetexeko.com/wayne-schoenfeld.html. It says "text," and there is no reference to images. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks again. You were most helpful :-) SoWhy 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fortbruce

Hi M
Can I ask what was missing in the OTRS mail concerning First Presbyterian Church (Buffalo, New York), so that next time I can be more clear when I talk to users? Or maybe I'll just turn the essay you left at User talk:Fortbruce into a template that I can use. ;)
I'll try to remember to mark such articles with {{Copyvio}} in the future.
Cheers, Amalthea :  Chat  15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! No need to turn it into a template: just use mine. :D That one is at User:Moonriddengirl/vp (for "verifying permission"). All you need to put in is the "pg" page and the url. Missing from the letter was pretty much everything: there was no specific licensing, although he did affirm that he owned the copyright, and the e-mail is not clearly associated with the publication. In addition to the essay, I also wrote him back with directions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, OK.
Hmm, and I did tell him to include all that and pointed him towards WP:IOWN, so I guess I just have to be more verbose next time. And yes, I noticed that you wrote him back, which surprised me since I didn't know you were in the OTRS team. :)
Merci beaucoup, Amalthea :  Chat  16:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm only recently there. :) I'm stumbling about a bit, but I've learned already that sometimes it takes multiple passes to get specific enough information to use a release. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl!

Would you be so kind as to restore my page for the First presbyterian Church (Buffalo, NY) so that I can include a link at the bottom to the GFDL page. I have also emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from my domain and included documentation giving me authority to release this information. the page reference will be provided as below:

  • License for use is granted by the author under the GFDL fair use policy.

Is this sufficient?

Kindly,

Fortbruce (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The license needs to be on the external site, not on the Wikipedia page (although we would wish a link to it on the talk page). Let me see if I can find your e-mail to see if it contains sufficient release, with which that statement would not be necessary. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Your release in e-mail is sufficient. However, I've e-mailed you a request to co-license the material under CC-BY-SA, since we expect a transition to that license in August and will have to relicense or remove most material granted from external sites under GFDL after November 2008 at that time. Please reply to the e-mail specifically so that it goes to my individual in-box. We get a good many letters, and this will help ensure that you communicate with somebody who knows what is going on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW: diff.
And seriously? Why's that? All the text I type here is licensed under the GFDL, too, why is it different with external sites? --Amalthea 19:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Because the lords of Gnu decided it must be so. :) Basic rule: if it was published before November 1, 2008 under GFDL, we can transition it to CC-BY-SA. If it was published after November 1, 2008 on a "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" like Wikipedia itself and licensed under GFDL, we can transition it. If it was incorporated onto Wikipedia from any other kind of site after November 1, 2008, we cannot. (See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html). If I'm remembering correctly, I read somewhat that GNU wanted to be clear that this was not a step towards making GFDL and CC-BY-SA compatible. They only allowed this for Wikipedia's sake. And so they put in that restrictive stipulation. Going to be a nightmare to figure out in August! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I also ask you to turn Andrew Van Vranken Raymond, http://www.brucemccausland.com/1stchurch/Biographical_Information.htm and this license statement (which should be enough now in combination with the OTRS ticket that tied the account and the domain together) into some tag that will be useful in August to make the transition? :)
Aargh, and I've just read the Signpost article about that. I'm reading it a bit different from what you said above, it says that wiki content can be relicensed if it was added before November 1, 2008. It doesn't mention anything about offsite GFDL material or onsite material added after November 1, which doesn't make any sense at all.
Amalthea 22:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I am confused by the Signpost. :/ Wikipedia:Transition to CC-BY-SA sets out the basic provisions as I understand them. I've added the OTRS tag to Andrew Van Vranken Raymond, as the license is quite liberal enough to cover that article as well. This CC-BY-SA transition is going to be a nightmare. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, you rock!
Seeing that you already have heaps of barn decoration, I've dedicated you a userbox.
And hmm, Wikipedia:Transition to CC-BY-SA reads just as you put it. Weird.
Amalthea 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
LOL! Hilarious userbox! I got a good laugh out of that one. :D I'm glad I don't have to work out the transition details. I'm sure I'll be scrambling along with everybody else doing mop up, but working out the specifics is SEP. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Woman's Barnstar
For tirelessly tackling so many articles with copyvio problems Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

System Of Survival

Many thanks for his readiness to solve the problem concerned the infringement of copyright. Best Regards --Nardisan (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is my pleasure, and I'm sorry that you had to wait. The system is a little overwhelmed at the moment, but volunteers are always trying to catch up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for the barnstar, that really recharge my batteries for keep helping the project. You are THE MAN, girl. Zidane tribal (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

TEXAS STATE

WHEN WILL YOU FINISH EDITING TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY ARTICLE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Txstateuser1056 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That article is due for investigation seven days after its tagging, which is April 8th. A contributor to the article is evidently working on addressing the problem in the temporary space. If this is finished before then, then I or another administrator may close the matter early. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Transporter 3 deletion by me

I deleted that stuff from the transporter 3 because only bout a week ago there was a full plot summary. Well it appears somebody deleted that and wrote some of their own carp which was only a partial summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.147.197 (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Oh I just deleted it again by accident please reverse it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.147.197 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Avi's RfB

Well, it's good to know that I am not just being an idiot. :P — neuro(talk)(review) 17:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

List of CC-BY-SA sources/articles

Hey. Having come across a couple of CPs at SCV today which come from Creative Commons sources, it seems like it might be a good idea to maintain a list of deleted articles which were available under CC-BY-SA, and other sources we come across, which could be restored once the transition occurs (if, indeed it does occur). Probably as part of the Wikiproject - what do you think, feasable? It seems a shame to just lose what could be very useful content. Best, – Toon(talk) 22:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. I'll keep an eye out. Do you think a subpage of the project is a good place to list them? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems like a good place... I'm not sure there's anywhere else for them to go, I'm not sure it'd be "official" enough for a whole WP: space to itself, not at the beginning. Also I imagine that people associated with copyright would be the ones doing the deletion of those type of articles - in my (limited) experience there aren't many people who know one way or another what to do with CC-licensed sources. Do you think there's anywhere else for such a list to go? – Toon(talk) 22:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I suppose you could bring up the idea at Wikipedia:Transition to CC-BY-SA. That might be a good place for it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

IMDB copyvio

There are two articles that appear to be copyvios from the IMDB movie database. Strangely, they contain an email address (see "Summary Written by rAjOo") that is also on IMDB.

I have no relevant knowledge and am reluctant to barge in with {{db-copyvio}}. Please have a look and handle as you decide, or if you like, confirm what I should do (I'll look here for any reply). Johnuniq (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for noting your concerns. :) I'll go take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the 2nd one, as this one is rather simple. The other one is going to be more complex, as it seems the contributor has done many of these. Just for future reference, feel free to address these as recommended at WP:CP—that is, if the material can be easily removed, you can go ahead and remove it. We have a template you can put at the talk page of the article, {{cclean}}, to warn against restoration. Please also advise the contributor, such as with template {{uw-copyvio}}. If the material goes all the way back or is extensive or if you run into problems removing it (like resistance), then you can freely use the {{copyvio}} template. If you have good reason as with these cases to believe that copyright infringement is present, it's better to list it unnecessarily and be proven wrong than not list it and allow infringement to continue. I greatly appreciate your following up on these concerns, and I'm off to take care of the first case, in its (alas!) multiple appearances. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Good stuff, thanks. I've noted your advice. Johnuniq (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Midland Community Center

Howdy, Moonriddengirl: Happy to see your family medical problem is improving. Best wishes for a quick recovery! I finished a new article, this one, Midland Community Center, at User:Mgreason/Sandbox. No big hurry; I've been working on this one, on and off, for over a month, so it can wait. Mgreason (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) We are doing much better (that is, one of us is physically improved and the other is less frazzled :D). I'll take a look in your sandbox soon. I've got some copyright issues from today to finish and am working on a dispatch on plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Greetings again. I finished another new article, this one, Angela Corey, at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 3 when you have a few spare minutes. Mgreason (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll come over and take a look in a few minutes. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

copyvio help

My only previous experience with copyvios, Moonriddengirl, has been in attempting to deal with the current mollusk/fish mess. I am, however, paying a lot more attention, now, to the problem. I'd be grateful if you would take a look at this new article - Peter Sarkisian. Some of the purple prose, at least, is the same as that at [[20]]. Is this an issue that needs work? I'm not sure exactly what to do. Thanks for any advice (or action). Tim Ross (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First let me rejoice that Wikipedia now has another contributor conscious of these concerns! :D Now I'll go look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there's infringement of at least that source. I've run the article through an online plagiarism detector and have not yet found any other issues, but given that it didn't find those issues either, this doesn't mean that other issues don't exist. :/ Of course, we also have major issues with tone with that article, which is filled with unsourced critical commentary which is either a problem under WP:NPOV or WP:OR. I've tagged the section {{copyvio}}, given the contributor the templated advisory & listed the article at WP:CP. I'll have a look at some of the other language in the article to see if the problem is greater than that one article and glance at his contribs to see if it spreads to other contributions...all generally advisable when you run into a problem like this so that we don't wind up with another mollusk/fish mess. :) (I've recently discovered, by the way, that the copyright violations of the mollusk/fish mess were noted towards the beginning of that contributor's career, but no action was taken.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism Dispatch

Hi, Moonriddengirl; I understand that you follow copyright issues. A draft Dispatch on plagiarism for the Signpost has been started at Wikipedia:FCDW/Plagiarism (there is also discussion of unfinished issues on talk there). Perhaps you would be interested in reviewing what is there or helping finish it up for publication? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I do follow copyright issues, and I'm thrilled to help out however I can in publicizing related matters. I'll go take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Great! Feel free to edit, revise, add ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on it. Typical of Wikipedia, I keep finding other fires to deal with as I go. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems very quiet over there. I'm not sure the protocol given a named essay/article. If there's no conversation, I may edit the page directly once I've caught up with everything else going on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be helpful ... it's not clear if anyone is taking the lead there, or if anyone plans to finish it up. It would be unfortunate not to be able to run it because it doesn't get finished. I'd appreciate the help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I'm working on this in my sandbox, here. I tend to work incrementally, and I don't want to extensively muck about with somebody else's essay. :) If I come up with something that seems workable, I may transplant it all at once with apologies on the talk. (It's very strange to be doing WP:OR, but I'm drawing on my teaching background here!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look over your Sandbox yet (may get to it by tonight), but you really should feel free to go ahead and edit the Dispatch. We'll run it whenever it's finished. I'm sorry for the delay, and I will look at it tonight or tomorrow, as I get time ... I really appreciate your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MG-- I'm glad to see you are working on this. The information on your user page is very helpful; I consulted it in making these suggestions to a new user who was uploading images without adequate justification or rationales. E.g., [21] and elsewhere on user's talk page. (I just hope I my suggestions were correct.) Regards, Kablammo (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) And I'm glad that it was useful to you. Your suggestions look spot on to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MRG, I may not get to that tonight or tomorrow. In a comedy of errors under the control of other family members, I have lost my kitchen computer, and am an unhappy camper, scrambling to recover and reinstall a lot of programs and data. I trust you to go ahead and edit the Dispatch directly; we'll run it whenever it's finished. There are many competent editors overseeing that Dispatch, so it doesn't need my oversight. I'm sure you'll do an excellent job, and editing the Dispatch directly is fine. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all yours ... I hadn't realized you were working. I'm not crazy about third person there, but we can keep it if you like it. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

One nice thing about working on a Dispatch is that not everything has to reliably sourced :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, MRG. Can you look at Wikipedia_talk:FCDW/Plagiarism#Attribution, and shed some light on my addled thinking? If I'm off base, and there are no issues, feel free to remove the section, if you wish. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Yep, I really thought that if I could use a different approach, it might actually work. Unfortunately, now I am just wishing that the block is a little more longer :D. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I see, I guess 30 hours is a good enough break though his IP could change, we might see him earlier than expected. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Obligatory Contour Principle

Hi - noticed you on a number of articles as an administrator with great experience and rep! Just wanted to know if it was Ok for me to put a banner on the OCP article. The referencing is clear but the inline citations appear to lack clarification in the opening section. I have added the banner to help (not offend) as the reference was subsequently published in a book by another author (also in the ref list) at a later date. Thanks for your time.Ernstblumberg (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I have some experience in copyright issues, but am not by any means a definitive authority on Wikipedia. Still, by all means, if a tag will draw improvement to the article, add it. The one you put on Obligatory Contour Principle looks perfect. It shouldn't offend anyone, although it's always possible that a contributor will take something personally that he or she should not, but the article has needed more precise referencing since it was created in 2005, so I'd say you're well within practice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sulaiman Khan Karrani

ehat is your problem.Where my articccccccccle Sulaimna Khan Karrani has been copied from.Please mentionn which sentence ccccopied from where.and you must give prove where it has been copied from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siraj ud daula (talk • contribs) 6 April 2009

Sulaiman Khan Karrani has contained text copied from both [22] and [23]. This was removed some time ago. If you're wondering about the reversion of material you have more recently added, such as [24], under your IP address, they were evidently removed as unconstructive. I am not the editor who removed those. I suspect the problem is with sentences like "The Afghan soldiers found their sole regggggggggggfugeannnnnnd mmmmeans of subsistenceunderrrtheir fellow classmce there was a large gathering of the last survivors of Shar Shar's veteran armyunder Sulaman's banners." These are rather difficult to interpret. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Question on an FAC

Hello again. I don't know if you look at Fair Use rationales for images in Featured Article Candidates, but if you are so inclined, can you look at my question here? Background: Ship was designed, but never built. An artist made an image of what the vessel might have looked like. This is not a question where only copyrighted photographs exist of a no-longer-extant vessel; the vessel never existed at all, so whether the image is irreplaceable might not be a factor. (If one artist can make an image, why can't another?) Can the artist's copyrighted image be used under a fair use rationale? (It would be unfortunate to lose the image, but that of course does not enter into it.) Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but would be inclined to invite a more image-oriented copyright admin to take a look, like User:Stifle or User:Garion96. Would you mind if I invite one of them to take a look? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC):
No, not at all. I informed the uploader (who appears to be offline) about this discussion also. Kablammo (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I've asked User:Stifle. He's also offline, I believe. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed; I've been away on holidays. I've replied over at that FAC page. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

plagiarism

Great to be working collaboratively with other editors: thank you.

  • On the matter of the "individually" creative title, I guess we don't mean Shakespeare's "Much ado about nothing" or "All's well that ends well" ... or do we? Can you think of an example to insert in parentheses?
  • Possibly MoS should be changed as you suggest. Unsure.
  • What do you think about the example, which (problematically, perhaps) mixes quoted text with "specific", unquoted knowledge? Tony (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is great. :) I've enjoyed watching material mesh and grow, since most of my wiki-work has been a bit solitary. But I admit to some confusion in how to respond to inserted comments. :D I thought, "Should I insert a response? Or respond in edit summary?" I went with edit summary; hope that was okay. Titles refers to both titles of works and people--so "Much Ado About Nothing" or Lieutenant Sergeant Major of Her Majesty's Most Secret Service. I understand the problem with explaining that, but I'm not sure exactly how to say it. :/ Individual creativity is not right. (WP:OR warning.) Basically, titles are treated kind of like a Mathematical constant in language. They are not copyrightable,(fact) and they can't be plagiarised (to the best of my knowledge and experience). They can't be altered because they are a precise representation of a thing, so revision is not possible. In terms of titles of properties like books, movies, etc., they may represent creativity on the part of their author, but they are free for use. How on earth are we supposed to explain that succinctly? I don't know.
I sort of looked only at the embedded comments connected to material I wrote or that I had some involvement in. I'll go look at the example. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
MRG, I'm happy for you to remove the inline comments if you believe you've fixed the issue (or to reduce the comment text to "Fixed?"—I've never encountered a situation where I'm working with someone and am unsure of such conceptually difficult matters (he boasts).
I guess I'm walking backwards from the readers who are unsure of themselves here (heck, I am). Would it be possible not to use the meaning <not individually creative> WRT titles? I find that confusing. Can we not get away with simply telling them that to repeat just the title of a work (a book, play, movie, computer game) is not regarded as plagiarism, without bringing in creativity?
On a separate matter, I'm hoping (I think Sandy is too) that this text might move us forward to improve and disseminate the plagiarism guideline. Is that a reasonable thought? Tony (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah! "Fixed"! Very elegant solution. :) And I suppose we can just separate out "creativity" from titles. Maybe my error there is trying to keep this too succinct. I have to check my tendency to create very long statements. At the moment, though, I've been distracted by your "how much to revise?" question and am crafting some material on that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking for an example that shows more adaptation and less quotation, although a combination of the two might be useful in itself. I think the example selected has some problems, since most of the quotes are not attributed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

←Better? Worse? In between? :) And I would love to see this help the plagiarism guideline move forward. I backed off a bit on participation there when I got the impression that my approach might have been overly dramatic, but I think it's a very valuable guideline. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-justice indeed, MRG! I'll be back to read your points tomorrow. Till then. Tony (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Greater Midland Community Centers, Inc.

Greetings from sunny Florida:
I finished another new article, this one, Greater Midland Community Centers, at User:Mgreason/Sandbox. I decided that the detail from other community centers did not belong in the Midland Community Center article, so I took that detail out and also the detail info about Greater Midland Community Centers. Thanks for all you do! Mgreason (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll get to it today. I'm a bit behind on today's listings at WP:CP due to the plagiarism dispatch & my detour into article writing. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Same-sex unions in flux

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Same-sex unions in flux, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 05:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My rationale for deproding can be found [25] NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 05:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It's now at AFD, if you have interest in participating. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Christ's Church

More Greetings from sunny (but cool) Florida:
I finished reviewing and revising Christ's Church at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 2. I believe I've hit all the areas you identified, and looked at a couple of other sections, too. Thanks for all you do! Mgreason (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Eden Gardens

Given that there are earlier, non-infringing versions of this article available, wouldn't it be more productive to revert to these rather than slapping a dirty big copyright tag on it? I see your discussion on the talk page but deletion of an article on a notable topic when there is a previous version seems punitive and pointless. Also, a note at WT:CRICKET might have seen a better response than this heavy handed tag wielding. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article will not be deleted, though those versions that contain copyright infringement will be unless the source gives permission, which sometimes does happen. The purpose of the copyright tag is to prevent copyrighted material being disseminated while allowing contributors an opportunity to either obtain permission to use the text or rewrite it in the temporary space linked from the article's face. If these steps are not taken, the last clean version will be restored and the other versions selectively deleted. It's quite common for admins addressing copyright problems to restore earlier clean versions in this way and is one of the recommended approaches at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins. The article was originally tagged here and listed at the Copyright Problems board on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 March 27. It was not handled by the contributors to the article within process. While steps were taken to address the infringement, the template was removed and copyrighted text restored to publication. However, some efforts were made to revise the material. Given that, I chose to give the contributors additional information in how to revise, here and here, rather than summarily reduce it to the last clean one-line stub. If the copyright template placed by the IP editor originally had been permitted to remain, as required, then other contributors might have taken the opportunity to repair the matter. At one point, there was some talk of making a bot to notify projects when articles under their umbrella were tagged for copyright problems; I gather that this has not been implemented for some reason. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, this is why I was confused on the date: it was actually first tagged here. (That one threw me. I've never seen DumbBot list an article before it was tagged. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough response. The relevent project is now aware and hopefully we can fix the article so it meets WP requirements re:copyright. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be great. :) We have a recently created project for copyright cleanup that may be able to help out with such revisions at some point, but currently many of its members are involved in a massive copyright cleanup of mollusk & fish articles. In the meanwhile, if the cricket project doesn't get around to it, rest assured that there will be at least something remaining. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Substantial similarity

Excellent article. Please consider submitting it to DYK-- you could also request it be run on publication date of dispatch. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I worked hard on that one. :D I have occasionally nommed myself for DYK, but have to overcome this basic bashfulness to do so. I know that sounds crazy, but there you have it. :) I did request assessment from the law project, but since they've got assessments heading all the way back to June 2008, I'm betting they won't be quick. I'll read over it again in a day or so and see if I can come up with an interesting factoid for DYK. I very much appreciate the feedback. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, what a pleasure it has been to have you involved in such a critical Dispatch! I hope you've enjoyed the work; working on a Dispatch is so different than article and policy/guideline work. Have you given further thought to submitting the Substantial similarity article to DYK? It would have to be submitted by the 12th (within five days of creation, I believe?), and we'd get double coverage if it ran simultaneously with the Dispatch, which should publish on the 13th.

Would you like for me to ask Awadewit if she can be helpful at getting it through DYK? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I enjoyed it, too, and I am extremely pleased that you invited me. It has been fun and very different, as you say, from what I usually do. :) I've looked at the substantial similarity article several times, but I haven't found anything that strikes me as a proper hook for a general audience. I'm afraid it may be a bit of a dry subject for those not as passionate about copyright law as I am. :D If Awadewit can help suggest a hook, I'd be happy to nom it and see if others find it interesting. I think it would be good timing for it to run with the dispatch. If you hadn't have invited me to work on the Dispatch, I might never have written that article. I've been meaning to write it for some time, but I knew it would be a time-consuming one and it was easy to keep pushing it back. The need to wikilink it from the dispatch finally compelled me to get it out. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(You don't have to ping me; I'll watch your page.) I'll ask Awadewit to peek in here-- see what she suggests. It's such a fine article, that it should get coverage! By the way, I can't take the credit for inviting you to the Dispatch; someone else whispered your name to me, and I'm glad they did ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Be obvious:

.....that under the doctrine of substantial similarity, a work can be found to infringe copyright even if the wording of the text has been changed?

You could add "or organization" in there as well. (And permit me to add a "me, too" to Sandy's comments-- you and Awadewit have done great work here.) Kablammo (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good hook. However, as it does not appear word-for-word in the text, when you nominate it, I suggest that you add a comment to the nom, explaining where the idea and the inline cite supporting it can be found in the article. It will help the person checking the article. Also, you should request the day the Signpost is coming out and I'll try to get it into the queue that day. Awadewit (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, if only it were April fools again, then for this DYK we could just plagiarize all the sources as a joke. I bet Raul would love that on the main page! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be awesome. By the way, did you hear that several universities plagiarized their plagiarism policies from Indiana University? :) True story. Awadewit (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
That's so sad. :/ I'll go for the obvious, then. But rather than try to figure out how to word a note, I've just put it (with attribution in edit summary) in the article. :) Sourcing it is no problem; I could find it any number of books on copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
All right. I've done it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

50px‎ Congratulations on your second year being such an important part of this wonderful project. Zidane tribal (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How wonderful of you! Thank you. :) I might not have noticed the significance of the date if you hadn't been so thoughtful, and I would have been sorry to miss it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh man, looks like my birthday tracker missed you! Good thing Zidane was paying attention.... belated happy birthday, and keep up the good work! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. :) I'm glad he was paying attention; it put me in a festive mood all day. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you evaluate and weigh in on this issue, whether or not there is a copyright problem bringing in text to an article from Wikisource? User:Durova has said there is a problem, but she is unclear and focused on doing a task she has set out to do, making her comments on the potential copyright violation difficult to follow or lost among other sideways comments. I would like to know, can an en.wiki article be created from the text at wikisource? Is there an issue because of the edit history here and there? The article at wikisource uses text from the article at en.wiki, and en.wiki editors may consider editing the article at wikisource. Is it better to move the content from wikisource to en.wiki before more editing is done, rather than after? Any insights? Talk:optics [26] discussion link. Wikisource link. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I only have a few minutes right now, and if Durova is confused, I imagine it won't be a quick, "Oh, sure!"/"Absolutely not!" opinion. :D However, I'll take a look and if I don't have time to investigate right now will try to get to it in a few hours. Drum lessons. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Take your time, that's why I asked you, you can probably explain it. If I thought it would take a few minutes, I could have looked it up myself. --KP Botany (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. As long as you don't think I'm ignoring you. :D Off for percussion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
All right. This is my interpretation of the situation based on my understanding of GFDL and its interpretation on Wikipedia. While I have worked professionally with copyright matters prior to coming to Wikipedia, I had never had reason to encounter GFDL. Hence, my view of GFDL is informed solely by my experiences here. Also, I am not a lawyer. Standard disclaimers now complete. :)
The issue is complicated, obviously, by the whole "banned editor" question, but looking solely at the issue of licensing, we are within standard Wikipedia practice to bring GFDL-licensed material from Wikisource over just as we do from any GFDL source and just as we permit reuse from Wikipedia by other sites provided certain requirements are met. Wikipedia's interpretation of the reuse requirements is here. In order to use this material, we have to (a) license it under GFDL (as we do), (b) acknowledge authorship, and (c) provide access to a "transparent copy" (as we do). Wikipedia recommends satisfying (b) with a "conspicuous direct link" to the source, here, so long as that source continues. The attribution history of the text is clearly accessible there. If that source is deleted, then the attribution history will be broken, at which point we would be violating the attribution rights of the contributors to the document. Ideally, this material would transwikied by proper process, unless the "banned editor" question resolves with the opinion that this is inappropriate. The fact that the source is in GFDL infringement of Wikipedia is an interesting wrinkle, but shouldn't have any bearing on bringing it back, since the attribution already exists here. GFDL infringement would be satisfied there if the Wikisource article itself met (b) by providing a "direct conspicuous link." The original edit summary, "copied from WP", is obviously a good-faith effort to attribute, but doesn't quite cut it. :) A simple direct link would suffice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl. I would like to point out (as I've said elsewhere) that legal issues are not the only consideration here. There's also civility, which in my opinion suggests, given the current situation, not copying the article over before ScienceApologist suggests that it's a good time to do so. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I leave that one to those with familiarity with the situation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_12&oldid=1144395115"