Jump to content

User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50→Archive 55

CC0 1.0 Universal

Is this an acceptable licence for use here? I've not met it before. There's a bit of an interchange about it based at User talk:Shravanshetty502 (involving socks, probable spam, AfD and a dubious image). Any chance of a quick look in? Peridon (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. :) See file list. Template:Cc-zero is transcluded to 4221 pages, most of which are probably images, though I'm too lazy to check that. :D Licensing allowances are pretty diverse for images. It would be permitted for text as well, since it allows copying, modification and commercial reuse without imposing any restrictions above those permitted under CC-By-SA. Of course, the bigger issue is whether or not they were actually authorized to license the material. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Can an article consist entirely of copy-pasted pd material?

I talked an editor into looking into WP:CP, and the first one they looked at, appeared trivial, but turns out to be a bit complicated.

The article is Arrowhead Refinery Company, which is a straight copy-paste. However, the source is an EPA site, which presumably is pd. That eliminates the easy G12, but I'm still working out what needs to be done.

Even pd material needs appropriate sourcing. I also thought we had some standard templates: I find Category:USGov copyright templates, but these seem to be for images.

Even if sourced, I think the article still is problematic, although it may no longer be a copyright issue. I don;t know if a Super fund site is inherently Notable, so we may have to consider Notability. Even if notable, it isn't good form, ever, to use a single source for an article, even when the source is the Federal Government. A well-written article would include discussions about the site in other references. However, I'm not sure to what extent these are suggestions suitable for a talk page comment, or requirement, that must be met to keep the article.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Category:United States government attribution templates is one category for appropriate templates. I think there may be another which escapes me at the moment. Haven't got time to look at the wider issue I'm afraid. Dpmuk (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Dpmuk. :) If that cat doesn't do it, you can broaden into Category:Attribution templates and find others.
Although I haven't been engaged in discussion about it lately, I've observed community stance on the question of copy-pasted articles in the past. I think a fair reading of consensus on what I've seen is that it does not constitute "best practice" to create articles that are copy-pasted entirely from anywhere, but that it is acceptable so long as the source is (a) compatibly licensed or public domain, (b) properly attributed per Wikipedia:Plagiarism and any legal requirements of he license, and (c) otherwise fits our policies. The Catholic Encyclopedia and Jewish Encyclopedia have, I think, been the foundation of many a biography on our site, subject to improvement like any other article base. I'd agree with you that any article based on a single source is likely to be problematic, regardless of copyright status. And I have directly observed that not everybody considers the Feds neutral. :D As for notability, I'd guess it comes down to WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I don't think superfunds are inherently notable. Is coverage widespread? I wouldn't A7 such an article myself, but might AFD it if coverage didn't seem to qualify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I may have asked a similar question in the past, but should we make an in text citation to the source after every sentence? It obviously doesn't make a ton of sense now; however, once new sources are used, the old material begins to look like it is unsourced. This is just a general question, since it might be moot in this case if the topic isn't notable. Ryan Vesey 13:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm with you completely on this concern, Ryan. A general attribution at the bottom of the page puts us in the position of either having to assume all unsourced content comes from there or that all content without specific citation is potentially unsourced. :/ I wouldn't source every sentence, but I would probably use inline citations throughout the document. In conjunction with the general attribution template, this should be sufficient to eliminate plagiarism concerns but also helps avoid this phenomenon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I created Ron Nelson with a copypaste from the Marine Band website -- it's been expanded with a list of works since then, but the meat of the article is still pretty much as I pasted it. I was advised at some point that adding the {{Marine Corps}} template should properly cover attribution.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added the relevant attribution template. I've also added a note to the talk page, and a link to this discussion. Thanks for all the suggestions.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Supposedly, the copyright of this page is so restrictive that you cannot reference it without consent. Am I correct that there is no way they can do that? At a minimum, referencing information would fall under fair use, right? Ryan Vesey 03:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I'd call it completely reliable. The information is the Du Bois Historical Society. Forgive me if this is not your rationale, but this is a generalization I have seen. Editors tend to assume that websites that aren't modern are unreliable. Interestingly, the URL link doesn't work. From the page I linked, click on Major McCreight on the left sidebar. Then click select on the one on the top that says Indian Chief. The notice I am referring to is near the top of the article under the birth/death dates. Odd copyright notice, but I am basically positive that the notice is incorrect. Ryan Vesey 04:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, e/c, now I have to review everything :( That's pretty standard stuff, if you are considering setting up a website of your own you could do worse than copying that wording. :) The basic rule is to always declare that all rights vest in yourself (or corporate self), whether that's true or not, then see who challenges your assertion. This was told to me on a 57th floor at a cumulative $600/hr not paid by myself, so take it as you will. Reliable sources mentioned on that site can of course be used in our articles. Text taken from the site itself is subject to non-free strictures here, so we can "quote" it or paraphrase and attribute it per normal guidelines. There is an open controversy I believe over "deep linking", but that doesn't seem applicable here. Franamax (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain deep linking? I've not heard of it. You'gve got a good point. Of course if quoting comes under fair use, general referencing must. In addition, a majority of their images are PD regardless of their copyright notice. Ryan Vesey 04:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
(obvious multi-e/c) Ack, beyond the obvious, no I cannot. :( It has arisen on this site within the last few months, whether or not we are entitled to ignore other sites' forbidding others to link directly to anything other than their home or index pages. I'm going to sit back here and hope that other watchers of this page remember the incident. Or as a last resort, ask MRG what she thinks. :) Franamax (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Based on the Wikipedia page provided, I would assume that you can link to a page in the US but you sometimes cannot link to something within a page. The link that was not allowed under US law actually launched the external website's video player (per the source used). The link that was allowed only linked to a page. Ryan Vesey 05:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Deep linking discussion. :) I remember that one. :D It was different and interesting. Anyway, I agree with those who say that fair use is fair use; they can try to imply that fair use doesn't apply to them, but I wouldn't bat an eye myself at relying on it nevertheless. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Google translate

I'm not sure what to do about this. Please, take a closer look. Wikipedia:Copyright violations do not specifically address this sort of copy-paste situation. Altenberg Publishing was a major historical publishing house in Poland from 1880 until 1934. It would have been great to have it here. However, our new article is only a mechanical copy-paste job from machine translation by Google translate. Word for word from Polish Wikipedia, machine mistakes and all. I'm afraid, the copyright belongs to Google translate in this instance. What do you think? Poeticbent talk 04:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  1. Google source: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wydawnictwo+Altenberga
  2. Google translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWydawnictwo+Altenberga&sl=pl&tl=en
  3. Raw copy-paste: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altenberg_Publishing&oldid=505332612

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Poeticbent (talk • contribs)

There is a discussion on meta regarding google translate and the last I read the consensus was that the coyright lies with the person pressing the button provided he had the right to do a derivative work. Agathoclea (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Agathoclea. Pending a more definitive court statement, that's the recommendation I'm following, Poeticbent. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ruth Ann Steinhagen

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Indium mediated allylation

Could I get you to look at a somewhat unusual copyright case, linked above. Shortly after it was created, it was G12 tagged without a URL or other reference to the copyrighted material. The tagger subsequently said that s/he did so purely on the basis that the article looked like a cut and paste. I declined the speedy but copyvio tagged and listed the entire article on the basis that in disputing the G12 the page creator appeared to have admitted that a considerable part of it was taken from sources s/he had previously published. On understanding what was going on (the creator is a newcomer), the creator backed off on the admission somewhat and modified the parts s/he said had in fact been taken from the published sources. Since neither I, nor the CSD-tagger, nor anyone else has actually ever seen those published sources, I am inclined to AGF on the creator's assertions and remove the copyvio tagging, but I'd like your input as to what the right thing is to do. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Moonridden Girl: Thank you for taking the time to consider this issue. We would very much like to get it taken care of in a timely manner. I am sure you can read all the history of the talk, but I would like to reiterate that I have never acknowledged that parts of what we wrote is or was a copyright violation. I did immediately acknowledge that I cut and pasted three sentences from an NSF grant proposal(that I wrote and for which I had never transfered the copyright). Upon further investigation after seeing the copyright violation tag, I determined that all but one of those sentences were removed and totally rewritten before submission. After the copyright violation tag, I also found two phrases that were worded very similarly to phrases in one of the papers we wrote for which I did transfer the copyright to the publisher. It is my understanding that two phrases does not represent a copyright violation. However, we have now revised so that all of the material is now entirely new, as far as we know. We are published authors who take copyrights and accusation of copyrights violation very seriously. Please let me know what further I can do to clear up this issue as soon as possible. Sincerely, ````ah1689 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah1689 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Just as a matter of principle, in the absence of a source or evidence of copying from anybody else, I think taking the creator's word for it is fine. :) I've put a bit more on the article's talk page and processed the listing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl: Thank you addressing this. What started as a project for fun became a bizarre and intensely frustrating process. Since there never was copyright violation or even any evidence for copyright violation, can we get this talk page and the history page cleared of accusations of copyright violations? It is very troubling to me that a casual visitor may notice the prominent tags without taking the time to read the full story. If so, it would allow me to sleep better. Thank you again, 64.89.144.100 (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)ah1689

Thanks, I appreciate it. I felt much the same way, but wanted a second opinion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


Dear Moonridden Girl: As you may remember, a page my co-author and I created, indium mediated allylation, was incorrectly marked as a possible copyright violation and it was marked that the creator acknowledged copyright violation. Both Gilderien and TransporterMan have acknowledged that the tags were placed there incorrectly. Since there never was copyright violation or even any evidence for copyright violation, can we get the talk page and the history page cleared of accusations of copyright violations? As a scientist and an academic, my reputation is very important and very sensitive to allegations of copyright infringement, so it is very troubling that a casual visitor may notice the prominent tags without taking the time to read the full story. Thank you,Ah1689 (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)ah1689

Hi, Ah1689. :) I have done a bit of "mopping" up. The talk page no longer contains them; I "archived" that section and courtesy blanked it. I have removed all the notices from your talk page. I have obscured the language in Help:Edit summaries. I think no casual visitor will encounter any such allegations. I appreciate the time that you have put into this work and hope that this resolves your concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
(I'm sorry I missed your earlier note! When I scanned my talk page, I saw the timestamp on the bottom note and didn't realize you had put one above it. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC))

Thank you so much! We really appreciate it.Ah1689 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)ah1689

Rev-del for copyvios buried in the history

Sorry to bother you again under your other hat - this is an absolutely zero-priority question, so ignore it if you are busy. See Talk:Phi Sigma Nu#Copyvio revdeletion. Am I right that, where the copyright holder is unlikely to object (in this case, a college fraternity copying from its own website into its article) we don't bother to rev-delete the history unless asked? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Really quickly, practice on this is a bit ad hoc. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins (I wrote quite a lot of that and very probably wrote this, but would have to double check that when I had more time) says "It may be a good idea to use Wikipedia:Revision deletion on the versions that contain the copyright infringement to help avoid inadvertent restoration in the future if the copyrighted content is extensive. Otherwise, so long as the infringing text is removed from the public face of the article, it may not need to be removed/deleted permanently unless the copyright holder complains via OTRS or unless other contributors persist in restoring it." For me, I always assess the cost/benefit of rev deletion. If the content seems very likely to be restored, I'm more likely to rev delete. If I would have used Wikipedia:Selective deletion back in the days before Rev deletion was even possible, I'm more likely to rev delete. The cost of rev deletion, of course, is that we can no longer see what others have done to the article. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. In this case, another admin has rev-deleted, which does no harm but IMO in a case like this is a waste of time; I just wanted to be sure that policy hadn't changed to "always rev-del". Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I know you don't specialize in images, but I don't do enough over at Commons yet to know anyone over there. I've reached the limits of my knowledge on a particular issue (see my discussion here and the actual photo in question here. If you (or someone else watching this page) can even point me to someone who might be able to help, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Don Lammers (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks, that was quick, and a better template than I had. However, one question remains, which is that according to the photographer, sculptor is evidently not attributed on the statue. I don't see a plaque on the two sides pictured, one of which is the front and the most likely placement, so I assume this is true. Does this make it an anonymous work as well? Does that matter in terms of the requirement to include author and title? Don Lammers (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think due diligence (checking the statue and internet) would be enough; an exhaustive search (five hours in state archives or whatever) may identify something, but I doubt Commons would push for that. If the statue is a government work like the editor said, I highly doubt that the PRC would identify an individual as its creator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll proceed with the current opinion for now, and take this to the suggested forum as well. I would certainly like a bit mor clarity myself on these issues. Thank you for the replies. Don Lammers (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

GAN review needed

I recently nominated Nawabs of Bengal & Murshidabad for GA but the review has still not started. We still have time. I would like you to edit the article and drive it to the path of GA. Please help me, it will be so kind of you. it will also add one number to the total number of GA article Wikipedia has. Please help me! If replying please leave me a talk-back template. I have also asked some other editors for the same. Thank you ! Tamravidhir(২০১২) 12:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

At least this time I don't want a no. :D

I'm sorry, but I think you may have a substantial issue with Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. :/ While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. I have to work and so cannot assess deeply, but I glanced at one source, and this is what I see in the source(there may be more; I didn't read the whole):

Meanwhile the Nizamat at Murshidabad became involved in heavy debts and several claims were made against the Nizamat and attachments were issued against his property. The Government of India thereupon moved into an action by a desire of freezing the Nawab and his property from suits and attachments and of discharging portions of the claims.... The title of Nawab of Bengal was abolished in 1880.

This is what you have in the article:

In his absence the Nizamat at Murshidabad became involved in debts and people started making several claims against him and as a result, attachments were issued against his property. The Government of India there upon moved into an action of freezing the Nawab and his property from suits and attachments. The government also moved upon of discharging portions of the claims. The title of "Nawab of Bengal" was abolished in 1880.

The source says:

The Nawabs of Murshidabad represent the former ruling house of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. They had long ceased exercising any effective authority after Lord Clive secured the Dewani of these provinces for the East India Company from Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II in 1765.... they had little or no say in their collection or expenditure and ceased to control any significant administrative, legal or military forces.

This is what I see in the article:

Nawabs of Murshidabad were the representatives of the former Nawabs of Bengal. After Lord Clive secured the Diwani of Bengal from Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II in 1765 for the East India Company they did not have any effective authority. So they lavishly enjoyed their title, privileges alongside with the honours they received. They had little or no say in the expenditure from the share of the revenues collected from Bengal and ceased to control any significant administrative, legal or military forces.

There are other issues I see at a glance. "His journey was not altogether one of pleasure, and much of his time was spent pleading his case against certain orders of the government of India." You wrote, "his journey not that of pleasure, as most of his time was spent in pleading his case against orders of the Government of India."
Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free source (as this one claims to be), aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".
I would recommend that you delist it and address this issue fairly quickly, as such close paraphrasing may be a cause for "quickfail." If the problems are extensive, the article may need to be completely rewritten.
If any talk page stalkers have a chance to see if there are issues with other sources, it would be appreciated. I have to go. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I may solve them now. Thank you. --Tamravidhir(২০১২) 13:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What do we mean by the act of freezing someone? Tamravidhir(২০১২) 13:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
In context, I suspect they mean preventing further claims. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for all your cooperation. May Lord bless you! --Tamravidhir(২০১২) 14:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jennifer Psaki

A tag has been placed on Jennifer Psaki, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Angelus DelapsusTalk 17:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

John D. Caputo Bibliography

John D. Caputo Bibliography

John D. Caputo Bibliography • ( talk | logs | links | watch ) • [revisions]

Recently “John D. Caputo Bibliography” was deleted on the grounds of the overlap with a separate entry “John D. Caputo,” in which part of the same bibliography is contained. Unfortunately, a carefully constructed and accurate bibliography, containing over 150 articles and book chapters published since 1970 was deleted and no longer appears in Wikipedia. This section of the “Bibliography” was only available in the "Bibliography” and not in the separate entry. This is an unfortunate loss. I can certainly understand wanting to merge the two entries. I would have preferred it myself. In the grounds for the deletion, mention was made of possible copyright violations. That I cannot understand. This was a simple bibliography. The compiler simply put publicly available information in one place for the convenience of the readers of Wikipedia. Accordingly, I appeal to the editors to copy the “articles and book chapters” section of the deleted “John D. Caputo Bibliography” and include this section in the main article “John D. Caputo.” I agree that there is no need for a separate "Bibliography" entry. -Jdcaputo (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I got this response from WP:Refund. I suggest you talk to user talk:Mark Arsten about John D. Caputo bibliography copyright concerns. Has this bibliography been published elsewhere before? If so if you mark that with CC-BY-SA-3.0 it will enable Wikipedia to make use of it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Mark suggested I get in touch with you. Jdcaputo (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)John Caputo

Hi. :) With bibliographies, the question really is whether it is a "select" bibliography or a complete bibliography. If it's a complete bibliography, there are no copyright concerns with copying it, as long as it is formatted the way anybody would format a bibliography. If it was a select bibliography, then you can run into issues, because there may be creativity in the way it was selected. A select bibliography that uses obvious criteria - for instance, "Newbery medal winning books by Author X" - then there should be no problem. If the selection is unique or unusual, or if you don't know what the selection criteria was, then using the same list of books may infringe on the creative work of the compiler. Basically, I think, we need to start with the question of whether or not this list was a complete bibliography. If not, do you know the selection criteria? Whatever your answers to those questions, we'll be able to work from there. Just need to nail down the issues. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Your page has gone wide again.

I seem to remember that this happened once before, but I don't remember the cause.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It was the person above you, who cut & pasted in a reply. :) I've repaired it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Moonriddengirl. An image I created has been listed at WP:PUF (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 11#File:Topological map of TFL rail systems.svg) for being a derivative of Transport for London's tube map. I made this map myself took the station locations from their nearly-300 Wikipedia pages and used Google maps and OpenStreetMap for line directions. After arranging them all (see File:London Underground and Rail geographically.svg) I created a schematic map of them with straight lines and 45- and 90-degree angles by manipulating and adjusting the lines and station locations.

I never used the official map as a source for mine, not even once. I used Template:LUL color and Tube map#Line colours to shade my lines (which have different hex values to TFL's Colour guidelines), my station positions and lines are geographically more correct compared to the TFL's map, both in direction and proximity to each other. I made stylistic decisions on how and where to display lines, in size, position relative to others, etc. The lines I drew, like the Circle line for instance (the yellow one), aren't even the same shape. I even included systems that the TFL don't, like the Tramlink in South London, London Overground's new line that will start operating in December 2012, and the Crossrail which isn't due to be opened until 2018. If I wanted to copy TFL's map I could have easily done that and not spend weeks on mine.

Surely, even with the copyright notice on TFL's official map, the TFL cannot claim copyright on all schematic diagrams of the train and tube stations in London, especially when TFL material is not referenced or even viewed while creating different map of the systems. There are only so many ways of presenting a schematic of the stations so of course they may end up looking similar, but I don't think the resemblance is significant, which is what was stated in the PUF nomination, or that it's an "obvious derivative". While reading the little I understand of derivative work, it seems to say that derivatives have to be based on a preexisting work, but I didn't do that.

Also, not to be pointy or anything, but if I can't create a map from original data, why is the Featured picture File:Madrid Metro Map.svg allowed to exist here? It's hard to find an old map of Madrid's system online because they all use Wikipedia's version, but this scan of the 2007 version as printed in Mark Ovenden's book from the same year clearly shows that it is a copy of Madrid Metro's old-style system map with recent route extensions tacked on (the new official version doesn't have any 45-degree lines).

So I was wondering if you'd be able to help me out by explaining to me why they think it's a derivative, what makes it a derivative if it is, and also what I need to do to make it not a derivative and not a resemblance, when both maps are maps of the same stations and routes! I'm not touting my image as the Tube map, it is just a schematic of the same stations and lines. Someone said make it more geographically accurate.. it already is more geographically accurate than the offical map and to make it more geographically accurate than it already is would mean deviating from schematic practices of straight lines and few corners. I'd have lines looking like staircases all over the place and running off at various angles. I don't want to produce a map that is completely geographically accurate cos that's not what schematics are, and it would be impossible to fit station names into the map in the central part of it. They'd overlap with each other.

I'm not looking for you to go there and back me up, but from past encounters I know you'd be able to give me a better understanding and a clearer direction of what I would need to do, if in fact you do think it is a blatant copy, and why mine is bad and the Madrid one is acceptable.

Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 17:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is well and truly outside of my comfort area. :/ I have a pretty good feel for US legal precedent in text based copyright, as I've been following copyright matters for years, but I have no such familiarity with image precedents. Unless a decision seemed to have major implications for text as well, I just haven't paid much attention. Beyond that, a good grasp of law is only part of the equation; it's also understanding local policies and practices.
If this image is free, it really doesn't belong on English Wikipedia anyway, but on Commons. Given that, here's what I would do, if I were concerned about it. I would ask for input on the issue at Commons:Commons:Village pump/copyright. I'm sure you already know this, but you would need to be very careful about canvassing if you do that - don't argue your case, just ask others for feedback. :) Alternatively, I might ask an admin who is active in copyright on both projects, like User:Dcoetzee or User:J Milburn. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton

File:Belyastarecweliste.jpg
Hi, I'm Tsagan Aav from Elista, and I'm not a stupid boilerplate talk page notice from a robot. If you enjoy discovering a whole realm of topics that we didn't even know that we didn't have, then swing by User talk:Drmies#'sup, where we're having a small drive on Mongolian syncretic shamanism/Buddhism topics such as … well … me, for a start. And now for the jokes. A Mongolian shaman accused of copyright violation complains "But I was only mirroring non-free content!".

If you haven't seen Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#Removal of topic ban then you probably should. Richard Arthur Norton is declaring the CCI cases finished. Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oi. Well, it seems like that's been cleared up. And I'm off to Drmies' talk page. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious Selena poster

After the Selena article was unprotected earlier today, an IP added a freely license picture of a promotional Selena poster (File:Selena Poster.jpg). I highly doubt this picture was uploaded by the owner, can you look into this? Best, Jonatalk to me 19:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Moonriddengirl has enough on xyr plate, and isn't a generalized copyright checking service. You can do what's necessary here yourself. Go to commons:File:Selena Poster.jpg, check out the source of the image, determine whether it is a free content copyright licence on the original, and if it isn't nominate the file for deletion using the Commons mechanisms. No special status, nor any special tools, are required to do any of that. Uncle G (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done I think it's done (sans one file). I don't know how to close these, and I don't have the confidence to either, so I figured I'd run it by you. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 05:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh so happily resolved. Thank you very much, Sven! Not that you did it for my motivation, but I really needed that. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi MRG - I did some final cleanup on this (although other users did most of the heavy lifting), and except for one where I had a question (see the one marked with the question mark, heh!), I think this is good to go. If you wouldn't mind doing the final paperwork...(which I really should learn to do myself, but I always like to have someone with more CCI experience than me do a final check!) Dana boomer (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A difficult one

Hi MRG (and stalkers!). I'm unsure what to do with Shah Qabool Aulia. It has obviously paraphrased several of the subpages of this website, which also appears to be its only source. Its history shows that it was once tagged as copypaste, but the tag was removed a month later with an edit summary saying "I think the text has been reworded to avoid infringement". I'm not convinved. Duplication detector only shows very short phrases still intact, but to me it looks like plagiarism. I thought of tagging with {{Close paraphrase}}, but am not sure whether it's actually close enough for that.

I don't want to hit people with unjustified badges of shame, so I haven't tagged the article in any way, just placed {{GOCEreviewed}} and explained my concerns on the talk page. Please could you have a look and tell me what I should have done / should do? Best regards, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Without looking at the article (in case the person who removed the tag was me :D), I'll say that I think I would work it like so, in general: if I disagreed that the material was properly reworded, I'd start by drafting a talk page section explaining why. I always give concrete examples - not just what the dup det finds, but generally supporting materials surrounding literal duplication, which can better show if there's a pattern of minimal alterations that make the copying more transparent to the human eye than the duplication detector. Usually, by the time I've finished drafting this note, I have convinced myself if the {{Close paraphrase}} tag is needed. Sometimes I've convinced myself that the article needs to be blanked.
If the close paraphrase tag isn't needed, I may revise it myself, especially if the author has attempted but failed to address the issue, and leave him a note explaining where the issues persisted. But if it's not close enough for the close paraphrase tag, it may not be close enough to mandate action. (I know that action is never mandatory; what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm generally uncomfortable leaving "iffy" material in articles. The more iffy, the more mandatory it feels to me. :)) If it's just an "Eh, that could be better", the talk page note might be sufficient.
The general approach aside, I'm off to take a look at the article and give specific feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow! That was a mess! I thought, "Oh, the copying is kind of borderline, but probably not taggable. And the editor is not active in content contribution, possibly due to language barrier. I'll just tidy up." Things got much simpler once I realized that the dates were not on the Western calendar. Spelling variants provide additional challenges in finding sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow indeed, you've transformed it, and that gives a good idea of what you'd consider borderline for {{Close paraphrase}}. Thanks very much!. --Stfg (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Image question

Hi. SilverserenC recommended that I contact you about this issue. I'm a paid editor, and I've been hired by Cade McNown to make some changes to his page. While he has yet to be specific about the textual changes, he has indicated that he would prefer the picture to be something more relevant to his career than the current one (a picture of him from a team he never really played for). His best choice is this one:

[1]

I've read about the copyright issues on Wikipedia, and I *think* this would probably be okay under fair use, but I'm not sure.

I'd appreciate any guidance you could provide.

Thanks! Alex.Alexwillis (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Alex. :) I will assume that if you've spoken to other Wikipedians, then you're up to date on conflict of interest guidelines. I have to mention them anyway because they're so important; this is not an issue that the community takes lightly, and while there are some Wikipedians who are comfortable with paid editing, there are also quite a few who believes that a for-pay relationship with an article subject in itself creates bias. Please read through that guideline if you have not and make sure you comply scrupulously with it. Any deviation is likely to boomerang on your client.
Okay, that out of the way, I'll talk about the image question. First, I'll give you some general information, and then I'll discuss the specific image he'd like to use.
Generally, the Wikipedia community is pretty strict about "fair use" when it comes to images of living people. The idea is that we don't use non-free images when we can get a free one, and if a person is alive there is always the possibility that somebody will snap a photograph of him. In this case, since he is evidently retired, there might be a case for a non-free photo - although arguably a picture of him in retirement would be fine, since football players' fame doesn't reside in their looks - but it doesn't help that we already have a compatibly licensed one. That he was traded preseason might increase the odds that a non-free image of him would be accepted on a team for which he did play, but this is the kind of question that always come down to community consensus--and that could be challenged repeatedly. In other words, even if the community agreed now that a "fair use" image of Mr. McNown would be acceptable, they can change their minds later.
In specifics, we cannot use the image that Mr. McNown has selected because it is managed by Getty Images. "Fair use" on Wikipedia is governed by the non-free content policy and guideline. Under #8 of the section on non-free images that are specifically excluded from use (you can read that section directly at this link) are images from press agencies such as Getty, AP and Corbis.
For all these reasons, it would be much better for Mr. McNown to try to get a picture from a former teammate, family member or friend that can be compatibly licensed. The picture he finds may not compete for quality with the one he would like to use, but its use would be secure, if they are willing to follow the donation process. (See Wikipedia:Donating copyright materials.) Even if he finds a photograph of himself on the internet that was taken by a fan, there are good odds that a fan would be willing to license the photograph so we can use it if Mr. McNown asked or if you asked on his behalf. Fans are fans, after all. :) We have some recommended language for the letter of approach at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You'd want to change that language, obviously, to let the person know that Mr. McNown is requesting it himself. But it's vitally important that you communicate the license requirements clearly. If we get permission for Mr. McNown to use it or even for Wikipedia to use it, we still can't have it. It must be licensed so that our reusers can use it as well, which is why we have specific license requirements.
Please let me know if any of this is unclear or if you need additional assistance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'm definitely up-to-date on COI guidelines, but it never hurts to be reminded! Thanks for the info on copyright image. That helps a lot. I'll talk to Cade and see what he can come up with. I really appreciate your help!Alexwillis (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

More re: wire service photos

In addition to the LOC information re: UPI photos, I just ran into the following with an AP photo:

If someone searched for copyright info under AP, likely nothing would turn up as the holder is Columbia. Will share these at Commons also if you think they're important-these are permanent links at tinypic. We hope (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I think that they likely weigh in on the copyright status of that image, if nothing else. I'm not sure whether they speak to diligence here, but they might raise some questions about the copyright status of such photographs in general. :/ This is one of the reasons why I stay away from images, generally. Too, too complicated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Happy!!!!

Hi Moonriddengirl!! You know what?? Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad, which was significantly expanded by me (if to admit then I am the user with the maximum no, of edits to that article) was declared a GA!! I am overwhelmed with joy...hurrah!! Tamravidhir(২০১২) 12:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar...thank you so much! Tamravidhir(২০১২) 12:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

El emigrante

I wonder if you could weigh in on this. El emigrante (short story) went up on DYK early today. An IP user cut the text of the 4-word story from the article on the basis that it was a copyright violation. I restored it, and put an explanation on Talk:El emigrante (short story). Now another user has removed the text. It is a slightly odd case, a bit like quoting a Haiku from a collection of Haikus. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid that I have to share their concern. In this case, it seems that the short story is highly notable in itself - after all, this article is about the short story rather than the book - and I'm afraid with four-words, there's no way to get around the "amount and substantiality" concerns. :/ Similarly, we don't reproduce the entire lyrics from a song, even though it's one on an album or a poem out of a collection (generally). Others may feel differently (and it won't hurt my feelings at all if you ask elsewhere), but I think that there may be issues with reproducing the story in its entirety. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I suppose the question is whether "the copyrighted work" is the book or the individual story. To me, it is the book. The fair use concern is "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". This would fall apart if each chapter in a book were seen as an independently copyrighted work, each paragraph and each sentence. In this case, four words serve as a short introduction to the much more substantial stories in the book. I believe the four words are an insubstantial portion of the work as a whole. They are notable, and have been widely quoted, but that does not make them an independently copyrighted work. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Individual elements within compilations attract their own copyright. The article - which itself makes a case that the short story has stand-alone notability - says that the short story was submitted individually. This means its copyright protection precedes the collection. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
        • A compilation is a collection of existing material organized so it is an original work in itself. Inclusion in a compilation does not affect the status of the data or works included, which may or may not "attract" copyright. However, a book including only material by one author published for the first time is not a compilation, or any book could be seen as a compilation of chapters, each a compilation of paragraphs, each in turn a compilation of sentences. The extent to which the chapters are self-contained is irrelevant, as is the "notability" of individual sentences or phrases. All that matters is that the four words in question have been published only as part of the book, and they are an unsubstantial part, as the author has indicated by saying that they were a casual last-minute addition. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, Ella sigue de viaje, ca:L'emigrant (conte), fr:L'Émigrant (micronouvelle), and es:El emigrante all contain the entire story and remain untouched by those contending unfair use. Uncle G (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The entire story is also included in the article on Susana Rodríguez, who used it as the title for a work of installation art that stands in the grounds of the Casa del Lago in Mexico City. The installation seems notable, discussed by several sources, and perhaps deserves an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • The article itself says that he submitted the story separately for publication - it is a discrete, separate work of art. That he included it in a compilation of his own work does not change that. Similarly, a poet may compile his poetry into one work, but each poem is protected to itself. We don't reproduce entire poems on the basis that, as one of a collection, it is an insubstantial amount. Copyright does not come into affect at publication; it comes into affect at creation. U.S. law is clear that the copyright of a compilation is independent of and does not affect the copyright protection in preexisting material. While I am myself of the opinion that a four word short story is more gimmick than art, that doesn't change my opinion about the copyright protection of this one. Uncle G, that's a surprising statement from you. :) You know WP:OTHERSTUFF very well, I'm sure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I am afraid I started ¿Olvida usted algo? – ¡Ojalá! - couldn't resist. One of these days I will grow up... There is of course no relationship between the copyright in a compilation and that in the preexisting material that it includes. But this is a book by one author, published as a whole, not a compilation of works previously published by others. The author's copyright would have come into existence for each page as he completed that page, and for each chapter as he completed the chapter. All the chapters would have been completed before the book was published. But the act of publication brings together all the previously unpublished material into a single copyrighted work. If this were not so, the whole concept of substantiality would collapse, since every book comes into being page by page. There is no evidence that the four words have ever been published as an independent work. They remain an insubstantial part of the book. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I believe you are misunderstanding the legal realities here. This is a separate, distinct short story. The article - to which I assume you contributed? - says so. It was submitted as a discrete work for publication prior to the printing of this compilation. There does not have to be evidence that it was published; the burden of publication on copyright in the United States was lifted many years ago. You asked my opinion. I gave it to you, and honestly. I realize you don't like it, but I'm not interested in arguing it with you over and over again. You asked. You have it. I do not believe that quoting an entire short story meets WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • When I deal with a copyright violation, I like to think that I do a more thorough job of it than that. The people here didn't look anywhere at all beyond what was on the main page, resulting in a glaring inconsistency, between (for starters) two articles that linked to each other. The result looks silly. Both or neither (or even all or none if we're remembering the other language Wikipedias) are the two logically consistent positions. Uncle G (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I know you do, and I try to also. My point is just, though, that there is no obligation to follow through in other articles or other languages on the part of whomever removed the content. It would be great if people would look beyond the obvious; for one thing, we wouldn't have so many CCIs if they did, since somebody might have noticed that some of these people have copyright warnings dating back years and stopped them sooner. :/ Their lack of follow-through doesn't have any bearing on whether or not they are taking the right approach; if you didn't mean to imply that it did, my apologies for misunderstanding your intent. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films

Sorry to ask this of you but as you know the history you seem the best person to ask. We're still having massive problems on this page and as a result I've just fully protected it for a week in an attempt to get updated, non-copyvio tables sorted on the talk page rather then the piece meal process on the article page which is so often resulting in copyvios. Any way I'm not going to have internet access for two and a bit weeks from tomorrow evening so would you mind keeping an eye on it? Dpmuk (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to be 100% honest and say that my delay in answering this is a total mental block. :) I saw it this morning, I went "Eeek!" and thereafter promptly forgot. I will, reluctantly, keep an eye on it. I hate hate hate this problem. :/ Hope you're going on the lovely trip of your life and not having a planned internet outage or something horrible like that. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Definitely more the first - off to Yellowstone and Grand Teton. Dpmuk (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It was nice meeting you at Wikimania

Sorry it took me so long to get here but I wanted to tell you it was nice to meet you at Wikimania. Sorry we only got to chat for a few minutes. Happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Likewise. :) Thank you for helping us find our way around! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Democracy Index

If you have a moment, could you look at this article, or pass it on to someone who can do it? It seems to me that it replicates a great deal of data from Democracy Index 2011], which is marked as being copyrighted 2011 by the Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. The entire contents of Table 2, listing every country -- 167 of them -- evaluated for the quality of its democracy (or lack therefore), plus Rankings and Index Scores, is included, which I believe steps over the line into copyright violation territory. I was bending over backwards to get a small amount of this material into the Democracy article (the first 25 countries - "full democracies" - and their rankings, and the next 53 countries - "flawed democracies" - just their names in alphabetical order without rankings), so I was appalled to see the amount of stuff that was used in Democracy Index. Of course, this is tricky stuff, so I'd prefer someone of your knowledge to take a look, if you can. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear. :( I agree with you and have taken action. I'll watchlist the page so that I can try to respond to any questions in a timely manner. Please let me know if I overlook anything. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Am I a friend of Hitler or just removing copyvio?

See [2] and Talk:Nubia#User:Dougweller and his Eurocentric POV. I think the first sentence is clearly far too closely paraphrased from the source. I'd like a 2nd opinion before I get into further confrontation with an editor who doesn't seem to have edited this page before but is upset with me and two other editors who have been finding material in articles he created that doesn't seem to be in the source.

The 2nd is sourced to an image and I don't particularly care too much about it other than it oversimplifies the way Egyptian depicts Nubians. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. We have now both fallen under Godwin's law for copyright cleanup. :/ (AIR, I'm just Gestapo, though. You have attained a much higher level.) I see that this is at ANI now - I went over to see if I needed to intervene with the contributor. Sigh. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
My word, Godwin's law shouldn't apply when you are dealing with editors with over 6,000 edits. Ryan Vesey 14:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL! People personalize disputes. Hard to get around. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
So I wonder if all discussions on neo-nazi forums have at least one reference to Churchill or Roosevelt. Ryan Vesey 14:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
You got a serious belly laugh out of that one. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

An analysis of how courts determine fair use

Hey MRG, long time no speak.

I stumbled upon this analysis on how the US court of appeals for the 9th circuit determined whether a fair use defense would stand in Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc. I found it both brief and to the point, and thought I'd share.

Cheers, MLauba (Talk) 08:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, MLauba! Nice to see you. :) And that was very interesting; I'm tempted to share it at WT:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted article attribution

How would a person provide attribution to Wikipedia if they wanted to take a non-notable article here and create a page on Wikia? If the article history is deleted here, there is no way to point to it there. Ryan Vesey 22:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Complete list of contributors also satisfies. :) I gladly help pull up those lists when people want them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Ooh, I forgot about that. The article is still at AfD so we don't need anything pulled. Ryan Vesey 20:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

CCI?

Can you check the contribs of Mntwest and see if a contributor copyright investigation is necessary? Two of their articles were blatant copyvios. The rest appear to be copyvios (they are completely unsourced and written like copyvio material) but I cannot find any online sources. I'm worried that some of these may be copied from offline sources. Consider Ticaboo Resort. I can't find the exact wording anywhere, but my copyvio detector is going off. FAMA Method is even worse. Ryan Vesey 03:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(tps) There's few enough here that a CCI wouldn't be needed. I'll look them over and nuke them/block user if needed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Wizardman. Ryan Vesey 03:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict):All three articles by Mntwest appear to be promotion for the company Interveawe Solutions. FAMA Method by the same author is promtional but not, as far as I can detect, not a copyvio. It has since been deleted and I concur with the admin's decision. Keep on watchlists for re-creations.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
All article creations have been deleted. His edits to Ticaboo, Utah and image uploads appear to be fine. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I've cleaned out all the copyvios in Ticaboo from http://www.brycecanyoncountry.com/ticaboo.html and stubbed the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks both of you. Ryan Vesey 03:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Second set of eyes on paraphrasing explanation?

I'm pretty sure my explanation is rambling because it's rather late for me, but could you and/or one of your Friendly Neighborhood Talk Page Stalkers review my response at User talk:VernoWhitney#Copyright violation in Andranik Ozanian checking it for sanity and coherency (and accuracy, I suppose)? VernoWhitney (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are completely coherent and sane. :) My usual "almost memorized" response begins with "Copyright policy and non-free content and policy and guideline require that all content you add sourced to non-free sources be put into your own words, unless you are using brief and clearly marked quotations." I can go far more nuanced than that, depending on the contributor who is asking and their level of comprehension of that basic. For instance, with most of the IEP students, I wouldn't have explained the difference between an "apt phrase" and uncreative language (and in your example, the language is clearly not uncreative, so it doesn't seem that he's there yet). I have a tendency to overexplain, but after years of having that pointed out to me, I try really hard not to. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for checking my work--it's almost like old times. ^_^ It also didn't occur to me last night to skim your form letters for inspiration. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

CP item

I'm trying to check out an item from 15 June, Williams Bros Brewing Co. The talk page says: "much of the text, though truncated, is a lift from the brewery website at http://www.williamsbrosbrew.com"

While I see some overlap, it is hardly surprising to see some commonality between an article on a subject and the official history, but I wouldn't call it a "lift". I'll be interested in your take. I want to take a reasonably hard line on paraphrasing (and the words of SandyGeorgia still echo in my head), but this isn't jumping out at me as egregious.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it, either. I'm removing the tag and requesting examples if retagging. I'll close the listing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Retracting Blanking

You have blanked the pages of Culver Historic District and Lincolnshire Historic District for alleged copyright violations. The content in question is from publications written and owned by the Evansville Department of Metropolitan Development, and is used with full permission of this department. Therefore, as I understand Wikipedia's policies, it can be used. If additional steps need to be taken please let me know. The same can be said of changes you've made to FJ Reitz High School. Content on the history of that school is provided curtesy of the school corporation which owns it. If additional steps need to be taken please let me know.--YHoshua (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You've also made changes to Lawrence Jegen with the tagline of "Blatant". The implication is that I committed "blatant" copyright violation in the article. In fact, I haven't edited that page in over 7 years and the alleged copyright violations were all provided by other users, not me. I support the changes you've made but take umbrage with the implication that all of its problems were due to me.--YHoshua (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a chance you may see that tagline a lot as people work on your WP:CCI (which is opened at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/YHoshua). It's the tagline that comes up when content is revision deleted. It doesn't really matter when you placed the content; if it violates our copyright policies, it will need to be removed. In the case of Lawrence Jegen, copying was extensive. We can't publish it without verification of compatible license.
If you have verification of compatible license, please feel free to supply that in accordance with the procedures explained for copyright holders on the template now blanking the article face. The best process is generally to ask the copyright holder to send the requisite release at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries to the Wikimedia Foundation at permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Once a compatible license is received, from an email address that can be positively connected to the copyright holder, a note of license will be left on the article's talk page. Typically, content will not be deleted for several weeks to allow you time to follow these procedures. Without that verification, the material will need eventually to be removed.
Please note that permission is not in itself sufficient unless the content is licensed compatibly. One of the most common issues we have with such documents is that people offer permission "for Wikipedia" or similar language. Our Terms of Use requires that content be liberally licensed for modification and reuse, including commercially. The specific language of the Declaration of consent is really best.
If the license release is not received before the material is removed, the material can be restored after its arrival, as will happen with FJ Reitz High School should the High School offer license. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you may have missed my point. Regarding Lawrence Jegen, I agree that copying was extensive. However, the copying was not done by me, and therefore the violations in that article were not mine. The others I cite are universal licenses, and I'm happy to provide them wherever they need to be provided.--YHoshua (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Unless you copied this content from another Wikipedia page, the copying in Lawrence Jegen does seem to have been by you. For instance, your text included the following language:

He was, by appointment of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, a member of the Commissioner's Advisory Committee, and he has received six Certificates of Recognition from the Internal Revenue Service for contributions to the education of Internal Revenue Service personnel. Further, due to his contributions to the enactment of ERISA, he attended, at the invitation of President Ford, the signing of ERISA in the Rose Garden at the White House.

The source, which predates the publication of this material on Wikipedia, says:

He was, by appointment of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, a member of the Commissioner's Advisory Committee, and he has received six Certificates of Recognition from the Internal Revenue Service for contributions to the education of Internal Revenue Service personnel. Further, due to his contributions to the enactment of ERISA, he attended, at the invitation of President Ford, the signing of ERISA in the Rose Garden at the White House.

If you need assistance following the directions for verifying license, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

You may want to comment. We hope (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Commented. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

CCI close

Hi MRG - A few of us have been working on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Babasalichai, and I think it's ready for a final check and close at this point. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the Habermas situation, I wasn't sure how to handle it since I didn't know about the comparing software. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I dropped by the RSN in my work account and when I saw your note decided a small coffee break was in order. :D The software is located at WP:DUPDET. I was just going to label it for close paraphrasing - which lists it for review at Wikipedia:Copyright problems - but when I looked at the duplication detector results I decided it was rather more pressing than that. Plus, we have horrendous backlog. :/ Thanks for noticing and pursuing it. Just in case you run into copyright issues, Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101 is a slightly outdated but still essentially correct "how to" on tagging copyright issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Robert J. Gilliland - test pilot

Why did you delte the information related to SR -71 Blackbird Test pilot Bob Gilliland? It was disrespectful as all of the information set forth was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.251.245 (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. The problem with the article was in its creator. Wikipedia, as you probably know, is built by volunteers, but we do have some policies which we are all required to follow. Among them, we cannot copy content from previously published sources unless we can verify that they are public domain or compatibly licensed (although we can use quotes; for the more complete explanation see Wikipedia:Copy-paste). This particular individual was a serial copyright infringer; in spite of repeated requests that he stop, he continued building articles by cobbling together pieces of previously published materials without regard to Wikipedia's policies. Accordingly, his account was blocked from contributing. He is not welcome at this point to contribute to Wikipedia under any user name; for his contributions to be welcome, he would need to negotiate an unblock under his original account by demonstrating that the disruptive behavior would not continue. When it was discovered that he had created another account to persist in his behavior, all of the articles he created under that new account (with a few exceptions) were deleted. Unfortunately, this one was among them.
In cases such as this, deletion does not reflect in any way on the subject of the article but only on the creator. If you'd like to create a new article about Robert J. Gilliland, you would be welcome to do so. You don't even have to register an account. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Weird copyvio situation

Hi there. It's my understanding that you're the resident expert on copyright issues. I've got a strange one, in that I can't tell if it's a problem or not, or how to proceed with my editing. Look here for a detailed explanation. The essence of it is that I thought text in the cellular automaton article was a copyright violation, but now it looks like the book may have plagiarized Wikipedia without attribution. I also posted at WT:CP, and it was logged at Copyright problems/2012 August 29. I was told to place {{Backwardscopy}} on the talk page with the Google books URL. Is that all that is needed? Would I basically be able to leave the text unchanged and just find other sources? Seems like I can't use the book to source the article if the article was written first. —Torchiest talkedits 15:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Looking into it. :) Springer is not one of my usual suspects for backwards copyvios. They're a pretty reputable publisher. The next thing I do is check the activity range for the first of the dual authors - Klaus Mainzer has many publications at google books, going back decades. According to de:Klaus Mainzer, he is the Chair of Philosophy and Science at the Technical University of Munich - the top rated institution in Germany and 53 in the world. I have great doubts that this man has to copy from Wikipedia, although I guess it's possible that his co-author is a complete slacker. I think it's far more likely that the IP who placed the material took it from one of Mainzer's earlier books. Still investigating.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This is his co-author. So not a completely slacker. :) I'm convinced this is not a backwards copyvio. Let me see if I can find an older snippet of text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, this gets really tricky here; this does not feel like a copyvio. It's got a reliable source: [3]. Trying to find duplicated text to check for signs of natural evolution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This is painful. :) So our original IP editor inserted some errors. Here, the fragment "One of the most apparent features of the Game of Life is the frequent occurence of gliders, which are arrangments of cells that essentially move themselves across the grid" becomes "One of the most apparent features of the Game of Life is the frequent occurrence of gliders, which are arrangements of cells that essentially move themselves across the grid". The book uses the later language. Here, an editor inserts text (which I'll bold) to create this sentence: "In 1983 Stephen Wolfram published the first of a series of papers systematically investigating a very basic but essentially unknown class of cellular automata, which he terms elementary cellular automata (see below)." The source says, "In 1983 Stephen Wolfram published the first of a series of papers systematically investigating a very basic but essentially unknown class of cellular automata, which he terms elementary cellular automata (Wolfram 1986)." I'm up to June 2005 and continuing to scan forward. I'm feeling more convinced of the opposite now, that this was developed naturally here, but I haven't seen anything I regard as definitive proof. Still hunting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Here we go; this is a slightly more meaty example. Stanislaw Ulam was added to this article in December 2004. I can only see a snippet view of page 5 of that book, where Ulam is mentioned, but the text was similar, not the same. However, in July 2005 User:William R. Buckley altered that text from "Cellular automata were invented by Stanislaw Ulam at Los Alamos laboratory in the 1940s. John von Neumann - Ulam's colleague at Los Alamos - who was, at that time, working on a study of self-replicating systems realized the potential of CA to function as a simplified model of the physics of our universe." to "Stanislaw Ulam, while working at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1940s, studies the growth of crystals, using a simple lattice network as his model. At the same time, John von Neumann - Ulam's colleague at Los Alamos - was working on the problem of self-replicating systems." What I can see in the book says "In 1the 1940, Stanislaw Ulam, while working at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, studied the growth of crystals, using a...[sic] At the same time, John von Neumann, Ulam's colleague at Los Alamos, was working on the problem of self-replicating". The language is not identical, but close enough to suggest that the Wikipedia article was used as a source.
I'm up to 2008 and out of time. I would have loved to have found a coffin nail, but there's enough smaller evidence here for me to feel comfortable applying that tag in spite of my own astonishment. I'll do it; if you ever run into it again, you'll know what to do. :) We can leave the text pending some strong evidence that the signs of natural evolution are misleading and the material really was copied.
In terms of sourcing, no, I wouldn't think we can't use the book as a source if it's circular, even though by the fact of publication by two such well known experts it does more or less constitute some truly excellent peer review. Does the source originally cited help? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks so much for doing all that research. Yes, my thought when going through the history was the same as yours; it wasn't all copy/pasted at once, but looked to be a looooong term progression on the article itself. I'm sure there are plenty of other good sources out there. But to be clear, I don't need to rewrite the article's matching text, just find other sources for it, right? Thanks again for getting so in depth with it. —Torchiest talkedits 12:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. If I'm tagging {{backwardscopy}} I want to be pretty sure of what I'm saying. I have no idea if the authors credited Wikipedia somewhere (since the book is visible only partly), but if there's the remote possibility that I am indirectly accusing somebody of plagiarism, I'm careful. :/ I hate eliminating such a scholarly source, but, yes, I would keep the text and source it elsewhere. The source does look to be circular. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio for citations

Hi. This is with respect to the concerns raised at the FLC for 59th National Film Awards. One of the reviewers has suspected the citations used in the article to be possible copyvio as those are 100% copy-paste case. One of the suggestions came up was to use the quotation marks ("") and reference each of them. Now, these award citations are taken from the official catalogue released and is referenced in the article. Will wrapping them with quotation marks solve the problem as whole catalogue is referenced? This is done to avoid WP:OVERCITE for each and every citation taken from same reference. I would appreciate if you can provide some inputs on this. - Vivvt • (Talk) 18:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) These kinds of situations are tricky. Wrapping them in quotations won't make a difference in U.S. law if use is too extensive to be "fair use", which is determined by many factors. ("Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission" "Fair Use", U.S. Copyright Office) If the whole catalogue is referenced, then taking may be too substantial to be fair use. Generally, I recommend in such situations rewriting the descriptions in new language. This can be challenging, but it's safe. Where the original language is used, it must be explicitly acknowledged as a quote in accordance with the policy portion of WP:NFC and the guideline of Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If overcitation is an issue, I think it's quite likely that over-quotation is as well. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. We would prefer maintaining the original language as is because it is provided by accomplished jury members and changing it might lead to WP:OR. Moreover, citations can not be taken out as well because it actually tells us why the award is presented. But then now I feel, its better to opt for over-citation than losing its value. :). If I understand you correctly, to solve this problem we should present the citations in quotation marks (currently italics) and should reference each of them from the official catalogue. Please confirm. - Vivvt • (Talk) 12:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. Adding quotation marks does not make usage any more or less "fair." While it is required by our policies that all non-free content be marked accordingly, it will not alter if this usage is a copyright problem.
Whether or not usage is fair may depend heavily on how much content you are quoting. If you quote too much from a single source, then WP:C and WP:NFC are violated, because our policies forbid extensive quotation. I'm afraid that "too much" can't be sharply defined, because what constitutes too much depends in large part on (a) how much the material is in relation to the original, (b) how much the material is in relation to the new work, and (c) how "central" or "core" the material is to either. While actionable infringement is more likely to be found where greater levels of similarity exist, Richard Stim noted in 2007's Patent, Copyright & Trademark that "[a]n infringement may be found based on several paraphrased passages of a few hundred words each, or just 20 words copied verbatim."Stim, Richard (2007). Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference (9 ed.). Nolo. p. 220. ISBN 1413306462. In determining whether use is substantial, courts look not only at the proportion of duplication in comparison to the relative size of the works, but also to such considerations as the creativity of the copied material, its use in both works and its centrality to either.Blessing, David S. (2004-04-01). "Who speaks Latin anymore? Translating de minimis use for application to music copyright infringement and sampling". William and Mary Law Review. Retrieved 2009-04-06.Levy, Neil A. (Fall/Winter 1998). "Tweedledum and Tweedledee: Plagiarism and copyright" (PDF). CINHAL News. 17 (3/4). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
This is why, generally, I recommend in such situations rewriting the descriptions in new language. I can't in good conscience recommend otherwise. :/ Not only do our policies recommend conservative handling of non-free text, I am mindful of the risk to the editors and the future state of the article. If the material is included verbatim, the person who places the material could be legally responsible for any issues that may arise (not from Wikipedia, of course, but from the copyright holders...who can and have pursued Wikipedia editors, though certainly not always successfully). Additionally, the material may be blanked and eventually removed if it is listed for copyright investigation and found to be too substantial to include. I have seen good quality lists go through this at the copyright problems board. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. This leaves us with the only option of rewriting the citations. I appreciate your inputs. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Or else, do you want me to check with Directorate of Film Festivals under which license the catalogue is published? I can try e-mailing them for the raised concern. If I do not get favorable reply, we will go with the first option. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
If you can get permission, that would be awesome! Some people actually do grant it. Please point them to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. One of the biggest disappointments we get is when a rights-holder grants permission "for Wikipedia", because we can't use that. :/ Because of our own liberal license, we have to have them liberally license it, too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

CCI update

One more gone, and more importantly, a lot of people helped out on it. Hopefully it means more join the world of fighting copyright issues. --Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Woot! Thanks. :) And, oh, wouldn't that be awesome! :O I've got some constraints on my weekend (I got a work thing going on - go! everyone! Weigh in!), but I'm hoping to put some good time into CCI myself. I find it still hard for me to stay away from CP. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Using a complete written translation of the Mesha Stele

Mesha Stele#Description and translation seems to be copyvio. It's a very recent translation and given that it is the entire translation, with 566 words, it seems pretty clearly copyvio. So far I haven't found a clearly PD one, so - how much do you think it should be trimmed, or? Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. :) What I would probably recommend in a case like this is replacing it with an abbreviated paraphrase. I'd give credit - "this summary is based on a translation by" but would only use brief quotations where they are especially striking or important. However, I managed to find a free translation. Evidently, it was more commonly referred to as the "Moabite Stone" after discovery, so earlier sources discuss it accordingly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that was above and beyond the call of duty. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The translation you have used is absolutely different from the source given. The main difference is clearly the omission of the House of David as cited by Schmidt and all modern scholars.This was and this is the main question of Mesha stelte. Reading this kind of translation, creates falls conclusions on this subject, therefore I believe than this (miss)translation can not stand. The translation of 1878, when ancient Hebrew and Moabite languages were almost unknown are similar like using a medical lexicon of 1878 to provide details of treatment for any illnesses.

With respect

Tritomex (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not absolutely different. If you compare, the differences do not come in until the end. Certainly, it's a perfect opportunity to add encyclopedic information about how translations have varied over the years, with proper citations. The copyright issue can't be ignored. The version in place now is free. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes but the omission of the "House of David"(one of two historical reference to David) do not represent any translation which are today widely accepted (Schmidt 2006, Rainey, Anson F. (2001),Lipiński, Edward (2006) Lemaire, Andre (2007) All of this translation points in different direction. As you certainly know the main historic importance of Moaboite stone lies in this one sentence relating to Davidic dynasty, which are now removed by outdated translation. Off course I understand copyright issues, yet I am sure that more updated free translation from at least 20th century can be found Thanks and all the bestTritomex (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to look for one, but it would have to have been published prior to 1923, unless we are able to get verification of copyright. I do not know if this would be modern enough to address your concern. That said, it looks like "House of David" is referred to in a single line. There would be nothing wrong with introducing a public domain translation something like this:
Example of what I mean

An early translation of the stele was published by James King (1878), based on translations by M. Ganneau and Dr. Ginsberg.[6] Line numbers added to the published version have been removed.

<translation>

There is no authoritative full edition of the Moabite inscription.[5] However, modern translations differ in interpreting the line King portrayed as "And as to Horonaim, the men of Edom dwelt therein, on the descent from old." Brian Schmidt (2006) translated it as "Now [as for] Hawronen, the Ho[use of Da]vid dwelt in it and...."(cite) This is in line with scholars such as name, name, and name.(cite cite cite)

One could even set up the difference prior to giving the early translation...maybe saying something like "There is wide consensus among modern scholars that.... Prior to the emergence of this consensus, an early translation of the stele.... The subject line is now more typically as present by... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I use this translation? I am not sure if it is copyrighted.

[4]

Thanks for your time!Tritomex (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Not without permission from the author, I'm afraid. :/ Copyright is automatically bestowed on creation under the U.S. law that governs us. That's why I mentioned the 1923 year - it's the last year of wide safety (except for a few potential issues in the 9th District). It could be a useful source, though, for talking about the evolution of the translation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am from India and there are many politician in India who don't have a wikipedia page but i want to create their wiki page. When ever i upload a image we have to fill a form. Recently i was uploading a Images of my collage Tolani College of Commerce and the image was from the official site of Tolani Collage but then too the image was deleted. But i stay near by my collage so it is not an issue i can take a Image from my mobile. But suppose if i want to upload some images of the politician what should i do. No one will allow me to go and click their images bec they have high security and some of them have their official website but if i will put that image from the official site then too wikipedia will delete so what can i do in this case. As per me all the Politicians should have wikipedia page with their full Background what they have done for the country. In India Internet is growing very fast and i want provide good information for my people in India Regards Vizr. Vizr 09:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sounds like a good and ambitious goal. :) Your alternative if you can't find a free picture or take one is to write them and ask them to donate one. :) Please be sure if you do this that you are clear on the licensing requirements. Sometimes people will supply a picture "for Wikipedia", and we cannot accept these. In accordance with our policies, they must be properly licensed. There are some example letters at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Please let me know if you need clarification on any of this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll echo the advice with a real example. I wanted to add a photo of Matthew Mitchell to the article about him. I took a picture at a game, but check it out, File:Matthew Mitchell at Sweet Sixteen in Kingston 2012.jpg it isn't very good.
I wrote to the media relations department, and asked them if they could provide a better one, taking care to send them a filled out form for the permission. They sent me a much better image File:UK Matthew Mitchell Action 1.jpg, which is now in the article.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Lovely! I <3 the success stories. :D I got two pictures of Jimmy Norman by asking, too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lists of episodes

Hi. A Google search on "list of episodes site:en.wikipedia.org" gives 121,000 hits. Many are fine -- lots of real-world stuff and either no plot summary or a very cursory description of the plot theme (like List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes). But some have very little else than rather expansive retelling of the story, in the same style as List of Zatch Bell! episodes (season 3). Is that kind of thing OK, or is it a derivative work? If the latter, given that I'm not going to rewrite that (snore!), is it enough to tag it with {{Plot}}, or should I take some stronger action? Thanks for any advice. --Stfg (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You are indirectly responsible for a new article. :) I went to glance at what was transcluded at {{Plot}}, found the unlikely article Greensboro, North Carolina (not exactly a work of fiction) and realized the section so tagged was a massive copyright issue. I removed it, wanted to replace it, and realized that I could not do justice to it in a section short enough not to overwhelm the article. So, voila: 1969 Greensboro uprising.
Okay, that loooong distraction aside, I think that it depends on how detailed the plot listing is. If they remain relatively short (say, a paragraph or so), {{Plot}} is probably enough. If they're longer than that, trying to truncate them would be really nice, if you can, since permission never comes through for those and blanking them has only once in the years I've been doing CP resulted in anybody writing anything to replace them. (I don't think List of Zatch Bell! episodes (season 3) crosses that line. :)) Traditionally, television guides with brief plot summaries have been tolerated as fair use in that they are not competing with actually watching the programs; their use is transformative by nature. But the more detailed our summary is, the less safe that defense becomes, particularly if there's not much encyclopedic material around it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow about the new article! Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • !! Oh, thank you! I actually went in to do a copy-edit this morning and saw the cn. :D I didn't look to see who placed it. (After a few hours of intense focus on an article, my ability to actually read it is much impaired. :/) I thought it was a fascinating story myself, which is why I couldn't bear to reduce it to just a couple of sentences. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

Blatant copyvio unless material is PD

Hey Moon, I noticed that Paterson, New Jersey has material directly copied from the five year strategic plan. Is there any reason that material would be public domain? In either case, it should probably be attributed in some manner. I just came across this while reading and my copyvio detector went off, there might be more. Ryan Vesey 23:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) - Almost definitely copyrighted, a municipal level government publication. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    • This seems like an exceptionally difficult case. I have found some of the introduced information in these edits. Given the date, it is possible that this is reverse copyvio; however, having worked on some projects before, it is very possible that the city reused material from an older strategic plan. That being said, having worked on projects before, it is very possible that the City used information from Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey 04:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
      • This edit added information that appears in the strategic plan. That information appears here and here. Thickening the plot further, this material contains information that was added in the link in my comment above. The demographics information shows the most recent data as being 2006, which means it is a tossup as to which came first. I believe our content did because I have only found the first two subsections (Historic District and Downtown) to be copied. I'm tired, but my initial thought is that the content introduced in my first link is fine, but the content introduced in my second link is copyrighted. Can someone else help look into this? In addition, do we have an obligation to tell Paterson that when they copied our content (without attribution) they also copied copyrighted content? Ryan Vesey 04:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
        • It's not the first time I've seen lower level government copying Wikipedia. :) In terms of our obligation, that's a tricky one. :/ The only person who might have any real obligation (I think) is the person who placed the content - he or she is the one who falsely warranted that it was freely licensed. But it would certainly be nice if Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content said something to alert people that our license relies on the editor. (In fact, I've just made a small tweak to policy that I expect will be uncontroversial to clarify that: [5].) Not that it would make a difference to Paterson, if they didn't comply with reuse anyway. :) If you want to let them know, I think it would be entirely out of the goodness of your heart, not any kind of obligation. The generalities aside, I'm going to look at the specifics. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Aha. :) Some of the things I was seeing didn't make sense to me. But that series of edits was actually the restoration of content that had previously been deleted in December 2006. The material was actually added by an IP in December 2005: [6]. It was a copyright issue, all right, but not of that source - it took from [7]; see [8]. It may still be derivative of that source, although it's certainly changed over the years.

Several days later, another IP added another big chunk of text. Lots of errors in there, but notably some of the information is carried over into the strategic plan - for instance, "Riverside a larger section of Paterson as its name states this section is bound by the Passaic River to the north and east. Separating the city from Hawthorne and Fairlawn." in the article; in the source it says "Riverside is a larger neighborhood in Paterson and, as its name states, this neighborhood is bound by the Passaic River to the north and east, separating the city from Hawthorne and Fair Lawn. Riverside is a working-class neighborhood." This IP's edit was gradually polished, but it looks very much like original text to me. I did not find any matches to the original, unmodified text on the web (I look for first significant text edit and check the original text).

I feel very confident that you are right, that the Strategic Plan copied from us. Content should be checked against that older source, though. :/

Looking at the newer content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Feh. :/ I accidentally closed my window with links, et al. I have no doubt that the realtor listing copied from us as well. I looked at the "most famous neighborhood" line. The seeds of that content are in the second IP edit I linked above. But the material was modified twice - once in April 2006 and again in July 2006 - before it reached the form it was in when the realtor took it. No doubt the Lexington Report was copied. It's a small amount, so I've simply turned it into a clumsy quote. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for doing all of the digging on that! Should I add some reverse copyvio templates to the talk page? Ryan Vesey 14:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
That would be great, if you would, and maybe check the article against [9], which clearly predates it? My time is very limited this morning. Work calls. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Is potential libel something that editors should ignore?

While the specific issue of a potential libel was easily and quickly resolved, questions have since arisen.  I think, or at least thought, that Wikipedians should be cautious with using words such as "hate group" in Wikipedia's voice, and that Wikipedians were in agreement to avoid potential libels.  Yet about half a dozen editors have posted opinions on my talk page and at WP:WQA regarding the word "libel", while one editor has indicated that ignoring a potential libel is blockable, all without providing references.  Most of these opinions are oriented toward disempowerment.  While I suspect that disempowerment is not a policy-based viewpoint, I am not readily familiar with the relevant policy.  Can you provide some links, or written statements of your opinion?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, in accordance with one of our strongest policies, we should not ignore potential libel. Let me note up front that I have not looked at the particulars of this case, but am addressing principles. I know of no policy that mandates blocking for ignoring potential libel, but editors are strongly encouraged to ensure that all statements that affect living people are appropriately sourced and that statements of opinion are not presented as statements of fact. Editors are given wide-latitude in enforcing this policy if others do ignore it, including exemption from WP:3RR (not that this exemption isn't subject to abuse). This doesn't mean, of course, that we cannot present negative information or even negative opinions about article subjects; they need to be scrupulously sourced and properly attributed. My own opinion is that if a group is widely referred to as a "hate group", we may not need an WP:INTEXT attribution - it is itself not-neutral to say "The New York Times calls them a hate group" if the New York Times is among 100 newspapers that do so - but might be able to rely on more general text, such as "widely described as a hate group"[source][source][source] But my experience working on articles about hate groups on Wikipedia is really very limited and probably only in the context of copyright. So I'm not sure what consensus is for using that label.
In terms of the language used to describe the problem, I'd tend to avoid "libel" myself and stick to policy-based language. The definition and defense of libel varies around the world; when you use it, different people may legitimately hear different things. Policy-based language should be universally understood, at least among experienced Wikipedians. That doesn't mean that we don't disagree on application, of course, but that's true of legal terms as well. And at least there're no jurisdictional disagreements. :) Plus, words like "libel" make some people uneasy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings most awesome one,

I'd like to use the text from this table (can also be found on page three of this document) in our Groningen Protocol article. I fear any attempt to summarize the information will result in endless debate with the POV warriors that frequent the topic and I'd like to nip that possibility in the bud. What copyright issues am I up against? Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's way to brighten the morning. :D That said, I'm afraid that the concerns could be substantial. :/ Reproducing the entire protocol is much akin to writing an article about a poem and reproducing it - unless the poem is public domain, we really can't. We have to talk about it, describe it, describe how others respond to it, etc. One thing you have going for you is that poems are highly creative while protocols are not...but they are still likely to meet that minimal spark of creativity that gives copyright protection, and it's not something we generally push. AS you know, NFC encourages us to be conservative.
I think your best bet would probably be to describe and briefly quote. If that protocol were in the article and it came to CP, I'd remove it. Sorry! I owe you my honest opinion. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I figured as much. Thought I'd ask on the outside chance some odd technicality might allow it (you can win if you don't roll the dice). What would the situation be if it was the text of a Dutch law or regulation? Thanks for your time. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Ps. Sorry for not warning you on the nature of the topic. Hope I didn't ruin your whole day. Deepest apologies with groveling.
Not a happy subject. :/ But, no, my day was not ruined. By U.S. copyright law, "edicts of government" are not covered, regardless of how the government in question feels about it. This makes them okay for Wikipedia (but it's always important to note that "okay for Wikipedia" doesn't necessary mean "okay for the editor". If the law in the jurisdiction where you live says it's illegal, you may be liable in that jurisdiction even if you'd be free and clear in the U.S.). And I agree that there's no harm in asking. I looked into the claim that this "was agreed upon by the Prosecutors Office in Groningen" to see if it might have the force of an edict, but the source doesn't support that assertion at all. The source says they collaborated closely with a district attorney. That could mean anything from asking occasional questions to getting him to write the thing; we don't know. It doesn't indicate he approved of the final office or that, if he did, he did so with the weight of the Prosecutors Office behind him. :/ The fact that "no black-letter law" exists makes it less likely. But you could ask the copyright holders for license. You never know; they might be happy to get it out there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that the source did not support the claim and with the removal per WP:V (I just started researching the topic a few weeks ago and haven't actually edited the article yet). I'd probably source anything along those lines to: "Kamerstukken II (Parliamentary Papers) 2005–2006, 30300 XVI, nr. 90" (in English) pages 149-150.
Last question: What are the guidelines for a press releases like this? Thanks :) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Press releases are WP:SPS and are usable in certain contexts, particularly in articles related to themselves. The guidelines/policy are found at WP:ABOUTSELF. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I'd meant that as a general copyright question (really bad example on my part). Are press releases treated differently? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh! No, they aren't. Press releases are widely intended for reproduction, but not necessarily commercial reproduction or modification. :) See just below the table at WP:COMPLIC in our copyright FAQ. (And I did wonder why you were asking that. I figured surely you had encountered it before. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And now the Tel Dan Stele

We have both a complete translation and a transcription at Tel Dan Stele#Text. Short, but complete. Does the length make it ok? I should know this but I haven't run into this problem before these 2 articles. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would imagine its length makes it better. It would be awfully nice if a free version could be located. Outside of the Wikipedia context, I would argue that this is a pretty good example of fair use. But NFCC is deliberately tighter than fair use. The absolute safest thing to do is probably to summarize what isn't essential and quote what is - which seems to be the lines about the House of David - while writing to the copyright holder(s) to ask for license, or at least to write the copyright holders to ask for license. Ambiguity resolved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts

The WikiProject Albums Barnstar
Another for your collection - I really appreciate your assistance and work on the Penguin Guide to Jazz copyvio issue and Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable albums DISEman (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I had really wanted to be further along than I am right now, but that seems to be the story of my life. :/ I haven't given up on it! I'm trying to balance my weekend time between copyright work and article writing, but I ran into a copyright issue this weekend that put me writing a different article, to avoid losing the information altogether. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-1923-abroad and more!

I know your alter-ego said that the legal team likely can't review licensing tags, so I thought I'd pick the volunteer-side of your brain as to whether this template needs revising. I know image licensing isn't really your thing, but you're at least familiar with the case law. It seems to me that this template needs some serious adjusting, since from the intern's brief it sounds like it becomes one of the messier required copyright analyses I've seen...or else it just becomes a completely unusable tag and each of the hundreds of concerned files needs to be reviewed and retagged as appropriate. Do you have any more input here?


And on a fairly unrelated topic, I was wondering if you (and any talk-page stalkers!) had any input about a proposed tweak in how the day-to-day copyvios are listed at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Template:Article-cv. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, man, I hate to open that can of worms. :( I think the issue needs visiting. Our approach to copyright has long been based on the presumption that we were exempt from the 9th Circuit insanity, and we're not. I really wish somebody had thought about that before relocating us from Florida to SF, but I'm not surprised it didn't occur to them. It's kind of an obscure little point of copyright law. I wouldn't know where to even launch the discussion - WT:PD?
In terms of your proposed change, I think that's a great idea! Rewrites were easier to find with the old template, but the old template was harder to work with for users. :/ This would be fabulous. Off to enthusiastically support it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I'll try to figure out the best place to start a conversation about that and where to advertise it, since I imagine it will bother more than a few people.
Oh, and just in case you haven't checked yet - You've Got Mail! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Rotimi Ogunjobi's cut and paste plagiarism

You might want to correct the "publishing" date of his "book" from the wrong 2006 to the correct 2008in your note at the Jimi Hendrix page.

Regarding the Jimi Hendrix page and the Greenwich Village page from which he also pillaged wholesale for his rubbish book. This self-published plagiarist was discovered several years ago and it was highlighted on the Hendrix talk page. I now notice those old entries regarding this have been deleted. What is going on? I am also left wondering why this con-man is allowed his own page on Wiki when he is nothing more than a two bit chancer? What can be done to get him and his page off Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 September 2012‎

Hi. The old entries haven't been deleted; they've been archived. This is standard for talk pages, which would otherwise grow too long. :) I found the discussion here. One of the reasons we encourage the use of {{backwardscopy}} (the one I added to the top of the page a few weeks ago) is because those templates do not archive.
2006 is the publication year of the book, according to the copyright notice published on page 2 and to the archived discussion I linked. :)
In terms of the author's page at Rotimi Ogunjobi, he has a page because anybody can have his own page, and somebody created one for him. :) When that happens, pages are only removed if other editors nominate them for deletion through one of the deletion processes, if the page doesn't meet inclusion guidelines (most frequently for notability reasons). People are, I believe, sometimes more cautious about nominating pages about international figures, since finding reliable sources in English can be a challenge and they do not want to inadvertently delete somebody we should have an article about. The deletion process, if you'd like to nominate it, is explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you do, please be careful with the language you use to discuss the man. :) He is covered (as all living people are) by the WP:BLP policy, which governs all spaces on Wikipedia.
If you were one of the authors whose work has been copied, you may be able to contact the publisher of the book to require that the book give you the legally requisite credit. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for more information. We have all licensed our content so that it can be reused, but those who reuse it are required by that license to acknowledge the source of their copying. Sometimes book publishers have actually corrected the problem, by reprinting with proper attribution. Often, they ignore us. :/ But at least maybe they are alerted to potential problems with the author and have more care for future publications.
I don't know anything about the author of the book, but I have found people copying from Wikipedia in a surprising variety of sources. Just recently (higher on my userpage), another editor picked up that the city of Paterson, New Jersey, did it. A lot of people seem to think that our content is public domain and to feel free to use it without credit. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The author's page on Wikipedia appears to be an autobiography. After much searching both under his full name (Rotimi Ogunjobi) and his nickname (Timi Ogunjobi), the subject appears to fail both the General notability guidelines for biographies and the Author notability guidelines. I've nominated it for deletion on those grounds. I hope the ensuing discussion will remain courteous and civil. Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you recreate an article for me please?

Hello Moonriddengirl, I have a little request. Are you able to recreate an article for me I once wrote but then requested to be deleted? The article in question is List of Fussball-Bundesliga clubs eliminated from the DFB-Pokal by amateur sides. Could you copy it to User:Calistemon/Sandbox or move it into my userspace, if possible, for me to rework the article? That would be nice! It had some prose issues back then but I would like to address them now. Thanks, Calistemon (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. It's at User:Calistemon/List of Fussball-Bundesliga clubs eliminated from the DFB-Pokal by amateur sides. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Calistemon (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ebay as a source of images?

Hi MRG, is Ebay useable as a source of images? Many postcards are listed on Ebay which are now clearly out of copyright. I've uploaded images from many postcards which I own to Commons, but was wondering whether or not Ebay could be used as a source. The problem is that listings dissapear after a time, and thus any attribution via a link to the listing will become useless in time. Is this something that can be overcome? If this discussion merits a wider audience (e.g. experts over at Commons), please feel free to copy this post and let me know where the discussion is. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I wonder if it would be helpful to use webcitation to capture a snapshot of the page? Or maybe they have some system like their "Flickrreview"? I think that this probably would be worth discussing at Commons:Village pump, so I have copied it to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Ebay as a source of publication information and asked them to explain/discuss with you there. I'll be interested in keeping an eye on the outcome! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think (for PD-no notice images) uploading a front and back scan like We hope does would be enough, as all the information would be there. A year of publication on a PD-1923 image may preclude the need for an archive. That being said, when I uploaded film posters I did not archive the links as they were first published as hard copies and not exclusive to the internet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I do the same thing with postcards. This category has a lot of postcards in it I uploaded, and what you see here are all Commons-uploaded postcards. This is where a lot of our television and older railroad images come from.

This hasn't happened to me yet!:D We hope (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I've commented over at Commons. Can we please keep the discussion over there? Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Kadambas of Goa

Hi. I'm having difficulty with Kadambas of Goa. Its port of Goapakapattna section contains close paraphrasing of Goa Through the Ages: An economic history, Volume 2, By Teotónio R. de Souza (starting from page 12), but I could probably deal with that in a copy edit. The main difficulty is its relationship with this page, which is not known to the Wayback Machine, so I cannot tell which is a copy of which. Here is a DupDet report comparing that with the first real version of our article. What do you reckon? --Stfg (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I reckon this could be a very bad sign for us. :/ This change was made on the day the article was established, so if they copied from us they would have had to have done so very quickly. However, that has all the appearance of having been copied from an existing article without attribution. I'm going to look into that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, it was the same editor, but this article where the material first appeared. This is a good sign for us: [10]. Second edit after it appeared adds a sentence that is also in the source. There's no sensible reason for him to have pasted a paragraph without a sentence and then gone back to add it in. There are also little tweaks: [11]. And here is where that "400 glorious years" figure enters in: [12]. I feel sure enough at this point that this is a backwards copy from that article that I think I can stop looking. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow, all righty! I'll clean up the stuff that's sourced to de Souza later today. Many thanks. --Stfg (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Bach family

A relief to have an explanation of this - I think Mr. Scholes was either guilty of plagarism himself (which I don't believe for a moment) or he actually wrote the article on the Bach family for E.B. 1911!!! He was already 34 at the time so by no means impossible, and from internal evidence I should say pretty certain. All the same I fear we need a modern article - outside the elegant but rather blinkered Scholes framework - entertaining a writer as he no doubt was. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds entirely possible. :) And I would agree with you that our article should be modernized. Nothing wrong with copy-editing it so that it reads like it's less than 100 years old! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

User re-adding Gyan references

Hello, user Orlady has attempted to chastise me for removing Gyan references from articles here. I have referred her to a previous discussion on the subject, also on my talk page here supporting my actions. Unfortunately, she is re-adding the Gyan references to the articles. Would you weigh in? I think I am acting correctly, but if I am not, please tell me. Thank you. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm afraid I don't have a lot of insight into whether or not Gyan's entire publication library is suspect. :/ I know that they have unfortunately published quite a few authors who have copied content from English Wikipedia, but I don't know if they otherwise are or previously were respected publishers. I would not myself use them to source existing information in our articles, but I would be a bit stuck as to whether every author's output through them is tainted by dint of having used them as a publisher. Maybe it would be worth a definitive discussion on RSN to see if all of the publisher's library should be excluded or if an exception should be made for content published that can't, by date of publication, be circular? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights.
Message added 20:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SMS Talk 20:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Help Me

Hello, I have and issue with the Christina Aguilera Discography page, an editor keeps deleting reliable sources of her worldwide sales. And he is not willing to discuss it. I ask your asistance please. --XtinoFrost (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to hear you're having trouble. I see that you and User:Petergriffin9901 have been talking at your talk pages. This is generally not the best place to discuss content issues, since other editors with an interest in the article may be able to help settle disagreements. Its a very good idea for you to open the discussion at the talk page of the article focusing on the content questions. Explain why you think each of the sources being used is reliable. Ideally, he will discuss them with you, individually, and either will convince you that you are wrong or be convinced that he is. If after discussing the policies related to the links, neither of you can agree, you would generally seek other opinions. You could start with third opinion. If that doesn't help settle the matter, you could move to the reliable sources noticeboard, to get more uninvolved editors.
Before you post your argument, I would first recommend reading WP:USERGENERATED and perhaps searching the archives at WP:RSN to see if consensus has been established on a given source before. (Do check the dates; this may not reflect current thinking about the blogcritic site, for instance...although it might. It depends on whether or not the site has evolved in four years. Because of "other stuff", you can't read too much into usage on Wikipedia, but searching to see how often a site is cited can help evaluate it: [13].) Once you open the discussion, let him know; drop him a note at his talk page and tell him that you want to talk about his issues with the sites at the article talk page.
Most importantly, as I noted at your talk page, you should not continue undoing him. This is considered edit warring and is a blockable action. You are on the edge of going over the three-revert rule. Once you have established consensus, either between yourselves or with a wider group of people, everybody needs to abide by it. Consensus is not exactly a head-count, but a consideration of how policy applies to specific problems. If somebody says, "I agree (or disagree) with the source", that wouldn't count towards consensus because that's not policy. :) Consensus may be that some of the sources are okay, that all of them are, or that none of them are. However it lands, continuing to edit the article to put in your own point of view outside of consensus is disruptive and may be cause for administrator intervention. It shouldn't ever have to come to that between experienced Wikimedians. :) Consensus is one of our most important policies to keep us functional as a website of disparate contributors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 1969 Greensboro uprising

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Quagmire

Hi MRG! Re this CCI, several of the articles have ended up at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 June 22. An examination of the first one, Vladimir III Igorevich, shows pervasive and foundational copyvio from The Dynasty of Chernigov, 1146-1246. (Cambridge University Press, 2003) Given my past experience with the editor's other copyvios, I'm sure all his other articles using this source (and currently blanked) are the same. I'm inclined to simply rewrite all of them as brief referenced stubs on a temp page and leave it at that. Anything else is a complete time-sink. It's not like these are key topics and neither the editor nor the associated WikiProjects have lifted a finger since they were listed almost 3 months ago. What do you think? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We could actually even stub them on the spot. Do the existing blanked pages have any value to you? I could do this (or you could), and I would eliminate the back versions. If you want me to, let me know, and I'll do the revdeletion there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
On-the-spot stubbing and revdel of all the previous versions is fine with me, even better than the temp page rigamarole. ;-) I just wasn't sure if that was OK. Presumably the revdel would still show who contributed (that could be useful) although not what they comtributed? I'll go ahead with the others and leave notes under their entries that they may require revdel. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 Done. :) It's perfectly fine. Any time you want to stub something that has been listed more than 10 days, I'm happy to come in with the mop and clean up the old stuff. And, yes, only an admin can see who contributed what, but generally the only sentence I leave is the first. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

SPI case for your review

Hello Moonriddengirl, There is a case that you may want to look into further as you were the one that blocked the actual master account and you may know more about it. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pinut. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Berean. :) I'm afraid that all I really know is that we had a person using multiple accounts to try to bypass consensus. The Swedish checkuser investigation helpfully identified which accounts were his, which made it easier to confirm the socking here. The accounts User:Ulla and User:John Anderson engaged in some tag-team editing at Saab JAS 39 Gripen. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio from 2004!

Hey MRG, need your help on something. Was planning on writing up Gene Bearden for my long-term project when, lo and behold, the text sounded suspicious to me. I plugged it in the duplication detector and found a copyvio, which became complete once I plugged in the very first revision from March 2004 (obit from associated press was copypasted, so no reverse copy). The question I have is, should I just delete it and start from scratch, or work with what I have and simply revdel the edits? I'm thinking the former just because of how engrained the text is; the only couple sentence I know are okay are the ones I just added. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Just got informed of the break, as well as now seeing the message above. I went ahead and deleted/created a stub. Still though, it frightens me that there was an eight-year copyvio on an article I've read a few times before. It legitimately hurt me when I saw that... I'm sure you've had your fair share of copyright issues that lasted a ridculously long time, but even so. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. :) That sounds like the best approach, but how awful. :( I can't say that I've never seen one that old, but it's possible that you may have the record for "oldest copyvio spotted in the wild". The older ones I find are often in CCIs. What really hurts me is all the people whose subsequent contributions are lost, wasting time polishing what we can't keep. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I can agree with that, having once spent nearly two hours copyediting and cleaning up a massive article. Only then did I discover that it was a complete cut&paste copyright violation, so I ended up removing most of text. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. :( Heart goes out to you! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 05:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You haven't gotten rid of Drmies yet... ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So noted. But I categorically deny that this constitutes due notice. ;) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

‎John D. Caputo bibliography

Hi MRG! A significant section of this article had been blanked for copyvio as it duplicated the list from here. (See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 September 4). Following another query at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 September 12, I've looked into it. I read your reply to a query about it last August [14]). It seems to me that the original source was meant to be a complete list of publications and it is categorised only by obvious criteria, i.e. decade of publication. There is no commentary on the original list, just standard bibliographic information. On that basis, I removed the copyvio tag, added the source for the list, and put a note on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that's the right approach. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Advance notice

You may be hearing from the BGS or various people about Bedrock Geology UK North. I deleted it as a precaution, and tried to explain and referred them to you as a real expert (unlike me...). One of those simple cases involving someone saying permission has been given to someone, and involving fair use. You know the sort of thing... Peridon (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. :) I'll keep an eye out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Cade McNown

Hi--we spoke before about an image for Cade McNown. He has located an image that he owns that he would like to use. Now, how do I go about getting it uploaded without running afoul of copyright issues. I've looked at the article about donating images, and I just want to make sure I'm clear. Since I'm working for his editor, can I upload it for him, or does it absolutely have to come from him? Even if he give me his proxy? I'd appreciate any help you can give me on this. Thanks! Alex. Alexwillis (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Who owns the copyright in the image; not the physical picture, but the copyright? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

He does. He acquired the copyright from the UCLA Athletic Department, where he was playing at the time the picture was taken.Alexwillis (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Mike asked exactly the right question, and the question he's likely to be asked if he claims copyright is how. Was copyright transferred in writing by the photographer? In U.S. law, copyright defaults to the creator in almost all circumstances. If you are able to verify that he received a legal transfer to the copyright, then you can certainly upload it for him, but he should be the one to contact the Wikimedia Foundation with the license found at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Please be sure that he explains how he, the subject of the photograph, came to acquire the copyright. :) (And hi, Mike! Good to see you. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's great. Not to seem stupid, but I just want to clarify, so I don't have to keep going back and forth. So if I take the text at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries and modify it appropriately--send it to him with notes on what he needs to clarify (i.e., explanation of how he acquired the copyright), and then he sends it, with the image, to the email address specified, then we should be good on the copyright issues, right? (Barring any confirmation of identity, etc.). Will the email response team then make the image available in Wikipedia Commons? Or will I need to upload it separately? And if I need to do is separately, should I wait until after all this is cleared up? Thank you so much for all your help!! Alex. Alexwillis (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay! I overlooked this. Yes, if he is able to explain how he acquired copyright and gives a clear and appropriate license, the OTRS team should log it for use. It's easier if you upload the image separately and give them the URL to it. Once you have permission, you put it on Commons and add this template: {{subst:OP}}. I assume you're familiar with templates, but just in case not, you have to add the curly brackets and all. :) That will automatically add the note Commons:Template:OTRS pending. (Please note that this template is different on Wikipedia than Commons; it will not act the same at all if you try to use it here. :D) This will help avoid premature deletion of the image while the permission is being processed. Once it is properly logged, the OTRS agent who handles it will replace that tag with a tag identifying the ticket number of the correspondence and verifying the license. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment?

Hi. I was wondering if you'd mind commenting at Talk:God_Forgives,_I_Don't#POV_changes? I'm having a dispute with an editor over his removal of review content that he perceives as negative. Basically a fan who doesnt want to communicate in good faith. Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dan. Sorry; I've been away. :) But I see that User:Dennis Brown stepped in with an excellent outside opinion, and it seems that this may be resolved? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

PD-US question

I know you don't know as much about images as text, but I'm curious as to your thoughts on this. Is every photograph taken by a sailor while at sea considered public domain or is the image only public domain if it is taken in that sailor's official capacity. Ryan Vesey 23:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For {{PD-USGov}} it's "works prepared by an officer or employee of the u.s. Government as part of that person's official duties" that determines it. I've never been a sailor so I can't speak to how their official duties are spelled out, but I imagine most photos taken off duty would be copyrighted. Photos taken off-duty by seamen whose job entails taking photographs gets into murky waters (so to speak), as does photos taken while on-duty by seamen whether it's their usual job or not. Obviously if you're concerned with a particular image, more details would be better. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I tend to like starting in the hypothetical. The specific image is File:USSOglethorpe.jpg. Ryan Vesey 00:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I took a look at it last night. I'll weigh in at the PUF listing sometime this weekend. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

wanttoknow.info

Basically seems to be a copyvio archive. Ran into it when dealing with a pov editor, then found The Power of Nightmares which uses its copy of a BBC transcript as a major source. Used in maybe 13 articles and a number of talk pages[15]. Can we blacklist it do you think? Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty good idea to me. While it's lovely to have access to sources, our desire to have them doesn't make WP:LINKVIO okay. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Alleged plagiarism

Might I draw your attention to this exchange? Nostoc commune is the article in question. You are probably better at spotting plagiarism than I am... T. Canens (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to weigh in, but it looks like the discussion is archived. Do you know where it is?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't archived, just removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I wasn't seeing the plagiarism, and I looked fairly closely. I'm concerned about whether MicrobeWiki can be used as a reference, so I posted at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#MicrobeWiki.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Sphilbrick, for looking into it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Search, excluding forks and mirrors?

Checking a CCI for a dated article is so discouraging, because a search for a phrase brings up so many hits, most of which are forks or mirrors.

I'll ask the obvious—in fact, so obvious, I fear I've asked before and simply have forgotten the answer:

Wouldn't it be nice if we (on our own, or with help from Google) could create a customized search option which excludes all known mirrors and forks?

As a side benefit, it would be an easy way to identify new mirrors and forks not already in the list, but it would help identify whether a phrase exists in some source other than ones copied from us.

My guess is that you aren't involved in the technical side of things, so wouldn't be the right person to implement it, but if the subject has been kicked around, I assume you would have been notified, so I checking to see if you know of a discussion, which might persuade me it is harder than I think, and thus should be abandoned, or perhaps it is feasible, and just needs some support.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

We used to have something like, with User:EarwigBot. It was affected by the change in terms at Google or Yahoo or whichever it was that originally stopped CSB in its tracks. I haven't actually tested it in quite some time, so I don't know its status now.
Other than that, yes, it would be lovely. :) But, alas, I have no idea how hard or easy such things are to do. Being distinctly non-techy, I put all such thoughts into the realm of equally unattainable. I've asked for things before that I thought would be very hard only to find out it was easy...and vice versa! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I had sort of forgotten about the earwig tool, because it wasn't available for some time. It appears to be running, but I have some concerns. I tried Slepian–Wolf coding, and it found no violations. I don't expect it to know which came first, but I am surprised it didn't find Slepian-Wolf_coding. Only one data point, but doesn't give me confidence. I'll see if I can reach the author.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! ZEXAL II

this article has been copied word for word from the official website! I've CSD tagged it Moon --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 16:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) The source in this case is compatibly licensed, but I see that attribution requirements of Wikipedia:Plagiarism are not met, and there's been some cut and paste moves to address. I think I've mopped up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

File:EllisonsFantasticPit.jpg

File:EllisonsFantasticPit.jpg
Nice image

Nice image, but doesn't seem to meet NFCC. Could you or one of the attending talk page stalkers have a look? JN466 13:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Resin bound paving

Hello again! I have another questionable copyright issue. The article Resin bound paving is mostly a cut and paste of this article. I think it should be deleted and then redirected to Permeable_paving#Resin_bound_paving. Of course, the site may have copied it from here. :\ So I figured I would call a friend. Thanks!!--intelati/talk 21:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Good instincts. I'm pretty sure they copied from us. This is our original version as of June 2008. It was significantly expanded in November 2009. The external source includes both the original sentence and some of the new content. That material was cleaned up in June 2010. At some point after that, the site identified seems to have used the content in forming their own page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

hello. Here again with a copyvio question. Not sure how to handle El Museo del Barrio which is lifted directly from their website. Specifically here. It's also far more promotional than an article should be . That said, don't know if G:11 or 12 apply to a long standing article. Do you have any guidance here? As it's not actually sourced I wouldn't mind wiping it and starting anew, but don't know if that's kosher in this situation. Thanks in advance for any guidance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs) 20 September 2012‎

Hi. :) Neither G11 nor G12 work when there are clean versions in history, and in this case, we've got some basic information dating back to 2005. When a copy-paste is not easily excised, you certainly have the option to rewrite it boldly or to revert back to the last clean version - an approach recommended by policy at Wikipedia:Copyright violations and what I went ahead and implemented. The article could still use a thorough rewrite, if you feel up for it. It's all sourced to primary sources. But I don't think the text is copied now. :) The article was hijacked in February 2011, almost certainly by an employee of the museum. And I agree that it was much too promotional. (If you come upon a lousy article, with or without copyright problems, you are always welcome to start it over in accordance with WP:BOLD. I do recommend checking edit history and talk page first, though, to make sure that there aren't interested contributors whom you should approach at the talk page first. In this case, there's no sign of that at all.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, as always, for the help and advice. Have my work cut out for me, but that's much better than that sad brochure masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Have a great weekend. StarM 02:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Cleaned up, at least a start. I think there are enough secondary sources to warrant removing the primary tag - please let me know if you think I should add it back. Thanks again StarM 03:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a good direction. :) Thanks for taking the time. And I see diverse sources there, so, of course, tag is no longer needed. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again! Enjoy the rest of your weekend

ISO standards

Hi. If we suspect copyvio, run a Google search on a likely phrase, and a hit suggests it might be copy-pasted from an ISO standard that we can't afford to download, what's the best procedure to follow? Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I frequently base this on how much matched text I can find or contextual clues. If the likelihood of copying is strong, I will usually either presumptively remove it or flag it with the copyvio template. I may ask at WP:RX if anybody can view the original. But, like with sock puppetry investigations, sometimes "quacking" is strong enough not to require that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Independence_Day_(Pakistan)#Images

There are copyright issues regarding use of this image. I went to IRC and took some help. legoktm, stated that the material was copyrighted by govt. as it was used in 1997, however, we are not able to find any such policy by the govt of Pak. Your name was pointed out so would like to know your views regarding the issue. The main question is wheather the image should be included in the article or not? I'm planning for a FAC so the problem should be resolved and your help would be appreciated. Thanks! TheSpecialUser TSU 02:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I have some concerns about it. Deletion discussions can take months, but I've put the preliminary question at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Currency in Pakistan. If they tell me that Pakistan currency is not free, or if they cannot verify that it is, I will nominate these images for deletion on commons, and you'd be better off removing them from the article before the FAC. If they tell me it's okay, well, we'll know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help :) TheSpecialUser TSU 16:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Salting != 6months

Well, after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examsguru was recreated 3 times, what was the point in "salting" it... for only 6 months? They just recreated Examsguru a 4th time when it expired, and they'll keep at it until the cows come home: Wikipedia is SEO gold, they say. "Salting" = permanent, not 6 months. 62.147.8.77 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd only be speculating, but unlike some names which are unlikely to ever be article names, this one has the potential of being legitimate, if the right person does the article in the right way. I also think some people trying to make a bogus article do get bored, so a time-limited slating could be effective. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here, so perhaps it is time for a longer, perhaps unlimited salting, on the assumption that if someone wants to do it legitimately, all they have to do is ask and it can be reversed. However, I don't know all the history, so I may be missing something.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing at WP:Salting to even hint that it's permanent. :) Temporary salting may be sufficient if it is long enough to break the cycle of disruption, as Sphilbrick notes. Most of the time I've done it, it works just fine in the short term. In this case, though, they are laying claim to new bases for notability. Four of the sources in the article did not exist at the time of its AFD. I have some doubts about the reliability of some of those sources, and I doubt that being one of a billion (give or take) finalists for the 2012 Red Herring 100 Asia Award confers that much notability. But circumstances do change. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maggie,

I realize this is Copyright 101 for you, but I wanted to make sure that I had this right:

If I want to use an image from Commons that is GFDL only (uploaded pre-dual-licensing conversion), in a PowerPoint-type presentation at work (definitely commercial use, but not something being sold), is that okay? Do the GFDL images need to be handled differently than the dual-licensed images? Does it matter whether it's an internal presentation or "published" to customers or others? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I have to start off with the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer and I can't give you legal advice. Nobody can here; not even the Foundation lawyers. You know that. But I need to say it. :D That out of the way, I'm happy to share my opinions with you and how I would handle it.
GFDL license permits the same kind of use that CC-By-SA does, so commercial reuse is definitely okay. The challenge for reusing any GFDL item is the requirement to include the full legal code. It matters less who will be able to access the presentation than the form in which it is presented, I believe.
If I wanted to display a GFDL image in a PowerPoint presentation, of which there were no printed copies, I think what I would do, based on my reading of Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, is place this text on the image page:
Copyright (c) YEAR ATTRIBUTION. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this image under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is available at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html and by request of presenter.
Then I would have a copy of the license for examination by anybody who requests it.
If the presentation were to be printed, I would replace the final sentence with A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License". Then I would attach it as an appendix. If the printed presentation cannot deviate from the one displayed, I might adjust the language accordingly, maybe like A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License" and can also be accessed at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html.
As I read it, FSF very kindly anticipated updates to their license from the beginning, so GFDL has always been forward migratory. The license includes the following text: "Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License 'or any later version' applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation." If the GFDL is non-specific, I would stick with 1.3. If it is specific and does not specify "or any later version", I'd alter my language accordingly and point to 1.1 or 1.2, as appropriate. It's still forwards compatible, but there's no reason not to be accurate. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick and enlightening response. I'd summarize it as "you didn't really want to use these images after all". But I'll keep your suggestion handy, because it looks like a good way to handle it if it can't be avoided gracefully. Thanks again, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User:VFair

Don't waste too much time trying to teach this new editor the ropes - he's actually been around for quite some time. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne. JohnInDC (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you opine on User talk:Tijfo098#Question? Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Etymology of "wuss"

In Cherokee, a language which does not have a 'p' sound, the English "pussy" (meaning cat) became "wesa"; so the etymology is not all that far-fetched. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. That's interesting. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Association for Politics and the Life Sciences

I have a feeling this was copied from somewhere, although maybe it was just written by a PR person. It contains writing like "APLS welcomes all those interested in exploring the intersection between politics and the life sciences; especially in the areas of: political behavior, public policy, and ethics. The APLS welcomes not only those who hope to further advance research and teaching in these vital new areas, but also those engaged in public policy." They read like some cut-and-paste from a mission statement from somewhere. It's not online though. Any ideas? It looks it was written by the webmaster of ALPS [16]. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's always difficult. What I would usually recommend there is putting {{cv-unsure}} at the article's talk page. This gives editors a heads up that you have some doubts and asks anyone who finds a source to flag the content. Without a source or other strong suggestion of copying (like a history of it), I think that's all we can do, since as you mention it could just be written by a PR person.
That said, there's also nothing wrong with trimming the promotional content to the bone. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Omdo

User:Omdo came right off the block that you applied for edit warring that was raised at AN/I and went straight ahead to make his changes again to Sabah, again without a talkpage post, and without even edit summaries. Clearly the 24hrs did not leave an impression. CMD (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Blocked for 48 hours. Cautioned that if he resumes edit warring again, the blocks will continue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Franz Kafka copying

Hi MRG...Gerda Arendt and I have been working on Franz Kafka for two months and hope to take to FAC soon. While working on it, I was trying to find sources for several sections that had no source. I found many seemed to come from an ebook from eBookEden. I used it as a source thinking since it was a book it was ok. Then I became suspicious---did prior editors use it as a source or did the writer of the ebook use wiki as a source? Then during the peer review, which I just closed, Truthkeeper88 said she was suspicious of this too. We can't tell what's going on. See TK's part of the PR (at the bottom) and the Kafka PR thread at User_talk:Truthkeeper88. Gerda and I want this to be as good as we and helpers can make. We absolutely do NOT want it tainted in any way. My plan, unless you advise otherwise, is to rewrite sections using that source and find solid sources. Please put your final findings on the talk page of the Kafka article. I will help as much as possible, but I don't know for sure what to do and face it, I'm not an expert in this area. Can you help? Gerda, TK, and I would really appreciate it. PumpkinSky talk 23:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and sure! :) Looking into it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, first thing I see is that the publisher is eBookEden; this is good news. See Mirrors and forks. But just to be absolutely sure, I traced the influx of content visible on the page linked by Truthkeeper (thans, TK!) at [17] as well as the first page. I searched for the phrase 'major fiction writers' from their lead (which is tellingly familiar in configuration to our "house style"): this phrase entered into our article in September 2008 when an IP removed the word German from "major German fiction writers". The rest of the lead is either identical or very close to the first page of that publication. This is a good sign of "natural evolution" since it is unlikely that somebody copied their text, but added the word "German" - which somebody else later removed. I then did a search for "eponymous author", a line used to describe Jeremy Iron's role. This was inserted in April 2004 with very different language. Notice how significantly different the page was then from the rest of the eBookEden. Just to nail it completely, I looked at a significant addition of text dating after the phrase "major fiction writers" entered, and found this December 2008 edit. This content is present in the eBookEden as well. These are clear signs that the content evolved here naturally. This is a {{backwardscopy}}. And most definitely not a reliable source. This publisher shouldn't be used for anything on Wikipedia per WP:CIRCULAR. :/ (putting this on the article talk page, too). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've got usage of that ref down to a dual use of one page. See post I just made on TK's page.PumpkinSky talk 10:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Just read your analysis on Talk:Franz Kafka. See my response there and many thanks! PumpkinSky talk 10:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
We think we have another one. Sigh. See TK's 00:47 edit at User_talk:Truthkeeper88#Kafka_PR. PumpkinSky talk 01:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 18:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Could you take a look at this asap? Someone's objecting to blacklisting on the spam blacklist. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair use text on main page

This DYK nom is using a very small portion of text from the book. Is that kosher? I raised the question here. Ryan Vesey 21:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting one. I think probably it's okay since it's a brief snippet that is attributed inline (author and book) and it's not being used out of context but as part of a sentence. Policy does require an inline citation with every quote, but given those facts I would not myself object. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Ryan Vesey 22:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Pavitra Rishta

On 21 May you removed a copyright violation from Pavitra Rishta. It's not clear to me what prior version of the page (if any) you reverted to. Do you recall? I am asking because this version (much of whose text persists in the current version of the article) contains the same text as http://hindiserials.tv/page/27/ which is dated 21 March 2012. Unless the restored version of the article predates this, it is probably itself a copyvio. I did many spot-checks of the article's history but could not find the suspicious text; perhaps the revisions were deleted. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like I was interrupted with that. :/ In spite of my usual "see talk", there's nothing at the talk, not even a {{Plot2}}. The revisions would not have been deleted. It's quite likely that I wrote it myself; when I restore older content, I try to say so (although since I left no note at the talk, I'm not sure if I had intended to say so). I occasionally address copyvio plots in that way. (I would simply assume I did this, except "In this she happily fails" doesn't sound like me. That doesn't mean I didn't write it, though. :D) That said, I can't account for the dating of that external site. Perhaps the poster went back and altered the post? Because there's no archived version, there's no way to tell. :/ The writing style of the post above it - purportedly written on the same day - differs so substantially that it's hard to imagine that the same person could have written it:

he serial About the Gurmeet nd Kratika back On TV In the serial Gurmeet Name Is Siddharth And Kratika Name Is Smriti . Preview Gurmeet and Kratika back on TV with Shashi-Sumeet Mittal’s next on Zee TV….. Here is some exclusive news from the house of Tellychakkar.com. TV fans wept when Star One’s Geet went off air in the month of December last year.

(The latter half of that post comes from [18]) Two posts above come from [19].
If there weren't a billion posts in that article, I'd search the history, but given my usual practices I will default to the presumption that I wrote it myself. I think for obvious reasons I'd have to recuse from handling it. :) Feel free to remove or rewrite it, if you think appropriate, or to ask another copyright admin to make the call. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I never assumed that hindiserials.tv was the original source of the text—as I suppose you also concluded, it's one of a large number of "blogs" which simply copy and paste episode summaries from other sources, possibly in hopes of generating advertising revenue from search hits—but I had assumed that at least the dates of the entries were correct, which would serve to establish the relative chronology of the material. But I'd sooner trust your assumptions about writing the material yourself than the accuracy of the date stamp on the site of a random fan or spammer. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Kafka redux

Hi MRG: can you look at this possible issue: See TK's 00:47 edit at User_talk:Truthkeeper88#Kafka_PR. It'd be much appreciated. PumpkinSky talk 13:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) That one is a little bit easier, courtesy of the wayback machine. We can see the seeds of "corresponding, during that period" at June 2006. That content is not present in the external site at June 2006, nor in July 2006. The earliest archived version that features this content is January 2007. If we compare the June 2006 and December 2006 versions of the article, we can see some evolution has made it into the external site: "Those performances, also served as a starting point for the growing of his closer relation with judaism" becomes "Those performances also served as a starting point for his growing relationship with Judaism" for example. The later version appears in the external site. "Over the next five years they corresponded a great deal, met occasionally, and were engaged to be married twice. The relationship finally ended in 1917" becomes "Over the next five years they corresponded a great deal, met occasionally, and twice were engaged to be married. Their relationship finally ended in 1917". The later version appears in the external site. So he's right; it's a circular source. I'll put the {{backwardscopy}} at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
So this ext site was copying wiki or copying went both ways? Do we need to excise anything from the current article version? PumpkinSky talk 13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Unless there's reason to believe copying went both ways, I'd just eliminate them as a source and retain the content, assuming it can be reliably sourced. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Rgr, working on that now. Many thanks. PumpkinSky talk 13:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Monty845 15:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wanttoknow.info

Thanks. I should have reminded you about this [20] and pointed you to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#wanttoknow.info where your comments might be useful in getting this blacklisted. Sorry I forgot, I couldn't expect you to remember with your busy talk page! Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) If there's no further objection at your talk page or elsewhere, I'll just add it myself. Presuming I can remember how to do that. :D It's been a while. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
It's been done, but following up on the suggestion at the Spam-blacklist page I've requested a global block at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

An article was tagged as G12. As I note on the talk page, I don't think this is right (although issues remain)

The purported source was this Google page. It clearly has a copyright notice, although the material is a copy of the patent application, which I believe is not subject to copyright, if I'm reading this source correctly:

Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s) , the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions.

I think the article SIM connector has other issues, but I'm guessing you have run into patents before - is it simply the case that Google is automatically slapping a copyright notice on all their pages? Can I ignore the copyright notice on the Google page, if it is plausible that the material came from the non-copyrighted Patent application? (I do realize there are referencing issues even with pd material, but want to get some feedback on the Google use of a copyright notice on their patent page.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. :) I don't think I've ever encountered that. And, fun! Some research this morning. :)
Many websites just have copyright notices in their footers for every page, as you suggest. What matters is the content. Here, the plainly acknowledge the origin, just so we know that Google isn't planning to leap forward to claim ownership of the material. :)
Reading through the uspto copyright page, I find it frustrating that their links to the limited exceptions are dead. :/ (And I see that the drawings may be nuanced.) But thanks to the web, I've found it anyway: 37 CFR 1.71. This sets out at (d) and (e) the specific features a patent application must include to warrant copyright problems. There must be according to (d) a clear copyright notice and (e) specific authorization language. 1.84 deals specifically with the art, but sets out the same requirements.
Even though the uspto copyright page includes this language - "There are also instances where a portion of the text or drawings of a patent may be under copyright. You should consult an attorney regarding these potential trademark and copyright issues. The USPTO will not assist in determining if a potential trademark issue or copyright issue exists for a particular patent." - I think we can safely assume that in the absence of both a copyright mark and that language, the patent text at least is not subject to copyright restrictions. There may be trademark issues in the drawings, which would warrant a deeper investigation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the usual in-depth answer. The article in question didn't attempt to incorporate the images, so the issue is moot in this particular case, but I'll try to remember in the future, that the rough rule of thumb "Text in the probably is probably OK if there's no copyright notice" is limited to text, and not necessarily images. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Jan Ehrenwald

Is it my imagination or is this copyvio from [21]? See WP:FTN where GreenUniverse is mentioned, and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/GreenUniverse. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No its not from answers.com i found the information on here article I am not "GreenUniverse", the user IRWolfie has already opened up an SPI against me apparently his evidence is that i spelt becuase wrong. I have tried to explain to him that I am trying to clear up some of the psi articles as many names appear red on them, that why I created the Ehrenwald one but he doesn't listen and is saying I am a duck of GreenUniverse and involved in copyright theft. I have only been on wikipedia a few days and all these wild accusation are stupid. Ghosts Ghouls (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This account has a startling ability to find posts about him nearly instantly. He's also starting to hound me, turning up at articles unrelated to this to attack me: [22] IRWolfie- (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Ghosts Ghouls turns out to have been a sock, article deleted. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Body piercing

Ok. Thx a lot. --Mika58 (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Daimler

Unfortunately your doctrinaire decision does not fit the circumstances. Most North American (well USA) readers will now once again come to the end of that page and say to themselves. "Yeah, just as we thought, its German". Daimler is, I believe, not even a recognized surname, but a variation coined by Gottlieb Daimler for himself. Now, mind if I change it back again?

I await your thoughts with much interest. Eddaido (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've replied at the talk page. I'll be happy to continue our conversation there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?

You rock! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you're on. Could you revdelete from this revision to this revision? For some reason my revdel button isn't working. Copyvio issues — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well...

FYI: Please see: user talk:Kudpung#Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations - should we edit the policy to talk more about revdel?

MRG, I started crafting a proposal for the talk page of Wikipedia:Copyright violations, but the more I wrote, the more I realize it would be good to get some feedback form you before posting this there. At a minimum, I'd like to make sure I have my history correct, and I'd like your insight on whether the whole proposal makes sense, or if there is another option.

Proposed post:

In the third to last paragraph of the section Dealing with copyright violations it states:


If all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable, check the page history; if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version.


I do not disagree, however, it is becoming more standard to revdel the offending versions. I don't think being Bold and making a change without discussion is appropriate for two reasons:

  1. This is a Policy, and other than obvious typos, I think all changes to Policies should arise form consensus, not a single editor's position.
  2. While it is my understanding that the practice to revdel is becoming more common, I don't believe it is universal, so I want to make sure we word any change carefully, especially in light of legal considerations.

Some issues to consider:

  • Should it be policy to do so in all cases (which might be problematic, as I don't believe it is close to universal.)
  • Should it be identified as a useful, but not mandatory practice? If so, how do we justify leaving copyvios in history?
  • Should we articulate situations where it is required versus situations where it is optional?
  • Should we simply remind admins that it is now an option? (Before revdel existed, the intervening copyvios could be removed, but it was much more arduous, so reserved for special situations; now that revdel exists, the process is easier.)

--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that it would be good to explain the practice better. There's a little bit at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/Advice_for_admins, but not much. My thoughts on your issues: (1) it should not be policy to do so in all cases, but should be situational and sometimes common sense; (2) I'd go with potentially useful, but not mandatory. I understand that the content in history is not regarded as a legal risk unless it is restored - my main concern is with people who may restore it inadvertently or mulishly. I've seen both happen, plenty. :/ (3) It's never required; in the event of a DMCA take-down, the content will be deleted by office action. But it's probably a good idea to explain when it may be useful. (4) Reminding them that is an option is not a bad idea; maybe we should point to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/Advice_for_admins? Sorry for being rushed. :) I've got to get back to work! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks muchly:) I'll come up with a rewrite. Based upon your response, I feel much better - I thought we might have a risk even when in history, you've clarified that the risk is indirect, because of the possibility of restoration. I was very chary of proposing changes to policy without in depth discussion, but it now appears that a formal change to policy is not needed, we simply need some language pointing letting them know of the option. I'll rewrite.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Triumph Owners Motor Cycle Club

Please can you restore Triumph Owners Motor Cycle Club into my sandbox so that I can address the copyvio issues and re-publish the article? --Biker Biker (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) While it would be great to get that rewritten, I can't userfy a copyvio. :/ There are other alternatives. I can restore it in place, with the template on it for a bit longer if you'd like to rewrite it in the temp space supplied. I'd ask you to let me know when you finish it, please, so I can clean it up. That one was sitting for almost three months after it was tagged without attention. :( Or I can userfy the apparatus - the sources and the infobox and the "see alsos" that kind of thing, without the text. (There's not a lot of text.) That would let you develop it at your leisure. Which would best suit you and your timeline? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Please restore the whole thing in place and I'll sort it within 24 hours then let you know. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Happily. :) We can certainly give it more than 24 hours, though. It was already up for three months; another week won't kill anything. :D Please do let me know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I did an initial fix, mostly paraphrasing. Please review and if you find it acceptable then remove the copyright violation notice and I will do more work on making it a more substantial article.
That was quick! I think the beginning was probably still a bit too close. I mixed it up by altering the lead sentence to something more like our house style anyway, using it to explaining what it is rather than when it was founded and by whom. Thanks for saving it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ref desk question that needs attention

Hi. I've just deleted a question and response on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science [23], per Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. I'm not sure of the best way to proceed further- whether it is necessary to contact the foundation over this one, whether the edits need redaction etc? ITtis probably just trolling, but I'm neither qualified nor empowered to make such judgements. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take it on. :) If it qualifies for the emergency system, I'll shepherd it through. Thanks, Andy! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been in touch with the contributor who responded to the question, and we've been discussing the issue (and our subsequent misunderstanding - partly my fault) on my talk page at User_talk:AndyTheGrump#Reference_desk.2FScience_Question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Cade McNown

Hi! I'm back again. Cade McNown sent the email as you recommended. Ticket#2012100110010847. The response was negative. I can copy the text of the whole email if you'd like to see it, but the important point was "We have not been able to validate this authorization at this time, because we are unable to be sure that you are the copyright holder of the file."

What would be your recommendation as a next step? The recommendations in the email included amending the website associated with the image (not relevant, as he doesn't have one) and registering the image with a copyright service (seems a little extreme). Are there any other avenues I could pursue?

I really appreciate all your help on this. Thanks! Alexwillis (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've reviewed the ticket; sorry for the complication. :/ Has the image in question been published elsewhere? Is it possible to have the photographer write in to confirm copyright? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll check. Thanks! 03:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Alexwillis (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Also.....can I ask again about "fair use"? He is retired, after all..... Alexwillis (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would do better to defer you with that one to WT:NFC to get opinions there. Sometimes images are accepted for people when they are retired "whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance". I have a hard time seeing that applying to an athlete (for me, that would probably mean a model and maybe actors), but I've seen it used for rock stars as well. It's possible that others will think it's okay for a sports figure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This might be tricky

There's a discussion at Talk:Zoological_conspiracy_theories_(Israel_related)#Shark_rewrite whether linking to videoclips posted on the youtube channel of MEMRI is appropriate or not with respect to potential copyright violations by them. Perhaps you can help illuminate that aspect? Tijfo098 (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This may well be tricky. :/ News footage can be legally protected by copyright; if they are reproducing somebody else's news footage, even if they are subtitling it, there may well be copyright issues if the content is not licensed...but only if it's from a country with which the US has copyright relations (see Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Countries without copyright relations with the United States). Only a court can determine when copyright infringement exists; there may be defenses they could sustain even if making unauthorized derivatives of foreign interviews and news footage. I have tried to do a general internet search to see if I can find anything about MEMRI and copyright, but what I found is pretty clearly not a RS ([24]) Is it at all possible to link to the originals? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Probably not replaceable with another web link because the clips are generally from pretty obscure shows in Arab media. I see that the country in question in this case, Egypt, does have a copyright agreement with the US. Given that MEMRI has been accused of pro-Israeli bias, I find it unlikely the Arab media would have granted them redistribution rights for the relatively lengthy clips that MEMRI posts on their channel. The one in question here is about 4 minutes long (although presumably from a talk show that was an hour long or so, although I suspect the "famous diver" didn't get a full hour for himself). I also suspect that the Arab media probably can't be bothered to send DMCA requests to youtube, assuming they even know. ¶ I don't know if the translated clip would qualify for fair use though. The newspaper quotes from the "famous diver" have been generally much shorter (a sentence or two) than the exchange in the clip (if it were transcribed). It's true that the clip does provoke a smirk (at least in me) due to the roundabout way the diver guy goes about advancing his theory. And the moderator surely has his part in that. But alas no secondary source has commented on those issues; that's just my WP:OR. It's not possible to say that the clip is subject to commentary in some sources more than the much shorter quotes (from the diver guy) which appeared in the printed press. Since we generally prefer the least infringing method of quoting someone, it seems to me that there's no compelling argument to link to that clip on fair use grounds. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the last link you gave actually does say something about copyright, and it's what I expected:

No comment needed, assuming it's a real interview; that page you linked to looks like a copyvio itself, because I found [25]: "Lawrence Swaim is the Executive Director of the Inerfaith Freedom Foundation. He taught for eight years at Pacific Union College, and his academic specialities are American Studies and American literature. His column address current affairs from a progressive Christian and Interfaith perspective. His column is reprinted with permission of InFocus, California's largest Muslim newspaper" on another site. So apparently it was initially published in Southern California InFocus, which looks less creepy than that website you found. And this a bit of background on Swaim, in his own words, which makes it somewhat plausible that Carmon would have agreed to be interviewed/quoted by Swaim. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, translation is a derivative work under definition of US law. If they have not licensed the original content (assuming it originates in a country with which the US has copyright relations), their hosting of those videos may well be a copyright issue. What I was trying to find out, really, was whether or not they've licensed the content.I'm not sure how good a fair use case they can make without critical commentary about the material; its usage doesn't seem transformative to me. I would not myself be comfortable posting those videos in accordance with WP:LINKVIO. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Conk 9? Well, a sock puppet of [[User talk:Conk 9 has returned as User talk:GoUrban.

  1. His IP is the same. An autoblock caught him, but it was lifted.
  2. He's tried other sock at User talk:Jcon9.
  3. Both have same editing areas of buildings and sights around Hampton Roads, Virginia and Pittsburgh. See especially GoUrban's re-creation of Norfolk Southern Tower and Bank of America Center (Norfolk), both of which had been previously created by Conk 9.
  4. Both have uploaded strikingly similar images File:BankofAmericaCenterNorfolk.JPG versus File:DowntownNorfolk1.JPG. It's even the same camera style seen in the CCI.
  5. Both had no userpage.

I spent a long time cleaning up this guy's copyvios, and I'd hate to see him introduce more and more copyvios. Would you agree that we have a WP:DUCK here?--GrapedApe (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Well, first, SPI is not at all my thing. There are a couple of sock puppeteers I watch out for, but mostly I list them myself at WP:SPI because I like an admin with more experience there to evaluate before blocking. In this case, I think you present a really strong case. The question is how best to handle it. Conk 9's copyright issues were related to images. I see only one image uploaded by GoUrban. If he's staying away from the problem area, maybe the best way to handle it would be to erase the subterfuge, openly connect the contributors and seek an image upload ban (or impose a "pre-screen" via an experienced editor)? Are you aware of any other problems with Conk 9's work? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, GoUrban has uploaded images at commons. File:NorfolkMontage2011.jpg is particularly suspicious.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that's a whole different kettle of fish. :/ Commons doesn't recognize our sanctions anyway, although of course as we have shared goals they do sometimes impose sanctions of their own on contributors sanctioned here. Some of those images have consistent metadata, and some of them have no metadata at all (Commons:File:Olde Towne Portsmouth VA.jpg). It's possible that they don't have metadata because he snagged them from his Facebook? I don't know. Images are not really my area. But the one you flag as particularly suspicious is a concern.
I see a couple of possibilities here. First, I can go to Commons and ask him to identify the individual images that make up that montage. If he cannot, I will nominate it for deletion. Alternatively, on the basis of his history, I can nominate the image for deletion straightaway. Or, I can go to the Administrator's Noticeboard there and alert Common's admins to the issues (prior history of copyvios; indef block on Wikipedia) and ask them to look into it. (I'm not an admin on Commons.)
You did great work at that CCI, in terms of meticulously evaluating the data and cleaning up after him, and I certainly understand your wish not to see it happen again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

First, thanks for the several resources you've assembled here.

I have a question concerning wikipedia's stance on the use of facsimile editions. As an example, a particular book (Hariot's Virginia) was published in 1588. The History Book Club issued a facsimile edition (effectively a photographic reproduction of each of the pages of the 1588 edition) in 1951. There is no copyright notice in the 1951 edition.

Based on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., my understanding is that I'm able to scan both text and images from this book and upload them to Wikipedia as being in the public domain: the History Book Club did not add sufficient creativity (as defined by Bridgeman) in creating the facsimile, nor did I in creating a scan, for any copyright to accrue.

While I think this is a legally conservative position, I wanted to check in to see if this was Wikipedia policy as well.

I would appreciate any guidance you might offer.

Best,

GaramondLethe 19:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm happy if I've been helpful. :) I can't give legal advice for multiple reasons, including that I'm not a lawyer and that if I'm wrong I wouldn't be the one to suffer, but I would myself feel entirely comfortable scanning text and images from a faithful facsimile reproduction, as long as there are no creative flourishes that might attract copyright as a derivative work. I would upload them on Commons, using {{PD-old-100}}, and explain both the source details on the original and the facsimile, noting that the facsimile is faithful. If you prefer to upload them here, you can: {{PD-old}} would apply. There is precedent; see, for example, Commons:Category:First Folio. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comprehensive answer. I'd like this to be recorded somewhere other than your talk page archive, but I'm not sure the WP:Copyright FAQ is the best place (the question isn't exactly frequent). Not sure it deserves its own page, either. If you have a suggestion as to where to put it I'd be happy to take the lead in crafting the text. GaramondLethe 16:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I would find it really useful to see a new template {{PD-Faithful-facsimile-old-100}} which really spelt out the reasoning above. Could that be taken into consideration at the same time. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I have no idea where we would gather brief answers to copyright questions, and while I would feel comfortable uploading such content myself would really suggest broader discussion before codifying it. :) I wonder if the folks at WP:MCQ would want to weigh in on whether or not a new template would be appropriate? Again, though, these would generally go on Commons, which would make it more of a Commons question. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Larix laricina

Hello Moonriddengirl. I'm trying to help a bit with the backlog of WP:CP. Please, could you check out my contributions to the article Larix laricina and my reviews at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 August 4? I searched for help at various guidelines and sites, however, the scale of problems I encountered at WP:CP is broad and I would like to know if I can continue. I apologize for bothering you and wasting your time ... but I think your advice could help. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please. :) Wanting to help out at WP:CP is never going to be bothering me and wasting my time. I'm delighted. That said, I will now go take a look at that day and that article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the day, it looks good to me. :) A few notes:
  • I messed up with American Society for the Judicial Settlement of International Disputes, as I thought putting in the "free=yes" parameter would keep it from listing at WP:CP. Since it evidently did not, I've removed the template after repairing the Wikipedia:Plagiarism issue with an attribution template. Probably need to look into the bot listing of "free=yes" templates.
  • I agree with you that Larix laricina seems to be a PD source, but not necessarily due to the statement you located. It does not explicitly authorize modification, and "public information" is distinct from "public domain" (Wikipedia:PD#Public records). There have been sources that have sought to allow distribution but to control change. When I see those kinds of statements, I take it as promising, but not 100% conclusive. But that's a US Federal Government website, and their publications are generally PD because they are produced by US government employees. Just to be 100% sure, I did a bit of poking into the specific publication and found this: "This work is within the Public Domain". Nailed. :)
  • Spot on with Types of capacitor.
Again, it looks good to me. I'm so very grateful for your taking some time to pitch in there. Whatever you want to give is desperately needed. :) And I welcome you to come by any time you want a second opinion or feedback on work there. I don't have as much time to pitch in at WP:CP as I used to (and feel kind of personally guilty about the backlog), but I'm still very interested in the work! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
With regards to the "free=no" parameter, I think that was a lack of documentation on the template. DpmukBOT only recognized (recognizes?) the similar and otherwise entirely undocumented and lacking any other effect "copyright=no" parameter. VWBot recognizes both now. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, awesome! Thanks, Verno. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. It looks even more complicated than I expected. Thanks for your offer of help Moonriddengirl. I'll continue :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Omdo again

Since the last unblock, Omdo has continued to make changes without talkpage discussion. After I explicitly noted on their talkpage that they needed to discuss things, this conversation emerged. As can be seen, there's no actual discussion, and the English used is as obtuse as the English used in articles. This suggests to me a competence issue of some sort, possibly language-related, despite their being able to write well enough to make a few beneficial edits. In my opinion Omdo is well past the point of being disruptive, despite their blocks, something made a more frustrating as they edit in places very few people do. As an admin who has previously blocked Omdo, are you able to take action, or do I have to report to another forum? Regards, CMD (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The language use there is a bit alarming. :/ He seems to be attempting to discuss issues, though. I think, though, that it is probably a matter beyond me. I am comfortable addressing edit warring and content dispute issues on occasion, but competence blocks are a pretty big deal. If he is capable of constructive contributions, maybe the thing to do is narrow down where the issue is and propose mentoring or limitations there? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion was an initial blunt statement that doesn't seem to have much relevance to the topic, a statement that we shouldn't get distracted from the topic, and then a disparagement to my common sense. After that another long blunt post which again explains nothing. It doesn't feel much like discussion to me, especially as none of the statements are in the most understandable of English. The problem of limitations is that all of their edits are on the same theme, that of Sabah and Sarawak. They seem to be a SPA pushing some personal viewpoint that Sabah and Sarawak are special, and trying to support this with a lot of primary documents. Their constructive contributions often become disruptive once they go past a certain point, and even then I often end up having to fix the English I can understand. I think that the only mentoring that could possibly work is one in their native language, which I assume is some form of Malay. CMD (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
If you think that mentorship is unlikely to help, probably the best thing to do is assemble some links demonstrating the global issue and consider a ban discussion. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it is unlikely to help in light of what seems to be a very low standard of English. They have decided to revert my revert again without explanation, to make an edit that adds an identical footnote to every entry in a table (not coincidentally, the table containing Sabah and Sarawak). I'll make a post on AN as suggested. Thanks, CMD (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I have made a few changes to this template of yours, so that it can be added to Twinkle. Hope it suits you. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 05:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Ankit. I tried it out and it works OK (I don't use Twinkle). However, I clarified the wording in the doc. You had put "if you are a student - yes or leave it blank". I changed it to: "if the editor is a student put yes or leave it blank". MRG, is that OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs) 06:13, 15 October 2012‎
Aye, my mistake (nice observation). Anyway, Voceditnore why didn't you sign your reply. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, fine with me. And I imagine Voceditenore overlooked it. Unless she is trying to be mysterious. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Whoops! Fixed it now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Added to Twinkle. Waiting for MediaWiki Global Gadget file sync to bring it live. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 14:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

View of Delft (Vermeer)

Hi can you send me a link to the copyvio material that caused this article to get deleted? It is hard for me to believe that this painting could have anything new written about it worth protecting, as it has been around so long and has been written about extensively for centuries. Thanks Jane (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It was created with material copied verbatim from here. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply! Jane (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Verno. :) Just to add to this: copyright does not protect the originality of the ideas expressed. It protects the originality of the expression. You can say the most mundane thing in the world and still receive copyright protection if you say it in an original way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Releasing text

This doesn't cut it, correct? It needs to be released under an applicable license. Can you explain the rules there? I don't think we should copy the material anyways, the article should be easy to write in the temp page. Ryan Vesey 14:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No it doesn't cut it. We need an explicit release under a free license or into the public domain. The statement that "You may use the information" doesn't even establish that it's intended to be permission to quote the text verbatim. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Can you leave a note on his talk page, I'd like to have another editor contact him since I already left a note. Ryan Vesey 01:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/QuiteUnusual#Oppose and remark on whether there is enough of a copyright issue that he should not be supported, or if there is a copyright issue at all? Ryan Vesey 01:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan. :) It's hard for me to say when an issue becomes serious enough that somebody should not be supported, since when to support or not support is so very subjective. :/ For instance, when I do look at RFAs (on those rare occasions), I have a keen eye for CSD tagging. This is because to me poor judgment in CSD can be extremely harmful in an admin.
It looks to me from the few examples given that the candidate needs to spend a little more time writing to separate material from the source. Whether it rises to a copyright issue depends on if it's substantial (and, of course, if the sources are non-free). In terms of our policies, of course, content should not be duplicated precisely without the use of quotation marks, unless the material is free or compatibly licensed and it is properly attributed or unless it is devoid of creativity. I believe that some of the material I'm seeing there is creative enough to warrant complete revision - it looks like close paraphrasing to me. (I agree with Osiris' statement there.)
Whether I would myself oppose would honestly depend on how extensive it is. If it's a serious, pervasive issue, I probably wouldn't support until after enough time to be sure that the candidate had taken the problem on board and corrected it. I've seen people deadminned for close paraphrasing concerns, and I can't help but think that losing adminship under a cloud could be pretty seriously de-motivational. I don't want to name any names here for obvious reasons, but I once opposed a candidate for copyright concerns. She failed her first RFA, but persisted, and I felt confident enough to support her the second time around. Once her copyright issues became more widely understood (still aggravates me that they had not been since I had mentioned them explicitly in her first RFA), things got ugly quickly, and she's gone (or cleanstarted). Either way, it proved pretty disruptive to her, to her friends, to other people. Just a bad situation, all the way around.
If the issues were not extensive, it would probably not impact my opinion of the candidate's likelihood for being a good admin...although I might be more sure of that if s/he demonstrated an understanding of the issue and showed an ability to rewrite it. That would build my confidence that the issue won't be ongoing and that the contributor will recognize the problem if encountered with others. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_48&oldid=1254607446"