User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

lyricwiki

Hi, thanks for the info.. I had read something about the copyrights of lyrics somewhere, but I never paid much attention, to be honest. Lyricwiki was once my hope of a central lyric repository, since there are so many websites out there fighting to fill this niche while agressively hitting the user with intrusive ads... Is it reasonable to expect that some day there will be a legal, massive, reliable, central database of song lyrics? --Waldir ^talk 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That's great news :) I'll keep an eye on that, then :) --Waldir ^talk 11:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cookie!

Ashbey has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

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

Ashbey_{Happy Holidays} Ӝ 00:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you around?

If so, could you look at Comparison between Roman and Han Empires and particularly at the discussion at the bottom of the talk page, thanks. dougweller (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Late to the party, but will join in the conversation. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am trying to go through paragraph by paragraph to pull out the copyvios and keep any good text, per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. I'll remove your tags as I clean each section. Cmadler (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I need help

I'm relatively new to wiki but feel I have alot to add to the community. I'm currently in dispute with another contributor on here and have tried to resolve it but not having much luck. It seems that he has an issue with a certain profile and no matter what i do to try and improve it he goes in and erases it. I've tried talking to him several times about it and asked his advice on what he would like, however everytime i make changes based on his suggestions he goes in and erases it immediately.

The proile page is for RJ Williams and it has been on wiki for a number of years and has several different contributions to it. i only made 1 minor edit a few months ago and i was going to it a few days ago to add a new fact and saw this user questioned the notabilty of the profile and altered several things on it.

When i asked why he was questioning the notability he first accused me of being associated with the profile in question---when i pointed out i had only made 1 minor edit and all my work was on other profiles he said he made a mistake and confused me with someone else. and the 2nd time i questioned something he went in and said he accidently put the wrong citation.

I dug a little deeper and he asked another admin to delete a user name associated with the bio and the admin was very reluctant but finally did. It's just very odd why he is so focused on this one wiki entry.

It seems to me that this user has a personal issue with the bio in question because he has gone in and deleted everything associated with it and this person's companies. At first i thought nothing of it but after taking time trying to make it better im really questionable of his initiatives. Just frustrating because i spent hours trying to improve it and he immediately erases it.

There are many details which i can share on why his behavior is suspicious but i know your time is valuable so i wont get into it here. Perhaps you could review all the postings on his talk page? Its toward the bottom and the profile in question is RJ Williams here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hello_Control

i would love your advice on how to handle--at this point its not about my changes being added to the page i've given up on trying to make more---its about someone using wiki to try and disparage someone they may have a personal grief with. (Movieman2008 (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)).

• Not sure how involved you plan on getting with this but please don't hesitate to ask my side of the story. (The article in question is R. J. Williams.) —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Movieman2008. Moonriddengirl is away for a few days; I'll try to answer as best I can and maybe she'll answer too when she gets back. I looked at User talk:Hello Control and Talk:R. J. Williams and while I haven't gone into things in detail, in general I think Hello Control is not doing anything wrong. It often happens at some Wikipedia articles that changes to a page are reverted; a common pattern is Bold, revert, discuss. Usually the next step is to discuss the changes on the article talk page. Please assume good faith: don't jump to conclusions about Hello Control's motives. You just have some disputes about article content. That's totally normal on Wikipedia.

First try to resolve the dispute by discussion. State clearly on the article talk page why you think your changes are improvements, and answer Hello Control's concerns. If the two of you are not able to come to agreement by yourselves and if nobody else joins in the discussion on the article talk page, it's a good idea to try to bring more people into the discussion: that usually helps. You might try Third opinion, reliable sources noticeboard or other steps in dispute resolution. Since I'm suggesting bringing more people into the discussion, I'll just mention the canvassing guideline in case you're not familiar with it, which limits how that is done.

See also the reliable sources guideline and verifiability policy for guidance as to what references are acceptable for various purposes; and the notability guideline.

I might or might not have time later to look into the issues in more detail. It will be easier for me if you state clearly and concisely on the article talk page the specific issues that you're disputing and your arguments for or against the changes.

Hello Control, feel free to present your side of the story if you wish, but I'm not sure that's necessary; you've already explained things on your talk page, I think. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 16:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Movieman2008. I see that you have posted this question at several other talk pages as well, and I hope that issues are a little clearer for you at this point. With respect to the main body of your dispute, I agree with what Coppertwig says above and also with the reply left at your talk page by Thinggg. If you think a source is reliable and another contributor disagrees, you might wish to consider neutrally asking another opinion at an appropriate forum like the reliable sources noticeboard.

With respect to your concerns that Hello Control has some special interest in this article, it may simply be that he has noticed that it has some issues and is keeping an eye on it to be sure that it does not deviate further from our policies and guidelines (it seems particularly problematic with respect to verifiability to reliable sources). A glance at his contribution overview shows he's been an active contributor under this username since October of 2007, and this article is not in his top 15 list. He had been editing here for more than a year before he touched this article, which it makes it seem even less likely that he's motivated by some kind of vendetta against this individual.

The "user name" matter you mention actually seems to have been a ""spam" page deleted from user space. Wikipedia may not be used for advertising, which is why such pages are forbidden. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to add, Movieman2008, that I understand that it can be frustrating when work one has done is deleted. I was horrified the first few times I saw a long, detailed article chopped down to just a short, dry paragraph; but I got used to it. After you become more accustomed to the types of material that are usually accepted on Wikipedia, you may be better at judging what kinds of edits are likely to be kept, and have better luck at writing things that stay around. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

First off thank you both for taking the time to respond to me. Moon I see your point as to why it wouldn't be likely that he has a vendetta against that individual and i was probably out of line for making that assumption; but please put yourself in my shoes. Perhaps its just he was frustrated with things that he thought were going on with the page and was being overly cautious. I really would appreciate it if you could look at a couple the issues at hand as a neutral third party and see if any these things seem valid to you. There are a few things in particular that I'm confused about :

1)reference #3--When you click on it it takes you to a show that aired on the Fox network (fox is clearly is a reliable source) at the top of the video it says "R.J. Williams, founder of younghollywood.com, lends his celebrity expertise to TSH" so i put "R.J. has also appeared on several shows lending his celebrity expertise" why is that incorrect? i was going to find out shows to post as well but he erased it before i had the chance and wouldnt it have been more appropriate for him to just erase the word "several" and leave the rest?

2) Williams' first project was a pilot in which he interviewed several of his celebrity friends. This presentation caught the eye of Showtime executives and he then began a relationship that lasted several years and spawned numerous series and specials.This came about because he erased an earlier reference i made to imdb and said it was only reliable for credits and not other info so i thought i was doing as he said and gave a link that verified credits----if you know imdb you knwo that a user cant go in and falsify credits---they heavily vet this to make sure the show was actually released and that it was released by the distibutor listed so i posted this link http://www.imdb.com/company/co0075105/ if you go to it it list all the shows that showtime has released look at #171 #125 #136 as just a few examples click on any of those and then on the left side click on company credits it clearly states production company was arjay entertainment and distributor was showtime networks--this should back up this statement "his presentation caught the eye of Showtime executives and he then began a relationship that lasted several years and spawned numerous series and specials"

3)Not sure why reference #5 is unreliable---its from a show on a highly distributed channel that discussed a new partnership with entertainment tonight--which backs up one of the things he wanted a reference to

4)lastly it was tagged as notability in question--i went to the notable forum and one of the things it says is "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." i found several award nominations and i sent a reference verifying an award and it certainly qualifies for the following -- Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.--- So shouldnt this all be enough to remove the notability tag?

The reason im so frustrated is i didnt write any of these above statements about mr. williams--i simply went to the page and saw that they were asking for someone to help edit and add references i went on to do just that thinking i was helping matters and everything was quickly getting erased--i feel it would have been much more productive of a dialouge to be had before the changes were just automatically implemented.

The other thing I dont understand (and this is obviously because im a newbie) is if a person is questionable about something looking like a news release why dont they just go in and rewrite the piece so its less like a news release?

So I guess the point im trying to make is im sure he wasnt out of line with his actions and he was just trying to protect the community,which i respect, but i think my contributions really should have been looked at a bit closer before being denied. ive spent far too much time on 1 person when there are several others i'd like to be working on improving.

Im at an interesting crossroads as i really would like to be able to contribute to the community, but at this point im really hesitant because i feel as though i might have nothing to add and all my suggestions will be shot down.

Hello please dont take anything that im saying as a personal attack on you as i realize you have made alot of contributions to the community and are for mare experienced than i am its just being in my shoes what has happened hasn't been a very good experience especially since i was engaging in meaningful conversations with you and then you started deleting my work without giving me the opportunity to explain it and i truly feel ive given very valid explanations. (Movieman2008 (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)).

Hi, Movieman2008. First, let me say that I'm sorry that you have found this experience frustrating. Contributing to Wikipedia can be a bit maddening; it is based on a process of finding consensus with other contributors, and, of course, this can be hard to do—especially since you can't actually sit down to talk to your fellow editors. It can be tough to understand their motives and also to effectively communicate your own. I'm afraid as a contributor to Wikipedia myself that I don't know any way to avoid this frustration. There are whole essays on Wikipedia written by contributors talking about how to handle the process. See Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot for instance, and note that at the bottom it links to a number of similar essays. Some of these will even contradict each other. :) Working on Wikipedia can be particularly stressful when you are a newcomer and don't understand some of the conventions here. For instance, Hello Control did invite you to engage in dialogue here, in edit summary. I believe he may, unfortunately, have presumed a greater degree of experience than you may have. Although I don't know, I presume that you at least at that point did not know to check the "edit summary", where Wikipedia's contributors typically explain their edits. I say this because it seems that you still are not using them yourself (compare your contribution history with, say, Coppertwig's, and you'll see what I mean.) It's a good idea both to use them and to read them, since they can provide valuable clues as to what's in the minds of other editors. :)

Responding to your specific questions: (1) the video doesn't say anything about several shows. It mentions one show. We can't claim more than the source supports. (On investigation, I see that Hello Control did explain that in edit summary here.) Although I don't plan to become involved with that article, I have revised that point to bring it in line with the source--specificity can be helpful here, not only in meeting Wikipedia's verifiability policy, but also in helping address concerns with promotion. As another point, I've corrected information on the source. MyFox Los Angeles is not Fox News; it is the website for KTTV, Fox 11. (See http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/; This is "Fox News". If an article claims that a national source is indicating the subject has appeared as an expert on multiple shows while we actually have a local source indicating that a subject has appeared on one show, that can seem to be promotion. One of our goals here is to keep articles strictly to verifiable facts.

I have also attributed the phrase "his celebrity expertise." Not only should we use quotation marks to indicate where we duplicate a run of text from other sources (as per our non-free content guidelines), but it's also necessary in keeping with our neutrality policy to let our readers know whose opinion it is that he has celebrity expertise. While it may be true (I don't know; I'm not familiar with him outside of this conversation), it's an inherently subjective statement and needs to be attributed to someone. If we found multiple sources saying so, we would not provide a single source by instead place the statement with multiple citations.

(2) I don't believe that a list of credits can verify a statement such as "his presentation caught the eye of Showtime executives and he then began a relationship that lasted several years and spawned numerous series and specials", which we would call "original research", as it introduces facts or speculation not supported in the source. We could say, "His entertainment company produced # series and specials that were distributed by Showtime, airing between Startdate and Lastdate." This is a bare statement of facts, and that source is plenty reliable enough to support it. But that source doesn't tell us how he came to work with Showtime executives. Perhaps he went to college with a distributor at Showtime. Perhaps he has a cousin there. Perhaps the distribution deal was suggested by a third party. Perhaps Showtime picked up his programs as part of some package along with those of some other production company. It doesn't say, so we can't speculate. It also doesn't tell us that the relationship is over, merely that X is the last date attached to such a special. For all we can verify from that source, Showtime is going to distribute another 10 of his shows next week. :)

(3) I can't speak to that source, I'm afraid. The first time I tried to load the page, I got a "Page Load Error." The second time I tried, I got several ads and a bunch of icons that looked like ripped pieces of paper. Perhaps you should ask Hello Control why he questions its reliability. If the two of you don't agree, you could also consider asking further feedback at WP:RSN, as I suggested above.

(4) I see that you broached the notability concerns with Hello Control at his talk page, and he suggested the kinds of sources that we typically look for. I also see that he made a note at the article's talk page which has received no reply. Article's talk pages are a good place to discuss such differences, as they encourage and invite other contributors to the article to weigh in. If you discuss articles on the talk pages of other contributors only, other interested editors may never see them. If the two of you cannot agree on whether the notability threshold has been met, you can then more easily seek further feedback through appropriate forums, such as our "third opinion" forum. It may be that uninvolved contributors will agree that the tag should be removed; I suspect Hello Control would not oppose such a consensus. (You do have to be careful how you ask uninvolved contributors, including the way you phrase your requests and where you place them. Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing for full details on that.)

I would like to point out one thing based on your notes at Hello Control's talk page: the notability tag placed on the article does not nominate it for deletion. It simply requests that additional information be provided as to the subject's notability. If that information is not provided, the article may be proposed for deletion...or it may not. Even if it is nominated for deletion, it may not be deleted. You can see our deletion policy if you'd like more information.

As to why Hello Control would not simply rewrite the text, Wikipedians choose areas to contribute based on many factors, including individual skills or even the amount of free time they might have. If a contributor finds an article that needs improvement but does not have time, interest or ability to improve it himself, tagging it to invite others to address the problems is helpful. We have whole "projects" on Wikipedia created around contributors who like to help out by addressing such tags. Sometimes, these tags won't invite improvement, but quite often they will. I've used them myself—both placing them on articles that need assistance and responding to them.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you didn't write any of the above statements. According to the history of the article and this in particular, you did author the statement that begins "his presentation caught the eye...." (I'm not sure that's really an important point, but since your statement confused me, I wanted to note it. :)) It remained for over two months before Hello Control found the article and tagged it for improvement. He didn't at that point undo your edits, but requested verification of the text you added and noted other concerns with the article. His edits were deleted within days, though, by you. As an inexperienced contributor, you may not have understood that simply undoing somebody else's edits, including removing improvement tags from articles and valid formatting changes, is not considered conducive to reaching consensus. I take your point that you feel your contribution to the article was not afforded the scrutiny and consideration it deserved, but I hope you will consider that he may reasonably feel the same way. Sometimes, it's better to pause a bit and start the conversation over. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to leave such a detailed response---it definitely helped shed light on the situation.

1)I see why you made the text changes to this and I agree with them all. However I was under the impression that the show was a national television show on Fox, but if you are under the impression that its a local web show I will trust you did the research o find that and just defer to you on that point.

2)I see your point and I will go and try to change it so it more accurately reflects what you are suggesting.

3)You are completely right I must have made an error and posted the wrong link because I just tried going to it and found the same errors you did. I will go and try to find the correct link and add that. This was actually what set me off in the first place because hello said it was an unreliable source--I got really frustrated because the interview addressed things he wanted verified so i couldnt understand why he said it was unreliable. However if the link didnt work I can see why he thought that--I just wished he said that it was a broken link or incorrec tlink and not unreliable source because then I could have had the opportunity to fix it

4)he said citing an award would help solve the notabilty issue----I went and did just that--so i will send him something on his talk page asking if he is ok with me now removing the notability tag

What I meant by I didnt write any of the above statements was that I just pulled the information that was on imdb,film reference etc to get the information that I did to add ot the page. At that time I was under the impression that they were both reliable sources since I've seen numerous wiki pages utilizing them. I only added info that was documented on several other websites etc I didnt create any of it.

This whole thing has become a much bigger thing than I ever expected. So I'm planning to just go in and make the 3 changes I stated above and then move on from this page. Thanks again for your help as I find it very valuable. Hopefully hello will be in agreement with the above 3 changes and then both of us can go on to other stuff and leave it to others in the wiki community to improve it. (Movieman2008 (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)).

Suspecting sock puppet

Teacher Coppertwig, I think user Albert584 is a sock puppet. Please check Talk:Differences between Huaxia and barbarians.

cc.to user Moonriddengirl Arilang ^talk 11:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's clearly not a new user (looking at his contributions). That doesn't make him a sock puppet, though. It could be simply that he's a previously unregistered user who has decided to register an account at last. Or it could be he's an older user who has come back to a new account after retirement. Or it could be he forgot his old password. He's only a sockpuppet if he's using his alternative account against policy. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry for the policy on that. If you think he is a sockpuppet and can identify his alternate account, the place to go is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply Moonriddengirl. I am nervous with unfriendly user that can quote a lot of wiki rules(my opinion is they also seem to twist the rules around), because I never interested in English that seems to be cut-n-paste from Law Books, because they tend to go around in circles. And I do not like users that are more than happy to tag article with AfD template, without exploring all the available options. I prefer plain English. And I am used to straight talk, never like talks that beat around the bush. As you probably know, some of the articles I edit are highly political, so I expect to face oppositions, but I still like my opposition to use clean tactic. Arilang ^talk 13:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the history of that article, but basically it seems that he's pointing out that (1) we are supposed to communicate in English in talk spaces (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practice), since this project is for English readers. (2) He feels that a separate article is not appropriate and that the title is non-neutral. (3) He has problems with the sources, including that he thinks (a) some of the sources are not accurately represented and (b) some of the sources are biased. I don't believe he's beating around the bush, though I can well understand that the language can be hard to follow when people quote rules. Rules are seldom written simply. The article was not tagged with an AFD template, but merely a maintenance template. If two editors agree that there is a problem with original research, removing the template is probably not a good idea. It's generally better to resolve those questions on the talk page to avoid seeming to "own" the article. As you know, you can always invite wider review through the dispute resolution processes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Arilang, I was impressed by how you quoted from the synthesis policy. I think it's good that you're looking at the policies. Note that someone said you had "[1] improvements in [your] editing".

I agree with Moonriddengirl: I think there is no reason to assume it's a sockpuppet. For example, if someone always edited articles about Africa and then they decided to edit articles about China using a different account, if they had a good reason to do that, then that's OK. They may know all about wiki rules, but they would not be a sockpuppet. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD tag again

User Madalibi and me are having dispute(What is new), instead of helping to improve the article(by the way he did not make a single edit towards the article), as explained in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Focus on content, instead he slammed another AfD tag on article Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, which is his third AfD tags in a matter of days. I was trying to engage him in civil talk, can be seen here Talk:Differences between Huaxia and barbarians#Third time using AfD tag apparently he had decided that actions speak louder than words.

What I am saying is normal editors come to Wikipedia to add contents to this world largest and free online enclopedia so that future genarations can share the knowledge handed down to them. It is hard to find editors hell bent on deleting articles, remind me of Burning of books of bygone era. Arilang ^talk 07:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks again to both of you. Again I like to stress further the point that one of the articles I have created was tagged with a TfD template(which until today I only have a vague idea what it is) and I believe that the reasons quoted for using the TfD were inappropiate, and the way the template was applied was a strong bullying tactic. I think I saw somewhere(one of the wiki rules, I could not quote because I forgot where I saw it) saying that wiki editors should go all the way to help other editors to become good editors; I have interacted with a lot of wiki editors now that (1) nearly 4 months of wiki life (2) 3000 plus edits, nearly all the editors are friendly and helpful, with a few exceptions(one or two) that seem to abuse wiki rules and using shock and owe tactic. Arilang ^talk 20:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I re edited the Page GRA

Hi i recreated the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucocorticoid_remediable_aldosteronism with material i wrote my self, if you have any comment regarding this page please contact me, or send me a msg on my talk page MaD (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

re: List of Numb3rs Episodes

Hi Moonriddengirl! I just wanted to ask you about a correction made to the page List of Numb3rs episodes, specifically the episode description for the upcoming episode 'Jacked.' I am a new user, having just begun to write my own posts and additions to pages, and in writing the episode decription for this episode I used a site called Futon Critic. This is a reputable site which posts the episode listings and their descriptions straight from the CBS press release. As I mentioned before, I am new to the methods of citing used on Wikipedia, so I was hoping you could check the original site and my posting to see if my methods were up to par. The web address to the press release found on Futon Critic is listed below. Thank you! http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings.aspx?id=20081223cbs06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BookManiac42 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 January 2009

Hi, and welcome. :) I'll take a look and see what input I can offer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you haven't made any recent edits to the page, I presume that you're referring to this one. The problem with it, as I mentioned at your talk page, is the copyright issue. Press releases are not automatically public domain. Wikipedia can only use text copied from previously published sources if these are public domain or licensed under GFDL. CBS retains copyright on its releases unless otherwise specified. (While many companies are quite happy to have their press releases disseminated for free, they may not necessarily be pleased to see the same information released for commercial reuse. Wikipedia is a non-commercial site, but our license allows commercial reproduction by others. It also allows modification, and some companies stipulate exact reproduction in their licensing.) You are more than welcome to base your episode summary off of CBS's official summaries, but you must put them in your own words. You can't reproduce their text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I'll be sure to put any episode summaries in my own words in the future! Thanks for helping me understand the rules instead of just mutely correcting. BookManiac42 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. We're all new at some time, and even when we're not there's always more to learn about a project this size! :) Please feel free to let me know if I can clarify anything in the future. And should you happen to see summaries copied from other places in any of the articles you contribute to, please help either replace them or remove them and spread the word. This copyright concern can be a major problem for Wikipedia, since if any of the television studios ever chooses to send us a take-down notice, we'll have a very hard time cleaning all these television articles! Much easier to just monitor them as we go. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me please?

I have been trying to create a page for a TV show I like, but every time I save it I go back to the link and it saved it 'does not exist.' I can click on it, but it goes straight to the edit page and doesn't even show the page I made. I have tried to recreate the page, but every time I do so it brings up, instead of a fresh page, my old page. I have been trying to fix this for some time and I have no idea what to do next. The page is Scorpio (Flashpoint episode) and can be found directly off the page List of Flashpoint episodes. Can you please help me with this vicious cycle?--BookManiac42 (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is having server errors today. I'll find you a link to read more about it. Hold on a minute. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. :) Scorpio (Flashpoint episode) shows for me. Generally when that happens, I go get a glass of water or something, and it's sorted out by the time I return. Today, apparently, the lag is a little more significant. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not the page itself that has trouble, but the link. If I go to List of Flashpoint episodes and click on the link the Scorpio, it says it doesn't exist, although you can see it does when you access it straight from the search engine.--BookManiac42 (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry, I misunderstood you. I'll check and see if I can figure it out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me as though the server lag is still responsible. You seem to have corrected the caps at 20:05 UTC, here. When I first got to the page, the link didn't work for me, either, and the last edit in the history that was showing was timestamped 19:54. Now it's showing that your last edit in the history was at 20:05, and the link works. Does it now work for you? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much, that was driving me nuts! I'll stop bothering you now :)!--BookManiac42 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) I've been hanging out at Wikipedia for a couple of years now, and this is the first time I've seen lags like this. It's confusing a lot of people! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

I was on the Kathy Griffen page about to make a contribution regarding what happend on CNN 2 nights ago and I notice there is a big debate about it. A user added it and another user undid the changes. I dont want to walk right into another messy situation so I'd like to ask your advice before doing anything. If you arent familiar with the situation Kathy hosted the CNN new years special and when she thought the camera cut to commercial she yelled out profanity to someone in the audience. Turns out her microphone was still on so the whole incident was caught on live tv. I would think a simple mention of this and link to the video and a reference would be something worthy of being on her page something along the lines of "On New Years Eve 2008 Kathy Griffen was involved in a controversy during her hosting of CNN's new years special. As she thought the show was cutting to commercial, she yelled out a profanity to someone in the audience. Her microphone was still on, causing the entire thing to be caught on live tv." Is this appropriate for wikipedia? (Movieman2008 (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)).

The answer is a little complex—yes, if other media have been talking about it. No, if the only source we have is a video of the event. And even if other media have been talking about it, we have to be sure that our mention reflects its overall importance in her career. Also, it's unlikely that the video of the event is legally usable, unless it's a clip hosted by some media outlet discussing the event. We could, for example, link to a Fox report talking about Kathy Griffen shouting an obscenity at an audience member that includes the video, but we couldn't link to the video on youtube, since that's a copyright violation. A look at the article tells me that this is a contentious matter at the moment. I'd suggest you check out google news to see what sorts of reliable sources are talking about this (please be warned, in case you don't already know: not every source on google news is usable on Wikipedia. This is probably usable. This probably isn't, as it seems to be a blog entry or gossip column, even if it is on EW.) If you have sourcing enough to suggest that this is really controversial, you might want to bring it up first on the article's talk page, suggesting the language you'd like to use and where you'd like to place it. I see that previous editors have tried to add it to the introduction, and I agree with those contributors who believe this isn't appropriate. Perhaps it belongs under "Stand-up comedy, TV, and film." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Just want to make sure I am clear on what is a reliable source and what is not. The 2nd one you listed you said probably isnt This It is a blog entry but it was written by Michael Bruno--I did a bit of research on him and here is his official title: Mike Bruno News Editor at Time Inc./EW.com (Entertainment Weekly)

It seems he is a very reputable writer and has had hundreds of his articles published. Now that you know that info is it reliable or would it still be considered unreliable because it was written as a blog? (Movieman2008 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)).

Given that, I'd say it's reliable enough to use as an additional source, though I'd rely primarily on some of the others. In any event, there do seem to be quite a lot of them. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Carson Daly

He has made so many accomplishments and is one of the most prolific hosts on television today. Yet there is barely anything on his wiki page. I have added a couple small things but entire sections need to be created him. I havent been using wiki long enough to try and tackle that but someone needs to. Is there a way to add an annotaion to the top of the page highlighting the fact that there is so much more info on him that needs to be added? Is there a place to go on wiki to bring his profile to peoples attention so its more complete? Aslo are you ok with me coming to you with questions like this? If you are too busy I understand just let me know where it is I go when Im not sure about something. The one thing I learned from the hello experience is not to just go and start editing pages if there is uncertianty its always best to discuss with people and try and clarify first so i dont make any errors and i follow the correct protocal. (Movieman2008 (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)).

We have a template for almost everything here. :) You can see a listing of them at Wikipedia:Template messages. In the "General" category, you see "Expansion Requests." Specifically, those are located here. To request the expansion of the entire article, you can place {{expand}} at the top of the page. Unless you think the reason for the request is obvious, you might want to make a note on the talk page addressing what kind of information you think should be added.

To the larger issue, I have no problem with your asking me questions and will be happy to help you if I can. We also have a help desk which is typically manned around the clock where you might find assistance even more quickly, particularly as it seems our hours of activity may not be in sync. (Your message to me here was posted at 3:00 a.m., my time.) An alternative, if you're seeking mentorship, is our "adoption" program, which is a very good way to connect with an experienced user who can help you navigate as you learn your way around. (I briefly volunteered as an adopter through this program, but found that the admin stuff I do tends to eat a lot of time, so I bowed out in deference to contributors who have allocated more time to helping out in that way.)

I do need to note that though I am an admin this does not give the advice or opinions I express to you more authority than anyone else's, in most cases. I do have additional authority in some areas as necessary to protect the project (say, from vandalism or copyright infringement). When it comes to ordinary content disputes, though, I'm just another editor unless I am acting in the capacity of an uninvolved admin...and I might not be, if you invited me in. :) If you were in a dispute that needed admin intervention and you came to my page to request it, I would refer you to someone else unless the matter was very clear. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Great thank you this was all very helpful :) (Movieman2008 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)).

Need Help!

Hello, Moonriddengirl, this is your wiki friend, Survir. There is this user, Birdninja who keeps vandalizing the Indian television series article, Ghar Ki Lakshmi Betiyann by putting made-up info, and destroying the content with broken English. Can you please help stop him/her. I will really appreciate! Besides, I have reverted his/her edits couple of times, but he/she comes back and re-add the content back! Can you please help. Thank you! Your friend, Survir ^(talk) 12:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I have put the article on my watchlist and have advised him that his edits seem disruptive. If you run into what seems clearly disruptive contributions in the future, you might want to let the contributor know what's wrong with them. We have template warnings for all kinds of issues here. We start off usually assuming good faith and then gradually move up the list. When a contributor has gone through final warning, if the behavior persists and it constitutes Wikipedia:Vandalism, you can report them at WP:AIV for an administrator to deal with. (I strongly suspect based on this difference that this is the same contributor previously registered under the name "Birdassniggga".) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

DJ Sassy Wikipedia page

Hi,

I trust that you had a good break over Christmas and New Year. I wanted to continue the discussion that we had before Christmas about the Wikipedia page for DJ Sassy, which has just been archived. Based on feedback from yourself and others, I have made some changes, and would be grateful for your input on this. Please note, I forgot to login before updating the article today, so my username is not displayed on the Revision History for the edit on 3rd January. Sorry about that.

I have removed the reference which you were most concerned about with regards to issues of Verifiability, but believe that the other reference which was questionable is worthy of inclusion as explained before.

I have reviewed a couple of the other references from the original page which you had suggested should be included, but there are problems with these, since they include Sassy's name, and as you may remember we had a discussion in mid-2008 about the fact that this posed security issues for her, and you agreed that we could remove this from the main Wikipedia article. These references, although notable at the time, are typically several years old now and have little relevance to her current work since they were UK-based and most of her work now is done abroad.

Also, please note that as of 1st January the previous website djsassy.com is now permanently re-directed to the new sassypandez.com.

I would like to be able to include a picture of the Maxim magazine cover on the page as well, but wanted to check with you first as it looks like a potentially complicated issue. We have permission from the magazine to use the cover for any purpose that we like, and if I have understood the Template:Non-free magazine cover document correctly, this should be ok, but would appreciate your comments.

I look forward to your feedback on the above and hope that we can reach a concensus on this and get the page updated soon. AquilaUK (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Holidays were fine for me, and I hope they were for you.

I wonder from the above if perhaps you are not fully aware of our "mission statement". Excuse me, please, if I'm over-explaining, but it occurs to me that if you are thinking of us as a source like, say, this one, you may not understand the issues here. Wikipedia's goal is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. The purpose of a Wikipedia article on a notable person is not to provide a profile of an entertainer's current work or status, but to write a biography with encyclopedic detail, which includes coverage of both present and earlier notable achievements and activities. Unlike an artist's profile on a pr website, we don't necessarily "update" by removing older information when new becomes available. We build on existing material, though we do refocus content when newer notable achievements outweigh earlier. (For an extreme example, compare Barack Obama's article from 2004 with the article today. His primary notability in 2004 was very different, but we haven't eliminated earlier activities from his biography just because of that. We've just refocused.) These references and Sassy's earlier professional activities remain notable for Wikipedia's purposes. I can't think of a valid encyclopedic reason to remove mention, for example, of her television appearance or reference to her time as a columnist, as these are notable biographical details. We do try to limit our biographical detail to public events; for instance, if somebody came in and added information not widely published about Sassy's childhood, it would be removed. But her service as a columnist is a public event. So was her appearance on a t.v. show. These are among her professional activities and public life, and tracking those is what we're here for (since the earlier AfD did find her notable enough for inclusion).

With respect to her real name, during our earlier conversation I did note here that this information would still be visible in references, including her IMDb profile. If there are other reliable sources that discuss these events that do not use her name, then we should be able to substitute. But if these are the only reliable sources (by Wikipedia's definition) to substantiate these notable biographical details, we really don't have any other options.

For these reasons, I believe that what you have in your sandbox is a workable start to modifying the page, but it will need to be edited to include some of the existing detail and, probably, some of the existing sources. (Again, if independent, published, reputable sources confirm these details, we can substitute.)

We can also, of course, open this up for discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard if you'd like additional input. I do believe, though, that the retention of this information is likely to be consensus there. We generally don't remove sourced information relevant to a subject's notability without compelling reason. It seems as though at one time Sassy publicized her real name; I am sorry if this has become a security issue for her. But Wikipedia in general does not withhold real names unless there is compelling privacy concern. (For a very long-winded example of how contentious this is, you might wish to see some of the debate over withholding the name of the "Star Wars kid", here especially, but also here. Mind you, this was a minor victim of a crime who never publicized his own name. And though eventually those who wanted his name removed from the article—including me—did prevail, it is still in the references.)

With respect to the magazine cover, images are not my primary area. I would recommend that you bring that up at WP:MCQ, where you will get more experienced response. Generally, as I understand it, magazine covers are only usable under our non-free content criteria if it is historically relevant and the subject of critical commentary. What that means in practical application, I couldn't tell you. But if you can get permission from Maxim written up in the form Wikipedia requires, then we can use it anyway. There's detail about that (including the form Wikipedia requires) at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Please be warned that this can be a tricky process. :/ The permission must be properly worded and must come from an address associated with original publication, or it won't work. And since this is done by volunteers of the Wikimedia Foundation off-wiki, it can be a little tricky entering direct conversation clarifying issues. Some members of the Communications Committee I know personally to be very responsive, but you have to wait for them to contact you, and I don't know if all of the members are equally as easy to talk to. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Please be assured that I do fully appreciate the role of Wikipedia as an objective, verifiable and reliable encyclopeadic imformation source, which is why I am making sure that I check all of these proposed amendments and changes in detail with you in advance.

I do understand why you want to have Sassy's TV show and work as a columnist for the Sun included, and I think that I can probably find some other references that can be used for these which do not include her name. I can then add these into the page, and if you are happy with the new version am I correct in thinking that we can then create a new Sassy Pandez Wikipedia page, and re-direct the existing DJ Sassy page to that new page?

Given the potential complications with using the image of the Maxim magazine cover, I think I will not include it in the page, at least for now.

I will let you know as soon as I have prepared a revised version of the page for you to review, and then hopefully we will be able to get this new page onto Wikipedia very soon. 86.112.188.134 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If all relevant information is duly sourced to reliable secondary sources, we should be able to replace existing sources. We would not create a new Sassy Pandez page, but would "move" the existing one, which we would overwrite with new material. The old name would redirect to the new. This would prevent a time coming in the future when somebody might restore the older DJ Sassy material and give us two articles on her with variant details. :) I don't blame you for holding off on the Maxim cover. I've had to learn a good bit more about image policies on Wikipedia in recent months, and I still find it a complex area. However, if Sassy wants to include a picture of herself in her article, she can certainly donate one with clearer copyright status. The easiest way to do that is for her to choose one to host on her official website, releasing it under the terms of GFDL. (You can see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more.) With images, more restrictive licenses also work, I understand, but I'm afraid I can't really tell you the differences among them. Text is my area. WP:MCQ is still the place to go. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think I have now got a final version of the new page ready for you to review. Please check that it is all ok, and if so arrange for it to be released as a new Sassy Pandez page, as you explained above. Thanks. AquilaUK (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think it's close, but I do have a few remaining issues. Booking-dj.com seems to be a promotional site, and hence it's not a reliable source. I've done a news search to see if I could locate another usable source for that, but this was all I found, and her name is in the visible ones. Do you have another reliable source for that? The other issue is easily addressed, and it concerns the lead sentence, which does not meet our styleguides. We wouldn't lead a biography with "has been on the cover of Maxim as "The Sexiest DJ in the World" but a quick identifier as is now used "is an international Hip hop and RnB DJ" or "is an international DJ and model" or somesuch language. Then we expand with notable achievements. That can be addressed before or after the material is merged, either way. The sourcing for the tv show does need to be fixed, however, or we may have no option but to go with the original. It's unlikely that the majority of our readers will comb through every source we utilize looking for identifying information about her; if they're prepared to go to that level, they can easily find the information on their own just by searching google (as I did) for "Poor Little Rich Girls" + Sassy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I fully understand about the opening line, so have changed it back to basically the same as it was before. I have put the Maxim cover sentence in the middle of the article instead. With regard to Booking-dj.com, we really should consider using this source. It is an independent DJ booking agency, rather than a promotional website as such and is not affiliated in any way to Sassy. I consider that it is a valuable reference because it includes information about Sassy's early career which is not readily available elsewhere. I hope that this is now ok. Let me know what you reckon. AquilaUK (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word for booking-dj.com, since I can't read it, though as a booking agency it does have an interest (presumably) in promoting its subjects. It may be necessary at some point to re-introduce some of the prior sources, but I've gone on ahead and moved your sandbox into article space and relocated the name to accord with current usage, since earlier names are still recorded. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all your help : much appreciated. I'm expecting any future updates to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary, such as the addition of references from press articles from upcoming events for example. But I will check with you in advance regardless, just to be sure. Thanks again. AquilaUK (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First barnstar of the new year

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I can't help but see your name in the most boring sysop areas like copyright problems. Good work. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. feel free to message me at any stage if you need OTRS permission tickets checked. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Checking the check

I was going to comment but I thought perhaps you should do it as there is, somewhat, of a text issue. File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg was taken to PUI because it is licensed as PD. The source of the image is "T-Shirts & Hats - $30.00 plus shipping and Handling" but the "copyright" is listed from the page at "The Way of Life, in Mafaism:". What do you think? Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's unclear. :) I've dropped a suggestion at PUI to contact the webmaster, which is often the simplest and quickest way to resolve these things. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it spring yet? brrrr. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cold where you are? :) Without saying so much as to endanger my uber-secret identity, I'll confess that we've yet to see snow (by which I mean "in many years", not "ever."). I'd like to see some snow.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. "uber-secret identity" - that is good. For me, right now - as the crow flys - north.  ;) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive toc

Hi Moonriddengirl. I revised Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive toc, a page you edited before my recent post. If I didn't revise the page correctly, please let me know. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. :) Thanks. I didn't really set up the system, although I kind of gradually took it over. :D Whatever works, is fabulous. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Userfy request

In line with the note left on my talk page could you userfy the deleted page Treaty Gaels Camogie Club?

I don't now disagree with the speedy deletion assessment but it left me with no possibility of saving the work I had put in for use elsewhere which as a relative novice is important not to lose everything.

-- Gramscis cousin (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You'll find it at User:Gramscis cousin/Treaty Gaels. When you are finished with it, please tag it {{db-u1}}, which will let an admin know that it can be cleaned up. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --Gramscis cousin (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Hi there,

I've got your message with explaining the reason of deletion of the article. I actually don’t mind if it is a personal page or an article as long as it will be clickable and searchable through Victor Zinovyev.

The fact inspiring me to start the Topic was that the will to list the historical fact of true history event - the beginning of the Lindy Hop (Swing Dance) community in Saint-Petersburg and the first international Saint Petersburg Swing Dance Festival. If we don’t do it now, it would be very possible gone from the attention and people would not know how it was really starting that time (1998 - 2000). I have some material to that Topic and I’ll definitely find other people that are able to contribute.

I wish you could help me with that and guide the inspiration in the right way.

Thank you very much and greetings from cold and sunny Hamburg. ;) Vick (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that it will not be searchable in that way, but before an article is created in article space, there are several factors to consider.

First, in order to create an article about any person, we need to be able to assert notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines on biographies, which means utilizing reliable secondary sources, such as newspaper articles. We are not permitted by policy to include any information that isn't sourced, even if it's true. If reliable sources have documented these historical events, then we can reference them on Wikipedia. Otherwise, they are not appropriate for inclusion here. Wikipedia strives to be a compendium of previously published information, not a publisher of first instance.

Second, if you are the individual in question, you are strongly encouraged not to create an article about yourself (per our autobiography and conflict of interest guidelines, but to instead consider proposing its creation at requested articles or at a related article or relevant WikiProject. If you do propose its creation at one of those outlets, please include links to reliable sources to increase the chance that another editor will follow through with your request. If no reliable sources can be found, the article is not likely to be created and will probably be deleted if it is.

If you do have sources, I'd be happy to help you locate a good wikiproject where you might propose creation. Alternatively, it is sometimes possible for an editor with a conflict to create an article in user space and request feedback at our conflict of interest noticeboard. Sometimes, volunteers there are willing to relocate these articles to article space after verifying information and neutrality. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please help?

Hi, it's me again! I made another mistake, once again involving incorrect capitalization and its effects on link fluency. I mistakenly thought that a certain page had not been created, since I typed a link for it and the link did not bring me to a page, but it turns out that the reason the link didn't take effect was my incorrect capitalization. So I, very confusedly, created a new page. When I realised my mistake, I had already saved the new page My new page is an almost exact doppelganger of the actual link, because I actually copied the original in making my new page. Like i said, I was very confused. I there any way I could delete the new page that I made by mistake? The original page was [[List of In Plain Sight episodes, and the page I made (wow, I'm kicking myself) is List of In Plain Sight Episodes. Can you please help? BookManiac42 (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's done. :) If that happens, you can paste {{db-g7}} on it, and an administrator will clean it up for you if you're the only contributor. You might want to explain in edit summary why, though, if it's not obvious. WP:CSD#G7 is for author-requested deletions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, I can't believe I keep making these stupid mistakes! BookManiac42 (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're doing just fine. :) Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help you out again. Rest assured that I'm completely comfortable asking for help when I need it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Right to Vanish

Hi Mooonridddengirl. I didn't think I'd be back, but here I am just a few months after retirement. However, I am here to exercise my right to vanish. The process is detailed at WP:VANISH, although I am certain you know this already. As I (foolishly, perhaps?) created my account with my real name as my user name, I would prefer it if all record of this name and its contributions were expunged from Wikipedia and the collection of user data. A username change is customary, and I suggest that you choose any name you like. I have no care for the name chosen, nor am I likely to ever see the name you do choose. I would greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter. In good faith, Jordan ^Contribs 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've never done one of these before, but will do my best to be of assistance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have asked a bureaucrat if I can request a name change on your behalf based on this note or if you will have to do so yourself. Evidently, I caught him just after he left the building. :) Once I find that out, I'll know if I will need more action from you first. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have renamed him to User:Vanisheduser12345 and deleted all his userspace/user talk pages, as well as resultant redirects. bibliomaniac15 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Shame Idols

Hey,

 Why did you delete the Shame Idols page?  If it was not set up correctly please tell me how to go about the process.  You can e-mail me at palecat1 AT yahoo.com

Thanks, Bryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.67.184 (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article The Shame Idols was tagged as a copyright infringement (see User talk:Palecat1) by another editor. On investigating, I confirmed that the text was duplicated at cdbaby, which published prior to Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot utilized text previously published at other sources with verification that it is public domain or licensed compatibly with GFDL. This is against our copyright policy. Such text is speedily deleted under most circumstances, although if complicating factors exist it may be listed for review at our copyright problems board.

An article on this band should be neutrally written in original language, with verification by reliable sources. It's also helpful to take a look at our notability guideline to be sure that the article indicates what makes the band important or significant, since certain article types (including bands) may be deleted speedily for not suggesting what makes them encyclopedic. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Family Park Tycoon

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Family Park Tycoon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

I cannot find any reliable secondary sources (used a simple Google search here; gNews turns up nothing) that can establish notability of this game. I also cannot find a suitable place for redirection, as this is the only game of its type.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MuZemike (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Though you're probably not following up since this is a templated warning, I have no opinion about the deletion of this article. :) It was created in the process of addressing copyright concerns. I will let the original contributor, who requested help with the matter, know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

GFDL attribution

I was wondering if the message boxes I've put on the talk pages of articles which have been formed using content from other articles (such as Talk:A1 road (London) and Talk:First millennium B.C. in Ireland) are sufficient to satisfy the attribution requirement of the GFDL, when no notice of the merge is given in the relevent edit summary? Sorry to disturb you but you seem to be somewhat of a expert on this type of thing. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm an expert, but I am active. I think it's lovely! :) I would do a null edit, though, to make a note in edit summary advising others to look at the talk for attribution history. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Guest9999 (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

SeisQuaRe

Thank you Moonriddengirl !!!! SeisQuaRe
I strongly agree with your approach and I recognize the promotional side of this article.
That was not finished and I worked on the presentation more than on the text.
Could you send it back to my mailbox? I will re-write it without this too much affirmative speech.
I did not able to read it and to save it; I was on rush and I expect to finish it within the night or the day after. At least it was too quickly deleted.
So I apologized for the text.
Thank you again Moonriddengirl because you exactly point the problem and you did not just give a sentence.
Jsrlak (talk) 05:23PM January 8th, 2008 (GMT +1:00) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsrlak (talk • contribs)

Hi. I will be happy to userfy the text, but please consider seeking feedback at our conflict of interest noticeboard before you consider moving it back to article space. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have placed the article at User:Jsrlak/Sandbox. Again, though, please consider seeking feedback at that board. If the article is placed back into article space and it is perceived to be still in conflict, it will likely be deleted again and the space potentially protected against the future creation of an article with that name, which would be unfortunate if your company meets our notability guideline. There is also a risk, as our conflict guideline notes, that your account may be judged to be here solely to promote your company, which could lead to its being blocked from further editing. Even if none of these occur, there is also a real chance that your article would be tagged with a suspected conflict tag viewable to everyone who reads the article, which may not give the best impression to our readers. Please attend to the promotional elements in the sandbox area quickly, since the material may be deleted again as promotion even if it is not in article space. When you no longer need that material, please tag it with {{db-u1}} (brackets and all) to let an administrator know that you are ready for it to be removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Template

OK, I've figured out the technical parts of it.

The normal (non-image version) can be seen on User:J.delanoy/3 (if you're interested, click "edit" to look at the code. It produces no stray code when used correctly.)

The "image" version can be seen on File:Asdjlgbasdlg. To clean up the code, and to give people an easy way to tell if the template is being used incorrectly (by using Special:WhatLinksHere), I will put the "error" code on a new template, something like Template:Copyvio error, but for now, it just includes the raw code for the error box on the file page.

Do you like the message I give? Or can you think of a better one? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's perfect. PUI has all the instructions they need to speedy if necessary and, if not, to list it there. It's eye-catching and should help keep image vios from falling through the cracks! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

European Globalisation adjustment Fund

Hi Moonriddengirl; thanks for your helpful comments. For me this has been a bit complicated but am sure that with some guidance I'll manage. I need to know how to change the bigger title as 'fund' should be written with a Capita F and not a small f. I also would like to know how to hyperlink key words like European Commission, European Social Fund and so forth. Thanks in advance for your help, Antoine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoine Mallia (talk • contribs) 16:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to be making a fine start. :) The way to change such a thing is to move the page. I've done it in this case, since as a relatively new contributor you may not yet have enough edits under your belt. (To cut down on vandalism, which sadly is a problem here, we've limited some functions to more established editors.) Linking key words is done by putting double brackets around them. For instance, [[European Commission]] renders on Wikipedia as European Commission (unless you use hidden code to stop it, as I did). One aside note, when you leave a note on a talk page or a board on Wikipedia, please sign it by placing four tildes (~~~~) after your note. This will expand into your username and a date stamp, which is helpful to other contributors. Don't do this on articles, though, but only talk pages and boards like the Drawing Board. :) Please feel free to drop by if you have any further questions. You can also ask them at the help des, which is typically monitored around the clock, or even leave them on your talk page. If you type your question and put {{helpme}} (curly brackets and all) next to it, a volunteer will come by to respond. Good luck, and happy editing! :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Powell

Hello again,

Kevin Powell's page has been edited again. I understand the edits regarding the campaign are somehow reasonable to Wikipedia because they represent news articles. However, can you tell me why all information regarding his latest book, The Black Male Handbook: A Blueprint for Life have been omitted? Even the ISBN number at the bottom. Information on The Black Male Handbook was integrated into the writing section and the Books section. At this point they are no longer there.

Please advise.

Kp4c (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I may not be able to tell you why unless the contributor who removed them left a note of explanation. I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. It was removed here as part of a series of edits by someone who is evidently opposed to the candidate (and who called me "a member of Kevin Powell's hired shills"). Following another visit to the conflict of interest noticeboard, some of his edits were reverted, although not those that sourced to reliable sources. But I see that in the clean-up effort, that information was not restored. I've added it back, though I have also placed a couple of "fact" tags. Please supply citations, if you have them, to verify that one book was an Essence best-seller and another to indicate who labeled this book a "must-read". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi, can you advise what to do in this case? Can the image be speedy deleted? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think quite probably, given the fact that this contributor is unlikely to have suddenly transformed from Timur Okutman to Yavuz Meyveci, which brings "self made" into serious question, and given that the image is previously published. Give me a minute more to look into it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Moonriddengirl,

I took your time, I really appreciate all the help you've given me. I am sending all my best wishes and blessings to you. Thanks

--TRWebmaster (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

maps from www.weather-forecast.com

Are these ok to use as hotlinks? Eg [[2]]. If not, I'd rather you deal with it, I've enough problems with OR, etc from this editor (who has added such links elsewhere) to add another one. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not really up on hotlinking. I'll invite an admin I know is active in image work to give an opinion. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. dougweller (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, Moon. This is really only borderline hotlinking - it's more of an external link directly to an image. Traditional hotlinking is the embedding of an image from one website in a page on another website, which is impossible on Wikipedia (we can only embed images hosted by WMF). With the external link, the remote site's bandwidth will only be consumed when the direct link is clicked, and their address will appear in the address bar. Some sites don't like their images to be linked without the surrounding page (since it may omit ads that would otherwise be shown), and these links can be more unstable than page links, but in this case the image is being used as a source and if a page link can't be found, I think the image link should be retained.

Going in the opposite direction, a proposal to prevent other sites from hotlinking Wikipedia was soundly rejected on Meta, on the basis that it would consume more resources than it saves. Dcoetzee 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, of course that is what hotlinking is, my bad. I do wonder why that site has a map from a book on it though, seems a bit odd for a weather forecast site. dougweller (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty suspicious of that entire site, the way it's plastered with ads. I couldn't find that image on a page on the site, but I did find similar images on this page. If you suspect the linked image is being distributed without the consent of its copyright owner, WP:LINKVIO may be of help (which I just expanded a bit in light of this discussion). Dcoetzee 03:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Probable copyright problem: Bury Me Not on the Lone Prairie

Hello MRG, I hope you've had a good festive period. I'd like your advice on an article which popped up at WP:SCV, if you have the time. I'm not too sure about the copyright status of this piece; while WP:LYRICS tells us that most modern works are copyrighted, this is a "cowboy folk song". There is a very brief explanatory sentence, but the rest of the article is just lyrics, taken from here, but also published here (along with an irritating wav version of the song playing). What's the deal with this? My guess would be that it's old enough to be out of any copyright, but we don't actually know anything about the author etc. Best, – Toon^(talk) 22:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be out of copyright, but without definitively identifying an origin date for that variation, we don't know. I've replaced it with one that is out of copyright and am expanding it with other material. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, everybody's happy. :) – Toon^(talk) 00:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly a notable song. :) Happy to help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it certainly looks that way now. There's never been much in the way of cowboys over here in the UK, so I'm afraid cowboy folk songs never really pop up on my radar... even if it was recorded by Johnny Cash. – Toon^(talk) 14:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No cowboy folk songs? :O What do you sing around campfires? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Kumbaya, Ging Gang Goolie... although campfires are a very American thing; Brits tend to go caravanning, fall out and ignore each other for the whole trip. Either that or get blind drunk. – Toon^(talk) 14:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Gun Arm

Thank you for pointing out that my link was not acceptable. I will try to dig up a site that is acceptable. --Keeblerjesus (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

wargames 2.0

Hey, why the hell did you deleted Wargames 2.0 Article? Article about a web site that does not assert significance) ???? what a hell? what is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travian doing at wikipedia? Open your eyes, you never did anything good —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiderr (talk • contribs) 04:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I know it can be frustrating when an article is deleted that you think should be kept. However, please talk nicely to Moonriddengirl, who is only trying to help the encyclopedia. She deletes many pages as a regular part of her work here, and I know she tries to be careful. If you think the deletion was for a bad reason, you can list the page at deletion review. I can't find a page named "Wargames 2.0" in the deletion log, so I wonder whether you're spelling the page name the same way it was spelled before. Policies and guidelines about what kinds of pages are usually deleted include WP:Deletion policy, WP:Criteria for speedy deletion and WP:Notability. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 04:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read the header of my talk page. I do not respond to personal attacks. If you decide you'd like to discuss your concerns civilly, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

GFDL Comments - omnibus

Hi MRG, while I'm thinking about some related areas where we've co-participated (well, you singing and me chirping :), some points:

• With ref to a convo I had with User:Bsimmons666 where I asked you for comments (discussion), I tried to make an analysis of what exactly WP:GFDL says and how it works here. I'm wondering whether over the longer-term that could be expanded into an essay on "How Wikipedia does GFDL"? The correspondence between the specific wording of GFDL and the way MediaWiki works is not precise IMO, and may cause confusion - I've parsed the dang thing several times and it still confuses me. Deep in the bowels of WT:Plagiarism is a disagreement between myself and a much more experienced editor over how "Title Page" and "new title" are defined, my view being that the only meaningful definition being &oldid=nn as the document title.
• I'm struck by this thread just above on your page, where Guest9999's approach [3] to GFDL attribution seems quite sound. Did they subst: a template for that? It certainly looks to be a piece of the best-practice puzzle, and I haven't seen it mentioned before (probably because I haven't looked hard enough).
• Has the discussion at HT:Merging... been resolved at all? It seems bound up with all the above: developing a standard procedure to make proper GFDL attributions, one simple enough for all editors to understand and follow.

Anyway, random comments, I can't promise there won't be other passengers hopping on the bus! :) Franamax (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Rats! Lost my answer!

Starting over: I think an essay could be a very good idea, but I'd suggest (given the headaches) that we wait until we find out if we're transitioning to CC, since the deadline for that is relatively soon at August, unless GNU changes its mind.[4] Not looking forward to that change; I'm still not secure in every aspect of GFDL, and learning a whole new system isn't an attractive notion. :/ I suspect that Guest9999's notes are a template, but I'm not sure where it lives. There are a couple of similar temples in Category:Merge templates and Category:Split maintenance templates. Maybe we ought to ask him where it is and get it into the proper cat? I believe that the discussion at merging has gone dormant as most Wiki conversations seem to do, though I suspect that it has resolved (aside from Guido, now indef blocked) in favor of attribution. The guide still says attribution is required, but impetus towards a standardized procedure seems to have been overcome by apathy. I think any new conversation probably needs to start from scratch. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Maximilian Stadler

Hello! While I was rewriting the article, you {{copyvio}} tagged it. :) Could you take a look at my version here and see if it's a worthy replacement? Cheers, – Toon^(talk) 14:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks great to me. I will say, though, that we probably ought to wait a day or two before moving it into article space in case the original contributor can verify that the text is free for use--pd or GFDL or what have you. If not, I'll surely replace it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I've made it part of my return routine to look at DumbBot listings that are newly transcluded each day, since quite a lot of those are speediable or require notification. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, P.S. again, I can merge it, if you like. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okie-dokey. There's quite a bit of stuff which could be added, it seems this guy actually completed one of Mozart's pieces... I'd hate to see him deleted. Although I do have concerns about the licensing of the image used in the article, as "I created this work entirely by myself" seems unlikely given the subject matter.

That explains why less pages seems to be hanging around at WP:SCV, and many are already {{copyvio}} tagged when I get there... it is appreciated! – Toon^(talk) 14:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't let this get around, because I don't want this to be part of my "job", but I generally don't delete if it seems notable. :) To me, the main purpose of the cvio tag is to educate contributors on how to use material on external sites. It also allows the contributor to address the problem himself either by verifying permission or by rewriting. But I don't know that another admin wouldn't delete an article without creating a new version; I'm sure that I've inadvertently deleted some notable stuff. In any case, this one has been tagged and the contributor advised, and I'd be more than happy to go ahead and merge it in if you'd like. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You can hold off on the merge; if the permission comes, I'll do some cleanup and referencing, see just how much info there is out there for the article. It'd be nice to be able to work without omitting parts due to copyright. In the meantime I can get some more info available, hopefully from some reliable sources. :) It's just as well that you ended up being the CP "person" I guess, who knows how many articles down we could be! Or how many new editors would have left. Sigh. I really have to write an essay now. thanks for the help! – Toon^(talk) 15:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

K50

Sorry about that. I thought his striking had caused the thing to break. The person who edited after me fixed the problem. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

All is evidently well. :) I figured, though, that he might have communicated with you a desire to withdraw. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Deadly Prey

Hi, I have edited Deadly Prey again. Im building a bigger article about it, but im waiting until it is complete before I post it. Also, how do I change the header? It reads Deadly prey, And I would really like it to read in capitals (Deadly Prey) Kind regards Lee S --Larsselleth (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. If you had been contributing longer, you could move the article yourself. Since you can't, I'll be happy to move it for you. I noticed that you had edited the article and have applied some tags that can give you ideas of needed improvements. If you don't know how or can't address those specific issues, they may attract editors who can. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! --Larsselleth (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bud McLearn

Hola MRG, I overhauled the Bud Mclearn page for you guys.

But, could you do me a candy-coated favor?

It needs to be moved:

Either:

Vernon McLearn

or

Bud McLearn

Capital "L" in McLearn.

Thanks,

- 4.240.165.167 (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, Tagishsimon. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: ANI notice

If an admins says so then it is so. But I have a question for you, what do you think of users that are not admins whose sole purpose is to delete content from the wikipedia. Some articles lile Marcus_Brigstocke had some facts that BlowDart removed, because of lacking source (the article now features a source and the information). But googling gave a source after a few seconds, in the wikipedia article about sources it says people should try to find if there are any sources before deleting. What that means is that users like BlowDart scares away new users, and lots of good content gets deleted. Why deleted? because it takes longer time to find a source (helping) than just removing the whole thing. Whats the meaning of one user not contributing with other than deletes of articles, links and other content instead of trying to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caloss (talk • contribs) 14:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's all right with me if you'd prefer to take it here. (In response to your edit summary.) I'm not familiar with User:Blowdart's overall contributions to Wikipedia, so my comment here is not necessarily related to his work, but general. It's good to add sources before deleting, but "verifiability" is one of our core policies, and it does say that the burden of proving something is on the person who puts the information in or puts it back. While it may not seem like removing unsourced information is good contribution, it does help keep the encyclopedia reliable, which is important. Since we are an encyclopedia anyone can contribute to, we get a lot of unreliable or wrong information. Some people believe it is better to have no information than to risk that information being wrong.

The main point, though, is that if you have a problem with something a contributor is doing, you have to try to talk it out with him in a reasonable, civil way and try to reach an understanding. That isn't always possible, which is why we have so many options in our dispute resolution process. But we do have to try, and we must remain civil ourselves while we do it. Otherwise, we run the risk of simply being blocked for not conforming to our core behavioral guideline. That won't help resolve it, if there is a legitimate problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer but, I actually found the name for this phenomen now, Wikipedia:LAWYER is what blowdart is doing I figured that because when he edited away my contribution (when I was new) in a kinda arrogant manner I checked his talk page User_talk:Blowdart and it is filled with complaints by people who may not come back to edit on the wikipedia. Even if he is technically doing stuff by the rule and mixing in a few edits that are wrong it would take long time for someone to look through his edits and act in behalf of the wikipedians he has supressed with vanalization accusations.

So Im asking is there a place where Wikilawyering can be reported in a way that can lead to a warning? (provided I got evidence etc.) --Caloss (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read through dispute resolution (DR)? It provides plenty of options for where to take concerns about other editors, but all of them begin with talking politely with the editor about your concerns. If you feel that his behavior is uncivil to new contributors, for instance, you can ask for assistance at the wikiquette board. But you should try to resolve your differences with him first, and you should be aware that your behavior may make it harder for other editors to listen impartially to your response. If you seem to be behaving out of guideline yourself, people probably won't take your concerns as seriously.

Reaching a point of civil discussion after the start that you two have had is likely to be hard, but it's worth it. You might begin by politely talking to him on his talkpage, explaining why you believe that his approach may make new contributors feel unwelcome. We are supposed to start with an assumption that others are here to help the project. He may well be open to your ideas about how to avoid "biting" newcomers, if he can see and understand your perspective. The main point is to be reasonable and civil while trying to talk to him.

Again, I'm not familiar with his overall work, so I am not agreeing or disagreeing that there is a problem. I think it's more appropriate for me to be neutral in this matter, since my effort here is to help you understand how to handle conflicts on Wikipedia. If it reaches the point that you think review by others is necessary, you should seek it in an appropriate forum, as described at WP:DR. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

About the copyright violation

The sections from Note (perfumery) were not in fact copied from [5]. They were taken from the section in the Perfume article, which I contributed significantly to and if I may say, was the main author. I believe "The perfumed court" copied the section for their website from the wikipedia perfume article. As such, please restored the edits to the article :) Sjschen (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To check this for yourself see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perfume&oldid=214728146. The purpose of the edit is to thin down and take the info from the Perfume#Fragrance_notes section and put it into the article. Sjschen (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for letting me know. Having been here so long, you may already know that when material is split from one article into another, that needs to be noted in edit summary unless you are the sole contributor, since Wikipedia's writers do not release material into public domain or relinquish their copyright to it, but only license it under GFDL. (See Wikipedia:Split.) But it's also very beneficial when situations like this come up, as sometimes the only way we can tell copyright is to compare the date of publication elsewhere with the first publication in Wikipedia. The earliest archive of that material in the external website is 12/23/2007, and it far predates that in our article, with evidence of natural evolution. I'll go ahead and restore it and note the split in edit summary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And I see that you did, here. So I just altogether dropped the ball on that one. My apologies. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see I see, I have to be a bit better about writing more complete edit summaries, though I did say that it was copied from perfume. No worries as long as everything in the article goes back to the way it was Sjschen (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with John Austin (tennis)

I have come across an article that I'm not sure what to do with. The article is John Austin (tennis) and, somewhere along the line, someone changed the subject of the article to another person of the same name who is a footballer. Any ideas of the procedures to be followed when this happens? I'd appreciate any help. T@nn (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted back to last good tennis playing version : )  Done,  — Badgernet ^Talk 10:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. T@nn (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

From me, too, User:Badgernet. I always find it bizarre when people hijack articles for other subjects, although I guess it makes sense when an IP editor does it, since he or she can't start a new article. But to hijack a tennis player's article for a footballer? That's a new one. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre indeed —- my first experience of hijacking lol, doubt the changes would have passed WP:FOOTYN nehoo, Keep up the good work, Best wishes,  — Badgernet ^Talk 12:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Book Aid International

Hi there

A volunteer for our charity created a wikipedia page on our behalf. It has been deleted (in Dec 08) and new copy added by yourself. Unfortunately the new copy is inaccurate and out of date. I understand that the previous copy was deleted as it replicated some of the copy on our own website. How can we add this without it being removed? The copy was replicated with express permission by the organisation. Obviously we know that anything on wikipedia can be added to or edited but we would like to ensure that information there to start with is accurate.

Thanks and best wishes

Lesley Pinder Book Aid International lesley.pinder@bookaid.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skips80 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The volunteer who created the article was advised how to verify permission, here, but did not follow those procedures. Unfortunately, lacking external verification, we can't duplicate previously published material. Obviously, this is a matter of legal concern. Rather than delete the article altogether, since the subject seems notable, I felt it better to create one that was legally free for use. Apologies for any inaccuracies that may have entered, but as I am not personally familiar with your organization my information was drawn entirely from the reliable sources which I used to verify the material. Every sentence in the article was drawn from one (or more) of these cited sources.

If you would like to update the article, you are welcome to add material in your own words. However, since you are a volunteer for the charity, you should first read over our conflict of interest guideline for information on how to best do so; for instance, you are asked to be particularly careful to remain neutral, use good sourcing and avoid adding information that you may know to be true from your own experience but cannot verify. Information from the website or other connected sources may be used to add detail—for instance, director Sara Harrity's article in Changing Roles of NGOs in the Creation, Storage, and Dissemination of Information in Developing Countries provided information currently there—but unrelated sources are far preferred.

If information from the website itself contradicts reliably sourced material, care must be taken in replacing that cited text. I don't imagine this would be an issue for an organization of this sort, but, for example, if a profit-making corporation added information from its own website showing that its profits were much higher than an uninvolved source reported them, this would naturally be suspect. If Book International claims, contrary to the Peace Corps, that it shipped 3,000,000 titles in 2005, it would be much better to find an unconnected source that reports that and to add rather than replace the text; According to the Peace Corps, this many; according to Other Source, this many.

Please let me know if you have any questions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses and the GFDL

Hello! I noticed a message you left at User talk:Stifle, mentioning that the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are not compatible with the GFDL. Now as far as I was aware, they are, and I actually advised a user not long ago to convert the CC-BY-NC at his website into a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA if we were to use it here. The gnu page states that it's ok for educational stuff, but not for "software or documentation" - I'm very confused. Can you clarify? Oh and the article is Morag Siller from here. It is listed at today's CP. Best, – Toon^(talk) 13:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Actually, since it says "“Documentation” simply means textbooks and other teaching materials for using equipment or software." this seems to indicate that normal CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are ok for random stuff that isn't Software or its doc. – Toon^(talk) 13:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As far as I'm aware, there are no CC licenses currently compatible with GFDL for text (ETA!). (See recent conversation about this also at Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism#Comments, by User:Dcoetzee). With respect to CC-BY-SA, see also our article on GFDL and Wikipedia:Comparison of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. As far as CC-BY is concerned, evidently this matter was discussed at Wikicommons (see [6] and this. Important to note in that latter is a discussion of why they may be incompatible, with respect to variant clauses. If the proposal to convert goes through, of course, this will all be moot by August, when we will be CC-BY-SA ourselves. But, in the meantime, if you want definitives, I'm not the person to ask. :) You might ask Stifle. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (P.S. Not that I mean to suggest that he is the definitive, but he might be able to point you to something more definitive than I can.)(Oh, and, p.p.s., if you find something definitive, please share with me. :))

Ok. Why isn't this simpler? Cheers for the advice, I'll ask Stifle. – Toon^(talk) 13:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You got me! I'm dreading our conversion to CC. A whole new set of rules to learn! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Redpathanderson

I keep forgetting my talk page says I'll reply on the other person's talk page. I'm not sure which way is best even now! Anyway, if it is straightforward I'm happy to talk to him, if it might be complicated, I don't think I'm up to speed on complicated. dougweller (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with a Wheelchair Tennis article

I happened to find a Torball article which you had removed some with copyright problems. I've suspected the History section of Wheelchair tennis has been copied from ITF website (see note of the article).

I don't know how English Wikipedia treats copyright violations very well. Do you think this case (wheelchair tennis) also has copyright problems? And what should I do next? Remove the section, for example?--HannaLi (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It most definitely looks like a copyright infringement. I'm investigating the history of the article to see when it was introduced. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the text to the article that was there prior to the introduction of this information. Thank you for locating this! In some cases, copyright infringement can be removed (we put a note at the talk page indicating that we've done so to help guard against accidental replacement). In some cases, the articles need to be deleted and replaced with clean versions. You can see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for the way that copyright infringements are addressed on the English Wikipedia. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Moonriddengirl. I'll read the Copyright problems page on the English Wikipedia.--HannaLi (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Family Park Tycoon

I have updated the article so can you please check if it's ok for me. A Candela (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Metal Observer: article deletion

How's things? A while back you helped me in making Sepultura's Arise a B-Class article, so I'll be asking you for an assistance in something. It has come to my attention that The Metal Observer has been nominated for deletion for since March 2008. Only admins can delete pages, right? Would you know one willing enougth to that? That article has been generating controversy for some time now... and since it has already been scheduled for annihilation, that process might provide some closure for all the parties involved. Musicaindustrial (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article was deleted after its AfD; I know, because I deleted it myself. :) (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Metal Observer) It was "userfied" on user request and recreated with additional sourcing. When an article that has been deleted following AfD is recreated without addressing the problems that led to deletion, it can be speedily deleted under criterion WP:CSD#G4. (To request that, you tag it {{db-g4}}). In this case, though, there are additional sources, so it is not a simple recreation that does not address the problems for which it was deleted. You would need to take it to another WP:AfD if you think that it still does not meet policies & guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on whether the article should be deleted or not. However, the only "controversy" is this one user trying to implement a new "criticisms" section. Several editors have tried explaining why the section is original research and inappropriate. Look, see for yourself. The entire section is synthesis and original research. According to this user the sections purpose is "The whole point of this section was to point out some of them, so people would be better informed and be a bit more skeptical regarding Metal Observer's reliability." He/she refuses to let the issue drop. Now after slinging out personal attacks calling other editors childish, trolls, etc, and after canvassing others talk pages now he/she is trying to get it deleted. Landon1980 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess the new AfD will get it sorted out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I get it that the "Criticisms" section was inappropiate, which now is a mute point, because The Metal Observer article has been deleted - yet again. What I don't get was user Prophaniti's hostile, uncivil behavior. I warned him several times of this, but he refused acknowledge he was being agressive and derogatory in his comments. I also asked him - twice - why he was investing so much energy in an article that wasn't notable and had already been deleted once. He refused to answer. I later found out the reason why by chance, when I stumbled upon another user's (MetalKommandant) talk page, which had an interesting comment made by him:

“ Maybe see what Metal Observer says: that's one of the few accepted sources here that also actually knows what it's talking about with heavy metal :P As opposed to something like allmusic. ”

Maybe it wasn't just about protocol; maybe Prophaniti's POV toward this webzine was getting in the way of fair judgement... But I'm disgressing.

At this point of the discussion Landon1980 enters. Now, as a third party editor, he could have handled this properly... But he chose to side with Prophaniti, something he has done several times before. (To the extent that Prophaniti has been accused of being Landon1980's sock puppet, no less). Proof of that is now scant, because Metal Observer's talk page has been deleted. But I can give you indications of his actions:

• Probably on the pretense concerned Wikipedian, he harassed me on the talk page of an unrelated article, Industrial metal, by posting this:

“ "I'm pretty sure that nu metal has been significantly influenced by industrial metal." You may be right, unfortunately you are not a reliable source though. Before you add something saying nu metal has been significantly influenced by industrial metal you will need some reliable sources definitively saying just that. Landon1980 (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC) ”

I have won a Barnstar Award for my contibutions on the Grindcore and Industrial metal article, so I think I have some grasp of what it takes to make a decent article... And considering that I have provided half of Industrial metal's references and personally own all articles and books of the "Further reading" section, this comment seems pointless. The timing of this also seems suspicious... Right after the edit war of The Metal Observer article...

• There's also this comment he posted on Prophaniti talk page, on the "Criticisms" subsection:

“ He has reverted you once again and added back his original research/poorly written criticism section. ”

"Poorly written?" I managed to raise Sepultura's Arise to a good article status... and I have written 90% of the latter's text. Considering that, Landon1980's comments were simply... malicious.

• Landon1980 deleted the subsection where I pointed, on his talk page (see the 02:15, 13 January 2009 edit revertion), the irony of his keep cool posting on my talk page, when he himself didn't "keep cool". So I also get to erase any user comments which don't shed a good light on my behavior? Doesn't seems honest... But if there isn't any Wikipedian "law" forbidding, well, nevermind...

Sorry for bothering you with this long reply, but I had to get this out of my system. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandals

Hi Moonridden can you warn this IP and keep an eye on them. I've spotted 3 "totally gay" acts of vandalism within five minutes. Could you also put Rani Mukerji on your watch list it keeps being edited by a user called Martee James and an ip which we believe is him. It isn't blatant vandalism but we have come to some sort of consensus that it is not relevany to the introduction what he is adding as it is a lesser known film. As you can see it has been subject to editing warring. Thanks Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm currently out of town on limited access (hence the alternate account), but I'll take a look at the situation when I get back and see what assistance I might be able to offer. :) --Moonriddengirl2 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Drewton Tunnel

Hello.

I was about to start a new Article regarding Drewton Tunnel, however it appears you have previously attempted this and it was deleted.

Can you help me out a little as i would like to try and get an article on Wikipedia about this great but forgotten place.

Many Thanks

Antony Myers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antpant7 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I didn't actually create the article; I deleted it. The contributor who placed it here unfortunately copied it from this site without providing verification of permission. In the absence of verifiable permission (or free licensing, such as public domain or notice of GFDL), text duplicated from other sources is presumed to be a copyright violation and removed. You are more than welcome to create an article on the tunnel for Wikipedia, though it's always a good idea to verify through reliable sources that it meets our notability guidelines. (It looks like you should be able to do so, with a glance at google books.)

Help:Starting a new page should give you all the guidance you need, but you might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article. Please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Les droits du copie...

Hi MRG, if text is translated directly from another language, does it still constitute a copyvio? Saint-Adèle is a word-by-word translation of this site, which shows "All Rights Reserved c. 2004". It's done clumsily enough that you don't really need to know any French to see how directly it's been copied - it's literally word-for-word. Since there is zero creative input, I'd call it a copyvio (or at least a plagio), but you know much more about these things than I, so your advice is appreciated! Franamax (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome back. :) Yes, it does. Translation is a derivative work, and only the original copyright holder has the right to release those. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

American State Universities... public domain content?

Hello, a user here seems to think that becuase the content is copied from mtu.edu, the content is in the public domain. AFAIK, this only applies to content created by the U.S. Federal government. before I stick a big CSD G12 on it, can you confirm/deny? Best wishes, – Toon^(talk) 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my. :) No, most universities do not release into pd. I'll take a look at the specifics of this one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly no assertion of pd on that website that I can find. On the contrary, this specifically forbids commercial reuse. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought... it would certainly be a rather strange policy, for a centre of academia. – Toon^(talk) 00:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubts

Hi

Surely you have heard the talk about how Wikipedia is unworthy of trust, that is for the lazy and/or unhappy, full of vandals "Jimbos`s bag of trivia"; Myself i love and trust Wikipedia but i`m not sure of how long can survive the vandals and all that deletion/inclusion crap, the edit wars, POV and all those thing that come with humans.

What do you think? Zidane tribal (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think we do a very good job of taking care of vandalism, all things considered. Those who think we're lazy ought to sit down and spend two and a half hours cleaning copyright infringement out of an article. :) (Yesterday, here.) Unhappy? I don't know about that as a generalization, although I have met a couple of people here who seemed to have socialization problems. I suspect a lot of us are introverts. (I am!) Although there are plenty of places around here for the more extraverted also (like WP:ANI). I think there are a lot of problems in managing the project, some caused by the inevitable conflicts between how different people want to do things. But so far as I know, it's still thriving, and it's getting information out there right now. I wrote this article. It got 7,574 hits last month. Imitation, the sincerest form of flattery. My definition seems to have caught on. This guy, who duplicates the first paragraph, gives an enthusiastic "hurra to wikipedia," to which I respond, "I'm happy if it was of use to you." :) (Note that some of those people who do things differently would get angry with me for feeling proud of my contributions, which I think is nuts. I'm a proud team member who is also proud of my individual contributions.)

I don't know if Wikipedia will survive forever or how it will morph as people's needs and expectations change. But I do know that I started contributing to Wikipedia because I liked it; I used it quite a lot, and one day I found a mistake and hit the "edit" button. Typical first step, I imagine. :) I'm sure there are a whole lot of other people who use Wikipedia quite a lot, and I'm happy to try to make it a valuable resource for them, whatever may happen with it in the future.

In other words, I also love and trust Wikipedia. If you're troubled by the politics, I think you probably have two options: throw in with the politics and help to shape the future of the project, or pretty much ignore it and trudge forward. I do a little bit of both. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Zidane tribal (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

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

Good to hear that, it make me feel a lot better, You Rock (Thanks for the CAKE, have some Wikilove too)

I'm glad. :) I was a bit worried to hear you sounding so discouraged! You know, if you start to feel burnt out, you might want to try participating in another part of Wikipedia. That's what I've done. I used to spend a lot of time rating albums and a lot of time deleting WP:CSDs. Now I mostly do copyright infringements. There's a lot of room for contributing to Wikipedia, and sometimes it's better to take a break if one task starts to get to you. And feel free to stop by any time. :) I may be an introvert, but I'm not at all antisocial. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

TOCSIN page

Dear Moonriddengirl, you left in my wikipedia page "Tocsin project" this message 20:45, 3 July 2008 Moonriddengirl (Talk | > contribs) deleted > "TOCSIN project" ? > (Unaddressed copyright concerns. > > I find it when the page was just deleted. So now I have create the page again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOCSIN_project and I received the permission, ticket number 2009011410022137. I hope now all is fine. Should I insert the ticket number in Tocsin page? Best regards Mammuffs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mammuffs (talk • contribs) 13:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for following up. What we do now is wait for the Communications Committee to finish processing that e-mail. If in their letter to you, they requested additional information or further steps, please be sure to provide that. I have blanked the article to allow time for them to process that permission and put a note at the article's talk page to let others know that the process is underway. If you have any trouble with the process--or if the letter does not request additional information, but the Communications Committee does not follow through within a few days--please let me know, and I will investigate to see if I can determine what the problem may be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will come back to you in few days if the problem persists. mammuffs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mammuffs (talk • contribs) 09:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

re Maximilian Stadler article

Glad you could do something useful from the Maximilian Stadler article. I appreciate your input. I actually just needed a biographical note on this composer after I quoted him on another article of mine: Music without sound. Thank you. --Tellus archivist (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Grindcore: B-Class

Greetings, I'm trying to raise the Grindcore article to a B-Class on the quality scale. Could you help me out to start the evaluation process? I don't recall how it is done... Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Thing to do is request it from the projects. Let me take a look, since I've never done it at the non-album music projects. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The only active assessment requesting process from the active (?) projects listed is Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music/Assessment. I've requested it on your behalf. Some projects are fine with you assessing it yourself, but if you want feedback on it, you can also try Wikipedia:Peer review. Less formally, but likely to be equally effective, you could head over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music and say, "Hi. I'm trying to raise the class on Grindcore. Can anyone give me some feedback?" If you're feeling really ambitious, you skip the "B" assessment and go straight into the brutality of Wikipedia:Good articles, but I'd only do that if you had major time to devote to it, since they will almost certainly give you a huge laundry list. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Musicaindustrial (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Mycetophilidae

Sorry about that. I'll fix it. Easily done Robert aka Notafly (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

maybe you could help...

I suddenly notice that images licensed with CCL or GFDL all now include {{CommonsEncouraged}} tags. I can't find any sort of discussion on this but it seems all automated because in looking at the history of File:PamEvans 11Jun07.jpg there are no recent edits made but yet the new tags have been added. This is bad because we have an image whose text summary says "Fair use", has incorrect licenses and now has tags suggesting it is safe to move to commons. It also places every single user uploaded file that has been freely licensed into Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. Just a very quick look confims - File:13318 Noelle.jpg marked with an FUR but tagged as move to commons, File:2Pi-Con Logo.jpg is a logo, File:51A8DUlOX3L.jpg is a CD cover. You get the idea. As an admin maybe you have more insite as to how this happened? (EDIT - hm - maybe this is "who" - Sfan00 IMG contributions. But why?) Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, he spoke about it here with an explanation of purpose. Some have been applied directly, but I imagine a good many have been tagged automatically through such changes as this. He's not the only one doing this, I note. File:13318 Noelle.jpg was listed after a change to this template by User:Denelson83, but it seems Sfan00 IMG made the request for that change, User_talk:Denelson83#Templates_for_commons_move_.27auto-tag.27 here. I guess what you'd probably need to do is ask him why. But I'll note that though the transfer to commons tag may not be appropriate for some of these, it may help uncover some of the image issues you mention. It may be that the transfer to commons template should be altered to more strongly suggest that the image be evaluated to see if it's a good candidate, but that would be something to work out there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so there was never any sort of consensus or community discussion about it than. I dug into it via the {{cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} tag and see it was snuck in there January 20, 2009 by USER:Denelson83 via "(Blitz edit: +{{CommonsEncouraged}})" in order to automatically add this tag, but there is no discussion at all about doing it on the talk page. It is also "hidden" from the preview so one has to look at the source to see the {{CommonsEncouraged}} tag. I see they have done this as well to most all, if not all, of the CCL and GFDL tags. But I don't see where it was discussed on any of the talk pages ever and they all seem to be locked from editing. Thanks for looking into it on your end. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there might have been. I didn't look back forever. There could have been a centralized discussion some time ago that eliminated a need to discuss it at template talk pages. I wouldn't start off by presuming that there was any intention to "sneak" anything; it may well be regarded as routine maintenance. Again, cordial conversation is the way to find out how and why. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have posted to the three people I could find. I did a look over to see if there were any posts by these users in some sort of discussion on the matter but could find none. My use of "sneak" was because when you view the templates they do not show the commons tag. It only appears when actually used - in other words it is "snuck" in there, not that the admin who placed it there was being sneaky. Either way though this is a site wide change and if there was any site wide discussion it is well hidden. (Conversation has started - User talk:Sfan00 IMG) Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I got you. :) Good luck reaching resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Mycetophilidae

Copyright concern I hope within a week. No more than two Robert Notafly (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Revise. Notafly (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns, Harry van Bommel

Hi, thanks for your message regarding the article Harry van Bomme. I have re-sent the request for the text to be released in GFDL. It's Friday now, I expect a reply some time next week. To which address should an e-mail with permission be sent? --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 14:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You're quick. :) The address to send it to is permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. If further clarification is necessary, you'll be contacted by a member of the communications committee. To make things easiest all around, please be sure to name the article under concern and identify the source. If you hear back from the copyright holder, please leave a note at the article's talk page. Copyright concerns are generally processed after a week, but we routinely delay when permission is expected to be forthcoming. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jon Okada

This article has had a 'speedy delete' message on it since November, and the author has written that he/she has created another page with the correct spelling, so I'm requesting that this page be deleted. Also, if I find other such pages, is there a list of people I can contact about it? I don't want to keep bothering the same people about it... T@nn (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Weird! I'm not very technological, but I'm guessing that the template was placed irregularly, which kept it from showing up in the C:CSD line. I'll go ahead and delete it. Feel free to bother me about them. :) If I ran into them and didn't know how else to handle them, I'd probably replace the CSD template so that it does list, with a note on the talk page explaining why. (Before I delete it, I'm going to test my theory on it. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It worked. I just stripped out the old and put in a new G7 tag, and it listed in the category. Then, of course, I flushed it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'll let you know if I find any other articles like that one. T@nn (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I wonder whether you put in the tag differently somehow, or whether the tag was OK but there was maybe some glitch in the server at the time the first tag was placed, and that perhaps any edit to the page would have put it back into the category by causing the page to be re-processed. Was the tag displaying as a box on the page, as it's supposed to? Were there other edits to the page between November and now? Just wondering; no need to investigate this if you're busy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

←Ah. The contributor used the "meta" template. {{Db-meta |bot={{{bot|}}} |criterion=A3 |1= as an article which contains no content whatsoever, or consists only of external links, category tags, a "see also" section, a rephrasing of the title, an attempt to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments and/or images |2=[[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages|Disambiguation pages]] are not eligible for this criterion. A very short article may still be a valid [[Wikipedia:Stub|stub]] if there is sufficient context to identify the subject |temp=nocontent-warn |summary=Article with no useful content }} Voila. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. If people include db-meta directly, I don't think it goes into any speedy deletion categories. I'll ask Happy-melon if it would be good to change that. You can go to Template:db-meta and click "what links here", but you get all the pages that include db-meta indirectly by including some other db template, as well as possibly some pages that had db-meta added a long time ago, and some that may include db-meta indirectly (e.g. using template tl). I looked at a selection of them and didn't find any old pages apparently needing to be deleted, but there could be some in there somewhere. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

er...

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Notability (music) that is, more or less, taking the form of discussion after editing, rather than editing after a solid proposal was made and reached a consensus. (look at the edit history, than the talk page.) I thought about a rollback but felt it would be better if an admin who is active in these sort of discussions on the music related criteria looked at it. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've had an unusually full plate of copyright violations today and so have not kept up with my usual rounds. Since I'm almost (knock wood) through with the ones ripe for closure today (here), I would have seen it soon. :) I've added my opinion to that conversation, but I wanted to note that this isn't really an admin issue. Unless an admin is necessary to address edit warring on the guideline, all contributors have an equal voice in shaping it. Still, it's not really a "rollback" issue if you're using that word in its Wikipedia sense. :) Rollback is for vandalism; you'd want to leave an edit summary of explanation for altering good faith edits. I have restored the language that existed prior to the original change, and we'll see how conversation goes. There was obviously sufficient consensus for the change to go unchallenged for four months, but that's immaterial. If an editor objects to it now, it's worth further evaluation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Re: Mary Fisher

Your input was helpful, encouraging and so very much appreciated. Being new, I was feeling frustrated and not getting the kind of feedback that would get me going in the right direction. The rules make sense to me because any Tom, Dick or Harry can attempt to post on this important site, but what I'm trying to add is important as well. It's complicated for a newbie.

I especially liked your comment about not making the title Mary Fisher (AIDS) because it really goes against the entire subject of this incredible woman. How does one change that? And I also need her to link from her father, Max Fisher, also an important figure in American history? How can I do that?

Handley Willoughby (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Globalisation to link to European Globalisation adjustment fund

Hi Moonridden girl, I am trying to insert a link that refers to the European Globalisation adjustment Fund here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization#See_also

When I insert an internal link it tells me that that the page does not exist. Can you help? Antoine Mallia (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. (I should explain. MRG: your talk page is much more interesting than mine :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and feel free! I've been known to weigh in at others' talk pages, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Something for when you have time

I have not tagged this but thought you might want to have a look. Pam Evans There have been issues with this article in the past and I am not sure what copyvios may or may not have been dealt with but currently there is a letter/email posted but I don't see any OTRS information about it. There are also some quotes referenced/cited as "Personal correspondences (Alosel)" Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The letter is inappropriate. The personal correspondence, of course, fails RS. Why on earth hasn't anybody ever noticed this COI? (puzzled) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Letter/email removed. Both participants advised of COI. Article tagged and concerns noted at talk page. I've also asked for feedback from WP:COIN. Since I try not to mix my copyrights with such issues, I'll probably step back at this point. You're free to pitch in on COI cleanup yourself, of course. :) I hope somebody from COIN will take it on. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that much about it. So far my interaction has been with their images, most of which have been uploaded by one of the users in question under various "self" license tags but saying "fair use", "with permission", giving a photographers name or no information at all. I did not fully see the letter and "Personal correspondences" cite until today. So I figured it was tag team time. LOL! Thanks. :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) Let's hope that somebody from COIN cleans out the OR. I've watchlisted the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I turned the Black presidents article (deleted) into Black presidential candidates in the United States and Black president in popular culture of the United States. People are going to town on the culture one... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi, I stumbled across these related articles today:

The Accacha Chronicles, Flamma Flamma, Terra Terra and Amor Aeternus

They consist almost entirely of lengthy quotes from copyrighted texts, mostly the CD booklets, but also Time Magazine, the composer's web site, etc. Credit is given to the sources, but it goes well beyond "brief quotes". I couldn't find any appropriate tags for a situation like this. Template:Non-free doesn't seem to apply to texts. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Sadly, so far as I know, we don't have one. Usually what I do, if it's really, really embedded, is tag it with the copyvio template and make a note of explanation at the talk. That leaves more time for cleanup. When possible, it's probably better to trim or yank the material with an edit summary pointing to WP:NFC and a note of explanation at the talk page. I'll take a look and see what I can do to help out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've cleaned those. If you find others that plainly cross the line, please feel free to prune. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of creating some templates for you: {{Close paraphrase}} and {{Close paraphrase section}}. These don't really cover over-long quotations, but they do cover some of the examples you've shown me. Any feedback appreciated. :-) Dcoetzee 02:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you! Those are great. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very useful! I've already put in a plug for them at the Opera Project. Now, if only we had one for the "too much quoted text" situation. But I guess that's more complicated since it would have to be able to put the article in a (hidden?) category. And a big thanks to you Moonriddengirl for taking the metaphorical red pencil to the articles above. Emboldened by your example, I'll do the same thing next time I encounter it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish we had a squadron to help clean them up. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, me again. :-) Building on this I've created an essay describing close paraphasing at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing that is linked from the template. I hope it will make it more useful. I'd appreciate any feedback or edits you have on it. Dcoetzee 07:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. :) When I am fully awake, I will read through it again and see if I can expand or clarify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

name ok?

Is it ok to have a username of cock-sucker, specifically User talk:Sockcucker13? The person's edits are not so good either. Ipromise (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not okay, according to Wikipedia:Usernames#Inappropriate_usernames and has been reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for looking into that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this one...

Not that you speak the language but the situation confuses me. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khuntien Ngin/Rendy Marciano. Seems to possibly be spread across many Wikis but not sure what the first source is really. But is does appear to be cut and pastes given the form the subpages seemed to pop up in at on the English Wikipedia. I would say they were cut and pasted form other Wikis because of the formating, but some have been deleted already and they were created here on the same day. (i.e - see http://na.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGTT - deleted from there on January 13 and User:Khuntien Ngin/OGTT - created here on January 13). Interesting so feedback welcome. Perhaps my "delte" opinion is off if it seems to be a legit article(s) in the making. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) (Note: you forgot your sig on that MfD! Might want to go add that.) I don't read Indonesian, but Google translation (sorta) does: here. Hard to follow, mechanical translators being what they are, seems to be some kind of vigilante gang: [7]. Since you brought it to my attention, I won't "vote," but I think I'll share what I "know." :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sig notice. I got so involved in trying to figure it is was a copyvio via cut and pastes that I forgot to sign. Maybe this also be related to User:Rendy Marciano (Contributions)? Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a very strange situation. :/ I'm thinking about soliciting assistance from a WikiProject, since I do not speak Indonesian and google tells me that this contributor doesn't speak English. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

copying material within Wikipedia

Thanks for the information. I was surprised to read your comments regarding the above-referenced subject. It does make sense to note the copy in the source article, but your statement, "Wikipedia's contributors do not relinquish copyright to the material they author here" raises questions. It was my understanding that no author 'owned' an article, although some editors like to revert changes that they just don't like. Once an article gets tweaked by other contributors, it may be very different from the original. How could the original author possibly claim copyright over the derivative work? Mgreason (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If I can jump in here for a moment - this is interesting because (Stressing the point - Not canvasing) a user cut and pasted a mainspace article to their main user page. At the MFD one editor has said "doesn't GFDL require attribution? In this case the user has copied work from another page leaving no method to find the true author. Someone correct me if I am wrong", which was an issue I had not even considered. Perhaps it is a valid point though - but it is not really mentioned that way at "Copies of other pages". On the other hand the "What Wikipedia is not" policy does say that collections of public domain or other source material is not allowed, although it seems to apply more to links and full texts of books rather than a cut and paste duplication of an article from one location to another within the English Wikipedia. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Attribution is addressed Wikipedia:Userfication: "If text is copied to user space, rather than moved via the page move tool, a list of all the contributors to the original text (obtained from the page history of the original page) must be kept to meet the requirements of the GFDL." (Although, of course, a direct wikilink if the material remains in article space would also meet attribution requirements.) It seems that this may bear reiteration at WP:USER. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah - yes. I tend to not cite Wikipedia:Userfication much because of comments made during discussions I am/was involved in. To a degree, even though the term is oft used, the "article" seems to be looked at by some as a bastard offspring - not a guideline, not a policy, not an essay - just something that exists and not many users know about it. Seeing as only 6 people were involved in the proposal to make it "official", back in 2006, it might be time to pump it again? Oops...turn left at the fork in the road. "Left?" "Right" "Right?" "No left" "Right". Sorry, I tend to have Muppet movie flashbacks at times. I have a Pavlov's dog thing going on I fear. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave that to you, as I've got quite enough on my plate. :) Out of curiosity, do you believe it should be removed or promoted? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As I find pages are "userfied" a lot and, as there are always issues with wording (i.e - time frames) of article in userspace, it should be, at the least, made into an "official" guideline with some phrases being clearly defined overall. As only admins can restore "previously deleted material" but anyone can "userfy" an article for almost any reason I think it would be hard to make it a hard coded policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not canvassing if I ask you for a courtesy notice if you choose to launch such a discussion. :) So, if you don't mind.... --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem

Happy to help. Zagalejo^^^ 17:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to explain my methods: If a topic seems like it's notable, I'll generally try to clean up the article, or at least stubbify it. But if an article doesn't seem like it would ever survive AFD (like the community college basketball articles), I just list it at WP:Copyright problems. Zagalejo^^^ 08:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright infringement checking

What would you like me to do if I find a copyright violation in your list, such as JM Family Enterprises? The paragraphs are essentially copied from Forbes, so should I speedy under G12 and then remove from your list? Or just strike? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yay. Help! :D If it's too extensive for easy clean-up but there's non-infringing text worth saving, please put the {{subst:copyvio|url=whatever}} tag on it and list at WP:CP. I'll clean it up later (fun! :/) If there is not enough non-infringing text to save, then G12 may be the best solution. Even if it's G12ed, it might be a good idea to strike, in case a new stub is created. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, the former paragraphs in the article are useable, it's only later we see copyright infringement, so I guess tagging is the best option here :) Truth is, I've nothing to do at the moment, so I may as well help out here for a bit. Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please! By all means. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Army wormz!

Hey Moonriddengirl. Thanks for the heads up (and the welcome to Wikipedia, which is probably the first I've gotten!). Looking it over, there's definitely not enough reword/rephrasing. I'll go rewrite the portions of that article that are too much like the source. FlyingToaster 17:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I try to neutralize the template for experienced contributors, but it's still a handy thing because it so succinctly sets out the steps for addressing problems. Sorry the welcoming committee missed you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

eLib article mess

See here. Cheers, --Gego (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bollywood

Hi. Can you keep an eye on the Bollywood article. It is infuriating having the revert all the time. see in the last 24 hours alone here. There is a consensus betwene a few of us that the names Martinee James keeps adding are not notable to be mentioned in the main article. Despite this and an addition I added in the last 24 hours he persists on restoring it. Could you keep an eye on things thanks as 3RR is approaching. I've asked him to please cite references and that only the most acclaimed names should be included but he is unwilling to discuss it rationally and continues to disrupt. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it for 3rr issues and edit warring (I see the editor is currently blocked), but it might be a good idea to request input from more editors (maybe at WikiProject India or WikiProject Films) to help nail consensus if there are only a couple of you. That will make it more evident if MartineeJames is being disruptive. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Moonriddengirl! As one of the main contributors of this article and a part of Wikiproject:Indian Cinema, I think this becomes frustrating even more. The info this user was adding/changing is unsourced, incorrect and contains blatant POV, lies and original research. He kept on reverting the article to his own version including all the improvements and copyedits in between. I know that the right way to go is to be a role model for him so I sourced the info he challenged when sending me his uncivil messages. As we see now, despite that all, he chose to use a sock puppet and revert everything I did instantly. I think that his 24 hours of block should be extended as it stands in violation of WP:EVADE. What do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: if my message to him seemed uncivil to you, so I let me clarify that it was not my intention to piss him off even more. My intention was to make him understand the consequences of such behaviour. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. My concern was that it might further inflame the situation, and it seemed to me best removed. Resetting will not add much time, since he was blocked, but I will reset. I don't think it's the best thing to extend his block, honestly. If he continues disruptive behavior, including an immediate return to edit warring after the block expires, then a longer block may be appropriate. My concern is that extending the block now--unless it were made indef--would only prolong the problem. I believe he will either return and follow dispute resolution, or he will return to unacceptable behavior. But I'm open to conversation about it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I'm honestly worried more for the article rather than his block, because I'm quite busy in real life and am not as present on Wikipedia as I used to be a couple of months ago. There must be some way to talk to him and explain that he is wrong. His edits are essentially nonsense. They are based on POV and include addition of original research, in addition to being written in a journalistic style. I added a source because I expected him to try to find sources too, something that is impossible in this case (the info is incorrect). And not only that - he prefers to revert all the revisions to his own one, including copyedits and improvements that are made in between. This shows that he does not really care - it's become a matter of ego. His additions can be easily considered sneaky vandalism per WP:VANDAL. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe he warrants an indef block yet, though he will if he persists in sock puppetry. Extending his block won't prevent his eventual editing of the article--it will only postpone it. At most, I would imagine that his block would be extended by a few days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, and there you go. Sometimes, giving people rope is all it takes. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you handled the situation perfectly Moonridden. You're setting a great example for how an admin should act on here, didn't jump in and act rashly but acted fairly based on the edits of the person who only has himself to blame. Kepe up the good admin work! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I try to presume that people might be interested in working within the system, but sometimes, sadly, they just aren't. I know from working the other side of the mop that sometimes it can be frustrating waiting for an admin to figure that out when you already know it, so I particularly appreciate the patience. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best to just bloack his IP address, stop him creating multiple accounts? Are they all registered to the same IP? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Without checkuser, I can't know. However, the IP has been autoblocked each time, yet he has been able to create new socks within the autoblock period. This suggests that he is not on a stable IP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy of deleted page

Hey Moonriddengirl, long time no see (again). Would you mind retrieving this article for an adoptee of mine? He wishes to rewrite it, so can you copy it to his sandbox, User:Mr Richard Richter/Sandbox? That would be great, thanks. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! It seems like just yesterday when I was asking of you the same request for myself. :-) By the way, was this article really 'blatant advertising'? Had I patrolled the article, I may have just tagged it with {{advert}}. Unless I'm missing something, it just seems more borderline then 'blatant'. Otherwise, my interpretation of 'blatant advertising' must be too soft. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like blatant advertisement to me. That's a bit of a problematic criterion, I think. I suspect that where there is evident COI, some admins and users apply that one more strictly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry I didn't notice the infringement on Alexander Brest Planetarium. I've been using this tool to check for infringements, and it has caught a couple already (one I'm about to handle). But in that article's case, it didn't catch it. FunPika 21:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks on DSDM

Just posting to say thanks for addressing the content on the DSDM page, I had noticed a while ago that content seemed to be appearing on the page which was culled from other sources. It's en-heartening to see that people are both actively editing pages on Wikipedia and genuinely interested doing things properly. Semafore (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm afraid that I can't take much credit. :) All I did was restore the good version before infringement started. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To your credit is that you consider removing content which infringes copyright a worthy endeavour and that you have the wherewithal to do so. I thank you because in my day-to-day life I fulfil I role which if done properly is necessarily ignored and have come to see an expression of gratitude as an appropriate acknowledgement to any work done 'behind the scenes'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semafore (talk • contribs) 01:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, then, thank you very much. I can take that credit without guilt. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Moonriddengirl, I had a page that was recently deleted, and just wanted to leave you a note thanking you for recovering it to my sandbox. Have a great day! Mr Richard Richter (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem; as you can see above, it was requested on your behalf. :) You may want to consider requesting feedback on the article at our "conflict of interest" noticeboard before moving it to article space. I have sometimes seen that prove effective for article creators who are closely connected to their subjects. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - Unable to Remove

On this page [[8]] I've discovered vandalism. Scroll down to 8046 Ajiki and you'll find, just below it a reference to a nonexistant asteroid named as 8046B that is "Secret Astroid, ridden by Goku". I click on "edit this page" but obviously the page gets the text from elsewhere. I'm hoping that you would be able to fix this. T@nn (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what I can figure out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. That page transcludes a number of subpages. The page with the vandalism is List of asteroids/8001–8100. I've cleaned it. For technical reasons I totally do not grok, it may be a bit before the main page catches up with the cleaning. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Good catch, by the way. That's been hanging around for quite a while! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I only caught it because I've been working on categorising asteroids articles for the last week or so. :) T@nn (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Status of Medjugorje

Hi Moonriddengirl:

Thanks for your help with the Status of Medjugorje article I posted. As you know, the article was deleted because of copyright concerns. The first question I have is, what do I do in order to prove that I am the author of the article? I tried reading some of the Wikipedia articles to discern what I should do, but never really figured it out. Your help would be appreciated.

Secondly, it was recommended that I move the article over to Our Lady of Medjugorje and post it there. Once the verification that I am the author is settled, can I post the article there, and if so, would I do it by pasting my article over the top of the existing article? This would delete the existing 2 paragraphs (not much there currently). I don't want to proceed in a manner that is un-wiki-like. :)

Thanks for your help!

Craig Turner Peterfranciw (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)peterfranciw

Hi. First, please read (if you haven't) Talk:Our Lady of Međugorje. Do you still have the domain that previously published the text? If you do, the easiest way is to send an e-mail from an e-mail address associated with it to the Communications Committee. You can include an archived link to the article and not your release. (Let me know if you do; I'll be happy to help you compose such a letter.) If you don't, I'm not entirely sure how it would best be handled, but I'll try to help figure it out. Your case is unusual. If you start by telling me where you stand there, then we can try to see how best to proceed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

eLib Solutions

Before I post everything on the copyright discussion page, I wanted to discuss this with you so we can already present a concept for co-publishing on the copyright page.

Ok, let's see how we proceed: I am very much in favor of a solution as we added some good articles (mainly on the german wikipedia). I think that spreading quality-controlled texts is a good idea. That is the reason for trying to co-publish as there are legal problems otherwise. Here some thoughts for legal worst case scenarios (i hate my law studies):

• Basic "Problem" with the GFDL for ages: it clearly states that all "copies" of a licenced work must remain under the GFDL. Further, I am not allowed to obstruct reading or further copying ad include a variety of informations (authors, mods etc). This can lead to problems with copys published on the authors page, in eLib, in a password protected environment or at a publisher's website. Only legal solution (at least as I see it from an Austrian Law perspective - oh, I love legal fictions): the published text is not a derivative nor a copy but a new legal entity originally co- not re-published under the GFDL (or any other licence allowing for scientific and educational use as stated in our licence) in wikipedia - not earlier - and existing next to the other work. Otherwise, both of us would also have to permanently update and synchronize the history of both GFDL article versions under the GFDL (wikipedia too if it is first published in eLib under the GFDL) as both may be used, but only if they have a local copy of the history of all edits and a list of all authors attached - enjoy.

• As we have a lot of different licences coexisting, not all eLib texts can be added and from our side each text has to be controlled by me as eLib Admin, as I am legally responsible if something goes wrong. So I have a vital interest that everything goes according to licence.

• This whole process has to be documented from your side directly in wikipedia as I tried to do with the notice and the category with links to explanations to the unusual process. This can be done by me (bulk) under my username, if the authors granted eLib the right to copublish under our project licence. The necessary rights for wikipedia would then be generated through a link to eLib and a link explaining the process and the relevant part of our licence. It can also be done individually by the authors for their text - but as individuals they should veryfy individually.

• I don't think that there is a binding legal process for identification if I only have the IP or username and it is done over the net (at least it is problematic in Austria).

This said, we should not overreact (Wikipedia:Avoid copyright paranoia). Perhaps we can find a way where we establish my position as admin (how to do that in a way that would save me from litigation I do not know, but fine) and my right to act on non-exclusive rights given to eLib by authors - also for the co-publishing process. This way, at least I personally could add eLib texts which would mean some work but also more content. How should we do that? Cheers, --Gego (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have absolutely no familiarity with the German Wikipedia or its rules or processes, I'm afraid, and lack the German necessary to review them. :/ Also, any solution we come up with now may become a problem in August if we switch as anticipated to CC-by-SA, since as I understand it work placed here from external sites under GFDL may not be acceptable then unless said site is a Wiki (see [9].) But if I am understanding your situation correctly—that you are an administrator on eLib to whom content contributors provide text and that you obtain permission from some of them to release the text under GFDL at Wikipedia—then you should be in good position to verify permission.

It seems that you are proposing to place a note at eLib explaining the licensing situation here. That ought to work, if you clearly identify your Wikipedia username at that site and note that said username has authorization by eLib and its contributors to place material on Wikipedia under the licensing terms of GFDL v.1.3 or later (again, though, come August this could be an issue. You might want to cover that by granting yourself authorization to release material under GFDL and CC-by-SA. Otherwise, any text you place here under GFDL may have to be removed...a nightmare scenario I so don't want to be involved in). In that case, you would want to provide a link to that release on the talk page of any article you so place. In order to comply with GFDL, you will also need to credit the original authors, by whatever name or identification they've submitted the work. Generally, we'd do this by a direct link to the individual eLib article, but if those articles are password protected it should also work to specify something like: "At its creation, this article utilized text released under GFDL and CC-by-SA by [ip or user address], originally published at [url] on [date]. See [link to eLib release].") It seems like this might be the simplest and best solution, since the entire site is not released by GFDL and that would avoid Wikipedia's accepting text from other contributors that do not have permission. You may need to designate a contact e-mail if original authors may independently place their material here, since we'll need someone who can verify that they are the same person. (We've done this with Scholarpedia, which also has variant licensing.)

I'm not entirely sure whether you're understanding the GFDL correctly, though--or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. When you say, "Otherwise, both of us would also have to permanently update and synchronize the history of both GFDL article versions under the GFDL (wikipedia too if it is first published in eLib under the GFDL) as both may be used, but only if they have a local copy of the history of all edits and a list of all authors attached - enjoy", you seem to be suggesting that to comply with GFDL, all versions of an article must document the history of all other versions. GFDL does not require that you attribute text that does not exist in a version released, but only those contributors to specific modification. Theoretically, one base document could evolve differently at two different wikis, for example, and both would be in compliance of GFDL if they noted their individual contributors, which might diverge permanently after the first edit. If I've misunderstood you, forgive me, please, for over-explaining. :) Also, of course, the original copyright holder is not a "licensee" under GFDL. While everyone else who wants to use the material must attribute under the provisions of GFDL, the copyright holder can do what he or she likes, including modify his own document and/or publish it elsewhere or give permission for others to publish it under different license (according to En Wikipedia's interpretation anyway; see WP:C: "For permission to use it outside these [GFDL] terms, one must contact all the volunteer authors of the text or illustration in question.")

With respect to avoid copyright paranoia, this is a sound basic philosophy, but I wonder if you've read the page? :) It's an essay, not policy or guideline, and it is not even truly an essay as we use the term—it's more a talk page. And it's primarily about fair use. This is obviously a different situation, and these procedures have been created to protect both the Wikimedia Foundation and the copyright owners who are submitting material to you. Verifying from the start is also a good idea to allow us to keep this content. I have observed many situations at our copyright problems board where people have challenged our use of text placed here that is also published elsewhere, probably by the same person. After a length of time, it can be difficult to prove that. Wikipedia:Copyright violations notes that "if the contributor was in fact the author of the text, then even if it is published elsewhere under different terms, they have the right to post it here under the GFDL", but if the contributor can't be contacted, we can't know if they are in fact the author of the text. Lacking verification, this material is typically deleted after seven days. (See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins.) A good notice at the source will eliminate that problem, as would going through the Communications Committee and getting an OTRS number (See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials). Having seen some good content yanked from Wikipedia, I'm all in favor of making sure it stays usable from the start. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bollywood - he's back

The sock is back with another account (apparently, he was waiting for the opportunity to be able to edit that article). I think the article should be protected from any edits. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe full protection of the article is appropriate, though you are welcome to request it at WP:RPP if you disagree. The majority of edits to that article seem constructive. I see that you have addressed the matter with him. I'll tag the contributor as a suspected sock puppet, and if he restores the material again will block that account. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. He adds his POV, removing sources and adding wrong information instead. That's quite disheartening. I've warned him, but cannot do more than that. Please keep watching the article if you can. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

After further reviewing contribution history, there's not much question of sock puppetry--Martineejames' first edit was to recreate an article by that contributor that was speedily deleted. I have the Bollywood article on my watchlist, but, of course, I have to be careful to continue to act as a neutral administrator. If I see obvious socking, I can block, but there's sometimes the danger that a good faith contributor may support those changes, which might shift it into content dispute. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I strongly doubt such a thing will happen. I am very impressed by your willingness to be neutral and fair. I'm grateful for your great help. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one. They're all the same person who created multiple accounts. Their IP generally starts with "117...". His message proves that he is the one from the Bollywood article. Just like the previous one, he insulted me for working on the Preity Zinta article (remember his account "Preityzintaisawhore"?). It was just a note, it doesn't matter. Thanks for reverting the vandalism. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mary Fisher

Mary Fisher

Hello again. You were helping me make changes to get a page up on Mary Fisher the activist. When I came back to work on it, I found a page up on its own! How do I know who put that page up? Some of the information is incorrect and/or not necessarily what they were hoping to have out there in this format. Is there anything a person can do about that? How do I find out who made the page?

Thank you again Handley Willoughby (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I put the page up with the information that I could locate. (You can see who contributed what to an article by looking at the "history" tab at the top of the page; in this case, [10].) Copyright matters are addressed within seven week, and when you didn't return I felt a brief article was better than deleting all information on Ms. Fisher. All the information in the article is cited to the reliable sources listed on the page, though some of it (particularly such as the number of books she has written) may be outdated. If you want to add more information, please feel free, but remember to put it in your own words and please also cite your sources. Information must be veriable on Wikipedia--particularly information in a biography of a living person. Information also needs to be neutrally presented. (You probably already realize that all the colored text contains links, in this case to policies and guidelines, but I'll point it out in case you don't.)

When you say "not necessarily what they were hoping to have out there in this format", that does give me some concern that you may be affiliated in some way with Ms. Fisher, so I'll suggest that you might want to read our conflict of interest guidelines so you can see how best to contribute if you are. Wikipedia is interested in encyclopedic detail and strives to neutrally present all information related to the notability of its subjects. Being connected with her does not automatically create a problem in editing the article, but it does require extra care.

Please let me know if you have any questions about this or if I can help you in any way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been so helpful. Thank you again. Handley Willoughby (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more helpful if I wouldn't make typos. :D Copyright matters are addressed within seven days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the 'conflict of interest' link - it was helpful. I only want to help people (and wiki), so I feel entirely comfortable with how to keep it encyclopedic. Which brings me to my current problem - there is one urgent fact missing from the page and I'm concerned for the impact it might have on others. Mary went back on the medication not long after that article you found that stated she had stopped. I'd hate to have people interpret that as a reason to stop. If I can't find a 'source' for this information, how can I get that very important point across? Thank you again! Handley Willoughby (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, did Mary give an interview where she talked about going back on medication, or did she write about it on her website? That would be the best thing--to explain that she went back on medication and why. (If you know her and she didn't write about it on her website, perhaps she could. :)) Alternatively, we can add some general information about the advisability of going off medications, if we can source that. Do you know if she wrote further about her experiences? I don't doubt there's more out there than I found when I was working on the article. I was primarily relying on "google news." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything public. Can I just take that fact down for now, or do I need to have a reason? I can go back and put it back up later?! Thanks!Handley Willoughby (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Army worms

Hey Moonriddengirl. I've done an initial rewrite of the Army worm article and put it here. The same sources as before were used, but rephrased and rewritten. It'd be awesome if you could take a quick look at that, and if you're satisfied that it's no longer a copyright problem I'll add it back in. If not, I can rewrite any portion you feel needs some work. Thanks! FlyingToaster 18:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The challenge here is finding ways to present this information that do not replicate the structure of the original or the creative selection of facts. (Facts are not copyrighted; their creative selection may be.) The original says:

“ The life cycle is completed in about 30 days during the summer, but 60 days in the spring and autumn, and 80 to 90 days during the winter. The number of generations occurring in an area varies with the appearance of the dispersing adults. The ability to diapause is not present in this species. In Minnesota and New York, where fall armyworm moths do not appear until August, there may be but a single generation. The number of generations is reported to be one to two in Kansas, three in South Carolina, and four in Louisiana. ”

The new version says:

“ The life cycle of the fall army worm varies in length by season; 30 days in the summer, 60 in the spring and fall, and 80 to 90 days in the winter. How many generations a population of fall army worms go through depends on when they appear in a region, with more southern locations reporting more generations. For instance, in Minnesota and New York they do not appear until August and may only live for a single generation. However, in Kansas they go through one to two generations, in South Carolina they go through three, and in Louisiana they go through four.[4] ”

Some part of this show good separation, but even the selection of examples could be a problem, since these are the same examples chosen by the tagged source. I can't find the original source online--the Studies of the fall armyworm in the Gulf coast region of Texas--so I can't compare that to see if this Floridian writer has originality in that choice or simply reproduced all information from the original. It might be better to rearrange material more radically to separate from source, something like:

“ The life cycle of the fall army worm varies in length by season; typical life cycle during the summer is 30 days, but this doubles in spring and autumn and as much as triples in winter. How many generations a population of fall army worms goes through depends on when they appear in a region, ranging from four in areas like Louisiana where the moths make an early appearance to one in such locations as Minnesota and New York. ”

I'll make a few changes directly in the temp page for further discussion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The distribution section is even closer to this source. (For instance, the temp article says, "native to the tropical regions of the western hemisphere from the United States to Argentina." The source says, "native to the tropical regions of the western hemisphere from the United States to Argentina." The article says, "It is recorded from virtually all states east of the Rocky Mountains. However, as a regular and serious pest, its range tends to be mostly the southeastern states." The source says, "They have been documented in virtually all of the states east of the Rocky Mountains. However, as a regular and serious pest of vegetable crops, its range tends to be mostly in the southeastern states." I'm afraid this temp version still needs some extensive revision. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Free" question

Hi MRG, I know I've promised to get active again on a certain topic but in the meantime:

Do you have any comments on this? I'm not sure that was the right place to ask the question, or even if I actually asked any clear question. :) Thanks! Franamax (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry. I got started on WP:CP this morning and completely forgot to follow up on my talk page notes. (Big day! I've got a long road still ahead.) I'm very glad to see that somebody else has answered you, though, because I'm a total duffer when it comes to images. I may have compiled the WP:GID, but I did it because I could never figure out how these were handled and realized I probably wasn't the only one. :D

With respect to that other topic, User:Dcoetzee's essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing has given me a very nice pointer for some of the plagiarism/copyvio concerns I run into often at CP (and particularly one I'm in the midst of addressing--with lots of help--at User:Moonriddengirl/sandbox), so I'm comfortable sitting back to let Wikipedia:Plagiarism evolve at its own pace. I've still got it watchlisted and if it moves forward at any point may try to contribute if it seems I can be of use. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nataraja

Hi, sorry to take so long getting back to you about this exoticindia.com. I do still have the e-mails from them securely in my saved messages folder. They initially wanted to stipulate non-commercial use only, but, after I explained that that wouldn't be possible, I received an e-mail from @exoticindia.com on Aug. 5, 2005 reading in part "I have discussed the issue with Seema. She has informed me that as per your suggestion the credit to our text will be mentioned in the Edit Summary. In case the source is appropriately credited, you can use our text content freely on Wikipedia. However, we have to be more particular about the possible end use of our images. I have therefore requested Seema not to list our images on Wikipedia for now." Please advise how to proceed.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Army worms copyright

Yes, I plan to work on the temporary version further and would hugely appreciate a few more days. Thanks very much. FlyingToaster 19:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

tirex resources

Are you able to give me back my temp page, which was a work in progress. Thanks for your comments. ( i know minus the text)

Some information I would think would be very similar to the company's website because of factual information. I was following some other mining companies wik's for formatting.

The information I had was stating the company's public company symbol and what type of projects they have ongoing. I can't really change that too much as they are public and anything that gets released on its own website or press release is scrutinized by the stock exchange. The information I was putting up may seem like it is copyright, but with public companies, it is more like factual public information that shouldn't be modified and is allowed to be disseminated.

My goal is to describe the company, give a blurb about the company and users can use the external link section or link back to the company website for more information. I do not want to have copyright concerns even though the information was provided by the company, i just don't want to change it drastically.

However, I have no problem re-wording areas that I can and give obvious reference to the source which I believe follows protocol for the copyright issue.

you mentioned "as long as the information comes from a cited source, you don't need to duplicate the language (and must not, to comply with our copyright policy"

If I put up exactly what i had before and right underneath the article put cited source and a link.. will that work and solve my problems?

thank you again and I will keep learning to avoid these mistakes in future postings.

Newdesignnow (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)newdesignnow

thanks you are the best! Newdesignnow (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)newdesignnow

I think i get what other people have done. If I am getting information from tirex and they have that on their website. I can keep the information exactly the same, but put a little reference tag and have a reference section to where it can be found on the net. Will that work?

Newdesignnow (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)newdesignnow

24.252.203.226

Hello Who Are YOU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.203.226 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone who would rather people contribute constructively to Wikipedia. As you were advised on your talk page, you're welcome to experiment in the sandbox. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello firend! I need your help on Bollywood films and plagiarism. One user, Zhanzhao (talk · contribs) has been adding films to the list of "Films alleged to contain plagiarism", using completely unreliable sources, even blogs.

Back in time, he was at first saying such things as "It's a clear remake, we all know that". He was (and still is) under the impression that sources must not be added. Then he started adding sources when he saw that his edits are otherwise reverted. But most of them were blogs and fansites. I cleaned up the list, leaving only the titles that use reliable sources. Asked him to find reliable sources, as per WP:RS. Now he keeps reverting my edits to his own version asking me to prove hat they are unreliable. I (believe me, I know exactly what can and what cannot be considered reliable as someone who wrote a FA about an Indian actor and even had many troubles because of that) explained that the burden of proof is on him, and as for the sources, he is the one who adds them, hence he is the one who must prove their reliability when they are questioned.

As you were able to spot in the near past. I even added some sources myself. Today for example I removed a questionable source and replaced it with an Indian newspaper. It does not help, and the page is still being reverted (and the unreliable sources re-added). Could you please help me somehow? Talk to him? Protect the page? Or anything else? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The question of what makes a source reliable is not often cut and dried to the point that admin intervention is appropriate, unless it's on a foundation matter like WP:BLP. I see this is already up for arbitration, although this isn't likely to go anywhere since it doesn't conform to requirements. Your best bet here is probably to request further input from an appropriate, neutral forum like the reliable sources noticeboard or WP:3O (if you go to 3O, please follow carefully the instructions on listing, noting that it is the one board where you should not use four tildes to sign your name. :)) Meanwhile, if you find the situation getting too heated, you may want to step back and stop editing for a while until you get a response from that forum. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeh but he keeps the reversals arduously, and I can't stand the inclusion of blogs on the article. Thanks you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting, but sites like oneindia.com, thaindian.com , slough.gov.uk and iefilmi.com are NOT blogs. I just want a fair say in the matter here. Thanks for the suggestion though, I'll post a request to the WP:RSN later.Zhanzhao (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's probably the best forum for it to receive neutral input. Meanwhile, please try to work civilly with one another as you look for an acceptable compromise or reach consensus through wider participation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm trying to, but he keeps editing the Talk:Bollywood_films_and_plagiarism page and screwing up the placement of my replies, and when I revert his changes, now he's trying to accuse me of vandalising them because he refuses to undo his changes before making new comments....Zhanzhao (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that when you use curly brackets, you replicate the entire page. You used curly brackets here, and copied the whole of Talk:Bollywood films and plagiarism on my talk page. You did the same here, which would have transcribed all of the other user's userpage. With respect to your talk page argument, I see that here you placed your comments inside of a comment by another user. This is not a good idea, as it makes it very difficult to trace who said what, when. Wikipedia:Talk page notes, "To respond to a discussion already in progress, add your comment below the last entry in the discussion." The entry ends with the signature. You should not respond in the middle of an entry, but after it is concluded. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the clarification. I was having some difficulty earlier on as I was trying to help {{User:Shshshsh } edit his posts since he refused to do it himself, and encountered this problem. That should fix everything afterthat. Appreciated! Zhanzhao (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're still using curly brackets, it seems. It's the square ones [[ ]] you want. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Microwave power transmission

Thanks for the quick action on Microwave power transmission - sometimes it takes a while to track back into the edit history and find when particular phrases were added. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad if I can be of assistance. :) Generally, tickets listed at CP are not processed for seven days after their placement, but I tend to look at the most recent day's listings as well just in case there is something that can be immediately resolved. Your notes, of course, made this easy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I see you are very involved in dealing with copyright violations, could you please take a look at this case: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Anonmoos.27_copyright_violation Thank you --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to look into the matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the copyright concern in that article and addressing it. One thing I noticed that might help you if you run into future copyright concerns is that you seem to be using the words "plagiarism" and "copyright infringement" somewhat interchangeably. Plagiarism is frowned upon on Wikipedia, but we do not yet have an official policy in place about it. (There is one under development at Wikipedia:Plagiarism.) Copyright infringement is a different matter. The two can go hand-in-hand, but don't always. When you remove copyright infringement from text, instead of referring to it as "plagiarism" in the edit summary, you would probably get better results to just refer to it flatly as copyright infringement. If somebody resists your efforts to remove it, you can blank the entire article with {{subst:copyvio|url=whatever}} and follow the further directions for handling that the template will provide. Those templates are only supposed to be removed by administrators. Good luck reaching consensus with other contributors of the page in its new direction, and thanks again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for handling the case and for the advice! I see what you mean about plagiarism vs copyright infringement. Next time Anonmoos restores the text (if he does) I will take the steps that you suggested. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hip Hop albums

Hi.

By any chance do you know whose idea was to ALWAYS put a table in the track listing for those albums, i haven`t really learned to work with them, wich make it a real pain, but i don`t want to remove them if some guideline or concensus says i can`t.

Thanks Zidane tribal (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) It's up to the individual editors, and there is absolutely no guideline that says you can't. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Gothic music

There seems to be an edit war in this article with one person continually redirecting the page to another and one person restoring the page and the two of them alternating undoing the edits of the other. I don't know if you can do anything about it, but it's beginning to annoy me (I attempted to get it categorised by putting it in the January category of articles to be categorised and, once again, it's in the specialpages of uncategorised articles). T@nn (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I can't guarantee it'll settle down immediately, but it should resolve soon one way or the other. I have warned both of them that the next time either blindly reverts the article, they will be blocked. They've been edit warring on that one for a long time. I've watchlisted the article. If they're really interested in the outcome, they'll follow up on process by involving other parties to help establish consensus. (I almost restored it as a redirect based on the 2006 AfD, but redirects from AfD don't seem to be as binding as deletions; given the time span, I think a new consensus would be necessary.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) T@nn (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

One temporarily blocked; the other seems likely to follow, based on history. Meanwhile, I've petitioned the alternative music wikiproject to resolve the dispute, but based on past wiki experience am not hopeful. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ada Kataki

I was composing a fairly long message to this user which I posted after you blocked him (it was a new section so I didn't see the block message before I posted it) - it's on his talk, hopefully he'll take it on board when his block expires. Exxolon (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Good message. Let's hope. :) Unfortunately, with Gothic music, s/he doesn't seem to understand that no matter how right you may think you are, you need to use the consensus process rather than edit warring. If s/he does, I suspect consensus will be with him, but this back and forth on the article in question isn't doing the project any good. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

His/her talkpage response does not fill me with confidence... Exxolon (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Me, either. But at least you tried. :) We'll see what s/he does when s/he comes back. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Norman

How about nominating this for GA? Hekerui (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I find the idea a bit intimidating, since I've literally put everything I could find on this man into the article. If a GA reviewer asks for more info, I am sunk. :D But I'm highly honored that you would suggest it, and I may give it a shot anyway. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Mexican American

Hello again Moonriddengirl. Sorry to bother you again, but I'm trying to get rid of the broken references on some of the articles and I simply can't seem to get rid of the one on this article, no matter where I put the reflist: I've tried to put it in the usual place where I put it (just above the categories) and that has worked in other articles but not this one. Then I tried another place (as you can from the current state of the page) and that didn't work either. Do you have any idea of why that is and what can be done? T@nn (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I like a challenge. :) Let's see if I can help. (I like them a lot better when the answer is "yes.") --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the problem is in one of the bottom boxes. It has a ref in it, but because the references section is above it, that ref has no place to expand. I'm about to test that theory. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Template:Mexican diaspora was creating the problem. I note that the problem also existed in other articles that transcluded the template below the "ref" box. I've changed the "ref" to a simple inline link. Once the articles that transclude it do that magic thing they do where they update themselves, the problem should correct. If it isn't better within a few hours, I'll ask somebody with more technical know-how than I have how to fix it. But I'm banking that the problem is fixed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks once again. :) T@nn (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's fun to do something different now and again. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at List of Numb3rs episodes's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Kennan Ward

I see you removed information about me Kennan Ward. Although I consider myself at least average I say it is semantics to say you can not use information I provide about myself and than publish similar writings people submit with minor or one change??

Could you imagine going through all this writing something new to find the same result. I may be hard to learn your very specific ways but I think it may help you to be flexible to real people.

I submitted a starting point for others to add after some hundred requests from art collectors. I actually thought I was helping Wikipedia.

I can not put a GFDL on my website as I have many copyright images. The text is a whole other situation especially about us?

I hope you can understand.

PEACE,

Kennan Ward--Kennanward (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded at contributor's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:EverettMcGill

Hi. You'll need to delete this users account and get him renamed. Unless it is Everett McGill himself then it violates the living person thing doesn't it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) It's possible that his name is Everett McGill, even if he's not that particular one. Wikipedia:Username#Real names says that if there is likely to be some confusion, he can indicate his identity on his userpage. Looking at his contribution history, I'm thinking he may be okay (I haven't looked at the actual edits, just the topics that draw him), but if you think that some might presume he is the actor, the thing to do is probably point out that section of policy and ask him if he'd mind clarifying on his userpage. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hospice care in the United States

Hey, thank you very much! I was just talking with a friend who was going to help me put together the sourcing, I owe you a big thanks! I will still look to add more the article. I appreciate all of you help.Tbolden (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you as well for your work in identifying the problems with the article. Well above and beyond just admin monitoring the copyright violations page! I haven't checked your history to see if anyone barnstared you for your work on that Copyright Violations page, but heck if they haven't you unquestionably deserve it. You did an amazing job on putting together the citations. I was talking to Tbolden on the phone walking him through what to do, and you did it all! jbolden1517^Talk 06:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I wondered given the name similarities if there was connection. :) (Of course, there might not be, but the phone call suggests there may.) I've been barnstarred for the copyright problems page, thanks. I enjoy volunteering there, particularly when an article can be salvaged. I don't generally request assessment, but I was so deeply impressed with Tbolden's work here that I thought it should be acknowledged. After the WikiProject Medicine assessment, when the dust has settled and we can be sure it's stable, perhaps a GA review would be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cousin. I don't think in the last few years I've ever edited a medical article before. That would be pretty exciting to get something to GA status within a few weeks. I'll brief TBolden on what article status means. Right now I'm showing him what to do about the assessment as it exist and how to reply. Thanks for the help. jbolden1517^Talk 21:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your compliment and your encouraging words, they mean a lot. Thanks again, I plan to add to the articleTbolden (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I guess I should also ask you, is there anything else you would recommend I do to get the article to either good article or (gasp!) even featured article status. Seriously though any suggestions, I originally started this as something kind of fun to do and did not expect the feedback you have given, but I have found the process of writing the article to be a good reminder of the value of hospice care. Again thanks for your support. Tbolden (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We'll find out. :) At this point, we should give the Wikiproject Medicine reviewer a day or so to come back. If he doesn't come back on his own, I'll ask him to take a look at it. If he rates it B, we propose it for GA, and the GA article reviewer will give us a list of things to fix. Some of these will probably relate to my citations, as I always forget what goes in what order. He may want more information about some aspects or less information about others. Usually, it's a fairly comprehensive list. If it gets GA and you're feeling ambitious, we can take FA from there. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

___

MG (in response to note on my talk page) -- I explained what GA status meant to Tbolden a few days ago and offered to help if he was interested. Yes I'm talking to him by phone. I've offered to help him through the GA process (as I've taken several articles through GA before and even rated a few). I have no experience on getting an A or getting an FA so I can't help there, other than possibly interpreting what is meant by the critique. He's away from the internet I'll let him know by voice the B assessment is online which seems like it will get him most of the way to GA. I wouldn't expect any changes in Hospice for a few days. jbolden1517^Talk 18:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed some of the suggestions, give me a few days, I know I can flesh things out a bit moreTbolden (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that I know that anything I write is written in stone I will not delete my comment...I know I can add to the questions he had regarding respite and stopping cure-oriented care. Pediatric hospice is little utilized speciality unto itself, I can definitely add some detail to it and will have to get some references regarding this.Tbolden (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I added some edits suggested by Whatamidoing regarding the qualifications for care. Please let me know if it make sense to you, I am not sure I got the flow of ideas out very well. Thanks. Tbolden (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Got your messages, not sure what else to add about respite--was the information I added not specific enough? What else should I add and I will. Regarding pediatric hospice I could add a section on it, however yes, it would definitely need to be fleshed out more. My cousin told me I may start to get a little possessive of this article---I think that is happening! Thanks again.Tbolden (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh one other thing, you mentioned needing to add demographics, to what part does this need to be added to. Also, when you are done with article, I will add a small section on several sub-specialties that are in hospice care.Tbolden (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, regarding GA status, I think I will defer to you, I do like the article as it is. I konw I could add lots of stuff to it but as you indicated if the article is too long that can be a problem. I was thinking of adding a section on myths and barriers but if you feel that would add too much then by all means lets submit it. I am going to take your advice and link the article to a website that can answer patient/family questions. And...after all of this is said and done I will probably take a crack at another article.Tbolden (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, you have made this a thoroughly enjoyable experience!Tbolden (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I couldn't help myself! I added a section on barriers to hospice care. A couple of things, 1) I appreciate all of the "heavy lifting" you have done with the references, I do have two very good sources I used for this part of the article, I know this is not the correct way to do things but I wasn going to include the link following this comment. 2)Even with the sourcing, does thsi section look too much like opinion? I feel it should be in the article but after I was done I am not satisfied with how it looks. Please let me know your thoughts.Tbolden (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ccjm.org/content/73/6/517.full.pdf+htmlTbolden (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.mywhatever.com/cifwriter/content/46/files/access_and_values_report.pdfTbolden (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, regarding the patient/family barriers, it is on page 2 of the 5 page article linked and regarding hospice's being reluctant to accept patients it is on page 27 of the Hospice Work Group article, however, regarding the other financial disincentives, this is not well referenced. As this is in the process of GA nomination, would it be best to take out all of this section? If you can give me some easy pointers regarding the sourcing for the other two pieces that would be great.Tbolden (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

i will work on the sourcing, let me know what you think of the finished product, thanks.Tbolden (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I am just about done with the sourcing and if I am done then I am also done adding to this article!! At least until the GA nomination is wrapped up. Sourcing is sure harder than the actual writing. By the way, I see nothing has happened yet with the GA process is that fairly typical?Tbolden (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re

No problem. It has to be done, after all.

I think the biggest challenge will be checking the Jacksonville, Florida article, because of its size and Mgreason's long-time involvement with it. We'll need a few eyes on that one. Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for looking into that. Zagalejo^^^ 18:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou

A very sincere thank you and wow - for your work on the Indonesian articles this morning - it is very much appreciated - clearly an improvement - SatuSuro 01:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm afraid it may take a little baby-sitting until all the contributors are clear that they can't just paste material from other sources. I've had to clean more infringement today. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think - that we have serial adders - I think their collective understanding of english might be minimal - by their responses so far - so a bit of my dog indonesian :( - may let them know. woof woof in a manner of speaking SatuSuro 04:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dog Indonesian is miles ahead of my Indonesian, which is limited to the point that I probably couldn't pick it out in a line-up. :D Thanks for addressing it directly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

SIUT Karachi

SIUT (Sindh Institute Of Urology & Transplantation) Karachi page has been deleted in the list hospitals of Karachi. I wonder why this has been done because this the state of the art hospital providing urological sevices as well as renal transplant free of cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saima76 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The article Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation was hosted here against policy, as it was pasted from previously published sources without verification that the source was public domain or otherwise licensed compatibly with the GNU Free Documentation license. We would welcome an article on this hospital, but we do need it to comply with our copyright policy so that we stay in compliance with US copyright law, which governs Wikipedia. We can only use text copied directly from unfree sources in the limited circumstances set out at our non-free content guidelines.

If you would like to write a new article on this institute, please feel free. The goal here is to neutrally present information about notable hospitals (and I'm sure this one is). All material must be attributable. If you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends that you do not create or edit the article yourself, but instead consider proposing its creation at requested articles or at a related article or relevant WikiProject. If you do choose to write the article in such a case, you'll want to be particularly careful to approach it neutrally.

Before establishing the article, please search Wikipedia to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject, maybe under a slightly different name. (That happens more often than you might think!) Help:Starting a new page should give you all the guidance you need, but you might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article. Please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation.

Please let me know if I can offer you any more information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Tim Carter (musicologist)

Once again, above and beyond the call of duty.;-) I lose patience after I see the umpteenth paste job from a web site. You know that box that appears when you create an article...

• Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
• To experiment, please use the sandbox.
• When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references will likely be deleted quickly.

Has the English Wikpedia ever thought of adding something to the effect of...

• Please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations before creating your first article. Do not copy text from websites, unless they explicitly authorize the completely free use of their material, including for commercial purposes.

They have it on the Italian Wikipedia.[11] No one reads the stuff at the bottom of the editing page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I understand your loss of patience, believe me. That seems like a stellar idea. I wouldn't begin to know how to implement that, but I know who I'll ask. :) I'll see what I can find out about the feasibility of including that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

But I might alter it a bit, Do not copy text from non-free sources. Please read Wikipedia:Copyright for more information. We don't want text copied from books, either. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oooh! I forgot about books, what are they?;-) However it's worded, it's certainly worth a try. Have just spent a couple of hours transforming this little beauty [12] created by someone determined to publicize himself wherever he can on Wikipedia. Sigh... I then rather foolishly followed up his contributions and found another entirely plagiarized article (apart from the lead). [13]. It had been there since 2006! Fixed now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Good job. :) You should see the project I'm working on, User:Moonriddengirl/sandbox. (Fortunately, I've got some help!) All of those are by one contributor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Holy Cow! I guess you'll learn a lot about Florida before you're finished. ;-) Reminds me of a student I had, who despite my long and frequent discourses to the class about plagiarism, submitted an essay consisting entirely of verbatim copy from the text book I wrote. Voceditenore (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That is either a very cheeky student or a very clueless one. :) By the way, if you get spare time on your hands, we could use assistance developing the essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Not surprisingly, there are some differences in opinion on where problems exist and how to fix them. But it needs some work. (Copyright problems are a big help at filling in gaps in my knowledge base. Give me a few years at the post, and I'll be ready for Jeopardy! :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

← I'm going to be away for the next 5 days, but I'll have a look when I get back. It's an important topic. As for the student, clueless I guess. We failed another one whose essay was a verbatim copy from a book chapter (not mine). We gave her a chance to re-write with no grade penalty and she submitted a new essay two months later copied from... er... a different chapter in the same book. Often times, people really do know what they're doing, but hope against hope that no one will notice. Voceditenore (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a student once submit a professional essay downloaded from the internet in a way that was particularly clueless. The assignment was to write an analysis of the film Watership Down. The essay she submitted was on the book. She didn't even both to change the language to reflect that vital difference. Some of them, I guess, simply don't care. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

New Kennan Ward

Kennan Ward page.

I placed in the text and on the web site the following.

The text on this page only is available as GFDL to support Wikipedia. KWP2009--Kennanward (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Kennan--Kennanward (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)--Kennanward (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Norman

I'm not the sort to review Good Article nominees, but I lvoe giving free advice. I'd suggest combining all the small sections in Jimmy Norman under an overrarching "Biography" banner for better organization. Avoid "personal life" sections, especially since this one is so small; work personal information into the appropriate subsections. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll do that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I modeled my larger sections on Bob Marley. I am rather startled to see that my model article, which is a GA, has empty sections. Is this standard, do you know? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Empty headers are fine. Personally I feel a better model would be Leo Ornstein. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, that's a good-looking article. :) Sadly, I have no chance of bringing Jimmy Norman to anything like that state, unless a whole lot more secondary sources start talking about this man. I'm not sure if Jimmy has a chance at GA, honestly; it's only the second article I've ever nommed, and both of them are pending, but I figured I might as well give him a shot, since the project reviewer seemed to like it. If they ask for more information, I'm sunk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as you have tracked down and cited all the information available on Norman, then it should pass the GA criteria. The Good Article system was designed for subjects that oculd never be FA status. Compare these Nirvana song articles I've worked on: the FA "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and the GA "In Bloom". The former definitely has more source material to draw from than the latter, because people prefer to discuss that song. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Pardon the interruption, but I saw this, and I thought from what I've seen so far on various boards and such - that perhaps it wasn't proper. I don't think I'm on the best of terms with the editor at the moment, didn't want to inflame anything, and wanted to be discreet as well. While I may not agree with the editor on some things, I lost my love of USENET bickering years ago - so I wanted to ask someone online who would had a better understanding of policy and guidelines than I do. Thanks. — Ched (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

never mind - I saw the "private message" thing and just probably over-reacted. The above was not a dispassionate post, my apologies. — Ched (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure which problem it was that brought you here, but if your concern was related to copyright, then I share it. I have redacted the letter pending clarification as to who authored the text originally. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, yep - copyright was the primary concern for me, and the whole issue of posting email and personal information. I've seen many issues on your admin boards where you folks go to great lengths to protect privacy, avoid copyvio, and outing issues. The reason for the strike though was because I had a nagging feeling of "running to Mommy" (read "Adminz") - and that's just not the area I want to contribute in. As to full disclosure, the editor and I didn't seem to agree on a different article that I've decided to walk away from, and that compounded my nagging conscience. Well, hopefully it's all worked out for the best. Thanks ;) — Ched (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

tirex resources

Thanks so much for your input. I added a bit more to the page. I want to go slowly on this page. Can you take a look how I did the referencing. thanks Newdesignnow (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)newdesignnow

Replied at user's talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Hello Moonriddengirl:

A little suspicious duplication I found in Necklace#History. The quaint writing style used in the history section sent me looking for a source.

The section matches the first part of:

http://www.jjkent.com/articles/jewels-necklaces-history.htm

(aside from a spelling change from Hindoo to Hindu)

The History text was added on Nov. 20, 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Necklace&diff=172798192&oldid=171724225

The text on JJKent.com is marked as copyright 2004.

I'm leaving this note here as I don't know what to do about it. IMO it is a very scattered history, not an encyclopedic one, so it might be best just to delete it. However, the information given does serve to indicate the great antiquity of necklaces.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well researched of you. :) I'm going to mark the section a copyright problem in case any of the regular contributors want to write a fresh history in temporary space. After the week it's up, I'll probably just remove the section, unless there haven't been substantial improvement since it was added, in which case I may selectively delete it. Thanks for finding the copyvio! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Extensive quotation of copyrighted text

An editor recently added a paragraph to 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict consisting mostly of quotations of copyrighted text from the same source. (About 7 sentences to be exact). Based on this guideline: "extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited", I removed all but one quoted sentence.[14] There are some other issues like undue weight and POV, but I want your opinion on the the legal aspect of it, does the editor's version violate the quotation policy and was my action justified? Thank you--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. I'm looking at it now. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

←First let me note that the "quotations" you removed were not all correctly attributed. The article at the point of your link indicated Cotler said that "Any use of a civilian infrastructure to launch bombs is itself a war crime. Hamas bears legal responsibility for the harm to civilians in areas from which it fires is enshrined throughout international law". The source does not mesh with this. It does not quote Cotler saying the second of those sentences. It is paraphrasing Cotler: "That Hamas bears legal responsibility for the harm to civilians in areas from which it fires is enshrined throughout international law, he said:" For that reason alone, the material would need to be revised. Even if the article were to quote that text, it would need to properly attribute it to Haviv Rettig Gur. ("According to Haviv Rettig Gur, Cotler indicated "[t]hat Hamas bears....")

That said, in my opinion, your action was quite justified because the use of quotation is unnecessarily extensive. The guideline in question here is the non-free content guideline, which is where the language you quote above originally comes from. Whether or not the quotation exceeds fair use (and it might; see below), our NFC guideline call for four factors in making use of non-free media (print media included):

• 1) Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law,
• 2) It's used for a purpose that can't be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created),
• 3) The usage of the non-free media complies with the above and the rest of the Non-free content criteria, and
• 4) It has a valid rationale indicating why its usage would be considered fair use within Wikipedia policy and US law.

Fair use, as I said, is questionable. Among the four factors to consider, of greatest concern here is that (a) Wikipedia aspires to be free for commercial reuse (affecting factor 1: purpose & character) and (b) the quotation represents a substantial portion of the original according to my quick check at http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/script2/charcount.shtml (affecting factor 3: size and substantiality). However, whether or not the text conforms to fair use would really only be definable by a court of law. What we need to figure out is if it conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines.

This is unlikely. While a few quotations may be necessary to (as NFC says) "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea", much of this could be summarized in original language. For a single example:

Cotler noted that international law holds Hamas responsible for any harm suffered by civilians as a result of its launching bombs from a civilian infrastructure, which according to him is a war crime.

Fresh language, no quotations necessary. It seems to me that we could easily replace that copyrighted text, although some brief quotations from that material might be appropriate if Cotler were using specific language that could be difficult to convey otherwise.

I hope that's not too convoluted a response. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Not convoluted at all, but thorough and that's why I will keep coming to you for input (as do others users). :) I appreciate the effort you put in your investigating, thanks again! I think that Cotler doesn't use specific language so what he says can be paraphrased easily as you suggested. I will be waiting for what other users have to say about your post, then I will go in and change the quote we have up or use the example you gave (if you don't mind) so that we have fresh language.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind at all; I'm happy if I can be of use. Feel free, no attribution necessary. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fal's original claim was copyright violation. No extensive argument was made until after-the-fact. His first deletion was a short statement made by Cotler, which he considered "plagiarism." I said ok to that, and replaced the quotes with the Jpost source which includes quotations and is verifiable. I was simply trying to compromise here, there was no need to delete entire sources on grounds of undue weight. For those who are unaware, the entire article has been disputed top to bottom and that kind of excuse must be justified with a consensus before deleting sourced info IMO. I do agree some of the quotes could have been trimmed, but deleting entire paragraphs is an extremely aggressive tactic, especially when it is sourced and not OR. I do understand your claim of non-free content but I don't understand your rationale. The quotations were properly attributed to Coltler. Whether he was inferring or borrowing opinions from other experts doesn't separate the fact that it was Cotler's own words. And in the event that a portion of the quotes weren't in his own words, say a phrase...the solution is simple. Delete the phrase or source it to the proper expert. Deleting entire paragraphs is a cause for concern in such a polarized article. If you could please quote specifically what is the "non-free info", that would be beneficial. It's hard for me to accept the fact that the entire paragraph wasn't free, I don't understand that rationale from your post above, especially when the current sentence here comes from the same source. Is that non-free also?

A note: Fal and I have a rather unsettling history, so keep in mind that this whole discussion could be motivated from personal inclinations (from both of us) and not necessarily for the actual article. Trying to assume good faith here, trust me lol. I just wanted to make sure you knew that admin. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) All text in a copyrighted source that is not licensed under GFDL or other compatible license is "non-free." The US courts (Wikipedia is governed by US copyright law) have been somewhat divided over whether the words of an interview subject belong to him or to the interviewer, but in either case they are protected by US copyright law and not freely usable elsewhere. We can quote briefly from it—so one sentence may be okay—but not extensively, as our non-free content guidelines point out. The entire paragraph is too extensive; you may be able to quote a couple of hundred words out of a book, under certain circumstances, but you can't utilize a major portion of a non-free source. Please let me know if I can clarify that further.

As for Cotler's own words, the phrase I quoted above, "That Hamas bears legal responsibility for the harm to civilians in areas from which it fires is enshrined throughout international law, he said" is not in quotation marks in the original article. The original article author was not quoting him. We don't know what words he actually used in making his statement; what we have there is the summary of his statement by the article's author.

As for the other issues, that's outside of the scope of my involvement here. I was asked a question about the extensive use of copyrighted information. I don't have any special input on the substance of the article. I hope that dispute resolution can help you all resolve matters related to weight and original research. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But extensive use compared to what? The quoted sources are merely a fraction of the overall interviewe. What if the interview was 100 pages long, would quoting a page qualify under free-use? I believe this excuse is rather blurred and not entirely concrete, especially when the info is from a reliable source. My most important claim, however, simply revolves around precedent. This section contains quotes from individual sources (and similar in notability/reliability) but are much much larger in length. Why does this paragraph get the treatment but not the others? Thanks for the very quick response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You should appreciate that I chose Moonriddengirl seeing that she is very patient and she has a gentle approach and was more than willing to explain the policies thoroughly. If I knew you would be like this as I wasn't expecting you to give even her a hard time, I would have reported you on the admin board and save her from the treatment that you have given other editors. I don't understand what part of Moonriddengirl's explanation you can't comprehend, my basic explanation should have sufficed. Furthermore it's very hard to assume good faith when you brought up our history seeing that I was trying to be civil and patient with you this time around. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The rules are different for free content and non-free content. Anything the UN releases is free content, and while we should not plagiarize it there are no copyright issues. Something a newspaper publishes is almost always non-free, unless the newspaper releases their content for free use. Nableezy (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I've had extensive technical errors on wiki today. :/ Extensive compared to the length of the text from which it is drawn. It doesn't matter how long the taped interview was; copyright laws govern the fixed mode of expression. That article and its contents are protected by copyright, and it is to the length of that we compare. (I don't want to give you the wrong idea, though; even if the article was 1,000 pages, you'd still want to limit the length of the quote per WP:NFC.) (That may be one of the most heavily cited articles I've ever seen!) The problem isn't sourcing material; it's copying text verbatim (or following it too closely). That's why I proposed a rewritten version of one passage above that doesn't use any of the words from the quotations but still conveys the meaning. It's good for Wikipedia to say "Cotler said this." But it's best for Wikipedia to say it in your own words, using limited stretches of his own language where necessary, but not drawing too much from a single source. Small pieces of multiple sources are generally safe, although styleguide suggests not overdoing it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I too have been experiencing the same technical issues. Your links make sense, but it still doesn't address my most important claim: The section I linked contains vast amounts of quotations, not all from the UN (mostly news), that greatly exceed the current sentence. Again, I find it rather odd how the users felt it was necessary to simply delete everything, first under plagiarism accusation (not true), than under copyright claim (which might be true but to a different extend), and now fair-use. It seems the excuses changes depend on how I respond, which is questionable. Anyways, under your reasoning, could I paraphrase the other quotations (though more concise) by the example you gave? I could probably do it, I just don't see why I should have to seeing as how the rest of the article isn't put under the same microscope. And fal, I don't see anything wrong with my posts. I appreciate Moon's patience, maybe she's a friend of yours I don't know but I shouldn't have to put smiley faces and hearts to convey a sense of cordiality. Am I being hostile Moon? Are my posts offensive? :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded to him on his page. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not offended me; I can't judge how your posts may read to others, since you have background I don't share. The problem isn't with a current sentence (unless I'm mistaken, and this material has been put back into the article), but with the multiple sentences that were already removed. If you'll look above, where this conversation began, there is a link to the material as was removed; I was asked if that material was problematic with regard to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is for reasons I have explained. You can indeed paraphrase material, though you must be careful not to paraphrase too closely; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing (it isn't finished, but it provides some useful guidance) or Wikipedia's copyright FAQ, which is in full force and also address paraphrasing. As I've said above, if there are other issues with the article, that's for the normal consensus building procedures to take care of. If the quotes in that article are drawn, as the removed text was, from one relatively brief non-free source, then they may be inappropriate, too. If they are drawn from a multitude of sources, then they may not be. If you'd like to specifically point out passages that trouble you, I'd be happy to give an opinion. But the section of the article to which you've linked doesn't seem to contain anything like the over 1,000 characters that existed in the section removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

May I craft an example and submit it to you for review? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to help however I can, but I have to say it's getting late in my part of the world. I may not be able to respond until tomorrow. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha, not right now. In the event that I do craft one, was what I meant to say. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)