User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Image issue

Hi MRG, I'm still trying to understand things. File:Mariwan qani profile.jpg was uploaded by someone who claimed it was their own work--yet it shows up here as well. Does this mean that whoever put that image in that article must be the same as our uploader? Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Firstly this image is on the commons, so will need to be dealt with there not on this enwiki. Anyway, there is no evidence that the uploader is the same and you cannot assume that. The image has no metadata which can draw our suspicions. Many images uploaded by their creators show metadata while images purloined from webpages are often missing the metadata. The image is available, as you say, on this webpage but a smaller version is also available on this webpage so in this instance we need to question the validity of the uploader's claim. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Think this is the original? [1] This one is labeled non commercial, so I labeled the image as a copyvio Yoenit (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Good job Yoenit for finding the 2005 Flickr image with a incompatible licence. ww2censor (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

TinEye is your friend for this sort of stuff. Yoenit (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You guys are smart. Ww2censor, that one cannot assume that the two are the same was exactly my point, which is why I asked the expert--but I didn't want to start by incriminating the uploader. Thanks to both, Drmies (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoot! Work all done! Thanks to all three of you. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just stumbled upon

An old copyvio report from 2005. Somebody should probably review it: Talk:Krzeszowice#Copyrights. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Randomly responding here, but this looked worth looking into... The copyvio / cut and paste job is still there in parts and seems pretty clear. Good job, Piotrus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Content entered in 2005. They had it in 2004. I'll run it through the WP:CP process in case it is rewritten or permission is provided. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagged, listed, contributor advised. Thanks, Piotrus! This is why I revised Wikipedia:Copyright violations to add "if it is active" to "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page" (and to give alternatives). I come across these old notes often enough to show that bringing up the issue at the page's discussion page is a pretty poor method of addressing these problems generally. :/ It's even more discouraging, though, when you come across these notes on a page that is active, where the contributors have just ignored the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Contributory copyright and transcripts

Hi! Sorry to annoy you, but a quick question - I've been working on cleaning up some linkvio, and the issue of transcripts came up. If a third party writes a transcript of the show, we can presume that the show, naturally, is under copyright. But if the person is not connected to the show, is the transcript that they wrote a copyright violation? At the moment I'm inclined to remove the reference in most cases as unnecessary anyway, or reference the show, but I'm curious about its status. - Bilby (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unauthorized transcripts are copyright violations, in the same way that transcripted lyrics to popular songs are copyright violations. (I bring it up because, while the former is not explicitly mentioned in policy, the latter is. :)) Linking to unauthorized transcripts is a WP:LINKVIO. (Oh, and you don't annoy me. On the contrary, you're welcome to pop by. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I should have seen the relationship to song lyrics - my brain isn't working right. :) That makes a lot of sense. - Bilby (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Racism

No, you misunderstand. I'm not accusing you of anything. I have a high regard for you as an admin. I'm just saying that 24 hours was way too generous for something so blatantly awful as labeling another ethnic group as "trash". The reason I say that is that, in my experience as an observer, an editor who does something like that is not likely to be a useful contributor; and if I were an admin, I would have sent him to the phantom zone immediately. It's just a question of whether you want to deal with an editor like that once, or more than once. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If my clarification is insufficient, let me know. And I'm sorry for unwittingly putting a knife in your heart. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just in case I ever hurt your heart again, here's a spare. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

He uploaded that photo in December. I'm thinking to request a swift delete for it over at commons. Its description is "Bahasa Melayu: pijak mafla indon", and the "mafla" part is mysterious as you say. Google Translate says, "Bahasa Melayu: pijak mafla indon" means "Malay language: foot mafla indon". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of immediately asking for deletion, I've posted it at the language ref desk on the off chance that someone there knows Malay and could help. It could be mundane, but I doubt it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I've figured it out. "Pijak" also translates as "stepping", and indications are that "mafla" is a word adapted from the English "muffler", and it looks like the Malaysians are stepping on a scarf (which could be called a muffler) that says "Indonesia" on it. Taken in isolation, it's not necessarily racist, just "team spirit", like Red Sox fans stomping on a Yankees pennant or something. So the editor needs to be looked at more closely. That's why you're an admin and I'm not. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Probable sock of Shah88

You might want do something? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Indog leaving comments like that is why I think a indef and range block might be worth it - cheers SatuSuro 15:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't do a rangeblock, since I'm not a checkuser and don't know his range, but that certainly demonstrates what people will do with a bit of rope. :/ BTW, I don't know if you saw my question for you yet at ANI about his newer upload at Commons. I'll look at the listing there after I do the mopping up here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing how fast someone can live down to expectations. If he happens to be on a fixed IP, isn't there a way to block the account such that the IP is also blocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

He's not on a fixed IP, I'm afraid, because if he was the block of his last account would have blocked the IP, too. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If it continues, an SPI and/or a private conversation with a friendly checkuser might be in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

g'night all http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pijak_mafla_indon.jpg&action=delete - cheers SatuSuro 16:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW I remain unconvinced of the sorry mode - there is still an edit history and an attempt at blaming the Indonesians for their own behaviours. Wish someone would give me a funded Anthropology/Media PhD project to research the mechanisms and behaviours unleashed deep causes of the troubled unconcious of the wiki trolls and warriors that have existed online in the last decade SatuSuro 01:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that, either. I reverted back to my original block condition only because the sock thing is unproven. This is why I usually work copyright; it may be tedious, but it's usually relatively clearcut. :) If you think additional sanctions based on current behavior are warranted, it won't in any way, shape or form offend me if you seek it at that ANI thread. (I've asked Mike to look into that other account to see if it's related to either.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully real life is in the way I am walking away from this stuff for a while - and will only come back to it if I see my or Gunkarta's pages peppered with malaysian slang swearwords most of which I have to look up :( SatuSuro 01:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems header

Talk for you @ Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Use of message boxes. --Bsherr (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Hunter

I chanced across this article which you added a Copyvio box to. Now, I'm not versed at all in Wikipedia Copyright procedure, but I do know that Facebook automatically pulls data for its unclaimed Community pages from Wikipedia. The English link for the Facebook Community page is here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Paul-Hunter/103124983061137 . It even says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and "Community Pages are not affiliated with, or endorsed by, anyone associated with the topic." The Facebook community page is not "claimed" by a person, thus no one can edit it, and therefore no one could have created that content in the first place. It's strictly pulled from Wikipedia, not vice versa. Thanks, CuttlefishTech (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I must admit that you confused me for a minute, as I've never edited Paul Hunter, and so far as I can see it's never been tagged for copyright problems. :D You're talking about Paul Hunter (director). Some facebook pages are copies of Wikipedia, and some are not. This is the one from which it was copied, and it's not a Wikipedia mirror. I'm afraid I tagged it with the wrong page, which I've now corrected. (Note: It could have been copied from here as well.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Help Please

Hello Moonriddengirl, I have added some new images of flags, which can be seen at Sri Lankan Provincial Flags, but I fear that they might be deleted and/or that I may have used the wrong licensing tag, can you please help me with these files, they are important images and it would be a shame if they were to be deleted. How can I make sure that this does not happen? I have infact contacted the site and they have given me permission to use all the flags for Wikipedia purposes. I need your help, and I am happy to do anything to avoid being blocked again. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Blackknight. Thank you very much for your caution with this matter. I'm afraid that permission to use the images on Wikipedia is insufficient; we would need the content to be properly licensed. I think there may be some special provisions for flags, but I'm not sure, and I'm particularly unsure if any special allowances would be made on Commons, where you've placed the images. I'll ask a Commons admin to weigh in. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This input would also be appreciated for this image CCI where there a flags both here and on commons. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Blackknight12, there are two problems here. One is that the site must not only give permission to use the images on Wikipedia, but also release their images under a free license and send an e-mail to OTRS about it, as described at commons:Commons:OTRS. Additionally, since these flags were probably not designed by that website, it's important to determine whether the original design is in the public domain or not. If they are, it may not even be necessary to get a release from the website; if they are not, even a release from the website will not be enough. Some countries place flags like these in the public domain by law, while others do not, and it may require some research to determine their copyright status. Dcoetzee 22:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dcoetzee, thanks for your assistance, firstly when I uploaded these files I had asked for and received permission to use them on the condition that they are not disrespected and misrepresented in any way, from the website sri.lanka.asia, which I also assumed to be a free license to use in Wikipedia. I am not sure if the site created the images themselves but according to their Terms and Conditions in the sri.lanka.asia Code Usage Limitations section states The Products and Services and sri.lanka.asia code provided for use by Members are, and remain, copyrighted material/property of sri.lanka.asia. Its a bit vague but does that help? I went to flagspot and they also seem to have the same images sourced from Wikipedia does that mean I can use them without any hassle according to their copyright laws? Also for future use if I were to use a flag image from flagspot which licence should I use? In the event that neither of these sites do not have the proper permission, what if I were to contact the government that the flag is representing, the Central Provincial Council for the Flag of Central Province for example, and ask for permission there and whether or not flags in Sri Lanka are public domain? In the mean time what will happen to the flag images that are currently tagged such as File:Flag of Southern Province.svg? Regards--Blackknight12 (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Unless it's an official site, http://www.sri.lanka.asia/sl_province.php is unlikely to have the authority to speak to copyright of the images, but if they do, Wikipedia's licensing requirements are a bit more extensive than that. We require a license to not only reuse them (including commercially), but also to modify them. It doesn't matter what people who are displaying the flags on the internet says; what matters is what the copyright holders would say...if there are any.

One thing that might make these public domain is age, but from the article you link I am concerned that this may not help. They all seem to be pretty recent flags. You may be able to use them in individual articles under non-free content policy and guideline, such as in Flag of Central Province, but I suspect you would need to expand the article to include some additional information. If we use them under non-free content, they can't be included in the list article. And they can't be hosted on Commons.

If the governments give permission, we can keep the images on Commons (or restore them, if they are deleted prematurely), but they need to give specific licensing permission and they need to send it to the Wikimedia Foundation. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I cant seem to find any Sri Lankan laws on copyright and they were only introduced in 1987, and that is probably not old enough. I think I'll try and contact the governments and see what happens. Thanks for your help and I will report back soon.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I have emailed the government but they haven't replied yet.--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. Sadly, that's the result I get more often than not. :/ But they could still come through! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

One Tree Hill

Here we go again :(. An IP, making huge edits that ruin all of the links to the page, adding every single person that's every appeared in the show (including extras, yawn). Send information as to why those characters can't be included, as to why the format of the page isn't allowed as we have guidelines. It may be the same person as before. I know I have already asked a lot of you this week, but since you're the person who's deal with List of One Tree Hill characters before, I thought it fell under the same thing. What I'll do is send a "stop vandalising" now and then get back to you. Jayy008 (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

He's talking to you. That's good! Maybe you can help him see what your issues are with his changes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I wrote to you after he didn't reply and made the edits, again. Now he's talking, so I removed the warning. Thanks anyway, sorry to waste your time! Jayy008 (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, the old IP that you blocked, is back! Lord, help me! Jayy008 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even realize. They must be the same - They both have the same longitude and latitude on "Gelocate." He's been inactive for a while and still won't listen. It was different, though. He posted for discussion but as soon as I told him the rules, he became agitated. How should I proceed? Jayy008 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article. You two need to talk at the article's talk page. That's where conversation about article development belongs; not at user talk pages. :) I have temporarily protected the article to let you guys develop consensus. I don't know who edited it last. I didn't look. I've seen enough to know that he's talking this time, and that makes this a content dispute, not simple disruptive editing. You know how to get feedback if needed to resolve a stalemate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

But what's the point in having guidelines? These are factual disputes, not content. Do you remember all his different IP's last time? When that happened, I didn't want to be wrong, so I took it to ProjectTV and I was told how a character page should be, much shorter for a start. I don't know what I'm supposed to do, this was done and guidelines were established, now he comes back 6 months later and I have to go through it all again? Jayy008 (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If consensus has not changed, establishing that should be simple enough. I do remember how frustrating all this became last time. But that's one of the reasons it's so important to go through the process properly so that this doesn't keep happening. If consensus is logged at the article's talk page that his changes are inappropriate, dealing with it becomes much easier. I realize this is a pain in the neck. It's definitely not one of the fun parts of Wikipedia. But unless you get an admin who works extensively in television articles to look in and they can say, "Oh, yes, clear disruption!" I'm afraid this is the only avenue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you point me to a TV loving Admin? LOL :). I don't think I'll find one, it's good to stay impartial like you do. The fact is, it's difficult for me to get someone at ProjectTV to join a discussion at the "List of..." page. Especially if they don't like the show. Could I copy and paste the discussion onto the "List of..." page one I make the discussion over at the project? Jayy008 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can copy over relevant discussions. You can also get a WP:3O to come to the page, though they may be a bit irritated by the complexity of the issue. As to your tv loving admin, User:Theleftorium. :) He's not very active, though. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciate, I asked somebody for now and if it's not resolved I'll move to the admin you suggested. :) Jayy008 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bignole has posted on the IP's page about the guidelines. What happens now? Jayy008 (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The conversation needs to be documented at the article's talk page; that's where conversations about articles belong. That way, there's an easy record of them later. Once the protection expires, consensus can be enacted, if need be (meaning: I still don't know which version is in place, and I'd prefer to keep it that way). In the duration of time, the IP can join the conversation if he'd like. If he doesn't, we'll see what steps may be necessary.

But please try to get in the habit of talking about article development at the article talk page. It's really a much better place for it. :) User talk pages are good places to get the attention of contributors to direct them to article talk pages or in those cases when it is a "behavior" issue to discuss a user's behavior. (Vandalism warnings, etc.) If somebody changes an article in a way you feel is detrimental, you should as a general rule explain your problem at the article talk page, where other interested contributors may weigh in and where it will then remain as a record of the developmental process. It will also serve as a record of your good faith efforts to discuss articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a conversation, so to speak. It was simply Bignole posting to the IP how we do things here and what a page should and shouldn't be. I may just ask him to post that on the talk-page of the article? (Not that anybody else would make these edits). I will also post on the page how it should be. That's all I can think of to do - Even though it's not up for discussion - I can just post it there to say I've just my bit. Thank you for your help. Jayy008 (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Always remember that you are not talking only to one person, but to the many bystanders you may not even know about...including the ones who aren't there yet. For example, about a year ago I got involved as an admin in dealing with a battle over goth music subgenres. It looked like a content dispute, but well documented on the talk page was clear consensus in multiple conversations between many users that what the party was attempting to do was inappropriate. This made dealing with the matter through a combination of page protection and blocking much easier. Suppose that tomorrow protection goes away, consensus is enacted (or remains enacted) and six months from now it all starts up all over again. Where will people look for that consensus? On the article's talk page. Last time I checked, it had not been touched since August. That's why it's so important. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, got ya! :) I get it now. It's on the talk-page, so I'll just let you know when "if" (when, lol) he does it again. Jayy008 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy Moonriddengirl's Day!

Moonriddengirl has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Moonriddengirl's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Moonriddengirl! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :D A day for me! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You're Welcome! :) You earned it! Keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I gave myself a treat on my day and restored a couple of dozen pictures that we received clearance for via OTRS. Good pictures of Korean American celebrities. Always cheering when a copyright holder responds! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Operation Mountain Storm

Greetings. I noticed that you recently deleted an article I created for Operation Mountain Storm due to CCI. Can you userfy that in a subpage of myu userspace so I can fix it? --Kumioko (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I can't userfy copyright violations. However, I can restore your version of the article, as it was not implicated. It was simply a redirect. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's back, but I'm afraid you'll need to figure out the best place for it to point. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the redirect is better than nothing but let me ask this. If it was left for seven days then whats the problem with restoring it for one so I can fix it? Frankly I don't think there is a CCI violation. If memory serves I created that based on Official military information from the Multi national force website. So if there is CCI then it was either added later or its because the perceived CCI is actually copypasted from a military website which happens fairly often as well. Either way, since it was already there for this long plus the last seven days then there shouldn't be a problem as long as I fix it quickly. --Kumioko (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your memory may be a bit off on this one. :) Your only edit to this article in its first months of existence seems to have been in creating that redirect; you came back months later to, according to your edit summary, "(clean up using AWB)". That's all of you I see in the edit history.

You may be confusing "CCI" with "CV". "CV" is commonly used to indicate a violation of Wikipedia:Copyright policy-- literally, a Wikipedia:Copyright violation. WP:CCI is an abbreviation for "contributor copyright investigation". The contents of this article were created in large part by User:De Administrando Imperio. I cannot userfy a copyright violation. It's against policy. I can restore it for a few more days if you would like a chance to rewrite it, but before I do I want to be sure you realize that no content added by you is under question here. We can't retain the content that was contributed by the user whose material is under investigation, but a rewrite would be most welcome if you'd like to take the time to do it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that makes sense, I have created several hundred articles so they do blend together a bit. :-). Is there anything worth restoring prior to that users contribution? If so yes go ahead and restore it and I'll hack at it and see if I can clean it up. I have a list of references here that I should be able to use (without copypasting content). --Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I know the feeling. :) I'm afraid that User:De Administrando Imperio was the second person to edit it, and the bulk of the material in the article was his. Unless you want me to pull up the formatting (which I can also do), you might want to just start over. I've stubbed some of his other stuff, but I'm afraid I'm no military historian. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats alright Ill just let it go then. I don't mind fixing the problems and rerwriting it but I don't feel I should have to start from scratch and it seems that article had a fair bit of content if I remember right so it seems like a waste. I just don't understand why, if we left it for seven days already (in addition to how long it was there before), one more is going to hurt so I can fix it. Especially since I do not beieve there is an actual problem with the article as much as the editor. I have seen too many times were the article was deleted for no reason because 1 editor added some content and everyone just assumed that it must be Copyvio without checking it. I don't know if this is one of those cases but I am assuming so based on what I have seen and without checking it myself I just don't know. Unfortunately Im not an admin and can't check it for myself without you restoring ot but thems the breaks. --Kumioko (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. I offered above to restore it for a few more days if you would like a chance to rewrite it. I assumed you did not want that when you asked if I could restore any content before his addition. I'm still willing to provide it for a few more days, but it does need to be rewritten. Maybe you don't follow what I mean when I say "rewrite from scratch"; I'm not refusing to offer you access to it, but you just can't use his words. In this case, there's no doubt that the content was a copyright problem. I am not the administrator who tagged it, but I reviewed it. This contributor had an unfortunate habit of copying content from his sources with little to no alteration. Evidently, he meant no harm; he cited his sources scrupulously. He just didn't seem to realize that he could not copy from them.

For one example, the article was built with content like this:

The armed group was thought to be headed by Lirim Jakupi, a.k.a. Nazi, a convicted criminal who escaped with seven other men in a violent break-out from Kosovo`s Dubrava Prison in August 2007 and was believed to be hiding in the area. Xhavid Morina, another escaped convict from Dubrava Prison, was found dead near Odri, a village close to Tetovo the week before. Also, in late October, one police officer was killed and two other were injured when they came under fire in the vicinity of the village of Tanusevci, where the 2001 ethnic conflict started. The interior ministry said smugglers were believed to be responsible for that attack and that the incident was not related to ethnic tensions.

I've emphasized by bolding the areas you should note particularly in comparing it to the source. This is, again, one example from the first paragraph of body text. The articles this contributor submitted at this time were generally built like this, with content copied from sources and bound together with a few words.

This article was blanked for a week, during which any interested contributor had access to it to view for themselves its copyright status and to propose a rewrite if they wished. It's unfortunate that no rewrite was proposed and even more unfortunate that the text we were given to begin with could not be retained. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes you offered to restore it but only to a version prior to what it was when it was deleted. If all your restroing is a stub with a paragraph of content then theres no point. I can recreate a stub. If you want me to dix it then I need to see it. Not some shell of an article previous to 200 edits being made to it. --Kumioko (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have misinterpreted. I wrote, "I can restore it for a few more days if you would like a chance to rewrite it, but before I do I want to be sure you realize that no content added by you is under question here. We can't retain the content that was contributed by the user whose material is under investigation, but a rewrite would be most welcome if you'd like to take the time to do it." My offer was to restore the entire content until you asked me, "Is there anything worth restoring prior to that users contribution?" when I offered you alternatives, since the answer is "no." I already have restored it to the version prior to what it was when the content was added. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my attitude seems a little poor but how is a stub going to help me fix the article? If you want me to fix it I need to see it, I don't have a crystal ball or fairy dust I can sprinkle to wish the article into existence. So if you not going to restore the article to a state that I can actually review and correct it then your just being silly be creating a redirect. --Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I will repeat it again, since something is not coming through here: "I can restore it for a few more days if you would like a chance to rewrite it, but before I do I want to be sure you realize that no content added by you is under question here. We can't retain the content that was contributed by the user whose material is under investigation, but a rewrite would be most welcome if you'd like to take the time to do it." I say we can't retain it; I did not say I would not restore it. Do you want the article back to give you time to rewrite it or not? (If you feel that your attitude is poor, you're welcome to come back later to discuss it, when perhaps there will be less likelihood of continued miscommunication.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind restoring it, I have a full database dump of WP (I think its from May but its close enough) and I have the data of the article in question. I will rewrite it and add it back in the next few days. In the meantime can you tell me what category or template I need to start watching to see when these things get the axe before they get deleted please? --Kumioko (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion practice

I'm just wondering but is your intent to delete every article this user created or came in contact with. After reviewing some of the articles this user edited it would be a real shame if we didn't review them before we deleted them! This user also added content to some Wikispace pages (like Current topics and DYKS) that would also have to be deleted based on an absolutionist imnterpretation of the policy. --Kumioko (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So far, I have not been involved in evaluating his articles at all, but I have not seen any of them pass through WP:CP where there was not strong evidence of copying. Those articles which have crossed WP:CP have been deleted or stubbed. Sometimes we do have to presumptively deleted content added by multiple article infringers, but a glance at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/De Administrando Imperio suggests that in this case it has been possible to review his articls, a number of which have been cleared of copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats what I thought. And I am confident that, as in the past, they were not "reviewed" and and simply deleted. Its a shame really. I guess if knowone else cares I shouldn't either. Its not like anyone actually reads these articles anyway! --Kumioko (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering but what template or category are the articles added too when they are "blanked" and how as a non administrator can I see the content to fix the problems if its been "blanked"? It seems obvious to me that I am going to have to take a more active role in reviewing articles related to US topics (thats all I can make time for). --Kumioko (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COPYCLEAN, which lists all the places you can find these articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Kumioko (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the link you provided above, is there a template or category that gets added to the articles in question when they need to be reviewed or does someone have to look at each individual case and review each individual article? --Kumioko (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

All articles at WP:CP are blanked with {{copyvio}} or tagged with {{copy-paste}} or {{close paraphrase}} (the latter are usually less serious, unless the tags have been misapplied). I don't know if it adds them to a category, though I suspect it probably does. They are listed at WP:CP. I'm sure you know that the most blatant copyright violations are tagged {{db-g12}} and included in the category for articles listed for speedy deletion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, have you considered adding those to Articlealertbot so that the WikiProject are notified of the problems? I think this would be a rather easy chaneg and might actually be benficial in getting more eyes on tha articles and reviewers to this project. I personally have about 21000 articles on my watchlist so I don't always see every edit (although I do catch a lot) and I find that watching the Articlealerts for WPUS a very easy and convenient means of being notified of important things. --Kumioko (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's already there. At least {{copyvio}} is. I don't know if it picks up {{copy-paste}} or {{close paraphrase}} or not; if not, I'm not sure if they'd want to, since these are usually matters of revision and not deletion (again, unless they've been mistagged). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, no I guess it's not. The red x evidently means its not included for some reason. I find that surprising; I was sure it used to be. They might be able to tell you why it's not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh the red X usually just means they haven't sorted the logic out yet. They had to completely rewrite that process because the maintainer of the original one went away and they only recently (in the last couple months) got it running again. I would guess that will probably be coming fairly soon since as far as I can see would be a fairly easy bit of logic to look at the category (or transclusions of a template) and generate a notification. --Kumioko (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Semolina Pilchard

Hi, while researching the meaning of a Beatles lyric, I noticed that User:Semolina Pilchard had copied an entire Guardian article to his/her User page. I've removed the content and added the {{cclean}} template. However, I'm not sure that this is the appropriate method for Userspace copyvios, so I thought I'd run it by you. If there's a better template or technique, please let me know.

Thanks, GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) That doesn't happen too often, so we don't really have a specific one. I've taken the liberty of moving the template to the user talk page and altering "article" to say "your userpage". It's really weird that it was placed by somebody else! I'll add a note to that effect just in case Semolina Pilchard returns, confused. :) I appreciate your finding it and cleaning it up!. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I hadn't even noticed that someone else added it. A true oddity! Thanks for the help! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know…

[2] and [3]. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeby

Hi. I've started reconstituting the Ben Jeby article, and am far enough along now that I think it worthwhile to look at the vio version, if that is possible, for comparison. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

All right, I will do. And, fwiw, you don't have to wait until the listing is closed. You are welcome to use the temp page during the listing period if content needs rewriting. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've compared, and the rewrite addresses all issues. But I'm suspecting on rereadthat you mean you'd like to look at the vio version for comparison. Again, a very good reason to do the rewrite during the listing period! :) It's a good bit more difficult with a new article on top of it, but there are plenty of mirrors that have not yet caught up. I put a sentence in google: [4]. Most of those mirrors have not yet updated to your latest version. If you have trouble finding one, let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- yes, I wasn't looking to make an already overworked editor even busier. Tx for looking at the new one, but I was hoping to look at the old one myself as you suspected on reread. Good point -- had not thought of that. I am hoping to work through any such bios, but that will take more time than the week afforded. Should I make the most simple stub on each, just to keep the old version accessible? I did find a mirror for the text, but what I was really hoping to do as well was copy-paste any ELs, personadata, categories, and wikiprojects (as you can see, all those are bare on the new Jeby article, and none of that material would raise any copyvios obviously). Thoughts? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I can dig those up; I'll do that as soon as I close this. Preparing a simple stub is a good idea. If the article has been extensively edited subsequent to the points of concern and the material can easily be separated, the original may be retained. I've stubbed a few, and another admin at CP rewrote one, but that makes it much more likely that we'll wind up with something viable until it can be expanded. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Arilang

Just need clarification...

This part of the list includes only link insertions, and does not have any copyright problems. Should I still insert {{subst:cclean}} on each of the talk pages, even though there have never been any copyright infringements from this editor? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

First let me offer my apology to you and all the other editors that my silly edits end up wasting so much of your precious time. I have try my best to clean up copyvios edits of my most recent edits, which can be seen here:User:Arilang1234/Records of removing copyvios content, but I seem to have difficulties working on articles when my editions dated back to 2008, 2009. What I mean is, I have difficulties to search for contents added by me, and more often than not the references had been missing too.

• One more thing, many of my edits are in English translated from Chinese text, based on Chinese sources, I really need an experienced bilingual editors to locate and identify those copyvios.
• Another question: I often add content such as:XXX said:"Blar Blar blar blar", the blar blar is always within "". Would that be considered copyvios? Thank you.

Arilang ^talk 06:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• My feeling is that attributed and clearly delimited quotes of reasonable length, with relevant citations, do not usually constitute copyright violations. I would also like to seek confirmation as to how translated text could be copyvios. Thanks, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) No, {{cclean}} is only needed when there are copyright issues in the history of the article, to help ward against inadvertent restoration. As Ohconfucius says, a clearly marked brief and cited quotation is not a copyright violation.

Translated text is a copyright violation if it takes creative elements from the original. Creativity in writing may include language, structure and the selection of facts and the order in which to present them. Unauthorized translations are derivative works in U.S. copyright law, so straight translation is always going to be a problem on Wikipedia unless the source is so devoid of creativity as to be uncopyrightable or the source is free of copyright (legal codes, etc., are uncopyrightable, but not all works of the Chinese government are public domain). Translation needs to be as thorough in rewriting as any paraphrase; it can't cross the line into Wikipedia:Close paraphrase.

Arilang , some people wind up at CCI because they have deliberately disregarded our copyright policies. Many of them are there because of lack of familiarity with the conventions. That's unfortunate, but not malicious or silly. I appreciate very much your willingness to help out. While we cannot ask you to mark items off of the CCI subpage yourself, it would certainly be helpful if you can help find issues with your own work and, if content must be removed, help rewrite it so that it is usable. I am happy to talk to you at length about how to do that under U.S. law and conventions. Feel free to come by with questions at any time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again Moonriddengirl. And thanks for your info on translated text question. I would check through all my edits(translation or not) and make sure that all copyvios are removed, and when I have more time, I shall rewrite them, according to wiki rules. Arilang ^talk 13:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Your attention may be required at George Macartney, 1st Earl Macartney. It seems to be one of the articles where Arilang has been involved. He removed text he placed there, but it has been restored by another. According to said editor, the text is now PD. However, I removed it before I read the talk page. In any event, I would argue that having half the article in the form of quotes isn't healthy. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hi. :) Yes, that text is PD. Anything published anywhere in the world before January 1923 is considered fair game on Wikipedia. :) The length of the article in quotes might be best resolved at the talk page, though. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tewkesbury Medieval Festival

Hi there Moonriddengirl. I was planning to rewrite Tewkesbury Medieval Festival after it has been cleared of the copyvio. However, I notice you stated "Copyright concerns remain" (with a red cross) on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 January 11 after taking action. Is it safe for me to proceed to with my rewrite or should I wait for any further action that might be taken? Jappalang (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) It's safe for you to proceed. The red cross is part of the "deleted" action tag which I used just because I wanted to make note that I had left the {{cup}} notice for the contributor. No further action is pending. In retrospect, rather than using {tl|CPC|d}} and noting that it was only the section deleted, I probably should have used {{CPC}} and noted that I had left the cup template. I'll go make that clear, and it's great that you're willing to replace the content. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. I'll explain a bit further; what's meant by "copyright concerns remain" is that the content has not been cleared through licensing. Generally, we use that template when the entire article is deleted, although we had had reason to believe that the contributor of the content would license it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up (and giving the go-ahead). I have rewritten it, although the article is small with the sparse sources available. Jappalang (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hi MRG, I was away on wikibreak so never got the chance to send my new year's greetings. Happy New Year, and keep up that great copyvio fighting job you do. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 12:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks! Happy New Year to you as well, and welcome back. :D We've got plenty of it going on. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Followup

Happy New Year to you, too ! MRG, I never got back to you on Talk:Andrew Wakefield#Washington Times copyvio (because I got busy, there was a smartaleck response there I didn't understand, and I didn't fully understand your now-archived response [5]). Anyway, the Washington Times has not corrected their misinfo, which apparently came from Wikipedia, so if you can add that <whatever you suggested> template that would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I got it :) If you can check this ... to make sure I've got the right idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy. :) I've been working on a BLP, so I only just noticed this. Sorry; I didn't mean to be obtuse! Please feel free to smack me with a "Say what?" if I'm not clear on something. :D You did the backwardscopy template exactly right. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks-- it's usually me that's not clear on things! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Help, another hate-account

I've found this new similarly offensive user name and user page with same modus operandi: User:Indon babu belanda. It is clearly an abusive anti-Indonesia hate-account. Can you please do something about it? Thank you soo much... (Gunkarta (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

Somebody beat me to it. Looks like we might need to consider range blocking if this goes on. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I had seen their initial edit to their userpage, did a google translation of it and thought it looked bad...but I don't trust google translate 100% for more complex languages that I don't speak at all so held off blocking. When I saw the note here I popped over to check and block.  :) Syrthiss (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) This looks like it could keep going. I've added the articles he edited to my watchlist. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you guys.., greatly appreciated. Cheers... (Gunkarta (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

"Indon babu Belanda" means "Indonesian the servant of the Dutch", a reference to the Indonesia's colonial history. Furthermore, Indon is a derogatory word for an Indonesian, and "babu" is a crude word for servant. Of course, the obvious corollary would be to call the (Malaysian) troll a servant of the English, but no-one is suggesting the troll is being particularly clever anyway. Thanks for your assistance, but I expect the vandals to be out a few times more. cheers

(by the way, that has nothing to do with my user name, which is the name of an Indonesian volcano derived from the Indoensian word for ash which is "abu"). --Merbabu (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking whether an essay exists

Hi there Moonriddengirl. I had the occasion to fix a bulk copy-and-paste job this evening that had stood in an article for over eight months. It happens, in this case, that we were lucky - the copied text was from a United States Supreme Court decision and so was only rank plagiarism passed off as original work. Now, I noticed that the text been copied from some-damn-where the first time I happened to read the article - it is Gideon v. Wainwright, and if you look you will see the problem indicator screaming at you in the version just before my revert. That is because you know what to look for. Apparently, enough of our editors don't know what to look for, since as I said the problem (with the giant red flag waving in the middle of it) stood for eight whole months. I am minded, therefore, to write up an essay on how to spot bulk copying by the unskilled. Before I did that, though, I wanted to ask you in your capacity as Official Unofficial Nemesis of Copyright Violations whether you knew of any other such essay already existing anywhere. If it does exist I will improve that instead of duplicating the effort already made, but I could not find such a thing in the project space, and it appears that we sorely need it. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I found WP:Spotting possible copyright violations, which is linked from the lead of WP:Copyright problems. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I'd forgotten about that one. :D I wrote a bit about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/September 2010/Editorials. We've got WP:Cv101 on cleaning them up, but I think that's about it for recognizing them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Flatscan's suggestion looks like the place for me to add my personal warning signs. I looked for that and couldn't find it, so it certainly could stand to be more prominent, though the fix is probably just to keep pointing people to it. Thanks to both of you. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

re Your warning about my article on poietics being subject to speedy deletion

Hello Moonriddengirl ! Greetings! Great New Year! You might remember we spoke about my previous piece on poietics in 2009, and you asked me to give you a shout just in case the same happened again. There's a discussion on the subject in the talk pages, posted by your colleague. As a matter of fact, I tried getting in touch with an editor or administrator before creating the page but to no avail. Really, it's a maze, the help pages! Anyway, here we are again. From your comments, I gather you are not sure of the identity of Kangesh. As the discussion on the talk pages avers, "T. Wignesan" and "Kangesh" are one and the same person. When I first registered with Wikipedia, I thought one had to use a "pseudonym" for the username, so I chose Kangesh. I guess some of the confusion resulting from my article stems from this dilemma. The main problem, as far as I can identify it - from your standpoint - is whether I have the right to use my own words, that is, whether Kangesh may use my words to construct "his" piece. Since we are one and the same person, I don't see why not? There's just another point I can't quite grasp. May articles use quotations/citations from other authors? Is this precisely the problem we are facing here? I haven't finished writing the piece or tidying it up as yet. Looking forward to hearing from you. Every good wish.

T. Wignesan Web URL: http://www.stateless.freehosting.net/menupage.htm

Kangesh (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm afraid I don't really remember that conversation. I see I left you a note in October 2009, but that's been quite some time. Can you give me any more particulars?

The main problem is that we cannot use the content unless it is verified that we can. As the note you were given in 2009 advised, you would need, as copyright holder, to send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL. Until that is done, our policy does not permit us to retain the text, unless a license statement is provided at the external site itself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Emoci/temporary

User:Emoci/temporary, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Emoci/temporary and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Emoci/temporary during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas F. Hamilton

If you have time can you please have a look at Thomas F. Hamilton it appeared to have been a copyright violation at one point in 2006 and a otrs confirmed template was added but it doesnt show a ticket number. I suspect permission was never confirmed and it looks like the original copyright text is still in the article. Any help appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry another one that has me confused Talk:Gallery_Row,_Los_Angeles - the otrs confirmation doesn have a ticket number - was it different in 2004? MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A few of the older OTRS confirmed articles dont have ticket numbers so they still appear in the OTRS pending category, not sure what the answer is to the problem. Sorry about this but I have another one WBGU (FM) where the copyright violation was restored and an OTRS pending had been on the article since 2009, should these be reported to Wikipedia:Copyright problems very old problems? MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I wouldn't recommend putting them in very old problems, since that often gets overlooked, but if you use {{subst:copyvio}} and list it on today's CP page it'll get handled with the rest. I imagine a lot of the missing ticket numbers can be tracked down from other info, but many of the older ones are probably not usable by our present standards (searching for the source URL for the Gallery Row article turns up Ticket:2005112310000186, but it doesn't specify a license, for example). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Verno. :) Unexpectedly, real life came knocking at my door this afternoon. :/ Stupid real life. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I understand real life interruptions. Anyways, I also found the ticket for Thomas Hamilton which does appear to be usable, so I've updated the tag there. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Darrell Issa thanks

Thank you very much for your cleanup work on my effort to work that New Yorker article into the Darrell Issa in a BLP-compliant way. It does seem we have some differences (IMO and my journalistic experience, if an insurance company's report calls a fire suspicious*, you can say it's suspicious ... I know most editors I've had would have told me to put that in a newspaper article) But I defer in the interests of harmonious editing. You caught a couple of instances where I was, indeed, trying to make it write a check or two it couldn't cash. For that, thanks especially. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

*Insurance investigators are badass. They get guys who are retired or nearly retired from the police or fire departments, and pay 'em what they should have been getting all along. If they say a fire's suspicious, you pay attention.

Stamp numbering systems

You, and maybe even some of the talkpage stalkers, might like to comment on the discussion of the use of stamp numbering systems that are copyright of the publishers, such as Scott catalogue and Stanley Gibbons taking place at Catalog numbers as references. TIA ww2censor (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've weighed in, though I'm not entirely clear on the usage proposed there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What did you really mean by some solid examples would be helpful? List of United States airmail stamps is one use as already mentioned. Bluenose (postage stamp), Dag Hammarskjöld invert and I even used it in The Rare 2d Coil show individual uses while Presidential Issue, Postage stamps and postal history of Argentina and Washington-Franklin Issues shows multiple use. Is this what you were looking for? ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that helps. :) I didn't address the list article, as others had pointed out issues. What confused me was the initial question: "I seems to me that if the information cited is in the Scott, Stanley-Gibbons, or other major stamp catalogue, a reference such as "Virgin Islands, Scott 18a" should be sufficient " I'll go back and clarify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My concern is our fair-use, not the legal fair-use, as opposed to being clearly copyvio uses. Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time

Could you take a look at this page please. A significant amount of the talk page concerns copyright concerns. I came across it as the talk page was marked for a copyright speedy. Not sure whether they intended the talk page or the article to be speedied but either way I'm not certain deletion is the most appropriate course of action. Given that there is discussion on what is and isn't copyrightable on the talk page I feel way out of my depth so would appreciate it if you took a look. Dpmuk (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Weird! I'm on it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, he was objecting to this paragraph, which they removed themselves. That seems to be the extent of it. The Top 10 is probably fair use, but the list is quite copyrightable; it's a textbook example of subjective criteria. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. No need for the speedy then and I learnt something. I'd have guessed that such a list was copyrightable due to the creative element involved but I wasn't certain - now I know. Dpmuk (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Thanks, but when you look at the articles edit history, is there something that indicates there is vandalism involved? Please respond on my talk page.S.V.Taylor (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry for the misunderstanding. Keep in touch!S.V.Taylor (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Still editing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AShah_88&action=history in response to my warning - I think the user has failed to realise that I am not an Indonesian... sigh... or that they are blocked SatuSuro 10:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page access has now been restricted, I see. Won't stop the socks, but at least it sends a clearer message. I doubt they'll be convincing anybody to unblock them anytime soon. In terms of not realizing you aren't Indonesia, well, in my experience people who engage in those kinds of disagreements tend to have tunnelvision. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your help to date on the issue anyways - may you continue to fight the good fight - in a manner of speaking - cheers SatuSuro 13:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion on New Guinea Snapping Turtle

Hi, I saw your editing of the page New Guinea Snapping Turtle and although I agree with what you have done and the policies I would like to see what was removed. I have in the pas edited that page though my edits were largely about adding some templates, I am interested in what was removed. Not to put it back you may email me a copy of it if you like. The article needs a lot of work and is on my todo list. Reason I ask is that Empire of the turtle has about two sentences and one photo online, to be honest they in all likelihood plagiarized it themselves. Was it a copy paste from their site? Anyway this is just a curiosity as I stated I support the copywrite rules of Wikipedia, and am an author of some 100 research papers that I would not like plagiarized either. As a side note I saw your plea for help with copywrite issues, I can help if you wish, let me know. Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) The entire contents that were removed are visible at the cited page. For some reason, it was even on there twice. The IP who added it included it all. Even the content that began "From what I understand there is work underway to reclassify the New Guinea Elseya..." used to be included, although that had been removed by the time the copyvio was detected. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Alexandre De Lusignan Fan-Moniz

Could you take a couple of seconds of your busy time to look at this: Alexandre De Lusignan Fan-Moniz. I know its not a copy-vio thing but you did write on the creators page, User talk:Simongad, some time ago. I have done a waffle-flush, but I don't know how to sort out the links mess, and as the article stands I'm not sure of the notability of the subject. Best wishes, Acabashi (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You may have noticed that I removed a good many of the links. Some of them are a violation of our copyright policy, since they were to videos, etc., not hosted officially. One of them was a blog. I then redirected the article to the album, since there's no evidence given that this man has independent notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Question for you on Copywrite

Hi, I would like your advice on one issue I come across from time to time. Apart from being a wiki editor for turtles mostly, I also maintain my own website and am a researcher in this field. On one occasion I had some material I put on the Chelodina canni page deemed a copywrite violation. The difficuly is I wrote the original version, I used some information from my own website on wiki. The info on my own website uses valid sources etc, ie published material, so the issue was that it was too similar to my own site. I mean I cannot infringe copywrite on myself, and I get that it may be hard to see that I am the original author, how should I deal with this issue then? Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Situations like that are no real problem; you just need to verify the donation. :) The easiest way to do is to put a licensing statement on your website, but if you don't want to do that you can e-mail the Wikimedia Foundation with a release, so long as you use an e-mail address that is connected to your website. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, and should you ever need assistance verifying a donation please feel free to drop by! I'll be happy to help you with any difficulties you encounter there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for your replies today most helpful. I think I will include a licencing statement on my website. All information is there for people to use, freely. Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

• News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited; Wikipedia still failing to fail; brief news

• WikiXDC: Wikipedians celebrate anniversary with US National Archives in Washington, D.C.

• WikiProject report: Life Inside the Beltway

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: 23 editors submit evidence in 'Shakespeare' case, Longevity case awaits proposed decision, and more

• Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sterling Hospitals

Hello? I'd tried to provide a modified version of the first para of this article (my own words used to convey the info) on the temporary page. There's been no reaction from you since about a week. Could you please give some feedback? Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Articles are evaluated a week after blanking to see what further steps may be needed. We've currently got a little bit of a backlog at our copyright board, but I should be able to evaluate it soon. Thanks for rewriting. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hope it won't take another month :) Thanks for your attention... -- Nazar (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again

Could you take a look at Teitur_Lassen. I've reverted to a two and half year old version as significant copyright violations were introduced after that (see the talk page for more). I'm confident we copied form them and not the other way round. It was tagged as a copyvio speedy but given there was non-infringing versions I thought reverting made more sense. Could you take a look and confirm what I've done makes sense and do any addition admin type actions you think are necessary. Dpmuk (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be happy to. :) Coincidentally, I knew you were looking at as I popped in during your investigation and backed off. It's listed at WP:CP and was next in my rotation here, but I didn't want to butt in on your in process work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I come at it from speedy delete requests. I patrol them ever since I managed to save one and get a DYK out of it - occasionally I think admins can be too quick to delete so called nonsense (not really a criticism given how many speedy delete requests we get). Of course it also helps admins if I and other non-admins remove the obvious incorrect tags. Dpmuk (talk)

Good goal, there. That one was obviously not a valid G12 target. :/ Still and all, helpful that the tagger identified some potential sources. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, it's no bother. You are more than welcome. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Another possible copyvio is now being mentioned (both on the talk page and a speedy tagging). Pretty confident this ones a reverse copyvio for the reasons I give on the talk page but as I'm still reasonably new at this a sanity check would be appreciated. Dpmuk (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What's with the repetitive speedy tagging? Unless there's no clean version in history, the article is not a candidate for G12, period. :/ Anyway, I'll come take a look soon. I've got a few "real life" phone calls I have to take care of that (knock wood!) won't take too much longer. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Still think I need to get better at finding possibly copied sources (I'd looked but not found the one you did). I never expect anyone to respond quickly - real life does have a habit of intervening! Dpmuk (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of page

I was just looking for the company Storesonline and noticed that it was deleted. The reason you gave was that it did not exert significance. Storesonline, of which I am a customer, is a publicly traded company and has well over 40000 customers. There are also some bigger companies that are using the Storesonline platform. I was hoping you could give me more information about why you deleted this post. Thanks.

Chrisizzlem (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm afraid that that's about the extent of it. Wikipedia receives a good many articles, not all of which are suitable for inclusion. We have inclusion standards; the ones for businesses are at WP:ORG. Articles on businesses that do not meet these standards may be deleted after a community discussion. However, articles that give no indication that their subject is likely to be of encyclopedic significance may be and routinely are deleted without discussion. The article when deleted in October of 2007 consisted of three sentences, no sources, and nothing to suggest importance. A new article can certainly be created on the subject, though its best odds of survival will be secured by providing not only an indication of significance, but reliable sources to verify that it meets WP:ORG. It also needs to be neutrally written. An article on the subject was twice deleted as advertisement in the same time frame under the name StoresOnline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It makes much more sense to me now. --Chrisizzlem ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

Online Ambassadors

I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very kind of you. :) I'm a little bit familiar with your acitivities as a good friend of mine is volunteering with it. I suspect, though, that this is not a good match for me. :/ It seems from what I'm reading that IRC is an important component of this program. I've tried IRC a time or two and feel completely lost in that environment. Besides being more comfortable in one-on-one communication than in a group, I prefer to have time to think through and compose my responses at length. This may not meet the needs of students who want to be able to ask a question and get a response immediately, which is an understandable need. Too, I tend to be really active because there's really a lot to do in the "copyright department", where I typically put my time. We've got quite a backlog. :/ And while I sometimes find myself thinking I'd rather take a job filling out forms with the IRS than untangle another copyright mess, the knowledge that somebody's got to do it keeps me pecking away. I see that a time commitment of a couple of hours of week is usual, and that's certainly doable for me, but if it were any more than that I'm afraid that my copyright work would suffer. The last time I made an effort to mentor somebody, it would unexpectedly flare up in emergencies and consume my volunteer time for hours and even days. :/ I don't know how urgent the need is, but if a few hours per week via Wikipedia (preferably) or e-mail would help, I could apply. I do see that the volunteers put caps on the number of mentees they are able to help, which could keep it doable for me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Ahmetyal‎

I fully support the block. I warned this user on several occasions and have spent hours removing copy violation from every Denmark bilateral article I encountered. LibStar (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've reviewed the history of his talk page and of a number of articles that have come across the copyright problems board and noted your efforts there. I do appreciate them. You've attempted to explain to him before, and I hope that this time the message will come through. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

MRG, I have had a bit of a look at his CCI (initially clearing some of the pop music ones at the bottom) but I suspect there will be other intrawiki copy/pastes - I have already spotted one in this diff. I am rather inclined to simply revert these (like any other copyvio) rather than do the attribution steps - especially if I feel that the added content is not particularly relevant. Do you have any objections to this approach? I would mark the CCI entry with something like "unattributed intrawiki copy/paste - reverted" so people can see that this has been done. Boissière (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I have no objections to that. I attributed the first intrawiki copy/paste I found but simply reverted the last. When it comes down to it, it is his responsibility to use material properly if he wants to contribute it. And I thank you for taking the time to help out with cleanup there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fra Častimir-Timothy (Ivan) Majić

Dear moonriddengirl,

you deleted my grand uncle Fra Častimir-Timothy (Ivan) Majić!

Why? Copyrights? My uncle?

my god what a arrogance

best regards Jadranka Baša —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.19.166.106 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that when content is copied onto Wikipedia from other sources, verification of license must be provided. Without this, we are unable to retain the content. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted material for the process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What else can I say what others and I have written? Wiki is an encyclopedia for not yet said? Then a lot of items are unnecessary!, because it was already written.

Please, help

Oh, MRG, please help :(. I really have no idea what to do, now. I keep having problems with "CloudKade11" and all the things you've told me to do in the past don't work. He either ignores me on his talk-page, or removes my statements. If I edit his edit, he'll revert and make up some ridiculous edit-summary. It's so difficult because it's never a topical discussion - So bringing it up on the talk-page doesn't seem like an option. I came to you because you've helped a lot in the past. I just need to know what I can do. Jayy008 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. Sorry to bother you, again! Jayy008 (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you must exhaust the options of dispute resolution, and if it refers to a change to an article, it is always appropriate to discuss it at the talk page of the article. It will also maintain a clear record of discussions, which at this point becomes essential. I would refer you here to Wikipedia:DE#Dealing with disruptive editors. Mediation may be a good next step; although it is a voluntary procedure, it gives you an opportunity to show your willingness to work civilly towards consensus. You just must remember to remain very calm and very polite throughout your interactions with him, whatever happens. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this okay? And when I reported it at that link before, nothing was done, because he didn't get involved with the discussion to defend himself - I did get a couple of admins agreeing his behaviour was wrong, but in the end, nothing was done. The whole discussion page is going to end up 3O's between me and him, even though they've all ended in my favour so far. Would you recommend just removing everything to do with that show from my watch-list and be done with it? Then he can do whatever he wants to the page. Jayy008 (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately, I'm afraid that you have to decide what it's worth to you. :/ Fact is, it's not easy to deal with tendentious editing, if that's what you're encountering. It will take extreme patience to document that you are making good faith efforts to work together. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's worth making the page good or bad. But not the stress. I suppose I could try the link you sent one last time. Jayy008 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks :) Jayy008 (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Project Rebirth

I was looking for information on the alternative 9/11 designs submitted for the WTC and found this page, but I have concerns that part (if not all) of the material on the page comes from the official website for the Project Rebirth people. I can not find a copyright symbol anywhere, so at the moment all I have is case of plagiarism and a gut feeling, so I thought I'd take this here first rather than to the copyright investigations team. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Thanks for noticing this issue! Under current U.S. law, no notice is required for copyright protection. Because of that, in the absence of a notice, we have to presume copyright; what's needed is either an explicit disclaimer of copyright or evidence that the content is public domain. It's very likely that the people who placed the content work for the project, but we can't presume that, and we can't presume that even if they do they have authority to license the content as we require. Many people assume that publishing on Wikipedia is akin to publishing on their own websites and do not realize that by doing so they are authorizing modification and commercial reuse. I've had more than a few OTRS correspondents back out on realizing that. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright images question

Hey I have a few questions, I was wondering if it was ok if I can take a picture of my Selena collection and upload it for Selena products? Also what is the maximum non-free images that any article is allowed to have? And would it be ok to take a picture of the Korean and American versions (together in one picture) of Dreaming of You (album) and upload them to the article? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Answering in order of easiness, there is no maximum allowance because the needs of an article will dictate how many non-free images are appropriate. But Wikipedia tries to keep non-free content to a minimum to help minimize potential legal issues; point 3 of the policy portion here notes that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." While images certainly do make articles look better, you should get in the habit of asking yourself each time you use one if it is really necessary for the article at hand. If you think it is, and it otherwise meets NFC, it's good to go.

Cover art is a special kind of category. Consensus at the moment is that Wikipedia can include cover art to identify albums, books, etc. There's quite a long RfC about it going on here. It's possible (but unlikely, I think) that the consensus will change by the time that closes. However, people are cautious about permitting multiple covers on the same object. Your best bets for clearing non-free content requirements in these cases is where the cover art is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article. Even if it is, you're probably better off uploading the alternative cover separately and either using the "extra album cover" option in the infobox (see Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover) or placing it near the commentary. You can see the template in use at The Kick Inside, although the discussion of the different covers could be better. :) Better commentary on cover differences is available at Virgin Killer, but be warned that the top cover depicts a nude (though somewhat obscured) child.

In terms of your first question, there's a lot of variables there. You may be able to make a "non-free" rationale for some of the products separately, but their inclusion in Selena products would run afoul of WP:NFLISTS unless handled quite carefully. An aggregate picture such as you suggest might work better in that context, but I'd really like to check with somebody who works more with non-free images to get an idea of what restrictions might be good to adopt. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You have pretty much said it all above. If all of a group of products were produced by one manufacturer and there was an image from them of a group it might be acceptable under fair-use, similar to a cast group photo, but I don't see that. Any images added to that article would seem pure decoration and therefore failing WP:NFCC. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding copyright permission

I recently deleted Glenwood Park, Atlanta as a copyvio, based upon the match between the content and [this page]. The wenmaster responded by adding:

The content on this page is intended for reuse on Wikipedia. Permission is granted by the Glenwood Park Community Association and Green Street Properties.

I am concerned about the phrasing, as I do know one cannot give permission for use solely on Wikipedia. While this sentence doesn't have "solely" I don't want to wordsmith on my own. I think the solution is to ask the webmaster to add an appropriate license to the page. Based upon Wikipedia:Donating_Copyrighted_Material should I suggest that the webmaster add both:

• Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and
• Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA)

or is there boilerplate wording that can be added to the page?

(I am in correspondence with User:LHeyns on both talk pages.)

Hi. :) You're right that what he's got won't do. :/ I would recommend that the webmaster simply use the text at WP:DCM:

The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

GFDL is optional if he is not the sole copyright owner, but recommended. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt answer. The article has other issues, but at least we can address the copyright issues.--SPhilbrickT 17:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Still Unfair

If you notice how CanadianLinuxUser is controlling both the "Robert Garside" page and the "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page.... he is on the "Jesper Olsen (runner)" team and references on that page are from their web site only - UNFAIR 86.162.177.84 (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Dromeaz

Praise for you...

visiting this page a few years after I stopped contributing, and finding it still in excellent health....

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For sticking with this job for an incredible amount of time with incredible dilligence and precision! Alvestrand (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That's very kind. And heartening. :D Sometimes it does get a wee bit overwhelming. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Excessive quotations

Hello Moonriddengirl. We haven't crossed paths since the G. Bould. thing. Hope you're well.

I just saw you write to Sharktopus with this, and have come across a similar situation. I created Ivory trade, and a new editor has been working on it. Are the quotes in this subsection excessive? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I am; hope you are. :) Sadly, the G. Bould thing was just the tip of the iceberg, it turned out. We've had dozens more since him. :/

Yes, those quotes are excessive. While the question of whether or not a quote is excessive depends a good bit on the content, 299 words out of a total body of 969 is going to be tough to justify. It is attributed, though, and offered for good reason, so that's a step in the right direction. Since you're working on the article, are you able to reduce that quote through paraphrase and more judicious selection? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad you're well. Sorry to hear about the rest of the iceberg.

Absolutely, I will look after the quotation matter in that article. Many thanks for answering something I've been wondering for a long time. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

me again

Hi, recently I have done a bit of Chinese/English translation work:Talk:People's Volunteer Army#PVA battle song, please have a look and give some advice regarding to wikipedia rules on translation. Thanks. Arilang ^talk 02:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) This is a very complex situation. The question is whether the PVA battle song is in copyright or not. If it is, you cannot include a complete translation of it. Do you know in what year it was first published (in whatever form, newspaper, pamphlet, book,etc)? And where? Do you know who wrote it? Has it ever been published in the United States? I presume it was first published in China and hence copyrighted for 50 years after first publication in that country. If it was written before 1960, it is probably public domain in China, but it may not be public domain in the United States, which is the law that we're concerned with here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MRG for your reply. (1)The song was written by two Chinese PVA soldiers(麻扶摇 and 周巍峙), published on Chinese newspaper on 26/12/1950 right before they enter the war zone. Since this is a propaganda song, it should be PD in China. (2)My argument: Since this is a propaganda song, the Chinese would be happy to see that it been published all over the place, so there would not be any potential copyvio problem. Arilang ^talk 13:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(1) Can you show me the law that makes it public domain in China? (2) Reproducing 50% of the song without good reason is not likely to clear fair use and is not brief under Wikipedia's definition. It would need to be accompanied by considerable critical analysis to be anything other than decorative. (3) Argument 3 has no bearing, I'm afraid. We don't publish content on the basis that the authors would be happy to see it published. We verify that through licensing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you MRG for your comment. I shall point out on PVA talkpage that the translation is not to be added to the main page because copyvio problem. THanks. Arilang ^talk 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not quite that simple. :) You can use some of it, perhaps even all of it, but only if it is used for good reason. The best use you can make of it would involve sourced discussion of the lyrics themselves. If there is no sourced discussion, you are generally best to select a stanza or two if needed to exemplify some point about the song. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have found this:{{:::PD-China-film}} in commons, looks like songs are included too. Please checked. Thanks. Arilang ^talk 06:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The problem here is not in its copyright status in China. The problem is copyright status in the United States. There is a concept in copyright called "Rule of the Shorter Term" which provides that when copyright expires in the originating country, it expires in other countries as well. The United States does not follow this rule. As Wikipedia:Public domain explains, "If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S." That's why, as also explained there:

• If the work was published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the U.S.[1] (With a caveat for works published without copyright notice, see the footnote.)
• If the work was published 1923 to 1995 (inclusive) and not copyrighted in its countries of origin in 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S.
• Otherwise, if the work was published before 1978, it is copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years since the original publication (i.e. at least until 1923 + 95 = 2018), and if it was published 1978 or later, the work is copyrighted until 70 years after the (last surviving) author's death.

In this case, the work you describe would be public domain in 2001 (since material enters public domain at the start of the year after copyright expires) missing the cut-off to be public domain in the United States by five years. The reason I asked about the law that would make it public domain in China is that you asserted that it was public domain because of the nature of the content. If there is a law in China that makes the content ineligible for copyright, then the duration of copyright is immaterial. Lacking that, the content has a good many more years to go, I'm afraid. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, I can see the complexity of the problem. Arilang ^talk 20:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem in KDU University College

Thank you for reply of the move problem in KDU University College. However, I found that this article is being copyright infringement as I compare between the article written on 22 November 2007 as its content same as http://www.juggle.com/kdu-college. Under WP:COPYVIO, can you help it to solve this copyright problem? Thanks.

In addition, the article 2011 Malaysian Murdering of three youth person that I written is not completely copied from the article, instead I only pick certain information from the article. Please help me to verify it. Thanks.WPSamson (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think that KDU University College is a copyright violation. If you look in the bottom left on the juggle.com page it says "Some of the content on this page was provided by other sites, including Freebase (KDU College) or others licensed under Creative Commons" while the freebase site in turn says "The original description for KDU College was automatically generated from Wikipedia.org licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License." Hence I'm pretty certain in this case they copied us. I'm not sure what you're asking about the second article - you appear to have asked for it to be deleted so I'm not certain why you're asking about copying. Dpmuk (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I agree with Dpmuk about the copyright status of KDU University College. I do appreciate your taking the time to look into it. Generally, if you do think you've found a copyright problem, it's better to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems than to create a new article on the subject under another name. The template recommended there provides a link to a subpage, where you can craft a new article that will be used to replace the first if it turns out it is a copyright problem or which will be merged with the article if it is not.

In terms of 2011 Malaysian Murdering of three youth person, I didn't mean to suggest that you had copied it from an external source. I meant to ask if you had copied it or part of it from another Wikipedia article, so that we could provide any attribution that was needed. It's unusual to see the first edit of an article include a cleanup template, and that one had "{{copyedit|January 2011}}" on it from your first edit. I just wanted to make sure that if you had taken part of another article and split it into a new one that we provided the necessary attribution. :)

By the way, I've gone ahead and deleted that in accordance with your request. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be confuse to me as bot detect that this article was copy vio as this is a valid material. However, thanks for solve this problem. :-) WPSamson (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The bot basically works by comparing text and if it's similar it flags it up. It does not check to see who's copied who (and indeed there's no easy way for a bot to do this). I have, however, now added juggle.com to the lists of sites the bot ignores as it admits to taking information from wikipedia (even if it is in a roundabout way). Dpmuk (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Help!

Mohsen Vaziri-Moghaddam - appears to be a significant copy of this but ... i'm so clueless with this sort of thing (and it's not really a subject I know much about anyway, I hit it on a random page binge)... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, oh great copyright problem goddess! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the problem. :) Sorry it took me so long to reply. The weekends can get wacky. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,again

I need your help regarding user Quicktool, please have a look at Talk:Barbarians in East Asian cultures, my suspicion is that user Quicktool is a sock puppet who is doing disruptive edits to article Hua-Yi distinction, which was co-written by me and other editors. Is there any quick way to check if he/she is a sock puppet or not? Arilang ^talk 05:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm afraid there's not a quick way to check. He's obviously an experienced editor; this is not the contribution history of a newcomer. The question is whether he's a legitimate new account or an abusive one. A "checkuser" can match him to other accounts but will not, as it is strictly forbidden policy, without good reason. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If his behavior is disruptive, it may be possible for editors familiar with the areas in which he works to recognize a pattern that could indicate a match. If you can't match it, of course, then you can still deal with disruptive behavior for itself, without knowing his prior account. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about this

"He who must not be named" has returned. Special:Contributions/86.144.240.246 . I apologize but I had to mention your name at Wikipedia talk:Managed Deletion. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm... he posted to some dead project page from 2005. I just removed it. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Very strange. :/ Of course, there can be no doubt that this is Dromeaz. WP:RBI applies...or at least, the RI bit. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Got it... I see stuff from him using WP:Duck RI it is. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(Part 2)

This is harassment in my opinion... Here I am hesitant to act considering that I have voiced my public opinion on him. I have no problem removing stuff from the talk page of an article of a banned user but on his own talk page and when it's not clear 100% that it is harassment. Your opinion? CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the personal note, most of which is redundant to the unblock request (which must remain). Personally, I think that the log of these accusations is valuable for future administrators reviewing unblock requests. They reflect an unhealthy degree of interest in you and the Jesper Olsen article, given that the Robert Garside article is stable and in good shape. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... hence why I was hesitant. Sorting in that "rant" about what is relevant and what isn't is a gift... and fortunately (or is that UNfortunately?) you have it :-D CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

About the page

Hello Moonriddengirl, Take love and respect. My Wikipedia profile has been hacked and I can't fix it. And the hacker is continuously adding sexual materials into various articles. Sorry for your problem, I didn't know what he added into this article.

Thanks. Mohammadarafat (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, verification of copyright has already been supplied therefore your first point has been nullified. Secondly it is fine that other community members edit and modify this page, as there is not much to modify, and most if not all claims have been supported through various third party communities and sources. Four to five of which are actual magazine and widely established sources. You may still check the verification of such if you wish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ra Next time, do try to read the the prior notes made to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abablitz (talk • contribs) 20:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Replying at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

copyvio

The material in the article Drang nach Osten sourced to Ulrich Best's book appears to be copied more or less verbatim. If nothing else several "key phrases" are copied. The book is available on line [6] - it's page 58. Volunteer Marek  21:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Can you give me a couple of examples of key phrases? That would help me get an idea of the scale of the issue in part by seeing where it entered. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

For example the text In Poland, the term ties in with nationalist discourse that put the Polish nation in the role of a suffering nation, particularly at the hands of the German enemy in the lede is verbatim from the source. The next sentence on the German side the slogan was part of a wider nationalist discourse celebrating achievements like the medieval settlement in the east and the inherent idea of the superiority of German culture. is almost verbatim from the source. Both are on page 58. I'll keep going through it. Volunteer Marek  22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The end of the section "Drang nach Osten" in Polish and Panslavic discourse is also a very close paraphrase. Basically it looks like every instance of where Best is being used is more or less a verbatim copy. Volunteer Marek  22:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! That will help a lot. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I've tagged it as a close paraphrase; other than the one remaining passage, it seems that it's not urgent, though it should be addressed. I don't find enough to blank it, but it's enough that I would prefer if regular contributors of the article have a shot at revising before I go hacking at it, since I'm not as familiar with the subject as they may be presumed to be. I've done a spot-check of other phrases in the article, but I've found no other signs of copying. Of course, it's harder with print sources and particularly with sources translated from other languages. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

• News and notes: Executive Director travels; DMCA takedowns; fellowship clarifications; brief news

• In the news: Facebook hack; gender gap; What is the Wikipedia "community"?; brief news

• The Science Hall of Fame: Building a pantheon of scientists from Wikipedia and Google Books

• WikiProject report: WikiWarriors

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Evidence in Shakespeare case moves to a close; Longevity case awaits proposed decision; AUSC RfC

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Stillman House

Hi! Following an OTRS inquiry (ticket 2011013010010767), I researched the matter, both on our own and The Department of the Interior's copyright pages, and I can see no reason why the quoted text from the National Park Service would not be {{pd-gov}}. Have I overlooked something, or are the copyvio messages in error? Asav (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) The content (which isn't quoted, but just copied) was not written by the National Park Service, but by the form's submitter: Virginia H. Adams et. al, employees of the Public Archaeology Laboratory, which is not a federal institution. Just like images the text in these forms is copyrighted. This was confirmed during a prior copyright problem. I mailed in the correspondence from the National Register of Historic Places just a few days ago to log it; it's at Ticket:2011012910008184. (By the way, this has been explained to the contributor at Talk:Stillman_House. Unfortunately, she's confused because the content was also tagged as a copy & paste article, and she does not yet seem to realize that the tag does not relate to that problem, which is already repaired.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspected there was something I wasn't aware of, knowing your track record. Thanks (and kudos)! Asav (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi, Thanks for your input on AN/I May I please ask to look here. The piece was linked directly to the Wall Street Journal. You could read the whole article if you are to click at the very first link from this search Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Before I am blocked :(, I'd like to thank you at your talk page for your time and for helping me to understand what was happening with the article. You are a good administrator! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rev. George Loeb

Hi, I'm working on the page Creativity (religion), specifically on expanding the section on Reverend George Loeb. I found that you deleted the article Reverend George Loeb due to copyright problems. The Facebook page on Rev. Loeb (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Reverend-George-Loeb/108335225855380) contains valuable information, but unfortunately cites no sources other than the original article. Is there information in or sources from that article that we could use to further develop that section? Thanks. --SCochran4 (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid it wasn't much of an article. :/ The vast majority of the article was pasted from [7], so you can see that content still yourself. After that content, there was a brief section on "fallout" which began with the phrase "Subsequently, the dead man's family successfully sued the organization...." which was copied without attribution from Creativity Movement#Legal issues, with its citations. It's still there, so you can see that, too. :) It's almost verbatim still; it may have been verbatim in early February, when it was copied. It concluded with a section titled "Is an Appeal Forthcoming?" that consisted of a single sentence sourced to Witness Testimony 1, Witness Testimony 2 and Trial Video. The thrust of that sentence was simply that Loeb was convinced his trial had been tainted by perjury and was considering whether he was going to try for a retrial.

Good luck with the new article! I'm sorry there's not more usable stuff in the deleted version. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

All Day again.

Hi Moonriddengirl. Would you mind dropping in and making a comment on Talk:All Day#Can we upload the whole album?. The general thought is that we can't, but we could do with someone confirming. Worm 09:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Worm 12:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Technical question

Hi, Moonriddengirl, you were so helpful in resolving my last issue, that I'd like to bother you with one more please. Do you know, if there's any tool that will generate a clickable list of all my posts on AN/I for the last 5 months for example? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know. :/ I would recommend you ask at Wikipedia:Help for that, though I'm inclined to think there probably isn't one. I'm not the most technological contributor on the block, though, and sometimes I am surprised. :) You could go into your contributions and just look at Wikipedia space, but you seem to be very active at AfD, so that won't really help much. The tedious way (not clickable) is to search the ANI archives (ala [8]). This shows your username, but does not distinguish whether you made the post or not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ping

I just emailed you. ceranthor 14:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again...

MRG, we still have the CCI active for User:Vrghs jacob and I cleaned out the copyvio from Parliament of India. Now he's gone back and copied content from the same source back in the article. I haven't looked at other contributions since the last update to the CCI. Can you take another look now? I think there's been sufficient warnings and short duration blocks too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Indeffed. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That was quick! I'll take a look at the rest of the contributions in a couple of days, am pressed for online time currently. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"I just don't care." That explains a lot, eh? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Similar to this copyright violator I blocked. That unblock request is better! —SpacemanSpiff 19:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Yes, that trumps. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Another one...

Village Kid - Earwig's showing some violations. (Am working through Equine Wikiproject cleanup listings today... whee!) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a problem, all right. :/ I've blanked it with a note at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hi -- would it be possible to recreate Larry Boardman as the barest stub? Or alternatively put the old version somewhere where I can see it? I'll try my hand at recreation w/proper citations. Thanks. You can respond here -- I will watch this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I can't userfy a copyright problem, but I'm be happy to pull up formatting, etc., so that you can create a new stub. I've done so, tagging it "under construction" so that hopefully it won't be A3ed before you get a chance. Remember, you don't have to wait until the end of the 7 day period to address these. Each article when blanked links to a temporary page where content can be rewritten which will be used to replace the problematic article when the listing period closes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, and for your advice as well. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I've addressed it. Thanks for having added the cats, ELs, and talkpage ... I'm guessing there was no infobox. Many thanks again.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, no infobox. Thanks for replacing it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fighting Communist Organizations

Fighting Communist Organizations - Hi moonRG, this article appears a cut and copy of this wiki article but I can't see the copyright status? http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Fighting_Communist_Organizations - Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a copyright claim and an admin help template here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marknutley Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Off to see what's up. It's redlinked now, so it may have been handled. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a thread at ANI - a bit of confusion but its gone for the time being, interesting issue though, worth a little look see, best. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your hard work

		The Copyright Barnstar
		I want to thank you for your tireless efforts in cleaning copyvios in WP. It's valuable work! I appreciate that you took time to leave a nice note on my talk page, too. Keep up the good work! —hike395 (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :D That's very kind of you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just so you're aware

I was forwarded an email from you to Legitimateuserqa‎ (talk · contribs) by him. Nothing really out of the blue, but since he forwarded one email at least a couple of times and repeatedly sent me copies of his emails to you and referred to you as having created his [sock] account I thought I should let you know. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. I know he's sent them to the arbitration committee. :) I did in fact create his last sock account; he neglected to mention that he was blocked when he requested it for an IP that was soft rangeblocked. :/ I've alerted the unblock mailing list as to the legitimate e-mail address he supplied, and maybe that will help avoid others creating accounts for him without realizing who he is. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got Roger's replies to him too, but you were being talked about as the one who authorized his account :) Also, I've just reblocked Jpullokaran (talk · contribs) for copying content over from here onto Thrissur. On cursory look, some of that content appears to have been copied over to a couple of other articles too -- Sakthan Thampuran, but that appears to be from last year. I've just deleted the content there, haven't rd1'd that (the Thrissur one I've RD1'd as it's a lot). There also appear to be a lot of cross article copy-pastes without attribution, not sure what to do about that, but some sort of sanity check might be in order. —SpacemanSpiff 19:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• MRG, I've gone through some contributions and have found the following:

Copyvio on Thrissur, Sakthan Thampuran are two copyvios found currently. However, some of the same content on Thrissur has been copy pasted to other articles including History of Thrissur, Thrissur district etc. (I haven't yet cleaned that out)

Manappuram Jewellery deleted recently as G11 was also a copyvio. A few others deleted/RevDel'd previously include Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary (twice), Kerala Forest Research Institute, COSTFORD etc.

Shakthan Thampuran Palace is a loose paraphrase, that probably needs some sort of clean up.

Given the above and the numerous other deletion notes on the talk page, should we open up a CCI? The bigger problem IMO is copying to one article and then re-copying bits of it to another article which is a little difficult to figure out at first go. cheers —SpacemanSpiff 19:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's hard to clean. It seems like a CCI is probably necessary. I'm on tight time this afternoon; if you don't get to logging it, I'll do so later. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've logged it, hope I got it right. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 21:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Would Mart Mariam Big Church need deletion? There's some minor rewording in this edit following CorenBot's tagging, but even there, distinct phrases as opposed to full sentences are from the source. The first paragraph is directly from the source. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's a close paraphrase, a derivative work. It should be stubbed or rewritten. I'm very disappointed to see that corensearchbot for some reason didn't list that one for review. :/ It gave him the notice, but instead of putting the article at SCV jumped straight to the next problem. I've yanked the derivative paragraph. If I missed anything, please yank it or let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• The para you left alone is a word for word copy from the same source, except that an IP edited part of it subsequently. Everything from the 29 parishes to the printing tech school. That's why I asked if it should be deleted. Anyways, there are a couple more like this, which is why I thought I should ask you before I went ahead. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, you're right! I missed that further down. :/ That's what I get for trying to get my work done before I have to take off. :D I've stripped it down to a basic stub. There are two questions I ask myself. First, is there anybody else working on the article who might help fix it? If so, I'll blank it with the {{copyvio}} template to give them a chance. Second, is there anything retainable? If so, I'll try to stub it as far down as I can. If not, whether or not I delete it or template it depends on factors such as how long it's been there and how difficult it would be to rewrite. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks. For the few articles I've seen so far, there aren't any other editors, most other contributions are maintenance level except for a stray addition or removal of a couple of words. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• MRG, A couple of questions. How much text requires RD1? Normally I'm RD1ing if there's more than a few sentences, but in this particular CCI, even if there are just two copyvio sentences, that makes it more than 80% of the article. And another question, in this particular case, the IPs have added more copyvio in after the blocks. On Arnab Goswami he says that it's someone else from his office, but the IP doesn't edit any articles except those on his user contributions list. Should the CCI be updated to ask people to also check the contributions of the one IP (office) and one range (home). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Like you, I usually base it on the amount of text, with one difference: if there have not been substantive edits since the contributor placed the copyvio, I might revdelete it even if it is minimal, since there is no loss to important records. I am particularly likely to RD1 when there is socking involved, since it discourages those socks from simply pulling the copyvio back up out of history (they do this; a lot).

As to checking the IP(s), that might be a good idea if they've done a lot. Meanwhile, if it only edits the articles he does, it might be a good idea to anonblock it for block evasion? I use semiprotection when the IPs rotate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Advice please

Further information: WT:UKRail § Strawberry Line (Miniature Railway)

The Strawberry Line (Miniature Railway) article has been marked as a copyvio. Judging by what is said at the WP, the subject may just be notable enough to sustain an article. I would not object to an editor raising an AfD on the subject to test the community's consensus on whether or not this is the case, but I don't see how the community can debate the issue whilst the article is effectively blanked by the copyvio template. Any ideas on how to work round this? Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) It's quite all right to nominate an article for AfD that is blanked for copyright problems if you think that the subject itself does not and cannot belong. While copyright problems can be cleared with permission or rewritten in such a way that they're no longer copyright problems, doing so won't alleviate that concern. This is particularly the case with an article like this, where there is content that is retainable if the other content is not cleared.

All that said, now that I've looked at, there is a clean point in history which can be restored, so there's no need to keep the template up for the full week. I'll go ahead and process it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. As I said at WP:UKrail, I was of the opinion that the subject was just notable enough. I would not have objected to a community test of that notability via AfD if another editor was so-minded, but was not sure how the community could assess that notability without being able to see the info. Now that you've sorted the copyvio issue and we have an article up again, this will be possible should it become necessary, but the inclusionist in me hopes that it won't. Mjroots (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :) Only occasionally have I seen blanked articles at AfD where there was some confusion about the blanking. Since the content is still viewable in history before the copyright problem is closed, people can assess just by glancing at an older version. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Annette Akroyd

Hi

This is about your comments at the Village Pump.

Yes, I would like to work on the article again, and yes I would appreciate it if the old version could be placed in a temporary page somewhere where I could copy it off. Is there also any way to see what the previous copyvios were and who was doing it ? Annette46 (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, if the article is temporarily restored, you'll be able to see the previous copyvios because the content will all be there, and the history will be with it. In terms of who placed the copyvio, though, I'll note that I linked to his userpage at the VP. :) But I have to make sure that if you copy off the old vesion of the article that you can't restore it to Wikipedia without thoroughly rewriting it. While you can restore content added only by you, this seems to consist mostly of changing a few words ([9]) and formatting ([10], [11]). Some other contributors did attempt to rewrite the article, but they retained most of the content without modification, and the administrator who closed the listing was forced to delete it as it was a derivative work.

The article will be deleted again in a week...sooner if you let me know you're done with it. :) If you rewrite it on Wikipedia, please rewrite it in the temporary space linked; your rewrite will be used to replace the article, if it does not retain the problems of the original. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is a tough one to rework. 80% of the article was contributed by P.K.Niyogi who seems to have retired from Wikipedia. Its impossible for me to figure out what has come in from David Kopf and what were the specific copyvio issues. But yes this is one article I'd love to do, since I have lots of material about her. So woudl also need access to the deletion discussions Annette46 (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

David Kopf was not the extent of the concerns here. Content was also copied from Banglapedia and may have been copied from his other print sources. If you've viewed his talk page, I'm sure you've seen that he has copied content from multiple sources into multiple articles. :/ A rewrite on her would be great, but except for mining uncopyrightable elements like external links and such, you should probably approach the article as though you were writing one where none had existed before.

This was not a deletion discussion; copyright problems are listed at the copyright problems board. Typically, there are no comments made there after the original listing except by the tagger and the admin who closes. The only exception here is that although I am often the admin who closes these I recused myself from taking action and asked another admin to handle it. :) The listing is at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 August 18. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Have copied what I needed to. Will start a new article (from scratch) at Annette Ackroyd (note spelling), also keeping Coren in mind. Annette46 (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC).

All right; I've redeleted. Thanks for replacing it! And, evidently, at the proper spelling. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible Mistake

Hello Moonriddengirl, Hope you are fine. I am writing concerning to an article I wrote about a Colombia Musician called Dann Visbal. It says that it was deleted because of copyrights issues which I believe that is a mistake. I would be glad if you tell me what happened.

Thanks for your time and best Regards

187.78.41.45 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Armando Benedetti

Hi. Thank you for your courteous note. A more complete explanation was left at the time the article was tagged at your user talk page, User talk:Thejournalist2011. In brief, the bot that tagged the article as including copied content flagged it for human evaluation, and I confirmed that content in the article was duplicated from other sources which predated the article. Specifically, the material was present here. When content is previously published anywhere, we cannot include it here unless we are able to verify that it is compatibly licensed or public domain. The procedure for doing so is noted at your talk page.

I also noted at your talk page that even if cleared of copyright concerns, the article will need reliable sources to verify that Dann Visbal meets the inclusion guidelines for musicians. Newspapers, magazines and industry websites can help with this. Primary sources that are connected to the subject (such as his websites) cannot.

Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Stillman House

Hey Moon. Kmsena (talk · contribs) has removed the copyrighted material from this article and another user removed the COI tag. I'm fine with the removal of copyrighted material but I believe that Kmsena may be related to the subject. While it's not imparetive that a COI be noted on the page, I thought you may have the answer. If you don't or the editor has agreed to leave the page alone through private emails, then no big deal. I'm going to add another improvement tag or two, check the photo for copyright issues, and then probably move along to other article. Thanks for any help you can provide. OlYeller^Talktome 17:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that Asav was the user who removed the COI tag and is a member of the OTRS team. I'm not sure if that indicates that they know there's no COI but I thought I should mention it. OlYeller^Talktome 17:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he just thought it was neutral enough that any potential COI does not matter? (I'm all "secrecy sworn" and can't disclose an editor's identity or affiliations (which makes sense for the couresty queue, but a bit less for permissions :/), but in this case I don't honestly know if there's a connection because I haven't reviewed the tickets. :)) Thanks for finding the problems with it! I appreciate your careful review. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictures from Flikr...use on Wikipedia

It's me.... again ;-D but now about what you think :-D Can all pictures from Flikr be used on Wikipedia or only certain ones... specifically this one here thanks CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Urrk found the answer myself.... license says "All right reserved"... can't use it... Gotta find one with the CC license CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Sometimes, if you ask, they'll change the license. Lots of people choose the "all rights reserved" by default, with no real notion how others might use it, and are happy to see their works on Wikipedia. You just have to make sure that they know which license they must choose and that the license allows both commercial reuse and modification, though their rights must be respected. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CP

Hi there. Sorry my involvement here has trailed off. I've been really busy at FAC. Why can't I stop time so I have enough for everything I want to do? --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL! I don't know, but if you ever get the trick of it, please inform me! I thought I was going to have all day yesterday to work on Wikipedia, but, alas, my family had other ideas. :P --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Garrafrauns

In response to your highlighting paraphrasing on the Garrafrauns page. The issues you identified have been altered. May I suggest that you try make your contributions in a more positive manner. I have found a number of your remarks condescending, even if you are correct. Just because you have not used bad language or personal attacks does not mean you are showing courtesy or civility. ClintMalpaso (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to you at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyvio?

Hello again MRG~! Actually, I'm kind of doubtful about a particular image file... so could I trouble you to take a look at File:KN-K RNZAF Catalina.JPG and give me your frank assessment? Victor Mike Tango. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we need a {{npd}} tag there, pending production of evidence of that to OTRS. I would recommend templating the image, but leaving a note explaining the problem to the user (instead of the template). Let me know if you'd like help with that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Apologies but I'm really lost now. *scratches head* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I presume it's the copyright status you're questioning, since you're here. :) There's an assertion that he purchased the copyright to the photograph from the estate. This is plausible, though unusual. "Intent to post on wikipedia specifically stated and allowed" is alarming, since if he truly purchased copyright there should be no need of such allowances. He should have some kind of documentation of the transaction (I hope), but we haven't seen it. We would need him to pass it through WP:OTRS. The template {{npd}} on the image will set a clock running to permit time to submit that documentation. But rather than giving him the standard notice it generates, I would write him a personal note explaining our need to verify the ownership and telling him where to send it.

There's always the possibility it was a verbal contract, which would be a shame, since verbal contracts are not usable for us. I once purchased a disc of photographs with the assurance by the photographer that the copyright release was included on the disc. It was not. I was travelling when I purchased it, and the company later refused to return my calls. What I learned from that is not to buy without confirming the release myself; if it's on the disc, they can print it out and put it in my hands. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, your explanation just help clear up my itchy scalp somewhat. Guess you'll take it from hereon, eh? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sure. :) I've been trying not to assume that people want me to take over (since I have a habit of doing that), but I'm willing. This is just procedural stuff. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

<de-lurk>Just out interest the uploader has other images with the same or similar statement like File:Fariey IIIF of NZPAF.JPG, File:ZK-AFH Miles Whitney Straight.jpg and File:Gloster Grebe and Bristol Fighters NZPAF.JPG among others. It may be nice to get an OTRS that covers the transfer of IPR. <re-lurk> MilborneOne (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• @MRG: Oh joy, another one... File:RNZAF Catalina taxing.JPG. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm going to draw User:Dcoetzee into this one. I'd like more input on whether {{npd}} is the best approach or if, given the breadth of the issue, something else would work better. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi all - I think MRG is on the right track here, this is a case where we simply doubt the uploader's statement and need documentation to prove it. If the statement is valid, then of course they have the right to release the work, so there is no other issue. But I have my doubts as well. The npd tag will ensure that the images are deleted if it's not provided in a timely manner, so it doesn't fall through the cracks. Dcoetzee 21:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

VMT

Dave1185 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.

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

Mmmmmuack~! *grin* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

New CCI needed

Hi Moon. Long time no speak. It looks like we need a new CCI investigation of User:Racepacket (previously investigated here, as initiated by you). Unfortunately, the copyright violations didn't stop after the last investigation was started. Please see User talk:Bilby#Boyce McDaniel for context. I just did a count and the user has about 3,800 mainspace edits made after the start date of the previous investigation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oi. Thanks. I'll update the current CCI with new material. Someday maybe we'll actually catch up on that backlog! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, Thanks! That backlog is daunting. I wish I could tell I was going to plunge in with gusto but while I do a lot of things one might characterize as slogging tasks, I try not to raise my blood pressure too much, and I find something about this particular task very frustrating.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is horribly tedious work and can get depressing. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)15:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

On that subject, I know that the "Great Wikipedia Backlog Drive" is on. I just visited and while there is some copyright categories in there, I don't see the CCI backlog. Maybe it should be added? This is obviously far more important in a backlog triage than wikifying de-orphaning and so on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that would be great! I'm not sure how to add the numbers, though. :) If anybody comes up with the number of articles, I'm not sure I'd even want to know! Will you add it? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me investigate (not sure of the parameters involved, if it has to be approved by a committee and so on). I'll give it a shot:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Contribution Team#Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Open investigations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's hope that it can fit. I appreciate you thinking of it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope so too:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

The first time I remember looking at your userpage, the monkey man made me smile. Whenever I run into you, I think about it and smile again. :) (They would be very popular at zoos; they're really just darned cute.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I found my way here as this editor has been a significant contributor towards Chandra Levy and I had intended to notify him of another peer review that I had requested. I did remember encountering some minor copyvio issues in the past with this article, though I am uncertain of how to track the point of origin as many editors have worked on it. I would appreciate any recommendations as I would prefer not to have a cloud over the article as I would like to have it reviewed for a possible FA nomination. Thank you. KimChee (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Probably the best approach would be to review his contributions to the article at the listing at his CCI page and simply note your findings there. Any contributor with no history of copyright problems is welcome (and much needed!) at CCI; you don't have to wait for somebody else to clear the article. The listing is at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket 3#Articles 41 through 60. If you are up for evaluating it, all you have to do is view the diffs. Do a google scan and check the sources given against the text to see if there is too much similarity. If there is, and that content has not been overwritten in the current version of the article, rewrite or remove it. Once you've checked the diffs, you can edit the CCI page to remove the diffs from the listing there, adding either {{n}} if you did not find copyright problems or {{y}} Cleaned. if you did, but they are gone. Once that's done, there should be no lingering clouds on the article from this issue. Good luck with the FA review! (Although, really, I guess there's a lot less luck involved than skill and hard work. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I appear to be the first one responding on this new CCI page, so let me know if I am doing this right. KimChee (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That looks great! Thanks. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Professional Rugby Players' Association

If you have a moment would you mind taking a look at this for me? I've reverted one recent addition as an obvious copyvio. However I have a concern that the page has been a copyvio from the beginning (possibly of an older version of the same page) but can't find any evidence for this and so aren't sure how best to proceed. Would you mind taking a look and seeing what you think? The editor who introduced the most recent copyvio is obviously involved with the organisation copied from so I've dropped them a quick note saying I've asked for someone more experienced to look at this and then someone will get back to them. Dpmuk (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure! Now that i've knocked off one of the days of backlog at CP, I'm on it. :) (I'd actually meant to get on it hours ago, but typically got distracted by something bright and shiny and more urgent. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, fwiw, I think your instincts are spot on here; this is raising red flags for me, too, but I can't prove anything. In these cases, when the article we have is pretty subpar to begin with, I will often follow the "when in doubt" advice at WP:C and just rewrite it. So I've done, mostly using content from the official site. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You didn't have to do that - I'd have quite happily have done a rewrite. With the possible copyvio being there from the start I wasn't sure whether it was best to G12 it (if it was found to be copyvio) and start again or what so hadn't rewritten it myself yet, and the issue with the recent editor complicated things further in my mind. I also asked you as you seem quite good at digging out sources. In future I'll re-write if I think I can. Dpmuk (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mind. It wasn't hard.  :) Generally, I do have some good tricks built up for digging up sources, but, alas, this time they just didn't help. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A quick check please.

See File:Frog-toad-logo.png and do a quick check of OTRS ticket 2011020310016613 and make sure it actually says what is supposedly says in the edit/deletion summary. Not sure if the deleting Admin is an OTRS member or not and the subject has come up at Media copyright questions. Thanks. (EDIT: Actually I see now the editor asking is supposedly an OTRS team member, so I am more confused now). Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusing! Looking into this now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I may have totally misinterpreted the situation; suffice to say, if circumstances merit, feel free to overturn the deletion. I am not an OTRS volunteer, and took the assertion that an OTRS ticket required deletion at face value. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. I commented the image out of the article, so if you do restore it don't forget to restore that bit as well. Quite honestly, I rarely do anything with images at all, but this one showed up on the copyvio list. That'll learn me, I suppose. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen

Hauskalainen has started right back up with his edit warring at Independent Payment Advisory Board. What can be done about this? Thanks. Intermittentgardener (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not he has crossed the 3RR line. If he has, then a listing at WP:3RR would be the best choice, noting there the prior page protection. If not, WP:RPP might be the way to go. I note there is some communication at the talk page from all parties ([12]), but drawing in additional feedback via some of the fora discussed in dispute resolution would certainly help to clarify consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As my mother used to say, it takes two to tango, and as Dad would say, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. 'nuff said. Hauskalainen (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll interpret that as your statement that it's mutual. :) It would be great if the editors at this article could get some assistance via dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Help please!

Hi there, copyright Master! Could you have a look at Steven Mandis that I deleted yesterday. The cited violation is from a blogspot that was cached by google and no longer exists (this one). The user who wrote it, Rob laungiya (talk · contribs) emailed me asking for a review, stating that they had removed it from the blog and that they are responsible for both. This is a bit over my head, tbh, so thought I'd ask you.

Let me know if you can help, or if you're too busy I'll find someone else. If I've erred, feel free to just restore the page, but if it needs to stay deleted for now, could you drop the user a note on their talk page? Thanks hugely in advance! GedUK  21:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It doesn't matter that the source is no longer visible, but it happens quite often indeed that authors believe that by doing so they "solve" the issue. In fact, adding a CC-BY-SA license note is all that is needed on the source post to resolve this in the most expedited fashion.

Now instead we have a claim of authorship that can only be verified through OTRS, and a presumption of authorship that we cannot verify conclusively. So two possibilities: either they restore the blogspot page and add a CC-BY-SA license to that post, or follow WP:PERM.

That being said, I'd remind them of WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:PROMO :) MLauba ^(Talk) 22:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MLauba! For what it's worth, I concur. Pulling from publication doesn't erase copyright. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys! *adds MLauba to copyrightadminslist* GedUK  08:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Frog-toad-logo.png

This is the second time the copyvio tag has been removed from the image. As you know, I trust your judgment in these cases, but this is just to make sure that you have seen OTRS ticket 2011020310016613, complaining of the copyright violation. Personally, I very much doubt there can be any fair use rationale here, but then I'm not a big fan of fair use, either. Incidentally, the font itself is Gill sans ultra bold, but the question is whether the size and coloring are sufficient to make it a copyrightable image, and I believe they are. (On another note, there was no COI in the Stillman house article, that's why I removed the tag.) Asav (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yes, I did read it. The question really isn't whether it's copyrightable as much as it is whether there can be a fair use rationale consistent with WP:NFC. If you think that it does not meet WP:NFC, you should either tag it {{dfu}}, with an explanation of why it does not, or bring it for review at WP:NFCR. It's not a WP:CSD#G12 matter, to begin with, because WP:CSD#G12 is for text, not images. It's also not a WP:CSD#F9 (which is for images) because that is only in cases where the non-free images "are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use." If you think I'm mistaken here, we can discuss this one on the mailing list, where we can include more details than we can here, given privacy concerns. I trust you've already seen the note I left you about the matter at the ticket itself.

Just as an FYI, if you put the ticket in {{ticket|2011020310016613}}, it'll link up nicely: 2011020310016613. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to jump in on the technical FYI, you can also use Ticket:2011020310016613 or OTRS:5539254 which make it easy to link to in edit summaries. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I knew about the second one. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I read your e-mail, so I won't pursue the matter any further as I understand you've seen the ticket. It's certainly in the grey zone, and I still tend to think it's copyrighteable and fair use doesn't apply, but unless the complainant reopens the case, it stays closed. Asav (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, first, the complainant isn't the copyright holder; that's the point of his communication. If the logo was not copyrightable, it wouldn't be claimed under fair use, it would be public domain. I'm happy to ask review of it from contributors who do more work with WP:NFC, but I'm curious as to why you think it is exempt from that policy. What is it about this particular logo that you think is problematic in its current use? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

• News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief

• In the news: Wikipedia controversies about Mormon topics examined; brief news

• Gender gap: Widespread discussions about the low participation of women in Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mind looking over a potential article for me?

Hi Moonridden girl, you're the biggest expert I know on copyright and plagiarism issues, and I wonder if you could do me a favor. I have a new article in my userspace that I need someone to look over - it's single-sourced, and I'm a bit worried that I may have paraphrased too closely from that source. If you have a few minutes, is there any way you could check it over for paraphrase iffiness for me? It's here, and it's short, little more than a stub. Thank you! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! 14:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. :) I'll be right there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's very brief, as you say, but I can see your concern. For instance, "Established in 1928, it was Vermont's second state park" follows pretty closely in structure to "Allis State Park was established in 1928 as Vermont’s second developed state park." Strikethrough a few words in the source, and it's pretty much the same. I can see structural similarities throughout, some of which will of course be unavoidable.

I would recommend overhauling it a bit. My first technique is to look for other sources that have different information. Blending two or more sources together can help avoid following too closely on one. That's not always possible. Even notable subjects may not be well documented online. I tried searching for "Wallace Allis" + "Bear Mountain" and got only one book hit, the page for which I could not view. :/ No news sources, alas.

Given one source and one source only, one of my techniques is to read it over and then try describing it, globally, without referring to the original. I sometimes cheat by looking at the original to find a starting point, turning it upside down. :) In this case, I'm picking "Vermont’s second developed state park" as a launching point. I might come up with something that starts like this:

Vermont had only one developed state park before, in 1928, it established Allis State Park. Previously known as Bear Mountain Farm, the multi-generation family farm was already a popular attraction for its expansive views, to which final owner Wallace Allis permitted public access. On his death, he bequeathed the property to the state with the requirement that it be used for public recreation and camping.

That's first draft material, mind you, but if any of it suits you, you're welcome to it. No attribution necessary. :)

Basically, my goal is to avoid appropriating structure as well as language. If you have multiple sources, it's a bit easier to retain, say, the "established in..Vermont's second" organization without worrying about encroaching on the source. You will presumably be interspersing information drawn from your various sources.

Hope that helps! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! I'll keep plugging away at it using your advice. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Twist of Shadows

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(Insert jaw drop icon here.) Thanks! I had no idea it was even under consideration. :) Now to go see how many people read it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Haha, surprise! My gift of love to you. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Oh, my. Poor Clan of Xymox. Even with a front page mention, they can't seem to climb over 30 hits! (Oh, wait--no, they made 31.) Oh, well. They're doing better than Bodeco's Callin' All Dogs (ooh, 8 people looked at it on the 2nd!) (Just as well. That's a lousy article. :/ Could not find any sources to speak of; made me really wonder how discriminating that "List of notable albums" really was.) (Enough chattering to your templated notice, I need some caffeine. Good morning. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't despair, the hit count hasn't registered yet -- it'll be 6 February for this one. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah! So I see. 613 views is far more respectable. I'm sure Clan of Xymox would be much relieved. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You should have seen the alternate hook I proposed. I know two people who would have been calling each other rightaway, and one person who would throw his computer screen through the window--it was a hook about songwriting credits. Hey, since I wrote the stuff on the main article that you "copied with attribution" (it's still theft, morally, even if it's legal!!!), don't I deserve a pat on the back and a sticker? ;) Drmies (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki translations

Yes I know that and am surprised at myself. Sorry for causing you all this work. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have it. I google-translated the article and found it unreferenced so I merely recorded where it came from notwithstanding I knew it was a poor source. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

How can I help? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me if I am doing it right. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid that it isn't likely to be helpful to state a source from memory; what's needed is to compare the text to the source to make sure that they are okay. Taking one example, Arbuthnot, Saskatchewan, you say, "From memory the source is kittybrewster.com + an old book (Rural Municipal Office + ET Russell). Stated. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)" Where did you get the content for kittybrewster.com? What old book? Was it written by Frank Mulatz? Somebody is going to have to go through every article on that list and compare the text in those edits to the sources to make sure that the content is not copied or closely paraphrased. Your laying good groundwork for that would go a long way towards helping repair the problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The content in kittybrewster.com comes from all sorts of places. I generally show it as an external link rather than a source. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Then instead of indicating it came from kittybrewster, you should provide the link to the original source for comparison. If there is no original source, then you probably should not focus on the content taken from kittybrewster.com, but from other sources that can be reviewed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Memories of the Arbuthnots. Mrs PSM Arbuthnot. 1925. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't need the link here, thanks. It's for the CCI page so that those who review these articles are able to check against the sources, if they are accessible. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The diff on Arbuthnot, Saskatchewan says that the book is Rural Municipal Office (in my text) and also says (in the text) that it was ET Russell who opined that Arbuthnot was named after Sir Robert. I remember copying it from a photocopy beside me. I paraphrased the text. If I were doing it again today I would try to put in more inline refs. I am horrified by the amount of work involved here but it seems to me I have two options, being to try to help or to run away. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you'll choose to help rather than run away. If we can't verify that content is clean, we generally have no choice but to default to deletion in these cases. One of the reasons why we have such a huge backlog is that I really don't like this default option myself, and it takes quite a while to clear text when a source cannot be found. In this case, if you look at this, you wrote "source" "Frank Mulatz". Who is Frank Mulatz? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I follow you. Frank Mulatz wrote the paper "Royal Municipal Office". He lives/lived in Saskatchewan. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we able to view that paper? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I can hunt it down & fax it. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you'd need to send it to. :/ The point here, though, is really to facilitate review by others and for you to repair what you can before others even make that review. As with attribution the public domain article I linked below (which I see you've done; thank you), that will save others time when they reach that listing and make it that much quicker for them to mark that one resolved. If you've used offline sources, it may be more difficult for you to assist in review, though adding more information about original sources can be helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example: [13]. This content was copied from this public domain book. As such, it does not constitute a copyright concern. However, the attribution given is inadequate under Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Most of the content is gone, though some remains. The article needs to be tagged with {{PD-old-text|title=|year=|author=}}. After tagging the article accordingly, you might annotate the listing for that article noting the PD source and the attribution update. A link to the PD source for quick verification would also be very helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo says Stewart Wood, Baron Wood of Anfield, was largely plagiarized from The Daily Mail. I can't see it but you can. It is true that some of the info came from the Daily Mail. But I doubt it was largely or exclusively taken from that source. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The bulk of the text in the article does seem to have been copied directly from that source, from the blue sidebar titled "Wood, an Oxford don with a passion for the Turf Tavern". There were some tidbits that were not, such as:

Educated Oxford University (MA), Harvard University (PhD).

However, the article would have required a complete rewrite. If you'd like to rewrite it, I'd be happy to restore cats and the list of publications (if it is a complete list) for you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to do that. My position is that I have not deliberately broken the rules. But I may nevertheless have done so. I think it is incumbent on me to be helpful to others who wish to check my contributions. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Tata Young

I came across this while working through bits of Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections. Having looked into it it would seem that at least the "1994-1995: Thai breakthrough", "International stardom: 1996-1997" and bits of "Film, television and beyond: 1997-2003" contain significant amounts of close paraphrases of http://www.tatayoung.com/bio.htm . That site isn't currently loading for me but the internet archive has a version from not too long after the text was introduced. Obviously as that's after the introduction there's no concrete proof they haven't copied from us but that seems unlikely given that it appears to be an official site and the text was introduced in one go. The original close paraphrasing was introduced in a series of consecutive edits by one editor. Is this closer enough paraphrasing to be a problem (my gut feeling is yes but I'm by no means an expert). If so I intend to rip out these sections and replace it with text from the version prior to it's introduction. However given both the fact it's not a clear copyvio and the impact of such a change I thought I'd run it past someone else first. If you'd prefer I'd go an hassle someone else about these sort of issues just let me know. Dpmuk (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

On a slightly different note this edit has particularly irritated me. An IP said it was a copyvio (OK, not in the right way but still) and then another editor seems to just blindly restore it, presumably without checking whether it was a copyvio as it very clearly was - hopefully the page will have been G12'd by the time you read this. I've dropped that editor a note but the more copyvio work I do the more respect I have for you. Dpmuk (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, issue #1. :) Yes, I think there's some close paraphrasing in there that would benefit from revision. We know that the website has been around forever; well, since 1997, and it was linked from our article in 2004. And I've confirmed that they had it first. Here it is at their website as of May 11, 2006. It first entered our article on 7 June 2006. (Here's a tip I use. If a website is older than the oldest archived version I can get at of a subpage, I will sometimes go to the archive of the website and look for the links to the information there. In this case, they changed the name of the subpage from www.tatayoung.com/biography.aspx to www.tatayoung.com/bio.htm. This doesn't always work, but it works often enough to make it part of my routine. :))

I am perfectly fine with your approaching me about these. :) I like the easy questions, but you don't need to ask on the easy questions. :D And I really appreciate all the work you've been putting into copyright cleanup lately. A lot of people would drop a {{close paraphrase}} on it and leave it for me to dig through and rewrite. So that you put in the time and trouble yourself saves me in the long run. :) (Mind you, I don't mean any disrespect for those who tag and move on. If they can't determine or don't feel confident in the rewrite, the tag is better than saying nothing!) Okay. Now for issue two. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue #2: Yes, that bugs me, too. :/ At least in that one, he wasn't reverting a validly placed {{copyvio}} with source. I've seen that also--both when the template was placed by IPs and registered users.

The article, btw, is still here, which would suggest that the issue is complex enough to merit the {{copyvio}} tag. I'm considering redirecting it to the older article Patayani, but I want to make sure that's not a copyright problem itself. :) I'll list it at CP. And thank you for your kind words. :D Copyright work requires a lot of patience. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely unsurprised it wasn't G12 - it's been my experienced that not many admins want to deal with the more complex cases like this. I wasn't really asking you to do anything with Issue #2 it was more just idle chit-chat. As for Issue #1 it's on my list of things to do once I'm in the writing mood - hopefully later today. Hopefully as I get more experienced I'll stop asking so many easy questions (although see below) but all the help is most definitely appreciated. Dpmuk (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, my point is that you aren't asking easy questions. You're beyond that. :) Easy questions are, "What template do I put on an article to request speedy deletion?" and "Is it okay to copy stuff from a federal website?" and "The website says non-commercial reuse is okay. Can we have it?" :D You're fine to ask for what feedback you need. Those people whose doors I knock on can tell you that I don't hesitate, myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. _WM^O 02:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I have weighed in. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I don't think I've ever seen that template. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright of estimates

Hi,

As part of the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination) I was trying to remember where there was a guideline as to the un-copyrightable nature of statistics before digging myself into a hole. Am I mis-remembering or perhaps you aware of an associated policy/guideline? Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm afraid we don't have a specific policy or guideline (though I'm beginning to think we need to add something to the copyright FAQ), but copyright factors with respect to lists have come up many times on Wikipedia and there's considerable precedent to be found at the copyright talk page and the copyright problems talk page. I personally have consulted Mike Godwin and interim associate counsel about the question, and both have affirmed that the core of our consideration is the creativity of the content and/or the presentation (depending on what's being reproduced). The precedent case here remains Feist v. Rural, and, under the U.S. law that governs us, the sweat of the brow doctrine does not apply. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I responded to this question at Media copyright questions but will pop part of it in here as well. The issue is not that is is just data, the website is a news service, and it has a clear notice about non-free reuse of content. If this data was collected by this news service than they do have a right to retain a license for it and say it can not be used for commercial purposes. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm following what you're saying here, so I'll just clarify what I'm saying. :) According to U.S. law, if there is no creativity in the facts (the pivotal question), the facts are free for reuse no matter who collected the data. That's pretty much the point of Feist. There may be creativity in arrangement or presentation of facts, but not in the facts themselves. Per Feist, "Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original, and thus are not copyrightable. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author, not to the facts themselves." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in here Soundvisions1. Sweat of the brow is a bit tangential for this one as it is not the core basis of a copyright claim. BOI make it clear that they create original estimates rather than performing calculations based on simple counting of receipts. Specifically there are no box-office receipts published for Indian cinema so they have to use their market intelligence to model guesstimate numbers (however they do that, we don't know as they don't tell us). I think the rationale for copyvio for this particular list is thus a bit more clear cut even if likely to be hotly contested (on the basis of being useful and having been used for several years) as market intelligence or perhaps original news reports (not statistical data) would be commercially copyrightable, as they claim on their website.

If your conclusion is that we don't have to worry about copyright for this list then fair enough, I would be happy to note that in the AfD. However if the answer is less certain I would welcome a suggestion as how to proceed. The last thing I would want to do would be to have the AfD complete and then upset all those involved by immediately contesting the article on the basis of copyvio. Fæ (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't drawn a conclusion, though I'm happy to take a look. I focused on answering your question specifically so as to retain that "uninvolved" status should I be drawn on at CP. :D If their listings are estimates and if the formula they use is not obvious and reproducable, then we're not talking about facts but about creative conclusions. I think the copyright considerations are well worth pursuing unless we can determine that it is a non-creative process used to determine the figures. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. The list article relies on two websites, both have pages on their websites (which the AfD nomination links to) which explain something of how they estimate (or guess) the figures. The article itself then reproduces tables of the same data which appear to be separate rather than a synthesised mix of the two. I look forward reading to any conclusion you come to or in advance of that any recommendations to proceed or not with a copyvio request. Fæ (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering only the copyright question and not the other merits of the article, I believe that it will need to be much abbreviated for copyright concerns unless we can determine that these figures actually are "fact" and not opinion, as the links to the source website suggest they are. If the figures reflect consistent statistics that would be generated by anyone in compiling such a list, they are factual. If they are based on estimates weighting various market factors but ultimately relying on subjectivity (which factors to consider and in what weight, for instance), then the information is copyrightable and we must utilize it in accordance with fair use and WP:NFC. In that case, we might reasonably include a brief listing in a stand-alone article (top 5 or 10 or what have you, as we do with the subjectively generated Forbes list of billionaires or The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time), and articles on individual films can easily sustain references to the estimate for that particular film. Including extensive listings in one article, though, is akin to including album covers in a discography. What may be more easily defensible in individual articles is not quite so easy to defend when gathered in one place. I can make that comment on the AfD, if you'd like. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be very helpful considering the somewhat heated nature of parts of the discussion a cool independent recommendation might be just the tonic. Thanks Fæ (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Have done. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to go back and respond to Moonriddengirl. To clarify what I was saying: At least in the U.S there are always statistics presented, exit polls, surveys and so on. If I had a company that offered some sort of service and if you, Moonriddengirl, came to me and said "Can you put together numbers on this?" I would have provided you a service and you would, most likely, pay for it. If the agreement was that my company did it as a work for hire you could do whatever you wanted with that information. Now what I was saying is that if this data was obtained (i.e - meaning all of the research was done by) by this company and not just lifted from, say, Wikipedia, they would "own" it and can do what they want with it. IBOS is a news service that caters to the film industry. (See IBIOS About) Because of that I liken it to A.P or EIN News in terms of providing a service that is most often paid for as well a providing information that most likely is copyrighted. In regards to the data question - I could go to the A.P and read tha Roommate boxoffice results and cite where I got that information but I could not simply cut and paste that information. As the saying goes, "when I was a boy" - seriously though, In the 70's I used to subscribe to an industry magazine called "Boxoffice", it was aimed at theater owners and a huge part of what is was about was the numbers - box office receipts for films. The informaiton was collected by the magazines staff from various sources including theaters and studios. The magazine is still around (About) and information can be found online - their rundown of The Roomate's box office as an example. They too claim copyright on the material they provide (Legal) and also provide an archive, for free, of issues. so now, as I understood the information at question here here is simply cut and pasted, not cited or presented in a different manner. Also Fæ points out that these would not be common numbers, so the work was actually done by IBOS, not just handed to them in a press release from the studio that they took and recreated as a news article. I hope that explains it better. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you, what you're describing there is sweat of the brow, which is not recognized in the U.S. It doesn't matter how much work you do to put together data, you don't own the data in the United States. I may pay you for the work, but the facts do not belong to you or to me no matter whether the work was work for hire or not, and I cannot prevent others from using the facts. You and I both know that not everybody who claims copyright is actually upheld in that claim when push comes to shove. If they were, Feist v. Rural would never have found for Feist. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, what I am describing is a scenario where an entity, first, provides a service and more often than not charges for it. Second is where that service results in some sort of presentation - an article for example. The third is a content provider that deals in specific information.

Here is a scenario: You and I both go to a concert. You say "There were a lot of people there! I bet it was sold out and the made a lot of money!" - That information is not copyrightable. However I create an article that states "The concert was attended by 3,500 hundred people, according to the arena the highest ticker prices was $250.00, while the lowest was $45.00." That way that information is presented can be copyrighted. You and I both know that for Wikipedia use what you say would be tossed out as O.R, what I say, provided it was published in a reliable source, could be cited but not cut and pasted under the concept that it was only data and therefore free. On the other hand if you said "There were a lot of people there! I bet it was sold out and the made a lot of money!" on a blog and I cut and pasted it it would also be removed, O.R issues aside, as it would be presumed to be under copyright of that blog. Now the third idea is that if either comment were part of something was was available via a news service most of the same rules apply - you still couldn't cut and paste, but you could cite it.

I am not disputing the concept of public knowledge, or even public domain. Anyone could take the time to drive around, web search, and/or look through the phone book to find certain types of data but it is easier to buy something such as The Entertainment Sourcebook 2011-2012, and you and I both also know neither one of use could buy a copy of this data and than make copies to resell, or cut and past that information here. There is also information that is not considered to be "public" - that is where, I think, you are taking too broad of a stroke. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, one can't make copies to resell. (That said, one can use the same information and the same presentation if devoid of creativity, as with a phone directory, in making ones own.) But I can take the number of people from the article you created and the prices of tickets and present that in my own manner. If this list were based on statistics merely (which it seems likely it is not), we could have them, no matter how they compiled them, though we might not be able to retain the formatting of the information, if it is not obvious. Alphabetical would be obvious; highest to lowest would be obvious; hottest actor starring in would not. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that is what I was saying, or at least trying to say. "Cut and paste" = "retain the formatting of the information" and "you could cite it" (in the Wikipedia sense of needing that when presenting such data) = "present that in my own manner." (Along with the needed refs and/or cites)  :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Then we're on the same page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Virginia State Police

Sorry to bother you again but could you do a quick sanity check of my edits on this article. To my mind it falls into the "simple" category but given the scale of what I've just done, how notable the orginisation is and the fact the page gets 4000 hits per month, I'd appreciate a double check from someone more experienced. I've also assumed that Virginia does copyright their government works from the "All rights reserved" statement on the VSP website. If not my changes will obviously need to be reverted although we would still then have to do some attribution. Dpmuk (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take a look. Almost all state governments do copyright their content. The only two that I recall at the moment that evidently do not are California and Florida. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly I think your reasoning is sound there. There are a few things I'd recommend. First, tell the user who contributed the content why it was removed. I would really recommend modifying {{cclean}} for the purpose rather than using the routine template. There's a chance that this contributor is affiliated and may have the rights to that content. {{cclean}} contains the necessary block caution and links to policies, but it also a bit more neutral than the usual stern reminder. :) Then, I would reincorporate non-creative elements, such as the updated infobox, cats, see alsos, etc. If there had been new sections added, completely distinct from content placed by this user, then we could retain those, but it looks like other contributors really were just building on what he put in there, which makes your derivative work concerns spot on. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I did debate leaving the user a message but they hadn't edited in some time. That said having looked again they do seem to come back after months away so will drop them the message. As for infoboxes etc, I was planning on doing that but wanted the sanity check first before I spent too much time on it. Dpmuk (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Had a thought related to this. Copyright violations often introduce a large amount of text in one edit. Do you think it's worth asking for a edit filter that detects large additions and warns the user with a messsage about copyright so they have to confirm the addition? Wouldn't catch anything and we'd be relying on the user but it might stop some of them. I'm also thinking that a bot like CorenSearchBot but that checks large additions rather than new pages might be an idea but that's definitely on my back burner! Dpmuk (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think having a bot that scans such large edits like Corensearchbot does could be a fabulous idea. I think an autonotice would not meet consensus. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigrid Rausing Trust

Hello. I don't want to express any specific criticism, because I do appreciate the effort you have made and it seems obvious to me that you're the classic helpful member of the Committee who has ended up volunteering to do their best to reconcile two ends of a problem. I'll simply ask you in two weeks time to go back to the article, look at the text and the revisions with a fresh eye, and consider what was necessary and what was useful. You can probably guess my views. Your point about third party sources I have no argument with. Unfortunately SRT does not go in for pursuing publicity, it simply gets on with the job. That was the problem, which I hoped was resolved by the message SRT sent me when I contacted them. Opbeith (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) The message would certainly resolve the issue, but unfortunately such messages have to be logged with the Wikimedia Foundation. The link User:Acather96 provided to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permissions does include the e-mail address of the Wikimedia Foundation: "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". Depending on the text of the letter you received from them and the ability to link it to the Sigrid Rausing Trust, if you forward it to them, they may be able to log it at the talk page so that the original content can be restored. In fact, I can help with that, if you'd like to give it a shot. I'm one of the volunteers who logs those e-mails. Just let me know that you've sent it, I'll intercept it (so you don't have to wait the usual week due to the backlog) and we can communicate further via e-mail if more information or clarification is needed. The WMF has some very specific rules about what kinds of permissions we can accept. Sometimes it takes a few rounds to get everything into order.

I'll be happy to look it over again with fresh eyes later (hoping I don't overlook it; we have a constant backlog in this area and there always seems to be a fresh crisis around the corner), but if there's something important you think I've omitted, we might be able to find ways to include it now pending clearance of permission. I completely understand the challenges of working with charitable foundations that don't put much effort into publicity. I've had to do some serious digging on those in the past, and sometimes no matter how you dig you just can't find much. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you won't take offence if I say that it reads as if it has been rewritten for the sake of rewriting. I know that sounds pretty "in your face", but the English was plain and straightforward, particularly the two paragraphs complained about. The first paragraph was a perfectly clear statement of the facts. The second used language that is absolutely standard in the way NGOs and equivalent organisations describe what they're up to, not in any way specific to SRT (it reads perfectly naturally to me as someone who has been a volunteer with various campaigning NGOs). The language and structuring eg the major programme areas are X, Y and Z, Q/R, etc., there are sub-programme areas (text could be expanded to add "including i and ii, not to mention iii and for cherry on the cake iv). The titles identifying the programme areas, X, Y and Z, Q/R, are perfectly standard too, not terminology unique to SRT. They factually describe what SRT supports.

I'll send the details of SRT's message to me to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". I think they must think I was mad to get them involved in all this. I know I do. But thanks for your helpfulness. Opbeith (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Which I did and the e-mail is lost. I'll send again tomorrow. Does Mr Wales or any of the collective of enthusiastic predators have any idea of the overheads of writing an article, even something as minimal as this? And they wonder why people get to the stage of deciding What's the point? Your supportive efforts are appreciated, but my gosh, it's an uphill struggle. Opbeith (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewritten and sent. Opbeith (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I don't deny that rewriting content can be difficult and can sometimes feel like reaching around your back to scratch your elbow. But it is sometimes amazing to me how little creativity is required before a court considers expression copyrightable. In American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans, the Court offered the following taxonomic description as an example of copyrightable expression:

Number 04267 reads "guided tissue regeneration--nonresorbable barrier, per site, per tooth" but could have read "regeneration of tissue, guided by nonresorbable barrier, one site and tooth per entry". Or "use of barrier to guide regeneration of tissue, without regard to the number of sites per tooth and whether or not the barrier is resorbable". The first variation is linguistic, the second substantive; in each case the decision to use the actual description is original to the ADA, not knuckling under to an order imposed on language by some "fact" about dental procedures.

Wikipedia is conservative when it comes to copyright. Certain language can't be protected because it is completely formulaic, but when there is a spark of creativity ("no matter how crude, humble or obvious"" as the courts put it), we presume that it is protected. If such content can be rewritten from scratch, it generally is. If it can't, we quote it. And while one sentence or phrase closely paraphrased is not going to be a problem, generally, the issue grows the more closely paraphrased text is presented.

Anyway, I'll go process the e-mail and let you know once I've read it if further is required. I'm sorry if you find the hoops tedious; frequently, so do I, but they're all part of ensuring that the project continues smoothly in meeting its mission of presenting free content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm an awkward so-and-so. I wouldn't be too happy about the court's ruling even if I were forced to accept it. The court's comment makes no reference to the appropriateness of language to context. Context may well constrain if not impose the form of language used - ie the scope for creativity. The original and the violation both sound appropriate to for example a specific area of patent language (I'm guessing - I'm not a patents expert, I'm not clear where it comes from) whereas the court's circumlocutory "substantive" change sounds more appropriate to something like customs tariff nomenclature, so - albeit as an only marginally-informed layperson - I would regard the court's approved rewording in some contexts less appropriate as a "creative" rewording than the rejected version.

Anyhow, thanks very much for your patience and help! Opbeith (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for following up with the copyright holder. I'll let you know the minute I hear something. :) (I've had to bite my tongue at more than one court decision. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, that was me not making myself crystal as usual - the target of my contumely was the US Court of Appeals deliberations (your ref. to American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans), not the court of Wikipedia (where I'm braced for a plate of geology pie anyway). The bigger the windmill, the bigger the temptation! Opbeith (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it must have been I who was not crystal. :) I understood you. It's the wider court who have caused me to self-injure. I was reared to believe wholeheartedly in the American justice system. The first time I realized that it was not infallible was quite a shock. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what life is about - miscarriages of justice and the battle to remedy them! Opbeith (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this a concern for the ANI?

I have been at odds over an IP in regards to a content dispute at the list of Mad episodes list talk page. The 98.165.140.193 demands that the article's content be changed simply because the network says so. When the page is unlocked they along with other IPs just add content without adding sources. When I tell them the reason why we can't use the content, the IP gets mad (no pun intended) and start name calling, foul language, and making accusations that I'm implying that TV Guide (the source currently in use) has more power over the network. I have asked them on different occasions to stop and they continue. I have already reported them to WQA and asked for assistants in what I should do, both of which were ignored and leaving me feeling like I hit a dead end. But is this a matter for the ANI, should I report this? I feel that that I might get the same response if I did. So what should I do? Sarujo (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, WQA has little authority to impose sanctions, so I'm not surprised that didn't go anywhere. :/ It seems to be a stable IP, so I would recommend that before attempting ANI you make a sincere effort to explain the way things work at the contributor's talk page. I presume edits like this are constructive (I wouldn't know, actually :)), so it may be that you are just dealing with a young or very inexperienced contributor who does not grasp our standards of evidence. I know it's been explained at the talk page of the article, but explaining at their talk page might be helpful to them...and it will easily show others that dispute resolution has been tried.

If you'd like, I'd be happy to leave them a note of explanation at their talk page, but I won't pursue it further if they continue. I tend to stay fairly busy in copyright cleanup, and I really don't have time to take on other long-term projects. :) If after clear communication they continue to be disruptive, ANI may be appropriate...but that's always hit-or-miss. You may well get the same response. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, it was a breath of fresh air. Sure, you can send a note, that might do some good. Although I have been mentioning some guidelines to them that I know, but that appears to roll off their back. Maybe I'm not be making things clear to them or they are just childishly pouting - I not sure. Still, if they continue as they have, I will post on their talk page and wait for a third strike before going to ANI. That is, if they don't try something stupid - with all due respect. Thanks for your advice. Sarujo (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

All right; I have done. But after reviewing the talk pages more closely, I'd like to encourage you not to give contributors nicknames unless you're sure that they're okay with them. Calling people things like "Montana" and "Pepe" might seem dismissive. The point here is to keep them calm, not rile them up. :) Note that I believe that this is a registered contributor based on his edit history; I've said as much at his talk page. I don't think he's abusing WP:SOCK; it seems more like he just generally doesn't bother to log in. But if an ANI report should at any point become necessary it may be worth noting so that his entire editing pattern can be evaluated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Just clarafy about the names, I never had consider the idea as incivility. I was simply trying to trip up the IP after I saw that they resorted to incivility. Leaving them scratching their heads. It seem to work for a day, and after the second try failed I gave up. Looking back on it, the act might not have been good idea. Still, at your request I will refrain from doing so in the future.

I had suspected that the IP was a logged off editor, but my suspicions were on another editor. I had theorized that there were editors who would log off just make salty comments in talk pages. Still, this IP already has an account, then why make edit demands to other capable editors when all they had to do was log on? In one entry the IP states that they wish I would unlock the page. They seem to know that only registered editors can edit the page. So why not just log back in to bypass protection? Which reminds me, the protection will expire tomorrow. So I guess I'm going to have to request more protection. Here lately I've been jumping at shadows after having to report two editors on the Transformers workproject who turned out to be socks of the blocked editor Wiki Brah. Not that I think I'm being stalked, but just whenever I run into anyone resorting to such incivility I think ulterior motives like socking and the such. But I will give this editor the benefit of the doubt as they have made some half-hearted attempt to verify their claims. Thanks again. Sarujo (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You could be right about the other editor; I'm not planning to pursue a WP:SPI even though at this point if the one I suspect is correct he's actively evading a block. (His response to the caution about civility was less than ideal. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Iraq–Kuwait relations

Please userfy so I can remove copyright concerns. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't do that. We don't userfy copyright problems. (Wikipedia:USERFY#What cannot be userfied) If you want the see-alsos and refs, I can provide those for you with which to start a new article. I can alternatively temporarily restore the article (including the template blanking it) for a few more days in the article space if you'd like to do a rewrite in the temporary space provided for that purpose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That will be fine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Which? :) The alternative? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

David Luiz (seek advise)

Someone started an edit war (or i did?) on the content of David Luiz (about his latest move). As England use pound and the Western Europe use euro, i used BOTH figure (£21.3M and 25M euro), which the euro seems the official one as pound looks like a converted one (irregular figure). But he removed the euro and seems violate MoS. 2. i cited the official Portuguese statement from Portuguese stock exchange (which Chelsea one did not announced the transfer fee but Benfica did), but he removed and cited ESPN one. ESPN one also wrote "refer to Portuguese stock exchange statement" (or similar wording) and i edited the page for second time, keeping both source but the still remove the Portuguese one, claiming this is English world (or similar wording)

So, will i start an edit war again by, adding the euro back along with pound, 2. adding the portuguese source back along with official Chelsea one (remove ESPN or add one of them, ESPN, Skysports or BBC?) Matthew_hk tc 13:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) You should get others involved to resolve your stalemate. :) You would start by opening a discussion about it at the talk page, to see if contributors watching that page have an opinion. There's actually already a section on it, to which you can add: "Currency should remain Euros". (By the way, is that also you? If so, you need to make that clear. Your page says you have alternate accounts, but there's nothing identifying that one as among them. Whichever your alternate accounts are, please note that you need to publicly connect it to the main account unless it was chosen for privacy, in which case it should not be editing the same articles as your main identity.) If that's not you, I would add a statement there explaining why you agree and that if there are no objections you plan to to readd the information. Leave a {{tb}} notice to the someone in question or just drop him a note asking him to participate at that talk page. If it's not you, you're already a step towards consensus. (You might note with respect to "this is English wiki so use English sources" that this is out of keeping with WP:NONENG, if the Purtuguese statement offers information that the Chelsea source does not.)

If it is you and he disagrees, you can trot the matter over to WP:3O to break the stalemate. If it's not you and he disagrees, 3O won't work, because there's already three of you. You might ask for quick feedback at WP:CN to help clarify consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Copying within Wikipedia

Hi, thanks for your note. I'd really appreciate your help. There's possibly around 200+ images so I'll have a look through and let you know but I may be able to have sorted things out before you get back from your travels. Happy travelling! Hugahoody (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, we'll work out what still needs doing then. I'm happy to help. If all of your images were image conversions, I may be able to simplify the checking by asking one of the incredibly talented people who work WP:CCI to generate a list of your images in a subpage of your userspace. Then you could just erase the ones that contain no original text. --Moonriddengirl2 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Image question

Dear Ms. Moonriddengirl, or any talk page stalkers, can you tell me if the image of the record cover in Me and Juliet is OK? The article isn't about the audio recording; LadyofShalott says it's probably OK because the article has a section on the record. I wanted to make sure because it's a GA candidate. Thank you! Dr Aaij (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I should think it probably will be, since there's a section on the album, but I'm afraid that's really the kind of thing that consensus determines. If I were you, I'd raise the question at WT:NFC, which draws an audience of contributors interested in non-free content, generally image related. Good idea to iron it out now. --Moonriddengirl2 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders

(again) - you prob remember this one. I just did this, due to e.g. "filed numerous pretrial motions in New Haven" - just for your info.  Chzz  ►  03:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I had completely forgotten this one. :) I'm lucky to remember last week; remembering November is generally beyond me. :D But it seems that other than adding a few words, that contributor pasted two sentences from the source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

i need a friend

I am highly honored to been given this opportunity to express am view about the students of yazz, i will be very happy if girls in yazz will make friends with me. thnks you'''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.39.109 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

• News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news

• Accreditation: Gaining accreditation as Wikimedia photographers at sports events

• WikiProject report: Articles for Creation

• Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought

• Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about possible copyvio

Hi! I've come here with a question after seeing your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination) regarding the reproduction of a large chunk of copyrighted ratings. I was wondering whether you could look at Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2010, which reproduces all Newspoll polling results in the three years leading up to the 2010 Australian Federal Election. It seems to me that it runs into the same problem as the Bollywood film list, especially since the polling data cannot be produced from publicly available information.  -- Lear's Fool 02:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dear. :/ This one seems somewhat complex, and I may have to ask our new attorney about it unless I can find an answer in my own reference books. They have no copyright to the opinions, of course, of their correspondents, but if they manipulate the data they they receive that could make a difference. I'll poke at it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I have yet to come across anything in my books. A quick google search hasn't been helpful either. :) The issue here is not how easily available the information is, but how creative it is. Fact is not copyrightable, no matter how it is derived. Copyright law protects authorship, not discovery of facts, no matter what method is employed in discovering them. A person's opinion is not fact, but the compiler doesn't own the rights to John Smith's opinion any more than we do. And John Smith's opinion in this case is likely to be a yes or no, without much more nuance, and hence not essentially creative, either. Where copyright might rest would be in the (a) questions, (b) the presentation of responses, and (c) any manipulation of data, if involving human creativity and not a simple, obvious and mechanically reproduceable formula. For instance, Gallup Poll takes the responses it receives and adjusts them to reflect overall demographic representation. If a 60 year old white man answers a question, they put him in a box for 60 year old white men and weight his vote (along with others) according to the number of 60 year old white men in the affected area. I would imagine that this would be regarded as uncreative manipulation of data, since demographic information is not proprietary. Do you know anything about Newspoll's methods?

As I was just mentioning to User:Fæ below, Wikipedia really needs some kind of guidance on the handling of copyright in lists. I think that might be worth my taking some time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Australian's website (The Australian is the newspaper that publishes Newspoll), includes the line "The data has been weighted to reflect the population distribution", so it appears there is some limited post-processing of the raw data. I can't find a more in-depth discussion of their methods, although I imagine that's by design. The disclaimer at the top of each of their press releases (eg [14]) indicates that they retain the copyright, although I'm not sure whether that's helpful.

I think you're probably right about some further guidance re: lists. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance: copyright isn't by strong suit, but I'd be happy to help out with any legwork that needs doing.  -- Lear's Fool 02:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films

Hi, the AfD has closed with a consensus to keep. This article sets an interesting precedent for the commercial copyright of lists of estimates with creative content; how do you suggest things are moved forward without causing too much of a ruckus? Cheers --Fæ (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) So far as I'm concerned, the closure of keep doesn't really set a precedent for copyright, since modification of the article to address copyright concerns is still keeping the article. I mentioned in the AfD that if it were kept, it would need to be reduced to a limited number in keeping with fair use unless it is verified that the content is not creative. I'll go ahead and cut it down accordingly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've reduced the lengthy list from 30 to 10. With respect to the other lists, do you know if they are reproducing specific tables on the website, or are they compilations of information from that website? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive action. I'll take a look at the others I'm aware of, may take a day or so as I want to set aside a little wikitime to examine the sources carefully without jumping to assumptions.

There is a precedent here, I think, as you have chosen any top-ten list of original copyright analysis to be okay to reproduce and an indefinitely long list of top items by year (which in future cases might be the entirety of a particular analysis or creative model). In theory this may be interpreted as a nod to allow infinite variations of top-tens from the same original copyrighted research with creative content (top ten cumulative by year (or opening day, ten-day period, first quarter...) reported, top ten by geographic region, top ten by genre variant, etc.) which may, of course, end up being equivalent to reproducing the entire thing. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the precedence won't be for the AfD, which closed irrespective of the copyright, but the action taken from here. We already do have a precedence for permitting a small number of a copyrighted list in articles about that subject, for example The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. What needs to be established in this article is how many and in what presentation we should feel comfortable permitting it. There would be nothing wrong with your blanking the article with the {{copyvio}} template to open a discussion about that or even just launching a discussion about it (sans tagging) at an appropriate forum. I don't believe there can be any reasonable assertion of "asking the other parent" when the issue was raised and confirmed by independent reviewers during the AfD. It's a real issue; not an "I don't like it" situation. :) Alas, not too many eyes watch Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems (where this should go), but I can occasionally drum up additional viewers when issues are complicated. And I can also bundle it together with the question above (since I have yet to find any information on it) to ask our new attorney what his stance is. Since list questions are generally not that easy, I asked Mike Godwin about several specific lists as they came up; we also got feedback from our associate counsel. I haven't had to go hat in hand to the new fellow yet. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I understood the separation from the AfD (which was about verifiability rather than copyright) but did not make that clear in my reply. Personally I would like to see any Bollywood article treated sensitively due to the real problems that unintentional geographic bias gives non-English contributors. Bringing together any complex discussion and advice on this particular copyright issue into a statement (or refinement) of policy and guideline might be a helpful outcome for the long term and I would like to thank you in advance helping evolve the advice available. I suggest blanking the article ought to be avoided with other options (such as protection) preferred should there be contention on keeping the list trimmed in the short-term and in the absence of an active complaint from a copyright holder this is an issue of the best interpretation of fair-use rather than taking action on blatant copyright violation. Fæ (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We have long been in need of some clarification on our approach to copyright in lists. This question comes up over and over again. We've got a backlog going at WP:CP due to my recent holiday, but I'm thinking that a section in our copyright FAQ is in order (it being, after all, a "frequently asked question"). But, yes, I think this is a question of how far Wikipedia will go with fair use more than anything else. I'll put some thought into the best place to approach it. We've lost some of our core copyright workers, unfortunately, but there are still some around. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting with User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. If you have time, your eyes would be much appreciate here. I am sometimes told I overcomplicate things, but I have also noticed I sometimes assume people will have knowledge they don't. I've asked a few other copyright folk to have a look and especially to figure out how to improve the "how to fix this" section. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, thanks for kicking this off. I'll have a proper read when I have a large mug of strong coffee next to the keyboard. GLAM collaborations are more my bag but the constraint of copyright rears its head on a regular basis in that sphere too. I note that your changes to the Bollywood list have been reverted, but that's not unexpected. --Fæ (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It was unexpected by me. :) But, fair enough, I don't mind getting another uninvolved admin involved. I've blanked the section with a note at the talk page. Any kind of input would be appreciated; you needn't put a lot of time into it. You can just tell me if it doesn't make sense someplace and I'll go hack at it some more. That would be great. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I can take a look first thing in the morning - after pinging some emails it's a bit late to re-engage brain properly. Fæ (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What would you call it?

...if parts of a clearly partisan publication were reprinted in an ostensibly academic, and presumably objective publication, and then the later was used as a source in Wikipedia without attribution to the former as a source? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Improper attribution? Knowing nothing about the circumstances, I would regard it as a form of plagiarism, though not on the level of failure to attribute. If it is technically correct that Publication B is the source of the information, but Publication A needs to be acknowledged as well. For instance, MLA handled this as "qtd. in" ([15]), but even so Purdue suggests tracking down the original source, which can then be cited directly.

If such a source were being used to give a patina of reliability to information that would not be usable (or usable in the same way) if the original source were cited, that's another issue. In these parts, I'd call that a POV concern. WP:INTEXT can help there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Publication A (academic journal) does attribute the source as publication B (report by a partisan research organisation), but this was not included in Wikipedia attribution. You approved it. The source can not be cited directly; because of its origin, its research would be considered too partisan to be reliable. Hence, even the academic journal in question used only parts of the report. The use in Wikipedia of the academic journal was used as "a patina of reliability" due to its reputation as answering Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that when large amounts of material are borrowed by publication A from publication B that MLA guidance on Citing Indirect Sources applies. However, Wikipedia neither in Citing sources nor in Identifying reliable sources deals with Citing Indirect Sources WP:CIS which technically allows vast amount of POV and out of context citations that invite not inconsiderable amount of editorial conflict. Do you think this concern is worth voicing in a larger Wikipedia forum? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I approved it? Which article are we talking about here? :)

If this is a widespread problem, then, certainly, I think it's worth talking about at the appropriate forum. It's important to accurately reflect the origin of information so that our readers can be certain where it comes from. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As an example of what this leads to, unrelated to that above which I can't discuss because of my topic ban (yet to appeal), see here.

I'm not in the "blame game". I realise that many experienced editors, including admins and even past and present members of the ArbCom are too thinly stretched to carefully evaluate every edit made with an agenda other than that under Wikipedia policies (such as they are). For this reason I asked ArbCom to explain why it allows this policy of managed editorial conflict to continue, but I suspect my subsequent attempt to evince an answer fell fowl of the TL DR Koakhtzvigad (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not feeling blamed. I was just curious, if I approved the content, where and why, since I'm usually working copyright. We can talk about it further, if need be, once your topic ban is lifted. I'm afraid that talking around subjects is a bit too confusing for me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. By the way, I can still appeal the ban after it expires? I am not going to get the time it seems to put my appeal forward before then.

On the copyright issue, where does it deal with images of paintings older than copyright laws, i.e. by long-deceased authors? Do their new owners hold copyright?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, I've had very little to do with ArbCom, so I'm really not in the know on that one. :/ Some people might perceive a post-ban appeal as pointless, but perhaps not, since you would likely desire to clear the record. Under U.S. law, once copyright has expired, the image goes into the public domain and aside from one notable incident doesn't go back. However, there are some countries that will permit people to control copyright of photographic representations of public domain works. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. has a bit more background on that (it is the court decision that eliminated this in the U.S.). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. My awareness of copyright is somewhat hazy (aside from the obvious). Yes, the intention is to clear my record, so I will be appealing at some stage. I'm assuming there is not statute of limitations on appeals in Wikipedia :) Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OTRS check

I suspect this was a case of "go ahead and add the tag to prevent deletion" but I wanted to double check. File:AlLohman.jpg was tagged by myself least year as {{Non-free newspaper image}}. It was then tagged for deletion but another editor kept removing the tag/s and I kept reverting. I finally sent it to PUF where it was closed as a "keep" by an editor (who has just become an admin at the time) who was involved in the discussion because the uploader asserted they owned the copyright on the photo *and* the paper (newsletter) despite changing their story over time. (See the PUF itself for more direct details) An OTRS pending tag was added based on the discussion. I see it was removed in January of this year and an {{mtc}} tag added yet I still see no clear permission from the radio station anywhere, only a former employee who says in a deletion discussion they took the photo and created a radio station newsletter and than scanned it for upload here. I suggested they upload the original photo at some point but they never have. Not sure if I want to start the process all over again or not. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S - also check File:Aleksandarstanojevic.jpg as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't find anything in OTRS on the first one. I searched by file name and name of the subject. With the latter, we have OTRS Ticket:2010092310013069 claiming copyright of that specifically among a larger batch and dually licensing it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. For the second one the OTRS tag contains the generic "the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this page/file." Is that still the case or was it fixed? Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Eep! That's what I get for doing these things first thing in the morning. (It takes the caffeine a while to kick in.) You're right; I completely spazzed on Verno's message. I'll NPD it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I completely spazzed on it in October. It was NPDed, and I restored it erroneously believing that it was an oversight. It seems like the others in the ticket are already gone. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That is why I wanted to make doubly sure. I thought maybe this one image somehow was ok, when all the others hadn't been, but with the OTRS privacy issues I really had nothing to go on other than the OTRS tag. So thanks again. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding it so I could mop up after myself! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason you restored it may be the fault of how I handle images with OTRS received but not sufficient: Since there's no dating system for OTRS tags set up like there is at Commons I leave the NPD tag on it (usually resetting the date, or even tag it for deletion if it hasn't been already) so that it isn't forgotten and left sitting around for months with unusable permission. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)