Wikipedia

User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 60

< User talk:Moonriddengirl
Latest comment: 7 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 23 October 2017
Archive 55←Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62

Draft:Roots tourism

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Moonriddengirl:

I would like to ask your advice about the draft page linked above. The content and references would be useful if merged with Genealogy tourism. The user who created it, who doesn't seem to be active, also wrote a research article about this topic. I was able to get access to it at the resource exchange, HERE, to make sure that the text is not the same. I found only one part near the beginning, the description of Roots tourism, which is taken from that research article, but seems to have been originally from another one of the references, HERE. The draft has at least one other section copied from THIS 2006 article (Copyvios) and some of the references are not accessible on the internet to be checked. Should the draft be deleted because of the copyright violations? Or could those two sections be deleted and the rest merged with the Genealogy tourism article? "Roots tourism" would make a good redirect name. Alternatively, I could reword some of the sentences that are attributed directly to sources and move my reworded material and the sources to the Genealogy tourism article. I don't want to do this if the original material can be used; it seems like taking credit for another's work.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Anne Delong. :) My general concern is that if we know a user copied from somebody else in several sections, we can't really be sure that the rest isn't copied, too. Copyright policy would encourage us to write the content over in that case ("If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble"), which has been my guiding principle in this work for years. If you are able and don't mind, i'd recommended rewriting the material but addressing your concerns about taking unfair credit with a note in the edit summary (maybe something like "Modified from content provided by User:Foo") and a note on the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that's done. Should the draft be deleted as a copyright violation, even though most of it is okay? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Anne Delong. :) Great! I deleted it, but I used a much more detailed explanation of why. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Does it remind you as well?

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, this new user strongly reminds me of that indeffed CU user we had to extensively banrevert together, aka Artin Mehraban. Doesn't he remind you of him as well? Notice the target articles, mass addition of tons of (uncited) text, etc. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems possible, but I'm not familiar enough with him to act. You could go for an WP:SPI or, if you see more explicit markers, drop back by. Generally, people do what you expect them to do with rope. (To speak more specifically, I suspect the truth will eventually out.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
LouisAragon, it's looking a little more likely to me. Do you see any smoking guns? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl:, just checked his latest edits. Yes, I'm 110% sure it's him. (Btw, hope you had a Merry Christmas!). Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, LouisAragon. I like to have very specific evidence. I found it to my satisfaction in this edit, which is an IP in the range used by Artin and which clearly connects to this now deleted edit by the account. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
   – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy new year!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just came here to wish you a happy new year! )) Take care and I hope you'll have a great celebration - LouisAragon (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Orphaned non-free image File:A Moral Reckoning2.jpg

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:A Moral Reckoning2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Trying to decide which came first, the webpage or our article

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Gottfried_Müller was created 25 June 2012‎ - it's very much a copy of [1] - or is it the other way round? My guess is our article is the copy. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The very first edit to the article is a dead giveaway. Unformatted text, no wikitext, exact copy of the website. But even assuming this were the original English submission, it goes back to 2012. The wayback machine doesn't have the English bio archived, but the German version dates to 2011 and is an exact match. Iff the website copied EN Wikipedia, the first version here is a translation copyvio. MLauba (Talk) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Doug and MLauba. (MLauba! Good to see you. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Once you said

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Once you said that you liked creating articles. Here, I made one for you. So you have a memory of me. It's not perfect, but you can get it is shape.... It's here ... Susanna and the Elders (Tintoretto). Thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yay, new articles, Hafspajen. :D I'm afraid I don't have time to pitch in on it, but it looks like others are! I'm hoping to do a bit of copyright cleanup today. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Architectural endoscopy

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Moonriddengirl, can you tell me what was the copyright problem in the article Architectural endoscopy. I'am the writer of the new article and like to learn about this ex problem. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Maxim Pouska. The problem was that extensive content was from an external site without compatible license or permission. :) We cannot do this on Wikipedia, of course, except in brief and clearly marked quotations. Wikipedia:Copypaste talks a little bit more about how we handle content from sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with Copy-Paste issue

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi.

A good faith copying of a user-space draft into an existing article in main space occurred, and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Meridian108/Gino D'Auri. There is some confusion over what should / needs to be done to ensure proper attribution and I was wondering if you could provide some guidance (or any knowledgeable talk page stalkers providing guidance would be great as well). The original editor hasn't been active for several years, but the draft in his/her user space was improved by a currently active editor, and a third editor used that material in the mainspace article without attribution (done in good faith). Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Responded there, Whpq. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much! - Whpq (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

CIL

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi MRG! Can I get your opinion on whether List of Indian University Rankings runs afoul of copyright by virtue of creative input? My feel is that, especially since the universities are not all ranked the same by the sources given, that creative effort went into formulating those listings. As always, thanks! CrowCaw 18:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Do I have to, Crow? :) Lists! Why is it always Lists!? Yes, I suspect that's a copyright issue. I think I have to recuse from involvement, though, because of my involvement as staff in a similar article related to British rankings. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Moonriddengirl. Just in case the WP:Ping doesn't suffice, I'm coming to your talk page to state that your help is needed at User talk:Shootingstar88#Just needs some solid mentoring. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer22 Reborn. I'm sorry for my delayed response. :( With my light current levels of engagement, I'm probably not the best person to be offering mentoring, although I'm always happy to offer high level input. If there are any questions, I'm happy to try to help! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Moonriddengirl. Even if you don't have the time for mentoring Shootingstar88 on copyright and plagiarism matters, I was hoping that you would comment a little in the aforementioned "Just needs some solid mentoring" section about some things mentioned there, especially WP:Close paraphrasing, which is sometimes allowed. But if you'd rather pass on commenting there about this, no worries. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

OK to use Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License?

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

hey, sorry to bother you. Isn't there a list somewhere of OK licenses? I have a file I want to use that's Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Tks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Lingzhi: Yes, you can use {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}. The full list of file copyright tags can be found here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks JJMC89! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Gross

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonridden girl,

I saw that my post on Dennis Gross was deleted for "blatant copyright infringement". I'm at a loss to understand why this is the case, when I cited all my sources for the facts that I included, which I know is so important for any information I include. I used Joy Bauer's page as a guide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_Bauer.

This is my first attempt to post to Wikipedia, so I'm hoping you can help me out here with some words of advice. Is there anything I can do to get this piece on this doctor into Wikipedia?

Please let me know...

Thanks! Valerie Vlatona (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll respond at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Gross

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Thanks for your feedback on the Dr. Dennis Gross page (pasted below, bottom). I read through the documents you sent and the question I have is: Dennis Gross is who he is. There aren't many ways to say: "Dennis Gross is a dermatologic surgeon in New York City." (Note: I've also pasted below what is on Dr. Gross' site, which is where I got the information but did not copy it directly.) This woman who writes the blogs on the site can't own the facts on Dr. Gross, can she? (And, just so you know, I've never seen that site and did not take copy from that page; I got the information from Dr. Gross' site and modeled the information after the structure of the Joy Bauer page as it was simple and about someone who is alive.) So I shouldn't have to go to this woman who runs the site, which sells Dr. Gross's products, to get approval on his basic facts—or do I? So I'm not sure what to do. Given the very simple structure of the Wikipedia page, should I just completely re-write what's there? Not sure how easy this will be as the Wikipedia page is pretty bare bones facts, without a lot of fluff.

Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks again for the crash course on Wikipedia! 100.35.18.152 (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I've removed the copy-pasted content for the same reason the article was originally deleted - we can't copy-paste things on Wikipedia.
It's quite likely that the person who created that blog post did the same thing you did - based it on Dr. Gross's site - and both of you followed very closely on the original. Copying does not have to be word-for-word to constitute a copyright problem; too closely paraphrasing is also a copyright concern.
Dr. Gross can, of course, release the content on his site (see WP:DCM), which would make it an okay base, but do keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are meant to be based on secondary sources for the most part, not copied from what subjects say about themselves. An article on Dr. Gross should largely summarize what newspapers or magazines say about him, not what his website or other promotional sites do. It isn't that your article should include more fluff, but it shouldn't be based too heavily on what Dr. Gross says about himself. :) That's not what the project is here for. We're here to summarize what reliable sources say about subjects to which they have no connection.
Content should also be written neutrally. The original article included a fair bit of promotional text - referring to his schools as "famous" and editorializing that he is "constantly" featured in fashion magazines. Wikipedia may include positive or negative characterizations, but only as a reflection of what cited, reliable sources say. You can read more about recognizing reliable sources at WP:IRS. [2] and [3] may be reliable (I'm not familiar with either of them, but the first of the two looks particularly promising), but I tend to doubt that [4] is. I can't see anything about their editorial policies. Other potential sources might include [5], [6], [7], [8], such like that.
You should also be aware that if you are connected with Dr. Gross in any way - your coming back with a new account seven years after your one and only article to create a new account and evidently try again suggests you might be - you need to read and abide by our conflict of interest guideline. Note especially that if you work for Dr. Gross, you are required to say so by our Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Moonridden Girl for all your info and direction.

I appreciate the help and I'll work on trying to fix this article. In terms of conflict of interest, Dennis Gross has been my dermatologist for 22 years and I think he's the best of the best—why I believe he should be on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if this is a conflict, but I will check your guidelines. And I haven't written an article before, so I'm not sure why you had that comment about trying to repost something from 7 years ago...but maybe someone else tried to post something then. It's not a surprise: he is one of the top derms in NYC. Anyway, thank you again for your help...and I appreciate you taking the time to help me out on this.

Have a good night... 100.35.18.152 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Vlatona. Your first note on my talk page said, "I saw that my post on Dennis Gross was deleted for "blatant copyright infringement"." That article was deleted on 16 May 2008 - seven years ago (almost 8 now!). If you didn't write it, I don't know what you meant by "my post." :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Either I'm losing it :-) or something was lost in translation here: I'm looking at my note to you and it doesn't say that anywhere. But no, I don't have any affiliation with that other site or that post, which was written 8 years ago ... so a bit outdated and probably before Dr. Gross even had a web site. Not sure, but guessing here. Anyway, I'm taking a break from this for awhile and will go back to it with a fresh eye later on. But much appreciated for your crash course on Wikipedia, which is a language and world of it's own (and a hard nut to crack!) :-)

98.109.141.100 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Of course I know I wrote those first words, because that's how/why I reached out to you in the first place. And yes, I can see the email trail that I wrote so, of course, I know that it's saved. I'm not an idiot.:-) I thought you were talking about that part about the post being written 8 years ago, which I had no idea about. I just wrote a post several weeks ago and it disappeared from my sandbox with no note...why I went looking for it. I had no idea a post was written about Dennis Gross 8 years ago! So then what happened to the post I wrote?! To be honest, I have no interest in Wikipedia any further so I won't be searching for it. You won't be hearing from me anymore. Sorry for any confusion and thanks again for the crash course on Wikipedia.

166.171.185.183 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Survey.

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ms. Dennis,

Since there hasn't been a response by the SuSa team on the survey talk page for four days now, I thought I'd try it here. My question: Did the team (that produced the preliminary report) calculate the percentages for the types of harassment experienced by the respondents (report page 17, raw data page 6) based on the total number of responses, as the raw data seems to indicate, or did they only count the responses with a value equal to or greater than 1 (in other words: did they exclude the zero's)? Prevalence (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. :) This is my volunteer account, so I wouldn't talk work here, but beyond that I'm afraid don't know. I did not produce the report. The harassment project overall is being project managed by Patrick Earley. If you ask him, I'm sure he can figure out who to talk to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Christine Y. Kim

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, Moonriddengirl. I am not sure what to do about Christine Y. Kim and Draft:Christine Y. Kim. The mainspace article is a lot like this page, which may have been copied from Wikipedia; there's nothing in the Wayback machine. On the other hand, the draft needs a lot of work. Some but not all of the text in the mainspace article is similar to the draft. If the mainspace article is not a copyright violation, I could move the draft to Christine Kim and redirect it, or just wait for db-g13 eligibility. If the mainspace article is a copyright violation, I guess the draft should be kept.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Anne Delong:. :) Fortunately, we can check the evolution of that article to see which came first. What I always do is look to see whether content evolved to become more or less like the external source. If it it became more like it, I assume they copied us. If it becomes less, well. :) The "tell" in this case is the second edit, [9], which helpfully was made the day after the page was created by somebody else. The changes introduced in that second edit are in the external version. Months later, we see this edit by a third person - those changes are also present in the external site. Even if the history of the article were a lot longer, that would be enough to convince me that what we're dealing with here is a {{backwardscopy}}. Given that, I believe the mainspace article is okay to keep - and move. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl. I should have thought of that myself. I guess the other site really should include a note saying where they got the content.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Anne, this tool can be nice for looking at article evolution if your eyes get tired at looking at diff pages (mine sure do): WikiReplay The Interior (Talk) 16:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, The Interior, I remember trying that out when it was new, but hadn't thought of using it in this context. I've moved the draft to mainspace and redirected it.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

query

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

How ought one handle clear copyvio problems in a user sandbox where the user has previously accused an editor of deliberately finding plagiarism? [10] has entire sections from [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] and other sources (typically cut-and-paste into the sandbox sans any noting of the source used). In fact, it appears to have basically zero uncopied material in it. He notes that this sandbox was his original source for many of the other articles already found to be clear plagiarism (not even crediting the actual source) or copyright violations as a minimum. As I am "officially forbidden"<g> by that editor to have anything to do with him, might someone note whether plagiarism in user space is still plagiarism? The user has edited some of these pages long after being told of plagiarism and copyright issues. [User:Buster7/Richard Haines] is his user space copy of an article substantially deleted due to copyright violation. [16] is the apparent source for [17] unattributed, and never put in mainspace. Proper procedure? Or just ignore it? There seems to be a strong pattern but I see some CCI material on other editors goes back years (have even tried helping there a little. Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: Editor Carptrash and I created the List of United States post office murals December 11th and 12th 2014 and spent the rest of December filling it in. I thought a huge amount of information was being overlooked as we constructed the list: hundreds of redlinked artists that didn't have articles. I think the many threads at User talk:Carptrash/Archive 6 explain it best. Contained are many discussions Carp and I had while we collaborated. User:Buster7/The List - Women Artists came first as a place to store the information that was passing thru our fingers. We choose the Women redlinks first because of the shortage of articles that might be interesting to women (There was a WP conversation to that effect). It was just a "closet", a "drawer", to hold everything until we could go back and create articles. At the time I thought the article writing project might take years but that was OK with me. I had found a "niche" and a fellow collaborator I could work with and learn from. The opposite of the relationship I have with user Collect. I then created another "closet" at User:Buster7/The List - Men Artists. I never intended to become a plagiarist. It kind of just happened. Every now and then I would create an article. I admit I should have been more careful and reword the info, but I was excited and energized to continue. I was a Real Wikipedia Editor. It was not a hobby anymore. I bought books on the subject of murals and spent quality time and money at the task of article creation. I'll stop my rant now, But Collect is killing my love and fervor for this site. I have nothing at all to do with @Collect:. I go out of my way to not have any involvement with him. I can't for the life of me understand why he can't just leave me alone and not worry himself over what I'm doing. He follows me around like a shadow and I tire of it. It's been over seven years. Anyway, that's some of the story from my side. Thanks for listening. Buster Seven Talk 07:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I tried to make sure this was not an interaction with you - but I suggest you will not find me mentioning your name or alluding to you as much as you have done with me. [18], [19], [20], [21] (snark concerning a race driver article which had zero references and to which I added a NYT reference), [22] snark - Jimbo banned the other user from his user space, but the "Cheers" is directed at me personally), [23] "hundred little pricks" snark, and his myriad comments likening Jimbo to a person with a Consigliere etc. In contrast, you will find no such snark from me - only a concern that a person who proudly plagiarizes more times than I care to count, manages to assign blame to me for daring to find the examples! As for the seven years - see [24] dated less than 10 months ago - and which I was told I could not rebut because I had gone over my space limit for responses, and the case was held when my wife was in cancer treatment - which some idiots found very amusing indeed. I suggest you might not be happy when an editor who insists he is avoiding you writes "narcissistic assholes commonly play the victim card when there’s pushback. Collect’s endgame strategy is one that’s well-tried" seems an odd way of "avoiding" anyone. Cheers. [25] shows an "IP" saying he is "tickled pink" I have a dying relative <g> so please forgive my being upset - having an IP who issued formal and repeated complaints at AE in order to harass me is not exactly what I consider "collegial", alas. No one at AE gave a darn, alas, and the issue was that I found saying a living person was a close relative of a famous Nazi war criminal is not exactly proper, and I said so on my own UT page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
This is not the first time Collect has insinuated that I was that IP. I was not. I ignored his erroneous claim before (elsewhere) but to repeat it again, here, when he knows I have nothing to do with the "tickled pink" comment, is an example of his ability to fabricate what he considers fact into a prison uniform for me to wear. And the "narcissistic assholes...." comment is not mine. I agree, but I didn't say it. Also, the "Consigliere" is not Collect. It has nothing to do with Collect. But, he seems to think that every humorous thread at User:Writegeist's page is about him. I have no idea where the "famous Nazi war criminal" comment happened and what it has to do with me. Why bring it up unless it is to somehow to poison your view of me with claims and incidents that have nothing to do with me? Is there anything that can be done to keep him away from me. I know the plagiarism business was a miss-step. But, my Wikipedia career has been forthright and upstanding except for my interactions with and about Collect. If there is anything you can do to keep us apart,it would be extremely appreciated. Buster Seven Talk 15:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I have never made any such "insinuation" at any place nor at any time. The IP is in NYC which is quite some distance from the Chicago area, and at no place and at no time have I ever remotely associated you with the IP. I was pointing out that I have, in simple English, actually been harassed on Wikipedia in the past, and that I do not harass anyone. Now if you wish to further attack me, at least find some place I actually called you a name or the like or made jokes about you in any form whatsoever. I suspect you will find none. Oh -- and the Consigliere comment of yours was about Jimbo Wales - was that not clear above? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of reading here. I'll try to tackle issues as I come to them.

  • Collect, if it's blatant and extensive, I'd recommend treating it like you would any other {{copyvio}}. There's a reason that copyvios are excluded from WP:3RR - unless you've received an interaction ban, cleaning up copyright issues trumps. If it's borderline or you'd rather not, you can take it up at WT:CP. (If it's borderline, I'd not recommend you touching it if a user has accused you of some kind of harassment. Let somebody else look. Consensus trumps.) ("Rather not" is perfectly acceptable if you have a history with an editor, and especially if the editor has challenged your assessment of copyright.)
  • Buster7, I'm truly sorry that this has taken a toll on your enthusiasm. In the years I've worked copyright on Wikipedia, I've encountered many, many people who - operating in all good faith - inadvertently stepped afoul of copyright policies or plagiarism guidelines. I promise you, quite a few of them have felt stalked and persecuted by me, especially as I started digging into their edits to find out how widespread issues might be and what cleanup might be needed. I figure it has got to be fiercely uncomfortable to scrutinized like that by anybody, and it must be tremendously hard to put aside the resentment that naturally follows to depersonalize the issue, especially when (as I do routinely myself) the person checks on later contributions to ensure that the issue is not recurring. Without knowing if there is conflict between you two that extends beyond this issue (it looks like there is, but I can't pretend to know the scope or cause of it), I'd urge you to please be patient on this issue. If there are lingering issues, it's better that they be noted and worked out quickly than that they grow and lead to mayhem in articles lately. And if there are not lingering issues, it's better that those who are uncertain of the issue are reassured. (Again, I do not know if there is conflict between you two that extends beyond this issue.) As far as calling the cops goes, leaving a message here asking how to handle a copyright issue without offending you is pretty innocuous. Leaving a message on ANI calling for your head is an entirely different matter. :) If it's a copyright problem, it should be removed - it is not practice to penalize people for copyright issues that occurred before the last conversation on the matter. (This is why CCI is not a discipline board; it's not digging for evidence on a block for past problems, for instance, but simply a clean-up process.)
  • I'm as much a fan of snark as anybody - sometimes a witty insult can actually relieve the intensity of my anger - but I try really hard to never hit save. Veiled snark is especially problematic, as it may be taken personally by anyone with whom we've ever disagreed. Then, bam, the difficulty of working together collegially becomes that much greater. My own goal is to avoid ignoring tone whenever I can and addressing issues. This has led to people calling me "meek" and "bland," but I'm okay with that. In the long run, I feel like it's better for my own equilibrium and for the work on Wikipedia if I keep my Dorothy Parkeresque brilliance in my head. :) (Bonus: once I calm down, I often find that I was taking the comments that upset me way out of context or over the top.) This may be absolutely useless self-sharing to you guys, but I don't really know what else to say about the tension between you. Other than that I am sorry. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Four years ago ...
 
reviewing eyes
... you were recipient
no. 37 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Time. Flies. Yup. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry, Moonriddengirl I need some advice again. This draft: Draft:Mary Anne Cassata started out with content from this page, and then was edited to have content which is almost the same as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mary Anne Cassata, which has since been deleted. I'm not sure that the subject is notable at this time, but could be in the not too distant future. The subsequent edits by the Draft's creator are mostly addition of promotional links. Should the draft be deleted? If so, under what deletion reason, and how can one indicate to editors in the future that the other draft is the one to "refund"? (No one will look in "Wikipedia talk" for a draft). If you say it's not a copyright violation, I could take it to AFD.

How about historymerging the Draft with the WT, deleting the copyright revisions and the two late edits in the Wt, then moving the now properly attributed revisions back to Draft, leaving the junk in WT? Or am I overthinking this?—Anne Delong (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Anne Delong. I'm really sorry for my delay - I was traveling last weekend, and work's been pretty frantic lately. I'm holding down two roles right now. :) So, in terms of the copyright, we can address the copyright at the beginning of Draft:Mary Anne Cassata with revision deletion and the copyvio from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mary Anne Cassata in one of two ways: (1) we could resurrect and merge (thus preserving the edit history), or (2) we could in edit summary attribute the sole substantial contributor to that version, using the talk page to explain in what edit content by that contributor began to appear. (Because we can fix the copyvio in those two ways, I would not generally delete the draft on copyvio reasons alone.)
I would probably go with (1) - these are the cases where WP:IAR seems perfect to me. If we merge the two, we preserve the attribution history perfectly and don't run into the problem that the list of contributors is still messed up if they don't copy the edit summary lines. Then, if you think it's deletable for other reasons and take it through XFD, figuring out which to REFUND would not be an issue. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Beyond English Wikipedia

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, MRG, I have left a message in User talk:Floquenbeam's page and I have given notice to inform you that this IP address will be blocked from the English Wikipedia until August 31, 2016, a fitting time frame under the Wikipedia:Standard offer under six months. In the meantime, I will remain with Wikimedia such as Wikimedia Commons and the other areas as well as the other Wiki projects such as CPTDB Wiki, Dragon Ball Wiki and The Infosphere, Futurama Wiki. Please leave a message and just letting you know a bit. 135.23.144.92 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Photos from National Register of Historic Places

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

CAn I get your view on the possibility of using photographs from this site (specifically, the photo on this page, which has some source data on the image page) as Public domain PD-USGov? SpinningSpark 14:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) From what I can dig up, it looks as though the photo is credited to Lori Feldman, an architectural historian who was commissioned by the Kentucky Heritage Council (via the Northern Kentucky Area Development District) to survey the Falmouth area's historic places and artifacts. Her materials were then used as supporting documentation for NHRP applications for the various places. As such, it doesn't appear that the photo was taken by a US government official in the course of his/her duties. The copyright for the photo would either belong to her, or if it was in the terms of the council grant, reverted to the council. CrowCaw 18:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian plagiarizing us?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So, am I right to see that this Feb 26 article has copied verbatim from Committee for the Defence of Democracy "became the first party in post-communist Polish history to control an absolute majority of the seats in the Polish Parliament and the Presidency at the same time. While the protest movement has taken issue with a number of PiS-sponsored initiatives"? Damn, even top tier publications have no standards if they copy stuff like that. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. And I wish I were more surprised. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi

User:Diannaa told me I should take my question to you since you are one of the copyright specialists.

I recently looked at 2016 UEFA Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournament and saw User:Diannaa removing tiebreaker rules cited from official rulebook as copyright and hiding 61 revisions. Are they copyrighted? Official rules are not something we can change and modify of our own, rules are rules and not something to be interpreted and changed. The tiebreakers are a list of what happens when teams are tied, and it is used on so many articles. I opened discussion at User talk:Diannaa#2016 UEFA Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournament. Please advice. Qed237 (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:Qed237. While the U .S. government makes an exception for laws, codes and regulations produced by any government (feeling that the subjects of laws have the right to know what they are) (see Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works), there is no such exception for rules produced by others. :/ There's a lot of copyrighted content out there that we really can't modify - such as song lyrics - that we can't use on Wikipedia. But we can link them, if they are posted somewhere official. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Long time no see

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Moonriddengirl. I just ran into this article called Economy of Nazi Germany which is one in the series of articles on World War II history which I'm interested in. At the very first glance I had a really bad feeling about it. — The article consists of a run-away wall of thinly-formatted text dumped in enormous-size batches around 2010. I don't have the tools to catch the culprit blue-handed, but what I see makes me nervous. For example, here's is a single edit from 8 March 2010 (+7,438)‎ among many similar ones, only minutes apart from (+2,549). I compared this edit with just one other article in Wayback via Earwig's Copyvio Detector and discovered Violation Possible: 64.1% confidence. At the same time, the Timothy Mason article of particular interest to the same user: (+1,777)‎ (+3,324)‎ had similar dumps inserted only minutes apart at about that time by an SPA: (+5,444)‎ and (+3,455). I don't know what went on there, but I'd like you to take a closer look if you can. Much obliged, Poeticbent talk 20:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I took care of it for now. All best, Poeticbent talk 22:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Poeticbent. Sorry for not popping by in time to help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Luis Royo page copyright issues

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Greetings Moonriddengirl, on 17 of January you removed most of the content of the page due to unintentional copyvio. Since then I have been trying to contact the author and his Social Media team to save the translation made. As result they informed me via email and facebook that a letter was sent to Wikipedia allowing the use of the Biographies that appear on the official website of the author (www.luisroyo.com). I dont really know how it works after that step, but since after visiting the wikipedia a few days ago I saw no changes o Luis Royo page I contacted them once more. They have answered to me that the Biographies now have a Creative Commons licence that appears on the official website.

I would like to know if that would mean that the article that I wrote back then can be restored? Dimitri Bailo Saksybaev (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Dimitri Bailo

Hello, Dimitri Bailo Saksybaev. I'm sorry, but we cannot accepted CC-By-SA 4.0 licenses for text. (See WP:COMPLIC.) If they license it under CC-By-SA 3.0, we can certainly use it, with necessary attribution. However, just because we legally can doesn't mean the content will necessarily be appropriate for use here.
Wikipedia has a different function than the artist's website. We are here to provide a neutral summary of what reliable sources say about notable subjects, not to mirror what they say about themselves. It is our policy that primary sources (like an artist's own website) should be used sparingly, in accordance with WP:SELFPUB. All content must be neutral and verifiable.
Even though it does not seem to have been taken from the artist's own website, material like this does not meet either of those core policies:

This new design shows the limitless perfection of the artist. Each image has been carefully studied, offering his personal view of all the symbolism and secrecy of each arcane, and demonstrates a huge level of investigation and documentation.

On Wikipedia, it's better to have a short and factual article than one that will be perceived as promotional. Our intent is not to advertise.
This does lead me to one other point. I believe you are a web and social media manager. If you are receiving compensation for any edits you make to any project of the Wikimedia Foundation, including Wikipedia, please note that our Terms of Use require that you publish this fact. There are additional roles on some of our projects related to what you should and should not do. WP:COI gives the guidelines for how you should behave here.
If you have any questions, please let me know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

J.Ralph

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have lodged a request for mediation on the J.Ralph page here. Karst (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, my goodness, Karst. That's a lot of caps. :O I don't think I can really regard myself as involved, though. I dealt with a copyright issue there three years ago (almost) and have had nothing to do with it since. My involvement was handling copyright issues as per listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 January 14. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There was a question at WP:THQ#Additional link to free copy of source? where there have been differing (uninformed) opinions on the subject. I wonder whether you might have a look at it and perhaps give your views please? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry,David Biddulph - looks like a missed the boat on that one. :/ I checked at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_463#Additional_link_to_free_copy_of_source.3F and while belated will note that we do need to be careful not to contribute to infringement. And authors sometimes violate copyright on their own works. I remember some years back when we had to remove extensive works from a published author who had used his own content here without permission from his publisher, so that's a real (and potentially damaging) thing. :/ But with WP:ELNEVER, I'm not sure I myself would second-guess the author. I certainly respect those who would - given my own experience, I know authors make mistakes - but where the author him or herself publishes content on an external site, I think there's certainly good faith on our part in linking to it. (With pasting content in articles, the risk is much higher, since we might lose the article and all subsequent edits, as opposed to simply having to remove the link, and since the content we have published will be mirrored directly from our site to other sites) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio follow-up: Triple J Hottest 100, 2010

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not going to repeat myself, so I'll just link my original message here.

I will be honest, though, I do feel a little weird about talking about this with you in a voluntary capacity, especially given that it did result in an office action (or something equivalent to). You did ask me to communicate with you about this through here, though, so I must comply in that respect. Just the same, do you have an update as to the case with this article? --JB Adder | Talk 11:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, JB Adder. It's not an office action or anything like; it's a simple administrative matter. My actions related to that content have been in my volunteer capacity and duly noted as such by my username. :) The problem is described in full here. In a nutshell, we are not able to use creatively compiled lists unless we have permission. The copyright holders gave us specific permission for the articles listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple J Hottest 100, 2009. It was quite explicit as to what it was permitting; it was not a general release. Hence, that content is licensed in accordance with our policy. Their other content is not. We need either a specific release for other articles or a general release of their lists to use it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
So, we didn't have permission to do the lists in the first place. How about now (which is what I do want to know about)? We have OTRS notices on the pre-2010 lists, but what about the reminder? Does this non-permission still stand for all the other lists? --JB Adder | Talk 22:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
We only have permission for the articles listed in that AFD. If the lists are reproduced in any other articles, unless permission is logged separately, we are violating their copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Jain monasticism

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Moonriddengirl, I'm hoping you can help me with follow-up after I made a major deletion of copyvio material from the above article as a result of something discovered during the course of its ongoing GA review.

The thing is that the material I deleted was originally added in a series of nine edits by User:Bhavin169 on February 20, 2012. So there are about 175 edits over the course of four years where the material was live. I figured you would know whether any of these needed to be hidden (revision deletion?) to prevent people from seeing the copied material (which came from this source).

I did ask Nikkimaria to check, and she says that the other Bhavin169 edits (only 17 in addition to the ones on Jain monasticism) have not survived (details here). Thanks for taking care of whatever needs to be done here; you're the admin I know who specializes in this sort of thing. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done, BlueMoonset. When it's extensive like that it seems like a good idea. Thanks for finding and cleaning up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Review

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please do review my work for any copyright infringements my work is here >> OC Osilliation . Icem4k (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

possible copyvio

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BBC and [26]

Source for an entire section (thus no ability to say multiple sources just happened to use the same wording):

The Metropolitan Police is to pay £425,000 to a woman whose child was fathered by a man who she did not know was an undercover police officer.
The unprecedented payment comes after a legal battle with women who say they were duped into relationships with officers who were spying on them.
Scotland Yard says it "unreservedly apologises for any pain and suffering".'negligence, deceit and misconduct by senior officers.
The Metropolitan Police Service has never had a policy that officers can use sexual relations for the purposes of policing
The force faces further possible claims from other women who say they were tricked into relationships with Special Demonstration Squad officers.
The SDS ran long-term undercover operations designed to infiltrate protest groups, including animal rights organisations.
One of its key officers, former Special Branch detective Bob Lambert, used the pseudonym Bob Robinson, and was tasked with infiltrating the Animal Liberation Front.
During that operation in the mid 1980s, he formed a relationship with a 22-year-old activist called Jacqui - even though he was already married with children. In 1985 she gave birth - but when the boy was two years old, the father vanished.
The woman told BBC News she had received psychiatric care after learning the officer's real identity.
'The Met's payment is part of an agreement for her to drop her legal action alleging assault,
Jacqui only discovered the real identity of her son's father in 2012 after he had been outed by other campaigners.
Scotland Yard had refused to confirm or deny whether Bob Lambert was an SDS operative, despite his own admissions to journalists, until it was forced to change its position in August.
Mr Lambert has not responded to BBC requests for comment on the settlement - but he has previously said that wanted to apologise to women with whom he had relationships and that he had made some "serious mistakes".
In March, a police review of allegations of undercover misdeeds said sexual relationships between undercover officers such as those in the SDS and their targets were inappropriate and a "gross abuse" of their position.
In a statement, the Metropolitan Police said: "The MPS unreservedly apologises for any pain and suffering that the relationship with Bob Lambert, an undercover officer, has had on this woman. We recognise the impact that the revelation that he was an undercover police officer must have had both on her and her son.
"From the outset we have dealt with this lengthy case with professionalism and sensitivity, completely understanding the gravity of the circumstances. We regret if this necessarily complex process has added to her distress. the MPS has never had a policy that officers can use sexual relations for the purposes of policing. "

Copyvios, IMO, are in bold. Some is simply copying quotes - some is outright laziness at best. The material was first added on the same day of BBC publication in this edit: [27] Your view? TY. Collect (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Strong copyvio suspicion. Need your help

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, please take a look at this. – Nobody in this world writes that fast!! One can only steal content with this sort of speed.

Just so you know, User:Cloud200, using Google translate for transferring copyrighted text published in the foreign language is also a violation of copyright law. On 23 March 2016 you uploaded (+6,331) of preformatted material at 21:30, and one-and-a-half hour later at 23:05, you uploaded (+3,670) of preformatted text from the same source, ready to go. The only way to avoid copyright breach is to write in your own words, summarizing the book, which is a timely endeavour. Please revert yourself in case of doubt, if you want to avoid a formal investigation into your actions. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 12:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm native Polish speaker so I have no need to use Google Translate and I'm happy to proceed with any investigations, but I can assure you that all the text was written in my own words. Cloud200 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Google translate works from Polish to English in mere seconds, as you already know being a Polish speaker. The only thing I don't know is whether your source is available online which would make it a lot easier to work with. BTW, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations extend to all contributions by the same user, not just one problematic article. Poeticbent talk 17:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The book is available in paper or e-book from multiple Polish bookstores. As far as I know it's not available on-line anywhere — and this would be indeed a copyright violation since it's relatively new book (2010). I have not copied any text from the book in verbatim, neither used Google to translate large blocks of text. All the newly added text was written by myself, which is the main reason why I corrected a few awkward translations on second reading. I did use various on-line dictionaries to translate specialist or legal terms (which the books contains a lot) such as "forensic pathology" etc but nothing longer than that. Cloud200 (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, just have a look at the actual contents of the edits you're bringing as evidence that "nobody writes that fast". The first commit was 13 paragraphs of text, the second one 6 paragraphs. I have just written 2 paragraphs of text here in less than a couple of minutes or so. The accusation that "one can only steal content with this sort of speed" is not only unfair, but also completely unfounded. Cloud200 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please check possible close paraphrasing on Almond milk

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This isn't really my wheelhouse but I found a strange sentence at the end of Almond milk: "We recommend every consumer to consider both the benefits and risks when determining which processed food items should be limited from the diet." Could some intrepid copyvio patroller take a look at the recent additions to the article for close paraphrasing? Thanks, –xenotalk 01:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is most likely copied from http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:FNH200/2012w_Team06_SoyAlmondMilk, which is a wiki itself - if its own history is to be trusted, was fully formed in March 2013. There is an archive.org snapshot from October 2015. About 20k+ worth of text copied verbatim from the UBC wiki was introduced in three chunks by Cvdong (talk · contribs) on 24 March 2016. The UBC's copyright terms are ambiguous and while they permit remix, they don't explicitly permit reshare, which makes them incompatible with our terms.
More concerning is the first reference pasted by Cvdong - it claims an access date of 2014 when pasted in in 2016, which looks like an intent to deceive. MLauba (Talk) 11:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for stepping in MLauba. That was the other site I found on Google with these words, but it was late, and I was too tired to investigate further. If I could pass the buck one more time, this edit probably has similar issues [28]. –xenotalk 13:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Xeno The latter may be copied, but not from the site you linked - it's a mirror that credits us. I've tried a couple of sentences from that diff in Google, and I've only found other copies of our Nutella article. MLauba (Talk) 13:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The refs in that diff probably need a serious editorial oversight, I somehow doubt that Recipe Tips qualify as a RS. MLauba (Talk) 13:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Unblock

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just letting you know I have unblocked User:AdibMasumian, whom you blocked in 2010 for persistent copyright violations. They filed a UTRS appeal in which they fully acknowledged theit past issues and promised not to repeat them. Given the age of th eblock and the fact that you have a notice here saying you aren't around very often, I went ahead and just unblocked. Hope that's ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Cathedral School, Llandaff

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, MRG,

The first 4 paragraphs of the history section of this article are verbatim from an old copy of a page at the cathedral's website. It looks like the first vio started here in 2008. This is a 2007 Wayback Machine copy of the page, so this was their text before it was posted here. Did not check for when the rest of the page was entered here but know it's after the first 2008 vio.

Sorry to bring you this bad news, but stumbled into this when working on dead links at the Llandaff Cathedral article. We hope (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, We hope. I've removed most of the history section as copied without permission from that source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright on patent text and images (at USPTO)

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

On the advice from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Text in patents that has expired that I should ask you regarding this. The question is what is the copyright status of the text and images in patents? mainly for USPTO, but perhaps Europe and Japan may be of interest too. In particular can one import section(s) of them as-is into Wikipedia? Bytesock (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Bytesock. :) We actually have an article on this one: Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution. It would be nice if the government were a little more specific on that question. The USPTO says, here, "the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions" (emphasis mine). Except when? As our article notes, at least as of mid-2015 there really wasn't much precedent on this question. At that same external link, the USPTO says, "There are also instances where a portion of the text or drawings of a patent may be under copyright. You should consult an attorney regarding these potential trademark and copyright issues." Given that uncertainly and the very firm requirements of our copyright policy ("Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble."), I have to say I think one cannot import sections as-is into Wikipedia - not unless we can verify that the patent in case actually is copyright clear. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The problem with the Wikipedia information on the subject and USPTO is that it's very unclear on some aspects as you mention in your reply. I guess one has to consider the USPTO patents as copyrighted, ie playing safe. Bytesock (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I hate being late but still...

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

HAPPY WIKIBIRTHDAY

 

I may be inactive but there is always a piece of my hearth here in the project and with you.

Happy editing. Zidane tribal (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I`m officially worried, where are you MRG? Zidane tribal (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Don't be worried, Zidane tribal. She's been active on her staff account in the last 24 hours at WP:VPP. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
She is travelling, but otherwise safe and sound. The Interior (Talk) 20:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I had checked her page at the WMF and saw no activity, but now I can be at ease. Zidane tribal (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Zidane tribal, and sorry for being late myself and alarming you! As The Interior notes, I was traveling - rather a long trip, by my standards. :/ I'm home and exhausted, but home, and greatly appreciative of your kindness. :) That said, I greatly wish that we could both be more active! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Great to see you, while trying to find you I saw your page at the WMF, and what do i find there?, the picture of a lovely lady with a even lovelier smile, if you don`t mind me saying, you look JUST as I pictured you all this years, caring, nurturing. I don`t need to meet you to know that the project and your family are lucky to have you.
And on a totally different issue, i saw at your MWF talk page that you had a rather long and delicate disscution with a quite delicate Potato in the early days of February, I gotta tell you, it sounds like a difficult job. Give it your best, you have my best wishes. Zidane tribal (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Close paraphrase concern

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, I'm concerned about the degree of close paraphrasing that FoCuSandLeArN has been introducing in creating spider articles – with good intentions, I'm sure. Here's just one example at Chaco patagonica. The article has:

"Female: total length 8.65 millimetres (0.341 in); cephalothorax length 3.1 millimetres (0.12 in), width 2.43 millimetres (0.096 in). Its labium length is 0.45 of its width; its sternum width is 0.66 of the length. Its labium possesses 2 cuspules, while the maxillae 6 cuspules. A serrula is absent. Its cephalothorax is yellowish, with brown mottles on its caput and posterior part of its thorax; the abdomen is yellowish with mottles. Pubescence very light."

The text is explicitly sourced to Goloboff, Pablo A. (1995), "A revision of the South American spiders of the family Nemesiidae (Araneae, Mygalomorphae). Part 1, Species from Peru, Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay", Bulletin of the AMNH (224). This source has on pp. 184–185:

"FEMALE (holotype): Total length 8.65. Cephalothorax (fig. 156A), 3.10 long, 2.43 wide. Labium length 0.45 of width. Sternum (fig.156E) width 0.66 of length. Labium with 2 cuspules, maxillae with 6 cuspules. Labial and maxillary cuspules large, with acute tip. Serrula absent(SEMconfirmed). [...] Cephalothorax yellowish, with brown mottles on caput and posterior part of thorax; abdomen (fig.156A) yellowish, with mottles. Pubescence very light."

Should text like this just be marked as needing to be wikified, or is it more problematic? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  • To be fair, there aren't all that many ways to enumerate a set of characteristics. While the parallel is clear, there is no creative prose that's being copied here. — Coren (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree; I'm not raising it to criticize the editor in any way. I'd just like to know if this is ok or not. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey there! Thank you for taking a look at the spider articles I've created; they're not as popular as one would wish!   Thank you for your time reviewing them as well. I'm afraid that unless you speak like Yoda does, describing spider morphology doesn't allow for much literary freedom. Perhaps you have some suggestions? Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 03:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, Peter coxhead. Apologies for my delay, all. In terms of my own opinion, I'm afraid this may not be that clear cut a question. While the US copyright laws that govern Wikipedia do not protect non-creative speech, the threshold of creativity is very low, and creative elements include not only descriptive language but also facts chosen and the order of facts. For one example of how low the threshold may be, consider American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans ([29]), where even taxonomic classifications are found to be copyrightable. In one specific example selected to demonstrate the creativity, the Court noted:

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

It might be helpful to think of it in comparison to photography. A nature photographer does not create the butterfly when he takes a picture of it; presuming it's alive and free to move about, he doesn't choose its placement or pose. But though his photograph may be merely capturing what is there, with no special filters or recognizably artistic elements, it is still protected by copyright under US law. Or maps. Maps are recorded observations of natural phenomena, but they are explicitly protected by US copyright law.
While creativity in such content is surely slim, it does exist. Do I know if a court would find this too close? I do not. But I myself would probably separate it a bit more in the "better safe than sorry" approach.
In terms of suggestions for alternate approaches, User:FoCuSandLeArN, I find it very helpful not to follow the order of the source, which almost forces closer paraphrasing, but instead to absorb the information and try to recast it. So, perhaps:

The female of the species has very light pubescence on its mottled abdomen which is, like its cephalothorax, overall yellowish in color. Its caput and posterior also contain brown mottles. It has no serrula, but possesses two large cuspules on its labium and six large cuspules on its maxilla, each acute at the tip. In dimensions, it is 8.65 millimetres (0.341 in) in total length, with a cephalothorax that is 3.1 millimetres (0.12 in) long and 2.43 millimetres (0.096 in) wide. The ratio of length to width in the labium is 0.45 and in the sternum 0.66.

I'm not sure if that's the best way to describe this spider, mind you, but rearranging it does allow us to put the information into our own structure, which I believe is likely to help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response; don't apologize for the delay. Undoubtedly the material I was unsure about can be re-cast, but as ever, time is an issue; I certainly don't have time to do it right now. Maybe User:FoCuSandLeArN does, but if not, what should be done? Does the material need to be removed if not quickly re-written? Peter coxhead (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both. I think I might be able to work something out throughout this week and the next, how does that sound? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

An attribution issue

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello again, Moonriddengirl. I am not sure what to do with this draft: Draft:Chris Hunsinger. It was declined at AfC some time ago, but deletion was postponed because the subject is notable. The content, though was rather promotional, so other editors changed it to be more neutral. Then someone else created a new mainspace article, Chris Hunsinger, but later incorporated quite a bit of the text from the original draft. I haven't found any previously published source for this text, so either there is a source out there somewhere, or the new editor is the same person, or the text was copied from an old version from the draft's history. In any case, the mainspace page started out as a copy of someone else's article, and most of the original text will need to be changed anyway. If the draft is deleted, that would leave the text in the mainspace article incorrectly attributed; on the other hand, most of it needs rewriting anyway (and I have changed some already). Or, it could be historymerged, but the history would be kind of strange. What is appropriate? If all of the text is rewritten, do we need to worry about attribution in old versions?—Anne Delong (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Anne Delong. I am sorry for being so late.
Where the draft was written by one person, we can resolve it as advised at WP:CWW and simply attribute in edit summary. Attribution can be a link, but it can also be a list of all substantial authors, according to our WMF:TOU. It looks to me at a glance like all substantive content was added by 217.226.168.233 - so a meaningless edit could be made and a note added stating, "NOTE: The edit of [date it was added] copied content originally added to Wikipedia by IP 217.226.168.233".
I would do this even if completely rewriting, just in case the older content is ever restored. :) The only time I might not is if the text is otherwise just utterly inappropriate (BLP vio; spam), in which case I might revdelete with an explanation of why. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl. I made the edit as suggested. I will delete the draft next week when it becomes eligible for db-g13.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

OTRS question....

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I see that there is an OTRS ticket for File:Nancy_Newhall_1942-338.jpg. Can you let me know what it covers? There are a lot of images uploaded by that user and I worry that they could be in danger of deletion if not properly documented. I was about to email someone that I think is that user, but I don't want to do that if he has already dealt with the OTRS people as necessary. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Calliopejen1. :) I am afraid it is extremely specific - limited only to that image. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Does it verify the identity of the uploader at least and explain why he is the copyright holder (heir etc.)? It would probably make sense to follow up but it might be worth referencing that ticket on the other images to give them some legitimacy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Use of Internet Archive material

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I am trying to help out an editor who included some embedded links in an article. I plan to convert them to footnotes where appropriate. However, as preparation for doing the edits, some questions related to copyright arose. He expressed concern about linking to copyrighted sites, and I explained that the problem is not copyrighted sites, but sites with copyright violations. This is the reason why YouTube links, while not prohibited, are a red flag, because many of them are copyright violations. I think I’m on solid ground so far.

However, some of the links are to the Internet archive. While some are to public domain material, the Internet archive includes a lot of copyrighted material. I am trying to sort out why we appear to be fine with links to the Internet archive. I am aware (although I can’t currently point to the guidance) that a best practices reference can have a link to an original source, with a link to the Internet archive version of that source, set up so that if the original source works it will be used, and only if the original source becomes dead will the Internet archive link become live. Does this mean we should never use an Internet archive link alone (when involving copyrighted material) if there is a live link to the copyrighted material?

I looked at our article Internet Archive, which mentions copyright issues but not in a completely satisfactory way. It appears that some organizations have objected to the inclusion of the material in the Internet archive and have successfully arranged to have it removed. Others have objected but reached some agreement. I don’t know whether the organization has some special status (I do note that it is officially designated as a library—does this matter?) or if the organization has reached arrangements with providers.

In the first case I looked at Behind a Watteau picture the material is identified as not in copyright, so I think using this is a footnote is fine. If the material is in copyright, is it my duty to track down an online link? --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've wondered about that too in a general sort of way, Sphilbrick. But as far as using the Internet Archive in Wikipedia is concerned, I'm reassured by the clear statement at WP:LINKVIO that it "… is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine". Unless that consensus changes or MRG disagrees, my feeling is that we should use the Internet Archive as much as possible, both to protect against link-rot and to guard against the possibility that the content of a page may change while its address remains the same. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow, that is on point. Goes back to 2007, which doesn't make it impervious to dispute, but means it has been unquestioned for a long time. Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Not that this is absolutely failsafe, but the Internet Archive respects robots.txt and doesn't crawl/archive pages that opt out that way. So for what has been archived, at least the copyright holder did not opt out. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyvio that might need blanking

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I think I just came across a major copyvio at M. S. Ramaiah, an article currently up for deletion (discussion here). User:Webmaster.cg appears to have added a lot of promotional material to the article (a possible explanation for the promotional tone) from an online ad [30]. I brought this issue here on BlueMoonset's recommendation, as the article may need to be blanked if my suspicion is true. Thanks, Sainsf <^>Feel at home 03:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

  Resolved by David Eppstein on AfD discussion. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 05:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear it, User:Sainsf. :) Thanks for keeping an eye out of copyright issues! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Maggie, I've got a representative of a corporate organization who wants to give Commons and WP permission to use some images created as works-for-hire for the organization which, of course, means that the organization owns the copyright to the images. I've figured out how they submit the permission, but I'm unsure who at the organization Commons will recognize as having the right to provide and submit the permission for the organization. I note at the Commons Interactive Release Generator it allows someone to represent that they are the organization's "appointed representative". Is that enough (provided, of course, that it is true)? Will they have to provide proof of appointment by board resolution or something? Can an officer give permission without such proof? Other employees? (The reason I ask: I know from practicing corporate law for many years that determining who has the right to do something for an organization — sign a contract or sell a motor vehicle, for example — is by far most often simply determined by someone at the organization simply claiming that they have the right to do it and the recipient accepting that claim without further proof. Occasionally, a recipient will want more and ask for a second signature by another employee attesting to the first employee's authority, a certificate of authority, or a certificate of a board of directors resolution approving the transaction and giving a named employee specific permission to carry it out, with either of those certificates issued by the organization's corporate secretary.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) As an aside, make sure they realize that they can't just give WP and Commons permission, but they're also giving anyone anywhere the irrevocable right to re-use, modify, parody, sell for profit, etc, that material, as long as they credit the source. CrowCaw 22:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, User:TransporterMan. I haven't processed permissions letters for Commons for a while, but it is generally just somebody sending in the email from an official address and asserting that they are in fact authorized to do this. In case of legal challenge, they may be liable for misrepresentation. :) (And User:Crow is exactly right - it's a common bounce-back for permissions.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is Ansan_Cultural_Center a copyvio of [31]? --166.104.240.101 (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it was. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Barry-Wehmiller page

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

I have a few questions. I'm the web designer for Barry-Wehmiller and I have been asked to put some updated information on our company's Wikipedia page since it's pretty outdated. The first time I tried doing this, the information was deleted as promotional information or something like that. However, nothing that I'm adding is promotional. I'm just trying to put some facts out there so people can know who Barry-Wehmiller actually is. I know this is useful because it was the first place I went when I was looking for a job here and the Wikipedia page didn't really help me at all. Like I said, I'm just trying to put some facts out there that are easily verified on the company's website. We're a 2.4 billion dollar company, we're not making any sales from Wikipedia, so it's not really promotional :) This is just for people who are curious what we do to find out.

Also, just now you deleted information I put about our divisions which they asked me to add to the page, but you cited it as a copyright issue.

I guess my question is, how can I get this information on the Wikipedia page without it being removed? Can I be made an admin of it or something? Please advise, because I'm getting pressure from my leaders to get this page at least representative of who the company is.

Any advise would be helpful! Thanks! David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onionknight3 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Economy_of_North_Korea#Copy-paste_job

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I don't think this was properly followed up. I stumbled up on it when I realized at least one para is from a fortunately PD LoC source (I referenced it). Someone should probably take a closer look at the article; I don't think all sources listed there as being copied from are PD :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

PS. Incidentally, I stumbled upon another plagiarism report at Talk:Taxation in Armenia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, User:Piotrus. I've cleaned up what I found in the first article and deleted the second. I've also left a note for the author of the second asking if there are other issues, as this is a person who was temporarily indeffed in 2010 for copyvios. The article predates, but if there's one outstanding issue there certainly could be more. :( I'm out of time - User:Crow, I hate to bug you, but any chance you could poke at me if you see a response at User_talk:Thricecube#Copyright_problem:_Taxation_in_Armenia? I'm afraid he won't ping me and that I'll forget. I don't have time to proactively check if we need a CCI. That can take hours. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Since my block in 2010, I have gone over all the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, and I can assure you that nothing since my unban has been copyrighted material. Thricecube 20:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Request upload OK for Linda McCartney

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi MRG - would you mind considering a suggestion I made for a non-free to replace the DR commons image under discussion? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Light show , I've deleted the image you uploaded to Wikipedia at File:Linda McCartney close-up2.jpg under G5 - an upload by a banned user in violation of his ban. If the ban against your uploading images has been lifted, please show me where, and I will restore it with due apologies. After your request to lift your ban was declined in March 2015, you violated your ban. Now it looks like you have done it again. Can you link to a ban discussion where you have permission to upload images? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Here.--Light show (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
As Masem notes on your talk page, he may be willing to upload the image. But you cannot. One person saying an image is okay does not lift your indefinite ban on image uploads. As you well know, this is not Commons - whatever restrictions may exist there, the ban here does not share them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
What are the steps to get this ban lifted? I'll obviously never be able to prove that I know the correct due diligence before uploads etc., if I can't upload. Why not a pre-approval condition for a period as in the Commons? Just tell me who to ask. --Light show (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
You ask at WP:AN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
On a personal level, then, since the investigation, the subsequent RfC, and bans were all initiated by you, on what new basis could I even ask? From the last request, there were no clear or specific suggestions by anyone about what I should do in the future. There were no questions to me. There were no "do you agree to do this, or will you do that?" type questions.
Would you personally accept a probation period, with a pre-approval condition? Do you have any specific questions that would imply you were at least willing to move forward? --Light show (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Donald D. Engen

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've created a new page for Donald D. Engen. regards Mztourist (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Essay moved from user space to mainspace contra MfD result?

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

A user’s essay in mainspace was submitted to MfD and the result was that it should be “userfied”. [32]

It was then moved to user space accordingly, [33] after which the user retitled it.[34] There’s a notice on the talk page re. the MfD result.

Recently another user returned the essay to mainspace and restored the pre-MfD title. [35]. Does the move contravene the MfD result? If so, I don’t know the corrective procedure. Maybe you do?

Put it up for MfD if you do not like it. But you should note your apparent animus towards me in the past on many occasions, and note that you were an editor on the essay. [36] is an "interesting edit". [37] has Writegeist adding "and/or as a strategy to denigrate someone else's when they run to more than a couple of lines and thereby outstrip your limited comprehension skills." which seemed to be a rather pointy exercise.
[38] has a serial plagiarist writing "The person who ends posts with "Cheers" is usually cheerless" which sets off a snark alarm, I would think.
And the collegiality expressed in "Tsk.Tsk. No need to curse. The fact that I don't like you should have no bearing on counting my vote. I have approached you countless times overe four years with my hand extended in reconciliatory fashion. Each time you rejected it. I don't want to get rid of this essay. I want to get rid of you. If anything is toxic to Wikipedia it is you. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)"
In short, what matters to me here is that the same people who have repeatedly harassed me in the past seem to think that when I am not present that can say anything about me they damn well want to. Kindly tell them where to go. Thank you. Collect (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:G4 might or might not be suitable for all I know. As this is the first time I've ever encountered this situation (material returning to mainspace in contravention of an MfD), I'd like to hear from a trustworthy editor. Hence my query. To Moonriddengirl. Writegeist (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl Should I not have been pinged about the above? Would that not have been the courteous thing to do? Not by you, but by the editor replying. Or is an editor allowed to besmirch a veteran editor (me) without repercussions. The above NOV2012 copy was of a conversation directly TO him, not some snarky comment ABOUT him. I have done my very best to ignore him and everything he does. I pay no attention to his actions, unless a good friend (such as Writegeist) requests that I take a look at something. How do I go about requesting an I-Ban for the rest of my career here at Wikipedia? I think 7 years of consternation is enough. I request a two-way interaction ban to prevent further distress for me.

Buster Seven Talk 16:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)......I request a two-way interaction ban to prevent further distress for me. Buster Seven Talk 16:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Writegeist I offer this diff as proof that the editor stalks me. He is not in the History of edits for the Clinton Building article nor anywhere in the talk history. How is it that he comes upon my changes within such a short time except for stalking what I do??? God. Grant me Peace! Buster Seven Talk 19:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Amazingly enough, I now follow some "plagiarism" cases, and what to my wondering eyes do appear but use of a Wikipedia mirror as being a "plagiarized" source. You should thus also complain about me furnishing a dozen or so Wikipedia mirrors for Earwig's copyvio detector. Sorry Buster, I do not give a damn about you, I do not follow you, I do not make you make errors, and I do not try getting interaction bans with you. All I do is follow the rules as best I can. Period. You should note that I also follow your CCI page but I do not make a habit of clearing up all the remaining instances there. Warm regards. Collect (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyvio, not sure at all

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, hope things are good with you. Could you take a look at Talk:Sacrifice#Definite citation and possible copyright problems in section? I've had a good search but might well have missed several somethings, the net being such a big place an' all. It may well just be a couple of "authors" cribbing from Wikipedia but then, maybe not. Thanks! Haploidavey (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The only overlap I found was with cites which definitely cribbed from "Wikiland" via "Freebase" (or vice versa). Collect (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, so no problem, I guess. Thanks for that. Haploidavey (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Advice

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Monriddengirl, I recently did two reviews of articles for DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/James Bond (naval officer) and Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Baer (art dealer)). In both cases, I found issues with close paraphrasing, which I described and notified the authors on their talk pages (there is overlap in authorship of these articles). I raised this at WT:DYK#Handling close paraphrasing / plagiarism issues where it was suggested that tagging may be needed, but also that I may be noting issues which are unproblematic. As I know you have great experience in the area, I am wondering if you would have a look and tell me (a) where you see these on the copyvio / plagiarism / close paraphrasing / unproblematic spectrum, and (b) what else (if anything) should be done from a WP rather than DYK project perspective. Any advice you might have is welcome.  :) Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Format

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Minor issue - resolved

Not sure what's causing it, but the CCI page bleeds out to the right. I looked for a long string (Google books urls often cause this) but did not find the cause.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is this edit I dropped a note to Nikkimaria.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  Resolved
--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

advice?

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

[39] in 2011 was a pretty clear copyright violation from the Guardian [40] in 2010. Talk:Montgomery_Clift#films_and_commentary_in_lead shows the comparison of original Guardian wording, initial wording placed in the Wikipedia article, and the restored wording based on the violation (current version).

I removed some material which did not appear, to me, to repairable by paraphrase, but this material was re-added even after I noted it was a copyright violation (sigh). As I considered it "lead-puffing", I think it likely fully removable, but am estopped from doing so. Thank you (and any lurkers) Collect (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) I replied there. I agree that the content is problematic just on copyright grounds alone. The question of lead-puffery I leave to the article's regulars to sort out, but using the Guardian text verbatim, as well as the cherry-picked film list, smacks of copyvio to me. CrowCaw 19:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Crow I managed to convince an editor that the material was a blatant copyright violation - he cut out the adjectives, but still lists the same films in the same order as the Guardian article which was initially and blatantly copied some time back. Is it now "cured" of having been plagiarized in the first place? Collect (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I know how much MRG loves list questions :) while I'm still trying to put my finger on it, I'm not sure that's the central question. The problem I see is that the Senate starts with "he is best remembered for roles in" which is followed by the list of movies which came from the Guardian. But but the original list wasn't necessarily a list of roles he is best known for. The list was making a different point although arguably, one would make such a point in connection with well-known roles. But if you want to make the argument that the Guardian paragraph, while making a slightly different point is effectively a statement about his best-known roles it ought to be referenced as a source. If you don't accept that the characterization of that paragraph constitutes a list of his best-known roles then we have a claim which is not supported. I think, that if editors accept the first point that the Guardian paragraph is essentially a list of his best-known roles then it can be cured with a reference as the list itself does not qualify for copyright protection. If that point is not accepted, then someone needs to find a reference supporting a claim about is best-known roles and while plausible it would be highly coincidental that such a source would identify the exact same list.
In other words I think there is an editorial problem that needs resolving but the plagiarism/copyright issue is tangential, not central.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
As it was originally used, the material was a pretty clear (and old) direct copyright violation, and, since it did not credit The Guardian, plagiarism by definition. (Copying without credit = plagiarism) The list is still used, and no source other than the Guardian is remotely citable for that list. And it is more than slightly likely that any list of his "most notable roles" is going to vary appreciably from this list, the only cure now has to be citing the Guardian as the source for sure, which is not a simple "editorial problem", alas. Collect (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Except... the source doesn't support "best known for", but just offers notable (to the Guardian) examples of him playing a particular archetype, the "victim-hero". So citing that source for Best Known would be misleading. That section is kind of asking for a [by whom?] tag... CrowCaw 19:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfC

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Moonriddengirl...

I came across this article in AfD [41] and went to take a look [42]. It seemed to me almost right away that the article is a copy and paste job from content on the web. So I checked the first couple of sentences, and it seems these may have been copied from here [43]. In fact, the whole of the first five or six sections seemed to have been copied from this article. On the other hand, this could be a mirror site, but I have no way of determining this - I am hoping you or someone else can. Also, if you notice the writing is professional so I am willing to bet the content in the Wikipedia article has been copy and pasted from somewhere. For an ironic twist, this is actually a notable subject and has been covered in peer reviewed journals as can be seen by the first two references. I am guessing the other references will also indicate this is a notable topic. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Steve. The america.pink website is a Wikipedia mirror, and a very annoying one at that. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) FYI Steve, check out this Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, or this single list Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/All. There are a lot of them, and america.pink is on the list.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

Have you been MIA for a month now? What about our kittens? Hope you're well!

Drmies (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. :) Sadly, I have! Or I had! I'm well, I'm just a bit overwhelmed, still doing two jobs. I keep thinking as soon as we get past X event (where X may include "annual plan", "quarterly goals", "Wikimania") it'll all settle down. Sooner or later that will be true. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio or close paraphrase

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A lot of this text seems to be *almost* copy/pasted from the source [44]. Is it paraphrased enough or is it a copyvio? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Volunteer Marek. :) I haven't had time to do a deep dive, but on a superficial glance I fear it's too close:
Source text Article text
Santana, McCray, and Richardson made video statements in the presence of a parent or guardian, and Wise made several statements, on his own, as the law permits. Salaam told the police he was sixteen, and he produced identification to that effect, allowing police to interrogate him without a parent. After his mother arrived, the questioning ended, but his oral admissions were admitted into testimony. In addition to the confessions, one of the other boys, while in the back of a patrol car, cried that he “didn’t do the murder,” but that he knew who did: Antron McCray. The boy beside him, Kevin Richardson, agreed: “Antron did it.” The jogger hadn’t yet been found. Later on, after Raymond Santana had been interrogated about the rape, he was being driven to another precinct. Without prompting, he blurted out, “I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel her tits.” With a parent or guardian of theirs present, Santana, McCray, and Richardson all made video statements.[43] Wise made a number of statements, on his own, in accordance with the law.[43] Salaam told the police he was 16 years old and showed them identification to prove it, which permitted the police to question him without a parent.[43] After Salaam's mother arrived the police stopped the questioning, but Salaam's admissions were admitted into testimony.[43] In addition, before the raped jogger was even found, one of the other boys the police had rounded up, sitting in the back of a police car, blurted that he "didn't do the murder," but that he knew who did ... Antron McCray, and Kevin Richardson who was sitting beside him agreed, saying "Antron did it".[43] Later, after Raymond Santana was interrogated about the rape and while he was being driven to another precinct, he on his own exclaimed: "I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel her tits.
To me, it looks like an effort may have been made, but modifications are superficial, at least in this passage. The structure is lockstep. While I don't have time to dig deeper, I'm afraid, I would recommend at least flagging it for close paraphrasing, perhaps raising it at WT:CP or WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Sikh Light Infantry - assembled copyvio

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Sikh Light Infantry has had copyright issues since its creation in 2006. I've highlighted a few in the last half hour or so but I know there are more in there. It needs a complete rewrite, I think. I took a look at WP:Copyright problems but can't decide how to blank/subst because the violations are assembled from more than one source. Can you or one of your watchers please advise. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Sitush: You can list multiple sources in {{copyvio}}'s |url=. Place {{subst:copyvio|url=source_1 source_2 ... source_k}} before the first copyvio and {{Copyviocore bottom}} after the last (or omit to blank the entire article).
Thanks. I didn't realise that. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing and Copyvio issues

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, I'd appreciate some help. While you were away, I posted here but the request has been archived. One of the two DYK nominations I mentioned is still being discussed, so I would still be interested in your thoughts - if nothing else, as a check on whether what I see is a problem is a problem. Also, I was just looking at the Australian College of Educators article and the entire history section appears to me to be lifted from the College's website, as well as the biographies in the governance section. Do I just remove these sections as copyvios or is there more I need to do? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Hello Ed, (talk page stalker) here. I asusme you're talking about this. It looks like the authors there have reworded the content so as not to match the copyvio tool, but the structure and sequence is still very close. Putting the article and source side-by-side, even without the copyvio tool, it is easy to see what sources were used for what paragraphs. The author correctly asserts that some things just can't be worded differently, but in this case the article covers very specific events in the man's life, while omitting any of the potentially hundreds of other meaningful events they could have mentioned. As the article covers the same, and omits the same, there are still some paraphrasing issues in my opinion. To use a phrase I got from MRG: Facts cannot be copyrighted, but creative aspects of presentation, including word choice and order, can be. CrowCaw 21:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Crow: I have edited the ACE article, would you please have a look and see if anything else needs to be done? I have little experience with copyvio yanking. EdChem (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Tangential ANI notification

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Links to http://fadedpage.com. Thank you. Deor (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Real Life Barnstar
Thanks! :) Jim Carter 19:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding copyvio issue on Walter Hoving

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Moonriddengirl,

I just noticed an user has raised a copyvio concern on Walter Hoving article. I plan to rewrite it. I have removed all the copyvio infringement from the article. Please check my revision here. Once the tag is removed I can work on it comfortably. Please review it, I hope to hear from you soon. Regards. Hitro talk 10:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed this rewrite. MER-C 08:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Maggie, I'd appreciate it if you'd give a second opinion on Benjamin Murmelstein at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 July 12. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Woah! Long thread. Okay! Looking. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Wow. That took me three hours. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Favor

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Howdy, Moonriddengirl, hope all is well. I have a favor to ask of you: I got bored and decided to go through my old deleted/logged action pages here and at Marina Tchebourkina it appears that MFJE, an account which had a copyright concept problem, apparently made major edits to the article beginning November 2015 ([45]). I have no proof that this has occurred, but given that the article's size is now closer to the 12,000 it had been before you rewrote it and trimmed it down to about 7,000 I am worried that this may once more been in copyvio trouble. When you get a moment can you eyeball it and make sure its still ok? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, TomStar81. :) I pulled out some puffery, but I don't see any copyvio issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Deltoid muscle

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, Moonriddengirl. I happened to notice that Deltoid muscle contains some of the same text that is here and here, but I'm not sure who copied whom. The Wikipedia text was added with this edit in 2005. User:Des Esseintes hasn't edited since 2007, and doesn't have a talk page.

The exrx.net pages say (C) 1999, but the date might refer to the images, not the text. I saw some mentions of exrx.net as possible spam (e.g. here), but nothing about being a mirror, or possible copyright involvement. I'm not sure if I should place copyvio on the page, or if I'm being overly sensitive. Thoughts? Cnilep (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The 1999 copyright must refer to their site, since the WP content it mirrors is from 2005, as you noted. They copied WP. Doc talk 09:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Talking of dates prompted me to check the Internet Archive. The text is there in 2004, so the Wikipedia edits seem to be taken from that site. I'm adding copyvio to a small section. Cnilep (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Wow, good find, Cnilep. At first blush, I would have expected backwards copy, too! I went ahead and just put the old text back. I think I got it all. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Q

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hey MRG, do you consider linking to this, a translation, a link to a copyvio? Does copyright disappear after translation? Tarkan (singer) abounds with links to that site. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Alas, Drmies, it is. The copyright owner alone owns the right to license translations. Translations are derivative works and must be authorized to avoid WP:LINKVIO.:/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Translations

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Dear Maggie. I am at present helping edit the article 2016 Nice attack, an article on the recent tragedy in France. At this stage many of the sources are in French I prepared my own English translation of a portion of a recent interview, so that non-French speaking people could understand on the talk page what was written. The editor User:Biwom removed my translation three times as a copyvio. But how can a translation be a copyvio. If I take an individual sentence in French, I choose my own words and my own order while conveying the sense. Biwom has very few edits, so seems inexperienced. Could you please comment on whether WP:COPYVIO applies. I have never heard it in this way and Biworm is an experienced editor.

Here is the original.[46]

Here is the translation that he reverted:

>>> COPYVIO REMOVED by Biwom (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC) <<< >>>>Copyvio was this? <<<< Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


As an example "police municipal en civile" is translated as "plain clothes municipal police officers"; "camion foux" is translated as "a lorry that had gone out of control"; "heureusement!" is translated as "Thank goodness!" and so on; I chose the word "stunned" where a literal translation might have been "staggered". These are paraphrases not machine translations. I think Biwom is a rather experienced editor who is misinterpreting copyvio and also talk page guidelines. I know that you're the expert on copyvio, so trust you. I've never heard anything like this before. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mathsci. I'm afraid that translations of copyrighted content can only be licensed by the copyright owner (or authorized representative). :/ Translations are derivative works - see also Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative_works. It's a form of adaptation. This government flyer explains that "The unauthorized adaption of a work may constitute copyright infringement." We can use translations of source material on Wikipedia only to the same extent we could use the same content in English - so, you can translate a small part of a source that is under copyright under the same circumstances in which you could use the original under WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the rapid reply. This content was used for a talk page discussion and to provide context. Other editors have cited the interview without being able to read it. The only part that was relevant to the discussion was the second paragraph, the reply to the first question from "I will remember" to "22:34". It's one question from the interview. From reading Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text, it would appear that a translation of a short section for discussion purposes and to provide context is fine. So that passage would be fine on the talk page.
Is that correct?
While you're here, I have a related question concerning this article. If you can help, it would be very helpful. In this particular article, after the initial disaster, subsequent charges and arrests, international reporting on this topic has dwindled to very little. That's also due to the other disasters that we've had recently. There is still a lot of activity in the French media, however, as the investigation is ongoing and there have been political repercussions. In these circumstances the main sources are in French and often international reporting—usually foreign translations from the French original—is unreliable, sporadic and arbitrary. I have been instructed that we cannot use French sources for the article. Is that correct? As I have said almost every piece of news is in French; it might eventuallybe mirrored in an English-speaking newspaper, but that is random and often there can be journalistic errors.
In those circumstances, is it fine to use the French sources, while scrupulously seeking English language sources if they exist?
I would again appreciate your advice. Again thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Moonriddengirl:

I was about to content-merge this draft - Draft:Caroline Vermalle with the mainspace article Caroline Vermalle, when I realized that part of the article is a direct translation of her bio [47] [48] Is this close enough that I should delete the mainspace article? Or should I just do the merge, taking care to replace any questionable material with my own words?—Anne Delong (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Anne. :) That could go either way. On the one hand, it is a very short article, and nearly half of it seems to be original. On the other hand, it is a very short source - so substantial taking is sadly easy to run afoul of. I'd recommend deleting and replacing the mainspace article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - I've done that now.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, Maggie. Apologies for a Commons question on the English Wikipedia, but I didn't feel up to dealing with multiple people at a time over there. I have an email in my inbox from the Naval History and Heritage Command saying that all images on their site are public domain, whether they were taken by the US Navy or not (the others were donated, so the NHHC would hold any copyright; see [49] for an example). Before I realized the issue (and sent/received email), I'd uploaded a few photos with Commons:Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy, which while close is not technically accurate here—these photos were not necessarily taken by navy sailors, nor were they necessarily "taken or made as part of that person's official duties" (again, donated material). What's the right copyright tag for this? Or should I make a new one based on the current navy one? Should I get OTRS involved? Thanks for your advice, as always. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ed. :) I would definitely get OTRS involved. We need to document that from an authorized representative in case of future challenges. Once OTRS "ratifies" the release (so to speak), you might create a new tag which references the OTRS number for easier application and verification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, MRG. :-) You've been pinged over at WT:MILHIST—would love your input over there if you have the time. I'm reasonably confident in stating there that the NHHC has the authority to release these images, but I may be missing a nuance or two. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Basij

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Basij is a potential violation of copy right and I've nominated the article here 35 days ago. I don't know if this procedure usually takes time and the articles normally wait more than a month before being addressed, or not. That's why I decided to let you know about this. Thanks. --Mhhossein (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Carrie Morgridge

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You voted weak keep earlier on this article, which was kept, but now is back on the chopping block, although I've tried to revamp it as per WP:Heymann. My sense is most of the current delete votes are based on a badly-written previous version but I really think Morgridge belongs in Wikipedia because of numerous references and having such a positive impact in terms of her philanthropy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you remember me

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do you remember me, I am vyas1975. After so many years I just now roamed here to find my account still being blocked. Over the years my English has improved a lot. I understand now there will not be any violation of any copyrights. As I want to contribute in a meaningful way, please unblock me. And do not ask to go through the tedious unblocking procedure. I still remember my earlier attempts were futile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.189.24 (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Your previous attempts to be unblocked were futile because you didn't ever do it properly. Your request needs to be from your original account, User:Ramesh vyas, not from your sock account. And you should in your request explain how we can know that you will not go back to your old habit of pasting content into Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

2 questions

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, there are 2 questions here. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Tito Dutta. At this stage, I suspect you'd do much better to find a coach who is more active, not only because they can talk to you in reasonable speed but because they will be more current on some of the areas where you choose to work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Just stopping by

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Just stopping by
To say it's nice to see you here! :-D We hope (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of University of the Philippines ROTC for deletion

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KDS4444 (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Burrows Malvern Water.jpg

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Maggie. I need your help. This file is a photo I took of a poster that was made around 150 years ago. It is used to illustrate an article I wrote some years ago. I am absolutely not a specialist on this kind of copyright, perhaps you can give me a clue. If the tagger is right, then sadly I have no option but to allow it to be deleted. Best, Chris. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you’re sure the poster was published before 1923, it’s in the public domain in the US, so a {{PD-US}} in the Permission field should cover it. Probably best to edit the Source field as well: you obviously meant the photography (& any touch-up you did) was your own work, but “entirely” could be read as including the original as well. If you can narrow the date down any, mentioning it there would also help. (From the royal warrant it must be later than 1901, because before then it would have said “Queen” rather than “King”.) If you wanted to put it on Commons it would need a UK tag as well; I believe the copyright on an anonymous work expires 70 years after publication there. (If there’s a signature or something else to identify the artist, 70 years after his or her death.) The CC licence on the photo doesn’t mean much in the US, but would apply in countries that recognize copyright on reproductions of artwork.—Odysseus1479 19:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

 

Hello, Moonriddengirl. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Copy vio check

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello M. You helped with the situation on this article few years ago. An editor added the full list at this article. I have reverted it but I can't remember whether a rev/del of the edit has to be applied or not. If so I know you will do the honors. Thanks for your time and have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 05:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @MarnetteD: If it is removed as a copyright violation (as this was) it is desirable to rev-del. I have done so.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Sphilbrick. I took a look at the edit history Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) after you performed your action and realized that the copy vio was there from the moment the article was created. Oof I have no idea how difficult that makes things but I figured I better let both of you know about this. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. It doesn't make things difficult for me, but it is the case that if someone has some need for working at the history they'll have to get help from an admin. We are interested in keeping out copyright violations is much as possible so I've rev-deled the whole history.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank yet again Sphilbrick. Do you think some mention of what had to be done should be placed on the talk page for the article? I guess I am just trying to anticipate the future although that is always iffy - otherwise I would have picked the right six lottery numbers by now :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
You know, that sounds a good idea. We've been catching a lot of copyrights fairly quickly lately so the rev-dels are usually only version or two, but someone may be puzzled to see virtually the entire article not accessible. Dropping a note on the talk page explaining that was done for copyright reasons and should anyone need access to intern versions for any reason any admin can help them but in particular I'd be happy to help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic capabilities

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Moonriddengirl:

I came across the above article while working on a draft, Draft:Amy Shuen. I couldn't find much about her aside from her work with several others about dynamic capabilities, so I decided to redirect the draft to that article after adding a little information about her to the article. However, there seems to be quite a bit of material added to the article at various times which appears elsewhere, such as [50] and [51]. It's an article that's been around for a while, so maybe it can be saved with some pruning (although it's pretty essay-like and has likely been edited by the concept's creators). At any rate, it's beyond my ability to sort out which duplicated text was copied from Wikipedia and which to Wikipedia.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Anne Delong. :) These cases can be challenging. I found at least one clearly preceding source: 2002's Strategy: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management. Here's one example (there may be more):
2002 Source As published in article in 2007 As in article now
Learning is the process by which repetition and experimentation enable tasks to be performed better and quicker. It also enables new production opportunities to be identified. In the context of the firm, if not more generally, learning has several key characteristics.... Learning requires common codes of communication and coordinated search procedures. Second, the organizational knowledge generated by such activity resides in new patterns of activity, in “routines”, or a new logic of organization. As indicated earlier, routines are patterns of interactions that represent successful solutions to particular problems. These patterns of interaction are resident in group behavior and certain sub-routines may be resident in individual behavior. Learning is the process by which repetition and experimentation enable tasks to be performed better and quicker. It also enables new production opportunities to be identified. In the context of the firm, learning has several key characteristics. It requires common codes of communication and coordinated search procedures. The organisational knowledge generated resides in new patterns of activity, in “routines”, or a new logic of organisation. Routines are patterns of interactions that represent successful solutions to particular problems. These patterns of interaction are resident in group behaviour and certain sub-routines may be resident in individual behaviour. Learning requires common codes of communication and coordinated search procedures. The organizational knowledge generated resides in new patterns of activity, in “routines”, or a new logic of organization. Routines are patterns of interactions that represent successful solutions to particular problems. These patterns of interaction are resident in group behavior and certain sub-routines may be resident in individual behavior.
It is possible to find other passages cherry-picked from preceding sources, both in the original edit and currently in the article:
  • "Increasingly competitive advantage also requires the integration of external activities and technologies: for example in the form of alliances and the virtual corporation" comes from this 2000 book (or similar), although it's evolved since the article was written. (And lost an important comma.)
  • "Change is costly and so firms must develop processes to find low pay-off changes. The capability to change depends on the ability to scan the environment, to evaluate markets and to quickly accomplish reconfiguration and transformation ahead of the competition." comes from this 2001 book, although it, too, has evolved a bit since it was first put into the article.
I think this article needs to be rewritten to salvage it from these identified and from likely other copy-pastes. It looks as though the individual who created it was comfortable copying verbatim from other sources into Wikipedia.
Do you, by any chance, feel up to a rewrite? If not, one of us should apply the {{copyvio}} template and put it at WP:CP, probably with a link to this discussion. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I will make an effort at a rewrite over the next few days. I presume that the older edits will then need to be hidden to remove the copyright problems. We'll see how far my 30-year-old Economics 101 course will serve me! —Anne Delong (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, I have done what I can with it. I hope I didn't mangle it too badly. It still seems somewhat essay-like, but without reading all the books involved I can't fix that.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Moon. I've written the page Wikipedia:Scanning an image does not make it your "own work", to hopefully fill a copyright gap, and so there's a page to point people to when this crops up (as it does daily). Just wondering if you think I might have missed anything. I tried to keep it short and to not overload people with too much copyright complications. As always, my very best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello I noticed you added a copyright problem note to Talk:Calgary Stampeders#Copyright problem. From looking at the diffs it looks like this was resolved a while ago (looks like all or most of the changes flagged were reverted). Is it fine to remove the note from the talk page so it is clear this has been dealt with? (Newbie, so sorry if I am using your talk page incorrectly, etc). NathanBullock (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @NathanBullock: Removal is unnecessary and against talk page guidelines. You can just note that it is resolved. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Naomi Bakr

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

the Naomi Bakr article started as a copy of the Sarah Hagen article Joeykai (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Anthony Fleming

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello again, Moonriddengirl. Sorry to pester you again, but I can't figure out how much of this article is a copyright problem. Some of the text appears on this website with a 2001 copyright notice (copyvios report), but on the other hand, some of it appears in this book , also copyright, which was published after it had already appeared in the Wikipedia article.

More appears to be from here, with a 2005 date.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Email

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just to let you know I have sent a PM to your Moonridden-email AnOpenMedium (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header redo

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header redo, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header redo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header redo 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. Steel1943 (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright/trademark question, above my pay grade

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#What is our approach to trademarks in this difficult case? in case you have any interest. You know more about this stuff than I do. Herostratus (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello, Moonriddengirl. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Buon Natale!

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 


As always, Maggie, Happy Holidays

and a New Year filled with peace, joy, and... fun!



Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Merry Cristmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Tito Dutta (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Tito Dutta (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Lightshow

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment at commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Light_show_and_copyvios. Thanks. Reventtalk 10:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)  

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, exist a problem in several articles and verbets of Wikipedia and Wiktionary in Portuguese, English and Spanish!

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Was be saying that comic strip, charge and cartoon are sinonymous, when, in really, are different things!

Below, the explanations of that are the comic strips, charges and cartoons:

  • Comic strip: comics of short duration with the charts disposed and organized in form of a strip, how the proper name already implies. The comic strips may or may not be humoristics and contains strong critics for the social values. They also can be daily, published in smaller quantities, and, generally, in black and white (although that some are colored) or Sunday, published in big quantities, ever colored and occupying a space equipollent to, in at least, a whole page. The term comes from the British English, comic strip and means comic strip.
  • Charge: humoristic comics of short duration and that contains strong critics of the people and things of the contemporaneity. The term comes from the Franco Belgian French, charger and means charge or exagere.
  • Cartoon: humoristic comics of short duration and that contains strong critics of the daily to daily situations. Because of the similarities between the first animation short films and the cartoons printed and published in newspapers, magazines and books from the epoch, the animated drawing also is called of cartoon (or, unabbreviated, animated cartoon), be or not humoristic. The term comes from the American English, cartoon and that of the Italian, cartone and means piece of big card, stub or study.

Here they here the articles for be revised in the respective idioms: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tira_de_banda_desenhada, http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/charge, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_strip, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_cartoon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tira_de_prensa, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exageraci%C3%B3n_burlesca, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/tira_cômica, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartum, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comic_strip, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartoon, https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/tira_cómica, https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge and https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartón!

Including and principally, the certain is that the Wikipedia articles (described soon above!) should receive the following names in each idiom: Tira de banda desenhada, Charge and Cartum (desenho humorístico) - in Portuguese, Comic strip, Charge (humoristic drawing) and Cartoon - in English and Tira de historieta, Charge (dibujo humorístico) and Cartón (dibujo humorístico) - in Spanish!

Remembering and highlighting that the caricature has nothing to do with the other three because isn't a form of comic: is, simply, a humoristic exaggerated drawing of something or someone, be real or not, does not even have texts!

And well, as you can see, the cartoon isn't a type of comic strip, neither the charge is a type of cartoon, if possible, please, warn to your fellow editors to make the changes, very thanks since now for all attention and interest and a hug! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saviochristi (talk • contribs) 00:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Why the page The Grim Adventures of the Kids Next Door was be eliminated?

This page already in the Portuguese and Spanish versions of Wikipedia and I don't believe that they viole the rules and terms of the site!

Saviochristi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, I wonder if I could ask for your input on a thread relating to the use of links to copyright infringements (to YouTube) in Talk:John Hurt#WP:LINKVIO. An editor is claiming that use of such links is acceptable under Fair Use, but I am not convinced they are correct on this. Many thanks for any light you can shine on this matter. All the best, – The Bounder (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

  Administrator changes

  NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
  Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

  Arbitration

  Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Jayantha Chandrasiri page recreation

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Moonriddengirl, I shall be creating the Jayantha Chandrasiri page again. This is important because he is a well known director in the Cinema and Television in Sri Lanka. Please refer: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2157182/ https://www.google.lk/search?q=Jayantha+Chandrasiri&oq=Jayantha+Chandrasiri&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59j69i60.1017j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svm1 63 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Conversation at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sad to see that you have not been editing recently. I do hope you will be back soon.

I came here today to send you a heads up to a conversation that may be of interest to you.

-- PBS (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

UNESCO definitions of endangered languages

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Talk:UNESCO definitions of endangered languages#What is going on and followup there, if you can. - dcljr (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Precious
 
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Precious
 
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Too much copypaste?

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I am afraid Vfverikaitis (talk · contribs) articles may have too much copypaste. Half of the sentences from his recent articles seem to be pretty much directly copied form other sources, based on small sample. I am not sure where to report it, but I know here either you or someone else will pick it up... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Piotrus: I've removed large amounts of copyvio and marked them for WP:RD1. I've also left him/her a copyvio warning. Since MRG hasn't been active in a while, hopefully Diannaa or Sphilbrick check that I didn't miss anything. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@JJMC89: I verified that each of the four removals you made were copied, in whole or substantially from sources which did not have free licenses. I rev-deled the relevant versions. Thanks for taking care of this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up after me, I do a lot of revdels, but not in response to requests, so forgot to remove the template.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
No problem. There are four more pages that I tagged. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for all your hard work! Bearian (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, have a problem in several articles and verbets of Wikipedia and Wiktionary in Portuguese, English and Spanish!

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Was be saying that comic strip, charge and cartoon are synonymous, when, in really, are different things!

The Comic Strips, Charges and Cartoons: The Origins, Meanings and Differences!, Enlarged Explanations.

Comic strip (tira cômica in Portuguese and tira de prensa or tira cómica in Spanish): short duration comics, with the frames (which usually range from one to five, three being the most common) disposed and organized in the form of a strip, such as own name already implies and being or not humorous. The comic strip criticizes the values of society. There are three types of comic strips: daily strips (tiras diárias in Portuguese and tiras diarias in Spanish), usually printed in small quantities because of the pace of publication, in black and white (though some in color) and containing between one and five frames (three being the most common), Sunday boards (pranchas dominicais in Portuguese and planchas dominicales in Spanish), usually printed in large quantities, in color (although some in black and white) and with a larger number of tables occupying a entire page and the yonkomas (yonkomas same in Portuguese and Spanish), of Japanese origin, with four vertical frames (although some in the horizontal) and who always deal with serious matters, but in a humorous form. Etymology: from the American English, comic strip, comic ribbon.

Charge (charge even in Portuguese and Spanish): short duration comics, usually occupying a single frame, containing a satire or message instead of a story and being humorous (although some with more than one frame, with stories and not being humorous). The cartoon criticizes people and things of the contemporaneity and comes as politic manifest in France against the royalty. Etymology: from the Franco-Belgian French, charger, burden, exaggeration or violent attack. Do not confuse with Chargé (commune of France).

Cartoon (cartón in Spanish and cartum in Portuguese): short duration comics, usually occupying a single frame, containing a satire or message instead of a story and being humorous (though some with more than one frame, with stories and not being humorous). The cartoon criticizes the situations of the day to day and comes after that was be promoted a drawing concourse in England organized for the royalty where the first cartoons was be produced in large pieces of cardboard. Due to the similarities between the first animated short films and the cartoons printed and published at the time, the animated drawing name in English also refers to cartoon, in full, animated cartoon. The same thing happens in Italian and German, where the cartoon is called, respectively, cartone animato and animierte Cartoon. Etymology: from the British English, cartoon and these of the Italian, cartone, cartone, large piece of cardboard, stub, study, draft or anteproject. Do not confuse with Khartoum (capital of Sudan).

(Collaboration: users Liebre Asesino and Jim from Yahoo! Answers in Spanish.)

Here they here the articles and verbets for be revised in the respective idioms: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tira_de_banda_desenhada, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/charge, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_strip, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_cartoon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tira_de_prensa, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exageraci%C3%B3n_burlesca, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/tira_cômica, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge, https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartum, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comic_strip, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartoon, https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/tira_cómica, https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/charge and https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartón!

Including and principally, the certain is that the Wikipedia articles (described soon above!) should receive the following names in each idiom: Tira de banda desenhada, Charge and Cartum (desenho humorístico) - in Portuguese, Comic strip, Charge (humoristic drawing) and Cartoon - in English and Tira de historieta, Charge (dibujo humorístico) and Cartón (dibujo humorístico) - in Spanish!

Remembering and highlighting that the caricature has nothing to do with the other three because isn't a form of comic: is, simply, a humoristic exaggerated drawing of something or someone, be real or not, does not even have texts!

In fact, all my editions in this sense are already being reversed, I do not know why, since I understand a lot of comics, so I am a comic drawer, writer and scripter, so that I am no amateur and layman in the Whole subject, see it!

And well, as you can see, the cartoon isn't a type of comic strip, neither the charge is a type of cartoon, if possible, please, warn to your fellow editors to make the changes, very thanks since now for all attention and interest and a hug!

Saviochristi (talk) Saviochristi (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Family Park Tycoon

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have proposed the article Family Park Tycoon for deletion, as I can't find anything to suggest that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. 212.126.151.206 (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This article isn't eligible for WP:PROD, as this was already done once in 2009. Take it to AfD (but with several reviews, this will probably pass notability guidelines, too). MLauba (Talk) 13:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Garner, North Carolina

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hey, MRG - long time, no type. Hope you're doing well. In reading Garner, North Carolina, today, it looked a little off, and upon further review, it seems too closely related to this. Related items include this (1989) and this (1985). Can you give a quick opinion? I'll handle the legwork if you can make a determination. Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  01:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Frank, MRG hasn't been around in her volunteer hat for quite some time now, so I took a look at this (I seem to have missed your "legwork" offer when I read this earlier). Please let me know if you're not happy with what I did – which was to remove the whole history section and restore the brief text that had been there before – or if you think I've missed anything. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the proper end result was achieved; thanks!  Frank  |  talk  14:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, not quite, actually, Frank, as the revdel-request was declined. I'm trying to convince the admin that it is our routine standard practice, but no luck so far. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. My main concern was the likely copyvio, which has been taken care of. While I take that seriously, I am not the expert on the subject, which is of course why I came here. I can see the point about 11 years' worth of revisions (yikes!). I'm content to leave it to other admins with more experience in this area.  Frank  |  talk  16:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)$
(talk page stalker)   Done Dealth with. My esteemed colleague's reasoning would have been correct if for the sake of attribution we needed to keep track of what exactly someone contributed. Instead, to satisfy both CC-BY-SA and the GFDL, we only need to track to what someone contributed. Which is a blessing, otherwise any copyvio would require a nuke + rewrite from scratch. MLauba (Talk) 17:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, MLauba. I do see his/her point, both because our documentation at Wikipedia:Revision deletion is a lot less clear than might be wished, and because … well, as Frank says, yikes! – it can look like a completely disproportionate reaction, especially if the violation is not quite so large and egregious as this one was. Any interest in improving the wording of the policy, anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm probably partially to blame for the existing language, so my convoluted turns of phrase may not be the remedy you are looking for :) MLauba (Talk) 18:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Michael Kors COI editor is back

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know that you haven't been around since October, but the ISP you previously challenged on their edits to Michael Kors (per this talk page revision) recently came back to Michael Kors and made a lot of revisions, removing content, cited information, etc, etc. I have undone all their edits, but thought I should post something here as a heads-up and hopefully a talk-page stalker will know how best to handle - especially as it seems that this IP is connected to blocked account User talk:Michaelkorscorp. Sockpuppet investigation? (Not really socking is it?) Mabalu (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Grenfell-Tower-fire-and-plume.jpg

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Grenfell-Tower-fire-and-plume.jpg has been nominated for deletion. I happen to agree with the argument against deletion because the aerial view does give better information that the claimed alternative. I don't do a lot of image work, so do I just place the template on the talk page and remove the templates from the file page? Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

PERSONALLY DISCREDITED ON OUR WIKI PAGES

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Moonriddengirl,

My spouse Dee Mosbacher, MD, PhD, and I, Nanette Gartrell, MD, have been trying to remove all Internet contact information pertaining to us because we have taken public stands regarding the mental instability of the president since shortly after the election. (It is possible to Google HuffPo and either of our names for our latest letter to Congress). When we checked our Wiki pages for residential or phone information, we found them tagged with COI and related claims that our pages are self-promotional. We carefully read our pages and all information included appears to be accurate, as do the citations. Why are they considered self-promotional when they are accurate? We contacted the WikiProject Women in Red, and were directed to you. As it now stands, our pages discredit us as professionals who are taking REAL RISKS (many of us have received serious threats) to speak up in defense of the FIRST AMENDMENT, democracy, free speech, freedom from discrimination, equality for all people, peace, etc. Could you please help us? Thank you for your consideration. Nanette Gartrell and Dee Mosbacher2601:646:4000:FC0D:15C4:8D6C:C5B2:3202 (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I see nothing immediate in these articles that justifies the tags or the accusations on the editors made by Rayman60, and bearing in mind WP:BRD, and WP:3R, nothing that authorises him to insist on a discussion about their removal. I'll stand corrected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Agreeing with the above, I would just like to point out that in general the existence of COI problems with an article is not necessarily to the subject’s discredit: entertainers aren’t responsible for the behaviour of their fan clubs, nor likewise activists for other supporters of their cause or academics for their university’s PR department, any of whom might have an independent interest in promoting the subject. Conversely, articles are sometimes edited by people with an interest in disparaging the subject as a commercial or ideological rival.—Odysseus1479 19:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Danica Evans

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The additions that @D.e.7.2: made to the Danica Evans article on August 1 were copied and pasted from Danica Evans's college bio as they are exactly the same. Joeykai (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Joeykai: I've removed the offending prose and warned the editor. ww2censor (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Call for help

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Moonriddengirl! I ask for your help! I am a participant of the Azerbaijan Wikipedia and I have been working in this Wikipedia for 5 years, creating a huge number of articles and most of them have the status of selected or good articles. But I am discriminated against. They insult me. They mock me in the most inhumane ways. And all because I'm a Christian, they discriminate against my religion and the worst thing is that they constantly campaign against my activities in the Azerbaijan Wikipedia. Because, I create articles on the rights of LGBT people. I want help from you, please give me a link where I can apply for this problem. I hope very much for your help. Farid (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Keete 37: MRG hasn't been active. You may want to use the contact information here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of AKD Group for deletion

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Greenbörg (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of AKD Group for deletion

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- HighKing++ 09:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

New email

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Just to say I sent you an email with a question AnOpenMedium (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! Just wrote back AnOpenMedium (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
With regret my actions with regard to uploading seem now to have triggered a complaint of some kind, in language I do not understand...here. Perhaps there is something you can do to help clear this up? It is a little embarrassing to be accused of fakery. Thanks. AnOpenMedium (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Welcome back! :D — xaosflux Talk 01:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I hope to keep it up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving darft to main article.

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl asking for help to move User:Icem4k/Draft15 to 2018 FIFA World Cup Final i have sent a request on the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests but someone keeps removing it without let me no the reason. The article is a start to the documentation of the final match that will be held in 2018 at the world cup in Russia. Please Help! Chabota Kanguya (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Chabota Kanguya. They gave a reason, but not directly to you. You can see it in the edit summary: [52]. I don't know the protocols of when it is appropriate to add such information, as I have never worked in that area, so I don't know what is "too soon." You may want to check with the user who decline or reach out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football for more information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that will do as advised. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to delete a draft

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi am requesting that you delete this draft for me please User:Icem4k/Football Manager 2017 Chabota Kanguya (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  Done --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Maggie. Thanks for your response to my ping at User talk:PiGuy3. You were very helpful. Also, let me take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the tireless work you have put in over many years dealing with copyright problems. I don't remember when I first encountered your work, but it was a very long time ago, and I have always been impressed by your thoroughness and by your willingness to help whenever copyright problems come your way.

On a totally different matter, I have just been looking at your user page, and it took me quite a while to spot what was funny about this edit and this one. That was partly because I didn't know it was the edit summaries that I had to look at, but also because what you wrote just seemed natural.

Finally, I see that you say "I write fiction in my spare time". It's of no importance or significance, but I just thought I'd mention that I do too, so we have something in common besides being Wikipedia administrators. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I thank you for your kind words, JamesBWatson, although I humbly feel I hardly deserve them. I was surprised to realize that I had been away for an entire year! I'm intending to remedy that; I've missed contributing and am rusty. My writing skills are even more rusty! I need to get back into the swing of both. Unfortunately the kinds of slips of tongue I describe seem all too natural to me. :D I don't doubt that I've missed many. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Francis Nkwain

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm mainly curious as to the status of the investigation around their article as I noticed it was first opened three years ago. Rusted AutoParts 18:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rusted AutoParts. Thank you for pointing that out! That one fell through the cracks and was not processed. I've now done so, deleting the unusable version of the article and adding a basic stub that can be expanded upon. Almost all of the links used in the original article were dead. I wish I had more time to make this stub better, but I am now officially 1 minute late for work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination on hold until OTRS request has been processed

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Moonriddengirl, you have been very helpful in the past when we have had DYK nominations stalled because an OTRS request had been made but not yet processed; we naturally were not able to approve an article to be linked to from Wikipedia's main page when we weren't sure we had permission to use the material (image or text) to begin with.

In this case, the article Keystone State Wrestling Alliance has quite a bit of material from a source; an OTRS request was submitted two days ago (the template was posted on the article's talk page at 06:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)), and if its check can be expedited we would greatly appreciate it. (The DYK nomination is here in case you want more background.) Thank you for anything you can do to help. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, BlueMoonset. Courtesy of the US holiday, I have some time this morning. :) I searched the OTRS system full text for the title of the article, for just the words "Keystone State", for patch.com, for Gvstaylor1, and for KSWA and I didn't find anything. So then I did a visual scan of all unanswered tickets in the permissions queue for the month of October, and I found nothing. This doesn't mean that permission doesn't exist - but in order to verify it, I need to know more details about the permission email. The subject line or the sender could work. Given the backlog in the permission queue, I do not believe somebody else would have responded and thereby removed it from my visual scan, but if it was sent to the wrong otrs address it wouldn't have wound up in that stack.
User:Gvstaylor1, can you tell me any more about the email you sent verifying that you have received authorization from patch.com to release a modified version of their text under a compatible free license? This will enable me to find that proof of permission. Looking at the article, it's clear that there are the kinds of close paraphrasing issues that result when you rely too heavily on a single source and follow their structure.
As it is written in the source As it is now on Wikipedia
In 2008, the KSWA would put on 14 events, including the first-ever Joe Abby Memorial Tournament on March 29. Named for the Studio Wrestling mainstay who was even better known as a pillar of the community, the Joe Abby Tournament would become the KSWA’s way of remembering its forefathers. Abby and Frank Durso, another Studio Wrestling workhorse, were very first members inducted into the KSWA Hall of Fame. Blanchard, with Durso in tow, would beat Kris Kash in the finals of the first Joe Abby Tournament. In 2008, the KSWA held 14 events including the first-ever Joe Abby Memorial Tournament on March 29. It was named in honor of "Killer" Joe Abby, a mainstay on Studio Wrestling during the 1960s and 1970s. The Joe Abby Tournament became a way of honoring Pittsburgh's contributions to the pro wrestling industry. Abby and Frank Durso, another Studio Wrestling regular, were the first members inducted into the KSWA Hall of Fame. Blanchard, with Durso in his corner, defeated Kris Kash in the finals of the inaugual Joe Abby Tournament.
This is a common kind of copyright issue and difficult to eradicate if you attempt - as it looks like you've done - to basically change a few words, rearrange some text, and add or omit a few details. The first sentence is identical expect that you have changed the tense of the verb. Your second sentence adds a little more information but is clearly constructed on the model of theirs - you rearranged "Studio Wrestling mainstay" into "mainstay on Studio Wrestling" for instance. What you wind up with when you do revision like this is a modified version of the original, and only the copyright holder of the original has the right to make modifications or authorize others to make them.
If you don't have permission to use this text, the best thing for you to do is pull the material you based on that source and go write it from scratch, using the techniques described at close paraphrasing. It is not possible to avoid making a derivative work if you go sentence by sentence. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I submitted the release to the email provided. My father and myself compiled the article being used as the primary source for the page. However, now that the page has been vandalized with a "under construction" tab it's disheartening. I will attempt to resend the email when i return home tomorrow morning. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Gvstaylor1, please post which email address you are sending the permission to along with the exact subject line you're using, to help Moonriddengirl locate it in the system. Many thanks.
The "under construction" template was added by you back on October 5 with this edit. If it bothers you, I suggest you remove it. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Bluemoonset, someone deleted all of the work with the under construction and removed that with the talk page and dyk stated please give me a few weeks being out of town. Email resent this am updated. The first one got a reject receipt that was sent to clutter. This one should be in.Gvstaylor1 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, BlueMoonset. :) Gvstaylor1, I've found the letter but am sorry to say that we need a little more. The complication is in identifying the letter writer with the original website - this can take an extra step or two when you can't clearly connect it to a domain. Suggestions have been sent via email. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thank you moonriddengirl i have made the appropriate fixes. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Gvstaylor1. I'm sorry to say I made an error in my email - since I last used the email response system, the template for that situation has changed, and I did not notice that the specified the 4.0 license. We cannot yet use the 4.0 license for text, but only for images. Hence, I have to ask you to please modify the 4.0 to say 3.0 on the site. After that's done, it'll be a quick resolution to these concerns. Apologies for the inconvenience. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

All fixedGvstaylor1 (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

All boxes ticked. :) Thank you, Gvstaylor1. BlueMoonset, all text from that source is duly licensed and recorded now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Moonriddengirl. Glad to know that we're all set there. I saw the licensing information you added to the article and talk pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_60&oldid=1143888449"