User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Nohur

Djemshid Khadjiyev (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Djemshid Khadjiyev (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Dear Moonriddengirl, thanks a lot for your help and contribution for Nohur page. I would really appreciate if a change to the page is done with prior notification, since there are several incorrect facts I found on the page e.g. Nohur area in located in Ahal velayat -province)- but not in Ashgabat region, and etc.

appreciate your help and looking forward for your contributions, Djemshid

my skype name is djemshid.khadjiyev

Djemshid Khadjiyev (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Dear Moonriddengirl, thanks a lot for your help and contribution for Nohur page. I would really appreciate if a change to the page is done with prior notification, since there are several incorrect facts I found on the page e.g. Nohur area in located in Ahal velayat -province)- but not in Ashgabat region, and etc.

appreciate your help and looking forward for your contributions, Djemshid

my skype djemshid.khadjiyev

RE; Luciddreaming.com External Link / Topic: Sleep

We just realized our content writer took excerpts from Wikipedia and did not give credit. We're in the process of finding a new content writer and providing well researched, unique content for sleep sections discussed. We're very dissapointed to discover that our services were not rendered properly and that our directions weren't followed. Until then we've added 'Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' to the bottem of content pages where we feel excerpts were taken from context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.232.6 (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

City Treasurer of Philadelphia

Sorry on missing the point about text that may be copyrighted and not simply public domain information which I added to. I am a new contributor and still learning. What would be a concrete example(s) of what could be added to this article that would enhance it without violation. I thought the Office holders would have been okay, but maybe not.(Also hope I figure out how to pick up this talk page if you respond. John Jr. (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Material can be rewritten, as long as it doesn't follow closely enough on the website to create a "derivative work". The list of office holders should be fine to restore the article, although when I narrowed the article to the contribution of the user who tagged the violation, it didn't seem to be essential. Feel free to recreate that, if you'd like, but please don't wikilink individuals who may not meet notability guidelines. It's probably better just to wikilink the ones who have or are likely to have articles, like Richardson Dilworth. I'll make a note of this response at your talk page, but as a registered user, you have access to a "watchlist" that allows you to watch any page you like. :) There's a tap at the top of each page that you may toggle to watch or unwatch. When you check your watchlist (after your username at the top of the page), it will show the last change to that page, if it has been made within a defined time. You can see Help:Watching pages for more on this, as I'm probably not explaining it very well. To me, the technical stuff is just like magic. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A personal matter

Dear moonridden girl:

Sorry to ask you about something that is not entirely related to Wikipedia but i trust you and is something delicate.

I found a girl that i like, we have hobbies in common and get along pretty good, but there`s a problem, SHE`S A TROLL!!!!, she has been vandalizing for a while now, now acording to the wikipediholic test, i should hit her repeatedly with a Baseball bat, but i like her, what should i do? Zidane tribal (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask her as a friend to stop, I'd say. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

BLPN - Londoner1961

Since you responded to the last request and he was discussing the issues with you, I thought you might want to contribute: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Londoner1961--Ronz (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

deletion discussion that might interest you

I see that back on April 2008 you were dealing with a user that had a user page that lookedlike an article, and insisted on moving it from one user to other. I have nominated both her pages for deletion, you might leave on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Super Baby Princess personal page a comment on how you dealt with her. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've shared my experiences. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Be Black Hole Sun

He's being very uncooperative and pushy about his editing, I saw your note on his user page and I figured you should know about it. Zazaban (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You may wish to tell the blocking admin this. He has changed his name and is now to be found at User:Caulde. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Abd

I hope you don't mind, MoonG. I brought the things you'd said about AfD into a discussion. I think it's all very interesting. Um, at User talk:Abd#Minor point. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Very peculiar. I've never been involved in a debate at this remove before. :D But I added some fresh material there. I don't know if I'll continue to follow the conversation, but it is interesting. I suspect it comes down to the level of WP:IAR and WP:BOLD in a particular admin's make-up. I approve of cutting through red tape on occasion, but I'm not often going to be the one cutting through it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

documenting-please be patient with me

I haven't been on Wikipedia for two days, the accusation of plagiarism was killing me and I couldn't sleep. I found the e-mail from Gregg Sablic where we have permission to use his site, from the summer of 2006. Please don't continue to assume bad faith on me, I can't be angry with you, I'd look suspiciously at me too, but it's simply not true. I have asked the Scouting Project admins to help me to get this permission documented once and for all. I know I've been testy, and sometimes ugly. The two-day Wikibreak has helped, but the truth is I am really doing good things and don't want to leave Wikipedia or be forced to. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I've replied at your talk page. Which I'm sure you'll see. But I don't want to run across this two years from now and wonder why I never answered. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, since my Wife passed, I occasionally get edgy as periodically it seems the Scout Project is besieged by editors with an axe to grind, which has happened recently. Sometimes I do more fighting of trolls than putting new good info on here, and I get tired and burnt out. I think a couple days off was good for me. I start a new job Wednesday, hopefully I will de-stress a little. Thanks again. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sullivan Entertainment

User:Csheppard1 has just moved Sullivan Entertainment from their userspace into article space. You userfied it some time ago because it was copyvio. And, yes, the copyvio remains. Thought you'd like to know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It wasn't userfied because it was a copyvio, but because User:EdJohnston had said we'd move it, but I did delete the copyvio at that time. I'll go take a look to see how much infringement there is and what ought to be done. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, no, I won't. It's gone already! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops!

Good catch on my redirect screwup. I should have caught that one. I had the right idea, though!  :) --Winger84 (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright stuff

I arbitrarily picked September 27 and am going through the copyright problems listed for that day. So far I've examined one article. I posted some information at Talk:Mr. Schneider goes to Washington#Notability; format of copyright permission. I may continue like that, posting information on talk pages of some other articles. (Or I may not have time to do any more anyway: we'll see.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Crane Deletion

Our article on Bruce Crane was deleted b/c of possible copyright violation of text from our websiste (www.florencegriswoldmuseum.org). But, we granted copyright permission (twice). Please see Ticket#2008090510039197. This was noted where requested on Crane's talk/discussion page. I've been struggling with this for quite a while now and don't know what else to do. I understand the importance of copyright protection. However, we have addressed the issue and are only trying to educate the public about a talented American artist. Please advise. Thanks. Miss Florence (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Miss Florence

Hi. I'm afraid that I don't have access to oversight tickets; very few administrators do, but you can find a list of the oversight committee members at WP:Oversight. I can see, though, that this was not logged at the Crane discussion page. The entire contents of "Talk:Bruce Crane" was an entry by you and a response from me. For your convenience, since you cannot see the deleted page, I'll duplicate its contents below. If you have the ticket number, do you by any chance have the name of the member of the communications committee who addressed the matter? I'll be happy to do as much as I can to help resolve this situation if you can give me more detail. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've found some further detail on my own. I thought the name sounded too familiar for me to have last dealt with it in August! I see that the article was next created at Bruce crane, at which point User:ArtHistory1, who created it, indicated that a permissions letter had been sent on September 5. I communicated with him or her several weeks ago about that, both at the copyright problems talk page and at his or her user talk. I suggested that, since the permission had not been logged, he or she might want to resend the letter. No oversight ticket number was logged at the article.

By regular practice, if the oversight committee receives permission after the article is deleted, it is restored. Perhaps this not happen in this case? Again, if you know which member of the committee you received a ticket # from, that might be helpful. Alternatively, you can also place a note at the website irrevocably releasing the material under GFDL, and we no longer have to worry about where the letters might have gone. But if that doesn't work for you, I am, again, happy to help you as much as I can to resolve this situation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Duplicated contents of Talk:Bruce Crane

The Florence Griswold Museum gives permission to use this entry, which originated from its website. How do we officially give permission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Florence (talk • contribs) 17:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have responded at the contributor's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Duplicated contents of Talk:Bruce crane

The text comes from the website of the Florence Griswold Museum, which has agreed (under the terms of GFDL) to allow publication of its text on another website. Copyright permission was emailed from the museum to Wikimedia on September 5, 2008. ----Art History 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Art History 1 (talk • contribs) 9 September 2008

This editor requested feedback at WT:CP, since the permission letter has not yet been processed. I have suggested resending the letter and would request additional delay in processing, although I have also explained to the contributor that if the article is deleted prior to verification of permission, it can easily be restored at such time as the permission is processed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you know?

Hi Moonriddengirl, I recently nominated this article for Wikipedia's Did you know section. I added the article to this list, but is that all I have to do? Will the article be reviewed by somebody or is there something else I should be doing? Thanks for you help, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 22:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It will be reviewed by somebody. Keep an eye on it, in case they have questions or suggest changes. Good luck. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Will I be notified if it is selected? αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

By custom, yes, but from what I understand that step is sometimes forgotten. I'd just check back over the next couple of days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Blog links

Will you be removing his blog links or should I post mine? Since we both have relevant information that has been researched.Blazinglight (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there are inappropriate sources in an article never means its okay to add more. I left the notice to give the regular editors of that article a chance to replace the blog sources with reliable sources before stripping them. However, since nobody has done so, I have removed the references that do not conform to WP:V. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, thank you for taking the time to do this, again Saito Network appreciates Wikipedia's decisions.Blazinglight (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Kathy Rapp

I fixed the copy vios at Kathy Rapp. The new version is at Talk:Kathy Rapp/Temp, per your instructions to User talk:PAHouseGOP#Copyright problem: Kathy Rapp. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HoboJones (talk • contribs) 1 October 2008

I've already moved your new version into place. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Supybot

Greetings, Moonriddengirl.

Earlier this year the page for an open source project of mine (Supybot) was removed for lack of a notability, a decision I didn't contest; we're certainly a major open source project in the grand scheme of things.

I noticed today, however, that several other, far less notable projects have gone undeleted, including several IRC bots and related programs: most of what's left at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_Relay_Chat_bots,_bouncers_and_proxies is actually less notable than Supybot by every criteria I've found to evaluate it (Debian popularity contest, SourceForge.net rank, number of Google hits, etc.).

While I'm not asking that Supybot's page be reinstated (you know Wikipedia's notability guidelines far better than I do, no doubt) I only wanted to say that I would definitely appreciate if the rules were applied fairly :)

Thanks, Jeremy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemfinch (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The way the system is set up, any editor may nominate an article for deletion if it does not meet the guidelines. Sometimes articles go undetected. But the things that you list as the criteria for evaluating notability are actually not the criteria that Wikipedia uses. We measure notability in terms of whether or not a thing is "noted"--that is, if it is being talked about in reliable sources like newspapers, magazines, or respected industry publications. Two of the guidelines of potential interest here are Wikipedia:Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (which also covers products). If you feel that one of these articles does not meet those guidelines and investigation does not disclose the kind of sources that would indicate that it does, you may want to initiate an "articles for deletion" debate about it. Instructions for doing so, including a guideline for determining when it's a good idea, are listed at the top of the page. If you open an AfD debate, the community will weigh in on the matter and make a decision just as they did with respect to the article Supybot.

If at some point Supybot does meet those notability guidelines, it may be appropriate to create a new article about it that verifies that it does. In such a case, though, please read over our conflict of interest guidelines to be sure that your participation is within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sunrise in Different Dimensions

Thanks for your excellent contribution to Sun Ra's universe. Not only did you produce a fine scholarly article on a wonderful part of Arkhistory you reduced the "albums of note" count as well. There's a heavenly reward waiting for you on Saturn. DISEman (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :D I enjoyed working on it, and it's nice to know that somebody's seen it. :D (And added a fine image, to boot!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Crane Deletion Continued

Thank you for your help. The name of the person affiliated with the ticket number was Chris Kelly. Any assistance you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Florence (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. I have written the committee to seek clarification and hope that we can resolve this soon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The other discussion

I am posting the link to the other discussion here because I did not want anyone to think I was injecting another topic into the image deletion topic. I thought you had read the image use, grey areas, confusion and Photographer rights topic as your "Revision necessary, section Deleting images" ppst was directly under it and it seemed to go along with the issue, at least another part of the issue. Some of my comments were going on the assumption (I know, never asume) you had read that. So I apologize and will hopefully make things less confusing. :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) It was happy coincidence merely that my new section dovetailed with an existing conversation. Images were removed rather suddenly from the copyright problems board in mid-August, and I am still trying to track down all the pages that are sending people with images there. I'm very much hoping this is the last of them! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation... heavy case??

Dear Moonriddengirl! - I jumped more by "curiousity" about your name to your site to be truthfully and read hereby that you are "expert" for copyright questions. Hope you can help me out. I have "flagged" today an article... maybe you can have a look at here: Tambura (it's referring music ;-) so I hope for your empathy. (Rec.: Fine to know you love Jazz, me too (from there I switched to Indian Music (had an interview with JohnMcLaughlin for a TV broadcasting this year, was great)))). That's it... great to know you at WP --ElJay Arem (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Expert, no. Somewhat experienced, yes. :) I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed... thank's so fare... --ElJay Arem (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out your concern. In this particular case, we're all right. NationMaster has copied our article and indicates as much at the bottom of their page, where it says, "The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL." (Since they've given us credit, they aren't infringing on us.) I've put a little more detail at the article's talk page, including about when they must have copied us. Appreciate your bringing the matter up. It's much better to investigate and be clear of infringement than not to investigate when there actually is infringement. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank's for orientation. It was a pleasure, dear MoRi-Girl, to cooperate with you... Have a chilly weekend. --ElJay Arem (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gymkata144.jpg

Thanks for your note. I have very little experience in tagging unfree images, so I'd appreciate if you could do it properly, maybe have a look at other image uploads by the same user - most of his/her uploads appear to be TV or video framegrabs, incorrectly tagged as self-made PD images! (Note the slight fuzziness and "ringing" on contours, typical of framegrabs. Lots of unfree image warnings on the user's talk page, too...) Greeting & thanks, Janke | Talk 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for clarifying - as I said, I'm not experienced with this tagging process... ;-) May I alert you if I run across other similar "massive non-free image uploaders"? --Janke | Talk 22:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you look at something

Before I go further with this I wanted to see if you could check out this: [1]

Short version - opened discussion on the Heart (band) pages talk section on September 22 about "Country of Origin and some other thoughts". Discussion Started off civil however now has turned slightly ugly as Pdfpdf simply deletes/adds comment and has not given any factual reason as to why. Now there is an Edit War as well some other issues. I Tried to open a conversation on Pdfpdf's talk page yesterday however Pdfpdf ignored it and made the same edits/revision with more comments aimed at me. This morning I Issued warnings on the last edits. I Forgot to sign - my bad but no time to fix because user removed the warnings (See above diff) with the comment "Remove unsigned, unjustified, unsupported rubbish" in the edit box. Also the user placed a response on my talk page under the header "Vandalism Warning #1" where he accusing me of vandalizing his personal page and threating to have an admin block me if I discuss the issue further. So before I act on this further could you check it and offer any advise. Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow up - He reverted back to his comments on the refs on the Heart (band) page, added a shortened version to what he posted on my personal page to the discussion and made two more posting on my talk page, one of which asks: "'m not an expert on picture licenses & WP, but I have the impression that a non-public-domain picture needs a fair use rationale, and it seems to me this new picture doesn't have one.". If nothing else can you check [[Image:WhiteHeart1970.png]] and see if I left something out. (as a side note - I do have a rationale listed however it is not showing up in the main box and I can not find how to edit that) Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I wasn't able to get back to you sooner. It's unusual that I'm away from my keyboard all day. :) It looks to an outsider as though the two of you are having an ordinary content dispute. The exchanges you've recently had with each other on your personal pages seem to me to be a problem in both directions, possibly innocently on both sides. In my typical fashion, I'll explain why I think so in exhaustive detail. :)

Trying to talk to the editor about your concerns is a good thing, but many Wikipedians are touchy about using templates in place of personal conversation with regular contributors (see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars for example). I myself think they may have a purpose, but we need to be careful in their use. I might use {{uw-3RR}} (though not if I were also engaged), for instance, but not {{uw-preview}}. And one should never use one of the "vandalism" templates unless intentional disruption seems clear. Of the specific templates you chose, {{uw-blank}} presumes that the edits are unconstructive, which is a Wikipedia buzz-word for vandalism. As the warning template suggests, it is usually given where no edit summary explanation is provided or where the explanation is obviously illegitimate. Wikipedia:VAND#Types_of_vandalism notes that "significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism ... where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." A quick glance at the editor's contributions to Heart don't show anything to me in recent history that would suggest unconstructive blanking, although there's more "discussion" going on in the article than I believe there should be--rather than making notes in edit summary and hidden comments, it's much more constructive to actually talk about the issues at the article's talk page. I may have missed the edit to which you were referring. But if this is, as it seems, a content dispute rather than the traditional definition of blanking, the template should not be used per Wikipedia:VAND#Warnings. It is likely to be considered a breach of civility, since you're effectively calling the user a vandal.

His edit summary in response was also a breach of civility. Likely he lashed out angrily as what he perceived as an attack on him. His characterization of your edits to his page as vandalism also assumes bad faith. If he feels that you are being uncivil to him, he will likely request feedback at WP:WQA. If he thinks that your incivility is extreme, he may ask for help at WP:ANI. If you make a civil, reasonable effort to talk to him about your concerns, you should have nothing to worry about. Occasionally, users are blocked based on misunderstandings, but such blocks tend to be brief and if your behavior is well within guidelines should be successfully appealed.

At this point, obviously, tensions are high between you. WP:NPA suggests, when possible, ignoring the behavior and CIVIL suggests, where appropriate, apologizing. If I were in your position, I'd move on to talk about your concerns. And if the two of you can't reach consensus, I'd move on to some of the recommended venues in the dispute resolution policy. If there are only two of you, you might seek out an opinion at WP:3O (read the directions there carefully, though, as improperly formatted requests are often removed). You might also ask at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if one of those seems appropriate to you. First though, especially given this rocky development in the conflict, I would strongly advise that you make a good effort to at least restore cordial conversation. If you two are also struggling with civility issues, that's going to complicate the conversation for any contributors who choose to weigh in.

I'll go check out the image now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the image, I fixed one field in your FUR (Replaceable? wouldn't render. I replaced with Replaceability.) I'm afraid that's as much as I can offer. :) As you know, images are not my usual area. The place to go with that is Media Copyright Questions; that's where I go to ask mine. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I already did the WP:3O yesterday so we will see where that goes. I think maybe my main issue is that the issue is already being openly discussed. I had already responded to the users questions however the user took to reverting and not discussion other than via comments added to the end of citations as well as the little comment in the "edit summery". When I tried to bring the discussion to the user via their talk page, and that still didn't work, it went unread and the revisions were again made with no discussion. At this point I thought about the 3RR rule but I chose against it as the "When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page." comment on the Template:Uw-delete2 seemed to make more sense, also along with the "Please do not add commentary..." part of the Template:uw-npov2. (And I thought removing warnings were against Wikipedia guidelines/policy) I guess really the bottom line is how many times should I revert the edits or remove the users comments from citations. And how many time must I be asked to "prove it" when the user shows no good faith in "proving" their side of the issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing warnings is okay, though that is a very common misunderstanding. :) See Wikipedia:TALK#User_talk_pages. For future reference, when you reach the point that the conversation has stalemated with another contributor, that's the time to reach out to bring others into the conversation. If one editor continues to revert against the consensus of multiple editors, then you have a disruptive editor. When an editor is reverting the opinion of a single other contributor, you have an edit war, where both are likely to be regarded as at fault. The difference here is community input and consensus. I'm glad you put it at 3O, and I hope you get good feedback. You can never tell--look how little response I've gotten to my proposals about the image use guideline--but if you don't get a response at one board, try another. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is funny you mention bringing it elsewhere. I tired that with another topic and told it was wrong and that I was Canvassing. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why I recommended going elsewhere if you don't get a response. :) You want to avoid seeming to "ask the other parent," but sometimes all you get is crickets, so to speak. Neutral advisement of an issue of concern is generally not regarded as a problem, though. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the message on my talk page regarding copyrights and my contributions. You have helped to clarify the problem for me, and I greatly appreciate it. More that that, you have done as you said you would and have fixed or removed the copyright violations in the articles I have written. Thank you for this. Jordan ^Contribs 15:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Page for deletion

Hi Moonriddengirl,
I accidentally created a template under the wrong name, and I was wondering if you could delete it. It's located here. Thanks for your help, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 16:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done.:) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If your curious, the template is now located here. αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 17:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright dispute

Hi, MoonG. Is there an appropriate noticeboard for a dispute over a copyright violation, or can you help or advise me? I reworked a section of an article which I consider to be a copyright violation. However, someone reverted my edit. What's the next step? Do I treat this like any other content dispute, negotiating on the article talk page? Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the appropriate noticeboard is WP:CP. :) It seems you have two options, looking only at that edit summary and not investigating the matter myself. First, you could revise problematic material. Two, you could use {{copyvio}} and list it at WP:CP while you discuss the issue. If I went that route, I'd only blank the affected section, though, by closing it off with </div>. Copyrighted text should not remain displayed while the matter is resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you close something off with </div>? (And is there documentation somewhere about all the commands starting with "div" and all the other stuff, like "font" and all that?) Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Question 2: no clue. Question 1, from the copyviocore template itself, "By default, this template blanks all other content on the page. To limit blanking of the text, as for a copyright violation in a single section, place </div> at the end of the suspected copyvio area." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I get it: you put {{subst:copyvio}} at the beginning of the part you want to blank, and </div> at the end of it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Unless you can simply revise the text and have done with it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Ok, thanks for the info, please don't delete my page it's VERY important to me. Thanks :D - Alec2011 (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

update

I haven't heard anything from anyone since I sent the wikihonchos the e-mail I cc'd you. I've started a new job and am dog sick, so didn't fast-track anything as I didn't have time to follow what happens. Sorry. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Optimal Flexible Architecture Deletion

I disagree that the deletion was "CSD G11: Blatant Advertising".

I created the article after searching wikipedia for OFA and finding nothing. Now I freely admit that the article I created was not complete. I only wrote a few sentences and gave a few links to show that the term actually exists. I had planned to go back and expand the article but have not had a chance yet.

In essence OFA is very much like the FHS and hence I think it warrants an article.

Regards Thomas d stewart (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There was only one sentence in the article: "Optimal Flexible Architecture or OFA is the recommended way Oracle lays it software and data on disk in various directories" and both links were to subpages of download.oracle.com. The deletion was not meant to challenge that the product is notable enough for an article, but only to indicate that the article that was created was not encyclopedic, but seemed rather engineered to promote its subject. The only sentence certainly seems promotional, lacking context. Since you plan to expand the article, I've restored it and tagged it with "under construction". Though you've been around for a while, your contributions are not heavy, so I'll just suggest here that you take a look at the notability guidelines for companies and products so that you can make sure to verify notability to avoid further complications. Apologies if you are already well-familiar with that guideline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Soundvisions1

Hi. I'm having what seems to me incredible and unnecessary difficulties communicating with Soundvisions1. He doesn't seem to pay any attention to what I say to him, and refuses to answer my questions. I really don't understand, because otherwise he seems a reasonable, rational and sensible person. For example, I have pointed out to him that citations that say "Roger Fisher, Interview, 2008" and "Fossen, Steve" are not useful, and have asked him to supply more information. His first response was to classify my request for more information as "nonsense", his second response was to put vandalism warnings on my talk page. Now he is simply refusing to pay any attention to my questions, which, I suppose, is an improvement, but is still not satisfactory. I don't know how to communicate with this person. Can you make some suggestions please? Thanks in anticipation of your advice. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've received your note, and I'll read through and see if I can be of assistance in just a moment. I'm in the middle of addressing a copyright concern, but it should not take long. (Though it may take me a bit to look at your situation, as I usually think things through before responding.) I'll drop a "talkback" on your talk page when I've replied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. It's nearly midnight here and I'm off to bed, so please reply at your convenience. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Obviously I am somewhat aware of the situation, given this above. Soundvisions has been assisting with an image deletion document I'm (attempting) to work on. (Typical Wikipedia fashion, getting attention when needed is not easy.) I note from his contribution list, here, that he has not been very active on Wikipedia for the past day or so. I am not myself sure how to interpret his last response to you, but in the absence of other information I would be inclined to take it as a suggestion that comments should be made at the Heart talk page. This seems like a good idea anyway, since he has requested a third opinion on your dispute, and it will be helpful to a contributor responding to those to see a brief, succinct statement of your side.

My suggestion, in response to your question as to how to communicate with him, would be to state your opinions succinctly on the talk page of the article. At this point, I would drop all references to the misunderstanding about communications on user talk pages and stick with the essentials about the debate. It may be that the two of you will not be able to reach consensus on the issues, but if that's the case any responders from 3O may be able to help break your stalemate. Meanwhile (and this one is always hard for me, but I've gotten better at it), I'd recommend keeping in mind that conversations on Wikipedia develop at unpredictable rates. They can move like lightening or creep like glaciers. I have had better luck with placing concise (well, almost concise. Concise isn't in my vocabulary) notes for people and then walking away. If they respond quickly, great. But it's not unlikely that it will take them a day or two to get back. I usually prompt with a brief and friendly reminder that I'm hoping to continue the conversation only after they've been regularly editing without response for several hours. Sometimes, I'll wait a day or so.

Meanwhile, as a general note, comments in references like "What interview? With whom? When? About what?" are probably not a good idea. As Wikipedia:Dispute resolution points out, we should not "carry on a dispute on the article page itself." In that case, you probably would want to use a template, probably one of these or these. In the case of the source you believe contains factual errors, we have {{dubious}}, the purpose of which is (in part) "To alert editors that additional sources need to be found, to ascertain which of the conflicting views in the dispute is more authoritative." With that one, you're meant to open a specific section on the talk page explaining the conflict. We don't have a specific template that I'm aware of for a source that is insufficiently detailed to meet WP:V. I'm not sure what I would use in that case: {{verify source}}? {{page number}}? Probably one of those.

As I suggested above, if nobody comes from 3O, which is a possibility, you might want to seek further assistance at another venue. I hope that the two of you will be able to establish a line of communication, perhaps even to the point if that happens of agreeing where best to seek a resolution to your stalemate. I have found him reasonable to deal with—indeed, very helpful with respect to my project. :) The two of you seem to have hit a snag in communication, but it doesn't look insurmountable to an outsider. I've seen people recover from much, much worse. Good luck, and please let me know if I can clarify any of this or if I may be of assistance. (Except with respect to the actual dispute, of course. Given my involvement here, I think it most appropriate for me to remain a neutral outsider.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was referred to this thread. While awaiting third party results/response/action I have added tag(s) to the article page per suggestion. I have also added a new subsection: NPOV / Third Party Opinions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That should be helpful. :) I hope you won't have to wait too long for feedback. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You're good at this, aren't you! I've found your response very helpful, and I very much appreciate the effort you have gone to to address the matter so thoroughly. I will make use of your suggestions. Many thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your input here. Since it's not my area, I particularly value your input. I had to read the thing today to figure out how to tag an image for lacking proper permission! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think it's a very good guide. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Request that You Me At Six is unprotected

I've requested the article which you protected and deleted, You Me At Six is unprotected to allow me to create the page.

As the protecting admin I felt I should inform you and seek your opinion on the matter. See the request here Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection

If possible, please reply to this message on my talk page.

Cheers, Cabe6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 11:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the info, much appreciated Cabe6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl. I've taken a quick look at this, but it may be quicker for you to sort out. The current article at You Me At Six is a derivative[2] of the userfied copy and needs a history merge. The histories are at User:RWorange/You Me and User:Cabe6403/current2. Interested? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll merge them. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Into the Fire (album)

Hi, I noticed that you just lowered the class rating for this article from B to C. I am currently reviewing the article for GA status, and I was wondering if you could let me know what problems you see with the article. This is only my second review of an album, so I would appreciate it if you could let me know what I should be looking for from a WikiProject Albums perspective. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy to. I made note at the assessment subpage, but I know those things are easily lost when multiple projects are boxed. :) The problem from our project's perspective is the lack of technical personnel in the personnel section (engineers, etc.) I could add those myself, but our project is one of the few that requests that reviewers not be major contributors to the article. My general approach is to do nothing at the article that I wouldn't tick the "minor edit" box for. :) I made a note of it at the album talk page, where the editor requested assistance in copy-editing (presumably at your direction). (Of course, he can add that information himself, also.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Just to add context, this information is available at AMG. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. This will help a lot in the future as I review more album articles. Thank you very much. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations

I've seen around doing some copyright-related work. Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations? I can't ask for much, seeing as how I pop in once or twice a week and deal with only a few each time. Even if you could a few at a time as well, it would be very helpful. :) --Iamunknown 16:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, but I already dedicate several hours a day to keeping on top of WP:CP, and I fear copyright burn-out, so I may not make it part of the routine. (In fact, that's what I was working on when I got your note. :)) But I'll be happy to particularly look at some of the oldest ones to see if I can knock some down. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I'd prefer you not burn out. :) I'm trying to get back into maintenance work, but only a little bit at a time, after burning out myself. --Iamunknown 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, I'm finding it less of a challenge than CP. :) I ought to be able to knock it down a little. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Amber Rives

Hello.I see that you deleted the Amber Rives article that I contributed because it did not differ enough from the original piece.But were there not any reliable sources?If not,what is considered a reliable source?--Usher4Life (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There is a full guideline here on what makes a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. More information is available at our verifiability policy. Essentially, you're looking for professional publications with a history of monitoring accuracy. Newspapers, journals, major news sites or webpages, for instance. These can't be connected to the individual. User submitted content is not acceptable, although some professional blogs may be.

All of the sources in the article were user submitted content except this, which is not a professionally managed website and hence is unusable. In order to overcome the concerns that led to deletion at AfD, you should look for professionally published content. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

List of television stations in North America by media market

please see the copyvio at List of television stations in North America by media market to see if it should be lumped in with the one at List of TV markets and major sports teams in the United States. Thanks for all of your hard work! --User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it probably should. I'm still seeking definitive guidance on the sports team article, although the sole response I've received suggests deletion is appropriate. I think I'll probably have to check with our lawyer. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the list of stations in North America is taken care of, someone just removed the North American info until we could get a resolution on those markets, they still want to have that info in the article. The talk page at that article has some pretty convincing arguments as to why the DMA markets wouldn't be copyrighted: they are published in the Federal Register.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 11:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working on my response to the article talk page. (I'm reviewing AN in crafting it.) But I'd be very grateful if you would respond to me on your article talk page. I don't do the bouncing from page to page thing well. :) I've watchlisted your page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Waynecoyne.jpg

I need another set of eyes on this - it looks more like a frame grab than an photo. Perhaps it was video taken by the uploader from the stage and then frame grabed. [[Image:Waynecoyne.jpg]]. It is also not being used in any articles so it can probably be removed anyway. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If it were listed under the non-free content criteria, its being orphaned would be reason enough to tag it for deletion. But since it's been released, it's not. That's a tough one for me. :) I'm not a strongly visual person, but I understand you are. Why not take a look at Image:Michaelivins.jpg, Image:Stevendrozd.jpg & Image:Kliphscurlock.jpg? These are all uploaded by the same user and claim to have been made within a day of each other. Do these look like photos to you or screen captures? If they look like screen caps and you think they may be an issue, you should probably bundle the whole lot of them to WP:PUI for investigation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, p.s., since you may not have run into this yet. :) You can link to an image without it displaying the image by dropping a colon in front: [[:Image:Waynecoyne.jpg]] renders as Image:Waynecoyne.jpg. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Barnstar

Hi Moonriddengirl:

Thank you very much.

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Palo

Nice work on this article. On nl.wikipedia, where I do most of my editting, it would have just been thrown away. Magalhães (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I appreciate your bringing up the problem! I'd rather take the time to write a new stub on a notable topic than to display a copyvio. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting a page to an old redirect

Hi.

I want to move Alright/Time back to Alright (Supergrass song). How does this work if the latter is already a redirect? Would you be able to move the page for me please?

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 22:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I believe from my reading of Help:Move that you could have done that one, but since I know that I could and since from the songs wikiproject it looks uncontroversial, I went ahead and did. Please be sure to update the wikilinks as appropriate. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. --TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Your input would be greatly appericated in the List of television stations in North America by media market conversation on 2008Olympian's talk page and on the talk page for List of television stations in North America by media market. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 11, 2008 @ 06:18 06:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image/TOC placement

Hello, I am currently having a disagreement with another user over my realignment of the opening image and TOC on the Mod (lifestyle) article, and need your advice. I have performed these sort of realignments before, and always felt that policy backed me up. However, I cannot now find the policy I previously read on this matter. Am I incorrect in believing that right-facing opening images should be moved to the left? Is this something I dreamt up, 'cause I cannot find a policy for it now. Your thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) As you know, MOS:IMAGE#Images says, "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image." It does say that "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text", however I would take the more definitive first statement over the less definitive "often preferable" myself when it comes to placing the first image. So in general I'd say you're right, but in this case I would go with the other version. This would also keep compliance with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Consistency, which says, "It is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one guideline-defined style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so" and "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." I don't see any policy that specifically supports realignment, but I can't say you dreamed it up, because things change around here. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am only hoping that the policy changed at some point, which is why I cannot find the page I read previously---this was a year or so ago, after all---and that I did not, in fact, dream it up! Thanks for your advice. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Unique features

Sorry to bother you, but since you seem to be running WP:CP... Unique features is a copyvio from [3]. The author claims permission on talk page, so normally one would simply add copyvio template and add it to WP:CP. However, this article has also been prodded, which in itself sounds quite sensible actually. {{Copyvio}} prevents the author from making improvements to the article, which it needs to avoid the prod. It will probably be deleted in a few days anyway, but since I'm still trying to get a sense how working with WP:SCV really goes, I would like to know how this kind of articles are handled. – Sadalmelik ☎ 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting one. :) I'd go ahead and list it at copyvio, but place the copyvio template beneath the PROD. Everything on the page except the PROD will then be blanked. When leaving the "nothanks" note that the copyvio template generates to paste on the page of the contributor, I would also leave a note explaining that the PROD template may still be removed, though the other contents of the page should not be edited. I would also tell him that even if he follows through with the permissions process by the supplied procedures, he will need to consider the concerns raised in the PROD and address those. If you weigh a "PROD" against a copyvio concern, a copyvio is going to win every time, because anyone can challenge a PROD and have the article restored, but articles that violate copyright should not be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks – I have done as you suggested. – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

that RfC ...

heya Moonriddengirl - i decided to come here instead of bringing it up on the already-overloaded page where the RfC is going on - i hope that's okay. i just now noticed the reason you gave when you listed the RfC - "reason=Should genre be removed as a field from Template:Infobox Album to reduce edit warring?" - and since that's what's presented to the wider wikipedia public, i wanted to ask you to consider changing it to something more accurate. the RfC is actually proposing the reinstatement of the genre field, not its removal; and edit warring is only one of the reasons people have stated for not wanting it reinstated. i feel like a more accurate and neutral entry in the "reason" slot would be "reason=Should the genre field be reinstated in the Template:Infobox Album?" technically i guess anyone can amend the reason listed, but i feel it's most fitting for you to do it, if you agree; and in my limited experience with RfCs the change wouldn't make the RfC go kablooey. thanks for thinking about it. Sssoul (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Absolutely okay. You are more than welcome. (I've found you extremely pleasant to talk to about this, as far as that's concerned.) My understanding was that the change was made to deal with edit warring--that's what I grokked when I first heard of it, anyway--but I certainly do see that other objections exist. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know if I've accidentally redirected the discussion to the main page or something. :) I'm trying to get a copyright problem handled before cooking supper...which I should have started 15 minutes ago. Eep! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks & brava! it looks good to me so far - now we have to see if the bot gizmo picks up the change the next time it makes the rounds. i'm simultaneously experimenting with an RfC of my own to see how to make the change take effect - maybe refreshing the timestamp is called for as well? ie replacing the five tildes with five new ones ... i'm just guessing about that part, though.

and yeah, it's a good conversation, even if it *is* taking up 3/4ths of the page! 8) Sssoul (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

update: cool, your amendment worked, leads to the right place, etc - you left the question mark off the end of it, but that's easily repaired when you have time. meanwhile my experiment with my own RfC caused it to vanish from the list :[ so off i go to see if i can coax it back. Sssoul (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

another day, another "helpful" suggestion: do you think it would help newcomers navigate the discussion if the "RfC Comments" header were moved to right under your "Statement in favour of ..." ? it seems like people keep missing the discussion below - maybe on purpose 8) - but it still seems worth keeping the comments in the "comments" section if possible, and moving the header is the simplest way to achieve that. Sssoul (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I wonder if my "statement in favour of" should perhaps be moved into the RfC comments section? I'm a bit chary of such a sweeping change, though, since it will instantly make the whole conversation about the placement of conversation following mine absolutely confusing. :) I worry that moving everything after mine will seem to give mine more authority than it deserves, and so far nobody has put up a specific rebuttal anyway, so it might just as well be clumped with the others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

[pondering the logistics of that ... ] you mean moving the "RfC Comments" header up to above your statement and just removing the = signs from around the title of yours? yeah, that seems like it would work just as well. the comments following yours are already all out of any kind of order, so i don't think i'd worry about that too much 8) Sssoul (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

go for it, i say! i really don't see how it will garble things more than they're already garbled, and might even lead to more newcomers adding their views at the bottom of the discussion, restoring some modicum of chronology to it. Sssoul (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Need Help

Dear, Hope u r fine enough. Dear i m editing and creating articles on wiki for a long time but i dont have any right till now. Please tell me if this is automatic process for becoming an administrator or i need to fill any application.

Regards

Sameer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameergoswami (talk • contribs) 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There is a documenting describing what administrators on Wikipedia do and how to become one here. In brief, the tools used by administrators are granted after a community discussion where a candidates contributions are analyzed to see if (a) the candidate can be trusted with the tools and (b) the candidate needs them. If you are considering requesting adminship, you will probably want to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. That gives you an idea of what some people look for and will help you evaluate if you are prepared. If you have any questions about those documents, please let me know. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

copyright thingy

User:Morleyj is adding large amounts of useful info from [4], she has included in her edit summary a name for someone to contact to prove they have given permission.[5] I said I would find out for her what proof of permission she needs to provide. Giving a contact name seems to comply, but is her putting it in the edit summary enough proof or does she need to let some other page/person know? She is a good faith contributor adding excellent, useful info and she might well have permission. Sticky Parkin 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) There's two things she can do. One of them is easy, and one of them is a pain in the neck. The easy way is for her to ask them to put a note on the website releasing their material under GFDL. (They have to be specific that the release is GFDL or public domain; it can't be released for Wikipedia only.) If they do that, she can put a link to that release on the article's talk pages or on the image page. The contact name is unfortunately not enough proof. If the organization doesn't want to place a notice releasing material on their website, she can send a release letter from them to the Wikimedia Foundation according to the process described at WP:Permission. The e-mail must go to the Permission address there. This isn't something that can be processed by just any editor or administrator. The Communications Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation has a special task force for logging and addressing these things.

This process takes a little more time and sometimes requires follow-up, as I have had letters to the Wikimedia Foundation go unanswered. (I've always gotten a response by my second round.) It usually takes a week or two to clear the matter in this case. The permission letter also needs to be specific that the release is GFDL or public domain. WP:Permission has a link to a boiler plate release form that can be used for this purpose. Once she's sent the letters, {{OTRS pending}} can be pasted on the talk page of the articles. However, until the permissions letter is processed, any articles including material copied from these external sites should be blanked with the {{copyvio}} template. Please explain to her that this is only temporary until we go through the necessary verification procedure, and it is both to protect the copyright holder and Wikipedia.

Also, please, let me know if I can be of any assistance with any of this. :) I appreciate your working with her to help get things ironed out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it might be hard work. Out of interest, if someone says a site gives them permission is this often true (not saying they're lying, but that someone along the line doesn't realise it entails them effectively partly losing control of their work and that anyone can use it?) It strikes me that usually only another wiki or free site that is very keen on the idea of freeness would willingly do it, rather than the average person who has written the info on a site etc. themselves. Sticky Parkin 18:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost missed this one. Busy talkpage today. :) Yes, it often is true when somebody says they have permission that they do. In my personal observations, charities in particular are usually more concerned with publicizing their causes than protecting the commercial rights to their words. But I've seen all kinds of websites grant permission. Some are commercial sites with products they are promoting that are more than happy to get the word out. Some are simply maintained by people who are passionate about their subjects and want word out. Most people willingly give permission, though we always have to get it officially, of course. With images, this is not necessarily true. Sometimes permission is granted. Often, it seems to be denied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice to know we have hope for some good info from sites. Sticky Parkin 13:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyrights...again <sigh>

Hi again, you know much more about this than I; hence, I am approaching you. I recently noticed that Guggenheim Abu Dhabi was being reviewed for GA. The article is largely a quote-farm, similar to Louvre Abu Dhabi. I would not consider this encyclopedic, and am concerned that such use of quotes is innapropriate for Wikipedia. However, I do not know if this is the case; thus, I approach you. Thank you for help. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't say that I do know more about this than you, as I have only been involved in one GA review. :) I don't believe that the article is a concern for copyright reasons, though I agree with you that it has too many quotes to be encyclopedic. I don't think there's enough quotes from any one source to be a problem for non-free content concerns (if you disagree with me, though, please let me know. As you know, I spent a great deal of time combing through this contributor's work and found many problematic articles. It's possible that there's more drawn from a single source there than I'm remembering or noticing at a glance.) If it's not a copyright concern, perhaps you could point out to him Wikipedia:Quotations? (And if you want to see a blatant quotefarm, please check out this diff. Oi. It could be worse. :)) If you'd just like to brainstorm ways to suggest difference in prose to him, I'd be happy to bounce ideas around. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I'm just unsure. I found two more attribution errors: one was attributed to a different source and not in quotes; the second was a direct quotation without attribution to the author. See the GA Review, where I commented here. The thing is that it, to my guess, it delicately straddles the line. I mirror your comments: it takes hours to clean this up; and I fear having to do this for a string of his GA noms. It also worries me that these go through GA/DYK without being verified. Eeek. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And I hate to break it to ya, but you're now my copyright go-to person. My copyright Plaxico Burress. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I'm glad you wikilinked. I know a bit about copyrights, but nothing about football. :D I'm looking at the expansion he did to the lead, where he copied and duplicated a quote from the body. Obviously, this is a rather graceless way to expand the lead, and it suggests he still doesn't understand that material has to be written in fresh language by him. I don't see any sign that he has pasted new material from external sites since you first disclosed the problem on October 5th, so it may be that he understands that he can't use stuff now without at least utilizing quotation marks. It's very possible, though, that he's lost track of where stuff came from to begin with and has forgotten what text he wrote, and what he didn't. Do you have an idea of how best to address this? I wonder if he would benefit from mentoring, perhaps with somebody from his dominant project? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I am from his dominant project; thus, my reluctance to be too critical (we need bodies!). I have been trying to emphasize the importance of these issues, without being discouraging. My suspicion is that he naively doesn't understand the problem, I sense no malicious intent. I've been trying to "nudge" him into the projectspace (I know, that's generally frowned upon...but, I couldn't think of anything else), maybe to help with adminny tasks. For example, I recommend he lead the WP:FRANCE newsletter: which he did well.

About the articles? Sigh...I don't know...realistically, it needs to be assiduously checked; and finding remaining problems may be more trouble than it's worth. I wonder if there'd be an objection to reverting to a "clean" version, and asking him to rewrite. While he rewrites, we could look over his shoulder and "cite check". Kind of a big deal, but it may have the added benefit of teaching how to do the job properly; eventually, he'd be able to do it on his own. As it stands, we're going to have to verify all of his work, anyway. Just an idea....Lazulilasher (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, so much for the dominant project mentorship. :) I agree with you at this point on the good intentions. Your proposal sounds like a good idea. It can be difficult to revise for copyright concerns without a fresh start. I'll be happy to help you work with him on this, if he is willing to give it a shot. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Gaudi (Music Producer / Solo Artist)

Dear Moonriddengirl I am writing with regards to my Wikipedia article on Gaudi (Music producer / Solo Artist) which is currently in suspension due to questioning of copyright ownership. I was hoping you could let me know what the status is at the moment as i have followed all the steps to confirm that i am the original copyright owner and that i have given permission for the material to be used under the terms of the GNU free documentation license. I have left a note on the articles talk page and i have also sent 2 emails (on the 6th and 9th October) to permissions-en@wikimedia.org confirming the same. These emails where sent from an email address related to the source material as requested. A copy of my email follows:

Dear Sir / Madam

RE: Gaudi (Music Producer / Solo Artist) Page, Wikipedia. Erroneous copyright infringement notice

I have posted the message below on the article's discussion page as per instruction: "In response to the following message: "The CorenSearchBot has performed a web search with the contents of this page, and it appears to include a substantial copy of: http://www.bigchill.net/story/2113/gaudi.html" The article that the CorenSearchBot refers to above on the big chill website is in fact an almost verbatim copy of my original work. I originally researched and wrote the article for use on Gaudi's official website and as the copyright owner I have also also used parts of it (albeit an edited version) for this Wikipedia entry. Groovereviewer (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)"

As the page has now been made unavailable i am writing to you to further confirm that i am the copyright owner of the material in the article. It is all my original work and I permit its use under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. You can find the full version of my work on Gaudi's official website - www.gaudimusic.com - in the biography section. For my Wikipedia article i have used an edited down version backed by notable sources. My original work has been used on many websites that are linked to Gaudi in some professional manner in either it's full version or an abbreviated form. The Big Chill Website have used my work word for word.

Please feel free to contact me should you need any further confirmation or information. In the meantime i hope this confirmation is enough for you to re-instate the article.

I hope that you can shed some light on the status of this issue and thank you in advance for you help with this matter.

Kind regards

82.35.237.190 (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you very much for following up with me on this. I am sorry to say that sometimes the permissions e-mail process does not go smoothly. It may be that someone from the Communications Committee is already in the process of handling this, but as with many large organizations we have some communication problems amongst our branches, so I have no way to follow up on this directly. At best I could operate as a "middle man" on your behalf, but I would be sending my communications to the same address you are.

You might wish to e-mail the communications committee a third time with a message something like the following:

I am the original contributor of the article Gaudi (Music Producer / Solo Artist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudi_(Music_Producer_/_Solo_Artist)) on the English language Wikipedia. The page has been marked as a suspected copyright violation of the external website page http://www.bigchill.net/story/2113/gaudi.html

I hereby assert that I am the creator and owner of the exclusive copyright of the external website page http://www.bigchill.net/story/2113/gaudi.html.

I agree to publish the contents of that website page under the free license GNU Free Documentation License.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the contents of that website page in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

This is based on the boilerplate permissions letter that has been provided. It may help clarify your permission, as it specifically references the points that such permission letters need to address--for example, that permission is not revocable, that material may be sold, that it may be modified.

As the subject of that e-mail, I would indicate something like "Verification of permission, Wikipedia article Gaudi (Music Producer / Solo Artist)" As you recognize above, it is important that your e-mail address positively identify you with that website. If it is not a bigchill.net address, then the best means of addressing the concern may be through placing the release at the website page. Otherwise, it can be difficult for the Wikimedia Foundation to verify your identity.

Meanwhile, I will put a tag on the article's talk page notifying other contributors that verification letter has been sent in order to request additional patience with the process. Ideally, letters should be received and handled within 7 days, but in practice it is not uncommon for the process to take longer.

Please let me know if I can help you with this in any way. I apologize for the complication of the procedure and appreciate your patience in following through in spite of it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Siberian cat profile

I've noticed the lack of information on the Siberian cat. I believe that I can help with that.

I was the individual that got the Siberian cat recognized for championship status in both ACFA (American Cat Fanciers' Association and CFA (Cat Fanciers' Association. I have been the Siberian breed chair for ACFA for 10 years and I was the first CFA Siberian breed Chair.

My husband who is Russian made 15 trips to Russia between 1993 and 2001 for the purpose of securing a diversified gene pool of the Siberian cat.

Please LMK if you are interested in my help!

Best regards!

Lynda Nelson

LyndaNelsonGill@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynda Nelson (talk • contribs) 01:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Answering at user's talk page for a change. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of television stations in North America by media market, Part 2

We need to find a way to have the information and make it work on the list without violating whatever copyright we are violating. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 11:22

Yes, that's true, but that's an issue for editors of the article. My contribution to the conversation doesn't seem to have sparked any conversation. As I indicated, I have no particular experience with television markets, so beyond ensuring that we aren't creating legal problems for the project, I may not have much more to contribute. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just adding a bit further that I'm still watchlisting the page. If I have anything of substance to contribute to a conversation about restructuring, I will. But I'm in no position to lead the conversation, given that I had no idea what a DMA was until this copyright concern arose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I wasn't sure how to respond. My main concerns are having the information and having it in a way that makes the copyright department happy. To be honest, I am not sure how to do that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 11:30 11:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, either. I'm still dragging my feet on List of TV markets and major sports teams in the United States as I haven't figured out yet how to implement JRedmond's suggestion of using the Census Bureau's MSAs. Is that a suggestion that would work with this article? That may be a naive question, but, again, my familiarity with the topic is minimal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What alot of people are doing is using regional information, like for "Washington DC" they are calling it "the greater Washington DC area", for "Johnstown/Altoona" it's "Central Pennsylvania and Happy Valley" and as people make templates with previous information, people are coming by and kinda "regionalizing" them.

I think once the templates are all finished being remade, the list should be readded with the "regional" information. That is just my opinion, but it wouldn't all be Nielsen information. You can call Johnstown "Central PA", but you can only call NYC NYC, so there would be some limitations to this, but it would still work in my opinion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 11:44

I think as long as it isn't based on Nielsen (I'm constantly misspelling that name!), then we should be fine. If we can show that we have in good faith applied due diligence not to infringe upon them, then I think we'll probably be okay. It's actually a benefit to us that they didn't send a formal DMCA, since that would be their next step rather than plopping us in a courtroom. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You got it right - Nielsen :) I think I will put together the list once all the templates are rebuilt. I will make it on my sandbox and if you don't mind, put it past you and let you have a look-see before putting it out officially. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 11:57 11:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind. I'll give the best answer I can, anyway. :) Any chance you can help out in that way with List of TV markets and major sports teams in the United States, too? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look. The page will have to be moved to "List of Major Sports Teams in the United States by City" or something, but I think this works. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 12:21

Looks good to me. I bow to you deeply and will move it accordingly! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) I wasn't sure that was a "proper" name, hence why I hadn't moved it yet. Wanted to pass it by ya first. Let me know if you need help with anything else, I am glad to help. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 12:28

• Thanks! I appericate that! You just made my day! Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 12:34
  • Well, I appreciate your help. Even if it should turn out that additional changes need to be made to the article(s), I'm grateful that you're making an active effort to solve the problem. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • You're Welcome, I'm glad I could help :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 12:40

The Working Woman's Barnstar

		The Working Woman's Barnstar
		For setting right, for many days, all the copyright issues that had been left for someone to look after for this copyleft encyclopedia. Thanks for working away at a thankless task, the quotidianliness of which is quite impressive!

☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you, kindly! I admit that some mornings it is daunting to face The List (though I'm always happy that about half of them are generally already gone), but it's very satisfying to help keep the "backlog" tag off of the page. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So you need lots of helpers. I'll try to do some. You're doing an excellent job! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any time you want to give it is appreciated. :) From what I understand, where helpers may more urgently be needed is at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, which is a feeder for WP:CP. I pitched in a little there a few days ago, but I want to avoid copyright burn-out. (Some nights I dream about this stuff.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm doing some work at WP:SCV. But hold on a second: if I do that, what I'm ending up doing part of the time is adding more articles to WP:CP, adding to your workload!! Oh, well, I guess they would end up there eventually anyway. Anyway, I was bold and CSD-ed a few. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you're right. Reducing backlogs is satisfying. This could get addictive. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed. :) Of course, the list repopulates, but it it's finite, which is more than one can say for CSD. :D I'm glad you're pitching in. I know it's needed! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Elucidate

Hi there. I would like to create a Wikipedia account, however, I have found a small glitch. My preferred username is Elucidate. Unfortunately, on 8 October of this year, an I.P address registered as a user under the name "Elucidate". They have no contributions and no user page. My username is Elucidate on Wikimedia commons, and I would prefer to be consistent. As you are an admin here on Wikipedia, I know that you have the capabilities and tools necessary to allow me to assume this username. I would be greatly appreciative if you could do this for me. Your sincerely, 196.213.8.114 (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: As I utilize a school network, the previous edit under this account is not my own. Nor is the subsequent warning. Just to reassure you that I have only the best intentions. Thanks in advance, 196.211.91.52 (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The account was actually registered on October 8, 2006, but the contributor does have a contribution history, albeit a deleted one. The place to request usurpation of an existing username in order to unify your accounts is Wikipedia:Changing username/SUL. Presuming that you don't have a registered account here, you can follow the procedure here and a bureaucrat can follow through with your request. Glad to hear that the previous edit on this IP was not yours. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. 196.37.1.242 (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Siberian Cat description

Hi and thanks for your answer about the Siberian Cat. I have some things ready for the general history and a small description. However I don't see a place to edit that area. Do I submit my writings to you for approval? Please advise and thanks!--Chicki (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Powell's Article

Hello,

I received a message from you concerning my edits on Kevin Powell's article page. First, let me say that I strongly appreciate your concern for the repeated edits on this article. My edits are to omit offensive and misleading material about the subject and his brand. My edits are in his interest and have been approved by him. I have omitted content dealing with his recent Congressional candidancy that is distorted and is done maliciously in the attempt to antagonize the subject's character and reputation. We understand that Wikipedia is a public space and anyone is allowed to make contributions and edits, but they should not distort or slander a person's character.

Again, on behalf of the subject, I strongly appreciate your notice and concern for the repeated edits and deletions. We hope this issue can be resolved amicably with all fairness. If you have any further questions for me, please leave me another message and I would be happy to discuss the issue with you in greater detail.

Thank you. 69.114.53.188 (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied at user talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cobra starship

You recently said that I had 'vandalised' the cobra starship page on wikipedia. This is not true, they in fact did headline the really really rediculously good looking tour and I was there. I do not appreciate being accused like this, as all I said was true. thank you for warning me of what kind of place this is. I now see that you do not appreciate the information given by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weissuperior (talk • contribs) 07:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied at user talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for information

Hi again. If it's not much effort, I'm wondering if you could answer a few questions for me?

1. What's the significance of the difference between the text "<nowiki>{{3O}}, {{Disputed}}, {{Need-Consensus}} and {{Disputed-section}}"</nowiki>, and the text "{{tl|3O}}, {{tl|Disputed}}, {{tl|Need-Consensus}} and {{tl|Disputed-section}}"? (c.f. this edit.)
2. These four templates have been placed on the Heart (band) page. However, there is no explanation of what is in dispute, nor of who is in dispute. How does one go about finding out what and who is in dispute?
3. Who decides when these disputes have been resolved? Who removes the templates?

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. With respect to your first question, "nowiki" prevents the software from doing its usual wiki thing with the text. When it comes to templates, I use it a lot where I plan to copy & paste text often. For instance, I have a list of self-created and often-used templates of my own, here. Using nowiki before and after the "usage" guidelines lets me just copy & paste it. It doesn't expand on my frequently used templates page, but does at the talk page where I put it. {{tl}} is actually a template itself. Its purpose is (as its usage notes say) "to display a template name as a link surrounded by braces, thus showing how the template name would be used in code. Its primary use is in instruction and documentation." The primary advantage I can see to using it is that it allows readers to click on the template name to see what the template looks like. This has some of the same advantages that general wikilinking does. If you want to talk about, say, {{3O}}, you can do so knowing that contributors who aren't familiar with it can click through and see instantly exactly what you're talking about. It also makes pretty colored text. :)

The 3O template tells you that a user has listed the article at Wikipedia:Third opinion, where it seems to be languishing at the moment. (This is why I suggested above to both you and User:Soundvisions1 that eventually you may need to find another venue. In my experience, dispute resolution at Wikipedia can often require patience and persistence. Sometimes you ask for feedback at one place and nobody has any to offer, you move on to somewhere else (after waiting a sufficient time; things can move slowly here).) That tag should probably remain in place so long as the article remains listed at 3O. In general, one determines who has a dispute by looking in the edit history to see who placed the tags. Specifically, the tags were all placed by Soundvisions1. At the same time he made these edits to the talk page, which helps clarify specifically what the dispute involves. Disputed material related to the 30 request has been set out at Talk:Heart_(band)#NPOV_.2F_Third_Party_Opinions. A more general explanation is immediately above at Talk:Heart_(band)#Facts_with_Citations_from_the_main_page_concerning_Disputed.2FQuestioned_items.

Frequently, the editor who disputes the matter determines when his or her concerns have been resolved. Sometimes an outside editor weighs in and removes the tags. Sometimes consensus is formed by other contributors at the talk page that the tags are inappropriate, for instance if the tags represent a fringe opinion and the disputing editor is being tendentious, refusing to accept prevailing consensus. That's a step that should be taken with care, though, and only after making sure that consensus has been sought through appropriately widespread community interaction. (For an example, if a group of three Yu-Gi-Oh fans think Yu-Gi-Oh is the greatest cartoon in the world, an editor who disputes the neutrality of that is not being tendentious. Odds are good that wider community input is going to support that editor's view. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. A very thorough answer, which is most appreciated.
Your clarification seems to support my theory that, despite whatever Soundvisions1 may think, there are no disputes. i.e. I see no evidence that anyone is disputing these matters with him.
(Certainly I'm not dusputing any of these issues, and I never have; my complaints were about other matters that were resolved well before he made these postings, and these postings don't adress any issues I raised.)
So, given that no one is disputing these matters with him, do they need to remain open?
(I'm very tempted to remove them myself, but I'm fairly confident that such action would be, at best, deemed to be "inflammatory"!!)
Do you have any suggestions on how to get the templates removed quickly?
Many thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Given your history with the editor who placed the tags, I think it's a wise choice that you not remove them, since I doubt that other parties would consider you uninvolved. :) If you don't dispute these matters, it may be most simply addressed by letting him know that you agree with him or are at least willing to abide by his position on those matters. I'd do that on the article's talk page, not his talk page, and give him a day or so to respond. At that point, I would reiterate it at his talk page. I know of no way to get the template removed quickly, unless he happens to be monitoring the page and feels that the dispute is resolved by whatever statement you leave. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the sort of thing I had in mind; it's nice to have someone else confirm one's prejudices! ;-) Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I am sorry for the previous innapropriate editing. My friends managed to find out my password and they thought that they were being funny.

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weissuperior (talk • contribs) 12:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright stuff

Um, yeah, WP:CP: I knew that. I'm trying to find some time to help with that, by the way. Thanks for your help at Battle of Jenin! I hope my contributions to Mr. Schneider goes to Washington and Kentucky colonel from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 September 27 were helpful, though I know that's only a drop in the bucket! I also did some work on Samaun Samadikun from the October 11 list this morning. The Commons picture of the day is an owl today: very staid-looking. Cheers, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your help.It's a busy job! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. What did you think of that picture of the owl? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Another

We had a brief discussion regarding our earlier conversations on the Did You Know? talk page. An editor (Testing Times) is looking for someone's opinion about thinly rewritten text. Would you be able to take a look here? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm late to the ball with this one, it seems. :) It looks as though there is a general agreement there that the material crosses the line. I concur. In my opinion, the passage cited there would be problematic as a derivative work (cf. Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works). "Thinly rewritten" is the issue. While there's no clear line on how much difference there needs to be to completely eradicate infringement, I think particularly problematic is the segment running, "In 1424 he was also appointed...audited the accounts of royal officials in southern Wales." -- 23:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC) (A couple of times lately I've inadvertently used too many tildes! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

A barnstar

		Civility Award
		After having read through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, all in one sitting, I would like to present you with this barnstar. You remained cool, assumed good faith and civil at all times. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way I thought about giving you this one but it was the wrong genre. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much (and, also, LOL). I do try. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your kindness

Yes, please do that, I have been swamped with the crazy new job, so haven't kept up with them anyway. Thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Optimal Flexible Architecture

Thanks for restoring Optimal Flexible Architecture. I have had a quick read of the articles you recommended and have had a stab at expanding it. I would really appreciate any feedback or comments your have about the it. -- Thomas d stewart (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done. It certainly looks much more complete. :) Also, it looks scrupulously neutral. It would benefit from secondary sources to verify its notability as a product utilized by Oracle. That would help secure it from potential challenges that it does not meet those standards of inclusion. It also needs to be woven into the Wikipedia web through categorization and wikilinking from other Wikipedia articles. If you aren't sure how to do that, you can attract experienced volunteers to help out with it by tagging it {{uncategorized}} and {{orphan}}. Alternatively, you might want to look at similar articles to see which categories have been placed on them. There are suggestions here for how to "de-orphan" the article by linking to it from other articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the feedback, I'll get reading :-) Thomas d stewart (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Shaka Dee article POV

Hey, I was wondering, doesn't the Shaka Dee article seem a bit.. not-neutral? I believe the version of August 13 looks much better, but changing it back would be such a loss of content that I thought I'd just check with you first, seeing as you were one of the last to edit this article (I was unsure of where else to go). Akane91 (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I actually know nothing about the article. My sole contribution to it has been to note that an image was contested, here. (Hmm. And I see that needs following up on. Will take care of that next.) I didn't even look at the text. Looking at the it now, yes, it's incredibly non-neutral. "he began blowing minds"? Really? If I were you, I might tag it {{advertisement}} and, if it isn't addressed in reasonable time, revert to the last good version you find. Wow. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out. I'm really just a noob :) Akane91 (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Adia McKenzie

Hi, It's Adia McKenzie, the only things I have taht would be "notable" are websites, such as amazon.com, openlibrary.org, urbanbooksource.com etc. Would they be considered notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiak (talk • contribs) 20:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Adia. In and of themselves, I don't believe so, though if you showed me a specific link I could be better informed. Generally speaking, we'd look for such things as newspaper or magazine articles that would confirm that other sources are discussing the individual--if your books have been reviewed in newspapers, for example, that would help establish notability. (Reader submitted reviews, such as to amazon.com, aren't helpful with this.) We look for widespread coverage and generally for more notable publications. College newspapers may or may not help. A google search (which doesn't show everything, of course) picks up 40 distinct hits for your name, but I'm not seeing at a glance the kinds of websites we usually look for. A news search does hit one, but unfortunately it's a press release and so not usable for our purposes. (What we're looking for are published secondary source material which meets our reliability guideline and is independent of the subject.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to me, where I'll see it

Pitch in here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, so I'm not the only one who does that? :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Apparently not. :) I knew if I didn't make a note somewhere prominent, I'd forget! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Rat tailed something another

I've responded proving the image was copyrighted when uploaded to Wikipedia without permission, I think. Since it's pretty rare, I would think, for someone to post a response, I decided to let you know on your talk page too. --TIB (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've deleted it as a blatant copyright violation, since the Flickr page marks it clearly "all rights reserved." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup :-)

Yes, Moonriddengirl. This time, I found a reliable source. I am adding more, too. --Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added a new source. If you'd like to help me, please, that would be fantastic. I have to log off very soon.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just added another one. And, that's it for me tonight. If they delete it again, then I will be very disappointed. That would be like refusing to write that sun rises and sets...because there are no sources to justify it. But, I'll just keep re-writing until I find the right sources.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you help, please? Was there something wrong with the other news source I added, or is Vary just deleting without even reading the article anymore? Anyhow...thanks.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Powell's Conflict of Interest

Hi,

I'm concerned why there is a conflict of interest notice blasted before Powell's bio. I see that you have pointed out that the contributor mentioned his/her edit's are on behalf of Powell and in his interests. It is however, questionable why you have chosen to spotlight this page when thousands of articles written on Wikipedia are written on behalf of the subjects. For example, PR firms representing celebrities and other notable figures. Moreover, companies and organizations whose in-house or out-sourced PR firms writes their pages as well. This is unfair and immensely unbalanced. This is should be brought before the wiki community and fairly resolved whether or not this is deemed a conflict of interest. I have had a watch on this page for months. During Powell's campaign against Towns, I've seen how his page literally became a site for character warfare and assassination against Powell to fuel suspicion on Powell's eligibility for Congress. Many people in the city of New York believe this was a tactic of Powell's opposition and possibly a reason why he lost. You didn't put a conflict of interest alert on his page then. Please operate in fairness and bring this issue before the community for a fair resolution regarding your allege conflict of interest notice on Powell's page.

Thank you. Kp4c (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I chose to spotlight this page because this one has been on my watchlist since it was brought up for investigation at the copyright problems board. We have specific guidelines for conflict of interest editing, and these apply to all contributors. I did not put a conflict of interest alert on his page until a conflict was confirmed. But I will certainly bring it to the conflict of interest noticeboard. I believe based on your edits that you may also have a conflict (presuming that you are not the same editor) with Wikipedia's goal of producing a neutral article. I notice that you have removed reference to Powell's violence against women, notwithstanding that the New York Times article used as a source is entitled "House Race in Brooklyn Focuses on Women" and relevant quote from that source says "Over the last few months, Mr. Towns has been quick to criticize his opponent, consistently raising one issue: Mr. Powell revealed in an autobiographical book five years ago that he had engaged in acts of violence against women earlier in his life." (emphasis added).[6] I am not a New Yorker or a particular fan of Reality TV, so I don't know if it's true as you indicate in edit summary that the press also covered other issues of violence in Mr. Powell's past. To an outsider, it seems as if an effort is being made to minimize Mr. Powell's controversial areas just as his detractors have made an effort to exaggerate them. You may find community discussion here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Harold Osterweil Cooperative House

I am new to this whole wikipedia editing stuff and I wish you hadn't just redirected the Harold Osterweil page to the main ICC Coop page. It seems to me that you don't know much about co-ops, just as I don't know much about Wikipedia. I would prefer if you didn't "bite" me (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BITE) and instead of acting, tell me how to make it better. I have already had problems with another user and I feel that I should explain my lack of notability and why I feel that the Harold Osterweil page should stay, even without "secondary reliable sources". This may seem like a very weak argument but I don't feel like going in depth at the moment. First off, the University of Michigan is a very well know school. Housing is a very important part of going to college and the ICC is a very good place to live (in my opinion of course). I just want to make another resource available for people considering living in a co-op through the ICC.

I know the page isn't very well written or set to guidelines but it is very frustrating having people tear your attempts down without real explanation. As a college student, I am fairly busy and I am not able to fully devote my time to this page. I am trying, not very hard unfortunately, to make this page useful.

The strangest thing to me is how you guys find these pages. I almost feel that this page is being singled out (obviously not the case). If you were in my shoes or another other student looking for housing at U of M, you wouldn't see this page as some stupid student's wiki edit; you would be able to learn a little more about your potential home and links to other helpful resources.

Remember, I am a n00b at wiki editing. I will make mistakes and I will try to learn from every one. Give me some time to make this page suitable for Wikipedia. Lastly, I am glad you choose to redirect this page rather than having it go on the chopping block; at least that gives me more time to make things better. Thanks Ksun420 (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting articles that do not accord with policy is not "bitey", although I'm sorry if you are finding your first efforts here frustrating. If the house does not meet notability guidelines, then the fact that it's a very good place to live is not relevant. Wikipedia has developed specific criteria to govern what subjects are appropriate for inclusion here. When the article was tagged for notability, you were advised how to correct that--with reliable sources. The fact that you removed the tag without doing so suggests that you may not have unrelated sources to include. Additionally, the article continues to display text taken verbatim from this site. Lacking proof of permission (see WP:Permission) or compatible license, we can't copy text from any previously published source on Wikipedia as a matter of law.

It may be appropriate to include information about it in the existing article at Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan, though such material should be weighted to its overall importance in that article. Accordingly, I have proposed a merger into that article, though material must still meet verifiability policies, and it cannot include original observation. This can be difficult to do when there is a conflict of interest, but it is essential for Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

-I feel that acting without informing is "bitey" or just rude in general but I don't know how the community is around here and I consider myself someone that is easily offended. I am still unclear as to the whole notability debacle. The initial warning threw me for a loop and I acted hastily and as a result, did not react accordingly. I did add more sources but I guess they were not good enough. It was very frustrating trying to learn how to format the article as well as deal with this legal jargon. In addition, I am not sure how to correctly directly quote (or quote in general) from other sources. I could most likely get permission from the ICC office to use their information but that would take some time.

I am not certain about what you are talking about in your second paragraph(this wiki stuff is still over my head haha) but I think a merge with the main ICC page would be a suitable change. Thank you for your help and response. After this, I am done with Wikipedia editing :) Ksun420 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that would be a shame. :) The Wikipedia environment can take some getting used to, but it's not a bad place to hang out once you figure it out. It is important to work on not being easily offended, though, if you can. A lot of the process here is impersonal, but it isn't meant to offend. I chose to redirect the article with a link at the main page to the external website as a way of keeping information out there, so searchers here could find it, but still addressing the minor infringement concerns as well as the notability issue.

Anyway, what I'm talking about in my second paragraph is a "merge" of information on the house into the main article. The main article is notable. The house is related to it, so you don't have to establish "separate" notability to include information about it there. If a merge is performed, then there would be a couple of paragraphs about the house at Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan and anyone searching for the house on Wikipedia would be carried to that article or to the appropriate section inside of it. That still allows searchers to find material.

Material does need to be verifiable, though. You evidently live at the house, so you have "inside" knowledge about things like this: "There is always a vegetarian option at dinner and in Fall 08, a motion was passed to limit the use of dairy in dinner due to an intolerance of lactose in the house." But even if you know it's true, it can only be included on Wikipedia if it has been published somewhere. This is because Wikipedia is a "tertiary source" that anyone can add to. The only way our readers can trust our information is if we have a strict rule that it all comes from something "reliable". (I'm relinking a lot of these policies and guidelines just because I think they may make more sense in context.)

Please feel free to let me know if you'd like more information on any of that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

haha, I don't have the time or patience to do the things you do. You obviously care a lot about the integrity of Wikipedia and I applaud your work.

I think that merging it with the ICC wiki page is a good idea. The other houses should be merged as well.

Again, thanks for all your help, I appreciate everything you've done. When I have more time (I have three 5 page papers to do..), I'll fix up my information. Ksun420 (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia. 0.7 albums

I highly recommend you go through the list of selected albums and note which ones should not be included in Wikipedia 0.7 at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. I'm not a member of the Albums project, so I would feel presumptuous doing it myself. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it after work tomorrow, though I'm sure you'd be just as good at picking as I am. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes on the topic:

• X-Men:_The_Last_Stand#Soundtrack A Good article, but not as a representative of album, where it is neither important nor sufficiently developed beyond a stub.
• Wish You Were Here (album)--overuse of quotations & poor sourcing?

Help!

Hey, Could you delete mine and Priyeshnb entries from this image. He made a mistake with the name. Thanks--SkyWalker (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) You seem to have repaired the problem. Is there a particular need to delete the intermediate version? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, How are you doing?. Being long time i have not spoken to you. Well it was showing that lady pic instead of the other image so i though it best to delete the second image because it violates the license. :) --SkyWalker (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "Franklin Howard Scobey" article

Recently, you deleted the article on "Franklin Howard Scobey"wich was posted at my request by another member of our mutual fraternity. You can read more about our fraternity by searching "sigma chi". The article was posted, with permission, directly from our pledge manual which is called "the norman shield", which outlines many things about our fraternity.

Please message me so that I know how we can have this article restored. It did take great time to have this article typed, and luckily was saved in case of removal.

Thanks, J

Unfsigmachi (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC).

Hi. There are two ways to have the article restored, as set out at the talk page of your fraternity member. First, you can display a release under GFDL or into public domain at the original site. This would be easier to do, obviously, with the website here than with the pdf manual. Alternatively, the copyright owner may send an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation verifying permission under the procedure set out at WP:Permission. This procedure can take a while; the Communications Committee generally clears permission letters within seven days. Please note that such a permission letter must come from an e-mail associated with the publication and that it must acknowledge irrevocable release under GFDL or compatible license (which allows reuse, including commercially, and modification, reserving only the right of attribution) or into public domain. It is insufficient to release the material for use on Wikipedia only, as all of Wikipedia's content is released under GFDL. If you have such a notice displayed at the website, I can restore the version of the article that was drawn from the website, though not the one copied from the manual, if you leave me a note here telling me where on the website the release can be found. Alternatively, if you send a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation by the procedure set out at WP:Permission, let me know, and I can partially restore the article, though its contents will be blanked until the letter is processed. These steps are necessary, as Wikipedia does not require identity verification at account creation, and we can only verify that we are complying with copyright law externally. Please let me know if I can clarify any of this further. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Long overdue

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		I've been meaning to do this for a while. You do such great work clearing up backlogs and helping newbies, and it's really remarkable how much time and care you take to discuss and explain. I've never seen you be the slightest bit incivil. You're a truly amazing Wikipedian. delldot ∇. 06:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. What an amazingly nice thing to wake up to. :) I do try, and I greatly appreciate it. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

William Cleveland

• William Cleveland (author)
• William Cleveland (author, community-arts leader)

Hi Moonriddengirl,

I'm checking to see what I need to correct in the posting you deleted: William Cleveland (author and community-arts leader).

I appreciate any feedback and guidance you can give me to correct it.

Thanks!

Patagonia23 (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Since there are two articles here, one of which (more close in title to your reference) was deleted, I want to be clear what it is we're talking about. :) You created two articles on this person under each of the titles above. They were identical, and both of them were created with text copied from [7]. The article William Cleveland (author, community-arts leader) was subsequently redirected to William Cleveland (author) by another editor, who listed it at the copyright problems board and left you a notice at your talkpage, here, explaining how to verify permission for the text either through note at the external source or by contacting the Wikimedia Foundation.

When after seven days permission had not been verified, the article William Cleveland (author) was revised to remove duplication. The redirect page at William Cleveland (author, community-arts leader) was deleted, as it was redundant, contained unverified replication of copyrighted material in its history and is an unlikely search term.

Recap over, if you are asking how to correct William Cleveland (author, community-arts leader), we don't make duplicate articles on one individual. If you think that the article William Cleveland (author) would be more appropriately placed under the other title, that's something to consider, but our guideline on disambiguation encourages simplicity, so the longer title may not be the best choice.

If, however, what you mean is that you'd like to restore the fully body of text to William Cleveland (author), copyright concerns will be eliminated if you follow through the permissions process explained at your page. We need external verification of release into public domain or under license compatible with GFDL, which allows commercial as well as non-commercial reuse and modification. This may come in the form of an explicit note at the source or a letter from an associated address to Wikimedia. You can read more about this at WP:Permission. Once that released is verified, the original test may be restored, although it is, of course, subject to modification by any Wikipedia contributor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

I'll try the deletion review, like you said. But, this article has had a deletion review before. I'm allowed to make another one?--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if there's substantial new evidence. Are you sure it was up for deletion review, though? I don't see it in the links at Special:WhatLinksHere/Virtual_Family_Kingdom or Special:WhatLinksHere/VFK. Perhaps you're thinking of the AfD? In case you aren't familiar with it, deletion review is a special process where contributors decide if a deletion debate was closed properly or "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." It's also appropriate to use DRV when the article has been "salted", or protected against recreation. That space was protected, but the protection expired. Since multiple contributors have recreated this article, I've gone on ahead and reinstated the protection. This could make the deletion review process easier, as unless the space is salted contributors there may not wish to consider the matter and the creation-WP:CSD#G4 deletion cycle will continue. But, again, I wouldn't go to deletion review without some really good sources. Personally, I think it would be easier to have strong sources and have the article restored on the first try than to have to come back again later, after a first DRV has failed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss this?

I had this bookmarked for a while and it has been deleted. Category:Image copyright tags Did I miss something along the way? Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I Should Coco @ GAN

Hi.

As a member of WikiProject Albums, I thought you might be interested in reviewing I Should Coco which is a good article nomination. If you could review, that'd be great. Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 14:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look and see if I can contribute anything to the evaluation later today after I finish the current crop at WP:CP. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've addressed the style concerns. Now onto the verifiability concerns... TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 16:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote "Though it is one of their most popular songs, the band rarely play "Alright" in their live sets anymore, not because they dislike it, but because it would be wrong for a band whose members are now all in their 30s to sing a song of such youthful exuberance." I think will have to be removed. It was taken from the "Alright" article and I think it must have been an editors opinion... I could just remove "not because they dislike it, but because it would be wrong for a band whose members are now all in their 30s to sing a song of such youthful exuberance.". TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 16:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's looking good I think. Question though. Should I add a chart table? I see on some albums that there is a table of where the album charted in some countries. If i was to do this, how many countires should I add to the table? (If that makes an sence) TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 06:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never used a chart table, but some like them. :) (Not saying I don't; I've just never used one.) There's a guideline on them here. Doesn't say how many countries, though. Are there a ridiculous lot of them? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There are 12 countries the album charted, this information is given at Supergrass discography. Probably best not to use the table if you can already find out at the discographyTwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 16:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been promoted GA status now. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done! Congratulations. :) Are you going for FA? :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :D I guess I'll go for FA at some point. Some of the references might be a problem though. I've got Supergrass discography at FLC at the moment. I hope it doesn't go to no consensus... Maybe you could leave some comments? :) TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 22:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You are diligent. Looking at how many times that one has been up before, I can't imagine that I would spot anything that hasn't been mentioned already, particularly as my "higher review" experience consists now of one GA of my own and yours. :D (Oh, wait, no. I also contributed some tangential comments on one other...maybe an LL Cool J album?) I note, though, that there are only two sources cited in the lead. Is that common in such articles? Personally, I suspect I'm an over-sourcer, but I would probably source a claim like "They rose to prominence during the Britpop era in the mid-90s with their single "Alright"." It may be demonstrably their top-rating single through 1995, but does that verify that they rose to prominence because of it? Or that they didn't rise to prominence with "Lenny" which hit #10 in the UK? If it were my article, I'd be indicating who said that and where, but, again, I suspect I'm overly cautious on that. I don't doubt that my prose flow suffers due to my constant "According to Blahblah" and "In a 1992 interview, Blahblah said". :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I have a lot of free time at the moment... I cited sources for some of the facts in the lead, like the chart postions. I think that's all that needs to be cited as most other stuff in the lead can be found in other Supergrass related articles. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Riding the Moon

Hi I was wondering what it is like to ride the Moon? Did you drive over the moon in one of those space buggies looking for water? Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It's actually Moonriddengirl, not Moonridinggirl. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that I'm caught up with business, I'll stop for further explanation. The name is inspired by "In Mind", a poem by one my favorite beat poets, Denise Levertov. I used to have a legal-to-link-to site with the poem that I could point people to, but, alas, it's gone. Another contributor updated the link on my userpage, but I'm afraid it's probably copyvio link, so I'll have to remove it. (Done!) Said poem is about dual internal existence and the dichotomy between the clean-faced placid side of a person and the "turbulent moon-ridden girl". To me, the phrase "moon-ridden" ties in with turbulent to suggest instability, as the moon is connected with the cyclical tides of the ocean as well as general dreaminess or madness (ala moonstruck—the phrase, not the Cher movie—and lunatic). Being dreamy and imaginative is not always a good quality. I picture being ridden by the moon as having a bit of a monkey on one's back. However, I strongly suspect that few people here get to see the side of me that used to get me in trouble in school. :D When I registered on Wikipedia, I had no idea what a major time investment I would wind up making here, or I might have gone with something a little less fanciful, though I really like the phrase. (And I was surprised to find out after registering here that I am not alone in feeling an affinity with the term.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirque Lodge COI question

The Cirque Lodge IP editor (who has self-identified as Matt Hales and is presumably also User:MattHales) keeps removing the COI tag from the article. I've asked them to take it to the talk page, but after the rather odd comments denying their editing last time, I don't expect much. Can you take a look at the recent history and venture an opinion about what should be done? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I considered removing it when I rewrote the article, but left it in part because I had not done extensive research & so could not say if pertinent negative information had been omitted and because it would help serve as a warning against potential further problems. I can't definitively speak to the former, but a quick glance through google news doesn't find any horrid scandals that haven't been mentioned. It seems from the note at your talk page like the contributor understands now that coi is inadvisable. What I'd probably do is remove the tag and leave a note at the article's talk page with a pointer to COI and a flat statement that the tag may need to be restored if there is reason to suspect COI editing in the future. If you agree that's a good approach, I'd be happy to leave such a note...or you can do it. If you think that more searching should go into balance prior to removing the tag, I'd be happy to give that some time tomorrow, but probably won't have enough time to dedicate to a careful search today. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I defer to your judgement, and I'll let you do the honours, since I suspect the IP editor thinks I'm biased. Outside of Lindsay Lohan rumours, I didn't find anything really worth adding, and it can always be expanded later. Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Charles Brandes

Thanks for taking care of this copyright issue. Your work is appreciated. --10stone5 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Yours is, too. I'm always happy to see when somebody addresses those concerns for notable topics! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

delition of user page

hi, i'm new and my page has been deleted, can you fix it? username: UsmanovUsmanov (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There's nothing in your deleted contributions log, so I'm afraid I may not be able to help you. Were you perhaps registered under another name? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234

Hi, I am doing editing on Qing, user Bathrope and me we kind of disagree on the issue of NPOV. Could you have a look at Qing talk page and give me some advice?ThanksArilang1234 (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. After looking it over and seeing the scope of involvement, my best suggestion would be that you invite feedback at the ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard (ECCN). If I were you, I would neutrally present the dispute there. If there is no response, which sometimes happens anywhere on Wikipedia, I'd wait a couple of days and open the matter at the neutral point of view noticeboard, leaving a note at WP:ECCN that I'd done so. The next step would be requests for comment, but I have typically found that a dissatisfying experience, so I would persist first at one of the noticeboards. Good luck with it; I hope that you reach comfortable consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss this?

I had this bookmarked for a while and it has been deleted. Category:Image copyright tags Did I miss something along the way? Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the deletion log:

• 18:51, 18 October 2008 TravisTX (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Image copyright tags" ‎ (G2: Test page)
• 15:16, 8 October 2008 Kbdank71 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Image copyright tags" ‎ (CFD 2008 Oct 2)

It was first deleted following a CfD conversation, here, it seems. Reading that, it seems like it might have been renamed to Category:Wikipedia image copyright templates. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image issue - again

Since you are sort of the person I see involved in this type of issue I thought I would start with you. Don't you feel special? So I found a tiny stub of an article on clothing (Tactical Assault Camouflage). The only external link is to the offical vendor website and it says: "TACAM patterns are copyrighted © 2004 by Timothy R. O'Neill and Guy Cramer, All Rights Reserved. Patterns may only be used only with permission." The article uses Image:TACAMCAMO.PNG (Which is now on Commons) in it and that image has been released into "Public domain" by the same Editor who created the Wikipedia article. So my question is twofold - Putting the possible COI aside, if Logical Premise is either Timothy R. O'Neill or Guy Cramer should they state that in the summary? Now if Logical Premise is not either one of those people should this image be at commons (or anywhere with a "public domain" license?) I know it seems obvious at face value but the wording on the website does say "Patterns may only be used only with permission" and the image being used is of the pattern. Thanks as always. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Just on the face of this, I would go out on a limb if forced to and guess that the uploader is declaring himself the copyright holder because the image is modified--skewed and pixelated--and not because he is connected to the official website. This I would base primarily on his contribution history, here, which does not look like a typical WP:SPA COI account. (Not that all COI editors are SPA, but that's usually a big give-away.) His infoboxes say that he is a Petty Officer Third Class in the United States Navy, which would explain his interest in military topics without a close personal connection to that one. Of course, if he is one of those two individuals, then he is encouraged to declare his connection, but not required. See Wikipedia:COI#Declaring an interest. If you think a conflict may exist, you can certainly point out to him that if he has one, he might wish to declare it. But you'll want to be careful not to note specifics per WP:OUTING (and also COI, which says "other editors are not allowed to reveal your identity").

The larger question here is, to me, whether the contributor is mistakenly attempting to release a derivative work into public domain. I can't tell by looking at it, but it seems plausible. This could be something you might want to bring up with the contributor or raise at Commons:Deletion requests. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not wanting to out anyone at all, I did check out the user history and the users page. It was mainly a use of the "Patterns" image that caught my eye, because it clearly states on the website the "Patterns may only be used only with permission". And looking at the image page I see no direct permission given by either of the two named on the website. After I posted this I dug deeper on the website and see they have a fairly detailed Copyright and Camouflage Patterns page. It would not be any issue at all except for the conflict between the user saying it was all their work and the website clearly saying the patterns are not to be used without permission. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he is a third party who thinks he has the right to release it because the image is modified. I've seen a lot of confusion over the degree to which a work must be changed to efface original copyright. As you know, though, images are not really my area. :) Of course, he could be the copyright holder. Without outing him, you could easily point out that the original pattern is copyrighted and check to see if he is claiming a release of it or if he is putting a derivative work into public domain. If the latter, he might request deletion of the image from commons himself if it is explained to him why this may be improper. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

So I've been working on my proposal all week and was wondering what you think, since I see you do a lot of editing on jazz and R&B albums. YOu can leave comments either here or on my talk page. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It's looking very good. :) A few of my thoughts, though your mileage may vary:

• "some genres have large subgenre categories that in turn have their own subgenres. Examples of this in rock music are Heavy metal music, Punk rock, and Alternative rock." Heavy metal is a subgenre of rock. Should you give an example of a subgenre of that subgenre, since it's mentioned in the text (say, for example, Death metal?)

• I think I'll indicate some of those subgenres' subgenres in parenthesis, ie. heavye metal (thrash metal, power metal, nu metal), Punk rock (New Wave, post-punk, hardcore punk), and alternative rock (grunge, Britpop, indie rock). WesleyDodds (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I like this: "Ignore what the artist classifies themselves as" I do wonder, though, if it would be worth mentioning that it could be appropriate to reference the band's self-definition, if not to rely on it.

• Could be worth mentioning depending on the subject {Michael Jackson calling himself the "King of Pop" is the best example), but it shouldn't be the primary way to determine an artist's genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is one really sufficient for a song? Rapture (song) comes to mind, as the mix of two genres--rock & rap--are essential to that song.

• You could of course bend the guideline for a rare example like that. Still, thinking about it in most cases you can only attribute one overarching genre to a song as genre definitions mostly apply to song structure (ie. chord progressions, rhythms, arrangements), and I think that's a decent default to work with. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I like your "when in doubt, go general" suggestion.
• "In the case of compilation albums that contain music by more than one artist or group, no genre should be listed in the infobox."—this may be advisable in some cases, but what about genre compilation albums? (For instance, Now That's What I Call Country) I think I might go more general there and say "more than one artist or group representing various genres". If they're all blatantly one genre, it shouldn't be a problem. (Most of the Now That's What I Call... series are probably actually good examples of when not to include genre.)

• That had occured to me, but I feel like it would be ultimately more effective to have no genre listed for various artist comp infoboxes. I occasionally worry about making the guidelines too complicated. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got a bit of late-in-the-day blur, but at a read over, nothing else pops out at me for comment. I think it's a very solid start for the debates that will undoubtedly follow. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Making a change proposal

Would love your feedback, good or bad.
Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles - proposed addition/change discussion

Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replied there.:) Points in brief: I think it would be good if we could abbreviate some of it to avoid instruction creep. I can see that endorsement deals might be a problem, and I want to clarify user submitted news articles, since I can think of one big example that I believe is reliable. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Template Substitution

Hi there. Just to let you know that you should subst the {{ANI-notice}} template. Thanks and if you want to reply to this please use my talk page. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 13:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Np and I'm just trying to raise awareness a bit :) Less bot edits that way :). ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 14:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on Mirror Foundation

Hi Moonriddengirl, Thank you very much for your comments and your help with the references for my initial draft on the Mirror Foundation. They have really helped. I have edited the article and added projects by the foundation which I could find external references to. I did not include those which do not have references for the sake of neutrality. Could you please have a look and see if the content and formatting is ok? Thanks in advance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drawing_board#Mirror_Foundation Scooterguy (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've answered you there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the article from Drawing Board to (User:Scooterguy/sandbox) as suggested. See you there :) Scooterguy (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I delete the article from Drawing Board now that I don't need it there? Scooterguy (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No reason to worry about it. It's there for archival purposes if need be. :) It's rather late in my part of the world, but I'll take a glance at it now and should certainly be able to contribute more tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD:John Dahlbäck: thanks for your input

Hello, Moonriddengirl! I just wanted to sincerely thank you for your input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dahlbäck. I think you went a long way to actually trying to establish the notability (or lack of) of the subject. I can't help but to think that perhaps I should've understood that the reason some contributors wasn't that impressed with the Essential Mix, was that not everyone realised DJing as upposed to the average Radio DJing also could be considered an artform in it's own right. Lastly, my attitude was apparently uncivil enough to warrant an official warning, so I'm now trying to do my homework, even if I, after reading through everything again, still think a warning was excessive. Of course I may be wrong, so if you think I in any way was uncivil towards you I apologize and assure you it was completely unintentionally. Best regards, Sebisthlm (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Bautista Wikipedia page

Just thanking you for making the Glenn Bautista page deletion at Wikipedia possible. Maybe, when I am ready and can properly write a fresh article and properly upload images on Artist Glenn Bautista's page, I will one day again try to create his page here at Wikipedia, maybe with a little guidance from you and Wikipedia. Again, thank you.--Lorncruz (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 12:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert war on my edits

It likely has to do with my recent deletions of links to a wiki containing a copy of the oft deleted Nelson Chan. Some months ago I had a similar experience related Nelson Chan where the person adding similar links started a similar freakout. Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Oingoboing69 should be illuminating. I'll take it to WP:SPP if it keeps up. I've started assembling a page here for this very reason. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently popping in to his local library to vent his spleen. Some people have too much time on their hands. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

stuff

I am going to give you examples that may help more. I really do not want to put these on the main discussion. I am involved in some of these and some I'm not. If I am involved in one and you think my reading of the guidelines is way off please let me know here. Also note that my next "rewrite" past the musician criteria was to work on the "album, single, song" criteria and present that because it makes no mention of things like "Digital Downloads" or the like. (But that is getting ahead of myself).

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lie Lie Lie
• The End of an Error
• The End of an Error closed AfD
• The End of an Error DRV
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wanderer (O.A.R. album)
• That Was a Crazy Game of Poker
• The Be Good Tanyas (uses their official website and a "forum" as citations/referances)
• Bones Apart (Article uses a combination of material but also sources that are "press release" combined with "Concert listings")
• Exist Trace (uses only two citations - one is a user submitted source and the other seems to be a list)
• Candy (Malaysian all-female band) (Nine citations/References - albums cover links, track listings, link to a list of "bands named Candy", band bio)
• Kaia Wilson (check out the "Sound Unseen promotional poster" reference)
• Talk:Soda Pop-Rip Off (I did a PROD and it was removed. I started a discussion to address why)
• Inzombia (I only added {{notability}} tag and it was removed with no changes only the edit box comment of "This album is obviously notable: it's on a notable record label, and was produced by a notable musician/producer. It meets the requirements.")
• Talk:Time (Wild album) (I did a PROD. It was deleted. It was restored with no changes and no reason. Not that the article cites any sources at all but one can imagine it was restored because the album is on a "major" and the band is "notable" and the one external link to to the label listing)
• Dave Gonzalez . (Currently in an AfD but because article mentions an "Endorsement deal" at least one comment at the AfD says "Fender making a signature model clearly makes him notable already.")
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DavidLee (2nd nomination) (Closed AfD. Like above the article was on a musician who does have an endorsement deal and a "signature" model. That is the ad I showed as an example in the discussion)
• Paulina Gretzky (Currently at AfD and was first a "delete". Only links were too an official website, a photo and a 2005 interview in "Flair magazine". PROD was taken off so it was taken to Afd where an editor added "reliable sources that show notability". They include a "Sports blog", A 2005 press release about the story in "Flair", An article about the subjects mother and a brief wire service story that starts off Wayne Gretzky's daughter..." and looks like a combination of 3 or 4 one line press releases. Afd is now showing a "keep" because of these newly added sources)
• Aja Kim (We have already discussed The Iron Maidens but the way all members and all albums have their own article is worth looking into in relation to the guideline discussion. Look at the singer as an example. 13 references and 4 of them are forums or blogs that contain some form of press release, one is a link to a reprinted press release, two do not mention the singer at all but are links to people she has worked with and two lead to myspace videos. Most every other article connected to the parent The Iron Maidens article has the same format - lots of links to press press releases, forums and other band/artist sites. Most of the members even have separate sections named "Equipment Endorsers".)

Well, I mean I do not want to overload you with examples but while it may be obvious to you and I that most of these do not meet the guidlines a look at some of the AfD shows that as long as somebody tosses links into the article and the Afd (Even if they never make it into the article) than it is ok. Thanks Moonie. :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks, but how do you put pictures on the user page?Usmanov (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As you may note, I don't have any. :) So far as I know, you simply link to it as you would at any article, making sure that the image you are linking is free for use. Fair use images can only be used where they meet WP:NFCC. If you're looking for more specific detail about how to use images, you may want to ask at Wikipedia's help desk, as I've done very little with them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

John Custer Wikipedia entry

Hello-

I got your message. Thank you.

The entry that you have issue with is from my website biography at www.johncuster.com

It is my official biography that I've approved and I have all rights to it's content.

My e-mail address (for confirmation) is john@johncuster.com OR john@johncuster.net

I'm impressed and encouraged by the thorough oversight here at Wikipedia. Thank you for contacting me.

Best to you, John Custer

cell: 919 740 2946 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.157.110 (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of good faith edit

My edit to Lake Superior College et al was deleted and reason given was link to personal website.

Why was the noteworthy fact "...is immune to 'Educational Malpractice' lawsuits" deleted?

I know that it is a lot to ask, but if you read my website [8] you will find it packed with valid references to relevant court decisions.

Consider this: how valid are links to college student blogs when students may be expelled without cause? when colleges in the USA cannot legally be held to any standard of care?

Colleges that advertise in Wikipedia and that are immune should disclose this privilege for the following reasons:

    1)Consumer protection.
    2)Judicial economy.

I look forward to seeing an entry in Wikipedia regarding Educational Malpractice Immunity that immune colleges may be linked to.

Please advise.

--Goot Edrze (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The fact was deleted because it did not reference a reliable source. I explained a bit on the drawing board the problem with your website in terms of its use on Wikipedia, but will explain more here. Essentially, "self published sources" can only be used on Wikipedia in articles about themselves—if, for example, "www.student-b-warned" were to become notable under WP:WEB, then we would certainly be able to use it in sourcing its own article. For example, the links at Lake Superior College to its own website are appropriate because the article is about Lake Superior College. (We wouldn't take their word for questionable material, though. If their website said their school was the best in the state, we would remove it pending production of a reliable, independent source.)

If you have references to a reliable secondary source, like a newspaper or a magazine, indicating that either of these schools is immune from Educational Malpractice, then it may be appropriate for inclusion, factoring in issues like weight.

Colleges are not by policy permitted to advertise on Wikipedia. We don't accept advertisement. Conflict of interest editing is discouraged, and promotional text is tagged or removed as soon as it is noted. What we are endeavoring to create here is an open source encyclopedia, creating a compendium of previously published information about notable topics. I am sympathetic to your concern and already did read your website with interest, when I saw your note at the drawing board. It never occurred to me that my university might have the legal right to expel me for no reason just shy of receiving my sheepskin. But while it sounds to me like you have a very good cause for concern, Wikipedia is not an advocate for good causes any more than an advertiser for colleges. All material should be neutral and verified by "reliable sources".

With respect to an entry on Wikipedia, I gave you some feedback on that the drawing board, including a suggestion of where you might seek assistance in establishing such an article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am mr question

Are non-admins supposed to removed CSD tags for blatant copy vios? I wanted to check before I replied and/or reverted the csd removals.

He removed and "fixed" this: Redding_Album_Cover.jpg diff and this: Rcwwlogo.jpg diff and then left me this message: User talk:Soundvisions1#Copyright status of Image:Redding Album Cover.jpg

Thanks as always Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help, so long as I know your answers. :D In this case, I do. Yes, he can remove it. As the template says, "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." In the first case, he has replaced it with a valid FUR. Note, though, that the image is too big to meet fair use criteria and should be tagged for reduction. (Actually, I tagged it. Both of them. Both too big.) As WP:GID (whoot!) says, "If you encounter an image that is indisputably non-free, and it can comply with our non-free content policy, be bold and retag it as a non-free image with an appropriate tag."

By the way, I keep meaning to respond to your note above. Some of that stuff is jaw droppingly blatant. :) I see why you want specificity. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I was about to post another diff to another logo image they removed a CSD for as well but I won't as long as non-admins can do that. I am still learning about what admins and non-admins can do. I am seeing that non admins can close AfDs as well which I did not think they could. A world of knowledge on here. :)

And yes to the "jaw dropppingly blatant" comment. I think a lot of it with albums, singles and songs goes hand in hand with WP:CRYSTAL as well because I just found two new AfD discussions where the issue being discussed is not failure to meet notability per WP:NALBUMS but that it fails WP:CRYSTAL. I have made comments quoting that the discussion of "failing WP:CRYSTAL" "should be discussed only in the artist's article" per WP:NALBUMS. The policy WP:DEL#REASON make no mention of WP:CRYSTAL being a valid reason and, as many people like to say, policy trumps guidlines. :) I know my attempt at the DRV I listed above failed miserably but no use in trying again with other active AfD's right? :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Brewhaha@edmc.net

I filed a WP:AN report regarding the above user, with whom I know you've had some problematic interaction. If you'd care to comment, it can be found here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am way too slow for the speed of ANI. :) I type quickly, but spend so long thinking about things that by the time I get my answer out, the conversation has been archived. Just to let you know, when I started typing my comment, there were no replies to you. The "reasoned & reasonable" comment was meant for your note. Once it went up, though, I decided that it really applies to the whole conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Could you do me a favour and delete Image:MTVmusicScreen.PNG, I've updated the image to a new one so it is no longer needed. Rather than wait the 7 days for it to be removed automatically. Cheers. Also, could you reply on my talk page if you reply.

Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 11:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the quick response! --Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 20:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiAfrica subpages

Hi. :) I just wanted to let you know that the subpages you created, WikiAfrica Workshops and WikiAfrica Workshop, have been moved from "article space" to project space. They can now be located at Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Workshops and Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Workshop. Since the remaining redirects are being cleaned up for housekeeping reasons, I wanted to be sure you knew where to find them. If you have any questions about this, please drop me a line at my talk page, and I'll be happy to go into more detail. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, --Ira Nal27 (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Edited Coyote Point Systems entry for notability

I’ve added third-party references, removed claims that couldn’t be independently sourced, edited out marketing copy, and corrected some grammar issues. Might be good enough to remove the templated message. Thanks! Kawika (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) It might be notable enough to remove the templated messages. I 'm not deeply familiar with the industry (my only contribution to that article was to provide the creator information on how best to contribute to an article on a subject with which he or she is closely involved). Since the main claim to notability hangs on industry awards and industry award nominations, the question would come down to how notable those awards are. This one seems likely to me, given its longevity and also the fact that the article involves genuine reporting, rather than reproduction of press releases. This one has no actual reporting, but if Info Security is the Consumer Reports of its industry, then the award should still count. Nomination for Virtualization's Reader's Choice Award does not seem notable, that headline notwithstanding, since nomination can be made, according to this, by anyone, including PR firms and the company itself. There seem to be quite a few fellow noms. I don't believe that one lends to notability, though of course it will if they win! I think you're actually underreporting the Interpop nomination. According to the source, that also is a self-nomination, so being nominated is no big deal. But they were evidently finalists, which probably is. Again, it depends on the notability of the award, and I lack familiarity to judge that. If you know those awards to be notable, then there should be no problem with removing the tags. If you're unsure, you might want to check at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer networking. (If you aren't familiar with working with WikiProjects, be warned: some of them are dormant. That one may be. If I wanted to ask those guys a question, I would first ask it at their talk page. If I didn't get a response within a couple of days, I'd next try to track down one of the members individually. For instance, User:Cburnett is still very active on Wikipedia. But I'd ask at the project talk page first. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten all the help you gave me with CSD 4 or 5 months ago (wow, has it really been that long??!) Thanks a lot!

If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. I've got to even out the debt sometime... *gasp* - Did I say that???!! ;-)

Have a good evening! (or, more like dead-of-the-night, but whatever :P )

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Always nice to see you around. There's no debt to me. :D It's a pay it forward thing. Plus it's not like I didn't tap you for help...and won't do so again. (insert evil laughter here.) I'd ask how the adminship is going, but given that I see you around, I'm pretty sure I know: it seems to be going well. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Arkwright-Hodgekinson Family page deletion on 22/5/2008

I may have already sent this, but if it got deleted, I'll repeat.

I'm trying to trace my family history and it may be that the Arkwright-Hodgekinson page has information relevant to that. I would appreciate seeing the page if possible.

68.58.240.120 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The article was Arkwright-Hodgkinson family (no "e"), and I'm sorry to say that it's unlikely to be of any use to you. :/ Its entire contents were "The Arkwright-Hodgkinson Family are the illegitimate descendants of Sir Richard Arkwright." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Arilang

Moonriddengirl, I'm asking you and EdJohnston for advice. In a discussion at User talk:Coppertwig#User Arilang, Bathrobe and I are talking about a plan to revert essentially all of Arilang1234's edits (from now on) unless they're discussed on the talk page for a couple of days first. Do you think it's OK if we just go ahead and start doing that? Do you have any other advice or suggestions for this situation? Thanks. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the background of your disputes with this editor, although I know he came to my page a while back asking guidance. (AIR, I directed him to a few boards.) Therefore, I don't know what you've already tried. A glance at Talk:Qing Dynasty, where I know you've interacted, does not suggest that he's a disruptive editor, although I know that a seeming amenability on the talk page is not always genuine. While I have no doubt that your intentions are good, I think a blanket rejection of contributions by any editor unless he or she discusses changes for several days on the talk pages of articles is the kind of sanction that only the community should impose and only following an open review of the editors' contributions and behavior.

I'm presuming, if you are considering this, that in spite of his seeming willingness to work with you, you feel he is disruptive. If not, have you considered offering him adoption? You would want to make clear that this mentorship process is voluntary, that you would be helping out in an advisory capacity only. If you do feel he's resistant to assistance, have you tried an RfC on the article, or are the articles/issues too broad? Have you tried appropriate noticeboards? Or proposed mediation? If not, you might want to try one of those. WP:DE lays out (in somewhat confusing detail) the general process of handling disruptive editors. If the above remedies don't work, then a user RFC or an ANI report may be advisable. I am concerned that a unilateral imposition of a blanket reversion policy may read like tag-team ownership or an attempt to discourage the individual from contributing. I certainly know from personal experience that you are very anxious to give people a chance, so I can't imagine you wanting to discourage somebody from contributing, but that could be the unfortunate result. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. I'll think some more about what to do. And you're right: I don't want to discourage Arilang from contributing. Arilang's enthusiasm and ability to find many sources is good. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Sharpe Article

Hello, I posted the Ron Sharpe article. I work with Ron and his production company and have full rights to post any material pertaining to him and his current production, A Tale of Two Cities. Please let me know what I need to do to ensure that my articles relevant to Ron are not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgperry (talk • contribs) 18:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much...

...for your wonderful insight into that discussion on the thorny article relating to World War II Poland. I greatly appreciate your comments and observations, and I wanted to share my gratitude directly. Be well! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you. :) While there's honestly seldom any substantial discussion related to CP listings, when there is, they can be very tense, as people tend to get emotionally charged. I always appreciate running into another contributor to such who seems interested in resolving the problem without getting caught up in that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is very easy to disagree without being disagreeable. Personally, I love a lively exchange of different ideas, and I take no objection if someone is able to show me the error in my ways. Thank you, again, for your fine work and your delightful conversation -- I hope we can work together in the near future (or, at the very least, get a fun debate going!). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dann Read Copyright Infringement

Hi there

the page profiling Dann Read should have no copyright elsewhere as was originally posted on Wiki by the author Greg Lambert - who is also listed on Wiki. Any other site have simply copied what was originally on Wiki.

Also the original Dann Read page was vandalised numerous times. Dont know if that is helpful or not.

Many Thanks and please let me know if I can be of any help in any way with regards to this subject matter.

EJ

--Anahata Ajna (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I realize that the external site copied from Wikipedia. That's what I meant when I said here that the external site was a "mirror" of Wikipedia. The copyright problem here arose, however, when the article was recreated with material pasted from that external site. The reason is that when you created the article by pasting the content here, you did not give credit to the contributors who wrote the material before you. Contributors who write for Wikipedia do not relinquish their copyright to the material they contribute. They only license its use under terms of the GFDL. They retain the right to credit, which we give through the edit history of the article. I took care of this problem at that article by restoring the deleted history. That way, the contributors who worked on the article before you receive credit for their work. Please let me know if this is unclear. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My Page

The page you said I got the information from, I got it from the Hannah Montana Season 1 Episode Page, and that site is actually MINE to tell you the truth. PLEASE don't delete the page again, as I have information already from wikipedia. YOu don't have the right to delete ANYTHING on MY PAGE anyway. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

On my site, in like March form an OFFICIAL Disney Source. I made the Wikipedia page a few days agao, and I got the information EXACTLY from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hannah_Montana_episodes_(Season_1)) I just copied. You see, I'm trying to re-do the Hannah Montana Episodes pages, to make it more not cluttered, so I make a page on my Page, and save it in my page till it's ready to be published on the HM Season 1, 2, and 3 pages. It's hard to do it on the page it's self, so I make a copy of it in my page, then paste it in the Hannah Montana Seasons pages.... Also, My name is Alec, (alec2011) and on the site it says Alec, and that's my site for the record :D. Do you get what i'm saying for the pages? I don't keep them on my page, I'm just trying to re-make the HM Pages, and style them differently, then I paste them into the official page, then I delete my pages. Next time, can you tell me I have copyrighted material, then i can delete the information, because I was working hard on the page, and I wasn't done.... How would you feel if I did that to you? Just saying - Alec2011 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I get the episode information from Disney Channel Media Net, if you know what site i'm talking about. I don't take things from wikipedia. As I know this can be edited by anyone, so I don't really trust it on here unless it has an official source. My site has nothing to do with wikipedia, so there's no need for credit. I didn't add the episode summaries to the pages, so maybe the ORIGINAL person who added the summaries took them from varous sites. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't added any of the Hannah Montana Episode summaries. I'm not the only site that takes things from Disney Channel, Lots of Miley, Selena, Etc. Sites take things like episode summaries to put on they're site as the official episode summary, because it was released by Disney, so we know it's OFFICIAL. People know we got it from Disney. Associaed Press uses Disney's stuff, what's the difference? The ONLY thing I've edited on the HM S2 Episode page is that the episode No Sugar, Sugar is being taossed around from S2 to S3, so I had to add the OFFICIAL Source from DISNEY saying that the episode is infact S2, and that the date is unknown on when it will air. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The site is infact mine. But the episdoes summaries I dodn't put on Wikipedia, so I gues the ORIGINAL person who added the summaries took them from my site which has official summaries from Disney, does that help? - Alec2011 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The site is: http://www.dcmedianet.com/, but I got Most of Season 1 and Season 2 I got from a friend who said that her friend gave them to her for using on her site, and she gave them to me for my site. But once later Season 2 and now season 3 episodes that were released, I got from the site I posted. (Note: Go you Hannah Montana in the middle of the page at the top, then click Photography, then under the episode promos click Full Caption and the summaries are there). - Alec2011 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome, is it still OK, that I fix the HM Episode pages, but save them in my page, like what I said I was doing? - Alec2011 (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell, me, then I can change them if you want? Can you also protect ALL the Hannah Montana episode pages so only a certain person can edit the pages, because they get lots of vandilasim... - Alec2011 (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, The HM S1 Pages the Writers and Directors Get Changed to other people like Disney Stars (People are trying to be funny) The Season Two And Season 3 (Right now), because Disney's Schedule got changed so much the past two weeks, and I know the OFFICIAL, information, and I tell people, but they ignore it, and it takes forever to change then people change it back, and yeah, so A Semi-Protection on the S2 and S3 would be good. - Alec2011 (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep a look out on the pages and keep fixing them :D. What needs to be changed? - Alec2011 (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

For the semi-protection on List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 3). A _talk 22:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; I thought you had replied to my request but I see its for the one above. Sorry! A _talk 22:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad it worked out for you, too. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but looking at your request, I see that you've asked for full protection. Are there problems with registered users as well? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, no. I accidentally requested full (I'm using Twinkle). Thanks though! A _talk 23:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rescue of Jews by Polish communities during the Holocaust

I would really like to post my rewritten version as soon as possible, so that others can work on it. I'd really appreciate if you could point out other copyvio fragments so I can rewrite them before reposting; I will indicate contributors to past versions in my edit summary when I repost the article to satisfy GFDL.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help out when I have the time to dedicate to it. As I said, it's a time consuming process. Most of my wikipedia time is in what passes for the early part of the day in my part of the world. After attending to current copyright concerns, I'll be happy to look at this pending one. Meanwhile, of course, you can also comb through the pdf as I have done to look for duplicated text that has not been attributed. It's been helpful looking for individual's names. Looking for Olga Lilien, for instance, has already helped me to identify the problem at "Doctor Olga Lilien (with strong Jewish looks) who lived with a Polish family near Tarnobrze", which combined some literal duplication with "strong taking". Text in the source says, "Doctor Olga Lilien, a Holocaust survivor from Lwów with a very marked Jewish appearance who lived with a Polish family in Tarnobrzeg...." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. If you want to work on it more now, you can search the PDF, just as I will when I have the opportunity. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for your support in my RFA!! • If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy • ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 21:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the nice information in user welcoming. I m pretty new in the coding.. Every bit information is useful.. --Ramesh (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of page MTG Studio

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could explain the action of deleting the page refering to the product MTG Studio? I would like to understand the grounds with an eye to having it re-established.

Kind regards,

ScytaleUK (talk)ScytaleUK —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScytaleUK (talk • contribs) 12:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The article was deleted because it duplicated a previously published external source and we did not have official verification of permission by the processes set forth on the template that covered the article for 7 days and that were explained to the article's creator in more detail here. In order to display text that is previously published at another source, we must first establish that the text is public domain or compatible with our GFDL license. As I advised the creator, since we do not have a procedure in place for identity verification at account creation, this permission must be externally provided. In the absence of that verification, deletion is necessary to protect the interests of the copyright holder and to prevent Wikipedia from being used to violate US copyright law. If you wish to verify authorization to publish, please see WP:Permission and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

However, I also advised the article's creator that other concerns might lead to problems with the article. Articles on products must meet the notability guidelines for organizations and products and verify that they do with reliable sources that are not connected to the company or that do not profit from its products. In the absence of these, the article may be deleted again by other processes even if the licensing concerns are addressed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

WPT:CP

I'm there now, yes. Ironholds (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

Yeah, I hit the revert button the third time, started entering a summary then realised I'd already reerted twice, figured I'd leave it for someone else....then knocked my enter key. It has been a slow edit war for some time really, some people have way too many horses in the race I guess. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The most important comment I can make is that this is not an edit war, it is a concerted effort to censor any mention of comments by Captain Ward Boston, USN, JAGC, Ret, the chief Navy attorney for the 1967 U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry into the Israeli attack, from being shown on the USS Liberty incident page. Two people, Narson and Jayjg , have been removing an entry I have carefully vetted. The Findings of the Moorer Report, with no copyright notice whatsoever, is located here.

Some History:

1) The original discussion involved the assertion that the entry was a WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE violation, yet repeated requests by myself and one request by User:CasualObserver'48 for an explicit explanation of how the entry is a violation has been summarily ignored, primarily by Jayjg who simply deletes entries.

2) Of particular interest to you should be how User:CasualObserver'48's original request for clarification was removed from the Discussion Page at the point in which he entered it. I had to go back through the archives to retrieve the request and I reprinted it. I also identified myself as the one who reprinted it. You see, someone removed it and I was unable to find out who did so. Who had the ability, not to mention audacity, to remove a request for information? Whoever did that should be removed from Wikipedia forever.

3) In my many attempts to satisfy repeated deletions of the entry, I have quoted a) the Congressional record, b) Statements made by persons who submitted Affidavits for the report and c) the report itself. In all cases the entry is removed for the flimsiest of reasons. Note that if the person removing the entry was performing his/her due diligence, then the entry would be modified by that person in order to satisfy his/her particular problem with it. This has never happened. Not only are flimsy reasons used to remove the entry, no attempt to mollify the concerns of those removing it are even attempted. Again, this is not an edit war. This is a blatant attempt at censorship. I, on the other hand, have modified the entry several times in an attempt to satisfy their concerns. All my modifications are deleted in their entirety.

4) Artificial arguments used against my entry are common place. One example is to ask for a newspaper article which is a second source for the report. Why does my entry require a newspaper article to second it? The report was entered into the Congressional Record. Am I to understand that Wikipedia doesn't accept the Congressional record as a valid secondary source? Is a newspaper article supposed to be more reputable then the Congressional Record?

5) You mention copyright concerns - the link above is a direct link to the Findings of the report. There are no copyright notices on the Findings page, and it is the only source I have attempted to quote.

A careful and thorough analysis of the history of the attempts to appease Jayjg and Narson will show that appeasement is not possible, as their goal is to censor any mention Captain Boston Wards comments from the Moorer Report. These two do not edit the entry to satisfy their problems with the reports contents or the entry itself, they remove it. That is censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldFacts (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As the administrator who protected the article, it is important that I remain uninvolved in this dispute and hence I will not comment on specifics, but please read over Wikipedia:Edit war, which may help you understand why this is an edit war. You have already gone over the 3RR limit, though you may well have been unaware of it. If you continue to revert after the expiration of protection, you are likely to be blocked from editing. There are other venues where you may seek assistance if you feel that your views are not being fairly considered. You can read more about this in our dispute resolution policy.

With respect to copyright, copyright notices are not necessary in the United States, as copyright does not require registration but is automatic. For that reason, in order to reuse material from external sources, we must be able to demonstrate that the text is in the public domain or is released under license compatible with GFDL. Lack of a copyright notice is insufficient. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering the blatant failure to AGF there, and his churlish demand that someone be indef banned for a comment on a talk page being lost, I'm not entirely sure what encouraging him down the DR path would achieve, as his attitude makes it highly unlikely anyone would agree to voluntary DR and the compulsory DR (namely arbcom) is unlikely to take so minor a case. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There has not been and never has been a blatant failure of WP:AGF on my part. Unlike you, I have modified my entry countless times in attempts to appease those who delete the entry. My modifications speak volumes for WP:AGF. You, on the other hand, delete the entry and do not attempt to appease your own problems with the entries. There in lies the basis for my accusation of censorship. It's never been about how I present my entry, it's that I present my entry which causes it to be deleted.

Secondly, Comments on WikiPedia discussion pages cannot be 'lost', but they can be deleted. In this case, an explicit request was made to Jayjg asking that he explicitly site his reasons for removing my entry. Specifically, the question was:

Outdent, Jayjg, what is the basis for the removal of sourced material under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. What is specifically in error?

He has neither answered the questioner, now has he answered me, other then simply STATING that they are violations. The requirement for Newspaper articles is another red herring. Most news paper articles do not save their articles 'for ever'. The Congressional Record, on the other hand, is available at all times. I have, however, found several articles by Thomas Moorer recently which will be brought up.WorldFacts (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, you deleted CO48's question WorldFacts. Stop intimating that was Jayjg trying to duck it. Also, no-one has specified newspapers, merely other sources that comment upon or discuss the report. If we are to look at newspapers, the claim that newspapers from 5 years ago are not available is ludicrous. Anyway, if you want to continue this, lets take it to the article talk page? --Narson ~ Talk • 18:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete CO48's question. I added it back in, twice, perhaps 3 times by now. Jayjg has not answered it and I am not intimating that he is ducking the question - I am stating it as fact. Incidently, if he says "It's a violation", it's not a violation. If he adds "because of x and y and z and THAT Is why it is a violation...." then he has answered the question. (Just trying to be clear, vis a vis WP:AGF) To date, no such explanation has been forthcoming. Lastly, I have no intention of bringing this back to the articles discussion pages as we are in an infinite loop. I add the entry and you or Jayjg deletes it. I'll continue with the problem resolution process until:

1) My perfectly valid entry is added back in without fear of total deletion.

2) We find out who deleted CO48's question and

3) The deleter is removed from Wikipedia.

We can't have such vigilante's running around on cyberspace or Wikipedia anymore then we can have legal depositions and declassified Top Secret documents showing information concerning the murder of American Sailers by Israel censored.WorldFacts (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me make it clear: you deleted CO48's question. Please stop asking for yourself to be indef blocked, it looks odd. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are you being so combative ? (Let me make it clear: you deleted CO48's question. Please stop asking for yourself to be indef blocked, it looks odd) -- Clearly Worldfacts has a point and he/she deserves a response to the original questions posed - and that was for an explicit explanation from JayJG of how the entry is a violation.--Henrywinklestein (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WorldFacts is demanding the lynching, I'm merely pointing out the man he is trying to lynch is himself. He is deliberatly not getting it at this point (His previous bad faith attacks used up all my good faith) and is merely trying to play slow ball edit war. Anyway, lets stop spamming the poor lady and take this back to the article talk page, shall we? We must be driving her batty with all the New Messages spam. --Narson ~ Talk • 07:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to note that you're unlikely to reach any wider consensus by pasting your concerns at my talk page. I am uninvolved and intend to remain that way. Though Narson is responding to you here, new responders are unlikely to do so, unless someone stopping by with a random question about copyright concerns should decide to chip in. :) If you wish to break the loop, consider asking for feedback in a more appropriate place. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard might bring more input into whether the matter is truly fringe, or Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard might help determine if others regard the matter as OR. But please first review Wikipedia:Consensus. While it is appropriate to ask for wider input at an appropriate forum, it is not appropriate to continue seeking feedback in the hopes of getting an answer you like. (See also Wikipedia:Canvassing#Forum_shopping.) As far as I can see, you've only discussed the matter at the article's talk page, here, and at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, so that's not a danger at this point. But you should choose which forum might best serve your needs carefully and stick with it. (The responder at editor assistance, who suggested third opinion, seems not to have been aware of the scope of the disagreement. There are already too many people involved for 3O.) If a clear consensus emerges against the addition of this to the article, you will need to respect it to avoid disruptive editing, which can result in your being prevented from further contributions to the article. It can be difficult to remain calm and patient with the process when you disagree with others, but it is essential for productive contribution to Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Our dispute resolution policy may be helpful in many ways, as it also includes suggestions for conduct in discussions, including reminders to "stay cool" and pointers to WP:AGF as well as various boards that may be relevant to his concerns (such as Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Pointing SPAs to various additional fora to obtain their goals seems a little Beansy, but then, I am pretty sick of the whole thing so far, so anything that seems like it will prolong the constant grind doesn't appeal. --NarsonTalk • 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Simply answer Worldfacts concerns in proper fashion and lets get JayJG to explain why the entry is a violation and this would be settled.--Henrywinklestein (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is policy, and it's available for all contributors unless they are editing in defiance of a community ban. Additional fora will either serve to confirm the perspective of those who oppose addition of the material or to confirm the perspective of those who promote it, but in either case wider community input is part of consensus building. That's why the policy, exists, after all. Lacking any background with this material or familiarity with at least most of the editors involved, there's certainly no reason for me not to assume good faith on all parts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please review this for me?

Hello! When your schedule allows, I would ask if you could please review my rewrite of that thorny article on the rescue of Poland’s Jewish community during World War II. I have it checked into a sandbox linked to my account: [9]. In the proverbial nutshell: I rewrote every sentence twice to ensure there was no inappropriate paraphrasing. Links to Mark Paul’s scholarship were removed, and I reconfirmed that all remaining quotes came from notable and recognised historians and respected publishing sources (about 4-6 passages were cut when I could not determine the reliability of its source material). Where applicable, quotes are clearly cited to their sources, and all anecdotal evidence was removed. All alleged POV-pushing, as stated in the earlier discussion, was expunged and the article clearly (I think) puts this information into proper historic perspective. Please let me know if the article works now, or if further improvement is needed. Many thanks, again, for your patience and support. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) I may not have a lot more on Wiki time (due to work situations) today, but I will certainly be happy to look it over as soon as I get a chance. Time allowing, that will be tomorrow. Otherwise, definitely tomorrow. I appreciate your rewriting the material. It's really a much easier way to ensure that copyright concerns are addressed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, again! I realise this is not a pressing priority for you, so your input is greatly appreciated. As a side note, I am involved in the publishing world and I am highly cognizant of copyright and intellectual property issues. I made every effort to ensure this new version makes the grade. And I also took extra to ensure there were no "fringe" sources cited (which was a major stumbling block with some of the editors). I am very glad that you can provide assistance here. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha. I just noticed my typo. I meant "Time allowing, that will be today." :D Copyright issues can be a bit of a headache. I get to deal with them at my work, too. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by way of a "post script", it's not that it isn't a pressing priority for me. Copyright problems are generally listed for seven days before handling. This one is still under "new listings" at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and I ordinarily wouldn't even have looked at it yet. First thing I try to get to everyday are the ones that have come current, which have already been pending for seven days. As you can see by a glance at this, sometimes it takes quite a while to clear them! (I have good reason to hope that those two are almost resolved.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Today, tomorrow...what works for you also works for me! :) And if anything needs fixing, just point it out and I will fix it. Thank you, again! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you should happen to stop by, I'm reviewing it now. It may take a while, but I will let you know when I've finished. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Close review

←I'm not seeing any significant copyright concerns (I'm halfway through at this point and have found only one passage that I think is too close so far). Unfortunately necessary caveat: I can't sign that in blood, because that document is huge. (Not that I would anyway--seems both messy and unsanitary.) Presuming it continues so through the end, I would be comfortable moving that into article space to replace the copyright infringing version.

I do have a couple of questions, though. I've gotten fairly familiar with some of that material, thanks to my recent close reading. :)

• Your sentence, "Chava Grinberg-Brown from Gmina Wiskitki would recall in a postwar interview that some farmers used the threat of violence against their fellow villagers if any attempt was made to betray her safety." Is there additional support for this? The pdf reports threat of violence against one person, not multiple. (page 260)
• "Polish-born Israeli writer and Holocaust survivor Natan Gross, in his 2001 book Who Are You, Mr. Grymek?, told of a village near Warsaw where a local Nazi collaborator was forced to flee for his life when it became known he reported the locations of hidden Jews." The pdf indicates that the farmer fled from fear of reprisal, but does not specify the type of reprisal he fled. (page 260)
• "In some documented cases, Polish Jews were hastily baptized as Catholics as a means of securing their communal protection. Tema Rotman-Weinstock from Lublin was publicly baptized in Kajetanówka, as was Franciszka Aronson in a village near Mińsk Mazowiecki." I'm not certain that the baptism of Rotman-Weinstock was public, although it was clearly publicized at least after the fact. I can't find any reference to Aronson having been baptized at all. (page 260)
• "Two decades after the end of the war, a Jewish partisan named Gustaw Alef-Bolkowiak identified the following villages in the Parczew-Ostrów Lubelski area where "almost the entire population" assisted Jews: Rudka, Jedlanka, Makoszka, Tyśmienica, Bójki, and Niedźwiada near Opole Lubleskie." Niedźwiada is not so specified in this pdf, at least. Note that at page 261 it is rather noted as a place where villagers were aware that families were being helped, but it isn't stated that the population at large assisted.
• "Historians would also document that similar actions took place in at least one dozen villages around Mętów near Głusk outside Lublin." This one seems to be a major misinterpretation. :) The source actually says "More than a dozen villagers in Mętów near Głusk, outside of Lublin, sheltered Jews." (page 261) This typo needs to be corrected, but the sentence should also be reworded since, as you can see, aside from the typo, from "dozen" on, it follows very closely on the source. I'm sure we agree that a dozen villagers is a very different thing from a dozen villages. :D

More coming immediately. I'm saving this now rather than risk a power failure and loss of my notes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

More. Mind you, I'm only checking against the pdf. If you have checked against the original sources and altered to meet material there, I won't know it. I should also state that though the nature of the beast here requires focusing on problems, I do appreciate the work you've put into this. :)

• "One confirmed case involved two Jewish men were moved from farm to farm in Zdziebórz near Wyszków, eventually ending in the Armia Krajowa (Home Army) Polish resistance." This follows very closely on the structure of the original on page 258. I would reorganize this completely, perhaps something on the order of "Farmers in Zdziebórz near Wyszków by turns sheltered two Jewish men for a time before they joined the Armia Krajowa (Home Army) Polish resistance." I'm not sure the "value added" of confirmed, or how one determines if it's confirmed? The pdf doesn't especially emphasize confirmation there.
  • On second read, that implies the farmers joined the resistance. Hmmm. "sheltered two Jewish men who later joined..."?
• "Ludwika Fiszer, a survivor from a massacre at Poniatowa, recalled in a postwar interview how she was between different safe houses across a network of rural villages" I don't see anything about safe houses in the source or networked villages in the pdf. She said she roamed from place to place and "received various forms of assistance". (page 259) (Actually, I did try to verify this one, but I got a 404 Not Found.) It doesn't seem to support the topic sentence of "more than one village community collaborated on protecting the Jews, due to frequent violent raids by the Nazi death squads."
• Likewise, the next sentence doesn't seem to support that topic sentence. "Similarly, Faiga Rosenbluth from Kańczuga was successfully safely moved from one village during a two year period." This structure suggests she was a passive agent--"She was moved from one village". (I'm not sure what it means to move from one village? to where?) The source says she "roamed the countryside". Evidently she received assistance from peasants, but it doesn't indicate any collaboration to protect her. (page 257)
• I like the way you reworked Olga Lilien. Neutral and infringement free. :) I've already expressed my concerns about the rest of that paragraph.
• I think additional revision to distance from source could help here: "In November 1942, 20 residents of Berecz in Wołyń Voivodeship were killed by the Ukrainian SS squad for saving Jews who escaped from the ghetto in Povorsk." (see page 268). I would simply structure it, maybe something along the lines of "In November 1942, the Ukrainian SS squad executed approximately 20 people from Berecz in Wołyń Voivodeship for giving aid to Jewish escapees of the ghetto in Povorsk." (This would not only distance from source, but also address the potential inaccuracy: did they save those escapees, or were their efforts unfortunately futile?)
• Is "Huta Werchoducka" a typo? The source offers two spellings, but not that one. It proposes "Huta Werchobuska or Werchobudzka". (page 268) I do not know if Werchoducka is a third variant, more common, though you may, but figured I should check.
• "Zygmunt Srul Warszawer, who was sheltered in several locations including the village of Wielki Las "No [one ever refused to help me], not [only when asked about] food! In twenty-six months, not once." I have from the beginning been confused by the "only when asked about" food bracket. I think this is a bit unclear. I would suggest revising it so that we can do away with the bracket: Zygmunt Srul Warszawer, who was sheltered in several locations including the village of Wielki Las, was asked in interview if he had ever been refused help. When it came to food, he said, "In twenty-six months, not once." On further reflection, where does it say he was sheltered? It says he hid, but though it implies he was sometimes (when the resident was not afraid) allowed into house or barn, it seems like synthesis to say he was "sheltered." What about, Zygmunt Srul Warszawer, who survived by hiding around the areas of Łaskarzew, Sobolew, and Wilga, frequently requested assistance from farmers. Asked in interview if he had ever been refused, Warszawer indicated that though some farmers feared to allow him into their homes or barns, when it came to food, no one turned him down; "In twenty-six months, not once."

That is all that I've found. Very, very little issues with close following of source remain. These should be easily addressed. You've probably already noticed that I implemented some smaller changes directly to your userpage, but those that I've proposed above seemed a little more sweeping. Just for the record, I am happy to relinquish my claim to attribution with those, so if you like my proposed wording for anything in part or entire, feel free to implement. :)

Comments? Questions? Let me know. Once the few small issues with close following are addressed, we should be able to move this to article space. Issues concerning accuracy I would strongly suggest be addressed before that, given that there's more than simply infringement being contested at the article talk. Seems likely to minimize issues if we are scrupulously careful about that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Article On Curley Money

Stop editing/vandalizing my article. You revisions are changing the facts in the story. There is nothing wrong with me stating the age Curley was when he became interested in Music. And the line you edited about The gold standard lable serving as home for him is not true at all. He recorded into the seventies and he only released one or two singles on the Gold Standard lable and they were some of his later releases done in the seventies, so I would hardly say that it served as home. I am tired of fighting you people about this article I have so far complied with every request that been made since I wrote it and finally re-wrote the article entirely due to an accusation of copy-right infringement and now have added references and now you are picking on me about a possible conflict of interest. If you change my article again I am going to delete it entirely from wikipedia and report you here. Sorry to be so direct but I am fed up.

C.Scott Money Envelopexpress —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.92.91 (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that you may be misunderstanding a few things about Wikipedia. First, you may wish to see WP:VANDALISM for an explanation of what constitutes vandalism on Wikipedia. What I have twice removed now is language that you have copied from an external source. As has been explained to you, you cannot utilize material from other sources on Wikipedia without verifying that you have authorization to do so. The procedure for verifying this has been set out at Talk:Curley Money. You are welcome to follow those procedures if you wish to place verbatim text on Wikipedia. But the language that I have twice removed from this article is precisely duplicated from this source. You cannot continue placing text from that site on Wikipedia unless you prove that you have permission to do so. You do, as explained at the article's talk, have the option of simply rewording the text. If you continue placing this text without verifying permission, we will either have to protect the article to prevent it or prevent you from editing it. Since you are obviously operating in good faith, I would very much hope it does not come to that. Surely there must be some other way for you to say "continued to record well into the 1970s"?[10]

Additionally, you should probably read over Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, but a collaborative encyclopedia. Anyone who contributes within policies and guidelines is welcome to contribute here and is authorized to change the article Curley Money. This is why at the bottom of every edit page there is the text "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. "

My note to you about conflict of interest was to advise you how you can participate in this article in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

School for Advanced Research

Hi, MoonG. Perhaps you could look at this one early; permission seems, according to the talk page, to have been arranged through proper channels: Talk:School for Advanced Research. Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have access to mail sent to permissions-en, so I can't check for that release. We'll have to wait for the OTRS ticket. With any luck, it will come within a couple of days. Otherwise, we get the frustration of trying to figure out why not. And, oh, this can be frustrating. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK, sorry. I didn't know how these things work. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a waiting game for us on this side of the e-mail. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought emails usually travelled at two-thirds the speed of light? Anyway, I think this one arrived. See Talk:School for Advanced Research. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I may need your expert copyright help with Jan Grootboom. See User talk:Coppertwig#Jan Grootboom. First I had deleted a nifty story from the article; then I deleted a link to a web page where the story is displayed. The story is from the 1915 book. If there's no copyright problem, perhaps the story itself could be restored to the article; if there is, possibly the web link should be re-deleted. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

U.S.S question

I have posted a user submitted source question and would like your feedback. Thanks Moonriddengirl! Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look to see if there's anything I can offer after I finish my current task. (Comparing a 273 page pdf to an article; a bit of a chore.) :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I did reply to your comment just to inform you. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Permission to restore the article?

Hello again! I made every change you requested -- all edits are taken care of. I also deleted the mentions of the baptism of the two women -- that was an individual act of courage, not a communal act, and I felt it didn't belong in this article. Do I have your permission to restore the article to its page? Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Give me a moment to look it over. We're supposed to replace the original version by deleting it to avoid inadvertent restoration of infringement. I'll have to figure out if there are GFDL issues that will need to be addressed by crediting before finalizing it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Whether the article needs to be put back anew or if we can remove the copyright violation tag, I am glad that we could resolve this problem by working together. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I removed the Michal Kluk section and photo, and moved the German/Polish poster up higher in the article. Questions were raised on the execution photos, so I thought it was best to remove them all. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work on this. I have moved the article. I know it will not put an end to all the disputes about the material, but infringement concerns are addressed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, happy day!!! Thank you for your support, patience and kindness in this endeavour. And please accept the following as a token of my appreciation:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For going the extra mile, and then some! You are an asset to Wikipedia, and I am glad that we had the chance to work together! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It was my pleasure to help out. It's not uncommon that I wind up revising such material listed at WP:CP myself, and it is far more pleasant to collaborate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks very much with all your help on the Irwin Redlener page!

Take care. Kirk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkfisher (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad if I was able to help. And I must say that it's very impressive how quickly you've picked up on the wiki environment. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Moonriddengirl for that reminder. Good thing you didn't delete the new article I made. It's just now that I'm learning the do's and dont's in Wikipedia. --Pampi1010 (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It copyvio time...maybe?

I am sort of up in the air about how to handle this - Fluid Music. The article reads like a press release, according to Talk:Fluid Music it could very well be. The talk page says one thing: "This article is of public domain and has been published at http://www.fluidmusic.com/index.html". If you look the the users history for the editor who created the article there might very well be a COI issue as well. Per the notice on the talk page, I don't see where the information on the website is in PD, it actually implies just the opposite: "© 2008 Fluid Music. All rights reserved. Official Website of Fluid Music Canada, Inc". As the "About us" page of the website states "Fluid Music is the world's largest private label music aggregation and distribution company" I did a search to try and find if the company would meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB. I found a lot of trade/business press on the company ("Fluid Music Canada, Inc. To Trade On Toronto Stock Exchange";"PR USA";"Fluid Music Canada, Inc. Proposes to Acquire Somerset Entertainment Income Fund";"Fluid Music's Trusonic(R) Enhances the Crate and Barrel Brand Experience") but most of that press leads back to a marketing firm called "Marketwire Canada" ("Fluid Music Canada, Inc. Announces the Completion of Its Initial Public Offering" is one of the press releases). There is coverage, or "news" anyway, at "Business Week" that might help to establish "Notability" per Publicly traded corporations but not anything more than press releases that I could find. I am not sure in what direction to take this. Copyvio? CSD G11? Generic "clean up" and "sources" tags? AfD? I am fairly certain if I took it to AfD people would find links to Fox business news and Business week and other like sources and just use the "look at all these sources, they must be notable" argument and not really look/read them. So I am really not so sure on this one but I thought to start with you because of the possible copyvio issues. "Help me Obi-Wan Moon-ridden-Kenobie, you're my only hope". :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :D It seems that the copyvio issues were addressed by Collectonian, here. I don't at a glance see any additional infringement. If you do, placing {{subst:copyvio|url=whatevah}} will blank it. There are additional steps on that template to follow to get the copyvio ball rolling. That site might very well at one time have said it was PD, but it certainly doesn't say that now.

Meanwhile, I've restored the tags that were removed by the article's creator and given him a {{uw-delete1}}. I do not believe it would be a good candidate for G11. If you think it would fail AfD, it's not a good candidate for PROD. :) If you think it's non-notable, you might go with AfD anyway and point out that you believe that the links constitute trivial coverage. If you think it's likely to be notable enough to pass AfD, you might try cleaning up the article yourself. If you'd really like wider community input on it, you might list it at WP:COIN. As with all boards, you could get crickets. Or not. You just never know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Misty the Cat

Hi i did not realize that saving a page would overwrite the current page.Sorry if i have caused anything bad. ALIEN123456789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALIEN123456789 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image permission problem with Image:Pakistan rivers map.jpg

Mam I guess I agree with you on this. I explained to User Matilda here of what I thought was right. You can surely delete it. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm..I can ask you about text copyright questions. I believe this is text copyright violations. What do you say?

Article: Swaan River Taken from: this site which says here that "You are permitted to quote no more than 20 individual figures (eg. US GDP per capita, Andorran life expectancy, etc) or lines of text from this site, provided you provide a link back to a valid page at NationMaster. You may not copy graphs, maps, scatterplots, etc. "Marsa Lahminal (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For tirelessly and systematically going above and beyond to educate and guide new users around the pitfalls of Copyright law and policy. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. — Coren (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well-deserved. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated Songs for a Tailor, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on November 7, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks --Bruce1ee^talk 08:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination! It's always thrilling just to know somebody has looked at it. (LOL!) I myself have trouble finding "hooks" in album articles. I thought it was fascinating that Bruce received the letter requesting he sing for the designer on the day she died--his birthday, nevertheless--but I could not conceive of a way to state that in a "hook". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl

Interesting wording on an image

Image:Franticmantis1.jpg has an interesting wording. I was going to tag it with a {{di-no permission}} because the photo is credited to "Jonas Rosen" however the full Summary says "Photo of the band Frantic Mantis in Germany by Jonas Rosen, built and edited by Shelby Cinca." What is "Built and edited"? I took a look at the users other image upload and it is not worded the same, nor from the same photographer. Image:Divisionoflauralee1.jpg says "(David Holloway, david@onethousandwords.net)" and carries a PD license. Should I tag both of these with a {{di-no permission}}? Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Built and edited? That's a head scratcher. :) I wonder if the uploader modified the original and thinks that this gives him or her (since Shelby could go either way) some copyright control? I'd probably tag them no permission and keep an eye on them. If the reviewing admin doesn't feel they're uncontroversial enough for CSD, they could be listed at WP:PUI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do. And that is what I was wondering as well, modified = built and edited? Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Tuscan Sun Festival

Hi Moonriddengirl

I'm struggling a bit with getting my entry correct for The tuscan Sun Festival. I have a string of e-mails from the Permissions dept and I keep thinking I'm doing the right thing - which clearly I'm not as my article is deleted.

I do most of the writing for the festival, so most other articles about it are indeed written by me and under my copyright.

I've tried to take on board comments from Wilhelm Schnotz's (real name?) e-mail to me 29 October asking me to incorporate secondary sources and demonstrate why the festival is notable, which I have done. I've tried to submit the text but will do so below as well. I hope this one works!!

"The Tuscan Sun Festival is an annual music and lifestyle festival that takes place in the small Tuscan hilltop town of Cortona, in the province of Arezzo. The festival attracts the highest level of international soloists, conductors and chamber orchestras who all perform in not only the intimate setting of the town’s 400-seat theatre, Teatro Signorelli, but also within town squares like Piazza Signorelli. The evening musical programme is balanced with daytime events including art exhibitions and workshops with leading visual artists, discussions with top literary figures, wellness sessions like tai-chi and culinary sessions with some of the Tuscany’s finest chefs and winemakers.

The Tuscan Sun Festival was founded by Barrett Wissman, cellist Nina Kotova and writer Frances Mayes in 2003. In 2004, The Independent newspaper in the U.K. called the festival “One of the Ten Best Summer Arts Festivals in Europe”.

Past festivals have included visits and performances by renowned artists such as Piotr Anderszewski, Joshua Bell, The Bolshoi Ballet, José Cura, Stéphane Denève, Lang Lang, Danielle de Niese, Andrea Marcon and the Venice Baroque Orchestra, Ana Maria Martinez, Gabrielle Montero, Anna Netrebko, Antonio Pappano, Robert Redford, Sibylle Szaggars, Giuseppe Tornatore, Barry Unsworth and Pinchas Zukerman."

Tristen Hennigs --Thennigs (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. We can work with this. Please give me a little while to locate & add some sourcing, and I will move it to article space. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In case of archival, I've responded further at the contributor's talk page, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Danyo Cummings

Notable? Count Blofeld 22:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not so far as I can see. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter Fox copyright issue

Hi - thanks for your note. Again, the reason DUMBO Arts center has posted the same text is that I gave it to them in the form of a professional bio that accompanied my resume. It's my text, in my words.

What's the best way to resolve this? I am not copying it from their website, so a GFDL-compatible license doesn't make sense. Again, it's MY text. Help?

Thank you - Peterfoxny (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk page in case of archival. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)