User talk:Pr3st0n/Archived2

UK Copyright Act 1911

Resolved

 – thanks to special contributions from Andrewcrawford; Malleus Fatuorum; Moonriddengirl; and Pr3st0n on 25 September 2009

Reply to Frank's statement by Pr3st0n - Gareth

After sleeping on things, I have been able to reassess the entire situation (sleeping on difficulties is one way that I am able to cope with the bipolar moments - to which a few did occur during the RfA process). I fully respect now, why the nomination was closed early originally. However, at the time I did feel it was a little unfair, as a few questions were put forward without myself being given any chance to answer them - hence why I asked for it to be reopened, so that I could answer these doubtful questions, and to that I am grateful for the opportunity. I truly understand, and thankful for the prior warnings from yourself Frank. Although, when I read the WP:RFA on how to post comments on either 'support, oppose, and neutral', whilst things were in the comments that could be d mention to avoid posting comments that could be seen as negative, and try to be as positive, to avoid discouraging the applicant from wanting to pursue any future nominations. This, I feel was not the case. Some of the oppose comments were positive, but 60% of them were very negative, to which goes against the recommendation on how to leave comments. Anyway, I have taken into account all comments made, and made a conclusion that of course some areas may need to be addressed, which is why I have taken the "adoption" route, to be able to learn more, and prepare myself for a future nomination (that's if I don't get a nomination from my adopter).

To the area about "copyright violation", I feel that none was broken. As I previously explained, I helped a local historian (Ms Jackie Stewart) in Lostock Hall, to compile research for her book on the village. Together we found information on the British History website. We contacted the people who run the site, and asked if it would be possible to use extracts in her book. It took several weeks before a reply was sent back, and in the letter permission was given to use on any projects to do with the history of Lostock Hall, from the book, to any future project which we may pursue - the letter itself wasn't specific as to say if the permission was from them or the organisation from which the website also obtained information. However, permission was given, along with a full script of what could be used in the book. It was that script in the letter (to which I still have a copy of) that I copied from into the article, and included the name of the website as a ref link. So the wording used was the wording on the letter. I did not visit the website while writing the article to copy/paste extracts. As I have this blasted swine flu, I unable to go out and obtain the ISBN details for the book - but as soon as I can, I will also be adding those details as a ref link. So I fail to comprehend where if any, the violation that has been broken; everything has been carried out in conjunction with the Copyrights Act 1911. As a temporary measure, I could add a note to the text to say that prior permission was given to use those extracts, until full ISBN details can be provided. However, those who kept bringing up this were referring to the original inclusion of these extracts into the article on 15 September 2009. Since then things have been altered to avoid any identical similarities. If you wish to discuss this in more detail Frank, then you know where to find me. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank's Comment
Whether or not you "feel" copyright has been violated is not the point. The text that appears on this site does not differ except by a few words from text which appears on another site and which lists itself as the copyright holder for the material. Please read WP:COPYRIGHT and its associated pages for more details. In addition, if you actually have permission to reuse content, you must make that permission known to the Wikimedia Foundation by way of WP:OTRS. I am not expert enough to guide you through this process smoothly; however it must still be done or the text must be removed. I'm going to ask a local expert to weigh in on this.  Frank  |  talk  20:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank's Comment
I also don't understand why you think the copyrighted material has been changed in the article ("Since then things have been altered to avoid any identical similarities."), nor do I think finding the ISBN for a book will help. Please compare the second paragraph of the "Origins and history" section to this page. The problem is that the material appeared elsewhere and copyright is claimed ("Copyright © 2009 University of London & History of Parliament Trust - All rights reserved"); until we have information that the copyright is no longer valid or we have permission to use the material on Wikipedia (or in a license style compatible with Wikipedia), it's a copyright violation for our purposes, and it needs to be dealt with.  Frank  |  talk  20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
Hi. Frank asked me to stop by to talk about how to verify permission. As I mention at the article's talk page, I have removed the text for now, since we're forbidden to publish it prior to that verification and since I did not want to place the {{copyvio}} template on the article, which rather defaces it. You are, of course, welcome to replace it with placeholder text that is written entirely in your own words. If you aren't sure how much revision is necessary, you may want to review Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, which offers some suggestions. Wikipedia is governed by United States copyright law, which protects not only the precise verbiage but also less tangible elements such as the structure of a piece.

If you have permission, as you indicate, then you have of course not violated no copyright law. You have, unfortunately, run afoul of Wikipedia's copyrights policy, which requires that permission be verified for previously published text. This isn't because we doubt your word; I have seen bureaucrats on Wikipedia who have had to take material through this process. It's a policy that applies equally to everyone, since it has potentially serious legal ramifications for the project itself.

The whole procedure for verifying permission is set out at WP:DCM. The easiest way is to ask the copyright holder to send an e-mail release from an e-mail address clearly associated with the first point of publication agreeing to license the text under CC-By-SA. There's a good form letter for this at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. If you go this route, I'll be happy to explain anything about that process which is unclear. Alternatively, your snail mail clearance can be faxed or mailed to the Foundation. The process goes more slowly, but there is no deadline.

(In response to your note at my talk page, placed while I was typing this, we do not leave copyrighted material in publication on Wikipedia unless we have that verification. If you need access to the original in order to rewrite, I trust you know how to access it in history.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
Please address the continued concerns listed on the article's talk page swiftly so that the material does not need to be again removed. Additionally, like Frank I am puzzled as to what you mean by "current ISBN details are not to hand to include as evidence of citation resource." The ISBN is immaterial to documenting permission to reuse or create a derivative of that text. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n - Gareth's Comment
Am I'm a citizen of the United Kingdom, only the legislations of the UK Copyrights Act 1911 are within my memory bank, I would have seen reason to look at US Copyrights Acts, due to this. A previous debate between myself, and members of the Lancashire & Cumbria project team, to which the Lostock Hall article is connected with; agreed that at this current time, it would be ok to use the original text (which we did on 15 September 2009). However, since then it was re-worded to remove the similarities on 20 September 2009. So the version to which you removed was the then newly worded version. I have since re-written it again (today), until I am able to obtain the ISBN details for the book, to which a full copy of the letter of permission to use is in there. I have a copy of the letter, but it is impossible to add a ref link to this, as it is in the material world, and not on the internet to ref it to. The letter however does state that permission to use specific wording has been granted not only for the project of the book to which it was used, but also any future projects to which myself, or the author of the book which to work on - as this article on wikipedia can also be seen as a project, then no law has been broken. Pr3st0n (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
Wikipedia's servers are in the United States, and US copyright law governs it. Accordingly, US copyright laws govern all contributions to it. The "newly worded version" was nearly identical to the external source identified, and the rewritten text is demonstrably too similar. I have included excerpts of each for comparison at the talk page. A "ref link" is not what is needed. What is needed is for you to send a copy of the letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. This is all set forth in our copyrights policy, specifically at "using copyrighted works from others", which binds all of Wikipedia's contributors. Moreover, the permission must contain some specific language making it clear that the material is either in public domain or can be licensed under CC-By-SA. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
While here, let me clarify that you may, of course, use brief quotations of copyrighted material, but in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline, this material must be clearly marked so that it is not mistaken as original text. You may be able to use some quotations pending your verification of this permission through necessary processes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank's Comment
Also, it would be very helpful if you could provide diffs to explain what you're talking about when you refer to a debate regarding the text and the re-wording on 20 September. In the latter case, I see only three edits to the article on that date, and only one that was near that section; all it did was rename the section. This may sound nit-picky, but you're making claims that I can't see any evidence for. I'm not saying they didn't happen, but if you could be explicit in providing a link to them, then there would be no ambiguity.  Frank  |  talk  21:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank's Comment
An additional point worth noting, I think, is that you mention copyright law from 1911, but Wikipedia claims that the prevailing UK copyright law is from 1988. You can see details at Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#UK Copyright.  Frank  |  talk  21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n - Gareth's Comment
The UK Copyright act is still 1911 version - an addendum was made in 1988, but this comes under a different name. The 1988 version you speak of is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Original guidance in this act is still outlined in the 1911 version. As for the versions to which you want me to link - if you start to view the 15/Sept/2009 version, and view the other ones bringing yourself up to the current time, you will see the edits made slowly bit by bit. I don't have the time to be adding the links to each of the edits of the re-write for history to a comment posting - as there are that many. Pr3st0n (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrewcrawford's Comment
Acutally wikipedia is govern by international copyright as well as american copyright laws. And as such laws of the uk can apply. I am not ocmment on the user whatever they have done i have not reviewed it but i think people get the laws a wee bit mixed up. Just because the servers ar ein america does not make it american law..... anhything onthe internet comes under a different ballgame to which ther eis no define law as such yet (not saying that ther eno law but only that no one to this date can really say who law takes higher power.)oh by the way wikipedia has servers in europe to. That why ilegal filesharing and a lot of other things that go on are still in limbo due to copyrights rights and law for itnernet being applied as your coutnry can have differnet laws to another. Again i am not sure what the user has done so i aint saying there right or wrong or that your right or wrong to tell them to undo it, only that your wrong about jsut because server are in america mean it american copyright laws.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrewcrawford's Comment
The user is right the copyright laws for the uk are still dated in 1911, but the copyright,desgin and patents act not law is dated 1988, there is to be new copyright law passed int eh near future which is more to deal with internet based stuff and a few changes to the original one i think one is to extend the life of copyrighted stuf fin the uk from 50 years to 80 to 90 years after death--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
Wikipedia respects international copyright laws where possible, but is governed by US copyright. This is set out in our copyright policy: "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Comment
The two are not necessarily incompatible. A good example is the difference in freedom of panorama between the UK and the US. In the UK there is no copyright on works of art displayed in a public place, and so there is equally no copyright on pictures of those UK displayed works of art in the US. What matters is the copyright law in the country where the material originates. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your last sentence, but it doesn't seem to mesh with Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, which says "Copyright status of a work in its home country is often important in evaluating its copyright status in the United States. Nevertheless, a work which is in the public domain in its home country can sometimes be under copyright in the United States and so can not be used on Wikipedia." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Comment
"Sometimes" is quite an important word, don't you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
Oh, indeed it is. :) Why look at the difference it makes: "What sometimes matters is the copyright law in the country where the material originates." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n - Gareth's Comment
I've just had a good read of Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, and it states A work can equally be in the (USA) public domain in its source country but still under copyright in the United States: any non-posthumous work published after 1922 by a British, French, or German author who died between January 1, 1926 and December 31, 1937 falls into this category. as well as stating Any work published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States, regardless of its source country. Seeing the the information I used was first published in 1911 (which is before those dates I just quoted from Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, then it is in USA public domain, and therefore can be used. Pr3st0n (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
You're quite right that if it was originally published in 1911, it's free for use on Wikipedia. (You'll want to attribute it, per Wikipedia:Plagiarism.) I'm sorry that I didn't realize the date of original publication; I looked at the website where it says, "Copyright © 2009 University of London & History of Parliament Trust - All rights reserved". But they cannot impose new copyright on copyright expired information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
(P.S. If you aren't familiar with attributing PD sources, I'd be happy to help with that.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n - Gareth's Comment
Therefore, the write to which I have done (and has now been removed) was safe to use in the first place, regardless to the fact I have written permission given to me a few years ago? And thus, it is safe to have that text put back into place. Pr3st0n (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
Yes, it is, if it was originally published in 1911. You don't need to verify permission of your author friend, because she is no more authorized to "permit" it than anyone else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n - Gareth's Comment
That was also the main concern from opposer's on my RfA nomination - so in the end I hadn't broken any rules - and all those who opposed based on that, opposed incorrectly. Pr3st0n (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
I don't know; I wasn't aware of your RfA. I tend not to follow those routinely. But if they were opposing because you violated copyright then, yes, they opposed on a mistaken premise. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n - Gareth's Comment
Based on what we have now found, I shall allow you to revert your alterations to Lostock Hall, and pointing out that the original source was published in 1911, thus making it free to use on Wikipedia. Not sure how to do that PD thing you spoke of, so if you could be so kind to do that on my behalf, I will be grateful. Pr3st0n (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
All right. I'll restore the original text and repair the Lockstock Hall reference to indicate its PD status. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
It's done. I've altered the reference to indicate the original source, not the website hosting it now (though it is, of course, still linked), and I've supplied the attribution template at the base, here. That satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia:Plagiarism. (I have no idea why the second editor isn't showing; the citation template seems to be formatted correctly.) I'll go make a note at the article talk of the PD status. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n - Gareth's Comment
Thanks, I'm glad that we have managed to sort this out. A bit long-winded, and some heated moments, to which I apologise for, but at least now we all know where we stand, and that no violation was broken initially. Pr3st0n (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Comment
I've fixed the problem with the citation. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

Hmmm thanks, I am not sure about the unnecessary outbursts (I have seen worse) but fair enough. Please don't lose all motivation and enthusiasm even though I know you must be having a difficult time. Do go cheer things up a little as this ought to have a positive effect. You will probably feel much better tomorrow/next week/whenever and any ill feeling will then seem like it's in the distant past. It is best to remain civil when all around you appear (and I stress appear as sometimes things are not as bad as they seem) to be losing their heads because then you are doing no wrong and you are safe in the knowledge that you are not losing yours (even though I appreciate keeping cool can be difficult at times even with that "show preview" button). You can be a perfectly good editor even without being an administrator (in doing so you may even put the behaviour of some administrators to shame). Also, try not to treat all the opposers as enemies and the supporters as friends—they were attempting to assess your ability to perform a series of additional tasks, not your appearance/personality or any other similar characteristics which form the foundations of such relationships. Inevitably someone will take an extreme or negative reaction somewhere but I think you've done rather well despite how things have turned out. I trust that you have learned or even relearned many things from the RfA (concerning policy, etc. but not necessarily limited to that) and this must surely already mean you are a better editor. And that may be the most positive thing of all. --candle•wicke 02:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That has got to be the most sweetest comment I've ever seen - thanks! You're right though, people can say what they want about me, but at the end of the day, we all have our own faults in life, and only we know ourselves for who we really are. So far, the work has been good (I won't say perfect, as there's no such thing as perfection!). And you have a good point, we can be good editors even without those admin tools. Deep down, all's well that end's well. Time to move on, crack that whip, and carry on with edits, and set them to an outstanding level. Cheers for the kind words again! Pr3st0n (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Friends

Hi Pr3st0n - I've made a minor tweak to your wiki-friends [1] as I am from the east side of the pond :) Hope you are well. Pedro :  Chat  08:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, thank you for correcting it for me Pedro. I'm doing quite ok today - how are you? Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's very interesting that table actually - it shows the bias WP has towards the US and the UK. Whilst we have many excellent editors from across the world we certainly could do with more from Europe, Asia, South America, India and so forth. Moving on, I'm sorry your RFA went wrong - I think the dialogue above shows you're clearly on the right track however and have learnt some things! Keep on enjoying Wikipedia and if I can be of any help please hit me up on my talk. I tend to be less active at weekends but normally pop in to check for messages. Best. Pedro :  Chat  08:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pedro for the kind words. That table was a weird, yet clever idea I concocted. And you're the first to spot its main design reasoning ;-) I did have it split into continents, but decided for now, it be best to have it all merged into one (I don't want to make myself a continentalist (hmm new word for the dictionary)). It is strange though how it shows the WP bias between UK and US, I hadn't spotted that until you mentioned it. Anyway, moving on to the dreaded RfA (only joking), I was surprised with the positive feedback, I know deep down I am a polite person, and treat people how I expect to be treated in return (mother's policy, she'd slap me if I didn't continue with it). The only thing now that is narking, is that copyright issue. It was only when that came up, that the opposer's which followed were picking up on it, and jumping into the pile. Now that we've since discovered that no breach of copyright has happened, I feel that pile have penalised me based on false pretences. Ah well, not to worry, life moves on, we learn from mistakes, and make sure we don't get a big chunk bitten out of our asses ever again lol. I'm going to spend a few months preparing myself for a re-run (sometime around Spring 2010). I do feel there are some areas I could with gaining experience on first before doing so; like getting my first article up to GA status. Once that mission is done, I will feel more confident with the current tools, and policies. How's life treating you these days? All set for the weekend? Don't forget, the weekend starts at 5pm lol. Keep in touch mate, and I'm only a click away if you need me. Pr3st0n (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable

Declining a GA nomination without substantive comments as to why the article does not in your opinion meet the GA requirements is unacceptable. If you are unable to formulate comments beyond boilerplate templates then you have no business reviewing any article. Otto4711 (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if you feel that a rapid fail was unjustified, however all procedures as per Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles were taken into consideration. As there would be too much to outline in what areas needed covering, the only solution that remained was to go through the "Quick Fail" route, to which a template (the one used on the articles talk page) has to be used. Pr3st0n (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please specify which of the five quick-fail criteria that this article falls under. Please specify which of the good article criteria the article does not fulfill. Otto4711 (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You probably don't wish to know this, but I think the nominator has a fairly strong case. The article was "quick failed" using an WP:AFC template, not GAN templates; and there is little, if any, evidence that the article was reviewed against WP:WIAGA. You may have been failed it for the "right reason", but the review does appear to have been inadequate/inadequately documented; and your comments on the WP:GAN appear to lack a degree of objectivity. The nominator does not appear to be objecting so much to its failure; the objections appear to be more against the way it was failed. That must provide some thought for comment? Pyrotec (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You might have a point there Pyrotec, I might have been a little harsh with the "quick fail". I was following the criteria, and the reviewing guidelines, and was fine with that - but then after I had read the entire article, I knew more about Henry Gurber (think that's how his last name is spelt), then I did about what the article was all about. I also noticed there is an article for the founder of the society, and information in that was similar to what the society article - which brought me to conclusion that more details about the organization would benefit the article - as there would be way too much to list out, a fail in my opinion, was the wise choice to take; otherwise it would be on hold for God knows how long until it looked more bulked out with details. I wasn't too sure either that the article has no images with it. I couldn't really put a Y or N on it. However, another user giving a second opinion was the only clause out of it I feel. I have taken time to see the points you have made on the article talk page, and they were exactly what I was thinking. Way too much too outline, and wouldn't be fair on the candidate. Thanks for you help though. Pr3st0n (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

RfA oppose and neutral

Hi, I just wanted to say something about RfA oppose notvotes. RfA is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote. When people leave a NotVote they're supposed to leave a bit of text to explain their NotVote. For the oppose NotVotes these comments will always seem negative, because they are reasons why one editor thins another editor is not ready yet for adminship. RfA is a harsh process. People would welcome your input at the RfA talk page if you have ideas about how to make it less harsh. Finally, please don't lose motivation. Admins are not elite, they're just regular editors with extra tools. content creators are elite - they are the people who create wikipedia. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'm ok with it all now (just about). The main concern that spiralled out, was the copyright issue surrounding the Lostock Hall article, to which people started to jump on the pile stating I was in the wrong - it has since come to conclusion that in fact no violations had been broken, as the context was originally written in 1911, which is prior to the 1923 date set out by Wikipedia Copyright Policies, and therefore made it free to use via the US public domain. SO as you can imagine, I now feel penalised, due to the pile on of oppose that surrounded this problem, to which there was no problem after all. Pr3st0n (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully the copyright thing got resolved, which is a bonus. There was me getting frustrated because I had that letter which gave permission, but wasn't able to exactly link it, as it is a piece of paper, and not a web page lol. And the swine flu stopped me from getting out to obtain the book's ISBN so that I could put that on the article, and people could view it and see the letter that was also published into the book. Anyway, all ends well, and the article can now get back on track. Don't you just love copyrights?! haha, one lesson learnt, the US and UK copyright acts are very fine-lined, and to be honest, I like the US version better than the UK one. That's one chapter closed, wonder what's next to burst itself upon me. Only time will tell. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

This edit completely changes the nature of the discussion, the result of which appears above. I know it looks a little more professional, but you are changing how things were threaded and it is generally frowned upon. In addition, the original authors of some (or all) of those comments may not be able to to easily find what they had previously written in order to follow the conversation. Please have a read of WP:TPO for more information. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hang on one sec Frank, the comments were getting all over the place in that thread you pointed out, as it is on my talk page, I was merely being helpful, by putting things into time-line order - some people were adding replies were every they felt like it, instead of at the bottom of the continuation. How I organise my page is up to me, as long as I don't alter any of the original comments - to which I didn't. I have not told you how to maintain your page, a respect that I wish to receive in return. If you have a problem with me, then you might as well spit it out - cause from what I am seeing, you are trying to pick fault with the slight thing I do now, to which it is INDEED causing unnecessary stress. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the other users have complained about it; and they were well aware it was happening, as conversations continued partway through the tidy-up... the only person in that thread that has found fault is yourself. And the WP:TPO to which I have read in full, only mentions not to alter what a user has written, it doesn't say that the conversations can be tidied up back into time-line order, to which that order was actually following on from one to the next. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And before you even quote it, I have read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_your_web_host. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of where people were adding replies is that they were responding to individual points. That is the reason for indentations and for adding things directly under what they are responding to. That's the way Wikipedia works. As for picking fault, I'm sorry you see it that way. I'm guiding you toward the way things work around here, not picking fault.  Frank  |  talk  14:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed they were replying to another person thread, which got mixed up within all the edit conflicts that kept happening. Twice I tried to post a reply, and twice I got a conflict, in the end my comment got somewhere near the top, and the reply it was meant for was at the bottom, while another user's reply to the same thing ended up in the middle. The time-line helped us all out, Moonriddengirl, Malleus, and Andrew, not to forget myself. Sure you're trying to help me out here - which is fine! But the tidy-up hasn't harmed any of the others, to which it was only theirs anyway that got jumbled up in the edit conflicts, yours were still in the original places where u put them. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the dreaded "edit conflict", sometimes abbreviated (especially in edit summaries) as "e/c". You can read about that here. The reason your comment got "somewhere near the top" is probably because of the two boxes that showed up when you were alerted to the edit conflict. It can be cumbersome but you have to take your comment from the box at the bottom and find the right place to insert it back in the top window.  Frank  |  talk  14:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Either way, it hasn't bothered any one up until now - I think it is best we draw a close to this conversation, and start a fresh. While I've got your attention, I'm going to put forward a question to you. I will start it off in a new thread, so that we don't get confused with this one. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You are also making yourself sound like you are talking on their behalf - to which I doubt you are (but can only assume). If any of the others in that conversation had any problems about the tidy-up that was happening, I'm sure they would have brought to attention there and then last night when it was in progress. Just leave things be, and stop digging into the past - water has flowed way under the bridge and is out to sea by now. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you how Wikipedia works. Do not assume that because someone doesn't say something it means they have no opinion. They may not see it, they may not feel strongly about it, they may not feel it's worth saying anything about, they may not have edited for 12 hours...the list goes on. That's one of the reasons we have policies around here...so people know how the place works.  Frank  |  talk  14:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Failed GA review on Society for Human Rights

Resolved

 – treat as read - no further action!

Frank; I did another GA review on the above article. And when you see the article for yourself, there is insufficient context about the organization itself - after reading it, I knew more about the founder than I did about the main topic. I checked policies, and guidance for a good 20 minutes or so; and found that due to the articles lack of context on the main subject it related to, it caused justice for a quick fail, and a template to use - to which I did. The user Otto4711 is complained stating that I have failed it on a "no-review" basis. Which is not true, it was failed based on lack of content, and I used the following "AFC submission|D|context|other parameters" to stipulate my decision. Have I done wrong by failing it? Pr3st0n (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not going to bring this up, but I am fully aware of it. However, since you asked, YES, you have done wrong by failing it. There are specific criteria for quick-failing an article and you did not list any of them. Also, the context of the subject of the article is crystal clear to me. It is about an organization that was founded to advocate for gays in the 1920s and existed for a short time.

In addition, you have now placed a template on your user page that is reserved for new articles, which this is not; it will likely show up in categories which are unintended. Finally, the template you used (as was pointed out above) was for WP:AFC and not for WP:GAN.  Frank  |  talk  15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've put it up for 2nd opinion anyway to keep the peace. By the looks, I best keep away from Wikipedia, and just stick to my own website teaching psychic issues to people. I'd write an article on it on here, but I'd probably be doing the wrong thing in doing so. Pr3st0n (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia

I'm going to leave Wikipedia for a while - as I keep being pointed out, all the "cock-ups"... and I'm too thick to understand what is going on. I will keep my user activated, in case I suddenly get some genius knowledge from somewhere and decide to return. Pr3st0n (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a bad idea ..... There is no manual for Wikipedia you klnow - the only way to learn is experience. If you've been enjoying the place enough to run for adminship then why leave it? Pedro :  Chat  15:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I love it enough - just need a break - I made some good friends on here too (yourself included); struggling with certain people, lack of understanding I think, or a clash of personalities. Can't do right for doing wrong. Oh-oh bipolar! Pedro, you are the best wiki-friend ever! Frank, back off and give me space - I'm requesting kindly, so I expect my request to be abided until further notice. It is safer that way for both of us, so we can't resort to me having to justify my actions, and thus you won't need to keep finding fault on things (even if you are being helpful) - the most helpful thing you could do right now Frank, is give me some breathing space - it is now getting too stressful, and I feel harassed by it. Pr3st0n (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, Frank is one of the good guys round here and I'm sure he'll be upset to think he was pushing you into a corner or whatever. take a WP:wikibreak and come back soon my man. Pedro :  Chat  15:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Pedro. Gareth, I already suggested for your benefit and no other reason, that stepping away for your health might be a good idea here. I am certainly not wanting to push you (or anyone) away. I do think perhaps you are biting off many things all at once; this is a big place and you might want to just slow down a bit. I have something over 10,000 edits and have been an administrator for more than a year, and I have only attempted and managed one good article and I've yet to feel confident enough of the criteria to review one myself.  Frank  |  talk  15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He may be good, but I've hardly seen that side so far. It is blatantly obvious though.

(1) Frank brings up the "copyright" thing on the article I worked on. [2] (2) I then explain that I have a letter, and also copy of the letter is in a book. [3] (3) I get asked to supply the information - which I was going to, although with swine flu I'm not allowed to leave the house. [4] (4) Another user is then brought into it by Frank's request [5] (which I agreed to) but it still shown dissatisfaction from Frank. (5) Huge debate over it starts (as shown above in the Copyright thread).[6] (6) Other users notice that no violation has been made - and all agree that the context I used was permitted, and no violation made.[7] (7) The article is then reverted back to the version I wrote.[8] (8) Frank posts a message on another users page, which is clear that he was unhappy with the decision (even if not directed as such in words).[9] (9) He then, finds fault on the way the copyright thread above was tidied up into time-line order - I'd like to add, only he out of the 5 people in that conversation has found fault with it, none of the others minded one bit.[10]

All this time, I feel myself being pushed further and further into a corner, and having to defend myself throughout. Its all there in black and white, put yourselves into my shoes, and then think, is this a dig, or what?

Now with all that, I think I am well within my right to be feeling under pressure, harassed, and utterly, utterly outraged. Frank, please for my sake, leave me alone - it is all that I ask. Pr3st0n (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that makes me sad. If you do ever come back by, drop me a line  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

taking a break?

Hi. I hope you enjoy a short break. Take a breather, get some air. Take some time. BUT PLEASE DO COME BACK! Editing wikipedia can be fun, even if a lot of the rules are complex and bizarre. WP really does need people like you to help create content. So, when you come back, let one of your pals know, and they'll help guide you through the complex WP culture. Please feel free to drop me a line if you feel people are "having a go", and I'll try to explain their comments from a different point of view, or get you help if they are having a dig. Kind regards, and hope to see you when you feel ready to return. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't intending on leaving anyway - just needed to make it clear that I was wanting a specific user to back off and give me a break. And the more I requested, the more they continued to post a comment - quite noticeable the user was ignoring my request to leave me alone. At least now I can continue with my work, and seek advice when I need it from a user I can trust, one who I know won't be on my case 24/7. Thank you NotAnIP83:149:66:11 for your kind friendly support. Pr3st0n (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope you come back soon. We need more people like you editing round these parts. :) — neuro^(talk) 12:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Another copyright concern

Hi, Gareth. I just noticed that on June 27th of this year, you copied text from the Associate Membership and Approved participants sections of this website into the article European Broadcasting Union. Although you cited your source, you can't use their text verbatim under the copyright policy unless there is verification that they don't mind. On the contrary, their website says, "©UER 2007." I've had to remove it pending verification of permission. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You also seem to have copied several sentences from [11] into Radio Television of Kosovo on August 30th. While you did cite your source, again, we need verification of permission to use their language. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

All of that was decided as part of the Eurovision Project team, the table of Associate Membership and Approved participants sections is a vital piece of information, and only follows on from the other tables included in the article. One of the other project members were suppose to be re-working the text, they had asked me to find the info, and add it in so they could re-work it. I had assumed they had done so. Pr3st0n (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what a project decides. That copyrighted material cannot be used is mandated by the Wikimedia Foundation. You can't place copyrighted text into an article except under the limited circumstances allowed by non-free content guideline and policy. If you or others need to use it as a base, it has to be reworked elsewhere than on Wikipedia. If others in your project are under the impression that this is permitted, please let them know it is not. You can, obviously, always give them the link so that they can refer to the material themselves...I had no difficulty viewing it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I just realised that information on this website is old information anyway, its from their news archives which is now 2 years out of date anyway. So despite it being used on the wikipedia article, it wasn't updated info, as the EBU have changed policies (I got that confirmed by my cousin in Geneva). The members of the WikiProject Eurovision team are aware that I've a cousin who works for EBU in Geneva - and although the information I get is privy, I did inform the team that it would need to be reworded if it to be used on Wiki articles. The table of EBU Members is permitted under the EBU to be used as guidance/reference information, as long as it is linked with a ref source. I have also noticed on Eurovision Wikiedpia article, the rules for the contests have been added, which are identically worded to those shown on websites ebu.ch; and eurovision.tv. Now I understand here is a very awkward situation, it would be wrong to reword these. The rules set by the EBU need to be worded exactly the same on the Wikipedia article, as any difference would then be providing falsified rules. Not sure if that also comes under the info I supplied; as they too are rules set by the EBU, and if we were to reword them, would then make it falsified information. I still have that email address somewhere for WP copyrights thing... I'll get my cousin at the EBU to email them, giving permission for anything from EBU or Eurovision websites to be used on Wikipedia (if that's ok). Pr3st0n (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems, Lostock Hall

I've gone through this article and found substantial duplication from external sources that are explicitly reserved and, unfortunately, not PD by age. This material is much too substantial to continue displaying on Wikipedia. I have used the {{copyvio}} to blank them. If you wish to rewrite them in your own words, please do so in the linked temporary space. Please be careful not to create a close paraphrase, but to create a new work that can be licensed as Wikipedia requires.

The sources are:

• http://www.stcatherines.co.uk/generalhtml/aboutus.htm
• http://www.southribble.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/11/10.pdf
• http://www.lostockhallband.co.uk/history.htm
• http://www.stjameslostockhall.org.uk/page7.html
• http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/libraries/librarydetails/libhist.asp?name=Lostock%20Hall
• http://81.31.125.226/adrian/lostockhall/early.html
• http://www.mortonsbooks.co.uk/steamgrand.htm
• http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~bradshaw/LostockHall/page6aa.html

If you have questions about the revision process, please let me know. If you wish to write any of these sources for permission, recommended procedures are at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never copied anything from any of those websites listed. All the work that I have done on the background history is purely based on the researched I did with the locals in the area. I went round talking to the older generation, and wrote down notes on everything they could tell me about Lostock Hall in the past - and with that I wrote things in MY OWN WORDS. Little bit unnerving that my wording shows similarities to those websites. I've never even heard or seen that Mortonsbooks website you provided. So not sure where you got that from. Other external links on the article have been given courtesy of the companies which own them. All of the schools wouldn't help out with the wiki prjoect, but did ask that their website addresses be used, to which I included them in the external links. Just out of curiosity, how come all of a sudden every piece of work I've helped out on is being checked? It seems a little strange that this has only started to happen since Frank had a wobbler fit over the previous work, which both you and I later found was safe to use. It does seem to be a little fishy to me, and I will undergo a personal investigation into this. Everything is being removed pretty fast without giving myself time to save the details so that I can re-work on them. I do have a main job as well as this, and no time is being permitted. It's not going to kill anyone now is it to permit a maximum of 36 hours to fix. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You've removed the history section by mistake I think - you had already stated that was permitted to use, as it was written in 1911, prior to the 1923 rule. You inserted a PD ref for it - how come that now has been removed? Pr3st0n (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you noticed, some of the information on St Catherines Hospice website is similar to that 1911 dated one from the British History website, so they have copied from that, to which you confirmed the information on the British History website, which was written in 1911, was allowed to be used. So no copyright on our side has been breached on that. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I can see that it would be unnerving, but the fact that you actually cited some of those sources suggests that if you have not deliberately copied them, you have accidentally duplicated them. Take for example the sentence that reads, "The first Hospice service began in 1984 with the appointment of a Home Care Sister, and the first Hospice activity within the old house was the opening of Day Care on 29 April 1985 - the feast of St. Catherine of Siena after whom the Hospice was named." You have cited this to St. Catherine's, where the language reads, "The first Hospice service was begun in 1984 with the appointment of a Home Care Sister, and the first Hospice activity within the old house was the opening of Day Care on 29 April 1985 - the feast of St. Catherine of Siena after whom the Hospice was named. In-patient facilities for up to 12 patients opened on 8th July 1985." While you may have believed you were rewriting this in your own words, you clearly have not.

The History section has been blanked because of such text. Even if St. Catherine's incorporated the same PD text that you did into their history, their original material remains protected. Mortonsbooks very likely took text from http://81.31.125.226/adrian/lostockhall/early.html or http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~bradshaw/LostockHall/page6aa.html, but in any event demonstrates that the text was previously published elsewhere. For Wikipedia's purposes, what matters is that it not originate here.

As I explained before, the material is currently still viewable in the article's history, but we are required to respond swiftly to copyright problems, to minimize the potential damages to copyright holders. I'm sorry if you have a day job that may make it difficult for you to address this swiftly, but protecting the project from contributory copyright infringement is paramount. The copyright template typically remains in place for 7 + 1 days. You have until that time has passed to address these issues in temporary space before an administrator (whether me or another) reviews the listing and closes it. If you need more time, this is sometimes arranged, although it's also possible that the text will be removed rather than merely blanked at that time.

You are quite right that this evaluation is connected to the previous detection of copied text in your work. In line with what founder Jimbo Wales told press in 2006, when we find individuals who have copied text into Wikipedia, we typically try to review their other contributions to see if there are other issues. There's nothing fishy about this; it's standard procedure. If you have copied text from one source, there is reason to check if you have copied from others. As was pointed out to you in September 2008, you can't copy paste chunks of text from other website. Most of them, like the ones above, are not public domain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, User:Neurolysis went ahead and removed the text. Again, if you need it, it is still viewable for now in the article's history. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A shorter version of the above - There *might* be copyright problems with the articles. These are really important for Wikipedia. Because they are so important it's a good idea to remove the text until the problems are sorted out. The text is still there to be worked on, it is in the article history. (I haven't looked at the article, but don't forget that other people may have inserted text.) The information can go back into the article, but it must be in original words. Moonriddengirl is an experienced editor, and knows a lot about copyright and wikipedia. The help she gives is excellent. Kind regards, NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Origins and early history

Moonriddengirl, I'm working frantically on the new rewrite of the Lostock Hall article (avoiding the copyright thing), and I wanted to check that the following was still OK to use as was originally written in 1911 by Farrerr, William; Brownbill, J., eds (1911). "Townships: Walton-le-Dale". A History of the County of Lancaster. 6., a publication now in the public domain.

The estate of Lostock's Hall in the rural area of Cuerden Green was built by James de Lostock, who was recorded as living there in 
the year 1212.  The grounds which surrounded Lostock's Hall got renamed as Lostock Hall, after the death of James de Lostock, by his 
daughter Magote (better known as Margery).

Margery brought it in marriage to a Banastre, for John Banastre was described as of Lostock from 1402 to 1429, William and his sons 
John and Richard in 1459, John 1469 to 1479, and William in 1504. In 1548 Richard Banastre conveyed tenements in Walton, Preston and 
Lea to Thomas Fleetwood and his wife Barbara. In 1561 Mr. Fleetwood passed the manor of Lostock in Walton to feoffees, who re-
conveyed it in 1574 to William Fleetwood son of Thomas by his second wife Bridget Spring. William Fleetwood sold the manor with a 
free fishery in Lostock Water to Roger Burscough, who conveyed it in 1595 to Peter Burscough, and he in turn in 1611 passed it to 
Thomas Burscough, who died in 1616 seized of Lostock Hall, holder of Richard Hoghton, by 16s rent, leaving 
issue an only daughter Elizabeth, aged eighteen months. In 1662 Andrew Dandie paid a rent of 12d to the 
lord of Clitheroe for his lands called Lostock, and in 1666 William Dandy paid tax upon three hearths here. He died in 1676, 
described as of Lostock. Andrew Dandy of Lostock and William his son were out-burgesses at Preston guild in 1682.

The original hall was destroyed by fire but parts of the present old house, now the site of St. Catherine's Hospice, date back to 
1764 by which date the Hall has been rebuilt by William Clayton Esquire.  The Hall became inherited by George Clayton who lived 
there with his wife Dolly, until his death in 1829, aged 86. It then passed to George's second son, William, until he moved to the 
South of England in 1847.  There followed a succession of owners including Robert Orrell Esq. (cotton spinner and manufacturer, 
Cuerden Mills) 1847-61; John Bashall Esq. (cotton manufacturer, Lostock Hall), 1861-71 and Robert Jackson 1871-81.

I look forward to your reply. Pr3st0n (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's still quite fine from a copyright perspective and by Wikipedia's guidelines on plagiarism as long as the attribution is still there. (I believe I noted it was and left it there, because I figured you'd probably put that text back. However, if you ever have any desire to try to get this to featured article status, you might want to put it in your own words anyway. I myself have never worked on an FA evaluation, but while working on the plagiarism guideline was told that articles that flatly incorporate public domain text in this way generally don't pass. That may or may not be true. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting copyright problems

Gareth, please don't work frantically (or overdose on coffee :)), but slow down and take your time. Some of your revisions are really good, but there's parts that still follow the original too closely. Take this passage for example:

...when a lone enemy bomber dived on the nearby Leyland Motors factory, which British Forces where using as a construction base for new military supplies. British army gunners at the works had opened fire in deffence, causing the plane to swerve from its target, releasing three bombs in doing so.

The source says:

...that a lone enemy bomber dived on the nearby Leyland Motors factory. Army gunners at the works had opened fire, causing the plane to swerve from its target, releasing three bombs in doing so.

You've almost entirely retained the original structure and language, adding or altering only a few words. This kind of alteration creates a close paraphrase, which is a derivative work, and still a copyright violation.

Compare especially this: "British army gunners at the works had opened fire in deffence, causing the plane to swerve from its target, releasing three bombs in doing so."

You've added three words. WP:C says, "Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely." There's no reformulation here, and the majority of these words (including the structure in which they've been used) belong to the source. You've followed it too closely.

If you want to talk about how best to rewrite material in your own words, I am happy to discuss it. Given its brevity, I would rewrite this passage for you, but I know from previous conversations that you prefer to do it yourself. In the meantime, I've removed this passage and will be evaluating the others to see if you have similarly only superficially changed them. I'll update you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The St. Catherine's material seems to have been overall rewritten well, though there were a few passages that remained too close to the source. Since there were only a few, I went ahead and rewrote or removed the material anyway. You can see the alterations I made by comparing the diff. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Memorial Band had a bit of close following, though some of it was very well rewritten. (Particularly I note this passage: "Out of the 16 bands that participated in the finals, the Lostock Hall Memorial Band managed to finish a respectable 7th place. This was to be followed with more final qualifications in 1995 and 2006." That's exactly how to take the facts and put it into a new creative expression.) Since it was just a bit, I have again rewritten it in place. If the language I've chosen doesn't suit you, you are (of course) welcome to craft different expression. Compare to see what I've changed. Let me know if you don't see why. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You've made a good start on the religion section, but it remains a little more close than the others. I've removed it, but remember that the text and the mark-up are still accessible in history. For a few points of comparison:

• "It was the Methodists, who were the first to notice this unique community would warmly welcome a chance to worship this religion in a chapel which was to be built nearby." source: "The Methodists were the first to realise that this new community would welcome the opportunity to worship in a nearby chapel."
• "It wasn't until the end of the nineteenth century, the these letter two religions had noticed the urgent need to bring the ministrations a little closer to the communities of the Lostock Hall and Tardy Gate." Source: "Towards the end of the nineteenth century it was realised that there was a need for these latter two religions to bring their ministrations closer to their congregations in Lostock Hall and Tardy Gate."
• "with a succession of clergu and readers taking it in turn to conduct services in the area." Source: "with a succession of clergy and readers taking turns to conduct services in the newly built edifice."
• Article: "This building was used as a vicarage until the 1930's, when it was sold due to its unnecessarily large for the purposes it was constructed for." Source: "It was used as a vicarage until 1930 when it was sold on the grounds that it was unnecessarily large for its purpose."
• Article: "it was decided that the church of St James' had operated as a mission church for too long, and a transformation was to take place to grant St James' the right of being a parish church in its own right. In 1951, this transformation finally took place with what is known as a Conventional District (a parish in the making), and was permitted with the licence to conduct marriage services of their own. A consecration service was held in 1957, by the Bishop of Blackburn , and with it brought the signal of advancement into parish status, and setting in motion a new responsibility of its own welfare, along with a list of major improvements which were required, including renovation work of the church hall." Source: "Saint James' had been a mission church for long enough, and it was time to be transformed into a parish in its own right. It became what is known as a Conventional District (a parish in the making) in 1951 and was licensed to conduct its own marriage services. In 1957 the Bishop of Blackburn came to lead the consecration service, signalling the advance to parish status. This new responsibility for its own welfare set in motion a long list of improvements, the most obvious change being a complete renovation of the church hall, which more or less doubled its size."

When you retain identical structure and striking words with very little change ("would welcome" "bring their ministrations closer" "what is known as a Conventional District (a parish in the making)" "new responsibility of/for its own welfare"), you create a derivative.

I don't mean to discourage you. Some of this is very well revised. But these are some of the examples of passages that remain too close. One thing you might want to keep in mind is that as a tertiary source Wikipedia is generally going to lose some detail, unless we have multiple, detail-rich sources from which to choose. This is unfortunate, but it's the way it goes. What the source has may be better, but unless they license it, we can't use it. :) When rewriting material myself, I will sometimes reduce it to a bullet point of fact: (became a "Conventional District" in 1951; parish in 1957 w/ ceremony by Bishop of Blackburn; required improvements). I'll then form these facts into a sentence or a few sentences and compare what I get to the original to be sure that I haven't accidentally followed too closely. "In 1951, the church had outgrown its status as a mission church and so was elevated to a 'Conventional District', which signaled that it was to become a parish. In 1957, it did, with its change in stature officiated by the Bishop of Blackburn. Afterward, the church began implementing some of the necessary improvements and renovations its new position required."

Since there is more work needed in this material, I've gone ahead and removed it to permit you to work on it yourself at your leisure. If you should have interest, you're welcome to use the text I generated above. I waive my right to attribution for it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

←The first part of the railway section has some good revision as well, but you seem to have simply abridged the source in some places. Look at this part of the opening paragraph:

A route from Blackburn was constructed so that it could join up with the 1838 North Union Railway's junction at Farington. This connection consisted of sharp-curved spurs that joined the tracks north of the signal box at Farington Junction.

Compare directly with a few changes to the source:

This short-lived company had constructed a route from Blackburn to [was constructed so that it could] join up with the existing 1838 North Union Railway['s junction] at Farington, just under 3 miles south of Preston. The actual connection was originally made by means of a (now long-vanished) [This connection consisted of] sharply-curved spur[s] that joined the NU tracks' immediately to the north of the (also now-demolished) Farington Junction signal box [note: inverted, with "at" placed between].

Omitting some words and moving a a few others around isn't completely rewriting material.

Some of the material that follows seems well rewritten, but there are further issues. Compare article to source:

• "New sidings were laid into spare land close to the Moss Lane site, along with a two-tracked through-road engine shed being erected." → "new sidings were therefore laid-in on spare land adjacent to Moss Lane, with a two-track through-road engine shed soon coming to be erected there."
• "bulk of new business opportunities" → "bulk of new business"

I've already put over an hour into reviewing this material, and I'm afraid that I'm running out of time. At this point, I'm going to amend directly anything I find in this section that seems problematic to me under WP:C. If you have questions about my changes, again, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• All right, I'm done. If I had known when I started that it would take me over two hours to review, I probably would have simply rewritten the first passage. I know you told me you feel strongly about this material and would prefer to write it yourself, but sometimes the demands of the project require otherwise and, of course, this is a collaborative project. :) I've revised what I've found except in that first passage and in the religion section. Again, if you wish to discuss this, I'm happy to do so. You might also consider checking with User:Toon05, a very friendly administrator who also works heavily in copyright matters. User:MLauba could also, I'm sure, offer valuable feedback. Please, just remember that there is no reason to work frantically, as there is no deadline. You have plenty of time to read, absorb and reformulate this material in all new language. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for some of the edits you have made too, sorry that it turned into an unwanted mega-project. Just a couple of things though that may prove to more difficult than anyone could understand.

• The information on the Ward Street bombings, is very hard to word any different to the original source, as when you speak to any of the local war veterans around Lostock Hall, they describe it in the same way as the article from South Ribble Borough Council. As I wasn't alive at the time of the war, I am unable to word it any different, and relying purely on what locals have spoke of.
• At the Lostock Hall MPD, a new building was constructed in 1930's, and some evidence of it is still at the now disused site. I took a little visit to the site today (Saturday), just to get a feel for the area, and stumbled across an old rusty sign that reads "Shed C27 - LHMPD 1930". I didn't have my camera on me either, to take a photo, otherwise I would have done, and I didn't want to take the artefact, as it would be stealing.
• The religion part is too hard to work on also, as it is majority information from the past, and I cannot relate myself to it, and only provide details from reference books from the local library, as well as what is available on the Internet. I wonder if using a Thesaurus to drastically alter words would be a feasible solution? Pr3st0n (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A thesaurus is usually not your friend when it comes to rewriting, I'm afraid. :/ It sounds like a simple and ideal solution, but often the changes made wind up being too superficial. I have a few favorite tricks I use. I mention above the bullet-point format. That can be helpful. Also helpful, sometimes, is to flip the sentence around--find a new subject for it. You have to watch out that you don't wind up just sliding material around if you do that, but it can be a good start.

Let's take the Ward Street Bombings. Bullet point: *Sunday 27 October 1940; *solitary bomber at Leyland Motors factor; *army gunners; *plane released three bombs off target. Looking at my bullet points, I might write the following: "The Leyland Motors factory came under attack by a single bomber on Sunday 27 October 1940. Although fire from army gunners drove the bomber from his target, three bombs were dropped in the vicinity." That's method A. Hmm. And on comparing, I see I inadvertently did Method B at the same time. :) We could also write something like, "Three bombs fell in the vicinity on Sunday 27 October 1940, when a solitary bomber attempting to target the Leyland Motors factor was pushed off course by fire from army gunners." (Either of these might work for you and, again, you're welcome to use either without attributing me.)

If you want to work on the religion section together, I'd be happy to help you out with it. Why don't we do it section by section on your user talk? If you give it a go, I can help you find areas that may remain too close to the source and figure out ways to write them so that there is no lingering problem. :)

Oh, as far as the 1930 work goes, you may need to find a source for that to avoid original research. I (as you might guess) really know nothing about Lostock Hall except what I've learned from you and this article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, the Ward Street bombings suggestion is a good one - I will look at using a variation of that (if I may). The religion section is a bit of a biggy to work on. I will now move majority of these talk threads into an archive, to allow room for use to work together on this religion project. And I admire and respect that as far as knowledge on the village, I'm at a high advantage with living here for all of my 30 years. I bet you feel you know the place so much already, and not even been here LOL. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Adopt Offer

Would you be willing to be adopted by me? Here are some of my statistics:

• 5,000 edits
• I have a triple crown
• I mainly specialize in reverting vandalism, tagging articles for speedy deletion, and WP:RFPP.

I do have a somewhat of vigorous adoption. See User:Chamal N/Adoption (adoption page for former adoptee) I am looking to adopt someone who is active and has experience already, and you seem to be the best choice. Please let me know.--LAAFan^sign _review 00:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

{{adoptoffer}}

I accept your offer to adopt me - we will have to arrange some hours though, as I work unsociable ones at a pub, and at times can be called to work at short notice; as has happened today (Friday - my day off), I'm now covering for a member of staff who is off sick. My usual hours are: Wednesday's 7:30pm - 12:00 midnight; Thursday's 3:30pm - 7:30pm; Sunday's 3:30pm - 7:30pm (All times are GMT). Sunday 4th October, I will be working 11:30am - 7:30pm. Pr3st0n (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That shall be fine. As long as you're one Wikipedia once a day I am willing to adopt you. Here is your userbox:

Cheers.--LAAFan^sign _review 22:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your adoption page can be found at User:Pr3st0n/Adoption. Also, make sure you always put an edit summary. In my preferences, under the editing tab, there is a function where you will be prompted if you do not put in an edit summary. I would highly suggest enabling that button.--LAAFan^sign _review 15:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletters

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - August 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

re User talk page enquiry

Sounds like something you could bring to WP:ANI. Cirt (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt, I shall do just that. Pr3st0n (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Informal mediation for List of channels on Virgin TV

Dear Pr3st0n,

I have offered my services as a mediator on the Talk:List of channels on Virgin TV page. If you are happy with me acting as an uninvolved neutral mediator, please would you indicate acceptance there?

Regards,

-- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine with me. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Good evening Gareth. I know that you have been busy the past few days at work. Do you think you will have the time to add your comments to the case during your two days off (providing you don't get called in unexpectedly)? Thanks -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm on to it right now, although after a solid 8-day working pattern, my head is a little 'fuzzy'. I will do my best to input my say to the dispute. Pr3st0n (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems, Lostock Hall

Other sub-threads to this can be viewed at User_talk:Pr3st0n/Archived2, in order to allow more space to be available on this talk page for an extensive team-work on rewriting the Religion section of article Lostock Hall. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting copyright problems

Gareth, please don't work frantically (or overdose on coffee :)), but slow down and take your time. Some of your revisions are really good, but there's parts that still follow the original too closely. Take this passage for example:

...when a lone enemy bomber dived on the nearby Leyland Motors factory, which British Forces where using as a construction base for new military supplies. British army gunners at the works had opened fire in deffence, causing the plane to swerve from its target, releasing three bombs in doing so.

The source says:

...that a lone enemy bomber dived on the nearby Leyland Motors factory. Army gunners at the works had opened fire, causing the plane to swerve from its target, releasing three bombs in doing so.

You've almost entirely retained the original structure and language, adding or altering only a few words. This kind of alteration creates a close paraphrase, which is a derivative work, and still a copyright violation.

Compare especially this: "British army gunners at the works had opened fire in deffence, causing the plane to swerve from its target, releasing three bombs in doing so."

You've added three words. WP:C says, "Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely." There's no reformulation here, and the majority of these words (including the structure in which they've been used) belong to the source. You've followed it too closely.

If you want to talk about how best to rewrite material in your own words, I am happy to discuss it. Given its brevity, I would rewrite this passage for you, but I know from previous conversations that you prefer to do it yourself. In the meantime, I've removed this passage and will be evaluating the others to see if you have similarly only superficially changed them. I'll update you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The St. Catherine's material seems to have been overall rewritten well, though there were a few passages that remained too close to the source. Since there were only a few, I went ahead and rewrote or removed the material anyway. You can see the alterations I made by comparing the diff. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Memorial Band had a bit of close following, though some of it was very well rewritten. (Particularly I note this passage: "Out of the 16 bands that participated in the finals, the Lostock Hall Memorial Band managed to finish a respectable 7th place. This was to be followed with more final qualifications in 1995 and 2006." That's exactly how to take the facts and put it into a new creative expression.) Since it was just a bit, I have again rewritten it in place. If the language I've chosen doesn't suit you, you are (of course) welcome to craft different expression. Compare to see what I've changed. Let me know if you don't see why. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You've made a good start on the religion section, but it remains a little more close than the others. I've removed it, but remember that the text and the mark-up are still accessible in history. For a few points of comparison:

• "It was the Methodists, who were the first to notice this unique community would warmly welcome a chance to worship this religion in a chapel which was to be built nearby." source: "The Methodists were the first to realise that this new community would welcome the opportunity to worship in a nearby chapel."
• "It wasn't until the end of the nineteenth century, the these letter two religions had noticed the urgent need to bring the ministrations a little closer to the communities of the Lostock Hall and Tardy Gate." Source: "Towards the end of the nineteenth century it was realised that there was a need for these latter two religions to bring their ministrations closer to their congregations in Lostock Hall and Tardy Gate."
• "with a succession of clergu and readers taking it in turn to conduct services in the area." Source: "with a succession of clergy and readers taking turns to conduct services in the newly built edifice."
• Article: "This building was used as a vicarage until the 1930's, when it was sold due to its unnecessarily large for the purposes it was constructed for." Source: "It was used as a vicarage until 1930 when it was sold on the grounds that it was unnecessarily large for its purpose."
• Article: "it was decided that the church of St James' had operated as a mission church for too long, and a transformation was to take place to grant St James' the right of being a parish church in its own right. In 1951, this transformation finally took place with what is known as a Conventional District (a parish in the making), and was permitted with the licence to conduct marriage services of their own. A consecration service was held in 1957, by the Bishop of Blackburn , and with it brought the signal of advancement into parish status, and setting in motion a new responsibility of its own welfare, along with a list of major improvements which were required, including renovation work of the church hall." Source: "Saint James' had been a mission church for long enough, and it was time to be transformed into a parish in its own right. It became what is known as a Conventional District (a parish in the making) in 1951 and was licensed to conduct its own marriage services. In 1957 the Bishop of Blackburn came to lead the consecration service, signalling the advance to parish status. This new responsibility for its own welfare set in motion a long list of improvements, the most obvious change being a complete renovation of the church hall, which more or less doubled its size."

When you retain identical structure and striking words with very little change ("would welcome" "bring their ministrations closer" "what is known as a Conventional District (a parish in the making)" "new responsibility of/for its own welfare"), you create a derivative.

I don't mean to discourage you. Some of this is very well revised. But these are some of the examples of passages that remain too close. One thing you might want to keep in mind is that as a tertiary source Wikipedia is generally going to lose some detail, unless we have multiple, detail-rich sources from which to choose. This is unfortunate, but it's the way it goes. What the source has may be better, but unless they license it, we can't use it. :) When rewriting material myself, I will sometimes reduce it to a bullet point of fact: (became a "Conventional District" in 1951; parish in 1957 w/ ceremony by Bishop of Blackburn; required improvements). I'll then form these facts into a sentence or a few sentences and compare what I get to the original to be sure that I haven't accidentally followed too closely. "In 1951, the church had outgrown its status as a mission church and so was elevated to a 'Conventional District', which signaled that it was to become a parish. In 1957, it did, with its change in stature officiated by the Bishop of Blackburn. Afterward, the church began implementing some of the necessary improvements and renovations its new position required."

Since there is more work needed in this material, I've gone ahead and removed it to permit you to work on it yourself at your leisure. If you should have interest, you're welcome to use the text I generated above. I waive my right to attribution for it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

←The first part of the railway section has some good revision as well, but you seem to have simply abridged the source in some places. Look at this part of the opening paragraph:

A route from Blackburn was constructed so that it could join up with the 1838 North Union Railway's junction at Farington. This connection consisted of sharp-curved spurs that joined the tracks north of the signal box at Farington Junction.

Compare directly with a few changes to the source:

This short-lived company had constructed a route from Blackburn to [was constructed so that it could] join up with the existing 1838 North Union Railway['s junction] at Farington, just under 3 miles south of Preston. The actual connection was originally made by means of a (now long-vanished) [This connection consisted of] sharply-curved spur[s] that joined the NU tracks' immediately to the north of the (also now-demolished) Farington Junction signal box [note: inverted, with "at" placed between].

Omitting some words and moving a a few others around isn't completely rewriting material.

Some of the material that follows seems well rewritten, but there are further issues. Compare article to source:

• "New sidings were laid into spare land close to the Moss Lane site, along with a two-tracked through-road engine shed being erected." → "new sidings were therefore laid-in on spare land adjacent to Moss Lane, with a two-track through-road engine shed soon coming to be erected there."
• "bulk of new business opportunities" → "bulk of new business"

I've already put over an hour into reviewing this material, and I'm afraid that I'm running out of time. At this point, I'm going to amend directly anything I find in this section that seems problematic to me under WP:C. If you have questions about my changes, again, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• All right, I'm done. If I had known when I started that it would take me over two hours to review, I probably would have simply rewritten the first passage. I know you told me you feel strongly about this material and would prefer to write it yourself, but sometimes the demands of the project require otherwise and, of course, this is a collaborative project. :) I've revised what I've found except in that first passage and in the religion section. Again, if you wish to discuss this, I'm happy to do so. You might also consider checking with User:Toon05, a very friendly administrator who also works heavily in copyright matters. User:MLauba could also, I'm sure, offer valuable feedback. Please, just remember that there is no reason to work frantically, as there is no deadline. You have plenty of time to read, absorb and reformulate this material in all new language. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for some of the edits you have made too, sorry that it turned into an unwanted mega-project. Just a couple of things though that may prove to more difficult than anyone could understand.

• The information on the Ward Street bombings, is very hard to word any different to the original source, as when you speak to any of the local war veterans around Lostock Hall, they describe it in the same way as the article from South Ribble Borough Council. As I wasn't alive at the time of the war, I am unable to word it any different, and relying purely on what locals have spoke of.
• At the Lostock Hall MPD, a new building was constructed in 1930's, and some evidence of it is still at the now disused site. I took a little visit to the site today (Saturday), just to get a feel for the area, and stumbled across an old rusty sign that reads "Shed C27 - LHMPD 1930". I didn't have my camera on me either, to take a photo, otherwise I would have done, and I didn't want to take the artefact, as it would be stealing.
• The religion part is too hard to work on also, as it is majority information from the past, and I cannot relate myself to it, and only provide details from reference books from the local library, as well as what is available on the Internet. I wonder if using a Thesaurus to drastically alter words would be a feasible solution? Pr3st0n (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A thesaurus is usually not your friend when it comes to rewriting, I'm afraid. :/ It sounds like a simple and ideal solution, but often the changes made wind up being too superficial. I have a few favorite tricks I use. I mention above the bullet-point format. That can be helpful. Also helpful, sometimes, is to flip the sentence around--find a new subject for it. You have to watch out that you don't wind up just sliding material around if you do that, but it can be a good start.

Let's take the Ward Street Bombings. Bullet point: *Sunday 27 October 1940; *solitary bomber at Leyland Motors factor; *army gunners; *plane released three bombs off target. Looking at my bullet points, I might write the following: "The Leyland Motors factory came under attack by a single bomber on Sunday 27 October 1940. Although fire from army gunners drove the bomber from his target, three bombs were dropped in the vicinity." That's method A. Hmm. And on comparing, I see I inadvertently did Method B at the same time. :) We could also write something like, "Three bombs fell in the vicinity on Sunday 27 October 1940, when a solitary bomber attempting to target the Leyland Motors factor was pushed off course by fire from army gunners." (Either of these might work for you and, again, you're welcome to use either without attributing me.)

If you want to work on the religion section together, I'd be happy to help you out with it. Why don't we do it section by section on your user talk? If you give it a go, I can help you find areas that may remain too close to the source and figure out ways to write them so that there is no lingering problem. :)

Oh, as far as the 1930 work goes, you may need to find a source for that to avoid original research. I (as you might guess) really know nothing about Lostock Hall except what I've learned from you and this article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, the Ward Street bombings suggestion is a good one - I will look at using a variation of that (if I may). The religion section is a bit of a biggy to work on. I will now move majority of these talk threads into an archive, to allow room for use to work together on this religion project. And I admire and respect that as far as knowledge on the village, I'm at a high advantage with living here for all of my 30 years. I bet you feel you know the place so much already, and not even been here LOL. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've created a sub-user page of mine via User:Pr3st0n/Article Work, so that we can utilise that space on this team project to rewrite the Religion section of Lostock Hall article. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Adopt Offer

Would you be willing to be adopted by me? Here are some of my statistics:

• 5,000 edits
• I have a triple crown
• I mainly specialize in reverting vandalism, tagging articles for speedy deletion, and WP:RFPP.

I do have a somewhat of vigorous adoption. See User:Chamal N/Adoption (adoption page for former adoptee) I am looking to adopt someone who is active and has experience already, and you seem to be the best choice. Please let me know.--LAAFan^sign _review 00:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

{{adoptoffer}}

I accept your offer to adopt me - we will have to arrange some hours though, as I work unsociable ones at a pub, and at times can be called to work at short notice; as has happened today (Friday - my day off), I'm now covering for a member of staff who is off sick. My usual hours are: Wednesday's 7:30pm - 12:00 midnight; Thursday's 3:30pm - 7:30pm; Sunday's 3:30pm - 7:30pm (All times are GMT). Sunday 4th October, I will be working 11:30am - 7:30pm. Pr3st0n (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That shall be fine. As long as you're one Wikipedia once a day I am willing to adopt you. Here is your userbox:

Cheers.--LAAFan^sign _review 22:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your adoption page can be found at User:Pr3st0n/Adoption. Also, make sure you always put an edit summary. In my preferences, under the editing tab, there is a function where you will be prompted if you do not put in an edit summary. I would highly suggest enabling that button.--LAAFan^sign _review 15:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm delighted to see you have been adopted by LAAFan (a trusted, experienced and diligent editor who is in good standing around this place I might add). I've watchlisted your adoption page and, without wishing to step on any toes, please feel free to lean on me if I can be of any help as well. Pedro :  Chat  22:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words Pedro, and I might just take you up on your offer too. Is there such thing as joint-adoption? I could do with a special wikibreak-userbox being made too, to help me show what shift pattern I have at the pub for the week. As this will prove useful for both myself and my adopter(s). Not easy having to balance unsociable work hours at a pub, and doing adoptee tasks set on here :-( Pr3st0n (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes and Templates

I would like some help creating a new userbox/template for personal use. I want a box that I can display at the top of my talk page, to let people know which days I won't be available on Wikipedia, as I work at a pub. These are some of the things I would like to be in the box...

• Each day of the week
• A space to include the times I will be at work for each day.

Can anyone help me with this, or better still, be able to make a box for me. Thanks Pr3st0n (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than a userbox you could do with a simple table to be honest - I'll see what I can cook up. Just remember that you don't want to give out too much personal detail on a highly viewed website.... Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Try this:

This user will be unavailble at the following times this week due to work commitments

Day	Time
Monday	11:00-17:00 UTC -1
Tuesday	Available all day
Wednesday	17:00 -23:00 UTC -1
Thursday	09:00 - 13:00 UTC -1
Friday	11:00-17:00 UTC -1
Saturday	14:00-18:00 UTC -1
Sunday	11:00-17:00 UTC -1

You can de link the wiki stuff to keep the colours. Does that help? Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's great thanks. I understand about not giving out too much personal details. Although something like this is letting others know I take frequent wikibreak-type sessions due to my main work at the pub. Something like that box is fantastic for job. Thanks Pr3st0n (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No probs. It's not the neatst thing in the world and I'm sure someone could flower it up a bit better but it does the job (you could left align it at the top of your user or user talk as an idea) Pedro :  Chat  22:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)