User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com/Archive 6

reverted two of your edits

I reverted your two edits on the Roman Polanski article. In case you don't notice the talk page, this is why. He plead guilty to having sex with a minor, which is normally called statutory rape, so that category is appropriate. Different states have different names for it, but its all the same thing. Another one of your edits done at the same time, broke one paragraph apart mid-sentence. So I reverted them. Dream Focus 16:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

unblock

{{unblock|207.159.196.253 blocked by User:Luk -- it is a public library. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)}}

Good news and bad news. Bad news is I'm wary about releasing a checkuserblock 207.159.196.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Good news is I would be willing to give you an IP block exemption. Bad news is the interface isn't working for me, I think because of the @hotmail.com in your username. If someone else can figure out how to get around it, I'm willing to support it...otherwise you may just have to not use the library resources when you go to edit. :/ Syrthiss (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Same here. It interprets the @ as the user being on another project, and it gives the error that you may not edit user rights for them. "You do not have permission to edit user rights on other wikis." Enigma^msg 20:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a small chance it will accept "%40" or "@" as a substitute for "@", but I have no easy way to test it. Most likely though, there isn't a workaround. Dragons flight (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is another option, user rights can be assigned using "#12345" where "12345" is a user's ID number. Rms, you can find this number on your user preferences page. That should definitely work if you provide the ID number. Dragons flight (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No need: Ran an SQL query on the toolserver, Rms125a@hotmail.com's ID is 376014. ~fl 23:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Using this link, I have granted him IPBE. NW (Talk) 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

IPBE

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. NW (Talk) 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to do it through the form, and saw NW beat me it. :) Enigma^msg 00:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Never thought I'd see the day when RMS got an admin privilege on Wikipedia! Oh how the times have changed :) Nice to see you on here still, Robert, working away. As it happens, I'm back here myself now, so if you need anything - just let me know!! - Alison ^❤ 09:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What

Is ithis edit about? removing other peoples comments? ? Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It sometimes happens, Alison put it back, as I said .. no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent deaths

Please don't put hidden messages in death notices like this. Use the edit summary instead. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Cooper

No problem. SGGH ^ping! 00:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Holt McCallany

Is this latest edit on Holt McCallany's page the kind you wanted me to watch for? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Buck Alec

Hi Robert, I've added some more references to the Alexander Robinson article. Hope to add a few more soon, mostly old newspaper stuff. Regarding the weasel wording tag you placed on the article, could you let me know what exact sentences need work? Cheers. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunmanway killings

It's not helpful to move this without discussion. Please jump through the hoops listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's best to avoid accusations of bias and to treat each article on its own merit. If, for example, Arnon Street Massacre wants moving to something more neutral, such as Arnon Street affair or Arnon Street killings, that's better discussed in a separate move request. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The recent name change by Sarah was made without a fragment of discussion so why does this return to the original arouse concern? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fynire (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

These sort of comments are not helpful. Please don't repeat this. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is no support in the references for the use of "murder" or "massacre" in the cases of McMahon or Arnon Street, then the articles should indeed be moved to a more NPOV title. As this is 1RR/troubles related territory, and to avoid a potential revert war you really should challenge the editors on the "other side" to support the name (if it isn't already supported in the references - I haven't checked). If you do this and nobody can come up with reliable and verifiable support for the titles I will propose a move of one of both articles to an NPOV title myself. OK? Sarah777 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fact tags

What do you hope to accomplish by inserting all these fact tags? Why not slow down and try to find references for these facts. The articles you are tagging were created before in-line citations were considered necessary. The references already listed for these articles contain these facts; you just need to find the page numbers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I am aware that the cites will eventually be needed, but the original writers of these Victorian and Edwardian actor articles have not contributed to them for many years. Very few people currently work on this period of British drama. I'm happy to collaborate on projects with you. If you would like to help, I'd be most grateful. But I think that simply putting fact tags into these Victorian actor articles (e.g., Dan Leno) merely makes them ugly and puts pressure on me. I have just spent the morining scrambling to update the Madge Kendal article, dropping everything in RL and interrupting the other work I am trying to do on Wikipedia. Can we compromise? If you find an article of interest, add one reference and message me, and I'll find one more. That way, we can incrementally improve them. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding message. As I said, if you are interested in any of these articles, I would be very pleased to work with you to improve them. All the best, and happy holidays, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your username

Hello. Your username might not comply with the username policy. Namely, the part stating "E-mail addresses and URLs are not valid usernames". What are your thoughts on this? One option available is having it changed.--Rockfang (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert is one of the few editors who is not obliged to change his username, as his account was created many years before the rules were changed - Alison ^❤ 02:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Roger that. If I may offer a suggestion, maybe this could be noted either on the User page, or a non-archived part of the talk page. That way, other people won't point out the same thing again.--Rockfang (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Rms125a@hotmail.com. You have new messages at Rockfang's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Rockfang (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Winterville, Mississippi

Many thanks for your comments. There was not any problems with the Winterville article just finding a citation and adding the name to the county template. I did have to change the categories because they are about the county not the community. If you have any problems please let Nyttend or myself know. RFD (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Brendan Burke

At no time did I agree with his statements. In fact, I found them to be weak arguments that would not benefit the discussion on notability either way, albeit giving some level of context. I can only account for myself, which goes as far as me stating quite honestly that given your backlog, I had reservations. In stating so, I took full credit for the fact that my feelings were my feelings only and not tangible fact. What I said is that yes, some users were using your backlog to discredit you for real issues and that this was different than people crying foul over someone with no history whatsoever making the same action and that if it were the latter situation, I would immediately dismiss the accusation. Should it automatically discredit the AfD or your motivations? No, of course not. Is it enough to cause reservation, especially given the speedy deletion you categorized it under, in myself? Yes. But perhaps stating that I and others had suspicions is just as bad as discrediting you. Reflecting on it, it was probably just as damaging, and if that is so, then I apologize. I thought that stating I had no intention of attacking you and only stating the facts of the situation when I mentioned these concerns would be enough to distance the issue from you, but it may not have been. My goal in later discussions was to refute the easy dismissal of other editors' concerns about homophobia as being unfounded, not because of you, but because of homophobia in Wikipedia at large. I guess I got caught up in it, jumping on the bandwagon, as you say. If you can believe it, despite the high-tension of the discussion, it was not my actual intention to offend you, and I can see how what I brought up was damaging, and I apologize. Luminum (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't do anything more than apologize, as I did on your page and as I did on the AfD. If you're still so incredibly bothered by it still, then good luck to you as there's nothing more I can do or care to do to convince you. I hope you grow a tougher skin after all these years on the internet. Likewise, it's clear that your initial proposal for deletion has lost support and that the page clearly fulfills notability. The argument that he's only notable because of his father has been refuted by enough articles that focus on him alone, and the argument that "he would have only been notable because of his father" is a specious statement that can be neither proved nor disproved any more than "Paris Hilton would have never been notable if not for her parents' status." I said it before, but why not say it again for kicks, I apologize for jumping on the bandwagon of calling your integrity into question. I already stated that to you privately and publically on the AfD. Do I object to an assessment of the page's notability? Of course not. Do I think the AfD was inappropriate? I certainly do now, considering that nominating deletion was your first action on the page, rather than following all the other guidelines listed under WP:N that preced deletion as a last resort. Does it mean your motivations were underhanded ins ome way? No. But it does mean that you made a poor choice as an editor? God, yes. Have a nice life. (Don't take too long to delete this as well.)Luminum (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Iwan Roberts

I've reverted your edits about the alternative Iwan because no such article exists, nor would it be of similar provenance as Iwan's. Perhaps a hatnote may appropriate, but 99.9995% of people here will be searching for the footballer, not a redlinked "actor". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can verify the actor with sources then no worries, but I still think it'd be a hatnote to the existing Roberts page, and not necessarily worthy of a pure dab page. But I'm happy to discuss it! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you for your note. As to your main question I got Olivier's page mixed up in my memory with Ben Kingsley's where there is a lengthy discussion about honors. Unfortunately, that discussion may not answer your question. I can suggest that you ask JackofOz on his User talk:JackofOz page. He is the editor that I rely on when these things come up. As to the use of the minor edit mark on your entry I can only relate to you my experience. In my early days of editing here I was chastised for using it. My understanding is that it should only be used if one is making a spelling or punctuation correction. The main reason for this is that an editors watchlist can be set up to not show edits marked as minor. Lots of vandals then use this to try and hide their nefarious work. Of course, one solution is to turn of the ignore minor edits item on ones watchlist but that is hard to convince everyone of. I have gone the other direction and I only mark something as minor if I am only changing one or two characters on a page, such as changing something from US to UK spelling. I hope that this helps and I apologize if I am telling you things that you already know. Again I think that you can rely on JackofOz. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 23:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

UK

British usage is usual to abreviate as UK, without full stops/periods, so when adding to infoboxes on articles written in British English, it's more appropriate to use that form, rather than U.K. David Underdown (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

G&S Project edits

I appreciate your interest in the articles covered within the scope of the G&S Project, but please don't make purely stylistic and formatting changes. Unless there is a reason for a change, editors should respect the stylistic choices made by article creators. We have worked hard to create a consistent style at the G&S Project: for example, we always start a new paragraph at the bottom of a bio article concerning the person's death. Please don't bury this information in the previous paragraph. The changes that you made to the Kendals' articles today are not, IMO, helpful and, in fact, I disagree with them. If you want to do research and expand an article, great! If you want to discuss a strategy, kindly mention open a discussion on the talk page, and I'll be happy to discuss it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The places where you inserted a fact tag were already sourced to the DNB article, which contains those facts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent 3RR Report

Hello, Rms125a@hotmail.com! As a truly neutral observer who watches the Edit-Warring/3RR Board, I want to let you know that my comments should not be taken as any judgement for or against the reason you brought the issue there. I'm only speaking from experience in watching and knowing what sort of reports filed there are appropriate for consideration. While you're absolutely correct that 3 revisions can get an editor blocked, the standard for this board is four or more. I've seen many, many reports dismissed simply because 3RR was not violated; way more than I have seen blocked for 3 reverts alone. I hope this helps somewhat, and good luck in whatever issue took you to that Admin board. Happy editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CCI discussion notice

Hello, Rms125a@hotmail.com. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Theleftorium 18:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Aston Chichester

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Aston Chichester, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=5747. As a copyright violation, Aston Chichester appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Aston Chichester has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Aston Chichester and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Aston Chichester with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Aston Chichester.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

James, I understand what you are saying and I understand the importance of copyright compliance. All I am saying is that I never recklessly disregarded a copyright warning. On the contrary I rewrote as best I could, assuming that if the article still was not satisfactorily in compliance that I would be advised accordingly. Some of the articles cited on the CCI are very, very old, or written within the last 48 hours. In the former case if they are in violation of copyright policy they should have been tagged as such and I would have either rewritten them or, if unable to, let them wither on the vine. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to believe that you did not intentionally infringe copyright, but you have not been particularly concerned with making sure you didn't, and seem to think that it was up to others to make sure you didn't. The assumption that because nobody has noticed a copyright violation and drawn it to your attention the violation does not exist is a strange one. Also "they should have been tagged" seems to be based on the belief that every single edit by every editor should be scrutinised for possible copyright infringement. If this were so then Wikipedians would spend more time checking other people's edits than writing anything new. The onus is on you to avoid copying other people's work, not on others to continually look over your shoulder to make sure you are not doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly what I meant, but moving forward, could you review, for example, the recently re-edited Ivan Vranetic and Talk:Aston Chichester/Temp and advise if they pass muster, so I can have an idea that I am going in the right direction. Thanks. ‎Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have had a quick look at Talk:Aston Chichester/Temp. On the whole it looks alright, but I think there are still some problems. For example, the following pair of sentences are much too close:

He entered the Jesuits and became a teacher at Wimbledon and Beaumont Colleges, at both of which he served as Rector.

He entered the Society of Jesus in 1897, and taught at Wimbledon and Beaumont Colleges, at both of which he served as Rector.

These are really exactly parallel, with only a few changes in wording. Better to try to get right away from the wording that the original writer used. Try to think in terms of writing your own account, rather than in terms of changing the existing account to avoid copyright problems. For example, you have changed "He entered the Society of Jesus" to "He entered the Jesuits", but is that how you would have written it yourself? Obviously I don't know you, and perhaps you would have, but most people wouldn't. How about "He became a Jesuit", for example, or "He joined the Jesuits". "Became a teacher at Wimbledon and Beaumont Colleges" and "taught at Wimbledon and Beaumont Colleges" are perhaps not so close as to be problematic on their own, but combined with the rest of the sentence they are similar enough to add to the overall picture. And you have not rewritten "at both of which he served as Rector" at all. How about He became a Jesuit and then, perhaps not immediately after that sentence, He worked as a teacher, and at times as rector, at both Wimbledon College and Beaumont College. Even this follows the original more closely than is really necessary, but it would, I think, be much better than the existing version. Notice that it is not necessary to express yourself in the same terms as the writer of your source. For example, you don't have to use "entered", or "served as". Personally I would be very unlikely to say someone "served as rector": I would be more likely to say "he worked as the rector", or "he did the job of rector", or simply "he was the rector". Try to think along those lines: how would you have said it, if you had been writing from scratch?

I hope that has been of some help to you. I also apologise if earlier I was a little unfriendly: I certainly didn't mean to be, but sometimes I come over that way.

I'm afraid I don't have time now to look over Ivan Vranetić, but I see that Theleftorium has placed a copyright notice on it since you last edited the article, and Theleftorium knows more about copyright issues than I do, so it is fairly safe to assume there is still a problem there. You could try asking Theleftorium for advice about that.

You are very welcome to ask me any further questions, and I will try to answer as soon as I can. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I now see that, even as I was writing that, Theleftorium wrote you a comment about Ivan Vranetić! JamesBWatson (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuing copyright issues at Ivan Vranetić

This article began as a copy of [1] and remains an unusable unauthorized derivative work of that source + http://yad-vashem.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-tribute-vranetic-righteous-among.html, which was added by JanDeFietser (talk · contribs). For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following:

Some 20 years after the war Vranetic came to Israel and married Montilio, who died 12 years ago. Vranetic was accompanied at Yad Vashem by his grandson.

The article says:

Some 20 years after the war Vranetić came to Israel and married Montilio (who died in 1997). He was accompanied at the ceremony by his grandson.

There are other passages that similarly follow too closely.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. So that it will not constitute a derivative work, this article should be rewritten in the temporary space that is now linked from the article's front. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". Theleftorium 22:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Diana Anderson (QARANC)/Temp

I'm afraid your rewrite still contains problematic content. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following:

After qualifying as a general nurse Diana Anderson trained as a midwife [...] In February 1958 Diana Anderson joined the QARANC as a Nursing Officer where she worked as a midwife in many military hospitals.

The article says:

After qualifying as a general nurse, Anderson trained as a midwife. In February 1958 she joined the QARANC as a Nursing Officer, working as a midwife in military hospitals.

This kind of paraphrasing is unacceptable. You can't just copy content from the article into the temp space; the temp is supposed to be a clean start. The same thing applies to Talk:Dilwyn Lewis/Temp. Now the temp pages will have to be deleted too. Theleftorium 23:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The histories of the temp pages are supposed to be move to the namespace after the original article is deleted. Therefore there shouldn't be any copyvios in the history. The point of the temp spaces is to rewrite the articles from scratch, not to make adjustments to the already existing articles. That will only leave us with a derivative work. I'm not an admin so I can't delete any pages, but someone else will look over them when they are evaluated at WP:Copyright problems. Theleftorium 23:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have asked User:Moonriddengirl to explain the situation to you since my English is a bit lacking and she's better at explaining. She is a bit busy at the moment, though, so please be patient. Theleftorium 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. What User:Theleftorium is explaining here is that when we rewrite articles to eliminate copyright problems, we have to start over from scratch. You can't copy the one that was a copyright problem and build from that because then you wind up with an unauthorized "derivative work". When you rewrite articles in the temporary space, you shouldn't copy the contents from the original article.

Rewriting articles to avoid close paraphrasing is a bit of a challenge. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. I'm sure that User:TheLeftorium has already told you about the essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, which contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. I don't know if he's mentioned it, but the article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

In my personal experience, it's a lot easier to rewrite when you look at larger sections of text. For instance, as the source says:

Her nurse training started in 1952 at the Royal Surrey County Hospital in Guildford. After qualifying as a general nurse Diana Anderson trained as a midwife at Freedom Fields Hospital in Plymouth and the Royal Hampshire County Hospital in Winchester. In February 1958 Diana Anderson joined the QARANC as a Nursing Officer where she worked as a midwife in many military hospitals.

I would first extract the facts:

• started nurse training 1952, Royal Surrey County Hospital in Guildford
• midwife training in Freedom Fields Hospital in Plymouth; Royal Hampshire County Hospital in Winchester
• February 1958, Nursing Officer QARANC
• Service as a midwife, various military hospitals.

Then I'd look at those and try to pull out what's important to form a new paragraph:

Having studied nursing and midwifery, Diana Anderson became a practicing midwife in February 1958 for the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps.

(While usually we are required to give credit when we copy other Wikipedians, I don't mind at all if you want to use any of that. I release that sentence with no credit required. :))

Ideally, you would find a couple of additional sources to mix into this. Even if you completely rewrite the material, using only one source can make it hard to avoid creating a "close paraphrase." The problem is that while facts are not copyrighted, the choice of which facts to write about can be. The more diverse sources you have, the easier it is to avoid falling into that problem, because you can be selective with which facts build a new whole in your article. If you can't find multiple sources, it can sometimes help to be very selective about which facts matter. Along with restructuring and using your own words, that will usually do it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Moonriddengirl (Selene?; Diana?) — I just wanted to thank you for your detailed and cordial explanation. The only thing I didn't get was why the temp page(s) had to be deleted too, before the text could be perfected and moved back into the mainspace. I think I get it now. In any event I saved the articles on my own Microsoft so that I can perfect them and resubmit, irregardless of if/when the temp pages are deleted. Thanks for the specific suggestions re Diana Anderson and your permission to use your turn of phrase. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. In re Diana Anderson, I came up with the following: "She began training as a nurse in 1952, aged 17, at the Royal Surrey County Hospital in Guildford. She later trained as a midwife. In February 1958 she joined the QARANC as a Nursing Officer, working as a midwife in military hospitals. In 1968 she began training other midwifes and was an examiner of the Central Midwives Board.". What do you think? Thanks again. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You can pick the moonriddengirl of your choice. :) I have Chang-e on my user page. Seems like I overexplained, then; sorry, I'm used to questions focusing on rewriting. On the whole, that looks like an excellent rewrite, particularly as it has more information than the source. :) We do have to be particularly careful, though, once there's already been a problem, so I would probably flip the structure of "In February 1958 she joined the QARANC as a Nursing Officer, working as a midwife in military hospitals" a bit further, since it follows the same basic outline as "In February 1958 Diana Anderson joined the QARANC as a Nursing Officer where she worked as a midwife in many military hospitals": February 1958 joined QARANC Nursing Officer midwife military hospitals.

How about something like: "She later trained as a midwife, a trade she practiced in military hospitals after becoming a Nursing Officer for QARANC in February 1957"? Flipping sentences can be deceptive if we wind up with the same chunks of text basically pieced back together in new positions, but when the text around it is thoroughly rewritten and the information is straightforward, it can sometimes do the trick. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Rms125a@hotmail.com. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bringing it back here again, do you have offline copies of the temp pages at Talk:Aston Chichester/Temp, Talk:Dilwyn Lewis/Temp, Talk:Honoria Somerville Keer/Temp, Talk:Geoffrey Nice/Temp, and Talk:Ivan Vranetić/Temp? I see that there are still copyright issues with the current version at Talk:Dilwyn Lewis/Temp. User:TheLeftorium points out that it still contains the following, taken verbatim from [2]: "In 1996 he suffered the first of seven heart attacks. A quadruple by-pass operation followed and diabetes was diagnosed. He died suddenly in Ireland." I have not yet checked the other temp articles, but I want to be sure that you still have access to the work you've already done on rewriting. These temp pages will need to be deleted if they are clear derivatives of the sources.

Since I didn't go that much into explaining why above, I'll do so here. The WMF demonstrate due diligence in avoiding contributory copyright infringement. The tests for substantial similarity are necessarily vague in the US courts that govern Wikipedia. One of the questions the court examines is whether or not the creator of the suspect work had access to the work that is said to be infringed upon. Where access can be definitively proven, copyright infringement is far more likely to be found. I'm not saying that we shouldn't cite our sources so we can deny having seen the original. :) But when an article has been tagged as a copyright violation of a specific source, we have to be particularly careful with replacement text to be sure that we are not signing off on an unauthorized derivative work. It may help to think of it as a painting. Unlike a lot of published work, Wikipedia's articles are developed in clearly identifiable layers. You can still create a derivative work if you put a photograph next to your canvas and paint from it. But it's a lot easier to be inspired by a photograph and not create a derivative work if you do that than if you paste the photograph to your canvas and paint over it. With these rewrites, we are basically asking you to start with a clean canvas "inspired by" (but sufficiently removed from) rather than incrementally modifying and "painting over". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

CCI

Hi. Looking at the CCI request, I'm afraid that I've also found some issues with Monika Hellwig and James Maley. Both of these are blanked and await your convenience. They'll be listed at WP:CP for a week.

I'm afraid under the circumstances that a CCI does seem necessary. Since your e-mail address is not quite as anonymous as some usernames, I have opened it under the datestring that it was opened. It is at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100307. Reviewers (often, but not always, me; there are other regulars at CCI as well) will examine your articles to see if they seem to constitute copyright concerns and note their findings on that page. If copyright concerns seem substantial, the articles may be blanked. Smaller issues will often be removed or rewritten on the spot. Since I basically oversee that department, I'm afraid I tend to yank and leave cleanup for others solely due to the lack of time for doing otherwise. For that same reason, the admins who work at CP (of which I am one) will frequently delete blanked articles for which no rewrite is proposed after a week.

I hope that you will not be discouraged by this. I do my best to take time to help with questions about revisions; you are more than welcome at my talk page any time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add one more thing: I do not typically watch the articles that are blanked through this process. We have, literally, thousands of them currently waiting for review. If you have any questions about a specific article, please let me know at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you were operating with the best of intentions. I've been working copyright problems pretty extensively for almost two years now, and people who are trying to get away with stuff don't cite their sources like you did. The CCI process does evaluate every article that you've contributed substantially to. It's a pretty tedious process, and unless we get a sudden influx of volunteers, I would expect it will take a few months to finish. (We just finished one that took almost a year, but he had thousands of articles all on his own.) Currently, only a few of your articles have been looked at. When an article has been found to have no problems, it is marked with N. An article with a Y had issues identified. Volunteers usually will note what action was taken. If it says "blanked" or "listed" or something like that, that means it will have been blanked and listed at CP. Those are the ones with a time limit.

I myself rotate through all of the CCIs we have. We currently have about thirty, which means that it's usually a few weeks before I start popping up on your watchlist. When I work on one, I try to put a few hours into it before moving on to the next one. I never know if a volunteer will pick up yours to work or not. If not, it could be just you and me. :) Either way, please try not to be disheartened or to take it personally. We just have to make sure that contributions comply with Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, we save what we can. We don't want to delete anything we don't have to. :) If they're blanked, you are very free to rework them. At that point, though, you rework in the temporary space just as you have been doing. Usually pages are only blanked when the first edit is a problem. Sometimes they're blanked if a clear point to revert to can't be found or is so far back in history that contributors might be interested in rewriting rather than rolling back the article's development. There is, by the way, some disagreement on how the histories of these are handled. Some administrators leave the copyright problem in history and some selectively delete it. I myself tend to delete them from history only if it's foundational or if there seems to be a significant chance that somebody might restore the content later. By the way, do you prefer the back and forth, or would you rather I talk at my talk page? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I should explain this better: "Sometimes they're blanked if a clear point to revert to can't be found". Occasionally, we find articles where copyright problems were already in the article, even if the CCI edit was not foundational. And if the article is blanked because contributors might like a chance to rewrite, the article won't be deleted at the end of a week if nobody does; it will just be reverted to last clean then. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Anything that is blanked is automatically listed for review at CP, but I'll take a look at those myself this afternoon (my time) after catching up on the regular day's listings at WP:CP (haven't had a chance to look at those yet. Some days go very quickly. :)) That way if I see lingering issues I may be able to help you get the swing of completely rewriting. Again, once we've already identified issues, we have to be especially scrupulous about revisions. Not that I'm suggesting we be sloppy about it otherwise. :) But if there's borderline material and we know there have been problems, a rewrite is more likely. The question of how close is too close, obviously, is not an exact science and falls right down there with Potter Stewart's definition of pornography. (In fact, such cases are usually decided in US courts based on the subjective observations of ordinary observers.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for rewriting

Okay. I've got a few minutes now, and I'm looking at Aston Chichester. While you've rewritten this extensively, I see there are some suggestions that I can offer you going forward on rewriting in general. The source says "...was educated by the Jesuits at Mount St Mary's College near Sheffield. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1897". You had originally written, "he was educated by the Jesuits at Mount St Mary's College near Sheffield. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1897" You rewrote it, "He was educated at Mount St Mary's College, near Sheffield. He entered the Jesuits." If you look at it, you can see that what you've done here is basically abridged it. This should be avoided when possible, though in isolation it isn't necessarily a copyright concern. In conjunction with other close material, you wind up with a derivative work.

Something like this can be address by, again, flipping it. Looking at the surrounding material and working off the top of my head, how about something like, "After becoming a Jesuit in 1897, Chichester — who had himself studied at Mount St. Mary's College near Sheffield — taught at Wimbledon and Beaumont Colleges."

I have to be away from Wikipedia probably for the next couple of hours. Why don't you take a look (if you happen to come on in the meantime) at the other rewrites to see if there is material that seems to abridge or otherwise follow the structure of the original that could be further revised? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. That's fine; with whatever information suits you. The main point, though, is that you want to write it so that it's not so much an abridgment, but slightly more of an overhaul. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Donald Cruickshank

Hi. Donald Cruickshank was listed on the March 1 WP:SCV and has come due for closure at today's WP:CP. I'm afraid that this one needs additional revision as well. I've left my usual "form letter" at the article's talk page with an example of a problematic passage. I'm sure given our recent discussions, though, that you'll see the lingering issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

James Maley

Hi. James Maley is due, and I'm looking at your temp version. I dropped some quotation marks around the first issue I saw; it's not ideal, but it'll sometimes do. :) However, I'm seeing a bit more that needs retooling: The source says:

As a volunteer in the International Brigades, Maley expected to be executed immediately. Indeed, Franco issued a proclamation soon afterwards saying that any foreigners captured under arms would be shot. The edict was not carried out in the case of the captured Britons thanks to a stiff note sent by HM Government which, despite its distaste for the International Brigaders, reminded Franco of his obligations under the Geneva Convention.

The rewrite says:

As a volunteer in the International Brigades, Maley expected to be executed immediately as Franco had issued a proclamation that any foreigners captured under arms would be shot. This edict wasn't carried out in the case of British prisoners of war thanks to a strongly worded note sent by the British government which reminded Franco of his obligations under the Geneva Convention.

This whole bit is a close paraphrase. Note especially that the first 13 words are identical to the source. Also, I'm afraid that changing words like "stiff" to "strongly worded" are the kind of superficial alterations we've discussed above that creative derivative works. On hitting this run, I've paused in evaluating this article. If you can, please, address this concern and look to see if there are other passages that closely follow. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it does. :) Thank you very much. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II

I appreciate any and all interest shown in this article, but please explain your last comment. ClemMcGann (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

what rv?ClemMcGann (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I do value your opinion. It is useful to find where clarification is required.

However the quote "the south provided Britain with its entire food surplus" came from Brian Barton of Queens University, Belfast. The Ulster Historical Foundation published his book. So they don't necessarily have an opinion. The reality was that there was nowhere else that Ireland (North & south) could export. If you are unhappy with Barton, then there are other references.

A reference was given for the Kerrymore: page 23 of the Long Watch by Frank Forde

Thanks for indicating some areas where clarification is required.

IIf you have other suggestions, please make them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II Regards ClemMcGann (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of notable actors without stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of notable actors without stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable actors without stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Warrah (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Community restriction

---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wesley A. D'Ewart

I am sorry that you viewed my story about Uncle Wesley as cruff, by all means delete it if you feel so. The story is true. I can even give dates as my Father was eight at the time. I remember the first time I met Uncle Wesley. I had never seen my Dad show such respect for anyone. I wondered why? When I read the article on Uncle Wesley, I thought "it sounds so dry and bland ... doesn't anyone wonder why a small town rancher got elected to congress?" It seemed a sad summary for such a good man. I shall find another venue to comment about the man.

Unfortunately what you added, while obviously of great importance to you, is not appropriate for an article here. By all means, set up a blog for yourself to discuss your dad, yoru uncle, your family. I am not a computer expert at all, but I briefly had a blog at gmail.com. It's not that hard to set up and I am sure you have friends and relatives who would help you. I did not know that Mr. D'Ewart was your uncle. You have been blessed to have so many people of note in your family. Sorry about the article. Don't take the term "cruft" personally-I use it to refer to all manner of frivolous stuff. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Eytan Mirsky

Thanks for the message. The fact that there is no mention of his Jeopardy! appearance in the article is irrelevant to the inclusion of the category because the threshold for categorization is not mention of the thing in the article. In the case of Eytan Mirsky, he is not notable for his Jeopardy! appearance, and inclusion of that fact in his article, which is relatively short, would give undue weight to something relatively meaningless. Similarly, John McCain was a Jeopardy! champion, and he is properly categorized as such, but it would be improper to pollute his main article with a reference to his Jeopardy! appearances, since it is a relatively insignificant fact about him and has no bearing on his notability. Also similarly, there is no reference to Eytan Mirsky's being Jewish in the article, but if indeed he is Jewish, his article may be properly categorized as such. If you doubt Eytan's having been on the show, you are welcome to view his player page at the J! Archive and, at least for now, view a portion of his game on YouTube. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

World War II experience (excerpted)

I hope this is the right way to discuss the Richard Keech article. Forgive me if I am wrong, I am new at this. I am Steven Keech, son of Richard Keech. As such, I am most certainly not neutral about him,but I have written his stories as accurately as I heard them. My intent is to give the reader not just a dry statement of dates and places but an idea of what it was like. If anything, Richard downplays himself. Marines do not boast, at least the ones I know. I hope a verbal citation is OK. I don't know what could be more accurate. I would like to include a Long Beach Press Telegram article from 18 Nov 1945. I am not sure how to handle the copywrite issue of a 60 year old interview. Steven Richard Keech (Son of Richard Keech) 00:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You asked me to run things by you before I put them in. So with that in mind ...

Here is a picture of Dad just out of the L.B. Naval Hospital after being freed from the POW camp. No copywrite issue, my Grandmother took the picture. It might spice up the article.

["Richard Keech at Lemon Ave Home after being freed from the POW camp 1945]

["Sample Red Cross postcard showing soldiers still alive."]

Dad was the last of the Marine Corp Cavalry [3]] . He had two horses which he had to curry every day at hawthorn nevada [[4]] . Hawthorne was used as a "drying out" base for marines returning from china. Dad noticed these 4th china marines talking a funny pigin english and ordering everyone about like coolies. Ususally they were alcoholics too. Hawthorne was 100 miles from nowhere so the Marine corp could keep them away from people until they straightened out. Some didn't. Dad remembers one returning marine who got a "Dear John" letter from a girl in Hawthorne. The china marine kidnaped the CO of the base and forced him to drive into the desert at gunpoint. The CO refused to drive at point the marine asked him to drive into town to see his ex-girlfriend. The CO said "you'll have to shoot me here, son." The marine said that he thought he'd worked himself into a big mess. The CO agreed and said he couldn't see a way out that didn't include prison. The marine got out of the car, told the CO to drive away. He walked into the deseart and shot himself.

Dad was fascinated by this exotic place. He wanted to be shipped there. The only problem was the Marine Corp only sent screw-ups. The odds were so heavily against the 1200 marines there should it come to a fight, the Marine Corp had already written them off. So Dad had to screw up. He looked around for a way that wouldn't be too harmful. He finally bought a jar of white lightning ... which was pink for some reason ... and hid it in he locker. He than went and told the Gunny. The rest is history.

Steven Richard Keech (Son of Richard Keech) 04:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, the anonymous IP address was me. I forgot to sign in. I won't make that same mistake again. I'll also try to remember to sign my input. I honestly wasn't trying to add anything more: I was trying to correct the missing citations you pointed out.(Although I would like to add the things I've mentioned above. Surely, the fact that he was the last of the Marine Corps cavalry is historically significant.) I was trying to respond to your comments in the code. For example, you asked why the American trustee officer sent him back to the white Angels camp. I asked Richard and put his response at why? I am a little confused when you question the citations. Richard is one of only four survivors still alive of the white Angels camp. Richard was there and can still remember it. What could be more accurate? If you wish, I could arrange for you to talk with Richard Keech. He does have some dementia, but he hides it well for short conversations; his short-term memory is shot but his long-term memory is still accurate. If you wish to talk with him, just give me a private way I can get his caregivers phone number to you.Steven Richard Keech (Son of Richard Keech) 01:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I get the impression you would like me to stop editing it. Very well, I will stop. Let me know if there is anything you would like me to look at and I will do so. Regards, Steven Richard Keech (Son of Richard Keech) 01:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Elise Kemp/Temp

Talk:Elise Kemp/Temp needs another go, I'm afraid. It looks you began by pasting most of the contents of the copyvio page into the temp space. As I mentioned before, you can't copy the one that was a copyright problem and build from that because then you wind up with an unauthorized "derivative work". This is particularly important when we can no longer access one of your primary sources, as was the case here. I'm afraid that it's easily verifiable that you have followed too closely on previously published sources, and we can't presume that this time you did not. Any of the text that you copied over might infringe on that source.

I'm also concerned that you are still too closely paraphrasing one of the remaining sources.

Compare the following:

Elise Margaret Kemp was born in Wellington, New Zealand, one of six children of Dr. William George Kemp, a physician originally from Alnwick, Northumberland. Her father qualified as a medical physician at Durham University. By 1868 her father had moved to New Zealand and been appointed Resident Surgeon at Nelson Hospital in the South Island. By the time of his marriage he was surgeon/physician at Wellington Hospital...

The source says:

Elise Margaret Kemp was born in Wellington, New Zealand...one of six children born to Dr William George Kemp and his wife Charlotte.

Dr Kemp was originally from Alnwick, Northumberland, and qualified as a physician at Durham University. By November 7, 1868, he was in New Zealand and was appointed Resident Surgeon at Nelson Hospital in the South Island.... By the time of his marriage Dr Kemp had already taken up a position of

surgeon-physician at Wellington Hospital...

I have eliminated some of the extra detail from the source in the hopes of making clearer the problem here. You have retained much of the language and structure of the original, even down to duplication the introduction of the final passage: "By the time of his marriage". The facts are not copyrightable, but the manner of their arrangement and the way they are presented is.

I'll relist it for another week. Please, if you plan to replace it, start from scratch. Don't base your new version on any of the former contents. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Francis "Frank" Hyett

I am concerned about this one as well, probably for the same reasons. Had it been written from scratch you probably would have avoided some of the duplication. My eye was immediately caught by the duplication of the phrase "By 1902 he had become attracted to socialism", carried over extant from the source, and the next thing I noticed on the rewrite was the following:

Hyett's cricket career developed late. He transferred from Brunswick to Carlton as a wicket keeper and opening batsman and represented Victoria several times in 1914-15, scoring a century against Tasmania. He was vice-president of Carlton's football and cricket clubs.

In the source, I see:

Hyett's cricket career developed late. He transferred from Brunswick to Carlton as a wicket keeper and opening batsman and represented Victoria several times in 1914-15, scoring a century against Tasmania. He was vice-president of the Carlton Football and Cricket clubs.

You seem to have copied the entire paragraph.

At a glance, I see there are other passages that follow too closely, but none so strikingly as that one. That one alone would render this rewrite unusable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of couples with British titles in their own right

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of couples with British titles in their own right. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of couples with British titles in their own right. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)