User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Talkback

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

MLauba (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify...

Hi, Moonriddengirl. Thanks for checking over my entries here. I just wanted to make certain I have this clear before getting back to the editor whom I tagged. This page is an exact transcription from the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, and so everything on that website listed under this Catholic Encyclopedia subheading is PD per the pre-1923 rule. Is that right? (And, wow, what great source of public info). — CactusWriter | ^needles 05:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I would judge each article page by page, so I don't know if everything is PD per the pre-1923 rule. I'd stay open to the possibility that some parts of it have been updated. But when the "About this Page" section self-identifies the text as from pre-1923, I think we're good to go. :) (Somewhat complicating things is the current WP:Plagiarism guideline. If you talk to this fellow about this, please ask him to identify in edit summary that he has copied from a PD source and to note somewhere on the page, either in his footnote or with an attribution template, that he has used material verbatim. This is not a copyright issue, though. And if it's the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, we luck out, because there's even an attribution template for that one: {{catholic}}.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As you thought, it is the 1913 Catholic Encylopedia (it just took 6 years write it, 1907 to 1913, therefore the various dates on the "About this Page" section) and it is an exact non-updated version. But I see now that the website issue is moot since the whole shebang is already here at Wikisource. I'll mention the plagarism guidelines to the editor. Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I presumed it was a multi-year encyclopedia and wondered why we didn't have attribution templates for all of them. Seems we can use {{Catholic}} for them all. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply from Jacurek

Thank you Moonriddengirl for everything. I will definitely contact you for advice when I find problems editing, I am very pleased that I have somebody like you to help me if I need it. I have learned a lot from you already.--Jacurek (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I would like to express my appreciation for all your help and excellent advices. Thank you very much.--Jacurek (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Adult attention-deficit disorder

I'm sorry to burden your talk page, but I can't work out from WP:CP what should be done when a section (or two) is a likely copyvio. I can look into it more later, but for now this is the situation: Article#section is Adult attention-deficit disorder#Treatment (and "#Medications" directly following). Copyvio was added in this edit from this source. Is there a "this needs fixing" template? I know about {{copyvio}} but that might be too extreme here? If you like, I'll probably have time soon to remove bad text and put a note on the article talk, but I can't fix the article so I want some backing before wrecking it. Thanks. (I'm watching this page; don't need talkback.) Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty to rephrase both sections but using medically accurate wording in English is a couple of grades outside my league, so I'd appreciate a couple of additional looks. Due to my lack of expertise, my paraphrasing may still not be in clear waters as well.

In general, the recommendation if you spot copyright violations in sections is to fix / remove them on sight. For sections, I don't believe tagging the entire article with {{copyvio}} is appropriate. Cheers, --MLauba (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MLauba. :) Yes, fixing sections is entirely appropriate. If you can't, though, or if the original contributor resists your efforts, you can use the copyvio template and simply limit the extent of blanking by placing </div> at the end. There are other "this needs fixing" templates for copyright infringement, such as {{copypaste}}, but I'm no big fan. If the external site is likely to be copyrighted, we need to stop publication of the material as soon as we can. If, on the other hand, you aren't sure that the degree of copying rises quite to the level of copyvio, you may tag it with {{close paraphrase}} instead. If there's only a sentence or two, I will sometimes clumsily repair the copyright violation by adding citation, quotation marks and a not particularly elegant attribution: "According to Blahblah". A note of explanation in the edit summary is always helpful. :) If the article is an active one, you might also leave a note of explanation at the talk page regardless of what step you take, since this might help other editors join in on fixing the problem.

There are various other copyright templates that might come in handy, depending on the nature of the problem. We're making an effort to gather these at the copyright clean-up resource page, so you might want to take a look at them here if you run into similar concerns in the future.

And you're welcome to stop by my talk page any time you think I might be able to be of assistance to you. Trust me: I'd do the same to you. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MLauba and, as always, Moonriddengirl. Johnuniq (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I'm about to get my first lesson on double-checking and carefulness from this situation. That being said, there's now a claim that the purported source is actually a copyvio of the wikipedia article. If that were the case, what is the procedure with dealing with that? --MLauba (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. That happens sometimes. Sorry about that. What I do when I check first is to look at the archives. If you're lucky, the external site will be clearly archived, and you can compare the date it appeared with the date the material was added. If it isn't clearly archived, you can't automatically presume it's clear, though. The thing to do then is to compare the text at the time it was added to Wikipedia with the external site. Sometimes, you get clues--if the language here started out different and moved closer to the external site, then you know we probably had it first. If there's no clue there, I will sometimes evaluate the site itself and sometimes evaluate the contributor. If the contributor is established and obviously familiar with our policies or if the external site is disreputable or listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, then you may be able to presume that we're in the clear. (Although you might leave a note for the contributor pointing out the question and asking for clarification. Have to tread lightly. :)) If after your investigation, you determine that we are in the clear, you should consider making a note of that at the article's talk page, since others are likely to question the matter in the future. Sometimes, if I just absolutely can't tell and the contributor is not around to talk to, I will rewrite the material just to be on the safe side. In that case, I wouldn't use {{cclean}} at the article talk, but just leave a simple note of explanation: "There were these concerns; can't determine; to be on the safe side." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Through a long comparison of diffs between various edits since February 4th, I have now formed a rather firm conviction that it was the remote site which lifted content from Wikipedia. There is one particularly telling sign, the second paragraph in wrongdiagnosis.com still contains the same language that was added by CVZ on February 4th. That paragraph was, however, been completely rewritten and expanded at a later stage. The rewritten paragraph is however also present on WD.com - at the very end of the article. On February 5th, a different editor added a new, sourced paragraph immediately below CVZ' original language. That language was later on incorporated when the preceding paragraph was rewritten, and is also part of the version present on WD.com, at the bottom of their page. It is highly unlikely that CVZ would have lifted a massive portion of text from WD.com, left out a paragraph near the bottom of the so-called source, only to get the last sentence of that one copy-pasted to wikipedia on the following day by another editor - which would then be incorporated in the addition of the paragraph CVZ would have left out a couple of weeks later. Occam's razor: wikipedia was copied between CVZ's contribution and the rewrite of that same paragraph, and the rewritten paragraph was later added near the bottom in a second copy effort by WD. I issued apologies all around, still have to leave a note on the article's talk page. --MLauba (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There you go. Good sleuthing. :) I hope you won't be discouraged by this experience. One of my early copyvio blunders was not noticing that a site was US government (and, hence, PD)! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The learning was precious. After going through a certain baseball park article writer's many verbatim copies, it was essential that I get a sense of perspective, and I do trust, based on a private exchange, that the editor I wrongfully called out will have accepted my apologies for this unfortunately necessary learning experience. MLauba (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CP

You know, I mentioned in my RFA that I'd like to help out at WP:CP, and you're making a liar out of me. :) Good work over there, and thanks for making sure there isn't a backlog. If you ever think you're going to miss a few days (or want to miss a few days), let me know and I'd be happy to pick up the slack. --Laser brain (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of work to go around (most days). You are very welcome to pitch in. :D But as it happens, I'm going to be away from Wikipedia (barring miraculous free internet access where I'm going) towards the end of June for four or five days and would be thrilled to know that I won't be coming back to a backlog. Maybe I could trouble you then? I'll certainly ask. :) And if you want to help out with copyright problems, please (please?) drop by WP:COPYCLEAN. We have quite a bit more work there than we can manage. We especially need people who can keep an eye on the talk page to help out with contributor checks when a problem editor is discovered. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

New York State Historic Markers

Thanks for your follow up on the page, List of New York State Historic Markers and all sub-pages. I have not gotten a response yet from NYS, but can follow up again today. Generally my sense is that these works are in te public domain because the markers were made between 1926 to 1966 and copyright was never claimed on them. Generally, on the issue of markers, there are some activist editors who are trying to make this a much bigger issue than it actually is. What I have heard from good sources within New York and more broadly, is that most states have not made an active effort to copyright markers. Pennslyvania is the only excpetion that I am aware of. As such, I think people are trying to create a solution for a problem that does not exist. As always I appreciate your help with this and all other matters where you have provided great support for beseiged editors like myself. Thanks again.

Inoysterbay (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Latest news is I've been told we'll get a response in a week, for what it's worth. Thanks for your help. Inoysterbay (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And another copyright question

Sorry for bugging you again; last weekend seemed to be my time for possible copyvios. A few days ago an editor undid one of my removals; the discussion is here. I'd appreciate if you could look at it and take any action necessary. Unfortunately I won't be around for the next ~20 hours. Shubinator (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the material and left a note for the contributor. I may take a stab at rewriting the material myself once I'm properly awake. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Shubinator (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge and delete

Hi. I've seen your comments on copyright issues on various pages. In particular, I found your comments regarding GFDL attribution at Help talk:Merging and moving pages to be informative, helpful, and persuasive.

There is a current discussion at WT:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force#Merge and delete. There were a large number of stubs deleted at AfD, but they were merged (initially copied verbatim in at least some cases, I believe) and redirected. There are now a large number of redirects with two countries in their title that may redirect to one article, relevant to only one of those countries. It has been suggested that the stubs contained only lists of facts with minimal creative work, do not need to be attributed, and may thus be deleted without violating the GFDL. I understand the reasoning, but I am unsure whether it holds up to scrutiny.

Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Opined. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I Apologize

I apologize of about the things I did and I didn't mean to offend anybody, I was trying to help to expand Wikipedia. I was confused and I didn't about citations and about the copyright thing I don't know is either a good or a bad thing. I don't own anything, I didn't mean to steal, I wanted to put information. I apologize.

Sincerely, Contributor777

Replying at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

COI question

Hi there, over at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest I have a question you might want to take a look at -- basically, the owner of a copyrighted set of rules for a game is trying to have the page have only their rules on it. Not sure how to address it exactly, since they have mentioned trademark infringment and stuff. --AW (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a new one. :) I'm intrigued, and I will come see if I can help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ladder Golf

I guess I am confused as to what we can put on the Ladder Golf page. The link to the THQ game that you mentioned is actually Ladder Golf (our game). We worked directly with THQ and developed that game with them for Worldwide distribution and they are respecting our Trademark worldwide.

http://www.thq.com/us/game/show/5118/Neighborhood%20Games See Trademark info on the bottom of the page above.

We just worked out an issue with GSICommerce and Dick Sporting Goods where they removed our Trademark from various eCommerce sites that were not authorized to use it. We have worked with Google to stop people from using Ladder Golf in Google Adwords ads without a problem. I am not sure why it is such an issue with Wikipedia.com. We want our due representation and we want to follow the rules, but you are giving generic homespun knock off sites that are just trying to spam traffic, more relevance that a legit company that has built a brand over the last 5+ years and followed the rules and got Trademarks and formed Corporation etc..

We are concerned about infringement of our trademark in the US and abroad and we are currently finalizing our mark in Europe as well.

We designed the game of Ladder Golf several years ago. We made up the name, got a trademark and made the rules for it. We have developed the "brand" and all the other games and names you see on the Ladder Toss section are knock off's of our game. I don't mind that page at all. Leave it up. I just want a page for Ladder Golf about our company and our brand. We are a vital part of the growth of Lawn Games over the last 5 years. If you would like a generic history of our company we can provide that. I just think you are are not getting the full story here and it is hurting our brand.

Please let me know what I "can" put on the Ladder Golf page.

Thank you for your time in this matter. As you know Wikipedia has evolved into a powerhouse of a website and infringement on it spreads fast throughout the Internet because so many people find, read, copy, re-write and spread the data very fast around the Internet.

Laddergolf (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Brent

Responding at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a good start. Thank you. I will dig up some more publications and information on this and add only verifiable sources of data. Not sure what some of the external links are for, but I am not going to mess with things right now. Thank you for your help. I think I am getting the hang of this. Laddergolf (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

plagiarism debate at FAC

Your technical expertise may be of assistance here, MRG. Tony (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Off to look. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi. Thanks for everything! I'll keep in mind all of what you have said. Have a good day. A Fantasy (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hey there. Since you're an expert in the copyright domain, I figured I'd ping you as I am writing my essay that focuses on how plagiarism covers both the attribution of thoughts/ideas and the attribution of wording. I was wondering how my examples in that essay relate to copyright. I had some assumptions, but I'm really no expert in copyright, and I was wondering if you may be able to answer the following:

• In the first example, where the short piece of text is copied largely verbatim and no citation and no quotation marks are present, this is a copyright violation, correct (assuming the source is copyrighted)?
• In the second example, where the short piece of text is copied largely verbatim and a citation is present, but no quotation marks are present, this is still a copyright violation, correct?
• In the third example, where the short piece of text has been sufficiently paraphrased, but no citation is given (and thus no attribution), is this a copyright violation?

I've been trying to do some research to help me answer these questions, but there don't seem to be any pages that clearly spell out when something is a copyright violation and when it's just plagiarism, or vice versa, other than the obvious ones (such as when the source is in the public domain or when you quote and cite a long article in its entirely, thus failing the fair use defense). TwilligToves (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC) [By the way, I'm the user formerly known as BuddingJournalist. :)]

Hi. Nice new identity. :) Not that there was anything wrong with BuddingJournalist, but TwilligToves is tres euphonious. :D First, I don't regard myself as an expert in copyright (I really don't). I'm experienced in some aspects, but there's always more to learn, and I run into that "always more to learn" quite often enough to keep me humble. So, experienced, but not expert. :)

That said, I have to clarify that there are two dimensions to your questions: is the material a copyright violation (that is, a violation of United States copyright law)? is the material a copyright violation (that is, a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy)? You probably know, but for the sake of clarity I have to emphasize that this is not the same. In order for material to qualify as a "copyright violation"—which could be simply defined as "the point of copying where you have a legally actionable offense", it has to meet the substantial similarity standard. That is, there has to be enough of it (either in quality or quantity) for the courts to consider it a matter of concern. That line is not easily defined. Lawyers and courts can chew over that for a long time.

Your first and second examples are a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, which explicitly only allows the incorporation of copyrighted text as used under the WP:NFC policy. Your final example would not be a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy or, I daresay, US copyright law. The law (and policy) exist to protect the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. It may be immoral to get ideas from something and not give credit, but as long as you do not infringe on their creative expression, you aren't breaking the law. I doubt that either of your examples—if the only taking in the article—would clear the de minimis rule. Of course, courts can be surprising. Wikipedia is smart not to rely on that (I say, without false modesty, since Wikipedia came up with these rules a long time before I started working with them :)), since people will push the envelope and since a "de minimis" taking from one source becomes quite a different thing if spread out over multiple articles. That particular source is not likely to be a problem, but something like Encyclopedia Britannica could take a very dim view of it if we had such "de minimis" duplication spread out over thousands of articles. In aggregate, we would easily become substantial. Wikipedia is good about exercising due diligence to prevent such things.

Did I get your questions or wander? I'm still on my first morning caffeine. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way (since I get tunnelvision): nice essay. Very succinct! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the new username and the essay. :) Took me a while to find some combination that wasn't already taken; in the end, I went for an amalgam of sorts. :) Thanks so much for the reply; as always, your response is wonderfully lucid and edifying (or as much as something related to the murky area of copyright law can be :)). I figured these were the answers to my questions, but I wanted to double check. The distinction between Wikipedia's copyright policy and U.S. copyright law is useful; I'd been largely conflating the two in error. I'm still a bit confused about Wikipedia's policy pages though:

• There's nowhere in either WP:C or WP:COPYVIO about what acceptable attribution is. Is it just the fact that improper attribution such as in 1) or 2) are not acceptable as "fair use" that would cause those two examples to be copyright violations?
• You state that WP:NFC is policy, but it seems like it's a guideline? NFC clearly spells out that "copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim." This doesn't seem to define what "attributed" means though. Is this just a problem with the guideline? Should this read instead "must be attributed with quotation marks and..."?

Thanks! TwilligToves (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue with examples 1 & 2 is reuse of material, as it duplicates text and structure. Acknowledging the source would not efface this problem under US copyright law (though, again, we're probably well in "de minimis" territory). If the material were working under "fair use", attribution would be required. (Unless I missed something this morning and you had quotation marks without source. I take a while to spin up to full speed. :)) If the material is completely rewritten, attribution is not required at all, because at that point, you are not using the creative elements of the material and there is no legal infringement. From a plagiarism standpoint, obviously, the requirement for attribution remains in all circumstances.

WP:NFC is unique, I think, in that it is both policy & guideline. :) At the top of the page, it says "guideline," but when you scroll down you see the box that says, "Transcluded from Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; this is the part of the current page that is official policy." That policy incorporates the handling of text in the guideline by reference: "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." WP:C also incorporates that by reference, far more clearly now than it did five minutes ago. (It used to be a piped link to "fair use." Must remember to note my change at the talk page.) "However, there are some circumstances under which copyrighted works may be legally utilized without permission; see Wikipedia:Non-free content for specific details on when and how to utilize such material."

I think the guideline portion NFC could use clarification on that point. Maybe you should propose it at WT:NFC? That's not as much my neighborhood as WP:C. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks! TwilligToves (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dêgê

Hi! Nice work on the Dêgê and Kingdom of Dêgê articles! FYI, I have suggested moving them to Derge and Kingdom of Derge, respectively.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Wherever they best suit the project is fine with me. Naming conventions are not my specialty. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Phill Shatter

I setup a temp page to replace the issue for that page ldeffinbaugh 18:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Paradelle

Hello! This entry (which I stumbled on during routine patrolling for vandalism and then, inevitably, became interested in) quotes a recent poem in its entirety, surely in violation of WP:COPYVIO. The poem was added to the entry in July 2007, and much of the article seems to have been built around it. Because it seemed a shame to lose all of the content added after July 2007, I revised the article so that it no longer contains the quote and saved it at Talk:Paradelle/Temp. (This seemed, by the way, to be what WP:CP suggested as an alternative to outright reversion.) Would it be possible for you to delete the infringing version of Paradelle and copy the rewritten version over? (The article needs some copy editing, which I'll see to once the copyright situation gets sorted.) P.S. If I should've notified someone else about this, or done something different, please let me know. This is the first time I've seen something quite like this. Best wishes! GreenGourd (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for finding and fixing this problem. :) If the poem was previously published elsewhere, it is almost certainly a copyvio. If it isn't, it's OR. Either way, removing it is the right thing to do, and you are quite right that this is a recommended alternative to deletion. I've merged your version with the previously existing, though, rather than replacing it. This is because your version included text from the existing article, and while Wikipedia's contributors license their material for reuse, they actually retain the copyright to it. That means that if we use the text without meeting the licensing terms (attribution), we wind up violating their copyright. (This is why we have specific procedures for Help:Merge and Wikipedia:Split, so that when we move content from one article to another, we honor those rights.) If we rewrite an article to replace a copyvio, we have to rewrite all of the content unless we give credit to the contributors. It's a bit tedious, the way I do this: by checking the history and adding the text, contributor at a time, with a note in the edit summary (see [1]). It is also okay, in a situation like this, just to remove the text with a note of explanation.of why you've done so. If you run into extensive copyright problem, you blank it by putting {{subst:copyvio|url=whatever}} on the page. (It doesn't have to be a url. After url, you can type whatever you want.) Then it gives you directions for listing it at the copyright problems board and letting the infringer know. Thanks again for being aware of the issue and taking action on it! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks, you are very kind. And if there were a barnstar featuring Dolly with a message "This editor should be cloned", you'd deserve to be the first recipient.

Have you-all considered putting a please-don't-copy-and-paste message in the create article page? Next to the create-this-page button? I know it's not very welcoming, but somehow I don't think many new editors are canceling creation to read the "Your first page..." article, and established editors may need to be informed too. Novickas (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a compliment. :) Thank you. I've brought up the need to make this information more prominent in the past, but aside from a few individuals who have agreed haven't met with any general support. Since underneath every edit screen it says, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted", people seem to think we've got it covered. My concern is that quite a few contributors don't notice what it says beneath the edit screen. I'd much rather prevent problems than chase them. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you suppose an experiment with the above idea, lasting, say, 5 days, would be accepted? It would be pretty easy to measure its impact, now that you have a bot report. Novickas (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I see it's being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism - hope something comes of it. My cheeks still burn when I remember Mrs. Hansen's gentle reproof of my copying a book sentence in a 3rd grade report. (In the frequently-maligned Chicago public school system). Not all of us were that lucky. Tools, we need more - I'm going to write an email to the webmaster of this site [2] and ask if it could be customized for WP's usage. The primary suggestion would be the ability to exclude WP mirrors, since they clutter the results. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble keeping up with my talk page lately! I'm sorry I failed to respond to your note yesterday. I don't know if it would be or not. I'm not extremely involved in the political Wikipedia, and I am sometimes (naively, extremely) surprised by what turns out to be controversial. (For instance, I was surprised that people would object to the basic idea that plagiarism should not happen. The particulars I expected; that, I never saw coming!) Good luck with the plagiarismdetect website. Since they charge for their "advanced" option, they may not wish to give it to us for free, but that would be a fabulous tool to have. :) I myself often use this site. I've talked to a few people who do this kind of thing (programming, that is) on Wikipedia to see about getting something for us, but so far no takers. It would be lovely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you talked to J. Wales about it...he could marshal more resources? So much has turned up recently.

I tagged another couple of articles today. Each has about 5 copied sentences. Did not search for the contributor; just posted at the articles' talk pages. Since the shorter vios I've posted recently were quickly addressed, maybe these will be also. May send you an email soon about the problem of prolific editors whose older contribs may have included copyvios in multiple articles - harder to find, but I hope you agree that they pose a problem that could and should be tackled with tools. Novickas (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never thought about approaching him about it. :) I've put a call out earlier today at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations asking for feedback on how best to handle multi-article infringers. It may take a few days to get any real action there. If it I ever do. Hope I do. We need to do something. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio and PD

Hi Moonriddengirl

Thanks for your helpful advice. I bet I will have forgotten it, though, the next time I encounter a similar situation. But I think I might remember that you are interested in copyright issues. No need to respond to this. Best wishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ports & Harbours of India / Ports of Gujarat State

As I had written earlier that we are in process of Publishing a Book on " Ports of Gujarat - 2009", in the continuation of the same I would like to inform you that we had already released the publication to readers. Further i would like to send copies of the publication for you personal record & reference purposes. I would like to have your Mail address to enable me to send the same by Post parcel. Will please send me your complete mail address, please. Your immediate reply is awaited. Thanks. moti 17:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)moti/shiptradenews/ V N Jhaveri, Editor, Shipping & Trade Newsletter, Jamnagar, Gujarat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiptradenews (talk • contribs)

Posadas de Puerto Rico case

Nice work on this article. I've suggested an alternate wording for the DYK hook that you might want to take a look at. Just a thought. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! On both accounts. :) I don't often haul my stuff to DYK because I'm never sure what's going to catch other people's interest, but I thought that one was particularly fascinating. I appreciate your help! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Request

I know that you are a copyvio specialist so I'm sure you can answer a question for me. Is this a correct usage of a copyvio tag? Seems a bit extreme, but I have no knowledge in this area. Your input is appreciated. Thanks Tiderolls 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, it is, if the contributor does not know which came first. I don't know the copyright status of the particular version of theBible used, but the material under it--beginning "This parable is difficult for some people to interpret, since on the face of it Jesus appears to be commending dishonest behavior."--is definitely creative, original text. The question is who authored it. I think Wikipedia did.

First, archives cannot confirm the date of first publication of that external site. But we see what seems to be the natural development of this text, which begins here. An IP editor that same day added a line that we now find a bit lower, here. Months later, the word "the" was added here, which brings it closer to that suspected source. A month later, it was further expanded here towards that source. All evidence I can find suggests it was written here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when I followed the link I knew immediately that I would not be able to say which was original. Since I'm out of my element I have not approached the editor that tagged the article and I probably will not. I have a limited brain capacity so I try to pace myself :) Thanks for the response Tiderolls 02:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've already reported my "findings" at the talk page and restored the text. Not sure we should be using an unfree version of the Bible for quotes, though, when there is free text available. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks for taking care of the Sri Lanka articles

I noticed you uncovered some more copyvios in there. Good work! Jasy jatere (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the issue. I'm afraid it may be the tip of an iceberg, but only further investigation will determine how extensive an issue it is. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Curiosity

A few months ago I invited you to a discussion about norwegian poetry at the Article Alerts. I've always wondered about the general impact of the alerts on things like AfD and Copyvios, so I've been wondering if you noticed any difference in your workload at COPYVIO in the last 3-4 months or so (as well as a quicker, more involved responses from editors, and other things one would suspect notices to wikiprojects would bring). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend not to notice much; I'm very goal focused. :D But thinking back, I think I'd have to look at how many articles have already been revised in temporary space to get an idea. I can't honestly say that I think there's been a big change, but from where I'm standing if there are even a couple we've got forward momentum. Plus, I would consider that adding copyvio notices to article alerts might help just generally educate people about copyright issues, which could also help (a) prevent them and (b) get them detected and cleaned before they ever reach CP. So while I' haven't noticed a big change, I'm hopeful that there has been. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright thanks. Curiosity has been satisfied. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth/archive1

Copyvio issues have been identified; it seems all or most were added by User:Martim33 in the past few weeks. If you could help us sort through them like you did on History of Polish Jews, this would be much appreciated. I think that this users edits may merit a more detailed examination with regards to copyvio issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Massive sigh.Okay, I'll get to it as soon as I can. I've got a lot of things demanding my time off Wikipedia today (stupid real world), and I've only started pecking away at today's CP listing. I hope it won't prove as time consuming as the last article, because that one probably ate a good 8 hours by itself. Thanks for the heads up. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Judgement call on tagging this. Since my judgement in this regard was questioned at another article - by an admin - I'd really appreciate it if you could just take a moment to look at the talk page and give your opinion. It's more than 12 sentences. OTOH, maybe it'll get fixed quickly? Thanks for the project invite, maybe I'll try to step into Mrs. Hansens' shoes. Novickas (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We could use you (and, by proxy, her :)). I'm running a contribution surveyor check of his edits, and I will try to evaluate extensiveness of the issue as soon as possible. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The reversion got rid of a lot of them, thanks, but not all. No time today, will work on it some tomorrow. Boy, you look swamped, so I hope this question won't take a lot of work: is this source PD? [3] It says US Country Studies in the upper righthand corner, but Copyright 2000 Polish Academic Information Center, University at Buffalo at the bottom. Later, Novickas (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good news on this one. It is PD. Country Studies origin checks out. See [4], for example. More than likely the copyright notice is just templated, so to speak, on every page of the website. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's clean now. I didn't rewrite the sentences from the Country Studies site, so unless someone else does, it should be tagged with the "This article contains..." template, but I couldn't find a dedicated Country Studies template. They're at least ref'd. Novickas (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Head-banging question. So it looks as tho one of the sources that contained sentences identical to those in that article actually copied FROM Wikipedia. Is it otherwise still a reliable-enough source to be used as a ref in the article? Novickas (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Posted this question at Reliable Sources [5], so pls feel free to ignore. Novickas (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm back online and will answer anyway. :) No, if it's a Wiki mirror, it's not reliable. As far as the Country Studies, I don't know if there is a template, but I often just make a little note myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See, it's not a WP mirror site overall - it just copied several sentences from WP. That's what makes it weird. Really, you have enough to do. Novickas (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange. :/ I would wonder at that point if both the external site and the Wikipedia page copy from something else. But you never know. I've seen infringement from Wikipedia in all kinds of places, including the ESPN website. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be out of line to suggest opening communications with the author about the issue via OTRS? Novickas (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OTRS can't really do anything. If he is violating Wikipedia, only Wikipedia's editors can request action. Wikipedia has no official stance in what happens to text it hosts outside of the site. If you want to write the guy, you can certainly do so, asking him to give credit if he is not the original contributor. There are some suggested procedures at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't seem able get this editor's attention.

It may be a case where the editor has become so antagonized by my opposing what I see as violations of WP rules, guidelines, and behaviour that my warning against something simply causes more. user:Satanoid, now posting under user:Morbid Fairy‎, keeps copying sources, without following wp:quote. I fear I have tired of fixing these, and warnings are not stopping the practice.

I have said I was Satanoid to your fellow supporter due to my password recollection, secondly this is a controversial subject and will certainly attract pov from extremists, I'm not suggesting any of the editors are extremists or terrorist aplogists, but I have been followed and tracked for simply highlighting religious fundamentalist terrorist activities reported in the mainstream media only to see them deleted by people who are lets just say, very opposed to what is reported. Morbid Fairy (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Vancouver Sun reported in February 2008 that Dabinderjit Singh was campaigning to have both the Babbar Khalsa and International Sikh Youth Federation delisted as terrorist organizations. It also stated that Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said "he has not been approached by anyone lobbying to delist the banned groups" He is also quoted as saying "The decision to list organizations such as Babbar Khalsa, Babbar Khalsa International and the International Sikh Youth Federation as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code is intended to protect Canada and Canadians from terrorism" Morbid Fairy (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not just about copyright, since I would use quotes and/or re-summarise any sentences, here's a good example of what I class as selective editing, you will see what I mean. Thank you Morbid Fairy (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

On top of everything, I have been called a racist just because I used the term "Pot calling the Kettle black" Morbid Fairy (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

At Sikh extremism, for example, "2008: Three KZF militants, Sukhdev Singh, Satbir Singh and Purushottam Singh were sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment by a court in the national capital New Delhi for a bomb blast in the Kailash Hotel in Paharganj area on March 13, 2000 in which three persons were wounded. " is a straight copy from SATP.org KZF article. I just fixed another one (and expanded, the text was a bit selective, I think). I had previously warned about, and fixed another (Dept of state, I think we are free to copy, but wp:quote applies).

Should I take this to the copyvio board? Or may I impose on you to give it a quick look and see if a warning is needed? I'll be happy to simply replace the text, but my edits to the editors work are highly unwelcome and often reverted, and I fear my warnings are at this point a waste of WP bandwidth. (and of course, I could have handled my relationship with this editor better... thus I'll NEVER be an admin, heh)

If behaviour patterns continue, the editor will be responding here very shortly, stating that my position is "extremist POV" and/or "innuendo" and possibly that my post here is a "blog". :)

Whether you can give this a look or not, thanks for doing the copyright thing. :)- sinneed (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There's background here with which I'm pretty obviously unfamiliar. So I need to make clear that my opinion is not related to the nature of the content in the article or the appropriateness of disputed material. However, Wikipedia's copyright policies are very clear that we must not use copyrighted text on Wikipedia unless we do it in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline, and this means that we can use brief quotations under circumstances if they are clearly marked with quotation marks. Any other use of copyrighted material, unless we have explicit permission to license it under GFDL (and, soon, CC-BY-SA) is a violation of policy. If you can quote or revise copyrighted material, User:Morbid Fairy, then you must. Otherwise, we can't use it. If you have questions about this policy, please let me know.

User:Sinneed, if you encounter problems in the future with a contributor restoring copyrighted text to an article after it has been removed, then you certainly may take them to the copyvio board, but it moves slowly; usually, an admin does not even the listing for a week. When you have a contributor who is restoring copyrighted text to an article after it has been removed and does not stop even after receiving a warning ({{uw-copyright}} is a good one, as it includes a link to the policy and a block advisory), then WP:ANI is probably the place to go so that he or she may be stopped immediately from violating copyright policy.

In this case, I hope that this information will be sufficient to take care of the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there was only the newest in the series remaining, and I killed it immediately. I had already recreated, in (I light-heartedly hope) non-CR-breaking form, the other sections that were initially straight copies. Thank you for the advice, even though I have not yet quite figured out how to get the template to do useful things. :) I'll get it to work on a sandbox. And thank you for the help. :)- sinneed (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Morbid Fairy aka Satanoid see here , you have been previously reprimanded for this type of behaviour under the Satanoid account and on your WPOuting violation here. People are assuming Good Faith on your new account so I suggest you do the same. Your behaviour towards Sineed is very bad.--Sikh-history (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Black Knight

I've started to try to help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Blackknight12. For each diff I'm checking to see if what he added was a copyvio, and if not, I've just deleted it from the list. If it is a copyvio, I check to see if it has already been removed in subsequent edits, and if not, I remove it with a note in the edit summary. Then I remove it from the list. Am I doing this correctly? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, and thank you so very much! :) Since he is currently indef-blocked, I leave it to you whether you want to let him know the individual articles that have been scoured. I usually drop the title at least on talk, but once I've reached the indef point sometimes stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, okay, I've done quite a bit of clean up. But I'm not sure how to handle Bangladesh – Sri Lanka relations. It was created whole-cloth by Blackknight12, and I have no doubt it's copied and pasted, but I can't find an online source. There's basically no text in the article that didn't come from him, so there's no way to remove just the suspect portion. What should be done in these cases? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You could blank it with the copyvio template and list it at CP, with a note at the talk page of explanation. Or you can leave it listed on the investigation subpage, and I'll dig later. I've sadly gotten good at this. :/ But thanks for helping out here. It's giving me time to evaluate some of the older investigations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Jason Fawkes

Jason 'Fawkes' is actually Jason W. Turner a filmmaker in the Pacific Northwest with a documentary that recently played the Lincoln Center. What would constitute a 'verifiable source'? The book by Jovanovic is incomplete and misnames Turner in Pavement humorist fashion.

Jason Fawkes a.k.a Jason W. Turner is a fictitious name given by Rob Jovanovic (Perfect Sound Forever: The Story of Pavement) and the band. In the liner notes drums on Forklift are simply credited to 'Jason'. 'Fawkes' is a reference to Guy Fawkes and his 'Demolition Plot' to blow up Parliament in 1605. The band formed by Jason Turner and Scott Kannberg was named 'Pa' inspired by the tv show The Rifleman starring Chuck Conners who was referred to frequently in the show as 'Pa' by his tween son. The show was daily ritual viewing for the band. Though not confirmed, 'Pa' is also half of Pavement and Kannberg too was half of Pavement. At the time Kannberg was not sure of the future of Pavement and this basement band was an outlet for their shared interests in 'Noise pop' and a similar canon of musical likes.

Contrary to rumors Fawkes/Turner did not have any animosity to either producer/drummer Gary Young or Steven Malkmus, and the dissolution of Pa ,like many things Pavement, was not a heated battle but just sort of 'happened' when Malkmus returned from Europe and wanted to restart Pavement. The first live performance of Pavement was actually in 1989 and was a Pavement/Pa incarnation with Malkmus, Kannberg and Turner (Fawkes) in the studio of KDVS, a college radio station in Davis, CA. A few of the songs were reworked by Young in the studio and made it on to Perfect Sound Forever including "Heckler Spray" and "Debris Slide". This is when Young officially became the drummer for Pavement. The song "Two States" written by Kannberg was also originally a Pa song that came out of this time and appeared on Slanted and Enchanted.

Turner is currently a filmmaker living in the Pacific Northwest and making documentaries. His film Veerplayed the Lincoln Center in NYC in 2009 in addition to several cities in Canada and the US as part of a limited theatrical release.

~~Fawkes Turner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawkes Turner (talk • contribs) 23:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable sources are newspapers, magazines, respected websites such as CNN, etc. You can read more about them in our our verifiability policy and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I have very little familiarity with the band Pavement, but suspect that a fictional persona is probably not going to meet our notability guidelines to warrant a separate article. Jason Turner, the filmmaker, might; please see Wikipedia:Biography for more information on what constitutes notability in a filmmaker. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Velvet Acid Christ

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Velvet Acid Christ. 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 "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/Velvet Acid Christ. 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) 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

why?

why did you delete my grandfather alfred skondovitch, just wondering what the purpose was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchy457 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The problem with the article was that it duplicated text from an external website, and while the creator indicated that he had authority to use that text, he did not follow the procedures (of which he was advised) for verifying that he did. Wikipedia has no means of verifying identity on account creation, so we have external process that are necessary when somebody comes to the website indicating that they own copyright to previously published text and are authorizing our use of it under our license. (See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.) There were additional problems with the article under Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines, but none that would have merited deletion if not for the copyright matter. If the article is recreated, it should cite reliable sources that are not connected to the article's subject to meet our verifiability policy and to demonstrate how your grandfather meets our inclusion guidelines for artists. A website dedicated to your grandfather is not sufficient for that purpose. If you are in position to give us permission through one of the accepted means, we can restore that text, but those additional concerns will then need to be addressed. You yourself would be encouraged to edit the article carefully, in compliance with our conflict of interest guideline. It would be a good idea to note at the article's talk page that you are related to the subject and to be sure that your edits are neutral and do not rely on information that you may as a relative be in position to know but that you can't point to a source to prove. We call this original research, and because of Wikipedia's open editing policy it is not allowed.

If you have any questions about any of this, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Suspected plagiarism at Shaquille O'Neal

Today, I blanked a sizeable chunk of text from the article which I had identified as potential plagiarism from two sources. I left comments on the talk page 4 hours ago, but there is no response as yet. My mate Tony suggested trying to trace the edit(s) which inserted the text. I have gone back in the edit history for two years, and the text remains there. Of course, it is always possible that the text could have been copied from WP without attribution, but I judged this unlikely due to the rather unencyclopaedic tone of much of the text. What also amazes me is that the text appears not to have undergone significant transformation during the period in question. I have now gone back to a version on 14 March 2007, to find that the text predates this. I had read about a tool being developed by someone capable of identifying when any given phrase was inserted. Are you aware if such a tool is available yet? Your assistance would be much appreciated. Thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Found the first occurrence in what would become the Miami Heat section in this diff, on the same day it happened. I suspect the real source may actually be a press release, as it was added on the very day (July 14th) the trade happened. No comment on the rest. --MLauba (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such tool existing (though I, too, have heard whispers), but if you find one, please let me know. :) That would be fabulous. Thanks for tracking down the entry point, MLauba. Given the history of the contributor, I would probably at least revise the material to be on the safe side. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check out WikiBlame, although it seems to have problems with apostrophes at the moment. Perhaps if you were able temporarily to copy the article and its history to a different name, you'd be able to use the tool. --MoreThings (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• gasp* I feel like I'm in the presence of the grail. Or at least a grail-shaped beacon (apostrophe issues not withstanding). :O I must admit, though, that I'm not capable of determining whether it's the grail or a grail-shaped beacon. :) I'd have to copy the article and history to a different name? I couldn't use it where it sits? Is that because of the apostrophe thing? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ha. Well if it does turn out to help you in your never-ending quest to shed _moonlight on the murky waters of copyvio, it's worth its weight in gold. I haven't used it much but I tried it on the Shaquille O'Neal article and it seemed to choke a bit on the apostrophe in the title. I thought renaming it might be a way around that.--MoreThings (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to give it a test drive to be sure. :D Thanks for the link! Even if the apostrophe in that article chokes it, there are articles aplenty to be checked. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that the subject's name has an apostrophe, it's potentially an issue. I couldn't get it to work on the article, and will try it on a different one. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Good luck with it! --MoreThings (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Shaquille O'Neal. I'm fairly at least some of the material was in Wikipedia first. Zagalejo^^^ 17:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've glanced at least at the one issue (glance being misleading; this is slow going. :)), and I agree. It can be very hard to tease out where stuff came from sometimes. :/ Now, I'm back to WP:CP! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've updated the article talk page with the results of my detective work. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks good. This happens often enough that we have a template for it, although it's not often used (even by me). But given that this article is pretty prominent, you might want to consider placing {{Backwardscopyvio}} on it to spare headaches in the future. Probably mine. :) With my memory, somebody would list that at CP, and I'd do the work all over again. :D Since this has been largely your investigation, I leave you the honors if you'd like to place the template. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The template is in, thanks for the info. It'll certainly be useful for future reference. Also thank you very much for the Barnie, much appreciated! Ohconfucius (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hoorah!

Hooray for us!

You're a good egg. Keep up the good work, and don't let anyone bring you down. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Balloons! Thanks. :D You don't know what a boost to my morale your efforts there have been. That list was starting to look Sisyphean, but it's diminished enough to allow my basic optimist to return. Someday, we will live in a Wikipedia that does not have a copyright backlog, and I can write more articles about jazz musicians. You are much appreciated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Centre William Rappard

This is becoming increasingly difficult to understand, and also time-consuming and somehow frustrating. I received the email from Brandon Weeks telling me that "the necessary modifications to our article(s)" have been made (it seems that the message refers both to the article "Centre William Rappard" and all the photos included herein. However the article continues to be invisible and showing the "Possible copyright infringement" notice (which being copyright holders is a bit nasty to read in). Furthermore, now I receive this new notice from OrphanBot about the rights of File:Cwr aerial 1926.jpg. We are the right holders of these material (text and images), and contributing authors of most of it. We followed the process suggested and granted the necessary permissions to publish it. Is there anything else we should do to consider this article published? --Lamerica (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Responding at contributor's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I've never taken any joy in seeing an editor melt down over issues with Wikipedia, and I feel the same way in this case. It is probably even a little more significant because I think User:Allstarecho had made valuable contributions, and because in a small way, I ignited things by persisting in the pursuit of a clear copyvio. Having said that, I'm sorry you had to take such abuse in the process; it's not nice but I guess we are aware of this when we sign up for the mop.

Moving to the central issue of copyright violations, thanks for taking the ball and running. I have a complete seriousness with regard to copyright and Wikipedia. I know there are people who feel copyright law is wrong/inappropriate/overly restrictive/<insert negative opinion here>, but the fact is we have to deal with what is, not what people think should be. My desire to proceed properly was not matched by knowledge of how to do so, and I was impressed with how you moved forward. I say this not out delight, but rather because I tried to examine past edits and was only able to come up with one thing, which I asked User:Nancy about here. I was focusing only on newly created pages, and even so it looks like I missed plenty.

On a procedural note, once you started posting your findings, I did not contact you directly because I wanted to avoid the accusation of stalking (which turned out to be unavoidable anyway). I'm not an IRC kind of guy and while I have email enabled, I tend not to use it because I think everything should be here. So I focused on what I think should be focused on, which is the content. Thanks for doing the same, for taking my contribution to the copyright page seriously, and for spending the time required to at least begin fixing things around here. I know how long it took me to find just one additional copyvio; I was very inefficient at it.

I'd like to help out more in this area; I don't want to say I will jump in with both feet because I really try to be a content builder first, but it's clear there are always more things to be done than time and ability permit around here. So, if you can point me in the right direction, I'll do what I can.

Cheers, and thanks again.  Frank  |  talk  11:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I appreciate you finding the problem and persisting with it. I understand your handling. If it were not for his valuable contributions, I would have blocked him swiftly under the current policy at Wikipedia:Copyright violations once I found that there were issues in multiple articles. The further I investigated, the closer I came to doing so anyway. Current policy permits blocking to require that the contributor help with the cleanup. There's a proposal on the table to block multiple-article infringers regardless of clean-up until we have some assurance that they will stop. Anyway, you didn't ignite anything; neither you nor I were responsible for his meltdown, unpleasant as it was. :/ You did the right thing staying on top of that, you were cordial and patient, and his past responses demonstrate that he wasn't willing to listen to you no matter what you said or how you said it. I appreciate your continuing to coach him on his talk page. It would have been nice if the meltdown could have been averted, but, obviously, not at the cost of turning a blind eye to legal and policy violations.

I've had a lot of practice in evaluating contributions. :) WP:CP has been my major area of admin involvement for almost a year, and I've learned to recognize certain signs and have developed searching techniques that seem to work. Clean up on this one has only just begun. We're going to have to run him through our Contribution Surveyor program to get a prioritized list of his contributions and begin evaluating them.

If that particular aspect is not your strong suit, there are still plenty of ways you could help at WP:COPYCLEAN. We really need more eyes in developing policies related to copyright questions. There are a few regular admins and editors who contribute to those, but more input is much needed and very welcome. Most of the time, an encyclopedic knowledge of copyright law is not required. We just need people who can think clearly and evaluate procedures. :D

And if you want to help, there's one thing I've been puzzling over but haven't broached yet. I think that most contributors to WP:CP do not realize that articles remain listed for seven days before admin closure. I believe they are expecting a more immediate response than they get. Do you think this is true? If so, I've been considering asking that the "hidden" note on each CP page, that says, "Add new listings at the bottom of the list with the following format", be edited to alert those who list articles that there is a seven day window provided to allow addressing copyright issues before an admin intervenes. What do you think? Feedback appreciated. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Whers

Regarding previous discussions, what do you make of the lengthy quotation at te above article. For me, I'd say that goes too far, but I'd rather run it by you for a second opinion. Hiding T 12:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It goes too far. That lengthy a quotation is not necessary for the purposes set out at WP:CP, and that seems to dovetail precisely with the court's decision at Warner Bros. and J. K. Rowling vs. RDR Books. To quote Justice Patterson in that decision, "The Lexicon’s verbatim copying of ... highly aesthetic expression raises a significant question as to whether it was reasonably necessary for the purpose of creating a useful and complete reference guide." The flavor of this fictional concept can be explained without that much text lifted directly from the source. Since I am utterly unfamiliar with the subject, can I leave it to you to truncate it? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven;t a clue either, to be honest, I was just going to remove it all, and stick the work itself in a references section. Hiding T 12:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've now done that and left a message on Talk:Whers where I shamelessly steal your advice. Hiding T 12:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's yours. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Behzti section in Sikh Extremism

Hi Moonriddengirl, I wanted to post this because the questions were unanswered by Sinneed, instead they were deleted here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sinneed&diff=prev&oldid=294467525

Your disruptive and selective edits to the Times Online story seemed to tell only half the story when you said the leader of the Sikh Federation denied any involvement of the demonstrations, yet in the same article, another member of the SF admits to the involvement in the demos. Is there any explanation as to why there appears to be selective editing like this? And on the one where you seem to mention Dabinderjit Singh tried to get two terrorist groups de-listed and yet there is not a mention from the Canadian Public Safety Minister ever having met or agreeing to this guy, in fact (from your own reference) he denounces Terrorism, but you did not care to mention this (perhaps it wasnt important enough?). Well I put that back in, if your going to delete these other than for copyright reasons plz let me know for a change Morbid Fairy (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a standard dispute that should be resolved through dispute resolution. I see in removing it, the other editor noted, "Belongs mostly on the talk page... except for the part that belongs nowhere on WP." You might wish to raise the question there, though terms such as "disruptive" are seldom in keeping with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines and policies at WP:AGF, WP:Civil and WP:NPA. The term "disruptive" has specific meaning on Wikipedia and should be used with care, only if you have strong evidence to support the description. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

I have used my own words, "Death threats are Death threats" the sentences have been rearranged, I do understand you objection(s) to the whole article since you did not answer the above points but instead raise new ones, which really have no bearing on anything Morbid Fairy (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I used this time, "threats were made on her life" I hope this tells a fuller story above and beyond copyrighted material, which I have double checked on my part, thank you Morbid Fairy (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you also reproducing notes you've left to the editor as described in the section above here? Otherwise, I'm a bit lost by what you mean in this new section. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

quick question

Maybe you can help me out with this - can translations from another language be considered copyvios if they're "literal"?radek (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yes, they can and are. Translation is a "derivative work", and US law grants the original copyright holder the exclusive right to license these. Complicating matters further, since copyright protects creativity, even translation of a non-copyrighted work is itself copyrighted. Wikipedia can host direct translation of free foreign language works only if both the original and the translation are free for use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, this was basically my concern!radek (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Natchez silt loam

Thank you for your edit to Natchez silt loam re verbatim use of a PD source. A note has been added to the Soil Project talk page to alert folks that many articles within the project would benefit from similar treatment. :) --Paleorthid (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks for spreading the word. :) There may already be an attribution template that could further simplify it at Category:Attribution templates. I was in a bit of a hurry and so didn't check. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Another request

The latest discussion I'm in covers a lot of Wikipedia's policies. One issue brought up is the use of quotes and what "extensive" is, and if extensive quotes violate copyright. The discussion is here, and for reference the version of the article we're referring to is this one. The debate touches on many issues; I only ask you address the extensive quotes one, in relation to copyright (although I wouldn't turn down another opinion on the rest). Again, I won't be around for more than 20 hours, so take your time. Shubinator (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You find the most interesting situations. :) I'll come take a look in a few minutes, though I may hold off on commenting for a few hours. I've got a fasting blood test in a few hours, and if it's complicated, I may wait until I have some food & caffeine. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, even if the extensive quotes issue seems to have been shrugged off. Hopefully I won't find interesting situations at this rate much longer :) Shubinator (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

For your sake, I hope not. :D But feel free to drop by when you do. They make a nice mental break from my usual routine. Even if the contributor does not openly acknowledge the problem, as long as he doesn't repeat it, I think we're good. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. This debate seems to be wrapping up...we'll see. Shubinator (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Resoluiton to a situation

Hi, I feel that I need an administrator or some administrators to look at this conflict that I am having with another Wikipedia user. I got your name from here, where you intervened in a request for administrator. I posted at ANI very recently, here My Wikipedia ID is TX-30. I expressed specific issues that I was having with this other editor in the ANI complaint. I was expecting an administrator to comment after my post, but I have heard nothing. Anyway, the other user responded. However, his response does not address most of my concerns, nor does it answer the questions that I posted there. If you could read my complaint, look at the diffs in the complaint, and then read his response perhaps you could advise me or make some decision. Or, perhaps you know two or three other administrators, or users with a good amount of time and experience at Wikipedia, to look at this situation,ie, read my complaint and his response, and then advise me.

At this time, I do not see that he is willing to stop behavior that I consider to be, at the least, uncivil. Actually, to me his wiki-behavior could possibly result in edit wars and inappropriate communications back and forth (between him and I). I have refused to attack him personally. I decided on ANI instead to resolve the situation, before a bad situation develops. We haven't engaged in an edit war because I have avoided that situation so far. I noticed when researching for my complaint that he has gruffly chastised another user, as he did to me. But that is another user, not me, I can't get invloved in that one. And, besides that might be different circumstances. I bring this up because, well, that might be how he relates to other users. You can contact me at my user talk page, and refer me back to this talk page for your response. Thanks for your time Ti-30X (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you got no response. Something that happens, and I know how frustrating it is. I'll go take a look and see what input i may be able to offer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I've read over the entire conversation and all of the links you supplied. I can understand why, as a new contributor, you might be a bit taken aback by some of the exchanges, but I wonder if your response to some of them reflects a lack of familiarity with the Wikipedia environment. Signing unsigned comments, for example, as he did here is quite common. Some might say that the way he did it was unusually polite, since the standard way to supply a missing signature points out to everything that the signature was forgotten. I can understand why you might be flustered by some of his communications, but I can't really understand why you would regard that as negative, even though he did it unconventionally.

In addition to your lack of familiarity with the conventions by which contributors sign for those who've forgotten, I wonder if perhaps you've been misled into feeling offended by a belief that your conversation with the administrators who have been helping you is private. It is not. There is no such thing as a closed conversation on Wikipedia at any point, which means that he is free to comment on your conversations with any administrator so long as he observes our behavioral guidelines in doing so. (If you feel he is not, you should discuss it with him.) He would, for example, be well within his rights to join the conversation here, and I would welcome him if he did so.

And while it certainly isn't a good feeling for an article contributor to see that article nominated for deletion, any contributor may nominate material on Wikipedia for deletion if he or she feels it doesn't belong. It isn't personal; it all stems from the same desire as you have to improve the project. I have myself had material deleted, so I understand completely that it isn't pleasant. If he has nominated it in honest (even if mistaken) belief that it doesn't belong, though, it isn't an offense of Wikipedia's protocols.

I see that an administrator did respond to you, along with several others. User:Jayron32 is an administrator, and he is quite right that you can ask for help with formatting issues from other editors and that you should assume good faith from this other contributor. But I presume that the question you feel is unanswered is the indirectly voiced one that you feel he is somehow overreaching and that you feel harassed and uncomfortable. My advice to you on handling both of those points would be to review our dispute resolution policy. Everything begins with voicing your concerns politely to the other editor. If a matter involves a single article, you might want to do so on the article talk page. If it involves another contributor across several articles or if it is simply related to another user's behavior, you may do so at the contributor's talk page. Our guideline on assuming good faith advises that you consider the other user's words first from the position that he probably means well. If you do that, you might be able to better understand his position and to focus on the end goal: cooperating to build a better encyclopedia. Even if you disagree with him, if you can think of it as mutual effort to reach that end, you may be able to feel less personally uncomfortable. If you and any other editor cannot come to consensus on how something should be done, you can appeal to the wider community at appropriate places. This would not ordinarily involve administrator intervention unless you have already tried and exhausted other avenues, such as requesting a third opinion or asking assistance at a volunteer-based noticeboard like the wikiquette noticeboard. (Again, though, you should not even go there until you've talked first with the contributor about your problem.) If other contributors come in and agree with him, you should follow consensus. If other contributors come in and agree with you, he should do the same.

I hope that my response has in some way addressed your concerns. If not, please let me know, and I will try to clarify. However, I would like to be sure that I'm clear that Wikipedia's administrators only have special authority in limited circumstances. Usually, we are in no better position than the majority of experienced users in advising you how to interpret policies and guidelines, how to develop articles or how to deal with personal conflicts with other users. While Wikipedia does evaluate contributors before passing them to the administrator position, there are many, many experienced and knowledgeable Wikipedians out there who are not administrators simply because they have not wanted to be. Unless your interactions with another user rise to a point where "tools" may be required—for protecting a page or blocking a user, for instance—you should feel quite confident turning to the Wikipedia community at large for help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest opinion and your objective view. So, I should adopt the view that he means well, but probably communicates unconventionally. OK I can see that. Assuming good faith has come up more than once here. And although his communications have been brusque, I can see that it is more likely, he does have that "end goal" in mind of building a better encyclopedia. OK I can go with that. And, yes you have addressed my concerns, and "enlightened me" (so to speak) with a broader view of Wikipedia.

Thanks for responding quickly and thanks for looking into this so I could gain more perspective. Ti-30X (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I found the following hilarious links at the Wikipedia:Assume good faith page: Wikipedia:Assume good wraith (the part that says: "Don’t call it a “bringer of death,” a “possessor of darkness) and, (this opens with a really funny quote) Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. In addition, the second one has a long list of what newbies are sometimes thinking. Both very funny Ti-30X (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry, apparently, he did address my concerns and and I missed it. I guess I just wasn't open to it, before, for some reason. Geez! I don't know how I missed it. (slightly embarrassed).

OK, well, thanks again Moonriddengirl. Ti-30X (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good way to look at it, that he means well but communicates unconventionally. In the matter you linked above that drew you to approach me, I discussed that at length with the contributor here. I won't repeat myself, but if you're interested you can read that conversation. :) As I pointed out there, user essays (like the funny one you found at WP:AGF) are just evidence of how common this problem is. It's one of the major hurdles people seem to face in joining into Wikipedia. Good luck with your future editing, and I hope that the two of you are able to work together as it seems your interests must coincide. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to show you how things are working out between us. Take a look here. Ti-30X (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems well done of you. :) And reminds me of another Wikipedia essay: Wikipedia:Truce. Hope it continues to work out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention two things:First, I did read the dialogue at the link you left earlier, and that was good. (I will look at the link you just recently left BTW) Second, we started dialoguing on his talk page and mine (take a look) and cleared a lot of things up in a very short time, and only in a couple of paragraphs, hence, the star... It is true that our intrests coincide. Ti-30X (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one more thing - I actually was going to give him that star before the conflict broke out. But, when I got upset, I figured I would not be able to do that. Also, I just started to realize that I jumped over a few steps by going to ANI. I probably realize this by reading these articles and dialogues that you have linked for me. Ti-30X (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as the conflict is over and the two of you are working together, all is well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

What is your judgment of this edit? It's attributed (sort of) but it's awfully long...  Frank  |  talk  23:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) It's not a copyvio, since the source is PD by age, but it may overwhelm the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, geez...1862. You're right. Assuming the attribution is correct :-) Thanks.  Frank  |  talk  23:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no TB. :D It's a simple confusion and stuff like that is going to happen when checking many contributions. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What about Pearl, Mississippi?  Frank  |  talk  23:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a lengthy one! Let me take a look. By the way, are you working from the Contribution Surveyor subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup/Contributor_surveys#Allstarecho)? You don't have to, of course, but it is very handy in providing direct diffs to the contributor's text changes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely am. The diffs on this one look ok, and yet...the overall article is eerily similar. I suppose it's possible they copied from us.  Frank  |  talk  00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That program has been a massive time-saver. :) Yes, that needs to be repaired. Text in our article such as"

On January 6, 1969, a majority voted to approve the boundaries which consisted of the area from the Pearl River to Airport Road, excluding East Jackson, with only Cunningham Heights and Grandview Heights being including South of Interstate 20. Two other big questions were settled at that January 6 meeting. The first was the name of the city. A majority in attendance selected the name Pearl. Other names submitted and considered were Riverview and Brightsville.

remains much too close to the source:

A majority voted on January 6, 1969 to approve the boundaries which consisted of the area from the Pearl River to the Airport Road, excluding East Jackson, with only Cunningham Heights and Grandview Heights being including South of Interstate 20. At that same meeting, two other big questions were settled. One, the majority in attendance selected the name Pearl for the new City. Other names submitted and considered were “Riverview” and “Brightsville.”

Very definitely a "close paraphrase" at best. They didn't copy from us; internet archive search confirms they published in January 2007. He added it in September of that year. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead on.  Frank  |  talk  00:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

All right. I'll take that one on. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've revised that section, including the opening paragraph. I haven't checked all contribs by that editor to that article, but that section is clean. I'm out of time now, though. I'll have to pick it back up tomorrow, after I finish the fresh batch of copyvios and take care of any other fires that might have come up. (Though I'll be taking a look at my watchlist and talk page, as always, before shutting my computer down in a few hours. :)) (By the way, if you want to do some easy ones, I suggest page 3. They're likely to mostly not be infringement, since they will be smaller edits. They have to be checked per Jimbo's "check every edit" mandate, but they usually go pretty fast.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Southwest Mississippi Community College

Would you have any problems with me recreating the page as a stub and adding the problem templates (references, etc) to the page? I think it is a notable school, just the way it was done previously wasn't going to work, obviously. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I have no problems with that whatsoever. :) Would you like me to pull the non-GFDL infringing elements out of the deleted version? (Unless, of course, you're an admin and can easily retrieve them yourself. I lose track.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not an admin....but if you have the time it would be great to remove the copyvio'd information and get the page back up and running. I will do my best to get some references on the page as well since I do believe it had a references tag on it. If you would like me to start the page over as a stub, that works as well :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'll bring up the non-GFDL infringing elements and mark it "under construction" on your behalf. I agree that it's certainly a notable school. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I do appreciate it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's up. Since I couldn't quite put it up with no text at all (since it would be speedied), I did add an introductory sentence. Feel free to expand it or, if you wish, simply remove the "under construction" and tag for improvement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I updated the page with a completely rewritten history section. I would like to get your opinion on it, please see here. I referenced the page, but it is nowhere near the what was previously there. I also added an infobox (not alot of information, but that can be added) and a logo with proper F-UR. Please let me know if you feel further improvements are needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, with plenty of room for interested contributors to expand as needed. Thanks for filling the gap. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Let me know if you need help with other pages elsewhere in the cleanup :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to pitch in. :) As I was saying in the section above, most of the material in the last page of the evaluation should be clear, so they can usually be quickly evaluated. The main investigation listing is here; instructions are in the first subpage. This procedure has worked for us pretty well in the past. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Jamarca Sanford

Jamarca Sanford looks pretty similar to [6]; it's attributed but the text is still largely word-for-word, and it's also the main source for the entire article. Your opinion?  Frank  |  talk  03:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Before I even look, I'll tell you my general approach. (You may or may not have noticed that I handle WP:CP pretty routinely.) In line with WP:C, I follow "If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." The difference is that when taking looks to be small enough to be de minimis or when a paraphrase may legally cross the line or may not, I use an edit summary that says "Revising to separate from source" rather than one that describes it as infringement. My general approach explained, I'll go look at it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's infringement. One example, from the article: "In 2008, Sanford received the 2008 Chucky Mullins Courage Award and wore a number "38" patch on his jersey during his senior season to honor the late Chucky Mullins, whose Ole Miss career as a defensive back came to an end in 1989 when he was paralyzed in a game against Vanderbilt." From the source: "Received the 2008 Chucky Mullins Courage Award and is wearing a "38" patch on his jersey during his senior season to honor the late Chucky Mullins, whose Ole Miss career as a defensive back came to an end in 1989 when he was paralyzed in a game against Vanderbilt." Some of the replicating of facts is okay, but replication of language is not. I'll generally revise. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I have done a general revision. By the way, let me note that copyright process recommends restoring the last clean version before infringement if infringement is not foundational: from the instructions at WP:CP, "Revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can". That means technically if infringement is located, we are advised to simply revert this contributor's edits to the article. Contributions by User:GrahamBould, the first major project for WP:COPYCLEAN, have been completely effaced. Revision is a courtesy to the project, one I undertake because I hate to see collateral damage inflicted by copyright violation. But some collateral damage is probably unavoidable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rhythm Night Club fire

Rhythm Night Club fire; [7]. Identical text; not sure about the chicken-and-the-egg thing.  Frank  |  talk  03:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, before even looking, here's my usual approach: if the "internet archives" can't help us out and if we aren't dealing with a known mirror and there are not strong context clues (look for the inclusion of language that was not placed by this contributor as well as text that was), we must, in these cases, presume our infringement in order to demonstrate due diligence if we are ever faced with legal issues over this contributor's violation of US law on Wikipedia. We know that some external sites might copy Wikipedia; we know that this contributor does copy external sites. When there is no deciding evidence, Occam's razor gets the final word. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

First context clue: the external website has a date of 2008. The material was placed on Wikipedia in 2009. In this case, though, that clue is misleading. What we have here is another GFDL violation, a copy & paste move, where this contributor pasted text from the original article without giving credit. (It was the redirect in the history that solved this one.) Examining the history of the other article makes clear that Wikipedia had the text first, since it evolved towards the external version rather than away. This is the second of these I've seen. I'll repair it by deleting the vio & moving the original. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have rendered my link useless. :) But it's in the deleted history, if you want to see. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ole Miss Rebels football

This one is a mess. It appears to borrow heavily from olemisssports.com, as several copyvios already have, but its only attribution is in the infobox for number of championships won. The majority of the Vaught, Kinard, Cooper, Sloan, and Brewer sections are directly copied. I didn't check further than that. There is so much in this article that I'm not sure how to proceed.  Frank  |  talk  14:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have confirmed violation but do not have time or resources right now to clean it, please just tag it {{copyvio}}, noting the source or several of the more prominent sources in the tag, and listing it at WP:CP. You might put a note at the talk page indicating diffs that brought the problem into the article. Sometimes, I will ask a WikiProject to help with revision when an article seems important to it. Sadly, I am finding the football articles a struggle myself, as I have no particular familiarity (and zero interest) in the sport. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Mississippi Governor's Mansion

This has quite a chunk lifted from http://mdah.state.ms.us/museum/mansion.html Is text from US state websites in the public domain? The site does say the images are copyright, but doesn't say anything about the text. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh Do you have an easier one? :) Text from US state websites is by no means automatically in the public domain. Some historical records websites are public domain, but we need to verify that this one is before we can presume it's safe to use. I'll ask User:Jayvdb, since he's quite the wiz with this kind of thing. If he doesn't respond quickly, I'll blank pending verification of permission. The website notes, "The user must assume responsibility for compliance with federal copyright law (Title 17, United States Code) or any other issues involved in the use of the item(s) listed." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebels

Regarding this edit, did you check the article? I'm not sure about the "noted at new location" summary.  Frank  |  talk  19:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I made one note at the new article (btw, invited the college football wikiproject to help with that one; let's hope!) and removed a bit directly from there. I didn't see anything else, although I always worry I'll overlook something. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, have I mentioned lately (or at all) that your help in evaluating these is enormously appreciated? If not, please let me remedy that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; we're here for the same reason. :-)  Frank  |  talk  19:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "new article" is that you're referring to, though.  Frank  |  talk  19:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Material from that article was split into several others. In this case, the new article isn't at all new, but Ole Miss Rebels football, already tagged. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. That makes sense.  Frank  |  talk  19:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

On another note...

...I've managed to find time to expand Ed Bass sufficiently that it could be included in WP:DYK...if only I could think of a hook. Fascinating guy who is fairly media-shy. Care to take a look?  Frank  |  talk  23:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure! I'm really bad at coming up with DYK hooks, but I'll take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

He is interesting. What about: ...that in 1984, billionaire Ed Bass invested $30 million into a project in Arizona, Biosphere 2, intended to experiment with "recreating the earth" and potentially settle Mars? I would read that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, good idea. How about: ...that in 1984, Fort Worth billionaire Ed Bass committed $30 million to (and eventually spent over $150 million on) Biosphere 2, to experiment with "recreating the earth" and potentially settling Mars?  Frank  |  talk  23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Go for it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.  Frank  |  talk  00:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues

If there's anything I can do to help out with the Allstarecho situation please let me know. I'd like to go through and look for copyvios but I don't want to be duplicating work. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. We can use more help at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup/Contributor_surveys#Allstarecho. Since we're removing listings as they're checked, there's little chance of duplicating efforts. I myself usually work in the bottom section in the belief that others are likely to be working on the top. :) I suspect that the later subpages will be quick, since there's less likely to be problem there. I see somebody's been plugging away at page 3. If you feel like helping out,t hat would be great. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy Moonriddengirl's Day!

Moonriddengirl has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Moonriddengirl's day! For your outstanding contributions in enforcing copyright, enjoy being the Star of the day, Moonriddengirl! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 23:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC) If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

Thank you very much! I could use a day. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And a cookie? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

J.delanoy has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

LOL! Awesome! Something to do with my day. Mmm. Cookies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And cookies and days are not nearly enough to honor all your great work here! Regards SoWhy 06:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and back at you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Images again

Before I go further, could you take a look at the images contributed by Bigen182 (talk · contribs) and see if you find anything suspicious about the fact that they tend to have either an url or a copyright mark on them but he says he created them himself? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The question itself is all kinds of red-flaggy. :) As you know, images are not my main focus, but I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, now I'll look. First, I removed some disruptive talk page material and addressed a text vio. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I know they're not your main focus, but I wanted to see if you thought I'd be wasting my time. I see evidently not. :-). No surprise, I think we have a bit of a problem here with this editor. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And looking at his talk page, I see he was already told last month about that copyright material, but he simply replaced it. And another comment about one of his images. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are definitely not wasting your time. :) The "created myself" bit is obviously utter nonsense, given File:Ramlimbu.jpg and File:Kirat-man-typical.jpg. Some of this material may be PD by age, but it's not plausible that he is the photographer. File:Ti ongsi sirijunga.JPG comes from [8] and is marked "Copyright ©2000 - 2006 Sikkimonline.info". We need verification of permission to use that. We also need verification of permission to use material from britishempire.co.uk, which is listed as a source of some and included in the metadata of others (see File:10thgurkhaslimbu.jpg). Meanwhile, we have File:Traditional limbuni.jpg from a whole other site. We need verification of permission from anything that declares a domain or is verifiably replicated online, unless we can be sure it's PD. Given his history, I'd consider bundling almost anything suspect at WP:PUI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd asked this last night -- he has his own copyright on some of the images he's uploaded, what are the implications of that? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) If they're previously published, we need proof that he's who he says he is. Even if they're not, and you have reason to believe that they're his (because they weren't taken in 1945, say :)), an embedded indicator of copyright is not appropriate. From Wikipedia:Image use policy: "Also, user-created images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page. These may be tagged {{Watermark}}." To place the image on Wikipedia, he must release it under compatible license. He can't make any efforts to bypass that by implying more reservation of rights than Wikipedia permits. If he can't replace them with non-watermarked, I'd consider WP:FfD, and if you think they may not be his to begin with, WP:PUI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd drop this one at PUI. Looks like a book scan to me. I can't recognize that uniform well enough to guess if it was taken in a range to make it clearly PD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you need a hand?

I see you have a problem with a lot of copyvio deletions/reverts to be done. I am new here, but I am not new to copy editing or to keeping a large web-site clean. As a break from two articles I am working on, I'd be happy to do some bulk cleaning for you (don't give me the user with 3 years' worth though, to start with).KoolerStill (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Hi. Welcome. :) We can absolutely use a hand in all kinds of ways. :) Why don't you amble over to WP:COPYCLEAN and see if any of that outstanding work appeals to you? We have several contributor investigations going on (you don't have to evaluate all three years; even a few articles would be good :D), and there is always backlog in the various copyright fora. Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations is currently quite long, for instance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This is not easy. I looked at User:Mgreason's Talk page, and I can see that he can't see what's wrong with the huge amount of work he's putting in. My concern about the articles I've looked at so far is that they contain almost no internal references, and read like advertising brochures. But I have not been able to find where he copied them from. (They would need work on style and encyclopedic grounds alone).

It is surprising how many other sites have copied them, too, and only some attribute it to WP at all, and only some of those mention a licence. Is THAT legal? (I come from a site that is always being scraped).

I am afraid to go to Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violationsfor fear I would only make additions to the workload there. - KoolerStill (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not legal for a site to copy Wikipedia's articles without crediting all the authors. (This is usually done by linking back to the Wikipedia article itself.) But pages do it. It's especially hard to tell for blog entries. Thanks for helping out! – Quadell ^(talk) 16:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What User:Quadell said. :) It takes some practice to learn to recognize copyvios. I usually manually put small distinctive strings of text into google and find out what comes up. I've become very familiar with the usual sites that copy Wikipedia, which makes my job a lot easier. There are always new ones, but the majority I recognize by domain name. If you'd still like to help out with copyright issues and don't feel comfortable matching up text strings, you might find other ideas at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/How to clean copyright infringements. There's always image issues. There's also the backlog at Category:Copyright examinations, which so far as I know has not been cleared out in months. Suggestions for handling those are all at the "How to" page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, it's the string searches that led me to the illegal copies (one's in China). But the editor's been paraphrasing, so it's harder. I'll do more tomorrow, it's gone 4 am here now. - KoolerStill (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

fixed up

Hi can you please clear these articles from Copyright problems:
Talk:Battle of Vidattaltivu/Temp
Talk:Battle of Paranthan/Temp
Talk:Vira Narendra Sinha of Sri Lanka/Temp
Talk:Battle of Chalai/Temp

Thanks --Blackknight12 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to take a look. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Chalai/Temp is still a problem I've explained why at your talkpage. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixing copyvios

Hey Moon. (Can I call you Moon?) I was looking through User:Moonriddengirl/Contribution check Martim33 and decided to check Presidential Palace, Warsaw. After looking at this diff and doing a Google search, I decided it was a copyvio, but then I saw that you had already listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 June 5. I decided to fix it, but I'm not a specialist in article copyvios, so I'm not sure I followed correct procedure. I made this edit, removing both the violation and the template, and I left this note. Was that kosher? Should I have left the template in place? Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 23:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You absolutely may call me Moon. :) I'm sorry I didn't remove that one! I hate that you had to duplicate the effort. Both alterations and note are perfectly kosher. Since I am often the one who closes these as an admin, I usually list them for the full 7+1 to give other contributors an opportunity to revise. I am more inclined to revise as I go when doing a multiple article check, since it's more difficult for the contributor in that case to address them him or herself. I wonder if that was one of the ones that led me to request the contrib check in the first place. I usually identity five to ten clear vios before doing that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I call you Moon too? Anyway, I've fixed Jerzy Siemiginowski-Eleuter from this list [9] that Piotrus alerted me about. Would it be ok if I leave comments at that page as I go through some of these articles - check them off as I did with the other work?radek (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with Moon. And also Moonie. And MRG. :) And thanks! Do you mean place comments as to issues found at the article page or at the contribution check subpage? If the former, it's better if we can clean as we go, although if there's a complex one, you can certainly tag it. If the latter, you can make notes if you want to, but we usually just remove when addressed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

coyright Nancy Byrd Turner

thanks for the catch. i reworded again, i will bet you dollars to donuts that the verbiage "copyrighted" by Virginia Tech was lifted from the "To Honor Nancy Byrd Turner, a Poet Laureate of Virginia" by Beverly Carper Powley - drafts and published copy 1988 in the file. i appreciated your bending over backwards to protect wiki.

however, it's unclear to me the process for using works after 1922 and before 1964 that have not had a renewed copyright? if i were to go to the loc copyright office [10], would a negative search suffice? what evidence?

this banning links to "known copyright abusers" per "contributory infringement" is troubling. it would appear to be guilt until proved innocent. now we are made the enforcer. links to legimate sources such as the Poetry Foundation, or the average blog, look just the same.

i would appreciate any help. pohick - (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I wouldn't be surprised. It's not uncommon that text we find duplicated in other sites is itself taken from something else or even that both the Wikipedia article and the source which it closely follows (and in some articles completely duplicated) are copied from something else entirely. In those cases, the fact that any other site published the text before Wikipedia is just evidence that we didn't have it first. The burden is on us in reusing to prove that it is free for reuse.

Proving lapsed copyright is a pain in the neck. There are several Wikipedia contributors who are gifted with this, and I will sometimes ask them for help. Whether a negative search would be sufficient I can't say. I haven't encountered the question before personally; if I did, I would bring it up for review, since it is a matter of policy. However, I tend to suspect that the Wikipedia approach would be that if it can't be verified as public domain, it can't be used. Key here is the policy note that reads:

Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble.

In other words, we err on the side of caution in order to protect the project. There's been a lot more attention paid to that question at our sister project Wikisource, since rewriting content there is not appropriate in any circumstances and so they must use verbatim material if they are to use it at all. I am not active in that project, but from what I understand it is occasionally a subject of debate.

Your last note I gather is in reference to WP:LINKVIO? I was not here for the creation of that policy point, but I gather the goal is to avoid charges of contributory infringement which can legitimately result from knowingly directing others to copyright infringement. For example, if we had happened to know where to find a bootlegged copy of X-Men Origins: Wolverine when it was leaked and had linked to it, we would have been helping to disseminate illegal property. As one of the most popular websites in the world, we could conceivably have led to quite a bit more illegal accessing of that material, which would probably have been frowned upon by the copyright holders. :)

The Wikimedia Foundation takes a more conservative stance on copyright than legally required. DMCA would allow us to require notification by the copyright holder or his/her legal agents. The Wikimedia Foundation has chosen to more proactively address this issue, which is probably wise since our right to shelter under DMCA has been challenged (in the press, though I do not know about the courts) in the past. If it is ever legally determined that Wikipedia is a publisher rather than a service provider, as some have asserted, then we would be legally responsible if we had not exercised due diligence in investigating and eradicating copyright concerns, including contributory infringement by knowingly or negligently linking to copyright infringers. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

General announcement regarding plagiarism and copyvios

Heya. It is difficult to tell when trends come and go on Wikipedia and what is actually a policy shift that will remain enforced. I'm contacting you because you seem to be the force behind ferreting out plagiarism, a job which I commend you for doing. I don't think there is any room on Wikipedia for plagiarized material.

However, I am taken aback that User:Allstarecho has been indefinitely blocked. I think enforcing plagiarism is a good thing. I can recall multiple threads at ANI about a user named Carol Spears (username spelled like this, but I can't quite remember the actual one) who blatantly and unapoligetically plagiarized material into articles about birds and fungi. A couple years ago, admins were confused and not in agreement about Carol Spears. A lot of discussion, hemming and hawing, and general confusion about the importance of ridding plagiarism from Wikipedia.

With ASE I hope not being used as an example, it might be the right time to post a general announcement on the consequences of posting copyvios into articles. Not just in the WP:Plagiarism page, but at the top of every page per when editors are called on to vote for something. Leave it there for a month. Perhaps placing a clearer statement below the editing box that reads "Content that violates any copyright, or is plagiarized from another published source, will be deleted and you may be blocked for doing this repeatedly." --Moni3 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Plagiarism and copyright are very different things. While I have taken part in the plagiarism guideline and in the signpost article, I'm actually not involved in ferreting out plagiarism (except when people drop by to ask my opinion), but copyright infringement. The former is a moral problem; the latter, a legal one that has been against policy and a blockable offense since far before I got here. There have been a number of conversations about how the text below the editing window could be rewritten to make copyright policy more transparent, but I haven't seen any actual progress in finding new wording. It does, though, directly link to WP:C, which since 2002 has explicitly carried a block advisory. (in 2002, it read, "In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users maybe blocked from editing to protect the project." It hasn't changed much since. Currently, it reads, "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems.") This is not a change to policy, but long established. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Greetings, Moni. I'm a talkpage stalker here, so I thought I'd jump in. You probably already know this, but in ASE's case, he imported copyright violations while at the same time chastising other users for doing the same thing, so he fully understood our policy. When Moon discovered the problem and politely brought it to ASE's attention, he was extremely incivil, for which he refuses to apologize. ASE is not under a punitive ban, however; he has been told several times that he is welcome to return if he acknowledges what he did wrong and promises not to do it again, but so far he's only been interested in blaming other people and making highly misleading statements about his widespread infringing contibutions. But if ASE (or anyone else blocked for violations) wants to contribute usefully and will promise not to upload any more copyvios, they'll likely be unblocked, although their edits would certainly be more highly scrutinized than most.

Also, Moon may disagree with me here, but I'll note that every time you edit any page, you are shown (in large text, bolded): "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." That's pretty unambiguous, even if doesn't specifically mention blocks. It also says "See our policies and guidelines for more information on editing," and our copyright policy says "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia... Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems." (Emphasis is original.) We could make it even more explicit, I suppose, but in my experience, long boilerplate templates are completely ignored by those they're designed for, and they tend to needlessly scare away the well-intentioned who actually read it. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm comparing the attitude toward copyvio and non-free images. Non-free images are all over Wikipedia with poor fair use rationales. It seems like triage at times: anything to keep an image in an article even if it should not be there. Only when articles are under a lot of scrutiny do editors actually question why non-free images are in the article. It seems like vigilance over copyvio text is now being enforced at a much higher standard, and I am not complaining about that. It should have been from the start. However, copyvio, like non-free images, may be endemic to the entire site. I'm proposing that a statement announcing this shift be prominent where all editors can see it when they make edits, not when they click on links eventually to get them to a particular wikipolicy. The text underneath the edit box says that edits will be deleted. It does not say that editors may be blocked for doing this. I think that needs to be made clear very close to the "save page" button. A further statement about blocking editors who abuse copyvio I think should be linked at the top of all Wiki pages per a "vote on this issue" note for at least a month. I think plagiarizing should be included, but that's my opinion and I know others don't share it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I think I must have misunderstood your "at the top of every page per when editors are called on to vote for something" note. I thought you were calling for a vote evaluating the blocking policy on copyright infringers. I didn't realize that, too, was related to publicizing policy. Thanks for patiently re-explaining. :) I am all for anything that spreads education about copyright concerns, particularly since we have contributors from all over the world, many of whom have good reason not to understand US copyright law. I don't know if the public at large (that is to say, the Wikipedia editing community) would embrace the idea of making it so prominent. If you have an idea for how to spread education (even that one) and decide to promote it at VPP or some other forum, please let me know. (I don't think it's canvassing if I'm asking. :)) You might also want to bring up your ideas at WP:COPYCLEAN, though I'm afraid that still has a relatively limited viewership.

I think it's probably a better approach to separate out plagiarism and copyvio. There are contributors who don't think copyvio is cause for concern, much less plagiarism. I'm afraid if we bundle the idea of publicizing them, those who might support publicizing copyvio issues but not plagiarism may join those who already think that Wikipedia should be as liberal in its content allowances as some blog sites in preventing any publicity. One of the reasons why I do try to confine my attention to copyvio and not plagiarism is to help avoid conflating the two, since quite a few contributors think that if it's free it doesn't matter, and I find it easiest to avoid watering down prohibitions on non-free by focusing on what policy already excludes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Moni3, I wanted to comment on User talk:Allstarecho when you posted there but couldn't quite figure out the right words. After some thought and this new thread, which I hope will not turn into a dramafest, I think I can come up with some succinct thoughts on the matter:

• The indef block was the result of a combination of ASE's long-term pattern of copyright violations and repeated insistence to the contrary. That insistence continues. If you have not followed his talk page, please do so, edit-by-painful-edit. Note his careful removal (without archiving) of copyright violation notices; I restored a couple of them here.
• I can't stress enough how many times and in how many ways ASE has been complimented and supported, and how many editors have asked him to acknowledge and commit to the view of the community and the law on this matter. He has refused to do so.
• A very large amount of good faith has been extended; I have been just one editor who has been involved in this. The discussion I've had with him has been patient and consistent. Alas, he's just not getting it.
• ASE has, at nearly every turn, tried to claim that an edit isn't copyright violation, or that it is but it's not his so it doesn't matter. This is plainly unacceptable.
• Your comment about comparing copyvio and non-free images seems to me rather like WP:OSE. It is also an artificial construct in this case because ASE hasn't made any claim along these lines, and they are beside the point. ASE is fully aware of copyright policy and has notified others. Also, while I can't place my fingers on the diff right now, this problem occurred more than 12 months ago (and was similarly not archive in his talk archives). I suppose this may get to the point where such diffs will be required...maybe Moonriddengirl has it.

The thought of using ASE as an example, or whether or not site notices are sufficient, among others, are beside the point of ASE's block. The plain facts of the matter are that he has repeatedly violated policy, has been repeatedly warned about same, has repeatedly warned others about the same offense, has repeatedly denied his edits violate policy, and has repeatedly refused to acknowledge his violation of policy. For those reasons he was initially blocked, and as the extent became known further, re-blocked with an adjusted comment to reflect the seriousness, duration, and complexity of the violations. Although he believes otherwise, his indef block has nothing to do with his belligerence, personal attacks, and disruptive editing, nearly all of which occurred after the initial indef block and, while unacceptable, are quite beside the point.

ASE's block is to protect the project, plain and simple. Until and unless he demonstrates detailed knowledge of what his violations were, and a firm, demonstrable commitment to avoiding them in the future, I don't see a way he could be unblocked with community support. We just can't have copyright violations going unanswered; the project would be shut down.  Frank  |  talk  15:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No drama intended. I am saying that copyvio is probably widespread and culturally endemic to Wikipedia. To break the community from thinking this is the way things should be, I am suggesting making it painfully clear that repeated copyvio edits may get users blocked. That's not very clear to newbies or even editors who don't focus on the points made at various Wikipolicy pages. --Moni3 (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should make this painfully clear. I don't think anyone would block someone for uploading copyvios unless they were told about the problem and asked to stop, but continued to do so anyway. And even then, they're only blocked until they admit the problem and resolve to change. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

ASE was specifically warned at least as long ago as September 2007 by bot and by fellow editor. You can see his resistance to the idea even then, in his response and in his summary-less revert. Mere weeks later, User:CorenSearchBot found another copyvio which was also reverted by ASE. However clear or not clear it may be to newbs, ASE is clear on copyvio and has been for a long time. He's even warned others and fixed others. He's also aware of WP:CITE, shown by this edit summary, and proper attribution. You get the idea. (NOTE: none of the diffs posted in this paragraph is any newer than 15 months.)  Frank  |  talk  17:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have either deleted or nominated for deletion many thousands of images over the past month that violate our policy. Me and the other volunteers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media are really trying to stay on top of that situation. I heavily monitor Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, Wikipedia:Files for deletion, and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files, weeding out infringements and helping new users to understand what's acceptable and what's not. I flatly don't agree that "Only when articles are under a lot of scrutiny do editors actually question why non-free images are in the article." It's a serious problem, yes, but several editors are expending a ton of energy to make sure our non-free content criteria are strictly enforced, and serial offenders are routinely blocked. So please don't think we turn a blind eye to that sort of thing. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

DSDM entry

Hi Moonriddengirl. I wonder if you could help please. Please forgive my lack of protocol or any clumsiness. I am new to this and just learning. I am trying to correct the entry for DSDM on behalf of the DSDM Consortium who own copyright of the DSDM approach but are happy to put content into open use. I am authorised by the DSDM Consortium to do this. Our content is at www.dsdm.org which is a uk site, so content is verifiable here. The current entry is an old, out of date version of the approach. The new, much better, DSDM Atern version is what we want to replace it with. My colleagues have tried, but the content has reverted to the old version. What can I do, please, to bring this up to date? Many thanks for your help MagiciansNephew (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. :) There are basically two issues to deal with here. The first is the legal one. Your website is marked "Copyright © 2009 SPOCE Project Management Limited - E & OE, All rights reserved." Wikipedia lacks any method to verify identity on registration, which means that we must have external authorization to accept previously published text. In order for us to use this material, we have to verify that is co-licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. The procedures for giving external authorization can be found at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted material. The quicker method is to release the text at your website. If you don't wish to do that, you can e-mail the Foundation, which process is reasonably quick. Usually takes several days. Please watch your e-mail for response, in that case, as you will be requested to clarify any concerns with the licensing. I think many people do not notice the request because the software system bottom loads responses. You'll get the words "Thank you for your e-mail", followed by your entire response, and then any direct communication.

The second concern here is your involvement with the company. It's not against policy for you and your colleagues to contribute to the article, but it is viewed by the Wikipedia community with extreme suspicion and it is discouraged. What is forbidden by policy is placing non-neutral text that can't be verified to be true even if you personally know or believe it to be true. (Not sure how familiar you are with the Wiki-way, so please note the policies tucked behind the colored text. :)) The general guidelines on contributing to articles with which you are involved can be found at WP:COI. You might also want to read our FAQ for organizations.

If I were in your position and the company wanted to donate text from its website, I would first propose the text at the article's talk page. (Somewhat tricky because you can't put it on Wikipedia until you've verified permission, but you can certainly link to the site and say, "This is what we want to place here.") I would then open a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard explaining who you are and requesting feedback. Volunteers there and any regular contributors to the article may be able to help you make sure that the material you place is appropriate and has consensus so that it won't just keep getting wiped out.

Hope this helps, and please let me know if I can clarify any of this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your prompt and helpful reply. I'll try the WP:COIN notice board. DSDM is a not for profit group and we're all just interested volunteers, so hope we'll be seen as doing this in good faith (which we genuinely are). Not quite sure why SPOCE (who I know and am on good terms with, and are a commercial company) are credited with copyright but am sure we can sort it out if I can communicate with the right people. Thanks againMagiciansNephew (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A turnip for the books?

Take a look at my edits at The Rough Wooing where I found most of it was copyvio from My wound is deep: a history of the later Anglo-Scots wars 1380-1560 By Raymond Campbell Paterson. I was going to delete it back to a stub, and probably will, but look who wrote most of it! Rcpaterson (talk · contribs). If it really is him, and he had the copyright personally, then? And what of his other contributions? Eg, Battle of Stanhope Park has stuff from another book of his [11]. I'm off to bed now. By the way, the guy with the images, I've found one on a web page and emailed the webmaster. Dougweller (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Turnip? Um. :) That could be a sad situation, because we have to verify the donation in order to use it, and if he's gone, that might be hard to do. I've done an OTRS search for his username and the author's name just in case clearance was provided a long time ago, and I can't find anything. He says he won't reply to notes on his message page, but he is e-mail enabled. I will write him to see if in spite of leaving Wikipedia he is willing to help. Meanwhile, you might want to talk to the Military History wikiproject about it. Those guys were stellar in working on User:GrahamBould's contributions to military history articles, and I bet you dollars to donuts that they would help rewrite this material to keep the articles from suffering too much for text removal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with cleanup problem?

I've checked and put some tags and explanations on Duval County Courthouse from the User:Mgreason cleanup. Where do I go from here? Another one I was able to clear the copied sections from, but this one has two possible sources for the copying, one may not be a copyvio, and I can't tell which it was copied from. - KoolerStill (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. For Wikipedia's purposes it seldom matters which source was first, unless it was Wikipedia. :) If at least one of the sources predates us, then we know it didn't come from us. The question then becomes whether or not the material is copyrighted.

Obviously, if it says it is, we can often assume it is. (There are, unfortunately, some exceptions to complicate this. For example, evidently Florida's courts have determined that official Floridian public records are also public domain...but Florida either doesn't agree or doesn't want us to know this and puts a "Copyright ©year State of Florida" on pretty much every page. (I've been advised that Wikipedia has no official stance on this matter, and I'm staying out of it if at all possible.) Too, sometimes websites will publish material they've taken from other sources and try to establish squatter's rights on it by asserting their own copyright. But in that case, unless we can prove that the material is public domain, we can't use it anyway, so it doesn't matter who owns it.) If it doesn't say it's copyrighted, we look for an official licensing disclaimer either on the page itself or on an "about" page for the website or a "policy" or some such page for the site. You may have to poke for a bit, and you may never find one. If you don't, we presume the text is copyrighted, unless we can verify that it is public domain for some reason: say it's an excerpt from a book first published in the US in 1888. Love those. No brainer. (Book published in the US in 1924: it's a headache since it isn't automatically PD but could be.) Originally published by the US government, PD. There's some guidance both at WP:C and at Wikipedia:Public domain.

This source? I need to check. It seems to be an official Florida website. I believe based on context clues that it was written by a Floridian judge. Is it a "public record" which state law defines as:[12]

“ All documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency. ”

Quadell says "Did I hear my name?"

Seems it would depend on whether it was made "in connection with official business" (see same source). User:Quadell, if you're watching, do you have an opinion on that? Or should I just haul it off to WT:C?

If it is copyrighted (or if we can't reasonably assert that it isn't), then we would ordinarily either removed/rewrite the text with {{uw-copyvio}} advisory to the original contributor or, if the text is extensive, blank the article or section with {{copyvio}} and follow the directions for further handling there. In this case, it would be better just to revise it. This particular contributor has been extensively mentored on copyright material and does not need the templated advisory. Since I believe he now is quite familiar with copyright policy and how to handle copyrighted material, I would simply clean the article and move on. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, okay, this one's chewy. Similar points to the ones you made above were also made in the {{PD-FLGov}} template (although designed for images), and you are correct in concluding that the case rests on whether the descriptions by Judges Kaylor, Anton, and/or Raiden are "public records". I see two possibilities. One is that these are public records; the other is that these judges are using a public website to hold private content. I'd be inclined to conclude that they're public records, but I wouldn't want to go to court against a judge if she claimed copyright! Perhaps the best thing to do would be to call or e-mail FL-10 and ask them: are those courthouse descriptions "public records" which are ineligible for copyright, or are they private works, made without any connection to official business? They're lawyers and judges, so I think they'd have a better chance of understanding the question than your average receptionist would. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Never, ever easy, is it? :/ I'll see what I can do via e-mail. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All this ^^^ is why editors just help themselves instead of checking. It's no big deal to rewrite some of that article, but I'll hold off in the hope it turns out to be public domain. Thanks to all. - KoolerStill (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico

On June 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Batu Hijau

I think it is ready, I would appreciate the second set of eyes if you don't mind. Or it can wait until Bongo gets done with his "real life" (whatever that means). Much appreciated. --kelapstick (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to take a look a little later today. I am here on borrowed time at the moment. :) Must run! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Checked. Looks good. Mainspaced. Thanks! :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(after e/c)Hey thanks for checking it out, and moving it over for me. Greatly appreciated. I'm on my way out the door now, but thanks again. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I hold out hope that you will revise the other one as well. :) I have no familiarity with this subject at all. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I am not on my way out yet...I will be getting to it once I get some time, probably not tomorrow, but hopefully this week. But I have saved the code if it has been around too long. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that feeling. :D (Almost...gone....) We can keep it around a few days longer if it would be helpful to you. If not, we can delete it and you can just create a new in that space. Which would best help you create a new version? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiya MRG, Just letting you know that I found the offline sources that I was looking for in a large stack of magazines/newspapers (woohoo), I am starting to work on it at User:Kelapstick/Cortez Gold Mine, but am not sure how quickly it will get up and done, cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad you found 'em. :) No worries about the time. If it takes more than a few more days, I'll go ahead and delete the existing version, and you can put the new one in place when it's ready. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

←I had more time than I had thought (the joy of AutoCAD's sloooooooooow processing power). Anyway User:Kelapstick/Cortez Gold Mine is good to go (so far as I can tell), I know you don't have access to the offline refs...but...anyway if you find it suitable would you please delete Cortez Gold Mine and either move it there (or I will). Cheers and Thanks again.--kelapstick (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You've probably noticed that it's up and running. :) Very well done! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

another question

Sorry to bug you again - it just seems like you're the expert here. Is text taken verbatim from sources (large chunks of it) always a copyvio? Including text from websites of nonprofit companies? Thank you!radek (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to ask. If I don't know, I can generally find out. :) In this case, that would be a no (it isn't always a copyvio) and a yes (text from non-profit companies can be). :) The deciding factor isn't whether the company is nonprofit, but whether the text is public domain or freely licensed. Take the Children's Miracle Network; their website says "© 2009 Children's Miracle Network". We can't use their text without verifying permission the same way we would from a for-profit organization. Even if Children's Miracle Network did not have the copyright symbol, though, copyright protection is automatic in the US, and so we would have to assume the material is copyright protected unless there is an explicit disclaimer of copyright or we can prove that the material is not protected (for example, a website can't claim copyright protection on the King James Bible, because of its age. But it can protect its own, unique modernized version of that. Works of the United States government are never copyrighted. Works of US state governments may be. Many governments around the world also protect their work.) It can be complicated, checking the status of identified pastes, but when it comes down to it, the adage "when in doubt, leave it out" works well with WP:C's exhortation to "If in doubt, write the content yourself". We always presume that large chunks of text taken verbatim from other sources is a copyvio unless we can prove it isn't. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that pretty much answers it.radek (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

George A. Hamid

It is a subject of merit, but now I understand much better the issue about re-editing material in regards to copyrighted material. I restarted the page and encourage development. (still learning thanks...and also trying to master knowledge about proper use of photo images and copyright) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretzelfactory (talk • contribs) 10:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hogi Yogi

Do as you need to. This way only the second time I have used the {{Copyvio}} tag, so thanks for the heads up on the proper usage. --Jeremy (blah blah) 19:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Martim33

If you could list the articles tagged with copyvio due to his edits at WP:PWNB, we could start working on them more easily. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't have time to go back and make a separate list, particularly given the extensiveness of the investigation (see the history at User:Moonriddengirl/Contribution check Martim33), but if it is helpful to you, an edit summary there of "+" indicates infringement was detected. Some of this was very minor and could easily be addressed as advised at WP:CP on the spot, as with this or this. Any that have been tagged copyvio, at least by me, are at one of the pending pages of WP:CP. Plus, if your project has notifications turned on, I believe that articles tagged for CP should be listed in that way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - too busy with several wikifires and RL issues to deal with this now :( I'll probably come back to look at those articles in the future. Hopefully Martim will return and fix his own mess... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Now, instead of writing / fixing content, I have to rescue an editor from being unfairly punished... sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed long time ago that Martim33 might cause problems due to his laid-back attitude with regard to copyright law coupled with limited knowledge of English and refusal to communicate, but I was unaware of how far reaching these problems are. I’d like to thank you for compiling the Contribution check. That must have taken quite en effort. --Poeticbent talk 04:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I lost this one in the other notes of the day. :) Compiling the list was no effort at all, as we have a program that does this with the contributions of editors who can be verified to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. The time consuming process is going through them (not to mention, I'm sure, writing the program!), but we are fortunate to have a number of contributors willing to help out at the moment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your input requested at ANI

Hi - hope you don't mind me dropping by with a request, but if you've got the time I think your insight could be very valuable here. Thanks! EyeSerene^talk 11:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You're welcome to drop by any time; rest assured I will return the favor if I run into something I think you can help with. :D I'll be over as soon as I save what I'm doing, which should be pretty swiftly. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! EyeSerene^talk 11:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

		Thank you
		Please accept this Blue Moon Rose as a token of my gratitude for your unstinting and selfless willingness to assist a less accomplished Wikipedian with a knotty copyright problem at very short (ie no) notice. Thank you very much. EyeSerenetalk 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! That's beautiful. :) I'm happy if I was able to help. Stop by any time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I'm real sorry, but this is still kinda going on. User:CORNELIUSSEON is writing about copyright over on his talkpage and I'm not sure he's understood what he did wrong. I want him to be unblocked, as he's a good editor, but I don't klnow the first thing about copyright. Could you go to his talkpage and see if what's he writing makes sense? Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll come over and see if my input can be helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so very much for that, you're a wonder! Skinny87 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) I hope that it will help clarify matters for him. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

miss universe australia

dear moonriddengirl, just want to ask a question first congrats on winning the contest and i hope you are the one that read this message , okay to the question i hope you dont take it personally,but are you related to sarah finch you almost look alike. + kindly respond to my wiki account mail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prvl1 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know if Rachael and Sarah Finch are related, and I am not Rachael Finch. :) My only involvement with her is in deleting the article about her because it was copied from another website without compatible licensing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's okay, Moon probably gets mistaken for Ms. Finch on a regular basis. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of edits to "Tom O'Carroll" entry

Thank you for your words of welcome and your courteously expressed criticism. I value this highly.

As you will have guessed, this was my first attempt to edit a Wikipedia page and I was unsure how much referencing is really considered necessary. I did actually give two detailed references which I thought would give me the credibility to make the other changes, which did not strike me as particularly controversial (here I mean mainly the additional couple of paras at the end).

However, I accept your criticism. You obviously know what you are doing.

I am going on vacation for a few days. When I return I will attempt to track down the necessary references and then I'll have another goProud Weed (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What should I do with this?

I just found this on my talk page:

-pictures- you are pissing me off. 1. i have asked permission to the copyright holder. that is clickdharan.com u can go check forum if not contact him at clickdharan@yahoo.com 2. gurkha map is not copyright. - bigen182 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigen182(talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So our suspicions were right, but where should I put this information? With the PUI entry? Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Good job. (Not in pissing him off, but in detecting the issue.) Noting it at PUI sounds like the right approach. I would also tell him matter-of-factly that this is not personal but a matter of keeping Wikipedia compliant with US law in accordance with its copyright policy. And I would ask why the map is not copyrighted, because I don't know if he means he produced it himself or took it from a PD source or if he thinks that maps can't be copyrighted. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI Post You Might Be Interested In

Sorry it took longer than needed to inform you, but there is an ANI post that might require your input. Please see here for that thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. :) I've offered my input. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Another one cleared (?)

I just cleared out most of Baldwin High School from the User:Mgreason list, leaving details on its talk page. I'm not sure I put the right tags on the article page. Some of the possible vios I couldn't confirm because the links that were the likely sources are dead. I've moved it to the checked list, although I think it needs more work. Is there somewhere else I should have put it instead? - KoolerStill (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks so much for your ongoing efforts there. I appreciate your work clearing out the backlog. I've looked, and the article should be okay from a copyright perspective, since as you note at the talk page lists of facts are generally not a concern. (There are exceptions: for example, if the list is composed of sentences of creative text; if the list itself is creative (off the top of my head: "the hottest actors in Hollywood")). If the copyvio is cleared, the checked list is exactly where it belongs, no matter what other issues the article might have. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"This one"

I'm trying to work out why this one was so amusing. Perhaps I am a little slow today, but I't frustrated that I can't see the reason for your amusement! Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant to say, "hopefully all reworded." What I actually said was very different. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I told you I was slow! i did smile when you pointed it out though! Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it wasn't all that glaring, then. :D Human nature, I think. The eye supplies what it expects. Which is good for me, because my fingers are often doing their own thing entirely. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And that might notr be a bad thing! Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Davenport Public Library

Hey, what happened to the pictures that were on the original page? CTJF83Talk 17:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

They're still there. I just forgot to put them in the new version. Thanks for pointing it out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for readding them CTJF83Talk 18:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Re your note

I've responded at the editor's talk-page. I've no idea about image issues; image copyrights are something I stay well away from to be honest - WP policy seems to change every other week and frankly life's too short ;) Since you're monitoring the discussion too and I'm only sporadically active at the moment, if you think an unblock is justified please go ahead. EyeSerene^talk 20:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

All right. If he reaches a point where he indicates he understands the problem, we'll be good to go. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I'm not sure you noticed anyway, but I accidentally overwrote your change here in an attempt to add info. It's fixed, just apologizing. Dbb49 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice. No problem. Stuff happens. Thanks for fixing it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbb49 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet sex shops are still being raided and fined for violating the law. There's one here that gets it every month and it's happened so much, the local news even stopped reporting it. That may be OR but it's still happening none-the-less.. so the addition of that last sentence is really misleading. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 01:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a google news search, but I'm afraid I didn't find anything recent. As you know the name of the store, that might help. If you can find something on that one, that would be great. Even if they stopped reporting it, if it's happened since that last source, it would be helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

May I ask how many of those shops have stopped selling sex toys? Dbb49 (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That really isn't relevant as it's still the law until struck down by the US Supreme Court or done away with by the state Supreme Court or Legislature. However, there are 2 shops that are no longer in business as a result of the law. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Will u help me figure this out because he didnt come home the other night now I see messages and he is talking to women? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.76.51 (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that this isn't really the kind of help that Wikipedia or its editors are here to provide, but I wish you luck in getting to the bottom of things. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Template

What is the template to put on an article that says something along the lines of "this article is primarily sourced from the subject's web site with permission". I've seen it on articles before but don't recall what it is. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) There are a ton of attribution templates, at Category:Attribution templates. I haven't seen that particular one (that I recall), but there's Template:GFDLSource, which is the only source that we have been legally allowed to accept. In a few hours, everything gets more complicated when we finish the transition. I'm assuming you aren't talking about {{OTRS pending}}, but one where the permission is already noted? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I found it in the category.. {{Source-attribution}}. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Moon. There seems to be some disagreement on whether {{Source-attribution}} is appropriate in the article, given WP:SELF, and whether the sources are unverifiable. There has been some reverting, and not-always-friendly discussion on the talkpage, and even an ANI thread, so be careful. But I was hoping you could at least give an opinion on whether the tag is appropriate, or how we can avoid plagiarism without causing additional problems. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Context clues tell me that we're talking about this. :) I'll go see what's up at that talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there you are!

Aha! I see you found what meant. Thanks for your input there. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How would the tag not be appropriate? That's what it was created for... at least the text of it seems to back up that assertion. If not, the template should be deleted. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, the template is for PD text. You may, of course, release the text under PD at any time you want, but you didn't through OTRS, you licensed it under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. These are different. But the purpose of the template is to give credit when the contributor is someone other than the author of the external site, which is generally what happens. For instance, we have never had any problem with people copying material from other wikis that are also licensed under GFDL. Typically, these are multi-authored articles. The GFDL template gives credit to those. The PD template might be used, say, if you were copying text from a book that is hosted online that is PD because of age. (There are more specific ones for regular sources, like military articles.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For her cheerful and patient explanations of copyright matters, I award Moonriddengirl this barnstar. JN466 17:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks for paying close attention to the language of the guideline. I agree that the lead was confusing, and hopefully we'll be able to iron things out through such scrutiny. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. I always enjoy these discussions, and even though I am always nitpicking, I do appreciate your time! JN466 17:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Article

Please have a look over User:Allstarecho/Dan Jones (chancellor) before I move it to main space. He has just been named the new Chancellor at the University of Mississippi as of today per here. I started working on the article June 3. I know you're busy but this is a time-sensitive article. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll go take a look now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked it a little further to separate it from the structure of the source, which is a necessary and sometimes pain-in-the-neck part of paraphrasing. One of my favorite techniques, and one I've seen recommended by others such as at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, is to draw on multiple sources, which is why I expanded the bit on Global Resource Services. One of the things that US Courts ask in evaluating copyright concerns is whether the new work is superseding the old, or if it has added something new. Drawing from multiple sources with different information is a good way to add something new. I used another one of my favorite tricks, turning a sentence upside down, in introducing that paragraph. Not that you want to sound like Yoda, but since "creative elements" in text includes order of presentation, sometimes inverting a sentence is a good start at separating from a source. Please note that I'm not saying you can't follow an obvious structure from a source, such as a biographical timeline or something like that, or that what you had was a copyright infringement. But when you're doing a bare-bones presentation of facts, it can be very hard to change language. In that case, altering structure and adding new material are particularly handy ways of putting the text in your own words. It seems quite ready for mainspace now, and I would move it myself but you indicate above that you plan to. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ole Miss Rebels football

I believe I'm done with it. Can't find anything else. Followup please. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparing it to the source Frank identified and the one that I had found, it seems all cleaned. Thanks! I'll note the cleanup at CP (if you haven't already; I haven't gotten there yet this morning), and I'll put the cclean on the article's talk to help guard against inadvertent future infringement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ed Bass

On June 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ed Bass, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I only deserve credit for helping come up with the tag. Way to go, Frank! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleopatra VII

I just found this edit [13] and suspicious of the writing, traced it to [14] which has a lot of identical text, a copyright notice at the bottom, and no trace of a mention of Wikipedia that I could find except for these [15]. Have I missed something? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to see. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The acid test: Wayback to October 2007. Text is at the source. It was in our article the day before that earliest archive, here, which is not definitive but cues me that I need to see when it arrived. I look back almost year before that first archive and see that mention of the incident was already in our article, with some similar language: [16]. The language evolved towards, rather than away from, that source (On December 3 2006, the colorful detail of her tumbling out was added). It almost certainly copied us. I think that one is okay. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I use Wayback but hadn't thought of that. I knew I should ask you! Should something be put on the talk page explaining this in case someone else notices it? Or tries to use it as a source? Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. :) If it's extensive, it might be a good idea to use the {{backwardscopyvio}}. If it's just the one line, you might make a note. (I do this so much, it's kind of second nature. But I'm always forgetting where to find that program that identifies when text first entered the article. I waste a lot of time checking individual entries in the history!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's at the top of every history page. See the line that starts External tools, click on Revision history search. It took me a while to realise that was a link to WikiBlame. I note that someone has claimed there is HBO stuff in this article but I didn't find any. Did you hear from the Paterson guy about the Scottish wars stuff that is from his book? Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh! Very handy! Thanks! Zilch from Paterson so far. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Written copyright

Quadell mentioned I might forward a quick copyright question to you. It's the one at the bottom of his talk page. Thanks for any response you might have. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacksonville National Cemetery

I have a new article at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 7. Mgreason (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Long time no see. :) I'm updating the copyright policy at the moment, but will be over as soon as I can...hopefully within a few hours. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Another

Brent Corrigan. I know you've already addressed an issue at this article. Please review my edits. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 01:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

All right. I may not be able to get to it tonight, since I've been updating policies, templates & faqs for the transition and its late in my part of the world, but I'll certainly review it as soon as I can. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No hurries. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done all the policy/guideline updates I can do for one day. I looked through it, compared it to source, did a selected check, and I don't find any problems. I can't, though, access [17]. The website says, "We are sorry but the story you selected is past the 7 day archive period. Please click on the link below to view it." When I click the link, it tells me "No articles matching"headline(Two Virginia Beach men charged with homicide )" were returned." Just an FYI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A stalker chimes in

I found a copy of the article at Google's cache (the link doesn't parse in MediaWiki though), and I don't see any copyvios there. Looks clean to me. Thanks, both of you. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

James M. Moran

This one is a rewrite of an article that was cut to a stub: User:Mgreason/Sandbox 6 Mgreason (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Equality Mississippi

There's an all-out edit war goin' on at Equality Mississippi, but I'm way too involved to protect the page myself. If you think it's appropriate, could you protect for 72 hours or so, just so people will deal with the talkpage and AN/I issues through consensus, not through the revert button? All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Good heavens! I did it for 24. Let's see if that's sufficient. If not, it can be re-protected. Off to find the proper template.... --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, ! You're the best. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictograms! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The 24 hour protection seemed to stop the edit war for about 24 1/2 hours. That article is seriously messed up at this point, but I'm staying out of it lest I be tarred with the same brush as Damiens.rf. Can you re-protect? It's getting nasty. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Since it does seem to be ongoing, I've protected for the 72 hours originally suggested by Quadell. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides protecting, would you consider somehow mediating the discussions on the talk page? I'm been finding it's become harder to engage in content-based discussion there. --Damiens.rf 16:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The conversations are going on just fine without Damiens.rf. As long as he isn't there to add his snide and sarcastic comments and change the article to his perfered version, things are going just fine. I think Damiens.rf should be topic banned from the article and let everyone else discuss the article. It will go much easier. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Susan Fromberg Schaeffer

This is a new article: User:Mgreason/Sandbox 8 Living person, not controversial. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Eeps! I completely overlooked the one upstairs from this. Sorry! I'll get to them both today. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Mysterious picture

Hi Moon. File:Kasmaratalin.jpg has an OTRS ticket and a website watermark, but it doesn't say what it is. I can't find anything in the uploader's history to show where it was added to any articles (although the uploader was very busy at the time). Does the OTRS ticket give any clues? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Let's see. I'm off to take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange one. But, no, it was one of a batch of dozens of images uploaded. OTRS only gives permission for all the images and maps at http://armenica.org/. I tried to do a visual check through their site, but I didn't identify a match. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

CC-By-SA sources

Hey M, a quick question with regard to our licensing etc. I've restored an article which contains content from an external source which is licensed under CC-By; do I have to make a note explicitly stating that this is not available under the GFDL, since everything seems to be dual-licensed now? Oh, and I noticed that User:Moonriddengirl#Text_based_copyright_concerns only mentions the GFDL, you may wish to update it :) Best, – Toon^(talk) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I can't believe that I forgot to update my userpage! (It has been crazy getting policies and whatnot up to speed.) Yes, you need to make an explicit note that it is not available under GFDL to comply with our Terms of Use. I've just created a template for it at {{CCBYSASource}}. I'm putting it at the talk page, too: see Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nice template. Any chance that it could have an option for CC-By sources as well as CC-By-SA? – Toon^(talk) 16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought about it, but I'm not sure it needs them. The point of CC-BY-SA compatibility is that once they are here, they are available under CC-BY-SA. The original source may be CC-BY, but we still aren't. What do you think? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point; but since the current wording states that the source is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License..., it cannot really be used in instances where the original source actually isn't licensed under CC-By-SA, but CC-By. There may be some tweaking to the wording which would focus more on our article being so licensed (rather than the source) that might work? – Toon^(talk) 16:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good approach. I've got some off-Wiki stuff to run handle for probably a few hours (:P). Have you got time to address it? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a think about some potential wording, after I've finished some of the on-wiki stuff. I tend to go off an do something else in the middle of a task if it pops into my head, otherwise it'll likely be forgotten... – Toon^(talk) 16:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've suggested a new wording for the template at Template talk:CCBYSASource, I'd appreciate your feedback! (BTW, your talk page is like Grand Central Station today!) – Toon^(talk) 18:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm there. :) (And, today, everywhere.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I left another suggestion about the text. Also, I came across this page on my travels and updated some of the simpler bits, but it goes on about how the GFDL is not compatible with CC licenses, which may need tweaking from someone with a better eye for this sort of thing than me! – Toon^(talk) 22:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

LMBC

So could you restore File:Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company logo.jpg as the Fair Use image it was?... unless that was included in the OTRS release which I would think it was since they saw it in the original article and agreed to the article as it was before said image was deleted. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sure. It wasn't specifically mentioned and the link is to your sandbox, so I can't put it under CC-BY-SA, but fair use is fine. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 16:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moon. I work on quite a lot of food and restaurant etc. related article and I've never seen one wholly based on the company's own sources. I tend to be fairly inclusionist, so if the article is stubbified that would be okay with me (and even that is a fairly bold IAR in favor of allowing a recently established brewery to have an article despite no good sources), but unless some independent sourcing can be found I don't see how such a long and promotional article can be allowed to stand. There also seems to be a COI or at least OWN problem with the article. Thoughts? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Talk:Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company is the best place for this discussion.  Frank  |  talk  18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

COI is laughable. I don't work for the company. OWN is laughable too as I haven't reverted or done anything else with the actual content, only the ridiculous drive by tagging. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I seldom mix copyright matters with other matters. I think it's important to keep the legal and the consensus-based apart. I do sometimes list articles I clear for copyright concerns at WP:COIN for others to evaluate, though. (And I would not restore text that I thought was flat-out spam. :)) That said, one doesn't have to work for the company to have a conflict. If a person is non-neutral on a product, for example, because they personally love or personally hate it, then their work on an article related to that product might not be able to contribute neutrally on the subject. A COI is defined as "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." I'm not saying there is a conflict here, or ownership is, that's just a general note. In this specific instance, if I were in your position—not the plural you, but it applies to either of you—I would neutrally seek additional feedback at a proper forum, like WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN or, if it's still just the two of you, WP#3O. If consensus finds that it is too heavily sourced from the parent company, then it may be trimmed or other sources might be brought in. Otherwise, if the company is notable and the material taken from the self-published source is not promotional, then the length itself may not be an indicator of an issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyrights for Willy DeVille and Mink DeVille albums?

Hi. I would like to amend the Willy DeVille and Mink DeVille-related copyright pages on Wiki Commons so that Willy DeVille and Mink DeVille album cover images can appear on the Willy DeVille and Mink DeVille article pages as well as on the articles about the various albums. I edited the Cabretta copyright page at Wiki Commons accordingly. Did I do this correctly? If I go into all the Wiki Commons copyright pages of Willy DeVille/Mink DeVille album images and amend them this way, can I safely put these album images in the Willy DeVille and Mink DeVille articles? I'm very confused about how this copyright stuff works. Must you upload one image separately for each article, or can an image be put in more than one article if the articles are named on the Wiki Commons copyright pages? Thanks in advance for answering. SpanishStroll (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've restored what was previously there for a couple of reasons. First, you may not have noticed that the statement you were editing says, "I, Moonriddengirl, believe that...." Besides the fact that you are not Moonriddengirl (and I am not making that fair use rationale) :), policy requires that a separate "fair use" statement be supplied for each article that uses a non-free image. You can't bundle them together. Second, the fair use rationale you write has to meet non-free content criteria, which allows covers "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." I would really recommend that you write a fair use rationale and ask for feedback on it at WP:MCQ, since I'm not sure under what circumstances you will be allowed to use these in articles on the artist. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out the the Cabretta copyright page now. I added rationals for putting it in the two other articles. Is this going to keep the bot from removing the image from those two articles.SpanishStroll (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Images are not my primary point. I'll ask an administrator who works with them more routinely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tocowa, Mississippi

Regarding this article, I know you say it's a copyvio of http://users.panola.com/AAghS/ARTICLES/FAULKNER.html but that web site itself copied word for word from the sources, which you can read freely. Additionally, those sources were published in 1867 and 1938 respectively which would surely make them out of copyright. Thoughts? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking: are you wondering, if this source copies from somebody else, if we can copy from it? Obviously, sources from 1867 and 1938 didn't include text like "Despite these problems, Tocowa's Fourth of July celebrations continued until the 1940s". If you're asking if we can use language that is in both places, we can, but only if we can prove that the original publication is public domain. If he has incorporated public domain material, it doesn't invalidate his copyright on his own creative elements, which means copying those would be a copyright violation. We can't use sentences like "During the spring months the hotels overflowed with "pilgrims" from throughout North and Central Mississippi who traveled to Tocowa to collect water from the spring" without positively identifying them as first coming from a public domain origin.

The 1867 source would be free for use because of age, but the language from that source is not the issue. It's in quotation marks anyway (though you should revise the lead, "the spring was described as", since that comes from Lindgren. By itself, that's no big deal. In conjunction with other copying, it lends to copyright infringement. There's not much creative there, so revision should be simple. Something like "According to The Panola Weekly, the spring was 'a fine...." should serve fine.)

The 1938 source may be out of copyright, which would permit you to use language that is present in both. Language that is not present in the 1938 source, obviously, can't be used: "It wasn't however, until the 1890's that it became a thriving business community." is a sentence in the website. It's not in the book. Adding the words "...and famous health resort." to the end of that sentence doesn't make it usable.

Now, as to whether or not the source is out of copyright, that's a bit tricky. 1938 is not only enough to PD by age. 1923 is the cut off for that. The next question would be whether it was published with a copyright notice. It was. Materials that were published in the US with a copyright notice between 1923 and 1963 may be public domain if the copyright was not renewed. The people who are hosting the book indicate that it is PD, but they don't say how they know. Ordinarily, with something like this, I'd tap the shoulder of a wikisource admin to see if it had been renewed, since checking that is part of what they do. Ordinarily, I'd trouble User:Jayvdb, but he tends to be busy, and I've recently come to think that perhaps User:Quadell can help with that, too. I'll ask him.

What it'll come down to is that, if the 1938 book is PD, language from it can be used, language that is in both can be used, but language that is in the website only cannot. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bigen182

I think I will give an indef block to Bigen182 (talk · contribs). I've just been told that another image he claimed to have created himself, which I found on a web page dated 2002, was scanned from a book. Looking at his deleted contributions as well as his talk page, enough is enough. Do you think this needs any further discussion? By the way, I presume you can't see deleted contributions? They can be very useful. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see deleted edits. He is refusing to talk to you. A block at this point is completely appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 2 weeks. I will notify WP:AN/I. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup Project

Hi Moon, is there any news on the Duval County issue from the Mgreason cleanup? you were emailing to see if one earlier source was actually not copyright? (Earlier talk at # 60 Help with cleanup problem?). If it turns out to be clear, let me know, as it's not a big job for me to rewrite that article, if I know how much of the suspected copyvio can be left in. Apart from this issue, the guy is a great editor, painstaking and detailed; the articles he only contributed to are full of minor cleanups, additions of detail, fixing references etc. with no copyvio problems at all (although I have doubts about the importance of the items he's chosen to work on).- KoolerStill (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have received no response, which means nothing about the copyright status but does mean we probably shouldn't presume. :) (A big surprise to me is that even a good many of the correspondents who write to give permission to us through the OTRS mailing system don't answer our e-mails. They say, "You can use our text." We say, "What text?" They never answer. Huh? If you want us to use your text, you might point out at least what you're talking about!)

I think that this issue is a thing of the past for this user. As you've undoubtedly noticed, he has a strong local orientation, which means that some of the subject he's worked on may be of tremendous local interest, but of less global notability. However, I don't remember seeing anything myself that seemed flatly non-notable, though some were borderline. And I agree that he's a very good copy editor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I do appreciate your persistence with this. :) The backlog of copyclean seems to be getting cleared! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rock of Love Bus with Bret Michaels

Wow, nice work. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) It sounds like a fascinating show. :) I did kind of amuse myself while working on it thinking of the next iteration: Rock of Love Boat? With your cruise director Bret Michaels? :D ---Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I believe he said that this would be the last one, but clearly that could change when he releases his next album and needs a vehicle to promote it. There are probably more instances of this on other VH1 reality shows, and I will change them as per your example as I happen across them. Thanks again! Plastikspork (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate people who keep an eye out for potential problems with copyright. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Helderberg Internet Exchange

See unsigned comment on the author's talk page(diff). The source site is now visible and there's no clear infringement left. The article would however be immediately eligible for CSD G11, possibly A7, or at the very least deleted per AfD for lacking WP:RS (I searched and didn't find anything useable). Wonder whether we shouldn't just accede to his request, G7 (user requests deletion) and close the case. The process, by no particular fault of anyone, is becoming [[WP:BITE]y methinks. MLauba (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I just got a response through OTRS. It's cleared. I'm afraid deleting the article would absolutely be bitey, since he jumped through copyright hoops. :/ Ay yi yi. How about we restore it, revise it for spam and tag it for refimprove? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Good plan. Worried about WP:RS though. I'm starting to wonder whether we shouldn't have a variant of {{nothanks}} which also explicitely highlights WP:GNG concerns during the 7 days listed at WP:CP - although we sometimes add it manually, something more formal may be warranted. Because to be honest, I don't see this one dodging a CSD for more than 24 hours. MLauba (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. I agree with you that the article is not likely to last. Copyvios take precedence, but stuff like this makes me wonder if we shouldn't tweak WP:CSD#G12 to suggest some kind of double label: a "this and that". If it is a copyvio, we must delete it; but we shouldn't necessarily keep it just because it isn't. I don't think a double-label of this kind would be bitey, but actually helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the more senior admins handling CSD already add secondary reasons where appropriate, for instance several of the WP:SCV cases I sent to G12 yesterday were deleted both under G12 and G11. It think (but that may be what you meant yourself) that the G12 notification template for userpages ought to be amended, on top of {{nothanks}}. Can we reword these straight away under WP:BRD or should we bring it to WT:CSD first? MLauba (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what I meant was that taggers might be asked to consider dual tagging, not so much that admins delete it under a dual rationale. That way, a contributor doesn't think that the only thing he has to do to make it all okay is license it. This is also often a problem at WP:CP, since by the time I see an article, it's usually been listed for 7+1 day. {{nothanks-web}}, which is what is generated by {{copyvio}}, could well use something besides the tepid "It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout." The challenge would be coming up with language that doesn't prejudge the content as garbage. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

<- Oh, I see. That would definitely need discussion at WT:CSD because we're talking about amending the policy page by itself. Regarding the {{copyvio}} template, maybe that one should be modified so that maintenance template above it aren't blanked and that editors are actually encouraged to have the copyvio last of the maintenance templates. That being said, I think the most handy approach would be to have articles split into two distinct edit zones, article space and template space. All maintenance goes into the latter, you could enfore distinct rulings in there (eg no removal of CSD templates if you are the article creator). I vaguely suspect that idea has been brought up before and dismissed, though.

I'll start drafting a nothanks variant for GNG / G11 issues tomorrow night, in any case, and post that one to WT:COPYCLEAN once it's ready. Bedtime here. :) MLauba (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this ANI discussion?

Interesting comments on copyright issues at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#ChildOfMidnight Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw it at some point and brought it up at the plagiarism guideline talk page. :) I'll go see how it's evolving. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Good heavens. This is really why I don't mix copyright concerns with other matters. It just confuses everything. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello lovely Moonriddengirl, I was about to point to the same discussion. There does seem to be a lot of copyright/plagiarism charges flying around; I made a quip which was witty but unhelpful, and I think we need some definitive... urm... definition here. Thankyou! – Toon^(talk) 02:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Lazy Magnolia/Equality Mississippi

Perhaps the similar tag you put on Lazy Magnolia...

As of this edit, this article uses content from "Lazy Magnolia, Mississippi's Brewery", which is licensed in a way that permits reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, but not under the GFDL. All relevant terms must be followed.

...could also be put on at Equality Mississippi, with the obvious parameter changes of course, to alleviate issues regarding the self sourcing? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. If people are being weird about it, no reason not to. Except you co-licensed it, so I'll whip up something specific. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Old Mississippi State Capitol

 Done See Old Mississippi State Capitol and especially Talk:Old Mississippi State Capitol. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Tocowa, Mississippi part 2

 Done Done with this one, look it over and feedback if need. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I will mark them both done at CP. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Alabama National Cemetery

I made the necessary changes to James M. Moran and replaced the stub. The ref cited after the sentence following the quote included the quote, so I moved the ref back and added detail to the end of the paragraph, citing another source.

This new article at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 6 is essentially the same as Jacksonville National Cemetery. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So long as it's cited, that's great. :) I'll be along to look at Sandbox 6 in a little bit. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ed Butcher: advice

Hi Mooonriddengirl :). I came across this article while np patrolling. While checking the page history and 'what links here' I noticed that it had been tagged by CorenSearchBot as a possible copyvio of http://www.blog-o-scope.com/2008/12/ed-butcher.html (it seems to match, word-for-word). The tag was removed by the original author, so before "being bold" ;), I did a couple more checks: The entry on the blog is dated December 2008, but a previous page called "Ed Butler" was deleted (CSD A7 (bio)) in October 2008 so I thought that the blog page may have been a copy of that previous article. I also found the same text on http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/4757564, that seems to cite Wikipedia, but includes wiki markup for an infobox, which is not present in the current article, so it may be a mirror of the deleted article... (pause for breath)... Of course I don't know what the deleted article actually contained. I was wondering if permission needs to be verified in this case - I could not find a copy of the text (via a quick Google search) earlier than December 2008? Many thanks TheSmuel (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Good sleuthing. I'll look into it with this info in mind and see what I can find out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You are completely correct that this text (or at least much of it; I haven't yet found the exact match, but there are hundreds of edits in history) was originally on Wikipedia. Strange as it may sound (and it will, to the contributor) returning it here without the history of the page is a copyright violation, since our contributors are not asked to release their text into public domain but to put under a license that guarantees their right to attribution. We either must delete the existing article as a copyright violation (of our own editors) or restore its history. The current article is a mess. If it had been deleted via AfD, I would redelete as a G4. I'll restore the history to satisfy the copyvio. AfD may be appropriate, but I'm not sure that A7 is at this point. Femalefirst is tabloidy, but an RS, I think. MTV certainly is. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored an earlier version, added some sources. Seems quite notable enough for a redirect, if nothing else, and his involvement in several bands for which we have articles may make his independent article a good idea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I did suspect that his membership of several bands with articles might mean that he merited his own article. Many thanks again for the friendly help and advice :). I have one more (semi-)related question (sorry!). There exists another Ed Butcher, a local councillor in London, who has no article and I suspect may not meet wp:politician notability guidelines. He has several minor references in local media (comments on planning decisions etc), but was involved in one widely reported controversy [18], [19]. A link on this page wrongly points to the Ed Butcher we've been discussing. If it's likely that he would be considered notable, I could create a new page for him (my first!). If not, is deleting the link the best thing to do, or is there a better solution, e.g. changing the link to point to a non-existant page such as Ed Butcher (Politician)? The area of redirects/disambigs is not one that I feel very confident/conversant with yet :). TheSmuel (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am just wrapping up one thing before I run out the door, but I will make responding to you on this top priority when I come back online in an hour or two. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. If he doesn't meet politician, any chance you can find enough to meet general bio? If he does not yet, but might at some point, I would change the link to point to a non-existent page or de-link it. The general guideline on redlinks is that they're quite okay if a future page is plausible, and I've actually used them to help me determine when a page is needed. :) Currently, there are no links to Ed Butcher (politician). I would call that your judgment in that case whether you think a good bio is ever likely on this fellow. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, again. I think I'm going to struggle to put together more than a very short article, but I'll see what I can find. TheSmuel (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Jorge Bechara

Can't identify the painting you posted to the Refdesk, but I hope the entire advert-like Jorge Bechara article is AFD'ed at a minimum. Check out that Reference section. (I assume you noticed the rather obvious Jorge Bechara watermark on the dancing photo.) Tempshill (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I had not actually read the article. I'm trying to determine whether the painting is a separate copyright concern, since there's been communication about the photo. I can't believe that's been in that condition for almost a year. If nothing else, once the photo question is resolved, I'll see that it's listed at COI. (I always feel a bit peculiar mixing the copyright hat with other hats, since it seems odd to say, "Thanks for following the permission process as requested; now I'm killing your article." :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The image has cleared. I've tagged the article for POV review and listed it at COIN. I have yet to see a request there go unanswered. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

another one of those "c" word questions

Hi Moonriddengirl, I haven't seen the "This user is no longer accepting new copyvio questions" sign yet - so here is another one. Are you familiar with the Rorschach test inkblot pictures? My understanding is that they are free from copyright restrictions both in the originators country (Sweden), and in the USA, but apparently the Rorschach Society is contesting this. Do you have an opinion on our use of these pictures? (warning: The talk page on the article is rather lengthy). Thanks, and Cheers. ;) — Ched :  ?  02:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with it, but had no idea that it was free from copyright. I'll see what I can come up with, and if I can't provide good input, I'll note it at WP:C. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first: Switzerland, not Sweden. :) The images were copyrighted by the Swiss company that first published them, Verlag Hans Huber ([20]). A google book search confirms this: [21] "Card I from Hermann Rorschach, Rorschach-Test. Copyright by Verlag Hans Huber AG, Bern, Switzerland, 1921, 1948, 1994." According to Göteborg University in Sweden, copyright protection of the electronic form was registered by Verlag Hans Huber AG, Bern, Switzerland, in 1995.(html version: [22]) In the US, the original images would be public domain, as they were published in 1921 and anything published anywhere in the world prior to 1923 is PD in the US. (If they were altered in later publications, obviously, those are not PD.) Hermann Rorschach died in 1922. By the retroactive Swiss law of 1922, his creations should have become PD in 1952. (The law was changed to life + 50 in 1955, but this was not retroactive. I'm trusting our article on Swiss copyright law here.) I do not know if there is some exception in Switzerland that allows the term of protection to be placed in the publisher rather than the creator. Obviously, copyright has been filed multiple times since the copyright would putatively have expired. That said, the question was raised at Commons in 2007, here and here, where there was no consensus to delete. I think that copyright concerns can probably be taken off the table here unless we get an official take-down notice, and that would be Mike's call. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Moonriddengirl. It looks like they have it right on the talk page, but I just wanted to check. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to check it out. Cheers. ;) — Ched :  ?  18:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In real time

Hi Moon. Are you available right at this moment? If so, could you chat at me? Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 00:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And again, *knock knock* :) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Worth a mention

I`m sure you don`t pay any attention to edit count but i think is worth mentioning and congratulate you for editing your way into the 250 users by number of edits and of course you deserve something shiny.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I Zidane Tribal award Moonriddengirl this Barnstar for some of the best quality in over 50 000 edits, keep up with some of the best work around here Zidane tribal (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My jaw drops. I had no idea! Thanks. Wow. :O --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Synergy"

Hi Moonriddengirl, can you give me background info on why this article was deleted or where I can find more info about it? "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. * 11:39, 17 October 2008 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) deleted "SYNERGY" ‎ (Copyright. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 October 9)" I am conducting a research project on VOs and this article may be helpful. Thanks.

128.164.212.68 (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Shannon

Hi. I'm afraid that the contributor who placed the information here coped it from a previously published web source. We have a "bot" that compares the text in new articles to text found elsewhere on the web, and it found a match to http://www.synergy-ist.eu/SYNERGY/bin/login/XWiki/XWikiLogin (a site that now requires log-in, unfortunately). In case the contributor might be able to verify permission, he was notified of our copyright policies and told how to obtain permission from others or donate text if he was the owner of the site, but he did not follow up. The information previously contained in the article was very basic. I believe it may all be replicated at http://www.synergy-ist.eu/, which I hope will help you with your project. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bioline allergy

I started an AfD here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioline allergy) that looked like a copyvio. After realising I could use google translate I found the possible source. My understanding is that translating (even poorly!) isn't enough to get around copyvio. I'd appreciate your input as to whether the page should have a copyvio placeholder or be speedied. I added my findings to the AfD. Thanks, Verbal chat

Hi. :) I'll come take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blanked and will have a word with the contributor. Speedy would not be a good idea here, I think, since it seems very likely that the contributor can verify permission but verifying permission would not make the text acceptable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also redirected another article which may well have duplicated s package insert but in any case was 99% unsourced and restored an earlier version of another for the same reason. I am leaving town for a few days and may not be around to answer questions. Can you keep an eye on the contributor's talk page in case he or she needs clarification? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for your actions. Verbal chat 13:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Jorge Bechara

I'm the "IP" who edited the Jorge Bechara article with information that seems to be raising copyright concern. I've tried to ad as much information as possible about the subject and I do apologize for any mistake. I understand that a deleted section was wrongly called Reference instead of Citations. Reading the guidelines and other articles I can't see how the posted information is inappropriate and I'd appreciate if you could specify it in the mentioned article. Thanking you --58.178.76.154 (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The concerns in the article in question are not limited to copyright, but relate at this point primarily to neutrality and verifiability. Your "reference" section read considerably more like endorsements, as though the article were intended to promote the subject. A section on critical evaluation may be appropriate, but, if so, it would need to be a fair and balanced overview of critical reviews published in reliable sources, with annotations directing readers to those sources. A wikipedia article on a photographer should read like a biography of a photographer one would find in any reputable encyclopedia. It should not read like a resume or a press release. Statements like "Your photographs are fantastic. You captured the atmosphere. Oscar Castro-Neves, guitarist, arranger and composer considered a founding figure in Bossa Nova" are almost never going to be appropriate.

As I mentioned at the talk page of the article, I have requested review for neutrality, which is likely what drew the attention of the contributor who removed that text and also requested sources. Articles should rely primarily on reliable sources published in reputable publications such as newspapers, magazine articles, professional journals and websites, books, etc. While information from sources connected to the subject—including the subject's own website—may be used to add detail, these should not be the primary sources on which an article relies.

I will duplicate this note at the article's talk page in the hopes that if you don't return here, you will see it there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Hooray, new OTRS statistics are up! Stifle (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool! And I see that you continue pulling heavy weight there. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

W00t

It's Friday, it's 34º (Celsius) in the shade, and I'm clearing my 2DO list faster than sh*te stuff gets added to it: that's cause for personal celebration! I haven't forgotten about Philippines copyright, BTW, it's being worked on (slowly) at User:Physchim62/PH copyright. Physchim62 (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That is cause for celebration. :D I'm beginning to think optimistically that I may be coming up from underwater as well. I've been mulling over the possibility that I may one day again be able to write an article just because I want to, and not because the original was a copyright concern! :O Thanks for working on the Philippine matter. I'm mulling over whether or not the stuff at WP:C on international copyright should be moved. If you have an opinion on that one, please note it at WT:C. Your insight is always helpful. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

ZOMG, it's still there! Yes, it should be moved, that was the whole reason that User:Leyo and myself created the other pages, oh, about three years ago now… On the other hand, it's a move that needs to be taken carefully. I'll weigh in at WT:C as requested. Physchim62 (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have been User:Lupo: both are (AFAIK) German-speaking Swiss, so I tend to get them confused! I've contacted Lupo to get his/her opinion as well. Physchim62 (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Once I get settled back in, I'll take a look and see what further conversation is going on there and what we can do about updating. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Special:Nuke

When you get back, you may want to check this new feature out (if you haven't already). It seems (I can't actually view the special page yet) that it's designed for mass-deleting recent contributions of an editor i.e. exactly what you need for mass copyright vios. Just thought I'd mention it. Anyhow, enjoy your trip! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 08:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, that looks like a dangerous page! It also needs more documentation, to say what it includes and what it doesn't. Still, potentially very useful, in the right hands. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I'd agree on all accounts. Thanks for letting me know about it. There have been a couple of editors in my experience who have included only copyright infringing material. For the most part, they do intermingle usable edits, but in those rare occasions this could be very handy indeed. How far back is recent? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)