User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

mirror my userpage

Hi Moonriddengirl, I was amazed and bit furious to found out that one of my user pages, User:Chanakal/My Contributions is hosted here. Seems to be they are using a web frame. I immediately added userpage template to the page. Felt like my privacy being abused. Don't know whether you are the correct person to report this. Nevertheless hope you'll help me. Cheers!Chanaka L (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Until the expert herself returns, I might manage to suggest that it is incredibly hard, if not impossible, to stop mirroring of user content. It's released under GFDL/CC-SA just the same as article contributions. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 12:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jarry, for the quick response. I didn't expect that User pages are published under GFDL licence. Therefore I think wisest thing to do is not to post much personnel details in the user pages. I also think it would be better to mention in Wikipedia:User page guideline, that this kind of publications can occur. In here luckily I didn't post much private information there. Dear me, WP can be scarier than facebook. Cheers Jarry and Moonriddengirl!Chanaka L (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving some feedback here, Jarry. :) Yes, Chanka, I'm afraid that other websites can mirror userpages. Some people put {{noindex}} at the top of the page, which will help cut down some of the mirroring but probably not all. There are sites out there that copy all of Wikipedia. I've added a note about this at WP:User page. The only thing you really can do about this is if you encounter a site mirroring you without giving you credit. You can send them a 'take down' notice. If they give credit, though, there's nothing to be done, since our policy is that the entire site is free for reuse under our licenses. :/ See WP:Mirrors for more on sending notice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you back Moonriddengirl! Thank you for the lengthy reply. I think that noindex template is a good partial solution. I also think the clause you entered in user page guideline will be useful, especially for the novice users. Regards!--Chanaka L (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry I misspelled your name! I'm fairly tired from my travels. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's quite alright. Cheers again!--Chanaka L (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Top Hot 100 Hits

Thank you for the great work and diligence on determining copyright issues on the Billboard year-end Hot 100 charts. I'm glad we've got something to go by now. --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your raising the question, since it's an important one and it seems it's likely to recur. Having an official position will be helpful! :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I am the user HendrixMorisson who was added the article Arthur Sarkissian. You was deleted it please tell me why? i have add that article 5 times and now my user is blocked! Arthur Sarkissian article is about painter Arthur Sarkissian. and it's my father why i cnat add it? and what copyright i need? PLEASEEEEEEEEE tell me what can i do and how you can help me?? THX!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahansarkissian (talk • contribs)

Your best bet is to read WP:FIRST, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:COI.  Frank  |  talk  11:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This refers to Arthur Sarkissian. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your account was blocked because you repeatedly removed the template and restored the text to publication rather than addressing concerns. The template that you removed contained clear instructions on the source of the copyright infringement and how to address the problem, either by verifying permission to use the text or by rewriting it in new, usable language.

There are two layers of copyright concern here. The article was copied from [1], and it is clearly reserved: "Content is available under Copyright (c) Raffi Kojian, all rights reserved." Looking at the history of that article, it seems that you may have originally authored it there. However, the site indicates that " All content on this site, both photos and text is Copyright © 1996-2006 Raffi Kojian, All rights reserved, unless otherwise specified."[2] It also says, "The information contributed becomes part of the site.... if you have copyright material you would like to add to Armeniapedia while retaining your copyright, just let me know. I will let you know how the material can easily be added on your own pages, with your copyright notice, then locked to prevent anyone else from changing them."

More problematic, though, the armeniapedia article seems to be copying the text of one Peter Frank. Even if armeniapedia gives permission, we can't use that text without knowing who Peter Frank is and verifying the copyright status of his words.

Beyond that, the suggestions above should prove helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Jessie Ball duPont Fund

Hope you have a pleasant break from Wiki. When you get back into the flow, please review User:Mgreason/Sandbox 3. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I hope to get to it tomorrow, and if I should get distracted, please feel free to remind me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0

Hello, wikpedia is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. It does mean that I can add texts under CC-BY-SA-3.0 or under CC-BY-3.0. Am I right?

Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials states, that I can add also texts under CC-BY-SA-compatible licenses.

What are these CC-BY-SA-compatible licenses? Are these all licenses: CC-BY-SA-1.0, CC-BY-1.0, CC-BY-SA-2.0, CC-BY-2.0?

Creative Commons webpage does not provide any Creative commons licenses [3] and does not provide any additional information.

CC-BY-2.0 [4] says that "No works are automatically put under the new license" and the same says CC-BY-1.0 license.

There is directly in Creative Commons licenses article used text licensed under CC-BY-1.0: "Portions of this article are taken from the Creative Commons website, published under the Creative Commons Attribution License v1.0." Is it OK or not?

I would like to be sure if may I or may I not add text under CC-BY-2.0 to wikipedia? Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Until Moonriddengirl can return and give a fuller answer, I'll fill in with a little of my own understanding (which may or may not be right): CC-BY is less restrictive than CC-BY-SA; therefore, assuming that there is no conversion differences, it would seem that one can indeed import CC-BY articles. As for porting 2.0 to 3.0, you'll have to wait for a more authoritative answer. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Right-o. A "compatible" license is one where the material can also be used under the terms of the cc-by-sa-3.0 license, meaning a license that does not place additional restrictions on use beyond the restrictions in cc-by-sa-3.0. All previous versions of cc-by-sa are "compatable", meaning they don't produce additional restrictions. All versions of cc-by, and nearly all {{attribution}} material, is compatible. The GFDL is not compatible, because it requires that a copy of the GFDL license be affixed to the work, which cc-by-sa-3.0 does not require. Hope this helps, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with copyvio

Please see my comment here; I'd appreciate your input. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to take a look, if the timing of my return doesn't make my input useless. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright permission

Thank you very much for the prompt response.

I will provide the required response that will include a specified text associated with the copyright permission. Bci2Nu 05:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Bci2(talk).

	Welcome back
	Glad you're back! Hope your time off was restful and invigorating, in whatever proportion best suits you. – Quadell (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! It was restful and invigorating and absolutely exhausting. :) I'm glad to have gone and even more glad to be back. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios at Strikeforce

Hi, do you think you could take a look at this issue which I reported to ANI? No one seems to be interested :\ --aktsu ^{(t&nbs]p;/ c)} 17:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll come see if I can help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am evaluating contributions and will update there soon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, with close paraphrashing, there are only a limited way of rewriting the facts. With non-free material it is ok under some circumstances as long as it is cited. I believe I've cited everything I contributed. Cheers.Sea888 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I will discuss the matter with you further at your talk page or, if you prefer, ANI. I prefer to keep conversations together for future clarity. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, question

Need a vacation after the vacation? A good sign, but no good graphic AFAIK.

Question, is this being appropriately handled? Talk:Silesian_Uprisings#Copyright_violations. On June 24th the editor stated some possible understanding with the author, but it has not since been confirmed at the page. No hurry?

Also, do you know of any in-house copyvio tool development, apart from the new article bot? Novickas (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, need to recover from recovering. :) As to your question, no, if there's no OTRS communication (and I don't find any), the text should be removed pending verification of permission. As Piotrus recently noted, you are more than welcome to do that. (I've updated WP:CP to indicate as much in line with WP:COPYVIO, since you were very right that it formerly didn't say so.) I've got a migraine at the moment, unfortunately, and my new migraine medication is worse than jet lag. :/ So I won't attempt to look deeply into this at the moment. But if you get the opportunity, please remove any duplicated text until permission can be confirmed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Writing like riding a bike.....

Glad to see that you did remember and found some time. Nice. Might have to check that one out. I, on the other hand, am out of here for the next month while traveling. So I'm afraid that I won't be providing much of a regular assist for you and once again you are on your lonesome. (As if you aren't used to that.) Sorry 'bout that. I'll be back at the end of July. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It was fun. :) I used to aim for one of those every other day before the copyright tide swept away everything else. Caveat: in my opinion, Toussaint isn't much of a singer. Brilliant writer, but singer? Not so much. :) I hope your travels are good, and don't worry about me. I appreciate the time you were able to give it, and I'll welcome you back in July if you feel like doing more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

VT iDirect

Hello. Sorry to bother you, but I'm still having troubles getting the VT iDirect page created. I re-created it today based on the long list of comments I received, but it was deleted by ERK while I was still working on it. Can you help me get the page put back up or let me know what I'm doing wrong?

Thank you!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoguy11579 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This refers to VT iDirect. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied at contributor's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I read your comments back to me; thank you. I've reworked portions of the article to make them neutral by taking out phrases like 'its a good company... provides a good service'. I've also linked it to another Wiki article and added several new, independent sources/resources/links. Does it now pass the requirements it needs to be listed as VT iDirect (not my user page)? Thanks again for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoguy11579 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Replying at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Rough Wooing

This is still full of copyright material placed there by the author, do we just leave it or? I know you emailed him, did you use this address?: Raymond.Paterson@btopenworld.com Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I e-mailed him through his Wikipedia userpage "E-mail this user" option, and I don't know where he had that pointed. I didn't realize there was still text remaining from him. :/ If you want to try him at that address, maybe we'll get a response. Otherwise, we'll have to remove it. We can't presume, even if it seems obvious. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've done that, and explained that he can give us permission to use it, but then he's lost it for that text, right? Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "he's lost it for that text." :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't he lose copyright over any text he lets us use? Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. No, he retains copyright. He just licenses it for reuse (and modification) by Wikipedia's readers. He can publish it anywhere else or do anything else he wants with it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not being clear. His text on Wikipedia could end up being sold by one of the companies selling Wikipedia articles, that's what I meant. It can be reused under the CCASAL or whatever we call it, right? Or rather the GFDL which would have applied then. Dougweller (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably me. I've still got a migraine, though the drugs have settled things into a relatively pain-free haze. :) Yes, whatever he places here can be reused in any fashion by anyone, and he can't have it back. CC-By-SA is what we call it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest for Wayne Schoenfeld's page

Hi,

I write you this message only to have some information about what else to do in order to take away the "conflict of interest" message and the message about the lack of references. I've posted more references of third party sources as asked in order to not only have one primary source. The text has also The permission for use of this work in the Wikimedia OTRS system. If there is something else I could do, I will try to do the best.

Thank you very much for your help. Best regards, --Exeko (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This refers to Wayne Schoenfeld. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Quadell. :)

Thank you for adding some sourcing, Exeko; that's helpful. It would also be helpful to have inline sources to determine if the text is, in fact, neutrally representing critical evaluation. For example, who says that Through The Eyes Of Man Erotic is "operatic"? (And what did they mean by that?) Who says Almost Perfect is "a disturbing visual account"? Who says that these themes "are heroic and worthwhile"? Whose opinion is it that one book is poignant, another colorful? Wikipedia's articles may certainly present critical evaluation of an artist's achievements, but it is must be verifiably the opinion of someone in a reliable source (like a newspaper or magazine article, for instance). It also must be properly balanced. One of the reasons that conflict of interest editing is discouraged is because researchers who are not connected to an artist are perhaps more likely to select a balance of critical reviews. Even if not consciously biased, those who are closely connected to a subject may discount criticism. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer. I'll see what I can do about that.--Exeko (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Again, I added some new information about what you asked in the Wayne Schoenfeld article. Are they sufficient to solve our issue? Here the information that I added :

About who says that Through The Eyes Of Man Erotic is "operatic"' ...I put this information : This quote comes from an essay written about THROUGH THE EYES OF MAN by Douglas Meyer, Professor of Art and Art History at Mt. St. Mary's College in Los Angeles. By OPERATIC professor Meyer refers to the elaborate staging including scenery and costumes characteristic of Schoenfeld's carefully constructed tableau vivants . This is a style originally incorporated into Italian Opera because it was the most complete art form of the day including acting, music and elaborate art direction and costumes.

About Who says Almost Perfect is "a disturbing visual account"? Who says that these themes "are heroic and worthwhile"? Whose opinion is it that one book is poignant, another colorful? ...I put this information : These quotes and opinions were written by Donald C. Rogers who, at the time was the Vice President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the recipient of the special Gordon E. Sawyer OSCAR for Lifetime Achievement in the motion picture arts. After over 40 years in the movie business, Mr. Rogers was expressing that the book ALMOST PERFECT was an important work with the photography capturing the drama of a finely crafted motion picture.

I also added two other sources :

• Peter Frank, critic for the Soho News and Village Voice in New York, editor of Visions, Art Quarterly in Los Angeles,curator for many exhibitions at galleries and museums including the Guggenheim, Otis Art Institute. Frank has lectured widely and is the is an art editor at the Los Angeles Weekly.
• T. Keilor Bentley, Founding Curator-Director National Geographic Society Explorer's Hall, Washington, DC.

I hope this will solve the problem. Best regards,--Exeko (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources need not only to indicate who said it, but where it was said; in what reliable source the information was published. Was it in a newspaper or magazine? Is it hosted on a reputable industry website that is not connected to the source? If reviews are unpublished, they are unlikely to meet our policies on verifiability and original research. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

copyvio weirdness

This Medal of Freedom is (illegally) awarded to Moonriddengirl, an educator dispersing knowledge like Rakim used to drop rhymes--and there can be no freedom without knowledge.

Hi Moonriddengirl,

could you figure out what I did wrong? I put copyvio templates on two pages, Nlectc and National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, both copyright violations and both put up by the same user. Then I dropped the standard notification thingamajing from the template onto the user's talk page, and now there's something weird about it--another editor's signature follows it, etc. Maybe this isn't a big deal, but either way, this being your area of expertise, maybe you can wait making that sixth cup of tea for today and have a quick look? I'm going to make some coffee now. Cookie? Drmies (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, I don't know how I did it, but I think I managed to drop the copyvio notification on Template:Firstredirect... I undid it, but I think I should lay off the coffee for a while. ;) Still, if you could see if there's anything I destroyed...the lights are still on in my office and my cell phone has reception, so I may not have utterly savaged Western civilization... Drmies (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Interesting. :D I don't see signs of massive destruction. I'll drop the notification on the contributor and, if you didn't, list them at CP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I know how you did it. The user who added the template did not "substitute" it, but transcluded it. When you clicked "edit" next to the header, you were editing the transcluded page. I've substituted it at this one, but it's still transcluded at User talk:KoKeBigBoss. If you try to click "edit" next to the header, it'll do the same thing. :) For some reason, the usage notes for the template were buried on its talk page rather than displayed on the front where they can be read and followed. In other words, it wasn't you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Damn you are smart. And I'm smarter than I thought! Good news all around. (I hope you understand that I'm trying desperately to understand what you said...but I got the last part.)Drmies (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
        • LOL! Hardly. :) When it comes to this tech stuff, I stagger around half-informed. :) Basically, it goes like this. There are two ways to put a template on a page. You can "substitute" it—which I think of as rubber stamping—or you can transclude it. If you substitute, you create a permanent copy of the contents of the template on the other page. If you transclude, you create a kind of a window to the template itself. A substituted template never changes, no matter what you do to the template. A transcluded template will update to reflect changes made to the template. (To transclude a page, you just do this: {{User:Moonriddengirl}}. Wherever you put that gets a window to my userpage. If you put {{subst:User:Moonriddengirl}}, it gets the rubber stamp. It wouldn't really matter, so far as I know, whether this template was substituted or transcluded except that it has its own header. When you clicked "edit" next to the header to add your new note, you would have no reason to realize that you were not clicking on the page you wanted to change, but actually clicking through the window (so to speak) on the template itself. Anyway, I have left a note for the contributor about the text. I'm having trouble determining if it is a US government website. On the one hand, it seems to say it is; on the other hand, it seems to say it isn't. We'll see what comes of it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Wow...I think I got it! I'm going to read this a few more times to make sure. sub-stamp, sub-stamp, sub-stamp, that's my "donkey's bridge" (as we say in Dutch). I'm going to find you a barnstar or some cookies, ANYTHING, to reward you for your patient explanation. And I would repay in kind--but I have the feeling you're not waiting on me to explain to you why "Frost at Midnight" is one of the greatest poems in English... Drmies (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
            • You could tell me the origin of "Donkey's bridge", if you know it. That sounds interesting enough to me. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Whoa! I got a medal! :O --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Tacloban City

Hello dear Moonriddengirl,

I understand you've not had a lot to do (since I haven't caused much disruption the last 12 hours), so perhaps I could bother you for a moment. Please have a look at the discussion on User_talk:Drmies#Tacloban and at the copyvio template I dropped on Tacloban City (in the middle). There's a license on the website from which the stuff was copied, but I am not that clever that I know what that means. (What I do know is that copying and pasting makes for poor encyclopedic text, usually.) Could you have a look and weigh in? Thank you so much for your help, as always! Drmies (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy to have a look. :) Off to do so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't we have jobs to do? Thanks for your quick response... Drmies (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jon Courney: reliable sources etc

Hello! I have a question about an article you saved/constructed admist much tomfoolery a year or two back - Jon Courtney. There is a quote on that page from Drowned in Sound (an unpaid, unqualified user-reviewer named Septic Clit) which seems highly inappropriate source material. I believe it was originally included to provide a balanced opinion. While the reasoning is sound, I don't think it's right to include such a poor source, and maybe another more reliable quote making a similar point should be sought. Anyway, I tried to delete this quote, and a single-account editor, Rightphone, who has already vandalised two Courtney-related articles, reversed my deletion. Rather than get in an edit war, I posted a query on the reliable sources page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Drowned_in_Sound), which was picked up by an admin/editor Dreamguy, who said lots of the sources are unreliable, and he put a banner on the page saying so. My attempts to ask what needs to be changed have been met with silence recently, so I was wondering if I could get your opinion a) about that Drowned in Sound quote and b) about the sources on that page in general (and if the banner is justified). Thanks so much!Thedarkfourth (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take a look. :) DreamGuy is not, I think, an administrator, though of course any user can challenge sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Since consensus seems to be that Septic Clit, whose reliability I questioned long ago, is not reliable, I've removed it under BLP. I've addressed self-published sources at the talk page of the article. I don't know if Dreamguy is watching that page or not. I'm not familiar with the singer or his band (in spite of my earlier efforts to mediate in that article), and I'm really not familiar with that particular music scene, so I'm not sure about some of the others. User:Ironholds is an experienced Wikipedian, though, and I think he would probably have some valuable insight into what is reliable and what not in that area. It's worth asking. Meanwhile, I suspect that User:Rightphone may be a returning sockpuppet of User:Justpassinby and have tagged his userpage accordingly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Script message

Hey, is there documentation for this script anywhere? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Got me. I noticed it being used at User talk:Xeno. :) It adds a "send comment" tab to the top of the page. If you should find documentation and it turns out to be useful, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Kingweenie and Richard Perry

Hi there, I noticed you were quite knowledgeable when it comes to copyright issues. I was hoping to get a recommendation from you with regards to the Richard Perry article. Per discussions with a user claiming to be working for the subject, the author apparantly gives permission for the material to be put on Wikipedia. But until this is confirmed by the author should the article be blanked as a copyvio? -- œ^™ 21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It is common practice to blank pending verification of permission, and I have done so. I've also given the contributor a "form letter" I have for the purpose which hopefully makes the process clear. (Presuming he doesn't run from the wall of text. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll know what to do if this situation ever arises again in the future. -- œ^™ 21:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy if I can be of assistance. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for dealing with College of Mount St. Joseph at WP:CV. I must admit I was getting a bit lazy (or just sick of copyvio). You look like you do lots of helpful work at WP:CV, so keep up the good work! WordyGirl90 (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for listing it. :) I appreciate your follow-through with it. I do think there's a chance that the contributor may eventually be able to verify information, but so long as the website indicates it's copyrighted and we don't have proof otherwise, we just can't use it. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jon Courtney sources

Hi, I have reverted your edit to this page, I hope you don't mind. If you recall, you "approved" the original article on the grounds of balance. You did not find anything wrong with the sources then, but you now seem to have changed your opinion., which everyone is entitled to do. Could I therefore ask that you, as a senior administrator, check the remainig sources as the page banner requests, and further delete any poorly sourced material, of which there is lots. I agree that this is a case of poorly sourced material being used to balance equally poorly sourced material, but that is the nature of this article.Rightphone (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You are remembering the conversation incorrectly, I'm afraid. As the talk page indicates, I said, "I'm not entirely sure about the journalistic value of Septic Clit, who seems to be a user reviewer as described at Drowned in Sound rather than a vetted staff writer. We can explore how it falls into Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29, whether or not this particular contributor qualifies as "acceptable as sources" ("so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", in this case webzine's) if need be." It was explored at RSN, and consensus is that the source is unreliable. Balance is only valid when reflecting the viewpoints of reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Need some help

Hi Moon, I'm currently working on the Lindbergh kidnapping to move it to GA review and I had some concerns about some of the images used. If you get a chance, could you please look the images over and let me know if there are any problems. Thanks! Shinerunner (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Images are not exactly my thing, but I'll be happy to take a look. If I don't know, I'll find somebody who does...possibly the somebody in the section immediately above. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. There's some questionable stuff there. I doubt that the copyright holder placed this: File:Columbia-15759-D.jpg. Whether it's lapsed into PD, I don't know. I think I'm going to request feedback from somebody on these. Some of them seem clearly okay; some of the fair use stuff, I'm not sure about. It's hard for me to determine what's merely decorative from what's essential. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. If you can drum up some additional help I'd appreciate it. Thanks again! Shinerunner (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Quadell, and if he isn't available will certainly run down somebody else. I'm good at that; I do it a lot. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, I've had a look. Here's what I found:

• File:Lindberg ransom note mark.JPG is fine.
• File:Hunterdon County Courthouse.jpg is fine.
• File:Lindbergh baby poster.jpg was incorrectly tagged as a U.S. government work, but it's still PD. I fixed the tag.
• File:Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf NYWTS.jpg was mistagged, but after some research I discovered it's PD because the copyright was not renewed. I tagged it as such.
• File:Charles Lindbergh testifying.jpg was mistagged, but is free, as above.
• File:United States ten dollar gold certificate.jpg is actually PD, and I tagged it as such.
• File:Columbia-15759-D.jpg is PD, since the underlying design is PD. I improved the tagging.
• File:Hauptmann22.jpg - PROBLEM. This was certainly not released into the public domain by its copyright holder, as the page claims, and the fact that it was shown in a public museum is also irrelevant. Without knowing the photographer or date of publication, we can't know if this is copyrighted or not. I nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 July 1.
• File:Hauptmann grain comparison.jpg - PROBLEM. Claimed as non-free, but I don't believe it passes WP:NFCC#8. I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 1.
• File:Hauptmann handwriting comparison.jpg - PROBLEM. Non-free, fails NFCC#8 as above, listed for deletion as above.
• File:SLCSP001 24.jpg - PROBLEM. Non-free, fails NFCC#8 as above, listed for deletion as above.

Hope this helps! – Quadell ^(talk) 12:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it does. You continue to be awesome. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Moon, the images that I thought might be problems are problems. I'm going to leave a thank you on Quadell's page as well. Shinerunner (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Imagination Movers

Hi Moonridden, Could you take a look at my concerns at Imagination Movers? I made a post at Wikipedia_talk:Suspected_copyright_violations#Imagination_Movers, but nobody seems to really watch that page, and I know that Copyvio is one of your strong suits.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Sure. I'm heading right over (as soon as Wikipedia stops being broken). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was added here. An IP contributor attempted to rewrite it, but succeeded only in creating a derivative work. I'm trying to figure out the best way to proceed with this one. Hmm. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As if things weren't complex enough, IP contributor 98.183.93.22 came in February of 2009 and started adding more copyvios, to newspaper and official website. Same contributor? Who knows? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And so did IP contributor 98.179.204.91, who not only took from the original website, but also from [5] ("Today, the show is produced in New Orleans and local employees make up about 95% of the crew.") --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I am one of the Movers and need to understand what is happening to our Wikipedia page. Not sure what is going on but please email me - <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.204.91 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

E-mailed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tacloban#Culture

Hi Moonriddengirl, what's the next step? An administrator/trix needs to resolve the issue--do you mind? Just go ahead and delete the contents--the whole things needs to be rewritten anyway, and since the section is splitting off it will be short and sweet. Your help is much appreciated. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) The protocol of {{copyvio}} is admin closure after a week and a day. This is to allow time for contributors to verify permission or to rewrite it themselves in the "temporary" space linked from the template. Only in unusual circumstances do I address them more speedily than that, say if the contributor has infringed in multiple articles and isn't likely to be able to verify and the article is itself not much monitored. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck…

Sorry, MRG, I'm juggling a bunch of things and your message got dropped. You don't have to do anything more, but filing an SPI may help by getting more eyes on the case. -- Avi (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Imagination Movers

We're the Imagination Movers and were notified by fans that our Wikipage is on the fritz. Could you please explain what's going on? You can email <redacted> to let us know what we should be doing to secure our representation here.

You have an e-mail that should help clarify matters and explain how to proceed from here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Need Help!

Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir, and agian I need your help. There is this IP address user, who has been continuously destroying the page, List of programs broadcast by DD National. The IP address begins with 117.196. (117.196.99.3, 117.196.100.1, 117.196.101.19, 117.196.101.170, etc...). Is there any way to block this person. Besides, since you have become wiki admin (congrats), can you please help me move the following pages, Colors (India TV channel) to Colors (TV channel) as this is more appropriate, since there is no other article on wikipedia with the same name exists, & also Dill Mill Gaye to Dill Mill Gayye, the title is misspelled. I will be very thankful to you! Your wiki friend,Survir (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm answering the one above, and I'll come take a look at this very soon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected List of programs broadcast by DD National, so that only registered users can edit it, for one week. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also "Dill Mill Gaye" and "Dill Mill Gayye" both seem to be legitimate spellings, and both are used in official descriptions and websites. "Dill Mill Gaye" gets more Google hits. I made Dill Mill Gayye into a redirect though. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved "Colors" though. I think that's it! – Quadell ^(talk) 18:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much both Moonriddengirl & Quadell for your help! -- Survir (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email about something I mentioned a while back. Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 14:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've been out all afternoon, but I'll take a look in a few minutes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How to contact OTRS?

Please see my comment here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

On my way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

UN Security Council Resolution 1804

Hi, I have no idea where to go to discuss whether or not sources are copyright violations or not. Could you please take a look at UN Security Council Resolution 1804? It's copied from the sources, which is a un.org page. What's the word on copyright from the UN? Are they public domain, or copyrightable? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. UN is definitely not public domain. Their website says " All rights reserved" and even specifically indicates that "News-related material can be used as long as the appropriate credit is given and the United Nations is advised." This is not compatible with our licensing, as it imposes an additional restriction: advising the United Nations. I'll take a look at duplication; if extensive, I'll handle it accordingly. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there a copyright noticeboard where such questions can be addressed? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

For general questions about copyright, you can ask at WT:CP or WT:C. If you strongly believe an article is an infringement, you would just list it at WP:CP, unless it meets the criteria for WP:CSD#G12. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to list it at CP, because I didn't know if UN pages were copyrighted or not, I guess I should just db-copyvio it. Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the first two options, WT:CP and WT:C, can be helpful. I've already listed it at CP, though, with a note of explanation to the editor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, you are a copyright goddess.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy if I can help. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

4-4 defense

Turns out you are correct about http://www.44defense.com . The domain was registered in February 2008. The content at issue was added to the American football strategy page in June 2006 here. Good catch. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) It's always good to have multiple eyes looking at things. I appreciate your vigilance in addressing a potential legal issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GFDL help

User:Allstarecho/Fuglies are not notable has been called into question as violating GFDL as most of it came from User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable. What do I need to do with it to attribute User:GlassCobra? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to check it out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. It's simple enough. All you need to do is put into an edit summary at your essay "Text taken verbatim from User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable at creation, which see for attribution." You should also put a note in the edit summary of the other essay (with a null edit) saying "Text duplicated to User:Allstarecho/Fuglies are not notable on 19 February 2008." You might also want to attribute with a <!--hidden note--> just inside the code. I've seen this done in non-article space. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was brought up here and now on my talk page here. It's an old page and not one I had thought about during the whole copyvio drama. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll handle it. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your not thinking of it. I know you weren't aware of the attribution requirements for "within Wiki" text. That's a common point of confusion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it still needs to be deleted per the discussion on my talk page... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleet it and start afresh with no issues - and no repetition of text. This really is not complex Allstar. Pedro :  Chat  21:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above. This molehill needn't be a mountain. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why delete it and then recreate it only so someone else can claim it as "recreation of deleted material"?? That makes no sense at all. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get that idea from? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Happens all the time. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, "recreation of deleted material" applies only to articles that were deleted via a deletion discussion, and subsequently re-instated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this all related to attribution issues? If so, they are simply handled by supplying attribution. We do it frequently. If there are other issues I'm not aware of? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, there are still BLP violations in the edit history. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

←Ah, well, if it is deleted and recreated, it'll have to be done with care to avoid infringing on the licensing rights of other contributors to the essay. I see a few other names in history, though I don't know if their contributions rise to the level of creativity that requires attribution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So tell me what I need to do. I'll listen to you. Delete and then recreate? Leave as is with GFDL issues done in the edit summary? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that at your userpage Pedro expresses some concerns about the efficiency of that method. Let me talk to him about it. I'll get back with you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

CSD for LAMBDA School of Music and Fine Arts

FYI: I've tagged LAMBDA School of Music and Fine Arts with WP:CSD#G12. I couldn't find a substantive revision without copyrighted text. You had cleaned this page up a while a go, so I though I'd let you know. —C45207 | Talk 03:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I got everything on the page that had been identified at CP, but missed the other page. I see you've been talking to the contributor about how to clear; I've added a little more information since I can access the OTRS notice. I've also blanked the article while we wait. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Leave me a message link on user page

Your user page has a leave me a message link. May I suggest using {{fullurl}} for that link? There's some info about it at Wikipedia:Fullurl. The replacement code would be: <span class="plainlinksneverexpand">[{{fullurl:User_talk:Moonriddengirl|action=edit&section=new}} <font color=blue>leave me a message</font>]</span>.—C45207 | Talk 03:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the most technologically savvy user in the world. :) I'm trying, but I haven't been able to get it to work yet. I'll keep poking at it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Verify Permissions Template

Thank you for creating the verify permissions template, {{User:Moonriddengirl/vp}}! Do you know of more like it?—C45207 | Talk 03:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly my pleasure; I wind up using it a lot. :) The only other ones I know are the ones I've got collected here. Some of my "form letters" need to be updated to reflect the licensing shift, though. I'm getting to them as I need to use them. Maybe I'll go ahead and do them all so I can stop wondering which are still outstanding. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I sometimes find that contributors don't entirely follow me. The OTRS release we received from that person completely failed to follow instructions. :) That happens a lot. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WT:LOP#Bringing the page in line with policy pages

You made some recent related edits to the page, thought you might want to see this. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 04:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dropped in two bits and watchlisted it. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sea888 and Strikeforce, again

Hi and thanks for helping out previously! It still doesn't appear Sea888 (talk · contribs) understands the problem though, as his first edit when returning after being blocked for edit warring was inserting (diff) the line...

"Carano and Cyborg, the consensus two best female fighters in the world, will be the first women in MMA history to headline a major MMA fight card. In addition, they will fight for the first STRIKEFORCE 145-pound Female Championship.

from this press release to the Strikeforce article while replacing the perfectly fine mention of it already there (also, that they're the "consensus two best female fighters in the world" is Strikeforce hyping up the fight as it's pretty far from the truth (as described by me at WT:MMA while citing proper rankings etc., but as it's sourced (Fox Sports posted (but didn't write) a small note on it retelling the press release etc.) I don't know what do to about it). His other changes in the diff is copy-pasting the rules section from the UFC article, which shouldn't be a problem I think, and while I don't like the "Mainstream emergence"-section I don't think there's any copyvio involved. Could you take a look again? Thanks, --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me. I'll look into it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on that, on the introduction of text into another article and that the rules seem to have come from a blacklisted site (see the URL at his talk page), I have given him a brief block to emphasize that copyright policies must be followed. Please feel free to let me know if you see further issues. I hope you will not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The rules section in the UFC article is pretty old though. Archive.org's latest revision of the UFCHeaven-page is Aug. 2007 (while the last-changed-paramter in the header gives July 2007) while the text was introduced in the article around May 2006... --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. If the rules are okay, please feel free to put those back. The other text, though, is clearly not. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I didn't really see the point in it taking up space in the first place when we already have an article on it, and the sole difference in Strikeforce compared to other US-promotion is easily described :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi I've added back the information that wasn't objectable. Cheers.Sea888 (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Talk:Ariel 1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW… 18:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is now resolved. --GW… 18:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. :) I wouldn't usually use a cclean template for something that minor, but the first edits were really what I had in mind. I'm glad you found the text useful; I would have generally rewritten in passing but the copyright problems board is pretty swamped today! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Counselor-in-Training

Thanks for the feedback on Jessie Ball duPond Fund.

I've got a different kind of new article at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 5 Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll try to come take a look at it at some point today after doing the copyright problems in queue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear of your pain; I'll try not to be one. : ( I read eight or nine sources for CIT and the duration was different for many of them. I'll cite more sources for that statement and the age range. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :D It's a bit frustrating; we're trying out several new medications, and I'm thinking some of those are worse than the migraines. Today I am (knock wood) pretty clear. So long as I stay that way, I may be able to knock out this backlog! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a rewrite on Dinner theater at User:Mgreason/Sandbox. When you have a few minutes, I'd appreciate a critique. Thanks for your help! Mgreason (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor issue with another user

Hi. I was wondering if you could clear something up for BreakingDawn 90210, who has a habit of uploading replacement images for articles such as Blair Waldorf and Kelly Taylor (90210). The problem is that this person's uploads use the same file name as the preexisting image, but feature completely new pictures that the original copyright, source, and rationale info doesn't apply to.

I've undone the uploads and attempted to inform this person a few times of why this is improper (in edit summaries and on their talk page now). Since then, the user has done the same thing with the Naomi Clark image. Since I don't appear to be getting through, I'd appreciate it if you could put a word in, as perhaps you can explain it more clearly. Thank you. -- James26 (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Many (particularly newer) contributors don't check edit summaries for communication. It seems that she or he got the idea from your last note; I see that s/he restored the earlier version. If this persists and you need assistance explaining the problem, please let me know. I'd be happy to help out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Is there a policy/essay about this sort of thing, BTW? I imagine it would be called something like "piggybacking," or some similar term. -- James26 (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems like there would or should be, but images are not my major focus. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger edit summaries, best practice

Hi. I have started a discussion on formalizing merger edit summaries at Help talk:Merging#Edit summaries, best practice. Since you had valuable input the last time I raised this suggestion and at the related discussion WT:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force#Merge and delete, I hope you will comment. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be happy to come by and see what I may have to offer. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you've a moment ...

Hi, If you've a moment could you please have a look at Talk:List of Jewish Nobel prize winners. An IP (85.250.189.18) has deleted all the comments of User:Jinfo and removed the copyvio template from the article. If it were simply a matter of using Template:uw-tpv1 I wouldn't bother you, but because there is an underlying copyvio argument I would appreciate your assistance/advice before I do anything. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just finished the above. On my way. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a copyright infringement. Sweat of the brow is not protected, and this is a straightforward compilation of facts: a chronological listing of Nobel winners who are Jewish. However, since it's the copyright holder himself complaining (albeit not with a takedown), I think we need to let Mike in on it. I'll ask him what he thinks we should do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have mailed User:Mike Godwin. I note that the website owner does make a good point about his idiosyncratic definition of Jewishness. Hopefully, Mike will tell us what to do. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Saul Steinberg

Hi - can you pls. explain what you did to the Saul Steinberg (business) article? I am fairly sure there was a version that could have been used between 2007 and today. By deleting not only the copyrighted materials but also the entire edit history it is difficult to say what is there and what is missing. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I "selectively deleted" back to the last clean version as per Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins in cases where there is a clean version in history but extensive infringement from one point on. http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/18/0618steinberg.html was pasted into the article on 4 April 2007, at 14:54 by IP contributor 64.61.105.42. There was not a usable version after that date, as extensive text from that source was present in every subsequent edit (although some of it was removed subsequently as inappropriate to the article). Even the lead was mostly copied from that obit (see, for example, [6], so long as google is still caching).

The only unusual thing about my handling of that article was that there had already been extensively deleted copyright infringement which was still stored under the primary title. I raised that from the dead, so to speak, and moved it to Saul Steinberg (business)/deleted revisions. That text dated back to 2006. The more recent infringement is stored at Saul Steinberg (business)/deleted revisions 2009-07-03.

If you need further clarification or information, please just let me know. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because of the tagging I cannot get the cached version of the article. My only problem is that I know numerous edits have been made and it is difficult to tell what you have salvaged and what you have not because there is no "usable version" since 2007 to review. The fact that you did this so quickly without any tagging doesn't make a lot of sense given the the problem has evidently been there for two years. Your approach makes it difficult for other editors to salvage material that might be useful. Although I cannot recall exactly what was there, I am fairly sure the article could have been reworked and cleaned up even though you decided there was no "usable version". I would have suggested following this suggestion:

"If there is a copyright violation and there are clean revisions in the page history or if the text in question is a minor part of the article, there are a couple of options. In either case, a short explanation on the article's talk page is helpful so other editors will neither revert nor add the text back to the article. (There is a template at cclean which may be used.) Revert back to the last clean revision or remove the infringing text from the article, using an appropriate edit summary. You should also leave a note at the article's talk page cautioning against inadvertent restoration of the copyright infringing material. This is the best choice in most situations where the violation is not extensive. The infringing text is removed from the public face of the article, but it will not be removed/deleted permanently unless the copyright holder complains via OTRS."

This would allow for a better outcome in my opinion. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you missed it, but the article was tagged and listed for 7 days to allow contributors interested in it to address these concerns. (see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 June 25) I'm not the tagger. I came into it as an uninvolved administrator through the copyright problems noticeboard. The text in question was not a minor part of the article, which is why I handled it as I did. I followed the instructions for administrators in closing the matter. I salvaged none of the text, or there would be a note attributing it in edit summary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I know you salvaged none of the text and I don't even know what text was there. It is basically back to the beginning on that article which as you can appreciate is very frustrating and which I am not going to spend time to do again. I will have to believe that it was tagged but again there is no way to know that now since there is no revision history. I still don't understand why was it impossible just to revert the article back without deleting the revision history? that seems like a perfectly acceptable solution. I can believe that there was potentially borrowing from that article but it is difficult for me to believe it was just a blatant drop of the text. I would like for you to provide a constructive solution short of, start over. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith, but you don't have to believe me; I've linked to the date it was listed. You can see for yourself, including who the tagger was. The article was blanked for a full seven days, with a note explaining that at the end of seven days it was likely to be deleted if it was not address. It even linked to a temporary space where the material could be rewritten. The copying was extensive. The IP who pasted the text wiped out almost everything that had already been there (the text that has published now). I can't restore copyright infringing text and am not supposed to knowingly link to sites that infringe copyright, but you can see one "archived" version of the article at (redacted). (I'll be redacting that link very soon.) Please note that even if the text is not in the Forbes version, you will need to put it in your own words to avoid infringing on the Wikipedia contributors who placed it.

I'm sorry that none of the editors who may have been interested in that article took the opportunity provided to rewrite in a usable version. I have myself rewritten over 150 articles that have been listed at the board when there was no clean version to revert to, and I have painstakingly added in clean material on a good many. But as an administrator closing out copyright problems, I simply do not have time to rewrite all of the problematic articles that are listed. If you're interested in helping to avoid such collateral damage, you'd be more than welcome to join WP:COPYCLEAN (or simply follow some of the steps suggested there for locating & cleaning up copyright infringements). Alternatively, you can simply look at the dozens of articles that are listed for upcoming admin closure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. As soon as I finish with the 27th, I have the eight still outstanding for the 28th to address. People do blatant drops of text on Wikipedia all the time. That's why, unfortunately, we have such processes as WP:CSD#G12 and WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing that archived version, I have to note that it seems likely that other sources have been infringed. (This is not unusual; when a contributor adds copyrighted text from one source to a Wikipedia article, they frequently add text from others.) For instance, the "match made in corporate heaven" sentence seems to be pasted from [7]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Paterson

Check your email. You can reply here or my talk page or by email, whatever is best. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

For privacy reasons (not related to either of us), have started with e-mail. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to start on this, I've emailed you again. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope you are feeling ok, I've started a rough draft and emailed it to you. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, see [8]. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Extensive use of copyrighted text?

Hi. There's been a question raised at an FLC about "extensive quotation of copyrighted text" (from Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text) in Rumford Prize. Do you think that the usage of quotation is excessive in the list? Any information/guidance on this (at the FLC) would be much appreciated. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I should be wrapping what I'm doing here within 15 or 20 minutes and will come right over. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And jumping on the bandwagon, I have the same issue with Crafoord Prize, also an FLC at the moment. I think I've covered all the MOS issues, but our guidelines (as far as I can tell) become a little subjective on how much is too much when it comes to infringing copyrights. I'd very much appreciate a view on that list as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

All righty. Also on my list. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

←I think that using this text may be a problem. But I've asked for additional review at WT:NFC and WT:C and will also ask at WT:COPYCLEAN. Since there are several lists at issue here, it would be good to develop consensus. :) I've left my initial thoughts at the above FLC, but will wait until such consensus emerges to have a say at the second. (Just because currently I'd probably be redundant. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and also because I think it's more gray in the second than in the first. The first page puts the information in a chart, but essentially adds nothing new. The second case is a bit more transformative, at least of the PDF. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest would you say this also a problem for seven already featured lists of Nobel laureates? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If they're all drawn from one page, then, yes, I think it could. All the more reason to get additional input from various points before making any determination. I've publicized at WT:NFC, WT:C and WT:COPYCLEAN. Sometimes this draws good response. Sometimes it draws none. :) Let's hope for the good response. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do :) Following on from that, how much difference does the "all drawn from one page" part make, because in these cases each winner has a page with very little content, and each including the quote given in the table e.g. [9][10] Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how much difference it makes, but I know that in determining fair use the US courts look at how central or important the duplicated creative content is to (a) the source and (b) the destination. I'm not saying you can get away with copying extensively from large sources—since the importance is determined more by how "central" the material is than how extensive it is—but there's a gut sense that 20 sentences quoted out of 2,000 pages is probably going to be less central than 5 sentences quoted out of 6. :) Fair use examines four factors: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. We're clear on the non-commercial, but our reusers may not be. This is one of the reasons why we don't accept non-commercial licenses. 2. the nature of the copyrighted work. Educational. That helps. 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. (That's where the "one page" enters in.) And 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. I don't know what marketing use [11] might conceive of for this text, but I think we could agree that there could be significant impact on any potential market they might have. (Not that I'd buy the product, but, you know....) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested, I've compiled a list of Featured lists with possible copyright problems. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Indulging in a Charlie Brownesque "Argh!" here. :/ Thanks for compiling the list. Any chance FLC reviewers would be interested in helping to address these concerns? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MILHIST needs your help with yet another incident of extensive plagarism. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Moving up to the last two. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright & fair-use rationale of SVGified logo - new policy on SVGified images needed

You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions is very much appeciated Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 18:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion may not be quite as helpful as you'd like. :) Images are not really my area. I don't even know what an "svg" is. But I can suggest a better forum! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions :D Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking notice

Was not aware of the copyright tag on Concurrent relation. I disagree that this is a violation for the following several reasons, and also make these comments: 1) the source has an error that was not included but corrected in the Wikipedia article; 2) the variable names in Wikipedia were changed to differentiate from the source names; 3) although of no consequence to this discussion, another reputable website has the "exact" word-for-word definition (true copy/paste) http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ConcurrentRelation.html; 4) a mathematical definition can not change from website to website, no more than the meaning of a word can change from website to website, there will be have to be similarities; 5) the source cites 3 references from where the definition came from, hence, not an original definition; 6) the originator of the copyright tag (user Arthur Rubin) is acting with prejudice against the best interest of Wikipedia for the following reasons: a) He has stated a general negative bias against this particular source in question, "Encyclopedia of Mathematics" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_27#Category:Relations; b) He and others (possibly including user Michael Hardy) have conspired to remove or rename Wikipedia article that i have created on "Relations" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translation_relation&action=history (this is an example of removing, with a redirect, good information from Wikipedia). The fact is that "Relations" do exist in Mathematics. There are many sources describing "Translational relation", including my own in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_27#Category:Relations , yet these users insist on depriving Wikipedia readers based on non-cooperative reasons; c) the edits done by these users on these related topics were done in haste with insufficient thought, as can be seen with reverts on my talk page history regarding Zermelo's Theorem/game theory. Please advise if you can. Henry Delforn (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The copyright question seems to have resolved while I was offline as the tagger has withdrawn the tag. Your overall dispute with the other editors is a bit more problematic. If the problem is that both contributors feel the source is unreliable, you might wish to seek feedback at the reliable sources noticeboard. If the question is more complex than that, you might find it useful to—in neutral language—succinctly explain the issue at a relevant noticeboard and request input from uninvolved parties. I'm afraid that when it comes to mathematics, I am not expert enough to help out with subject-specific issues. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics? I realize both of these editors are active there, but they are not the only editors active there, and I would trust that other contributors can neutrally weigh the issues without bias towards familiar colleagues. If you're less certain of that, of course, there are other fora as set out at dispute resolution. Good luck. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		In recognition of your excellent work in this area, I award you this much-deserved star. Great job improving the Richard Perry article too! :) œ™ 02:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you. :) I felt bad for the gentleman, since he evidently has a history of trying to get a good page on Wikipedia and has just had trouble understanding how to do so. He's certainly notable enough! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Medpedia

Hey there, I have a general copyright question about the project Medpedia (http://www.medpedia.com/), it says in their licensing part of their terms page that they use the GNU Free Document License, but they don't specify which version, they only link to this page [12], so I was wondering if we could use some of their content and re-license it as cc-by-sa under the licensing clause as we did with our GFDL content? Because I was wondering that if we could it would be a great source of medical related articles and information for Wikipedia (Oh, and I was refered to you from The ed17 on IRC :) ). Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm afraid with our licensing transition, we can't take text from GFDL-only sources anymore, regardless of the version of GFDL they use. :/ GFDL is not in itself compatible with CC-By-SA; we were only permitted to relicense text imported from GFDL-only sites prior to November 2008. After that date, GFDL sites had to have been co-licensed under a CC-By-SA compatible license for us to use it. This is one of those sad cases where that would once have been an excellent source, but is no longer usable on Wikipedia. (See Wikimedia:Terms of Use) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history‎

Will you add something there about Paterson? We haven't got very far yet at all. Thanks. If you know any of the participants who haven't responded to the thread, if you could drop them a note that would be great. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I didn't realize you had launched that discussion. On my way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm running the Contribution Surveyor program. It may take a few hours, depending on how active he's been. I'll set up a tab for him at the Copyclean project and come back to the project with more info once I've done so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Shutter Island

Hi there. Yeah I see that now on the talk alright, I've tagged with a cleanup-section instead. Sorry about that! Thanks! Fin©™ 16:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Nobel Prize Winners

Thanks very much for your assistance with this problem. I genuinely appreciate your prompt and professional handling of the issues as they've arisen.Jinfo (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of pages started by me

Thanking you for your sugession, since i have floated number of Pages regaring towns and villages aroung Kanpur city in a very short time.

Most of the information were from india09.com (regarding description), fallingrain.com (regarging location and elevation), censusindia.gov.in, (regarding population) asi.nic.in (regarding Archaeological importance) and from official sites of Kanpur nagar district, Kanpur dehat district, Auraiya district and unnao district.

The description obtained from india09.com is very limited just two or three lines in any particular page. Presently it may appear i have copied them from a source. Here i would like to mention that these all pages are studs and they are just evolving as more information will be available the language will continue to change. At the same time i will try to change the style of what ever limited literature they have as suggested by you. Please further note each page have different sections and their information have been sourced from different sources as stated earlier.

I have not even tagged them as studs neither they have been catogerised nor there there is any extenal reference. It will be done.

But most have the information have been cross tallied from other websites also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh vyas (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Opera synopses worries

Hello from WP:WPO, where a question was raised yesterday about the synopsis for (Macbeth (opera)). The synopsis, as well as a number of others, was originally copied (in 2005 or thereabouts) from a website called Opera Japonica). The copier (User:Kleinzach) was in real life - and still is - Simon Holledge, the publisher of Opera Japonica and the author of the synopsis. He's on a wikibreak at the moment.

At the time (November 2005), one of the other synopses (that for I Capuleti e i Montecchi) was spotted as a copyvio, and there was some dialogue between Kleinzach and two or three admins which resulted in Kleinzach attaching a statement to that synopsis (and to the other ones that he'd authored and copied) stating that the copying had been done "with permission". The permission was, of course, granted by himself as author and publisher to himself as WP editor. There is an unnumbered OTRS tag attached to the Capuleti/Montecchi Talk page, but not, we think, to any of the others, and it looks as if WP procedures weren't properly followed by OTRS people at the time. We at the Opera Project are concerned that copyvio tags may be slapped without warning on any or all of the synopses, and we'd like to regularise the situation, preferably with the aid of numbered OTRS tags or whatever else may be deemed necessary. I'm about to move the "with permission" statements from the bottom of the synopses to footnotes, but that won't solve the problem.

We will be grateful for your input on this. The discussion that we've had at the Opera Project is here. Feel free to reply direct to me and/or, if you think it's appropriate, add your thoughts to the discussion on the above page. Meanwhile, I'm emailing Kleinzach to put him in the picture. Thanks in advance for any help or guidance that you can give us. --GuillaumeTell 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, you're a star! Thanks so much for your help with this. Must go pack my suitcase, am technically not here.;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I second that! Unlike Voce, I am technically here, at least until my next trip to Covent Garden. Many thanks for the prompt and tremendously helpful response. --GuillaumeTell 23:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help and that it has turned out to be relatively simple. Relatively simple is my favorite kind of copyright problem. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Angela Corey

A person with the user name The Younger removed text and sources, claiming that he "tidied up the article, edited some apparantly biased language". He replaced the sources with Citation needed tags. I restored the original version and reapplied a couple of valid changes he had made. Today he revised a paragraph, gutting most of the factual detail from the sources. I don't want to get into an edit war, but it seems like this person has an ax to grind. I value your opinion. Would you review this and tell me if I should back off? Mgreason (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As you may have guessed, since I still haven't finished review your most recent, I am scrambling to keep up. :) But this seems like something I can probably help out with, at least to help figure out the best approach. Let me go take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. This seems to be a straightforward editing dispute. It's not clearly disruptive of the article, as he is editing with plausible reasoning, so this is a case to assume good faith and launch a conversation about your concerns, explaining cordially why you disagree. I would suggest placing a note at the article's talk page explaining how the sources supported the text and why you think it belongs and then putting a note at his page telling him where that can be found. Give him a few days, since he's not an active contributor (I would guess, based on his redlinked talk page). If he doesn't return, you may restore the text if you're confident that it's all neutral in weight. If he does return and the two of you cannot reach an agreement on what the page should say, you might start by asking for feedback at the neutral point of view noticeboard or, since there are only two of you, requesting feedback at WP:3O. This is not exactly the fun part of Wikipedia, but it's an important part of the process. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Subcats

FYI. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a bit swamped with living my stupid real life (think they can commandeer my time just because I get paid!? Honestly. Deadline = Monday) and trying to keep up with copyvios while living it, but I'll keep an eye on it. :) If I get a chance, I'll see if I can offer some input. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:Shutter Island (film)

Thanks for note, and the kind words. And thanks, too, for (as always) doing such a great job in your role as admin and investigating the matter. I'll be sure to keep what you posted at the talk page in mind (that starting out different at Wikipedia and converging might signal a reverse coypvio). TwilligToves (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

other sources

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/jewish-nobel-laureates-11590-more-than-population-statistics-might-expect/ Jewish Nobel Laureates: 11590% More Than Population Statistics Might Expect By Scott Thong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.41.129 (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are Scott Thong (which you would need to verify through Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, you would need to verify permission to paste his text on Wikipedia, even in non-article space. Reproducing non-free text is a copyright violation. The link alone is sufficient to consider your perspective. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I Hereby Award..

		The Invisible Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Invisible Barnstar for your diligent work on the English Wikipedia. I had only recently become aware of you when you helped me with the article Deep Eddy Pool. Thank you so much for collaborating on such a worthy project as the wikipedia. People like you assure that when I encounter a person that doesn’t use the wikipedia because of factual verifiability, I can show them, no look, it is referenced! Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Also :)...

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Talk:Deep Eddy Pool.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dillard421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I think by and large we make a good network of workers. I was very impressed with your proactive investigation of that particular copyright concern. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Just doing my part I suppose. :) Dillard421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OTRS help, please

Call me slow, MRG, by all means, but...when I come across a copyvio article and think, "the author really needs to send through an OTRS notification of ownership of copyright, since most likely the author owns the copyright", I stumble around blindly looking for a page of explanation to which to direct the author. Wikipedia:OTRS does not seem a suitable place to send someone. Worse, exactly how do you send an OTRS email to the WMF? The Wikipedia:OTRS advises "Please see our "Contact Us" page". But that page does list an obvious contact email.

Forgive me laying this on you, but do you have any knowledge of the advice & contact pages you'd point a user towards in this circumstance? thanks, --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I will not call you slow, but rather our process pages many. The place to send them is Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If they do not claim to be the author or you do not think they are, but rather that they might have permission, send them to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; very much obliged. I'll look back over the pages which I perceive failed to give me the links I wanted, and see if they can be introduced (or indeed if they're already there). --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Frank Lapidus

Hi. I'm contacting you as the admin who protected the page Frank Lapidus to ask if you would consider unprotecting it. Although the article was deleted for non-notability, I believe the version that existed at the time was entirely unsourced and a clear copyvio. I've written an article on the character in my userspace utilising reliable sources which I believe should meet the general notability guideline, and would like to move it into the mainspace if at all possible. Thank you :) Frickative 14:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The article has several times been deleted as a copyright infringement. I have little experience with television related articles and do not know notability standards for those, but quite clearly your version differs from that which was AfDed. :) I've unprotected the space to allow you to develop it and will leave notability concerns to those familiar with the area. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) Frickative 14:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi, I think there are at least a few, if not more, copyvios at the article Expulsion of Germans after World War II. The first set of them occur in the section "Evacuation and flight to Denmark" - where a lot the text is taken almost verbatim from the Spiegel Online article [13]. For example Wiki-Article: "the refugees were interned in hundreds of camps from Copenhagen to Jutland, placed behind barbed wire and guarded by military personnel. The largest camp, located in Oksbøl on the west coast of Jutland, held 37,000 refugees." vs. Spiegel: "The refugees were interned in hundreds of camps from Copenhagen to Jutland, placed behind barbed wire and guarded by heavily armed overseers. The largest camp was located in Oksboll, on the west coast of Jutland, and had 37,000 detainees.". Or Wiki-Article: "Many of the refugees were women, children, or the elderly.[22] A third of the refugees were younger than 15 years old" vs. Spiegel: "And most were women, children or elderly. A third of the refugees were younger than 15 years old". Most of the rest of the sentences in this section are also more or less verbatim. The second batch of copyvio's appears in the "Poland" [14] section where the sentences reffed to the Gibney and Hansen book [15] are also verbatim, more or less. There might also be some based on the source The Expulsion of 'German' Communities from Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War by Prausser and Rees but I haven't had time to check everything in that one carefully.

The same problem (with the Gibney and Hansen book) appears also in Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II.

I'm not sure what the proper steps are if the article has possible multiple copyright issues. Should it be tagged with a template?radek (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally, that's what I would do unless(and wouldn't this be good luck?) you can identify that they are recent additions and can simply revert back to the last clean. I'm sorry that I don't have time to look myself at the moment; I'm struggling under a heavy workload off-wiki. When I get back on, I'll be hustling to catch up the backlog at the copyright problems board. But I am entirely confident in your handling of the matter. :) You know about archives and have been very good at catching these problems. If you need help later, let me know; I'll be glad to take a look. It may be Monday before I have anything like extra time, though. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! No hurry, it might be possible to just take care of it without extensive work (though unfortunately lots of the edits are quite old).radek (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

All right. :) Tap me again if it's still oustanding in a few days, please, and I'll try to help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

NOBEL PRIZE

I FOUND ANOTHER 15 WEBSITES,WITH THE SAME INFORMATOIN BY GOOGLE SEARCH.--217.132.41.129 (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC) ARE THEY ALL CRIMINALS ,AND ONLY WIKIPEDIA OBEYS THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT???--217.132.41.129 (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied at article talk page. Talk:List of Jewish Nobel prize winners. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ALL THE 15 WEBSITES, AGREES ABOUT 160 WINNERS,AND THE FEW THAT LEFT (19 WINNERS), CAN BE EASILLY,DETECTED IF THEY ARE JEWS (BY GOOGLE SEARCH),SO ALL THE INFORMATION IS MINE,AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JINFO.ORG. --217.132.41.129 (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

--217.132.41.129 (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I have answered at the article's talk page, I will also respond here. If there are lists of Jewish Nobel prize winners compiled without human selectivity as to qualifiers as "Jewish" or, alternatively, lists that rely on human selectivity that are public domain, you are welcome to use these. However, if more than 10% of the individuals on this list are not on these others, that only provides further evidence that this list is idiosyncratic and cannot be freely reproduced. One might similarly say that we could accidentally duplicate Rolling Stone's list of "500 Best Songs of All Time", but if evidence suggests we copied it, we can't claim that potential duplication by self-research is defense. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#What's the best way to handle this copy and paste with no attribution?

Could you enlighten us? =) P.S. Love the user talk:MRG. Much easy to get to you and bug you with stuff like this <evil grin> –xeno^talk 18:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Coming right up. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi I've had an editor now that has continued to harrass my talk page after numerous attempts to communicate there are still problems. The editor Badagnani has spammed my talk page with accusations for a while now. See this [16] and now after several attempts continues to revert my edits here[17] without discussion. My edits are constantly being followed by reverts from this editor. Please take action, Thank you.Sea888 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had a glance at your situation, and it's difficult for someone unfamiliar with these articles to determine precisely what's going on. I see that you removed the map here and that it was reverted. It does seem that you made an effort to compromise by introducing another map, but really I think conversation probably should have been introduced on the talk page a bit sooner. I'm glad to see you've opened a discussion there. I would suggest you leave a note to the other editor civilly inviting him to talk about the problem at that point, and I think you should probably also consider establishing consensus by inviting other interested contributors to weigh in. It seems like only the two of you have expressed an opinion. If nobody else does at the talk page, you might try WP:3O, but be warned that you have to be very neutral in asking for help there. If you seem to take a side, your request will be removed. We also have a brand new Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. I do not yet know if this is going to be a good forum for getting feedback or not.

The sockpuppet accusation is a bit odd but it doesn't seem to be ongoing. I can tell from reviewing your talk page that the two of you have a pretty embattled history. It's a bit difficult to determine what to suggest. :/ Do you feel that he is blanketly reverting other edits of yours beyond the content dispute over the map? If so, and you haven't already, you might want to try one of the fora recommended in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, working up the chain as necessary Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts can be a good first point before considering something like Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Wherever you take it, you will want to be concise and provide thorough diffs to demonstrate both that you are working in good faith and that you cannot reach peaceful terms with this other user.

I'm sorry that there's nothing in particular that I can do. In the absence of clear disruption, I'm not empowered to take immediate administrator action, and this is not really the area of Wikipedia where I work. As you know, copyrights are my thing. If I myself encountered this kind of behavior, those are the steps I would consider. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl.Sea888 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Jewish Nobel prize winners

Thanks for taking the lead on that one and getting it done. I was a bit out of my depth on that one. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll keep it watchlisted. I should be on for the 11th and 12th. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Tacloban Licensing note

Thank you for informing me and for your constructive criticism. I already read the written exchanges you made with Drmies and I now understand the reasons why the affected section should be deleted. With your advice, I'll see to it that I would not commit the same mistake again. --JinJian (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

51st Ohio Infantry, book copyright expiry

Hi, hope you're well. I've come across this article, which looks to have at least one section taken from the publication: Dyer, Frederick Henry, A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion. 3 volumes. (New York: T. Yoseloff), 1908. (having been flagged as a cv of [18]). Now the guy doesn't have a WP article, and I can't find out when he died so what I'm wondering is whether this would be covered by the pre-1923 publication thing and therefore be PD? Can you shed any light on the situation? Cheers, – Toon 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm doing well, though I should be working (and will be, off-site, tomorrow!). Hope you are. :D Yes, as far as the US is concerned, it's good. If it was published in the New York before January 1, 1923, it's PD. Some of the issues that make this 1923 thing complex are set out at Wikipedia:Public domain, but I don't see anything there that would make this material an exception. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Pah, real-life distracting from the important stuff! – Toon 22:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Jewish Nobel prize winners

Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate all the effort that you put into understanding the issues involved and your patience in responding to the repeated provocations.Jinfo (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I thank you for your patience. I hope you will not need to exercise it again. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio at Spetsnaz GRU

Hi, I noticed Bertan1311 (talk · contribs) had copied text from a review to Fight Night Round 4 so I looked over his contribs and found that Spetsnaz GRU had alot of text copied from various website as well as two-three books (though mainly from one). Could you look over it to see if I missed anything or otherwise messed up (though it's not much left to miss... What's left is simple statements and two one list (one of which, though parts of it is from one of the books, is heavily copy-edited as well as expanded and the other that is simple facts) and a paragraph on knives. I haven't looked closely at his other contribs but will try to do so now. Thanks, --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Took a look at the cache of the vincelewis.net-page and it appears one of the lists was there before but is removed now... --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the heads up. I'm just walking in the door, but will take a look within a few hours. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hispanicization

Don't we have the option to place the names of significant contributors on the talk page to satisfy the GFDL? Gigs (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the CC-SA-By was more strict in that regard, thanks. Gigs (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it considered acceptable to just edit out the infringing parts in a case like this? I know that we'd have to be careful not to form a "derived work" under copyright law, but if we used an approach that completely threw away parts based on infringing text, might that be OK?

I know if there were a copyvio added to an existing page, we'd just revert it, leaving the violating text in the history. This is a little more unusual case, because the article started out as a violation. If it's OK to leave the infringing versions in the history, then maybe we could just do a copy/paste merge of /Temp over the current version, which would preserve history and get rid of the infringing parts? Gigs (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Procedural" question

Hi, Moonriddengirl. A possibly non-bold-noobish question:)... I was in the process of adding a copyvio template to the page Imam al-hussain as it seems to be pasted from http://www.al-islam.org/kaaba14/6.htm or possibly a source on the net that has copied it. In the meantime, another (cleverer ;)) editor has noticed that the subject is already covered in an existing article and has started an AfD nomination. The principle would seem to be to deal with copyvio swiftly to prevent propagation, but the AfD notice specifically requires that the article not be blanked. Should I leave the AfD process to take its course or add the copyvio template anyway? TheSmuel (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) What I do is add the copyvio template beneath the AfD nom and leave a comment of explanation at the AfD. Those !voting on the issues can still easily see the material in history, but we can't leave copyrighted information published out of process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My, you're quick :D! Many thanks. Incidentally, I considered proposing speedy deletion as per CSD G12 but was not 100% sure who held the copyright, although I suspect it's [19] or [20] TheSmuel (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a clear G12, whoever the copyright owner is. I've done the necessary so that a helpful admin can get round to checking it ;) Physchim62 (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Having had a look at the AfD, I'd agree. :) Sometimes I leave even clear copyvios to finish AfD if the issue is one that would make any article inappropriate. But since this is simply related to redundancy, there's no larger issues of notability or something else that might require finishing it. Thanks for noting this problem, TheSmuel! I've left the "no thanks" template for the creator. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message

Hi Moonriddengirl,

Thanks for your kind notice, and I do respect copyrights. Does it mean now though that the article can now remain on the site? Can I put in, not paraphrasing but in my own words, the numerous awards he gained (I don't think these awards needed to be published online for me to cite them; they are well known enough that I'm sure musicians who know about this know where the reliable source comes from), and his review of the CDs? You see, a lot of musicians are notable without the need to be boasted on the internet, so I would very much appreciate if Wikipedia editors understand this.

I've also noticed you've deleted the line "His CD of Brahms piano music has recently received excellent reviews and he has subsequently recorded an album of Schumann piano music for Delphian records, as well as a highly acclaimed album of Beethoven's "Emperor" Piano Concerto. " However, you can't really find this phrase in the soundtechniques.tv site; it's not copied from anywhere or paraphrased. It's quite funny actually because I added that myself, so I'm very surprised it got deleted. I would very much like it to be back on again if possible. Anyway thanks for your message and I'll keep the things you mentioned in mind.

Wtjulianchan (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There are two issues there. The source reads, "His CD of Brahms piano music on the Altamira label and album of Schumann piano music for Delphian records has received excellent reviews." If you compare that with your version, you may see the close paraphrase: "His CD of Brahms piano music...has [recently] received excellent reviews" Your version takes directly from the source, with the omission of several words and the addition of one other. The second problem is the lack of reliable sourcing. Non-neutral claims need to be sourced to reliable references, such as newspaper or magazine articles. Sources connected to the artist may be used to add detail, but can't be used to establish the notability of a subject or to critically evaluate him.

I've added a "ref improve" tag as the single reference you've added covers merely the fact that the album exists and the rest of the article relies on primary sources only.

Please let me know if any of this is unclear. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Polysaccharide-K Article

Recently this article was deleted :(

Can you show me the source of the copyright problems? It should be readily accessible to people in a log since I couldnt find it. I am some-what new to wikipedia, so either Im a novice and can't find where the listed copyright problems are, or this is a terrible system in which articles with tons of referenced material are deleted by a few people who dont even source the material they are basing their decisions on.

Please help, thank you! Jatlas (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Jatlas2 (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The deletion log is viewable at the article space for Polysaccharide-K. It is in a pink box that is headed "Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted." In this case, it links to the copyright problem report Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 July 1. The source is listed there as well as more information about the situation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The source of copyright problems is a skimpy webpage, the deleted article was huge. It seems like it was totally inappropriate that the page was deleted... But I guess thats not really my concern. My concern is, I was hoping you could do me a big favor and grant me access to the deleted PSK article's reference section??? If that can be done I would happily recreate the article free of copyright problems. Please let me know if this can be done. Big Thanks Jatlas (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see why you might think so, but if you'll look you'll see there are subpages, like [21] and [22]. The article infringed on more than just the main page. The list of references is rather lengthy, but I'll put it at the new article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU! :)Jatlas (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of Jewish Nobel prize winners

G8-able, or was this talk page deliberately left orphaned? – Toon 18:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Deliberately orphaned. :) If it were G8ed, I wouldn't mind terribly, but left a note in edit summary indicating "noting resolution; please don't G8 within the next few days. I suspect conversation on this one is not closed." The contributor here was very insistent on using the text, and I want to be sure he or she has a chance to see and understand the deletion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokey, it would have been a rather uncharacteristic oversight :) – Toon 19:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Can happen, though. I assure you, I've pulled much more bone-headed moves than forgetting something like that. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, anything like accidentally using mass-rollback on your own contribs? That was half an hour I'm never getting back! – Toon 01:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! No, that's a good one. :) At least you used it on your own contribs, though. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a somewhat awkward conversation. On another note, I seem to remember you mentioning a decent plagiarism detection tool that you used; I've become rather disillusioned with the one I normally utilise, could you possibly point me towards it? It'd be much appreciated. – Toon 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not the best in the world, but it's here. It takes bigger chunks of text than I would use, but if I don't hit, I tend to drop quotation marks around a smaller segment of the phrase and run a general google search. It's better than any of the others I've ever used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Susan Hutchison

I have got the copyright holders to send emails to wikipedia extending permission for the text on the Susan Hutchison page, What else needs to be done to clean it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.58.80 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Presuming you mean Susan Hutchison, if the e-mails sent to Wikipedia are sufficient, the OTRS volunteer who handles them will place a note on the talk page and restore the text. If they are not, they will communicate with the copyright holders to try to work the matter out. There is nothing more to be done at this point; the matter will be resolved outside of Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:bio

If you want to restore it I won't stop you. I just noticed using ones besides the default wpbiography seems to break some stats or scripts. Granted, I'm probably the only person that looks at/uses them for all I know. Wizardman 00:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest on the Wayne Schoenfeld page

Hello Moonriddengirl,

As asked I've added the sources where the quotes were written. Hope that all this will finally solve the problem about the conflict of interest. Thank you very much for all your help. --Exeko (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thank you. But at this point it may be that some of the conflict comes in your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's overall style? For example, there is unsourced, unattributed text scattered throughout. The lead says, "that are living tableaux expressing social commentary." Who says these are living tableaux? What does that even mean? It seems laudatory (and I suspect it probably is), but it really communicates nothing to the general reader. Wikipedia strives to present neutral, factual information about subjects. The single exception is the sentence "His carefully orchestrated images appear, at a glance, like classic paintings." It helps that you've provided a source for subjective opinions, but they are not attributed in text. That "Wayne Schoenfeld takes Pictures rather than photographs." is somebody's opinion, and you need to indicate within the article whose opinion it is so that it does not seem as though Wikipedia (e.g. the article itself) is espousing this view. Likewise, such text as "A disturbing visual account", "focusing on themes that are heroic and worthwhile" and "This poignant book...."

Also, you've probably read the "reference" request at the top of the article. What is wanted here are "references that appear in reliable third-party publications." Some of these seem to qualify, but blurbs from book jackets do not. It stands to reason that publishers wish to promote their products. If the publishers have cherry-picked phrases from published reviews in newspapers or magazines, then it is fine to reference those published reviews. Otherwise, they are presumed promotional.

One of the more subtle and difficult issues with editing an article about yourself is that unless other contributors research it independently, we cannot be sure that you are accurately reflecting the balance of critical response. Just as publishers highlight praise on book jackets and may not reference criticism, Wikipedia's readers cannot know with an autobiography if the contributor is reporting only good comments and excluding the bad, even if through unconscious bias. The best way to avoid this is probably to avoid both praise and criticism, sticking to a neutral presentation of fact. For example, if the book was awarded "Most Outstanding Book of the Year" for 2004 by the Independent Publisher's Association, you can include that if it is referenced. (I note that currently it is not. Can you clarify who this organization is? I tried finding a source for that one, but the only hit I get is to Wikipedia: [23] Perhaps you've gotten their name or the name of the award slightly wrong?) But it would probably be best to avoid material that reads promotional altogether, since readers cannot be certain your view is balanced. (See also Wikipedia:Autobiography). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Moonriddengirl,

I've changed the whole text giving it a more neutral view. There are references and sources too. Could you please tell me if it's correct now and if it matches with Wikipedia's policy. One final question, do I have to give also a permission for the new text, knowing that I already gave one for the old text and that the sources are the same?

Thanks again. I hope that this issue will finally be solved and that I won't have to bother you again ;).--Exeko (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I just wanted to let you know that I'm just running out the door but will take a look at this as soon as I'm back on (and deal with any emergencies that have cropped up in the meantime!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking much more in line with policies and guidelines. :) I've added a source for the award and corrected the name of it according to the IPPY website. I have changed the Primary Sources tag to an "inline" note since there's no way for readers to tell which of these sources verifies some of this information (such as, for example, which museums host exhibits). There's also still some text that isn't referenced: "he captures the passion of a volunteer performer..." This may be true (I've never seen the book), but it's obviously a value judgment. To say that he photographs a volunteer performer is neutral. To indicate that he captures the passion is not really. I think, though, that you are bringing this much closer, and I know that has required some work from you. Meeting WP:COI is not easy. If you reach a point where it seems that the article is fully sourced & neutral, I'll seek feedback at the conflict of interest noticeboard about removing the COI tag.

As far as permission is concerned, in this case you do need to verify permission because we have switched our licensing. Your previous release permitted text under GFDL. Now we need a verification of Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and GFDL. I would recommend you send a new letter to

permissions-en@wikimedia.org. In the body of your letter (but not the subject), please mention ticket # 2009032410050969 and explain that you are writing to grant permission for the original text added and for recent additions under those two licenses. You don't want to put the ticket # in the subject, because that would send it to the French Wikipedia's queue, and you need it connected to the English language Wikipedia. If you leave a note here letting me know when you have sent that letter, I will try to intercept it so that we can expedite it. If another agent picks it up, it will still be handled in good order but may take a few days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just send the mail to grant permission for the text. I corrected a few things in the text. Thank you for your time and help. --Exeko (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

B. B. Nimbalkar

Sorry to bother you with a question on an article you've never contributed to and probably wouldn't be interested in reading but I felt you would be the best person to ask with regard a copyright issue. On the above article a user added some text copied from various sources, I reverted those additions on my basic understanding that it was a copyright violation, that user has now re-added the material with an edit summary of 'Share Alike Lincece 3.0 taken. So this information has legal right to publish'.

As I say I only have basic knowledge of copyright law so don't know if this is a reasonable claim but the adding of material straight from a source without a sign of permission or a sign the source has released the text under a license doesn't seem right to me. Could you take a look and offer a more informed view? --Jpeeling (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You're welcome to ask me a question at any point you think I might be helpful. :) You're right to be doubtful. This is not a reasonable claim. The website indicates "Cricinfo is a part of ESPN | © ESPN EMEA Ltd." We need proof that this is licensed under CC-By-SA. I've blanked it for now and will address with the contributor. If the contributor can't verify licensing, I'll revert his material again. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it felt strange to ask you a question when it's nothing really to do with you but I suppose you get that quite a lot, I can't imagine there's too many people on Wikipedia who have a real understanding of copyright laws. Anyway thanks for your help. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

UTC

I see you've linked to a java clock to provide people with the current UTC time. For those without java, wikipedia can actually provide the current time itself, using the {{CURRENTTIME}} directive. The last time this page was updated in cache was at 03:23 UTC.

The only downside is the need for an &action=purge (see: User:Kim_Bruning/servertime) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. :) I've replaced it, and given how seldom (I imagine) it's used, the need to refresh is no great burden. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you,

Moonriddengirl; you're da bomb! Mgreason (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD copyvio question

Hi, you seem to be a guru on copyright questions; would you mind taking a look at my opinion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial robot organism and letting me know whether I've correctly interpreted the situation with regard to the article? I hate copyvios, which I seem to be running into ever more often around here, and I'd appreciate any enlightenment you may be able to offer. Deor (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not MRG here, just a page stalker. I agree with your rationale, and took the liberty to tag the article as a copyvio. WP:CSD#G12 would be perfectly acceptable in this case, but after the article has been blanked by the copyvio template, there's no direct harm to let the AfD run its course, if only to let people voting to merge time to salvage what can be salvaged. A proper AfD close also enables subsequent G4 deletions, which in general requires less verification work than a G12. MLauba (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm all on board with both your reading of this and MLauba's. I also seem to be running into copyvios more frequently these days. I'm clinging to the hope that this means that more people are rooting them out and they will soon be gone for good, not that there are actually more copyvios recently. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fine. The situation seemed more complicated than usual, since the creator of the article appears to be one of the authors of the academic paper copied. What about the images? The article's creator also claims to be the creator of the images, but two of them also appear in the academic paper; would those two also be copyvios unless he can establish that he holds sole copyright for the paper? Deor (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If the image is previously published, we need verification that he is who he says he is. Legally, he doesn't have to hold sole copyright for the paper; a single co-owner of copyright may grant license for the material under US law, as each copyright owner in a joint work has equal right to license the material for reprint. (See [24] and [25]). Licensing it to Wikipedia is fundamentally the same as licensing it for publication anywhere, although we do have very specific licensing conditions. Unless it violates the terms of his contract with the publisher or co-authors to do so, he should be able to do that here. I had to second-guess my first answer, though, because Wikipedia very much implies at WP:CONSENT that we don't accept co-owned material ("I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK")...but we do, routinely. It's even in encoded into our WP:Terms, "If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license." Does this mean to imply that we need consent of all copyright holders? Maybe, but it doesn't work that way in practice. I've seen a number of OTRS letters come through granting permission to use text from websites that are clearly collectively owned, but for which only one individual has granted. I've seen these in both letters I've passed and letters others have. One of the compelling arguments against accepting co-owned material without explicit release from each copyright holder is that Wikipedia requests a non-revocable license. This is legally questionable (in my humble opinion) anyway, since copyright law provides explicit provision for revocation, but with joint authorship seems even more dodgy. I don't know. I'll ask.

Meanwhile, that gives us two options, both of which start with leaving this guy a note. We can treat him as these have traditionally been treated. We let him know that we recognize by the similarity of name that he may be in position to license this material properly, but that because we lack any means of identity verification at account creation we do need external evidence of this. We tell him that we need to verify for the images and the text and that a single letter from an e-mail address clearly identifying him as the individual named in that source (a University of Stuttgart e-mail address from that identity ought to do it) to OTRS should resolve the matter, if he indicates he owns the copyright and licenses it accordingly. Alternatively, we let him know (or also let him know) that we are seeking clarification on the question of joint authorship and whether we need permission of the various authors or if simply one may do.

What do you think? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to update that I've got the question in with OTRS. Just like any forum on Wikipedia, I may or may not get a response. ;) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tim Holland, backgammon World champion

I have a new article for your consideration, at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 1. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Should be able to look at that one today with no problem. But I'm learning better than to promise. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes

Oh, how dreadful, I had mixed feelings about posting this because of your adminship, but...order a bunch of the top 100 movies? Hope all goes well for you. Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In Chicago we call these "flars". Es por ti.

Aww. Thank you very much. :) My adminship does not make me any less a fan of flars, by any name, and I appreciate them. I assume you're talking about this, and there is nothing I need consolation for that I'm not yet aware of. :D Seriously, the sentiment is very kind. I am grateful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Aspirin poisoning

Should this article have some note about its initial content coming from aspirin? If so...how to do that best? Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  19:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've created a brand spanking new template for that purpose just about a week ago. It's at {{copied}} (the one we had before required different templates for source & destination page; this does both). Theoretically, it is enough to make a note in the edit summaries of both articles as per Wikipedia:Split, but some contributors (including the estimable Pedro) note that it may be hard to see when the material entered. Even though the fact that it came in at initial edit should be clear enough, the template makes it quite clear. I'll take care of that now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks!  Frank  |  talk  19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Never encoutered this problem before. The explanation you give also does not make sense to me. Anyway cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh I only assumed it was for off wiki use. Thanks for the correction.. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Moonriddengirl! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, July 16, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

Happy editing!

Midnight Comet 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks! :D I very much appreciate it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Best day in the year IMO, anyway. MLauba (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Special significance for you? :) By the way, October sounds like a good month to me, too. Give you time to decide if you are ready and willing to jump in. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, special ;) Thanks for the October advice, too MLauba (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Mark Prindle from Wikipedia

Hi,

I have in fact had record reviews published in Spin and Maxim UK, and have appeared on Fox News' Red Eye as a music news commentator ten different times in the past nine months. I'm chagrined that you removed all of my review links. It really was not a very nice thing to do.

Mark Prindle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.53.63 (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Though I don't believe I had seen the article for Mark Prindle prior to your note, the deletion log tells me it was first deleted in February 2008 following community consensus at a "deletion debate" here. Several days ago, it was deleted under "speedy deletion" criterion WP:CSD#G4, which means that the deleting administrator found that the new article did not address the reasons for which the community had originally decided to delete. The purpose of the speedy deletion is to keep the community from having to argue the same subject over and over again. The administrator who deleted the article the second time, User:UninvitedCompany, indicated in his deletion note that "New material, though paraphrased, is substantially the same as the old material. The proper venue for discussion is WP:DRV."

"DRV" is the forum where deleted articles may be discussed. Most often, it is used if the administrator made some mistake in the process, but it is also useful if you have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. I'm sure that this is what UninvitedCompany must mean. The core issue at the deletion debate was notability. This doesn't equate to popularity or fame, but to whether a subject is proper for encyclopedia inclusion. It's an imperfect system, unfortunately. Some non-encyclopedic material (in my judgment) passes through it, while some that should properly be have to struggle to prove they belong. The particular notability guideline into which your article would fall is Wikipedia:Notability (people).

If I were in your position and felt that the article met that guideline, I would stop by User talk:UninvitedCompany first to explain cordially why it does. I would go armed with evidence that can be added to the article if he or she agrees to restore it. If s/he doesn't agree, WP:DRV is the next step. I would ordinarily suggest also that a contributor might consider instead starting a new article in user subpage, but you have a bit of a challenge there in that autobiographies are strongly discouraged. (See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.) It wouldn't be impossible for you to write a new article yourself, but it would be more challenging. In that case, if a contributor's new article very clearly meets the notability guideline, it's pretty likely that no one would object to its being moved into article space. In your case, I would recommend running it past the volunteers at the conflict of interest noticeboard as well as the deleting administrator to see if they think that the article shows any problems related to your involvement.

Please let me know if I can clarify any of this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Art Christmas GFDL-only

Hello, I'm back to pester you. Stumbling across this article, added December 2008 using a lot of text from an external source that they released via OTRS under the GFDL. I'm a little hazy about the specifics of what GFDL content we can and cannot accept, so would you be able to take a look? Presumably gaining a release for the CC-BY-SA would be reasonably strightforward if necessary. Either way, there is an issue with the GFDL release statement at the bottom of the article. Your attention is much appreciated. – Toon 13:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I checked the OTRS release, and it is GFDL only. We should blank and try to reconnect. :/ I'm just popping in; if you don't get to it, I will handle it when I get more time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blanked and left the contributor a message. He was active in the early hours of the morning, so hopefully he'll get the message, although an email may be necessary if he doesn't reply... – Toon 14:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous Constellation

Hi,

I've been offline for a while and an entry I worked on is gone. Can you please point me towards the problem so I can try and address it? Is the original page completely gone, gone? Or can I see an old version and try to resolve the problem. Thanks!

Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted.

You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience:

00:29, 14 July 2009 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) deleted "Anonymous Constellation" ‎ (Listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over seven days)

Cheers, Wolfboy21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfboy21 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The situation was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 July 5. The problem concerns the origin of the text, the majority of which is also published at [26]. The only other material in the article seems to have been the words "Anonymous Constellation, by Alfredo de Palchi, is a book of poems written originally in Italian." and the brief synopsis, "A collection of stark and sometimes brutal poems reflecting on the universality of violence, by the New York Italian poet." Even the text that was in quotation marks there, such as the quote by Sonia Raiziss, is problematic, as to meet our non-free content policy and guideline, a source must be given for quotations. I don't know the origin of the summary which is in both places—perhaps the book's dust jacket?—but unless we can verify that Wikipedia published the text first (which can be difficult), we can only use the text if permission is verified. (See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission or Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted material, depending on whether you are the copyright holder or not.)

(If you are in permission to release this text, and it is drawn from official PR for the book, you should also consider including unrelated sources. Laudatory phrases provided to market a book are really not disconnected to the subject; most articles should rely on such reliable, disinterested sources.)

I'm very sorry that I failed to leave you a note explaining this so you wouldn't be at a loss for what happened. I try always to do that, and I apologize for my oversight in this case. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Handling a copy violation

Hi Moonriddengirl. What is currently the best practice for dealing with a copy violation by a new user? I have handled a recent case this way. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I usually leave a welcome template & the template advisory, but I'm usually encountering "whole article" issues. For a partial text add, I will sometimes leave a modified {{cclean}}, as it offers way more information than {{Uw-copyright}}. A personal note such as you left is, of course, always going to be good. I admit to being a little worried when I saw that you had made a sandbox for the text, but I should have known it wouldn't be extensive if you did that. :D I took the liberty of changing your link, though. WP:Copyvio links to the copyright problems process board. WP:Copy, the copyrights policy, is much more informative. (Please revert me if you disagree; it's your note. :)) It's great to link to relevant policies. If you ever want to use the {{cclean}}, what I usually do is just change the lead sentence so that it doesn't say "One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s)." but "Text you added to the article Whatever duplicated other sources." Of course, that notice is businesslike, so you may want to friendly it up a bit if you like. :) I do leave the block advisory in, though. It's needed if the problem continues. (Not that I'm suggesting you add it now; this is just food for future thought.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. What is the propriety of adding text in copy violation to a sandbox so it can be worked on? The text I added in the above case was enclosed in a blockquote and quotation marks. Do you think there is any mileage in asking for a special "local" sandbox to be made available for Wikipedia users, a sandbox which is not published on the web, but is accessible only to users within Wikipedia, and exists so users can work, possible collaboratively, on paraphrasing text that is in copy violation? --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

I see you are an OTRS member, so perhaps you would look at the uploads of Evpope‎. Two are currently up for deletion File:ScottSystemShoreline.jpg and File:ScottSystemShoreline.jpg and I see that a different one File:Scott System cacti.jpg already has an OTRS ticket. I suggested that she supply confirmation through the OTRS permission system before I saw the ticket in the older image. Because all the images are from the same company, I think we can rescue them all by applying this ticket to all which I understand is possible. I think the intention is that all images should be freely licenced by the company through the uploader, a company employee but she may need to confirm that. TIA ww2censor (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This particular ticket will not work, as it is specific to three images, the one tagged and two others (neither of which are the ones up for deletion), and the writer does not assert that she is the copyright holder, but rather has been given permission for those images. Hence, she does need to send a release for these new ones. If she anticipates uploading more, she might want to make it a general release so that she can upload company images. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I will point her to this post. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Help with a page

I happen to have found an article that was a copy of another article, the former I deleted, the latter is Against All Odds, and I am concerned that it could be a copyright page; I have no proof, but my sixth sense is tingling...If you get a chance, could you look at the page? I would appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 00:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) The first problem there is hijacking. Somebody wanted an article on their band, and wrote it over an article on a movie. I think there's a good faith effort of that contributor to create a new article (I see he made a disambiguation note). That said, your sixth sense is on to something. The text of that article came from [27]. I'll drop him a copyright note. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I had a hunch that something was wrong here, I've been an admin for just over a year and thus am still learning how to use 'the force' to determine the exact problem, but the article did not appear to have survived a month here of its own accord.

On an unrelated note, if you do not mind my asking, you do you get you green talk page box to chose up after editors like myself hit the new section button or click the edit page tab? I've been trying to figure that one out for a while now and haven't been able to yet. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 03:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The edit notice people see when they take that action on my page is at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Editnotice. Click Special:MyTalk/Editnotice to reach yours, and you can put whatever you want in it. I've tried to keep mine brief, but brevity is not a talent of mine. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Shameless theft

I lifted both inspiration and some verbatim text from your edit notice. I did it because I unilaterally decided that your waiver for creative content you posted on my talk page would also apply to this. :) MLauba (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to it and to any text from any template I have created anywhere. :) Generally, I do not hang up on people attributing me and have considered posting a general public domain release on my userpage. Ultimately, I decided not to just because while I've done quite a bit of paragraph-here, paragraph-there contributions to articles that I do not care about, I am proud of some of the contributions I've done to articles. I may not own them, but I want to be able to go, "Yes, see, that was mine." (I know some people would find this shockingly ownerly of me, but, then, there are some people who think DYK and GA and FA banners are also sinfully proprietary. If the only pay we get for our work is the ability to say, "Yes, see, that was mine", I'm taking it!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Voluntary work? Sure. Share and remix? Absolutely. But credit where credit is due (which is now fixed on my edit notice, too). Don't see how that is ownerly, on the contrary, attribution is one of the only strict rights wikipedians enjoy by contributing. MLauba (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply in any way shape or form that I wanted credit for my edit header or my templates! Sorry! On the contrary, I meant feel free to use them without attribution. :) If you like my contributions to the article Disappointment, by contrast, I would like attribution for that. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have shamelessly undone your attribution (for which I hope you will forgive me), as I would be quite shamed to think myself so particular. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's me who expressed myself unclearly. I credited you because I realized afterwards that it was the Right Thing(tm) to do, not because I felt you implied you wanted the credit. Please simply accept this as acknowledging where it all comes from, freely given, and not something you compelled me to do. ;) MLauba (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, then, I'll leave that to your discretion (obviously). But I don't feel any sense of ownership over any of that material, so I'm quite all right with your not doing so. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup

Did you ever get a chance to look at Mshahidnawaz9's about 60 images that I mentioned here which all look suspect to me. TIA ww2censor (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you for reminding me! Things have been crazy hectic, and I forgot. I've got time this afternoon (I cringe as I say, because the Moirae are said to take such a statement as a challenge) and will pick up on it in a couple of hours. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I was just a gentle reminder. We all get led astray with other stuff that seems more important at the time. I have a major translation that I am trying to rewrite, reference (the German wiki articles don't use many references) and expand. It has been hanging around for more than a year and I even spent on a $70 book from the UK as reference but have not yet done more than browse it in passing! Ah, if there were only 36 hours in the day but then we would use that up too. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No doubt. :) I'm on it now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

←I've started a new PUI listing. For my own convenience, I'm listing some here that I think may be his, as I think perhaps his username might connect him with these people:

• File:Students of PSF.jpg
• File:Shehla Raza.jpg
• File:PSF Logo.jpg (though we should probably FUR it)
• File:Foundation Stone Gomal University ZABhutto.jpg
• File:Faisal Khan Hamdard Cermony2.JPG (maybe)

Everything else I've found (I'm starting on the bottom) is at PUI. Which is overwhelming it. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just deleted a bunch of images. I left some which might not be copyvio's, although since they are orphaned perhaps it's ok to delete these too. I did not saw this section until now, so feel free to restore the images if you think they are ok after all. Garion96 (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Since they are orphaned and I don't have strong reason to believe they're okay, I think deletion may be the best result. Thanks! :) I will get back to working on the text side of the copyright corral. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

High density

Duh. I finally found out why so many of the week-old WP:SCV reports I had been looking at this week had been sorted by you and your peers from WP:CP without ever having been tagged with {{copyvio}}. I never realized that DumbBot was copying CSB noms to WP:CP. Sometimes I'm dense like concrete. MLauba (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a huge source of aggravation to us all. :) I have considered requesting that Dumbbot stop copying it to us, since SCV has several dedicated reviewers, but I figure it might be helpful to have it both places. What do you think? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of a seasonal thing, I believe. A couple of weeks back, there was 3-4 of us working on the queue (Toon05, ERK, Vivio Testarossa, and Shell was giving a hand also before she got swamped with mediation stuff), but more recently it's just Toon05 and me, and the backlog is about 8 days on average. At the same time, I have the impression (but it may only be that, an impression) that the volume of copyvios is rising with Summer vacation. So here's our double bind: If Dumbbot copies and we're on a low backlog, that's a list of items clogging up your queue which has been taken care of already, yet every single one requires you to have at least a look at the article history to see that WP:SCV was there before. When we're on a massive backlog, we are in the reverse situation: finding plenty of already cleared stuff from your queue, and still have to go through every single one to find out.

Possible solutions:

1. merge WP:SCV and WP:CP, and have CSB report under its own section under each individual day.
2. prevent Dumbbot from copying it over, knowing however that it also deprives us from an additional safety net. The malicious editors (very rare but still existing) will know to remove their entries from WP:SCV, and I don't necessarily check the history too closely. I'm quite convinced that those who do that don't know about the WP:CP copy
3. modify Dumbbot to review WP:SCV once a day and simply add a small icon and a note under the WP:CP entries which no longer have a corresponding SCV entry (but that also requires that CP has a separate subsection for the SCV entries).
4. do nothing on the bot side but add to our respective workload by clearing on both logs (I think cleanup is long enough already though and like this one least).

Among these, I like 1. best, TBH. There's still the "safety net" issue but combined, there's more of us working on the page, we know who we are, and can also catch the odd single removal from the malicious poster better. At least, that's my .2$MLauba (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I like 1 best, too. It should be easy enough, if we can get our friendly bot-handlers to go along, I think. Just so long as you SCV people don't abandon it all to me. :D Where do you suppose we should propose this? COPYCLEAN? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. We can always leave a note on WT:CP and WT:SCV (+ at Coren's talk page). MLauba (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, copyvio goddess...

...me again. Can you comment on my handling of Peter of Juilly earlier today? In a nutshell, it was created as a copyvio, tagged by Coren's bot, and then rewritten by the original creator in a temp space. That seemed sufficient in my view to delete the original under G12 and replace it with the rewritten version, case closed. Yes/no/maybe?  Frank  |  talk  16:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not Moonriddengirl but since you edit conflicted me, here's my modest non-admin views: spot on, that's exactly how I believe it's supposed to work, the typical best case scenario :) MLauba (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur. :) No muss, no fuss, no bother. Problem eliminated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Great - thanks both!  Frank  |  talk  22:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Week

Congratulations, Moonriddengirl! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Week" award for this week! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the top award, "Wikipedian of the Month" for this month!

Happy editing!

Midnight Comet 00:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. :) You are very kind. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well deserved, and it appears you are now entered into the bracket for Wikipedian of the Month. Plastikspork (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You make me blush. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite back

I'm not quite back yet -- still on the road -- just checked in for a brief WP fix the other day. Considering the problems that CP issues can cause, I'm surprised that you are the only admin weeding through that little jungle. Without you, there is no doubt it would be a completely overgrown disaster. For some oddball reason, I kind of like playing around in there. (Maybe the same oddball reason it appeals to you? Could it just be obligation? Sense of duty? Or is it some sort of internet masochism? Penance? Nah, who knows.) Anyway, I'm still leaving the more difficult problems for you to handle. I was glad you mentioned the User:Moonriddengirl/cup template, and I've now bookmarked a few of your other gems User:Moonriddengirl/frequently used templates andUser:Moonriddengirl/Copyright cleanup). And will continue to follow your lead. I won't be back until the end of July, but you can count on my help. Feel free to give me a shout anytime. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yikes... sorry to read about your upcoming "time-off" in August. I sincerely hope everything goes well for you. And, please... don't rush back on account of WP. Although a few narcotics could be a pleasant advantage around here, there is no need to push the envelope. I will definitely do whatever I can to help. I will be back home and on my regular schedule on August 1, and will be happy to keep an eye on your balliwick. Don't worry -- although the CP area will be incredibly deficient without your expertise -- we won't let it crash and burn during your absence. I promise. — CactusWriter | ^needles 02:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Victor di Suvero

Hello....I'm am responding to the Victor di Suvero copyright issue....I'm sorry that I have not been able to respond sooner. I am the administrative assistant at Pennywhistle Press and I have full authority to grant anyone in the book permission to reprint or use any part of the "We Came to Santa Fe" book. Therefore, I give Wikipedia permission to use any part of "We Came to Santa Fe" in the Victor di Suvero article. Thank you. If you have any questions, please feel to contact me at <redacted contact information>.

Can you please respond to at one of the emails above so that I know the issue has or has not been cleared up. I appreciate it very much.

Brandywine Avila Pennywhistle Press —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdisuvero (talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello....(I am not sure if I'm doing this correctly either!)

I'm am responding to the Victor di Suvero copyright issue....I'm sorry that I have not been able to respond sooner. I am the administrative assistant at Pennywhistle Press and I have full authority to grant anyone in the book permission to reprint or use any part of the "We Came to Santa Fe" book. Therefore, I give Wikipedia permission to use any part of "We Came to Santa Fe" in the Victor di Suvero article. Thank you. If you have any questions, please feel to contact me at <redacted contact information>.

Can you please respond to at one of the emails above so that I know the issue has or has not been cleared up. I appreciate it very much.

Brandywine Avila Pennywhistle PressVdisuvero (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. We appreciate your interest in donating text, but as I indicated in the note at your talk page, we must verify such permission externally. The procedure is found at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you send an e-mail, let me know, and I will restore the article, though it will need to remain blanked until that e-mail is processed by the Wikimedia Foundation volunteers who address such things. (Let me clarify, though, that the text in question is not from the book itself, but the description at http://wecametosantafe.com/abouteditor.html.) Once the permission is verified, I'm afraid that the text will need to be modified to meet Wikipedia's neutrality and verifiability policies. While text such as "It serves as a beautiful vehicle in explaining the charm, attraction and way of life to be found in what has become known as "The City Different."" may be appropriate for his own website, we strive to neutrally present information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I want to ask why did you deleted my Article. (Arthur Sarkissian) what can i do to open it? pleaseeeeeeeeeeee help me! Arthur Sarkissian is well known painter in armenia and over world please look what can you do! and ples let me add that Article THX! Vahan you can write me an e mail <contact information redacted>

Hi. I responded to your question a month ago. It is now archived here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Jumping in here from the message left at User_talk:Fabrictramp#article_Arthur_Sarkissian. A couple of issues that need to be addressed are that Vahansarkissian (talk · contribs) is admittedly[28] the blocked user Hendrixmorisson (talk · contribs). The copyvio issues were explained to Hendrixmorisson before s/he was blocked, although it could have been better explained -- Vahansarkissian reposted the copyrighted material at Sarkissian Arthur (which I've deleted as a copyvio and salted). Normally Vahansarkissian would get blocked for block evasion and any discussion would then be at his/her page. Thoughts? (watchlisted)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I had questioned my decision not to block as a sock earlier, but seeing that the contributor is continuing this behavior, I support blocking this contributor. He or she simply is not responding to these copyright concerns, although they have been explained multiple times. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll add her/his talk page to my watchlist and help handle any questions s/he posts.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I got a work call before I could post the block notice. But it's all up now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that whole making a living thing interferes with my editing sometimes, too. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Assault (Atari 2600)

Thank you for keeping the article, and overriding it with the content of the temporary page. Otumba (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for creating a clean version that I could use. :) I hate deleting articles on notable content for copyvio, but sometimes there's no choice. It's great when contributors help out! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see

User_talk:MBisanz#deletion, it deals with a G12 of yours that I did the G8 cleanup on that it looks like the person re-created. Leaving to your judgment. MBisanz ^talk 09:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The new version seems clean. I'll speak to him. Sorry for missing the redirect! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Congressional Research Service template?

Hi MRG - I saw at least one article (Tariff-rate quota) listed by Corenbot at the cpv page for including material published by this source. Since it's public domain, would it be OK if I created {{CRS}} under US Govt Public Domain templates to cover this situation? Regards, Novickas (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Not MRG but we just had the exact same situation with the Army Center of military history, and created {{ACMH}} for the same reason. You can just re-use this one as an example and change the wording (and the category) for CRS if you need. Otherwise I meant to do it myself in a couple of hours, I had run into that same issue myself patrolling the bot reports already.

If you go ahead, just drop Coren a note so he includes it in his exception list. MLauba (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go ahead with it - never did a template before. Leave a note with Coren or with Corenbot? Novickas (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The bot's talk page is redirected to User talk:Coren anyway :)

Could you take a look at it? {{CRS/doc}}? Something generates a loop but it does have useful stuff in it... Novickas (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, you actually had {{template:CRS}} as the first line of the template itself, that was what was causing the loop. Sneaky bits of code, I say. I also took care of the related category. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Loops are scary. I'll add the template to the article and make a note at cpv page and Corenbot page. Novickas (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like this one wrapped up while I was gone. :) Thanks, MLauba. Glad it worked out, Novickas. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sea888

See here. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, dear. :/ Thanks. I'll look into it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Henry Cain

Hi Moonriddengirl, I wonder if I could request your expertise on a subject I've raised here, regarding a possible copyvio thingy (your name was recommended). Thanks very much, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking Ranger Steve is meaning to point you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Robert Cain. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, quite right Tagishsimon. Thanks! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll come check it out and see if I can offer input. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly take a gander at Talk:Robert Henry Cain/Temp? Many thanks, Woody (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks

Although I've seen your name a lot, I don't think we've ever interacted, so I'm surprised you noticed. Many thanks :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of International Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Genetics

Hi, I understand your need to delete the page based on the following. The creation of this page was my initial foray into this and I had to temporarily leave it and before getting back had figured the resemblance of text to the original was probably the problem. Your deletion of this confirmed this. However, I am actually the editor-in-chief of this journal and a friend of mine heads the e-century publishers that host the journal. So I don't think getting the formal copyright approval will be an issue - just as a novice I am not entirely sure what I need to provide. Sorry to be a nuisance--MolecEpidemiolFan (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Have replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright regarding IJMEG

Sorry if I have inadvertently started a different thread, I tried and failed to find a way to respond further to your helpful clarification on what I need to do re copyright. If I re-draft the page then in (an other version of;-) my words (as I provided the text content for the ijmeg pages) will this allow the page to be visible again rather than it be locked? thanks again.--MolecEpidemiolFan (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

IJMEG - new version now finished

Ok Moonriddengirl - how did I do this time round its called exactly the same (hope its not a problem!) - can you check and if ok make it go "live"? I have another page I am writing now to also link to it if possible. thanks again for the speedy reply! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MolecEpidemiolFan (talk • contribs) 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

References for sites

Hi I am running out of steam at the moment to be able to complete the additional references for the IJMEG and e-century pages I have just created. Will they remain live for a few days to give me chance to enhance them or do they no run the risk of deletion?--MolecEpidemiolFan (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Awadewit/MilhistPlagiarism

Roger Davies asked me to write up a four- to six-paragraph description of what plagiarism is and how to avoid plagiarism for the MilHist Academy. Would you mind looking over the reduction of our dispatch that I've constructed? I would appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Coming right over. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

←It flows very nicely. You've distilled it in a way that it isn't obvious that there are huge chunks missing. :) It seems a bit long still, if six-paragraphs is your limit, depending on how you count it. I come up with roughly 11. Tightening wording could reduce some paragraphs at the expense of some eloquence.

Under paraphrasing and summarizing, you might want to consider combining those two into one paragraph, since the first gives a level of detail that may not be necessary for practical application—perhaps like:

Adapting source text, whether by paraphrasing or summarizing (similar techniques that differ in level of detail), is a complex skill, and contributors to Wikipedia need to be alert to the potential for inadvertent plagiarism. Many editors believe that by changing a few words here or there—or even by changing a great number of the words found in the original source—they have avoided plagiarism. This is not necessarily the case. Nor does the mere rearrangement of clauses, sentences, or paragraphs avoid the problem.

For brevity, I might remove the "good" paraphrase example and simply refer to the full dispatch for more.

It seems like the last section could be tightened. Hmmm. I think statements like "This can be done either in hard copy or by using an electronic filing system." may be unnecessarily detailed for a short overview. Also, I realize that the more formal language was desired for the dispatch, but I wonder if switching out "you" for "editors" might make this easier for general reading. It's an intimidating subject for some people, and a friendlier, less formal approach, might help. :) Trying to get it all into one paragraph, I come up (quickly) with the following:

You can minimize the tendency to reuse text through several approaches, including proper note taking and using multiple sources. You might find it more difficult to avoid following that text too closely if you rely on only one source, as you will necessarily be limited to the details it presents. You will also find it more difficult to rewrite if you copy and paste text from your sources directly into your working drafts. Instead, you should (1) locate several sources, where possible; (2) assemble and organize notes and excerpts from these sources by topic; (3) read and absorb this material; and (4) write a draft version, in you own words and under your own organizational schema, of each topic. There are a number of ways to organize material; you should not closely follow a source's structure, either in overall organization, or in the composition and arrangement of sentences and paragraphs within each section. When you're finished, compare your draft with you source material to be sure you haven't accidentally used the author's original words. If you will not have easy access to original sources when you finish writing your final draft, you might find it useful (when taking original notes for your own use) to take them verbatim, with quotation marks, so you can see at a glance what language the original author used.

These ideas are, of course, off the top of my head. :) They aren't as elegant in construction as our original, but I'm trying to think of ways to boil this down to a simple "how to" that fits within that brief four-to-six paragraphs without losing any of the essential points.

Having suggested some removals, with this—"enclosed within quotation marks"—you might want to add something like "or in block quote". Working at WP:Plagiarism tells me that some people would want this acceptable alternative spelled out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That was very helpful (as usual) - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Headers in OTRS

Hi. Zoom on a ticket, then for each line you have a link labeled (plain) : |-> 1. customer (email-external)(plain) John Doe <john.doe@isp.com>: OTRS Application Live. Cheers, guillom 07:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah! All is now clear. Thank you very much. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

CC licenses

Hi there Moon
Is it possible to create a montage of CC-BY 2.0, CC-BY-SA 2.0, CC-BY-SA 2.5, and CC-BY-SA 3.0 images and license the result with CC-BY-SA 3.0, or somehow just declare the respective images and their licenses? I'd imagine that there should be some way to do this.
Image in question is File:Toronto Montage 2.jpg, built from 1 2 3 4 5 6 7.
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 08:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. A derivative work of freely licensed images should be proper, so long as each of the images is licensed to allow reuse and modification and does not preclude aggregation in a collective work. Creative Commons has a handy chart showing how their licenses combine in derivative works, here. Both CC-By and CC-By-SA can go into CC-By-SA, so that's no problem. A compilation of those images can be released under CC-By-SA 3.0. If the uploader doesn't provide attribution as required by the licensing on the individual images, then the derivative work is a copyright violation. While I'd fix the attribution issues on such a derivative work, I would educate the contributor. I personally would block a contributor who continues to do this as a serial copyright infringer. I might not block quite as quickly as I would somebody who copies photos of Britney Spears from a photo agency, but if he or she has it clearly explained and continues anyway, we're still dealing with willful copyright violation.

Complicating things for me here is File:Dundas-streetcar-and-ago-as-seen-from-near-deconism.jpg. If this was released under GFDL, it could be migrated to CC-By-SA along with everything else that migrated on June 15th. But it wasn't. It was licensed under the Shared Experience License. Licenses are something I've grown gradually more familiar with, never having encountered them in my day job. But when I asked Mike Godwin some time back about the compatibility of CC-By-SA and GFDL, he told me that there were compatibility issues with licenses that impose additional restrictions. Shared Experience License requires "You may copy and distribute the Experience in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Experience are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." and "You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Experience under the conditions of section 2 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License...." This license is similar to GFDL, but I strongly suspect not compatible with it based on what Mike told me. It explicitly says that no new conditions can be added (GFDL requires the attachment of the GFDL licensing terms) and that modifications must be "under precisely this License." (Shared Experience recommends licensing "in parallel" under GFDL, which would even more strongly suggest that it is not as is compatible.)

If I'm right that material under Shared Experience License can't be licensed under GFDL, then it can't be migrated to CC-By-SA. It can still be used under a derivative work, but the derivative work will then (as you suggest) require notation that this particular portion is licensed under Shared Experience License.

I'm going to check with Quadell about the cross-compatibility of Shared Experience License and GFDL. If I'm right, then the image at Commons will need to be modified anyway to correct the licensing terms. He'll know if Shared Experience is accepted on Commons, because he's smart like that. :D If it turns out I'm wrong and the whole montage can be licensed under CC-By-SA, the image description will just need to be modified to note the copyright holders. If I'm right, it'll need to be modified to note licensing & copyright holders. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Waaaaaah.
Ok ... so I figured that CC-BY-SA could in principle be used in a derivative of a CC-BY. Since you haven't mentioned the versions I suppose they don't factor in at all? I had assumed that they'd make matters even more complicated.
I didn't realize the problem with the streetcar image, I only saw the license templates and was content, but you're right, the original statement, as replicated at Commons, only mentions the "ePi Lab Shared Experience License". I'll wait until I hear back then.
With the uploader we're currently in a last-chance situation. He's constructive in principle, but didn't mind about image copyright before at all. I deleted most of his uploads a while ago and thought he acknowledged his mistake, but then he uploaded three clear-cut copyvios yesterday along with this montage. Oh well.
Thanks a lot! Cheers, Amalthea 13:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, CC-By license can be reused under CC-By-SA. The reverse is not true. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Cain

I have had a go at a clean version at Talk:Robert Henry Cain/Temp. Could you possibly take a look when you have got time? Thanks, Woody (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. :) I'll be over soon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much for continued work on this. :) I am not British and prior to coming to Wikipedia had no experience with Crowd Copyright, but I think that the full citation for Cain's Victoria Cross is probably covered by Crown Copyright and hence PD as of the end of 1994. Do you know if I'm correct in that? If so, then I don't see any issues. If not, we've got far too big a block quote from it. :D And there are a few snippets from it that aren't attributed, which would be a problem under WP:NFC if it was non-free (such as "Major Cain continued firing until he had scored several direct hits, immobilised the tank and supervised the bringing up of a 7.5 mm. howitzer which completely destroyed it.") Actually, I'm not entirely sure that the second snippet is from that source: "like a British soldier". Is this a quote? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Crown copyright is indeed 50 years, for published material such as a medal citation, at least - see the final para of Crown copyright#United Kingdom. BTW, I heard back from the PegasusArchive chappie, who asserts that he does own the copyright but is happy for us to use his words, subject to an attribution at the bottom of the article. NOt sure if this is relevant given Woody's work on the article, but if so, I'll press the chap to send in an OTRS email. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Yep, your working out is correct, Crown Copyright ran out in 1994 for that one. I have referenced the quotes now. The British soldier one was from the pegasus archive, though I do remember it being used in Clarkson's documentary. We could reword it or just remove it, but I put it in there to emphasise that it was an extraordinary thing to do, badly wounded and retreating under fire, to consider shaving was quite amazing! Are you happy if I move it over? Regards, Woody (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my memory of Crown Copyright, both of you, and thanks for following up with the PegasusArchive fellow, Tagishsimon. :) It seems, then, a matter of consensus for the article whether to use the rewrite, which is clear (and I am very happy with your moving it over), or ask for OTRS. Perhaps a combination of both? I'll leave that to you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I agree with you that considering shaving is pretty extraordinary. An unusual man! I didn't recall it from the pegasus archive, but a quote is sufficient. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I will move it over when Rangers Steve has finished adding to it. I think it is better to work in the text from pegasus to the temp version. Thanks for all your help. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the Month :)

Congratulations, Moonriddengirl! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded my top award, the "Wikipedian of the Month" award for the month of July! Keep up the great work!

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 00:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Congradulations, you are a very lucky and good user for getting this award. Good job:DSchnitzelMannGreek. 02:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I am astounded! And humbled. Thank you very much, [midnight comet]. You are very kind. :) Schnitzel, I appreciate your good wishes. Wikipedia is full of good users and, fortunately, also full of people who are generous enough to want to make others feel good about their work. :) It's a labor of love for us all...or well, us many. ;) I will keep doing my best. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Two related Barnstars

		The Gastropod-star
		Moonriddengirl, for all the hard work you and your team put into WikiProjectGastropods, saving 1,000 of our articles, I award you this Barnstar. Invertzoo (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

		A piece of Jimbo's star
		For the hard effort you put into helping make WikiProjectGastropods as great as it is, I award you a nice-sized chunk of the barnstar that Jimbo gave us on July 25 2009. This piece has a diamond in it! Invertzoo (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you. And congratulations on the Barnstar! I suspect that you are being far too modest, as it seems very much to me as any diamonds bestowed by Jimbo belong solely and squarely to you. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Schoenfeld article

Hi Monnriddengirl,

First of all congratulation on your award. I just wanted to know if you had the time to read and control the changes on the Wayne Schoenfeld article. And wanted to know if the changes are yet good enough in order to delete the conflict of interest. Thank you for your help and time. --Exeko (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And I'm sorry, but it slipped my mind. I get preoccupied with copyright problems sometimes. :) I think the text is very nicely neutral, and you've got plenty of sources. I've removed the two existing tags. However, I have requested some more footnotes. For example, where do we find that "the proceeds from his art are donated to children's projects and humanitarian efforts" or that he "splits his time between his studios in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara"? Not that I'm suggesting that these things aren't true, but inline citations helps our readers verify this information, which is really important when you're dealing with an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you footnote a bit more in the article, please feel free to remove the "inline" tag from the top yourself. It's there as a request, not as a caution for readers. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry Mildmay

Thanks for the note. Woops! yes it is one I missed, see User:Philip Baird Shearer/BCWs copyright issues, for an overview. You might like to read Talk:James Temple#Copyleft problem to join in the conversation on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#James Temple --PBS (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Exinda Listing

Hello - Exinda recently updating our listing with revised content. My understanding is that there was a previous posting that you had concerns about copyright issues. It appears that the second posting was also deleted but I'm not exactly sure. We're keen to get new appropriate content posted. Can you please clarify for me? Our writer is out of town this week and I'm following up on his behalf.

tx Krista Burns Marketing Director Exinda Inc.

38.112.106.62 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC).

Hi. I have removed your e-mail address for security reasons. I'm afraid Wikipedia is often trawled and your address is likely to be picked up by others.

The text was removed because the contributor did not follow the necessary process for verifying licensing. All material placed on Wikipedia is licensed under CC-By-SA and most of it is also licensed under GFDL. Both of these licenses allow modification and reuse, even commercially, so long as the original author receives attribution. Obviously, this is a very liberal license and the potential for damage to copyright holders is serious. Since Wikipedia does not have any means of verifying identity on account creation, we have to go through external processes to confirm permission. The process for copyright owners is set out at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, and the initial contributor was advised of this at his or her talk page, User talk:Pschwab08. As of July 26, when the article on Exinda was deleted, there was no record that an e-mail had been set to the Wikimedia Foundation verifying permission. The Exinda website itself continues to read "©2009 Exinda Networks. All rights reserved." Meanwhile, another contributor added text from [29]. Material cannot be placed on Wikipedia that is hosted by or authored by Exinda unless authorization is verified. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wong Doc-Fai page

Thank you for your assistance in developing this page to meet Wiki standards. Your help is greatly appreciated.Clftruthseeking (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to any assistance I can offer. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Secure link on user page

You may want to consider changing <pulling out stuff that is making my page really wide> so that the link works equally well for users of the secure and non-secure servers. Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 03:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Have done so. Mind you, technologically, I'm a good ways behind the curve so I have no clue how any of that works, but if you say it's better, I'm sure it is. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello Moonriddengirl, I don't know if you remember me but how have you been? Hey could you check out this users edits, he has been adding and removing information which seems to be with a racial intent on the articles related to the northern regions of Sri Lanka such as Northern Province, Sri Lanka ‎, Mannar District and others. I have told him to stop vandalising the page but he continues, and has used unreliable sources like this [30], he also seems to be a member of WikiProject Sri Lanka. I have also told him to explain his edits on the talk page before he edits the article, and it is turning into a edit war. Could you please tell this person to stop his vandalism and follow the proper wikipedia protocaol. Thanks Blackknight12 (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've had a look, and it looks like there's room for better communication there to be sure. I can't identify his or her edits as vandalism, though, because I'm not familiar enough with the subject to determine if it is intentional disruption. It could be an editor with a strong point of view, one who doesn't understand reliable sources or even one who is attempting to address what he believes is bias already in the article. I'd have to be a lot more familiar with Sri Lankan history and politics to know which.

In this case, if you know that the contributor is being clearly disruptive, the best thing to do is probably to invite others from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka to review whats going on with the articles and help sort things out. If he might be working with good intentions, the two of you should ideally start at the talk page. You may still need to invite others if you can't reach consensus between yourself. There's a bunch of recommended places to start at Dispute Resolution, but in this case the project might be a good place to go.

I'll start by going by his page to explain the dispute resolution process (including explaining the concept of "edit warring") and give him some links to a few more policies and guidelines. You should probably open a section on the talk pages of the articles under dispute discussing the problems with them. Please remember to be diplomatic at this. :) You need to stay within the guidelines of WP:Civil. You should start by assuming that he is trying to add something constructive, even if you don't necessarily agree with what he's adding. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles

Hello,

I know you are trust worthy so I have an important task that I would like you to do for WikiProject Eurovision, a project I am a member of. There has been a lot of controvery on the project regarding what sources are reliable and which are not, and as a result I opened an RfC to try and settle the issue. It has now been going for over a month and seems to have run out of steam, with a straw poll held towards the end to see how opinions are spread out. There is a lot to read through and I think it would be best if someone impartial interpretes any consensus that has been formed, and I think you meet the criteria for that. I would like you if you could spare the time to write a conclusion on each source given making the verdict you think is most appropriate weighing up the spread of opinion, arguements, and ultimatly consensus. Possible verdicts for each source include no consensus, not reliable, semi-reliable, and reliable. If you don't have time I can always find someone else to do it instead, many thanks in any case. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm happy to take a look and see if I can help. I am very slow in weighing such things, so if it looks like it might take me too awfully long I may request assistance. I've got a full plate with copyright problems today, but if I can, I'll close it for you guys. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, don't worry, there is no rush. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am actively working on it. :) As you know, it's complex. I expect to be able to evaluate consensus, though, given what I've read so far. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this enough?

This version [31] of Wong Doc-Fai was copyvio from [32] - are the changes sufficient? I've been asked and although I think they probably are, I'd like a second opinion. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it should probably go a bit further. Take this sentence: "Once in the U.S., he encountered bullying and sought out his first kung fu teacher - Lau Bun 劉彬, the founder of the Hung Sing Kwoon of Choy Li Fut (蔡李佛) kung fu in America." I've bolded the bits that are verbatim in the source. By itself, this wouldn't concern me much, but there are other sections of literal duplication and close following. It's very hard to mine information from a single source like this, but I've rewritten the first paragraph (and tweaked the following) to separate it a bit further. At this point, I think it is not a copyvio, though I believe it probably still paraphrases a bit too closely. Additional sources would be a big help. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've found something similar, this time by an editor blocked in May for 'generic stupidity' and by me just now for editwarring and denying he'd been editing logged out (and personal attacks). His articles have been tagged for copyvio before, and he's rewritten Adrian Bawtree -- it was copyvio from [33]. Do you think he's done enough? Dougweller (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mostly. I've changed a few words and done some general cleanup. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And thanks again! It looks much better now. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

I thought you made an excellent summing up of the discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your closure was well justified and was along the lines on how I expected it to be. Yes you were right on what a semi-reliable source was, and correctly highlighted the limits of polling and the problems with it on a non-yes or no issue such as reliable sourcing. I had not thought of evolution, but yes you are probably right that many of these sources are evolving, particularly ESCToday. With the RfC off the project's chest we can now address other issues. Thank you again and I hope to see you around in the future. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Edward Balliol

Hello! I am not sure whether Edward Balliol really did have copyright problems. IIRC, the For the Lion author contributed a fair bit to the article, so he may well have reused some favourite phrases ... but perhaps I am being stupid? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not being stupid at all. You're quite right about the contributor and the source. The problem is that evidently PC Paterson did not have authorization of his publisher to license this material for use on Wikipedia. It is an extremely unfortunate situation. :( You can read more about it here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and p.s., thanks for not jumping to the assumption that I had lost my mind. If I did not know the background, I know I might well have done. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It seemed altogether more likely that I'd be missing the point than the alternative. Thanks for the quick reply, all makes perfect sense! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

BlueLannkan

Thanks... for your suggestions —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLankan (talk • contribs) 19:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Albert Fish

I responded to your note on Talk:Albert Fish regarding the release date of the documentary in January 2009 vs. the good article status date of February 2007 and content stability since that time. There is no validity to a claim of copyright infringement regarding this article and I would request that my statement be forwarded to those in charge of determining this. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for feedback. :) There isn't so much a "those in charge of determining this", as it isn't an official take-down request, as it is a matter we handle ourselves. I suspect that if the person who wrote us is wrong, it'll clear up fairly quickly. But in order to avoid contributory infringement, Wikipedia does have to seriously look into the allegation. It's a whole lot easier when the source is online. I appreciate your digging up the release date of the film and noting that the article has been stable. If the correspondent who wrote us doesn't offer further information, and nobody else pops up with any out of the blue damning evidence, the article should be restored in quick order. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the need for checking and appreciate your response. I hope that what I found helps clear this up. I've watched this article for years and am certain that any copyright violation is unfounded. I wouldn't go so far as to say the doco content may be based on what is written here vs. the other way around... but then stranger things have happened. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We have, yes. We had an article once tagged as a vio of an ESPN article, but it turned out our article was several years older. For that matter, I once got an e-mail from an internationally known painter because his article had been tagged for copyright investigation. He told us that his website had copied the bio from us. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Image question

Any thoughts about this image, just added to Rickey Henderson? I found this and this (many copies) which are similar but not identical. User:Quadell hasn't been around for several days; any advice how to proceed?  Frank  |  talk  23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note for the uploader. Like you, the images arouse my suspicion, but without finding an exact copy out there. we're a bit stuck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I tweaked your message for readability. Guess I could have done it myself originally, but images just aren't my forte. Guess I'll have to branch out... :-)  Frank  |  talk  00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good approach. If it were hosted here, I'd take it to WP:PUF. I think on Commons, deletion debate is the only option. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Albert Fish

An anon IP continues to remove your template from Albert Fish. I have a bit of trouble verifying this because I don't see exactly where the vio is. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look. I've warned the editor a few times now. Shadowjams (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Taken to WP:AIV for a short application of the ban hammer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Duly hit upside the head. As a Brit, I don't understand the sentence I just wrote. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) And *sigh*. This one is a pain. I don't know exactly where the vio is supposed to be, either. I hope that our letter-writer responds quickly. Based on what User:Wildhartlivie says above and at the talk page, I suspect its a backwardsvio, but it's very hard to positively assert that without (a) knowing where the problem is and(b) having access to the source. If he identifies a passage that is duplicated in the source and I can verify that it predates the film, we can remove the template with confidence. If he doesn't reply to my request for information, we can also remove the template, but it will take a little longer. So far, I've had no response. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mandela Day

Many thanks for your feedback. It's my first time making an update, so I very much appreciate your help. I'm going to attempt to repost, bearing in mind the notes you made about the previous attempt. Congrats on the recognition! Eeness (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Eeness

Thank you. :) Please do let me know if I can be of any assistance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lifted from imdb?

Do you think This was lifted from here? –xeno^talk 00:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost overlooked this! Let me see. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't say conclusively, because there's no wayback on that page, but I think so. The tipper for me is that our plot summary uses sentences that are in each of the two summaries there, though they were purportedly supplied by different individuals. For instance, the one by "anonymous" says "Hamilton High is no place for a teacher who cares." The one by GFT Entertainment says, "But the day he does, he pulls one last detention duty with the toughest kids in the school. It's a bad time for all." Our article includes both those (though it says "bad day for all"). We have to conclude either that two separate reviewers copied pieces of our article into their different summaries or that our article writer pulled pieces of two summaries and drew it into one. I think lex parsimoniae suggests our article writer is at fault. Barring evidence otherwise, I'll replace the text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't have the time or the energy last night to review all that. P.S. the movie is utter trash, take a pass if you see it on TV ;p –xeno^talk 12:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, remember me?

I'm the guy who only calls when he needs some money, or a ride, or some copyvio help... ;) MRG, would you mind having a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) and the associated article? I placed a copyvio template on it, but one editor wonders if that's correct, and I'm not 100% sure myself. Your cash, your Cadillac, and your time are, as always, appreciated! Drmies (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Seems like this one all played out while I was offline. :) The copyvio template is always correct if you have good reason to doubt that the material is legally published. Alabama does not have a clear copyright statement on that particular page, but that their government material is copyrighted is pretty strongly indicated by their official state portal, [34], with its © 2009 State of Alabama. Someday, I'm going to write a guide on the state copyright laws, because this one comes up routinely. I just need to wait for a time when people aren't infringing copyright, and I have time to spare.... :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Making OTRS and such more friendly

It's good that OTRS now directs clearly to Wikipedia:Contact us, but it misses an option for those who want to give us permission to use non-photo content. Also, see my comments here, and here. If we want people to give us free stuff we should make it as easy and friendly as possible... Btw, feel free to repost my comment to some forum - I am not sure however where this could be. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Dcoetzee, at least part of this looks to be simple. :) I've linked his newly crafted explanation about licensing at Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission. I'll take a look and see what can be done at OTRS about non-photo donations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've created WP:PERMIT and linked it from Wikipedia:Contact us. That should help, I hope. Thanks for making the process more user friendly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Billy Gaffney Or, Edward Budd.

Albert Fish, could not possibly be a film by John Borowski. The Holmes-Pitezel Case, by Detective Frank P. Geyer, whereabouts was in Philadelphia. The Albert Fish Case, whereabouts, was in New York City. What happened to Ms. Grace Budd is flat out more enlightening when one reads the same did not happen to Edward. One should always keep in mind that it was Detective Frank P. Geyer who was on the case in New York City. Philly is not far from where Edward Budd was taken from us. Same with Billy Gaffney, except I came under the direct impression Billy Gaffney is really Edward Budd. John Borowski can go figure his own point out. The clencher is Black Mass by Lehr and O'Neill, not Portrait of Evil I would think by Borowski, which has alot more to do about the Budd and Pitezel case than about the Benjamin and Albert case. My big problem is staying focussed on the fact Howard did not deserve to die, his sister did not play well with him. LAMMERGRIFFIN (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I hope the copyright question on the Albert Fish article will soon be resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a gazillion...

...for keeping a watch over my talk page. I really do appreciate you stepping in and providing opinion. And, yeah, as you notice, I'm finally back at home now -- totally jet-lagged, but that doesn't seem to affect the quality of my edits (hmm, that ain't a good sign). If you've noticed any screw-ups on my CV edits, or anything I should consider, please drop me a note -- I'm still feeling my way through the proper process. By the way, this simple gem shows you may be the calmest, kindest, most even-keeled person around here -- or on a permanent lithium drip. Not sure which, but I am consistently impressed. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't noticed anything at all. But, of course, ditto. I've been doing this for a while, but I don't kid myself into thinking that I never make mistakes. :D As to that, it isn't so much lithium as complete incomprehension. :D Hope you recover from the jet lag quickly. I hate that. :/ (Oh, and you're welcome for the talkstalking. I have occasional talkstalkers who are enormously helpful, so I think they're rather a very good thing. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion...

...of Amity University from a copyvio point of view? Compare http://www.careernews4u.com/amity-university.html and first section. Since it's just the first section, how to fix this issue? I removed an entire section of current events which wasn't encyclopedic to start with and also had some copyvio content. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  10:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Good morning! (In my part of the world.) Text looks hinky, but that particular page isn't our source. It was "Submitted by career help on Saturday, 25 July 2009No Comment", and the material was already in our article on the 24th. Hmm. The whole chunk of it was added on July 13th, [35]. There's some vio of the official site, [36] and [37]. With a chunk of text that size, placed that recently, I'd selectively delete back to the last clean. A comparison of the last clean to the current shows the only changes are a category ([[hi:एमिटी विश्वविद्यालय]]) and the inclusion of the words "Sector 43" to "Amity International School , Power Grid ,Sector 43, Gurgaon." Those can be reincorporated without licensing concerns, as they are not creative enough to be copyrightable. I'm on it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm always terrified that I will lose connection in the middle of a selective deletion. I know it wouldn't be the end of the world, but I'm sure I'd be frantically trying to reconnect. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Boaz and Jachin

Hello Moonriddengirl!! I´am an one of Freemason project´s member and since one/two months ago, i uploaded an image from Boaz and Jachin (talkpage) (not exactly the real one, on porpose to just showing a replica of the pillars)[38], yesterday, one guy took off the image in all available languages articles, and the in french page of Boaz and Jachin, the "anonymous person" took out as well in the top page, which was, "This is the part of series of Freemason" (in french language), the person who made this, argued also : "....your image in some languages of Wikipedia and inappropriate manner, which does not tolerate. Any serious researcher believes that the columns were not Masonic." and modified the category of my image uploaded... my question is, is this true?!? The guy is a skeptical person... Really.. i don´t no the reason what he did this...

Regards. Lightwarrior2 (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm afraid that I don't know enough about Freemasonry to have an opinion on this, but I bet that the project could help reach consensus. Why not ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry? I bet some of the contributors there will be able to help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) By the way... I put again the image... But the same guy deleted it and came in my page and said... " Please do not make me take drastic measures. " really... i don´t like every kind of treat... (if i can say this...) Regards. --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

For today :)

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For not just your tireless and inspiring work on copyright problems but also from slaving through the histpurge backlog with the old and impractical diff parameter (now gone). MLauba (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! You are very kind. :) In my official thank you speech, I must thank you as well for tagging all of them and also User:CactusWriter for helping out at WP:CP, which can certainly make my time a good bit less pinched. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A copyright question

Hi and thanks again for your efforts regarding the Fish and Holmes articles. I came across a website not long ago, and a page in particular there, about Billy the Kid. It looked quite familiar to me and when I looked further, discovered the article posted is a duplicate of a version of our Billy the Kid from mid-2006. It is marked as a copyright, 1998 & 2006, but it doesn't give attribution to Wikipedia at all, and it's clear that's where they got it. I haven't looked at the other pages they have listed, but thought I would eventually. I sent a letter to the owner of the site, noting that attribution is supposed to be given under the license we use, but didn't get a response. What I'm wondering is whether there is anything that should be done about it, and if so, what. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are tough. The page dates to October 13, 2006 (according to archive), and our version definitely predates that, so it would be difficult for the website owner to declare we had violated him. Technically, there's not a lot any of us can do unless we contributed substantially to the article, as only the copyright holders have the legal right to pursue remedy for infringement. The general process is set out at Wikipedia:Mirror#Non-compliance process. You can send a letter to them, but if they don't comply you'd have to find somebody who has a stake in that version of the article to send a take-down request. The only other thing we can do is try to shame him if he doesn't respond by putting a {{backwardscopyvio}} on the article, but if his site is promotional he might find that a good thing. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I figured. I sent a letter about attribution with no response. I have contributed a lot to the page in the last year or two, but I'm not inclined to pursue it with a take-down request. My sense is that it's not a highly maintained site anymore. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Akaflieg Stuttgart FS-26

'Fair cop Guv'. I was feeling lazy and just re-arranged things and the odd word, I will try again sometime unless someone beats me to it. The real problem is that there are very few sources with anything other than a very brief description, so I am forced to use only what is available and my literary talents get pushed to the limit, or I just get plain lazy. Thanks for the advice and the vigilance.Petebutt (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Cecil Recreation Complex

Greetings, Moonriddengirl:
I've got a new article for review: User:Mgreason/Sandbox 3
No big hurry; I see you've been staying busy. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I should be over there some time tomorrow (my time; today on UTC time. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Spanish references

Hi.

Is there a problem if i use links to sites in spanish as refs for the english wikipedia? Zidane tribal (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! No, no problem at all. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks as always. Zidane tribal (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kamen Ryuki

Thanks for understanding the potential plausability of that redirect. I hope clear heads prevail through this massive deletionism campaign. Tyciol (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I found that one plausible, since a search showed that people do seem to use it as shorthand for the show or the character. But, you know, some of these redirects really are inappropriate. Take Keiyaku, for instance. [39] shows that name is used in many Wikipedia articles. Redirecting it to one article eliminates the search functionality that might help users find the one that they need. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A big problem is while many pages may simply mention the word (or the name) in passing, not all pages that show up in a search will actually be about the person. It will also be difficult to navigate or understand. Furthermore, it's not eliminated, it just means someone has to click 'search' instead of 'go' (move their mouse to the right). The difference is if people press 'enter' or something I guess, but that's a function viewers doing indepth research are going to need to learn anyway. When people first start at Wikipedia I figure they research broader topics rather than looking for a specific person (who they may have trouble finding, especially if so many articles use the name as you mention). Results would not be alphabetical, nor divided into categories. Instead of deleting the redirect to restore something that was never lost, like I've proposed to Ryu, the ideal step could be to upgrade it into the disambiguation page that it deserves to be, because then we can really aid people who are looking.

Hm, a something might need many hits to deserve an article but I wonder how many for a disambig when the investment is so small and nothing else uses it eh? Tyciol (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue to take up at a broader community forum. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kamen Ryuki

I am only finding 2k results for this collection of words, which was simply a typo by Tyciol in the first place. That's less than 1% of the results for the whole name. I've never seen anyone actually refer to the series without "Rider" in the name, usually it's the whole name, or just "Ryuki".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few: "Kamen Ryuki aired in the year 2002-2003 and the first of Kamen Rider franchise to feature a new design and 13 Riders."[40]; "When they showed the Kamen Ryuki episode and I saw their Ren/Kamen Rider Knight i puked." [41] "I still prefer Kamen Ryuki over this, but I 'd rather have everyone new to kamen rider watch this than another comedy like Masked Rider was." [42]. If you think that the term is not widely used in this respect enough to warrant a redirect, you may want to take it up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. It isn't an WP:CSD#R3, though, and so far as I can see it doesn't actually do any harm. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I just have to remember how RFD works.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that feeling. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice on Devendra Banhart

Hi Moonriddengirl! I wanted to ask for some advice. A user claiming on his/her userpage to represent Devendra Banhart's management repeatedly removes reliably sourced article content without valid reason or discussion. Do I post this on WP:COIN, because despite the corporate username (Lookout Management) I can't proove that this is a corporate identity and not just someone claiming to be. Similar changes went on from IP addresses for some time. Could you be so nice look over User_talk:Lktmgmt and give thoughts on what best to do? Thank you very much. Hekerui (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I got pulled away before I could write a response to you. :) It doesn't matter that much whether the person actually is connected or simply claims to be; either way, they've got a vested interested and probably a COI. I've left them a note with an official COI advisory and restored some sourced text they removed. If further edits don't seem in keeping with COI, a COIN listing would certainly be appropriate to get other contributors involved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and listed it at COIN myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's weird how this now comes to be controversial, compared to how the article was before sources were added. Hekerui (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Undergraduate Ambassadors Scheme

Belated thanks for your excellent edit on this, which I have only just read. Hugh Mason (talk • contribs 10:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I must admit I had forgotten that one. :) Fun to revisit it. I don't like eliminating articles as copyright infringements, though it's not always avoidable. If I have time and encounter a notable one, I will usually try to salvage it if I can. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope this isn't too late....

Hi, Mrg. I was checking today's Copyvio listings and ran across some more of your Paknur project. (What did you ever do to deserve that lovely bit of punishment?) I saw one note at Talk:Qilla Abdullah District and wanted to let you know that I had investigated the Om Gupta Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh a couple of months ago and determined it was copied from Wikipedia. (My discussions are here and here. I removed all references to that text from WP -- and knew I should have followed it up with a wider notification. Sorry. I hope this hasn't screwed up anything for you. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. If that were the only source this contributor has used, I'd be very worried about having blocked him unjustly. :) But, lo, his sources are legion. However, I'll try to restore anything I've removed from that source, and thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure where we'd place such a wider notification. I never think to check Mirrors & Forks. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A moment

Should you have a free moment at some point, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allstarecho in regards to the copyvio concern as well as the past but recent copyvio issue we went through. I've been quite careful in regards to copyvio and close paraphrasing but someone else seems to think otherwise. Considering our history, I feel it best to let you speak about it and my efforts in helping right my wrongs. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 11:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take a look. If it's concerning potential recent copyright issues, I will have to spend a little time checking recent contribs so I can assert confidently if I see no current problems. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's concerning one recent issue but if you feel the need to check more than the one in question, I have no objections. I'm confident that I have been a good boy. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 11:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm wading through the discussion now. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A long moment it turned into. For the record (and I said as much there), I don't think there was any intentional copyright shenanigans, though I do think that both the photograph and long quote are legitimate copyright concerns (explained why there). If you need feedback on copyright matters, you know (I trust) that you're welcome to come by here. If I don't know, I usually know where to ask. :) I'm up for surgery in two weeks, but I have come to rely on those people who watch my page to give good feedback. Even if I'm not here, I hope somebody will be. :) Alternatively, there's always WT:COPYCLEAN, which does have some monitoring. And, of course, I'm sure you already know about WP:MCQ. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time you spent there. Just so there's no misunderstanding, I replied to your comments there. Again, thanks for the neutral weighing in. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 22:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Noticed y're up for surgery in two weeks time, wishing you all the support you might need, mine you surely have already. Lars Washington (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That's greatly appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)