User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

uploads

Hi Moon, a couple of questions to help nudge me in the right direction. This issue here of a pic I nominated for discussion and it got a couple of supports Talk:Israel_Shamir#pic, and this discussion on a user talkpage User_talk:SitDownOnIt regarding their uploads. Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the former, I'm kind of shocked that Commons users are granting any "exception to our copyright policy", which I think contravenes Foundation resolution. Anyway, that deletion debate could close at any point...near or far. :) Commons is slow about such things. I'll get on to your second question now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've spent some time poking at her uploads, and here's what I would do: I would give her another week to come back to Wikipedia and answer your questions. If she does not return or if she returns and does not resolve your concerns, I would trot the images off to WP:PUF for the community to review. I think your concerns are valid, though she may be able to resolve them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl. I am in about the same position as you, the shamir pic, I removed it as I had doubts , the claim was that the account was the subject, something there is absolutely no confirmation of, that pic is on multiple wikis and I was also thinking, if a pic is widely published for long enough without objections does that weaken any claims to copyright? (2)I will give the user more time, she may be able to resolve the issue and they are low quality and I have looked around the web and found little to dispute from that, I was thinking they were screen grabs from videos and suchlike, it is strange there is no metadata as when I take a pic and upload it, there is always metadata. I'll give them a couple of weeks to comment. Off2riorob (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Darell Hammond

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoot! Thank you, Rlevse. :D And go, Darell Hammond article! Thrive and grow! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright text at an AfD

AFD discussions

• Rich Zubaty (AfD discussion)
• What Men Know that Women Don't (AfD discussion)

Self-identified

• Richzubaty (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
  — Real name
• Therudeguy (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
  — externally used pseudonym
• 72.253.135.100 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 72.234.207.192 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 172.165.20.24 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 172.136.100.169 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 172.165.63.110 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 62.56.103.76 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

Probable from behavioural evidence

• Richieg622 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Mandel17 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Cathbard (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 72.235.170.227 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 194.154.216.90 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 66.241.4.20 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

Hi MRG, VdT here. During the course of the rather acrimonious AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't (It's the title of a book), the self-identified author of said book, 72.234.207.192, posted large chunks of verbatim articles about himself, etc. to the discussion as evidence of his notability. I moved them to the talk page as they had taken up half the discussion page, but they probably ought to be deleted from the talk page. There's also a small chunk that he later posted to the actual discussion page. It's after the "arbitrary break" somewhere.

I would do it myself, but I'm leaving for the US tomorrow and more importantly, following these delightful messages from him on my talk page (and similar ones in the AfD), it's better if someone else deletes them. Also, the original article has now been deleted and userfied at User:Lew Loot/What Men Know that Women Don't. When it was first created, I had to remove a big chunk of copyvio from it [1]. I've explained several times to the article's creator about basic copyright issues at his talk page and at the AfD. But let's just say that there was a lot of "I didn't hear that" going on. So you (or one of your faithful minions) might want to keep that userfied page on watch. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, and thank you much! I'm on it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I've deleted the talk page, but now that I know the author's views I may ask a man to keep an eye on this. Any fellows around who work copyright who can watch for extensive non-free content here? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I can keep an eye out if needed , got a linky? mark nutley (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. :) It's at User:Lew Loot/What Men Know that Women Don't. If I remove anything, I suspect it will make him deeply suspicious of my motivation. I'll take action if I have to, but if it makes it easier for him to handle from a guy, so much the better. My ego is not on the line. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
        • No worrys, ego is a terrible thing :o) is there a specific page he is ripping off or is this a play it by ear thing? mark nutley (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
        • This book is not even remotly notable, why are we even bothering? mark nutley (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
          • True that. I doubt we're going to have to deal with it long. :D But in terms of copyvio, this is a more complex matter. We're allowed to quote from non-free sources, but we can't quote extensively and we have to quote for good reasons such as those set out at WP:NFC. We can't just take somebody else's words because we like them. :) He copied whole articles into the AfD; we can't do that. If you use too much non-free content, it's not "fair use" anymore. To watch out for here are extensive quotes, it seems. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Ok i`ll give the guy a week and see what he comes up with, then i figure it`s mfd time mark nutley (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth, M. Nutley is possibly more at risk than you are, Moonriddengirl. This person's M.O. is more to make personal attacks upon male editors, as you can see from the extensive (some deleted) contributions histories. This may have been a copyright and permissions issue in 2007 (see User talk:Garion96/Archive 9#Deletion copyright problem???? et seq.), but it's a behavioural one by now. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
          • LOL! "Wikipedia does not have 'balls,' because it is a web site, and not an animal or person." Ah, FisherQueen. :D I am a fan. That said, wow. I'm surprised he's attacking men, since his book seems very much concerned with freeing them from their shallow, unintuitive, love-crushing, war-mongering feminine overlords (overladies?) Has he no compassion for the oppressed? :/ Sorry if I lead you into conflict, Mark. I've watchlisted him too and will add some estrogen to the conversation if needed. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• FYI I have proposed that Mr. Zubaty be banned. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban Rich Zubaty. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have an issue on Commons

Editors at Commons are denying me my moral rights over my images that I have uploaded at Commons. The CC license states that my moral rights are not affected by the license, and I have added a statement in the permission section of my images that makes it clear I am exerting my moral rights. I have seen my images used without any attribution to me, which the license requires, and I have decided that along with attribution it would be wise to assert my moral rights because the images are being spread around somewhat. I do not wish to loose any protections I have a right to because I have not asserted them.

The whole thing was brought to an ANI at commons, and nothing came of it. However, some editors continue to remove and deny my moral rights nonetheless, citing that the discussion had no decision so it was not decided they can't remove my moral rights. One admin that continues to remove my moral rights even blocked me on Commons because of the conflict.

Could you assist me with this matter at all? I was told by Xeno that you are more familiar with Commons and would be the admin to ask. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Xanderliptak, could you please link to the relevant pages and discussions on Commons? You can use the following link syntax: e.g. [[:commons:Main Page]] -> commons:Main page. You are correct that if you live in a country where you have moral rights by law, they cannot be removed, regardless of whether you assert them or not, but I'd like to know more about the conflict. Dcoetzee 20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion is on my talk page here, another here and the ANI on Commons is here.

I have found a couple of websites that have used my images without attributing me, against the CC license they are under, and if the images spread around like this I could loose some of my rights. So I added text to my images that asserts my moral rights and describing what is required with attribution. Editors are arguing against inclusion of my moral rights either on the basis that I lost them when I uploaded the images or because moral rights go against the CC because they are too restrictive. I have tried to explain and even linked to where moral rights are covered by the CC, but it seems this is simply ignored.

The ANI lead nowhere, jsut circular arguments. Some editors, despite the failed ANI, took it upon temselves to continue to remove the moral rights from my images. Justass is one of them and has blocked me for it. His argument is basically while I may have such rights, I can not assert them. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Dcoetzee is probably in better position to help with this than I am, since he is an admin on Commons. Moral rights are not a major concept in US copyright law as regards text, which is the area where I am experienced. I have no idea how the Visual Artists Rights Act guarantee of "right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation" interacts with CC's right to modify or how rigid the US courts are in determining when "distortion, mutilation, or modification...prejudice[s] the author's honor or reputation" I'm afraid. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Also relevant to this issue are this, Xanderliptak's attempt to delete my alteration of his original image, under spurious ground, this, a talk page discussion on Theodore Roosevelt (which is very long), which explans why I created the alteration, this, a discussion on DrKiernan's talk page on the same subject (DrKiernan is the editor who actually inserted my altered image into the TR article in place of Xanderliptak's original, which was found to have OR elements in it), this AN/I discussion, and this, in which Xanderliptak asks the same questions asked here of Xeno.

In each of these discussions, Xanderliptak displays excessive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, with overtones of WP:COMPETENCE. He is told the same thing over and over my multiple editors, and refuses to accept what they say, then misrepresents their opinions and the consensus of the discussion in subsequent discussions. The "problem" here is not anything wrong with Commons, or Wikipedia, policies or normal procedures, the problem here is Xanderliptak, who seems to believe he can ignore consensus, Creative Commons licensing and everyone and everything who disagrees with his idees fixe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me, Beyond My Ken. And this has nothing to do with you. You are upset about a content dispute from a week ago, and you do not need to bring yourself into every discussion of mine. And yeah, I asked Xeno the same question; she was the one who told me to ask Moonriddengirl. If you are still upset over the dispute, I am sorry, but it was not personal. But again, please stop following me around and harassing me. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on an issue of interest to me -- that became of interest to me through your actions -- isn't "stalking", but I will, indeed, bring to light in every discussion you raise about this issue your behavioral problems. As I said a few days ago, they have passed the point where they are disruptive.

You have been wrong straight down the board about Wikipedia policies since the beginning of this issue, and you have behaved atrociously, resulted in a 24 hour block here, and a 2 hour attention-getting block on Commons. You need to learn to accept consensus when it is brought out, and not act as if anything you think of must be correct.

The main points you refuse to accept are (1) that any embellishments to a coat of arms which are not covered by the blazon or another reliable source showing that the subject accepted and used them, are, as far as Wikipedia is concerned original research, and cannot be used here, and (2) that once you have uploaded an image to the Commons, you cannot change the conditions under which you uploaded it.

Those are pretty simple and straght-forward concepts, which have been confirmed here and there by a clear consensus. That you disagree with them is your right, but you nevertheless must accept them, and act as if they were in force. Going to admin after admin looking for someone who will tell you otherwise is not acceptable behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So, consensus at Commons tells you you can't change the license retroactively (and yes, "retroactively" is the correct word), an admin undoes your changes, you revert the admins edits, so the admin give you an attention-getting "Stop now!" 2-hour block... and your response is to revert the admin's edits again -- and you have the nerve to come running to admins here trying to get one to take up your cause? Simply fucking amazing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop lying and stop harassing me. I don't know how to hack Wikipedia to change anything retroactively. You have no reason to follow my edits here and Commons becuase you are upset over a content dispute. You are harassing me, just stop it. It is creepy. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

@Xanderliptak: I dearly hope this is the last time I have to explain this: when you change the terms of something now that you already agreed to in the past, that is a retroactive change. It doesn't matter that you want the change to be applied only in the future, your change is retoactive, even if the terms are for this time forward. See?

in any event, it's irrelevant, because the consensus at Commons is you can't do it, and in any case the language you're trying to insert is not compatible with the license you already agreed to.

I would really, really love it if this is the last time we have to interact. I'd enjoy so much seeing you in my rear view mirror and not having to deal with you anymore, but for that to happen, you've gotta stop misbehaving! You've got to stop ignoring consensus and believing only what you want to believe, you've gotta stop edit warring, and you need to play nice with others. If you can do those things, you and I can be quits. I'm certain you'd like that, and I know I sure as hell would too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude, really, what are you talking about me misbehaving? You're creepy and weird, are you trying to be my mother? Have the crap you are talking about isn't even happening, so I don't know what is wrong with you. Again, just stop it and let it go. It was just a simple discussion about heraldry, you said you don't even know anything about heraldry, so I do not know why you are making it a big deal. Stop already. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks, especially on a third party's talk page. I understand that you're frustrated by some third parties not attributing your work properly, but the specific wording that you added to your licenses ("All adaptations [...] are permitted so long as they do not meet with disapproval of the original artist and do not defame, demean or in any other manner reflect negatively upon the original author or his work") does not accurately reflect your legal rights. Moral rights typically protect a work from modifications that are "prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation," and this does not extend to any use that meets your disapproval, which could be any use at all; whether a use constitutes a violation of moral rights is a matter for the courts to decide based on a variety of factors.

There are additional reasons that we don't, as a matter of convention, include these details in the template. The default wording of the CC license template is carefully written to briefly summarize its terms in all nations, with a link to the full text for more details, and leaves out a number of important exceptions and details; reusers are expected to click the link to learn their full obligations (the template is not itself a license or contract). Additionally, although various forms of moral rights exist in many nations, the precise rights that they give the author vary from place to place; characterizing them accurately would require knowing the nation of the author.

If it's important to you that the license reflect your moral rights, I recommend you (with the help of a user familiar with IP law) create a new CC-BY-SA template for your particular nation that briefly summarizes the author's moral rights, and then request feedback on it before using it.

However, for what it's worth, I don't believe this would be effective in encouraging reusers to credit you correctly; the template is already quite clear about attribution. There are other effective tactics for this, such as including a "credit line" in your description that reusers can easily copy and paste, directly contacting the publishers who used your image without permission, or if all else fails, issuing a takedown notice to those noncompliant publishers. Dcoetzee 09:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Users are expected to read the licensing, but in the cases where they do not attribute me it is clear they did not. When I am attributed, it makes it a bit easier to find the images on websites, and I can see if the images are being used correctly. Where they do not attribute me, I can not find them, and then I do not know if they are used in some offensive way. If I come across them, for people who don't care enough to read a license agreement, I don't want to have to get into implied moral rights, I rather much just point and say "see, you can't do that, you should have read this closer". It is all academic, I have no instance where anything was used negatively, but because I do illustrate national arms from time to time, the fear that such a thing could occur is in the back of my mind. I am on Commons now trying to find a compromise to the wording so people do not mistake it for restriction but as a claim on moral rights. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you're frustrated by some third parties not attributing your work properly,

I'm sorry to correct you, but there is no issue whatsoever about failure to attribute properly. The image at the core of this issue is this one, in which Xanderliptak's name remains in the very name of the image, and in which I copied verbatim all the information from Xanderliptak's original image. In addition, my own information summary credited him, by name, as the author of the image, with my name appended as having altered it. All provisions of the Creative Commons license were adhered to, and then some. The problem is not with my attribution, the problem is that Xanderliptak didn't like the change I made – which I did as a result of a consensus finding that part of his original image was original research not supported by the reference he provided – and wants to control any future alterations, which is (as you say) beyond the scope of his rights under the license. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, this has nothing to do with you, stop making it about you. You need to get over the argument, it's been a week. I don't care about your changes, you only increased the brightness. How many times do I have to tell you that? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, it has nothing to do with me or my behavior – which is why your filing a complaint about me on AN/I was so silly and absurd – it has to do with you and your behavior, your misrepresentations, your attempt to change your upload license after the fact, your repeated refusal to acknowledge a clear consensus, your editwarring and your inability to follow (or perhaps even understand) the rules and policies of Wikipedia and the Commons.

If you are at all interested in self-knowledge, I suggest that your start with our article on Projection (psychology). It may give you some insight into yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPN

Moonriddengirl, I've reproduced some source text at the BLPN noticeboard, here, to aid discussion of a BLP concern. I trust that's within the spirit of Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law; but if it isn't, please let me know and I'll remove it. --JN466 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's well within the spirit of fair use, but, at 760 words, that's a bit long for me. :D You never know how a court would go. I sometimes have to quote long to demonstrate copying, and I sometimes collapse the content to at least minimize display (never quoted quite that long). An alternative is to truncate it and link to the longer version in history...kind of a sneaky way to not have your cake and eat it, too (to misappropriate the phrase). If you take either route, it would be a good idea to remove the content or link when the conversation goes stale. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Will collapse, and remove later. --JN466 19:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Grant Nordman

Hello,

I created and helped to populate this page with accurate information, properly sourced from government webpages...

We are currently in the middle of an election in winnipeg, and while I understand that wikipedia is not a means of campaigning, the public should be able to read accurate biographical information about councillor nordman.

Why has this page been marked as a copyright violation?

Kyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.221.7 (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It was marked as a copyright violation because the content was copied without any evidence of permission from the copyright holder. The fact that the information is distributed freely elsewhere does not allow it to be copied here. The fact that it is from a government webpage also does not make it copyright free, see Crown copyright#Canada. Accurate and properly sourced information is of course allowed, but creative content can not be copied from elsewhere, it must be written entirely in your own words. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Verno. On October 1, the page was marked with a template that explained the situation and how to address copyright concerns. Rather than address copyright concerns as directed, somebody chose to remove the template. The same person removed an older note about the copyright problem from the talk page. Since no permission was provided and no clean content was proposed, the article has been reverted to an earlier clean version. Directions for verifying copyright permission are now on the talk page of the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Paddy Monaghan

Could you undelete this article or userfy it to the last creator's subpage or something for me? We've gotten OTRS permission (so that covers the most recent reason for deletion) but the most recent deleting admin won't restore it because it's in such rough shape, and I need to be able to tell the copyright holders something. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's now at User:Paddym293/Paddy Monaghan. I'd advise him that he'll need to do additional work before putting it in article space. I'd usually suggest he go to WP:COIN to ask for feedback or WP:DRAW. I used to be pretty much the sole contributor offering feedback there. I ran away a while back when I found somebody to take it off my hands. Now it looks like poor User:Graeme Bartlett is the sole guardian. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let them know. I'd never heard of WP:DRAW before now. I imagine it's similar to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board which isn't really prominently linked anywhere and so I somehow wound up being the resident caretaker. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed

Hi, got an article here that needs some RevDel work. This is the article: Ramón Hoyos. I reverted it back to DD's first version which contained his standard boiler plate text. Everything from at least his fourth version (where it gains that second big paragraph) to the version where Uncle G's workbot comes in should probably be revdeled since its almost certainly copyvio. If there is another page where I should put this sort of request feel free to direct me to it. Thanks, --*Kat* (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. :) And my talk page is as good a place as anywhere, until we work out the process. Thanks for your work here, by the way. Really stellar. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RD1

Hi MRG, if you have a look at the history of 2010 Commonwealth Games medal table, you'll notice a section copyvio was introduced a few days ago and existed for about 15 edits before I caught it. I'm assuming these can't be RD1'd because of the additional positive changes in those edits? Can the four edits which introduced the copyvios (but before anyone else edited the page) be RD1'd? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

They can be RD1'd. We're required to maintain a list of authors under CC-By-SA, and the history does that even when the individual contributions are obscured. Even better, in this article, there's nothing that requires attribution in the retained content ([2]). All non-creative. :) I've done the mop up. Thanks for catching it before it went too far! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Television episode summaries: copyright violation

Hi there. I had a question about WP:COPYVIOs of television episode summaries and decided I should check with you before I proceed. I recently removed summaries from Grey's Anatomy (season 7), Grey's Anatomy (season 6) and Grey's Anatomy (season 5), which were copied word-for-word from press releases. (I just happened to visit one of these pages which repairing disambig links.) I must admit I was surprised that a popular show like Grey's would have copyvios, (I figured someone would have caught it!) but I started deleting. Then I got to thinking... is there a point when (like after so many years) the press releases become like public domain? Was I wrong to remove these? Maybe this is actually allowed? I figured I'd ask before I do anymore deleting. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Press releases only become public domain at the same time any other creative work does, which for US press releases is likely 95 years after publication (per United States copyright law#Duration of copyright). No, you were not wrong to remove them and no, it is not allowed. It is sadly a rampant problem with plot summaries, and so there's even a template you can place on article talk pages as a reminder to others that this a no-no: {{Plot2}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What Verno said. :) This is I'm sure one of the most persistent copyright problems we have. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Just double-checking that I didn't screw up! ;) --Logical Fuzz (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by 2 pence: I see more copyright vios in showbiz articles, by far, leaps and bounds, than in any other area. Even worse, they're often slap-dash cut 'n paste copyvios from the dodgiest sources one can think of. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Of relevance to this issue, there's a request that {{Plot2}} be moved/renamed to something more descriptive at Template talk:Plot2. Input from any interested owners/stalkers of this page would be appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have input. It's not the best title in the world; it was created to be expeditious. Lazy me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I like it for that reason too (just like cclean, short but not very descriptive), I just wasn't sure what other people's thoughts would be and I imagined most people who use the template watch this page. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Help with fixing a Copyvio issue

A copyvio issue recently cropped up on World Vegetable Center, an article I am affiliated with through my rescuing of it at AfD. I attempted to fix said copyvio here (Ignore my rationale saying COI, it was late, I was tired, and I couldn't fix it afterwards), by making sure to get rid of the infringing info from the PDF and main website. However, the user who originally put up the copyvio template informed me here that i'm not allowed to remove a copyvio template myself, that an admin or OTRS agent must do so. Therefore, i've come to you, as a member of both, and being the super-awesome person at dealing with copyvios that you are. Can you just look over the changes I made, you really just need to compare it to the PDF to make sure there's no more copied info, and reinstate them if you think i've taken care of any copyvio issues? Silverseren^C 16:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll be happy to look at it; I don't have time right at this minute, but I should be able to get to it later today. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a good start, and it's not far off. But when we start with a copyvio, rewriting needs to be particularly thorough. The problem with incrementally fixing copyvios is that if you don't rewrite from scratch, you're at greater risk of creating a derivative work. There's the risk of missing material. The third sentence ("Headquartered in Tawain...") is duplicated from the pdf. And revising sentence by sentence retains the basic structure of the original. Ideally, we'd rework this in the temporary space as if writing from scratch, drawing on the facts but not necessarily the structure originally presented.

Sorry I'm kind of short. Lots of stuff going on today. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

History2007

Hi Moonriddengirl, apparently History2007 isn't content to let the AfD proceed and he's now initiating a merge proposal. His usual supporters are on the talk page of Catholic views on Mary along with the editor who nominated this article for AfD. This seems disruptive to me as it is confusing the process. Can it be simultaneously merged and deleted? Shouldn't the process of the AfD be allowed to continue first, and also, there's been no time to even work on the article since it's just new. Any suggestions that will bring quiet over there? Malke 2010 (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the secondary discussion and have already addressed it at the AfD. I believe that a merge discussion at this point is unhelpful; if the AfD closes as "keep", then it might be appropriate. However, I'd suggest avoiding language like "his usual supporters", which would seem to suggest that they are not voicing their true opinions but simply backing his. (I would be equally uncomfortable if somebody used that language re: Xanderliptak's !vote to "keep" the article.) I would, by the way, strongly suggest that you consider explaining why you believe the article should be retained, if you do. Early responders to the AfD are not likely to see and be persuaded by any reasons you present at the 11th hour. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just looked at your comments there. I see what you mean. Okay, I'll write up a statement and post it to the AfD. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I just looked in on your other comments at the AfD. No problem on the tag thing. And PhilKnight has commented on Catholic views on Mary talk page, so hopefully the peace will reign for now. Thanks again.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

I stripped all potential copyvio out of the article on Kayla Sharland. I'm honestly unsure if this was the right thing to do because what is left is present in DD's first version...along with some of the potential copyvio (which was probably pulled from a media guide).--*Kat* (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I just did the same thing with Phillip Tahmindjis. This time I was able to find where DD pulled his prose from. The URL is in my edit summary. If I am doing the right thing then RevDel will be needed for the preceding edits. And if I'm not then RevDel will be needed for ALL the edits. lol --*Kat* (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Stupid computer crashes. :/ My response disappeared into the ether. What you did is just fine. Thanks. :) The one suggestion I would make when the material is a little lengthier, as with Sharland's article, is to rearrange a little bit. You can see what I did here. When information is both brief and basic, rearranging what's left is probably sufficient to eliminate copyright concerns. With longer or more creative runs of text, you can't really do that without risking creating a derivative work. I've rev deleted the earlier edits and, again, you rock with your persistence. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright/image uploading help

There's a new user over at the user's talkpage who is developing a military history article on a South African parachute brigade. He's uploaded a few images but, as a new user, is unsure which copyright tags to use. Could you pop over and give it a look over? I think he has permission to use most of the images, so it might just be a case of getting OTRS permission. But I can't explain it very well as I'm not au fait with all of the intricacies of images. Thanks for any help you could give. Skinny87 (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much for the succinct reply. Hopefully he'll be able to get permission for all of the images, but until then I imagine they'll have to be removed. I have the talkpage on my watchlist, and I'll let you know if Smikect has any more issues. Thanks again. Skinny87 (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, except for the one I created by using the wrong deletion number! LOL! Fixed. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey MRG. The user has just had the images he kept on wikipedia (I think he can use them himself - for example one image is of a badge that is his own) tagged as FUR and copyright undecided/unknown. I'd like to help him more, but I'm unsure of what the procedure is here - the entire concept is a minefield. Would it be possible for you to go over to his talkpage again and see what is going on? I'd be grateful if you could. Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

FUR's

I've started going through the Richard Norton CCI, and I had a question regarding FUR's. Allot of the uploaded images have FUR's that are four, five or six words long. I don't think they count as 'detailed fair use rationales' and don't really know what action to take. I don't really think that {{Short-Rationale}} is appt. because there is virtually no rationale at all, but maybe I'm wrong. Thanks in advance for your help :) Acather96 (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I very much appreciate that. :) I've been sorting them into the ones I thought needed additional review by those more familiar with the nuances of NFC than me. I'm particularly lost on the question of when we can use images of people. I frequently see images of dead people in articles, but I put a FUR on an image once of a dead man that was deleted at FfD (then IfD) as decorative by some admins I respect. I've asked for clarification at NFC several times, but I never get it. I think probably because there isn't a really consistent rule, but maybe I'm just missing it. :)

I've got five sections left to go on Wikipedia for sorting; I'll try to do that more quickly to save you some time since many of these are clearly PD. I've got a big RL job coming in on Monday, though, so I'm going to have tight time on Wikipedia probably until Wednesday. (Tuesday afternoon if I work fast!) In terms of your actual question, Richard is watching the CCI and is very responsive. I would think {{Short-Rationale}} might be very effective, but in courtesy I would only add the tag to a couple of images at a time. (He's putting in a good faith effort to clean up issues, and we don't want to overwhelm him.) Note that you've done so at the CCI, and he's very likely to address the concerns in short order. With the first one you list at the CCI, it's probably a good idea to explain in a bit of detail what's needed either at the CCI or at his talk page. If he doesn't fix them, then we can figure out what other action would be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for brilliant advice as usual :) Acather96 (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot

Hi there. Would you have time to please check why CorenSearchBot sparked this error here? The Bot compared the title of an article I had just created and apparently found a copyright violation here. When you click on that link, you'll see that the site has the same title as the title of the Wikipedia article. Any ideas what's to be done here? Lastly, when I use short quotations from newspaper articles in wikipedia articles (e.g. here, the quote is in italics & quoation marks), is that acceptable or is this already considered copyright violation? Regards Amsaim (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's a pretty odd error, I think it just matched because your article was so short, but I'm running a backup copy of the CorenSearchBot code and it didn't find a match for that article, so I can't really be sure. Really the only thing to do is remove the tag and say it's a false positive in the edit summary - an editor will be along to double-check the tagging anyways. Judicious use of brief, clearly marked quotes such as the one you used there are perfectly acceptable. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Verno. :) Crazy deadline pressure here; I've got some work I must finish by tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Will do as recommended. Amsaim (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I don't know how to do the fancy star thing yet, but if I could, I would give you a star for both keeping a look out for me and helping me with an edit. Thanks! -Ludasaphire (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. No fancy stars needed (though they are nice :D); I'm glad if I can be of assistance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

• News and notes: Board resolutions, fundraiser challenge, traffic report, ten thousand good articles, and more

• In the news: Free culture conference, "The Register" retracts accusations, students blog about Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Smithsonian Institution

• Features and admins: Big week for ships and music

• Dispatches: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedskating articles by Darius Dhlomo

Hi,

I noticed that quite a lot of speedskating articles have been originated by Darius Dhlomo where he used a template that basically consists of X (born date, year) is a former speed skating|ice speed skater from Y, who represented his/her native country Y in Z consecutive Winter Olympics, starting in 19xx Winter Olympics|19xx] in somewhere, somplace|common name, country.
===Reference=== (with 3 ==='s)
http://www.skateresults.com/skater/show/xxx SkateResults
category:19xx births|X
category:Y speed skaters|X
category:Place of birth missing|X (he seems to lack this information)
category:Olympic competitors for Y|X
skatingbio-stub
Y-bio-stub

As I have contributed to quite a number of those pages myself I'd like to know what I can do. And no, it is not clear from all the pages I've been directed to. Where is case of e.g. Silvia Brunner do I have to make changes? I am quite willing to re-wite all speedskating articles by Darius, where can I find such a list?
kind regards, Dirk P Broer (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Sorry it's not clear. :/ In a case like Sylvia Brunner, nothing at all should need changing. (I've removed the template.) You're quite right that this is a formula for Darius, and it does not seem to have been copied from anywhere. To watch out for here is when Darius has added more than minimal text, since in those cases he has almost always copied it. What I would recommend in those cases is simply to remove or replace Darius's text. Given his history, we really can't presume that any creative content he has placed is original to him. There is not specifically a list of speedskating articles that I know. (There's been a lot of conversation around this subject, and it is not at all like the ordinary CCI, so I can't be sure there isn't. :D) But there's a master list of his articles beginning here. The links at the bottom of the page are the lists of his articles. Ideally, we should mark off articles at the list as they are cleared (I just did with Brunner, here) so that othersknow they've been investigated. A lot of people have not been doing that, so you may find if following links from the list that some of these articles have already been cleared. Your help here in any capacity would be most welcome. There are a few contributors who are dedicated to this cleanup and doing excellent work, but, sadly, there's plenty of work to go around. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Okido! Dirk P Broer (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

PwC picture on commons

Hi

Quick question - about the picture File:PwCLondon.jpg on the PwC page, I think that it is probably a copyright picture, and I think it is stretching WP:FUP to say that it can be used on this page, I have tagged the picture on commons but it is still there 10 days later - is there anything else I should be doing ?

Thanks

Codf1977 (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons is a bit leisurely. :) I suspect they haven't gotten around to it. I've found the original image and tagged it for speedy deletion, so I suspect it will get on its way soon. Blatant copyvios are generally prioritized. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I assumed they would get to it in ~12/25 hrs but still there ? Codf1977 (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Still lingering. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Paknur5.
Message added 05:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

List of airports in Pakistan.

I'm not sure of the process required for the CCI? I'm interested and think I could be of help. :) Talktome^(Intelati) 05:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! :D There are special challenges when looking at tables and lists in determining when copying is okay and when it's not. If the information is basic and what you might expect anyone to add to such a chart, it's probably not creative, and our use of it is not likely to be a copyright concern. I think that list is probably okay, because we don't have all the information they have (information on customs and runway is missing) and because the information we do have seems basic and uncreative. Fortunately for us, the US law that governs us doesn't recognize sweat of the brow, so their labor in compiling the information doesn't factor in.

If the list were creative, we might be able to address copying concerns by adding or removing information (in this case, for instance, by removing the info on runways and customs if it were there) or by reorganizing basic information into our own structure.

I really appreciate your willingness to pitch in. We can use all the help we can get, and you are more than welcome to come by with any questions you might have. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to remind your acolytes that about Public Domain, and to give a few seconds thought before accusing people of copyright violation [3]. Sincerely, cygnis insignis 15:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like you've already done that. :) Good reading here, Intelati, is Wikipedia:Public domain. It gives a pretty good overview of the subject. If you find a source and aren't sure if it's public domain, you're welcome to stop by here or Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I know. :( I'm mad at my self for not reading the entire article.--Talktome^(Intelati) 05:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We all make mistakes from time to time. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the Arius picture...

Hello... Thank you for watching over this matter. It seems that the other photo here was actually of something else, and that there was confusion. Upon further and more careful research and analysis......as you and others have done. But it seems that this here, as you pointed out, is the correct image of said "Arius." I was hoping though that maybe you can somehow (with your expertise) bring about that image onto Wikipedia, and onto the Arius article. Since it is the more accurate image. The Arius article is a good one, and it is a shame in a way that there's no intro image of the subject in question. At present, the beginning of the article looks a little too plain. With no image on the top area. I was wondering if maybe you could do something... Much appreciated. And thank you for your attention to this. 68.237.240.68 (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that images are really not my expertise. :) I'm afraid that if that particular image is cropped from a larger image, it may be sufficiently creative in terms of selection to qualify for copyright protection. I'll ask around to see if somebody can determine whether that's an entire image or a crop; if it is a crop, perhaps somebody will be able to themselves do a crop from the original, which would be releasable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a crop. It's from this fresco (just to the left of the center of the image). I haven't found a better original yet which we could crop ourselves. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So it is. :) You have good eyes, Verno! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Bujutsu Kodosokukai -> Yakami-ryu

Hi Moonriddengirl

We have made the first upload of the new series of articles (previously known as Bujutsu Kodosokukai) to the sandbox of user:Freezydk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freezydk/Yakami-ryu We know we are a bit late with this upload, but if you will be kind to take a look at this first draft and make your comments regarding objectivity and what else to take into consideration before presenting it to COIN. There is no linking yet to other sources, but that we will work on pretty soon. We have an issue regarding finding reliable sources and what is reliable sources, maybe you can help defining this a bit as well. Thanks in advance Freezydk (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll try to drop by and take a look tomorrow; I am wrapping up a project today, but should have more free time then. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Jack Kilby.jpg

Hi

More copyright questions :

This file and its use on University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee and List of Nobel laureates in Physics - am I right in thinking probably is not fair use ?

Codf1977 (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It is absolutely not justified under WP:NFC—blatantly not justified, since it lacks a FUR for those articles. I do not believe any valid FUR could be supplied. I've removed it from both articles. If you see any other non-free images at List of Nobel laureates in Physics without valid FURS, please go ahead and remove them. I've checked the others in the gallery at University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, and they all seem okay. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have found and removed the following

• File:Meer.jpg
• File:ChandraNobel.png
• File:Abdus_salam.gif
• File:Sir_Nevill_Francis_Mott.jpg
• File:Leo_James_Rainwater.jpg
• File:Aage_Niels_Bohr.jpg
• File:NBasov.jpg
• File:Lev_Davidovich_Landau.jpg
• File:Tamm.jpg
• File:Cecil_Frank_Powell.jpg
• File:Hideki_Yukawa.jpg
• File:CVRaman.jpg
• File:Manne_Siegbahn.jpg
• File:Gustav_Ludwig_Hertz.jpg

I freely admit cheating and only starting at 1920 Codf1977 (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL! That sound like a smart way to narrow it down. :) And good heavens, that's a lot of misused non-free content. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Freedom now - out of my league

Hello, just bumped into a situation, I've tried to direct the person to the right info, but I'm out of my comfort zone. Saw your posts on WP:CP and thought if you couldn't help you might know someone who could. Earlier today I happened on the Freedom Now page, and realized a new user had coppied the info from the organization's website. I left the user a talk page note, and reverted the problem area. You can see the conversation on User talk:Pgriffith06 where the editor is apparently a staff atorney for the organization and wants to give permission to use text/logo. I directed him to the WP:Donating copyrighted materials page, but as I said I'm about as far as my comfort zone in giving advice in this area. Not sure if you're interested in taking a look here, but figured I'd take a stab at finding some additional help here. Thanks for your time.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have dropped by, but you did just fine. :D (FWIW, I really like the tone you used in addressing him. Great example of WP:AGFC. Color me impressed!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks on both counts.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Filching

• Saint Mary's Catholic Church Maryborough (AfD discussion)

The attention of the Copyright Squad is needed, here. Uncle G (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Done. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ganti Prasada Rao/Copyright Discussion

Thanks Moonridden. I will contact a couple of the Professors at Ilmenau - and follow your instructions. Finally some constructive feedback. Thanks again. This whole process has been frustrating - I guess partly due to my ignorance. Vinayaka94 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad if I can help. :) Please let me know if I can provide any further clarification. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Argumentative, moi?

Would you mind giving me a bit of micro-feedback on my civility/style on Talk:Death of Linda Norgrove? There are two overly long debates there where I might appear to be holding on to the stick for rather too long. I'm a bit stuck as in both instances they appear to me to be types of failure to meet WP:5P#2. In some ways I'm enjoying the test of policy but I think I am in danger of appearing like an overly argumentative wikilawyer; particular as one user seems to be in violation of 3RR (and I would not like to be seen as the sort of contributor that sets others up for a fall). I would appreciate your experience and if you suggest I drop it, I'm prepared to take the page off my watch-list and leave them to sort it out without my help. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

All righty, I'll go take a look. :) I'll let you know up front, though, that my style of civility surely seems mealy-mouthed to some people. "Excessive delicacy" (to snag the dictionary.com definition) is pretty much a cultural hallmark for me. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent perspective. I struggle with the idea of WikiLove, I'm all for first class civility but can tend towards being didactic (a hard habit to shake) mainly when trying to do things too fast. :) Fæ (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a pretty contentious area. :/ I've read over the various disputes there (and the AfD). You don't seem to be wikilawyering there and you certainly aren't uncivil, though you do sound a bit terse at points. For the most part, you come across as businesslike, which is an approach I strive for when tensions are mounting. I have to admit that I find the whole conversation baffling; I've never seen anybody break 3RR to remove a reliable source. I cannot understand the objections. There's nothing at WP:V that says that sources that are supplied for information should be removed, and the statement being sourced is not "common knowledge." Wikipedia:Citing sources specifically suggests one should "Cite sources when...writing an image caption". But leaving that aside, for the sake of argument assuming you have equally compelling and policy/guideline-supported rationales, there's no excuse for edit warring over this. It's not like a BLP emergency or a copyvio situation where the content absolutely must be removed right now. :/

If I were in your position, I would ask myself first what it's worth to me. You have to choose your battles, and even though I think you are in the right here (and would think so if I were in your position :D) I do not know how much it matters to you. Sometimes I walk away from issues where I think I'm right because I'd rather conserve my energy for the bigger battles. If, for you, there's a principle here that makes this a bigger battle (I'll fight for instance to keep articles neutral or to keep policies/guidelines clear on copyright), you might want to amp up the WP:DR. A few more people might help to establish a consensus. I'm not quite sure where I would take the question: WP:CNB? It doesn't get a lot of responders, but the other noticeboards don't seem precisely appropriate. I would take the same approach with regards to the WP:3RR issue. If contributors are violating 3RR and you think that sanctions may help protect the project from battlefield mentality, the 3RR board may be a good idea. If you think you are dealing with basically reasonable contributor(s) who have slipped in the heat of the moment, you may want to let it pass. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Phew, relieved you don't think I've dropped too many marbles. To be honest the folks involved seem to have good contribution histories, just not willing to hear me at this moment for some reason. As such, though I could take one person to 3RR, I do feel their reversions here are probably a temporary slip of judgement (possibly due to the emotive subject matter) and though they do not currently seem to be taking their error on-board I'm not 100% sure that it would be either helpful in the long term or necessary to take action to stop them causing problems elsewhere. As you suggest I'll save some time and aggravation by walking away from this one for the moment by taking the page off my watchlist for a week or so and then decide if it's worth revisiting in order to improve the article (rather than finishing debates).

Thanks very much for being an independent pair of eyes and for your supportive comments. Fæ (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Uploading Book Cover for In Defense of Reason

Hi MoonRiddenGirl! Can I upload a copy of the book cover image for In Defense of Reason that is found here? If I did, would I be violating copyright any more than Google Books is? Also, is there some special dispensation for book covers? I notice that, for instance, virtually all of the Agatha Christie books have book cover images (e.g., The Murder of Roger Ackroyd). Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, click on the image in this article and just copy and paste the licence terms, Echoes of Life change the author and publisher to the ones from your book of course mark (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mark! I have never uploaded an image before. Let’s hope I don’t screw it up! — SpikeToronto 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done — SpikeToronto 04:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Good advise, mark . Looks good to me, SpikeToronto.:) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl! I have never uploaded an image before, so I am glad to hear that it went off okay. Thanks again Mark for the advice. — SpikeToronto 21:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Saint Kitts, a copyvio?

Hi Moonriddengirl, Hope you are doing well. Just wanted to let you know that a large chunk of the Arts and Culture section of the article Saint Kitts is copied verbatim from: http://www.stkittsheritage.com/cultural_heritage.asp

I did not check the rest of the article. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's so disheartening. That's about as blatant a copyright problem as I ever see, and it's been there for over a year undetected. :/ Cleaned. Thank you very much for noticing and pointing it out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well a few things of that sort always manage to sneak by I guess; don't feel badly. Whenever I see that sort of cheesy-sounding advertising prose I always do a google search to check for copyvio. Thanks for all of your hard work, Invertzoo (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

State copyrights

If I recall correctly, you've been involved in some of the discussions regarding the works of Florida government agencies being public domain, so I was thinking you may be able to shed some light on the situation for a different state. The issue is with Utah State Parks and Recreation website and is thankfully recent, so most of the conversation appears to be at User talk:Moabdave, some notes I left at User talk:Bradadkins274 and a new comment on my talk. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Now at Ticket:2010101410010684. Given the scope of it I'd rather not be the one to determine if it's usable permission or not, but if it is usable I can go through and reinstate the material I removed earlier today. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I had begun a talk page stalkerish reply to that issue at your talk page ages ago when I got a work call (that lasted forever :P) Relevant portion: While some U.S. states do explicitly release copyright in their content, I'm afraid Utah is not one of them. From the State website's Terms of Use:

The State has made the content of certain pages of its Web sites available to the public. Anyone may view, copy, or distribute information found within these web pages (not including the design or layout of the pages) for personal or informational use without owing an obligation to the State if the documents are not modified in any respect, and unless otherwise stated on the particular materials or information to which a restriction on free use applies.

Wikipedia does not accept content unless it is licensed for modification and all reuse, including commercial.

Your advice to him seems good, and once the letter works its way through permissions we can accept the donation. I'll run look at the letter. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Success! [4]. At this point, I'd say that, other than the logo, anything that is not marked as copyrighted is fair game. I'll help restore the content. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good job. :) I think at this point everything has been restored? Do you want to communicate with the contributor about the new template? He'll need to attribute to avoid Wikipedia:Plagiarism. (I don't mind doing it if you'd rather.) I'll communicate with the agency about their e-mail. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure everything has been restored and attributed. Since you're volunteering and all you can go ahead and talk to them about the attribution template, I won't stop you. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, I shall. It's a walk in the park for me (pathetic pun unavoidable). I could rattle off that stuff in my sleep. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, and here I am avoiding it because I am mostly asleep. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Well, considering my unfortunate habit of word substitution, I should be very careful what I rattle off at any time. :/ (My fingers have an "autofill" function which sometimes leads me astray. I'm thinking one thing and typing another. :P) In any event, I e-mailed the instructions along with our thanks. I'm most pleased with this development. :) The release of a website's worth of content into public domain is like, I don't know, watching a bunch of caged birds suddenly flying free. And on that overly colorful simile, I need to go write another e-mail. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

RevDel for copyvio needed

• Brent Livermore- The copyvio content was removed by Fetchcomms before Uncle G's bot came through. Since then it has been turned into a stub with tables. The copyvio removed was present in Darius's original version of the article.--*Kat* (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Vasso Karadassiou- This one was found and cleaned by me a few days ago. Like Brent's the copyvio was present in the original veriosn of the article. --*Kat* (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In the "clicking one button 19 times is boring" department, I've handled Vasso Karadassiou. Courcelles 07:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've done the other. :) (You probably know this, but if you click the top box then hold down shift and click the bottom, it will select automatically all in between. At least on my browser. Forgive me if I'm telling you the obvious, but computers will always be marvelous and alien things to me, so not much is really obvious to me. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one from Minimac:

• OVETEL See this edit, which I've reverted immediately. Minimac (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Done :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Linkvio question

Hi! Sorry to bother you with this, but I figured you would be well worth asking. :) I noticed today that we have a lot of references which link to rickross.com, which seems to be collecting media articles and providing them online. For example, http://www.rickross.com/reference/maranatha/maranatha4.html from the Wall Street Journal is included there, and is linked to in one of our articles. However, my impression from the disclaimer on rickross.com is that the site is collating these articles but not seeking permission up front - instead they allow people to request that the articles be removed should they object. I'm inclined to assume that they don't have permission, which suggests that it is a WP:LINKVIO issue, but that may entail removing the links and this site (along with some similar sites doing the same thing) is extensively used in articles. Thus I'm wondering where I should sit on this, as I suspect there will be opposition to removing the links, should that be the situation. - Bilby (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You are most welcome to ask my opinion. :) It seems like a pretty clear WP:LINKVIO issue to me. If it's broadly used and likely to be controversial in removal, I would suggest raising the matter for discussion at WP:ELN in case anybody can present evidence otherwise. I'd be happy to join you in that conversation, or I may launch it myself when I get time. I've got a hard deadline today that I'm working on, and I imagine I will have some catching up to do when I get significant Wikipedia time again. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've raised it there and will see where things head - I'd like to take this carefully, as the articles which use them can be a tad contentious, so careful seems wise. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've taken it off WP:ELN at the moment, as tehre seems to have been a ratehr heated discussion at WP:RSN. Not where I'd expect to discuss linkvio, but it was interesting - hard to figure out what the consensus was, but the main issues were discussed there. At best, I'd lean towards the links should be removed or no consensus. I might try a bit of cautious BRD to see where things sit now. - Bilby (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. If there is opposition, an WP:ELN noticeboard could be useful. :) Like you, I prefer to proceed carefully with contentious matters. More input can always help nail down consensus for handling. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll go there if things become a problem - I'm trying to replace the links with the proper sources where possible instead of just removing them, so it may be that this is less controversial than expected: although with 400+ articles to clean up (including at least one GA) some opposition should probably be expected. Previous discussions on WP:RSN found no evidence that they were allowed to host the material, but if I hit problems I'll open up discussion on the issue and see where it goes. Thanks for your help. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Wendt,Dayananda Gunawardena

Hi, can you please look at; Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 13#Lionel Wendt,Dayananda Gunawardena.

I noticed you deleted one of the pages they asked about...so you may have dealt with this elsewhere - in which case, could you please just leave a note on the feedback page, so that we know it has been dealt with. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) These are both going through CP. I should be looking at Lionel Wendt today, barring any unexpected emergencies. The other one resolved yesterday. I've left a note stating as much at Rff. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ta, yep; ongoing pleas for {{helpme}} etc, but yes. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  20:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Lionel Wendt/Temp

Thanks for your kind full information and observations. i did one edit according to your suggestions article of Lionel Wendt. Could you please see for while. if you can see same problem further is'nt it possible to forward this article to correct to other writer ? Thanks.--Wipeouting (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Friend Thanks for your reply. I got the point . Thanks--Wipeouting (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanity check

Is this closer to hitting both nails on the head?[5] Best,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely yes, although I enjoyed the image the older language evoked. :D I do worry still a bit about point 3--"Personal interaction with one or more of the parties." I don't know if there are other areas ofthe project than copyright where admins and editors work like a team, but I remain concerned that our close engagement might seem to generate bias. One example: if an WP:SCV worker lists a contributor for WP:CCI, would I seem biased in evaluating the evidence and opening it? I don't think there are any SCV workers with whom I haven't exchanged friendly words. I guess I'll just go on as I have and trust in the language like "In general" and "Examples". If it turns out to be a major issue, though, it could significantly impact our copyright cleanup machine. There's no way short of wandering into out-and-out legalese to cover all ground. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Might I ask you to comment on this on the talk page please? Obviously with any reservations or improvements or objections you might have? I'm trying to get really broad consensus and it's good to get everything, warts and all, out into the open for discussion.

Incidentally, my typo earlier reminded me of the adulterers' bible, which omitted a crucial word in "Thou shalt not commit adultery".

The language that is probably your friend is the bit about speaking to bias. The fact is people often have to work on both sides of the divide (SPI, for instance) and provided they're evenhanded it's never an issue. It's unfortunate but we need desperately need point #3 to deal with cabals and factions: Admin A unblocks friends of his friends; or blocks enemies of his friends. It's also unfortunate that we're seeing more and more factions forming and as a trend it's likely to get worse rather than better. These factional biases are difficult to prove at the best of times so clearer language is crucial.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL, yes, it was pretty funny. :) I write stuff like that a lot. Glad to know I'm not the only one. :D I'm happy to come and officially express my approval of the change. (Cabals are bad things; no arguments there. Copyright cleanup on Wikipedia really doesn't often get ugly, but when it does, it gets very ugly. :/ Usually infringement is clear. People aren't inclined to fling accusations of "croneyism" when copying is wholesale. I can only clearly remember seeing it once in the past, when the issue was not wholesale copying by unquestionably close paraphrasing. I brought in another copyright admin to give an opinion, and the contributor accused us of backing one another. At some level he must have realized he was wrong, however, because I offered to take it to ANI for further opinions, and he declined.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Congregation Emanu-El (San Francisco, California)

Hello,

You may recall helping me with adding photos by Tom Frost to Commons. Thanks again for that. I've just finished an article on Joseph Asher, who was for many years senior rabbi at Congregation Emanu-El (San Francisco, California). Much to my surprise, I noticed just now that the article about the synagogue has been wiped nearly clean due to copyvio. This is a sad situation, as this is perhaps the most historic Jewish congregation west of the Mississippi. Any light you can shed would be appreciated, as I feel obligated to begin work on a reconstruction devoid of copyright problems. Thank you so much. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Your reconstruction would be very welcome; the article was tagged for a week to invite that reconstruction, but unfortunately nobody noticed or chose to address it during that time. The problem here is that the contributor who founded the article seems to have done so by copying content from [6]. Accordingly, all subsequent edits have been derivative of that content. The information in that source can be used but, of course, we can't use the text unless it is verified to be public domain or compatibly licensed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What a sad situation. I have at least one book about the history of this congregation in storage. I will try to find it and get to work. Oy vey! Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a sad situation. And your work there would be fabulous. :) There were other articles impacted as well, since the contributor content into other articles. The rest didn't have sufficient material to survive, since nobody rewrote them during the 7 day period. Also impacted were Benjamin Swig (source: [7]); Jewish Community Center of San Francisco (source: [8]); Commission for the Preservation of Pioneer Jewish Cemeteries and Landmarks (sources: [9]; [10]); Congregation Sherith Israel (San Francisco, California) (source: [11]); Harris Weinstock (source: [12]); Jacob Nieto (source: [13]); Congregation Ohabai Shalome (source: [14]); Eureka Benevolent Society (San Francisco) (source: [15]). If you decide to write content on any of these, even a stub, please let me know; I will happily resurrect the non-creative elements for you, such as any infoboxes, categories and external links. (Not that I'm trying to push the job on you; even restoring this article to something substantial would be terrific.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Another RD1?

Hi MRG, this edit introduced close paraphrasing of this and this. I've re-written the section, but that edit (and the next two) still has the CP. RD1? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for rewriting! :) Generally speaking, I would not RD1 for content of that length that had been present so short a time, because the odds of inadvertent restoration are pretty slim. If there's a lot and/or it's been there a while, the risks are higher, because (a) lengthy copying is far more likely to clear the substantial similarity threshold, and (b) long-term presence in the history of an article makes it more likely that somebody may return to a revision in which the content was present. (We don't keep content in the active article, of course, even if it probably wouldn't clear the substantial similarity threshold; it's up to a court to determine when we've done that, and we don't want to guess wrong!) When I clean copyvios, I will usually watch the article for a time, and if content comes back deal with it accordingly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:JJJ999's userpage

Can you have a look at User:JJJ999's userpage, I think there are a number of issues with it as it might volatile WP:UP#NOT or WP:UP#COPIES. Is is a copy of Principality of Estland deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Estland as it lacks attribution should it be CSD'ed as a copyvio ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) It doesn't actually lack attribution--it says, "The following editors contributed to this article...for the purposes of assuring non copyright violation" (I've snipped the editors.) So, for copyright it's okay. It would be better with a pointer in the history to attribution, but that's sufficient coverage to comply with CC-By-SA. It may violate WP:UP#NOT and WP:UP#COPIES; I'm afraid that I don't hang out much at WP:MfD, so I don't know how much latitude the community is providing on that kind of thing. I suspect quite a bit more latitude is given to otherwise productive contributors. Since it's tagged as humor and further explained, I don't believe it's urgent--I don't think anybody will mistake it for an article. It seems kind of like a problem under Wikipedia:Deny recognition, and I'm a big believer in denying recognition. :) But on the other hand, we have Wikipedia:Silly Things and other hoax articles are maintained, just not (that I know of) on the main user page: User:Ned Scott/Upper Peninsula War, Wikipedia:Silly Things/Slow Blind Driveway. Quite probably it would be recommended that you leave him a note explaining your concerns and, if he doesn't agree to remove it and you feel it is disruptive, nominate it for deletion. Honestly, though, I suspect that it would be retained, although perhaps people would recommend moving it to a subpage. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry I missed that attribution - i looked at the end, in the history, have no idea how I missed it.Codf1977 (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No big deal. That's what we have "other eyes" for. It's not like I've never overlooked something. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

More copyvio in Saint Kitts

Oh dear me. I just now discovered that the entire section about Brimstone Hill is copied verbatim from [16]. I suppose I'd better check all the rest of the prose too. Maybe almost all of it is copied from one place or another? Invertzoo (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That one has been with us since 2008. :/ I put it through a mechanical detector and did not find anything but mirrors, but that's no guarantee. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Just now I checked another phrase, and I found a good deal more verbatim copying. The sections on Geography, Economy, History, and almost all the intro, are taken from [this source. I suspect that all of the article is composed of chunks from one source or another. Invertzoo (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Oh, but maybe that was copied from Wikipedia?? Invertzoo (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Laura Alonso

If you wouldn't mind taking a look at this I would appriciate it. The article was created by the artist as a copy paste from her website and she and her manager are now interested in releasing it to us through OTRS. I am not familiar with this process or the relevant policies and am not able to advise adequately or respond to queries. Also, a coi cautionary warning may be relevant. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Let me take a look and see where things stand. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it's been released via OTRS, but I agree with you about the COI warning. I've placed some tags on the article, left a note at the article talk and left the standard template for the article's creator. We'll see where things go from here. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe have a look see

I know you are the copyright patrol for this one so I though you should have a look see. User:AJona1992 - using lyrics from a Selina song, properly cited yes, but normally only accepted via "fair use." Wikipedia doesn't allow fair use images on a user page, so I don't believe quotes/lyrics are allowed either. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does permit quotes in user space (I'e seen this one come up a few times), but these quotes need to be brief relatively to the length of the source material. I've removed the lyrics and explained that he can use a line or two. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Need help with COI/copyvio

Hi MRG, have uncovered a massive WP:COI and copyvio issue at World Masters Games — user in question is Masters Games (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Not sure how to proceed from here, any advice or help would be great. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you've taken the right direction. :) You've tagged the article and notified him. Now it's up to him. If he clears the text, we can then evaluate it to see if it is neutral. If it is, we may not need to take further action. If he continues editing it in a way that is a problem under COI, we might tag the article with {{COI}}. Usually, that's enough to deal with the problem.

Since you asked my input, though, I did take the great liberty of merging the two templates you placed on his talk page into one notice: [17]. If this is overstepping, please excuse me. You are, of course, free to revert, with my apologies. :) I frequently will do this in order to make these form notices a little more personal and a little less daunting. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem with that. Thanks! Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 14:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Another two for you

As I know you just love to read over website copyright/use pages so this is a good one for you. I am not sure about File:AFLA Officers.jpg which I am guessing was taken from AFLA History 1969 to 1979, but not sure. (Check out the section at the start of the article that reads "As stated in the March issue of Automotive Fleet[1]..." and click on the link - it goes to the users Wikipedia page) Also there is File:EdBobit.JPG. My main issue is twofold - they were uploaded by someone who clearly works for the company however all the images are uploaded under a "free" license, and that included File:AFLA logo.jpg, and the website make no mention of any of their images being "free". At least I can't find it anywhere if it does say that. The most obvious place is their Terms of Use but that mostly talks about "your" terms of use when you create an account there. The parts that I think do relate are comments such as "You agree to not use automotive-fleet.com to" [SNIP] "reproduce, sell or exploit for any commercial purposes, any portion of automotive-fleet.com." and "automotive-fleet.com, the Automotive Fleet logo, trademarks and service marks are property of automotive-fleet.com and Automotive Fleet Magazine. Without Automotive Fleet Magazine/automotive-fleet.com's prior permission, you agree not to display or use these logos/marks." It would seem slightly odd that nobody can use information or material on the website for "for any commercial purposes" yet allow it to be used as such via the CCL used here. Or does the (presumed) fact User:AFLA Wiki was acting as a representative of the company fulfill the "Without Automotive Fleet Magazine/automotive-fleet.com's prior permission" section and allow everyone to "reproduce, sell or exploit for any commercial purposes" these images? (And you might want to look over the Automotive Fleet & Leasing Association (AFLA) article as it was created by the same user and mostly uses information taken from the website.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good morning. :) There's definitely some permissions issues here, including with the text. I'll take a closer look and get back with you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. The article also contains copied text. I've given them my very own template for the situation, User:Moonriddengirl/vp. I've also tagged the image I found explicitly at the website with npd, and I've expanded a bit on the template to note that the images need permission as well. I did not find the precise image of the group of officers online, but if they do not verify permission for the other materials, PuF is probably the next obvious step. If they do verify permission, then we should be good. :) The text is not Wikipedia appropriate, but once permission is verified it can be modified to become so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tallyho! Copyleft sighted again!

File:Lufthansa A380-841 D-AIMB.JPEG.jpg, uploaded by a problematic user I've watchlisted. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, he doesn't seem to be asserting that it's available under free license. Given the {{Non-free web screenshot}}, he seems to be trying to use it under "fair use", but clearly not complying with WP:NFC. Somebody needs to explain to him the restrictions on using unfree content. The image and tag he's used would never work together, unless it was for an article on the website itself. :/ But ideally that "somebody" should not be me, as I'm not clear on the ambiguities of NFC. :) I don't think we'd be able to use that image under NFC in any circumstances, but NFC's application remains somewhat opaque to me. I think probably the best tags for the article would be {{Nrd}} or {{Dfu}}. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• By my understanding, any watermarked image file(s) are not eligible for reuse on WP, especially when it says at the bottom of that image "Copyright by someone", which is the case here. FYI, I've asked a question on the uploading of such image before (image from the same website: Airliners.Net) and was told that unless I can get the copyright holder to agree to release it for reuse on WP, nothing stands. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Watermarked images are usable just like any other image on Wikipedia, they're just discouraged. I've taken the liberty of changing the speedy delete tagging you placed on the image as it was tagged as non-free content, and so it was not a copyright violation (that would've required a claim of a free license when it's clearly non-free). I used the {{subst:dfu}} tagging as Moonriddengirl suggested, because non-free screenshots aren't allowed to be used in that way, and generic images of airliners are likely replaceable and so would fail WP:NFCC#1. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• And now I just realized that {{subst:rfu}} is the best tagging since it's replaceable - apparently it's too early in the morning for me. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• I never think of that one. :/ (I just had to look to see if it was even in WP:GID: it is.) Thanks, Verno! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hello to MRG & VW, please disregard this section as Sysop User:MilborneOne has nailed it for me. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• That one image had four separate deletion rationales on it! LOL! For curiosity's sake, it was actually deleted under one of Verno's tags by User:Jujutacular. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I decided to be thorough and just tagged it with all of the legitimate problems I could think of. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Advice on inter-wiki plagiarism

Hi Moonriddengirl! I'm sure you won't remember but you were involved with blocking a disruptive editor that I had complained about some months back, and I thought that you came across as a fair and level-headed administrator. I just wanted to ask your advice on something. Over the last year or so I've done a lot of work getting The Byrds-related articles up to scratch. It's come to my attention that over the last 3 days Frokor, an editor on the Norwegian version of Wikipedia, has been copying and pasting from The Byrds' articles on the English Wikipedia and creating almost identical versions of the articles—except obviously they're translated into Norweign. I know that they are close to identical because all of the inline citations that I've sourced and used on the English Wiki are duplicated as well. Check out the article for Eight Miles High and its Norweign counterpart here, or It Won't Be Wrong and its counterpart, or Set You Free This Time and the same Norweign article.

I must confess, that this is bugging me a little, although I realise that it's not really any different to when articles that I've worked on are reproduced on Wiki mirror sites. But at least there's attribution given on those mirror sites. If you look at this user's contributions (see here), you'll notice that he's systematically going through every single Byrds-related article on the English Wiki and translating it, but without providing any attribution for the page contents. Looking at WP:COPYWITHIN (specifically the section on "Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects") it seems as though what this editor is doing is frowned upon, at least by the English Wikipedia. I just wondered what you thought I should do? Or am I just being silly about this? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) You're not being silly about it; he's violating your copyright and that of any other contributors of that content. The problem is that I'm not entirely sure how the Norwegian Wikipedia deals with that. :/ I do not read Norwegian, so I can't easily track down the procedure. If he were doing it here, on English Wikipedia, we would simply go behind him and add proper attribution, both in edit summary and on the talk page. And I'd drop him a polite note letting him know why he needs to attribute.

Hmm. There's a couple of things I would try in your position. First, I would leave a friendly note for the Norwegian editor at his home Wiki, letting him know that you're glad he's finding your work of use and asking him to provide proper attribution so that the content meets the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing requirements. The only thing he's doing wrong is in his failure to attribute; translating it to another language is actually a good thing and something we want to encourage. If he does not respond to you (or does not respond to you well), I would then look for an active editor in Category:User nb (preferably not one who is level 1 or 2) and ask their help working out the proper process. At a glance, I'd probably try User:Chell Hill. He's active, he's proficient in both languages and he's been around forever. Moreover, he's an admin on the Norwegian Wiki, so he should be reasonably familiar with processes. A polite request to him to help get these articles attributed (if the other guy doesn't answer or responds negatively) may be beneficial. There are other steps I would try if neither of those panned out, but I'd be surprised if they're necessary. Step 1 may be all you need. Good luck with it! Please let me know if these steps don't work, and I'll offer you some other avenues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the excellent advice. Just to be clear, it's not the plagiarism that I have a problem with, so much as the non-attribution of the Wiki editors who have worked so hard to get these articles up to their current standard. I have posted a friendly message on this users talk page explaining that he needs to provide attribution—and I even threw in some token Norwegian greetings to try and meet him half way! :-D Of course, his English might be just as poor as our Norwegian, so he may not even understand what I'm saying but we'll see what happens. I will, of course, keep you posted on any developments. Thanks again for your advice. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Television Shows

Hello MRG, how are you? I'm just wandering if there's a way to block edits on TV show pages that change the ratings. For example 90210 (season 1) is a completed season with source ratings. Users keep inflating to overnight figures. Jayy008 (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine, thanks; hope you are. :) And not that I'm aware of. :/ If the problem persists and is unmanageable, you may request semi-protection, but mostly stuff like that just has to be monitored and reverted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm good :). Glad you're okay. Thanks for your help, I agree, though. I doubt they'd protect it as it is manageable. Jayy008 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Merck

You could try emailing history@merck.de The german website has a huge flash presentation [18] that includes this picture. My guess is that it was painted pre 1827, as the business moved premises in that year.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That's helpful information. And I'll give them a shot. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mailed. :) Let's hope they can clear this one up so I can mark it off of my "to do" list. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

pled & pleaded

I used THIS. But I too may have heard it both ways. It doesn't matter, whatever... Mercy11 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You're using a UK (British) English reference. Pled (still also spelled plead I believe) is one of those cases where US english has retained an older form of English, now gone out of fashion back in the 'home country'. 'Gotten' is another example - it was in use in England in the 17th century, but went out of use as English grammar formalised. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

question

Are you still around?Malke 2010 (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, but I wasn't. I'm back now, though I suspect you're long gone. I will be around for much of the day, though I've some business to attend to "off site" in a few hours. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Presidential documents and NARA

Quick question before I load an image that may get deleted: are images, documents, letters, and whatnot kept by the National Archives in the U.S. in the public domain? Specifically, anything from this site? Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) My very unsatisfactory answer here is "some of it". :/ Per their information page, "Generally, materials produced by Federal agencies are in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission. However, not all materials appearing on this web site are in the public domain. Some materials have been donated or obtained from individuals or organizations and may be subject to restrictions on use.... You may consult our reference staff for details on specific items. We are aware of donor restrictions applicable to our collections, but we can not confirm copyright status for any item. We recommend that you contact the United States Copyright Office at The Library of Congress to search currently copyrighted materials." Are there any specific documents there of interest to you? I can try to poke about a bit and see if I can get more info. There are some Wikisource admins who are generally very good at this kind of thing. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the quick reply. Yes, I was hoping to load the image of the telegram sent from Mamie Bradley, third on the list under "Telegram, Mamie Bradley (mother of Emmett Till) to DDE, September 2, 1955 [DDE's Records as President, Alphabetical File, Box 3113, Emmett Till]" for the Emmett Till article. --Moni3 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You happened to catch me right before a work break. :D I'll poke around and see what I can find out. If you don't hear back from me in a day or so, please feel free to nudge me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ping. --Moni3 (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. No response yet from my go-to WikiSource expert ([19]). John hasn't edited much since I left the question. Do you have a couple of days to see if he can help? If not, I can try some other resources, but he is far and away the best I know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no rush. The article is at GAN right now and no doubt will go through several copy edits. It may go to FAC or something. I don't know. At any rate, since you're ever so popular and I don't keep track of the changes to your talk page, when you get a response or something concrete, please feel free to message me on my talk page. I might not see it otherwise. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, John is back and editing, but has not replied. That usually means he doesn't know. :) I'm seeking elsewhere. And this is not much of an update, either, so I won't TB you on it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad news at User talk:John Vandenberg#C'est moi, with a PD question. Sorry for the delay. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with John on this one: no way is that telegram PD. 44 U.S.C. 2117 says that NARA can reproduce it without copyright infringment, but that doesn't mean that anyone else can. Physchim62 (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) To make things difficult, I now have a 3 "PD" and 2 "Not PD" feedback ratio. :/ (In addition to User:Angusmclellan, User:Magog the Ogre and User:Peripitus both have weighed in at Angus's talk page.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Darlene Hunt

Hi there,

I am Darlene Hunt's publicist and created her Wikipedia page which was simply her approved bio. Within the bio, there are quotes that she has given and have been previously published in a local newspaper in Kentucky. These quotes were the reason for the article's deletion; however, these are direct quotes from Darlene and they are in her official bio that is used for all official business.

I would very much appreciate the page being reinstated as it isn't plagiarism of the article when the quotes were actually said by her. If I asked her to give me rewordings of the exact quotes, according to your policies it wouldn't do any good because basically the same quotes exist in this newspaper article.

Best, Jordan Van Brink Publicist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvanbrink (talk • contribs) 15:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The problem does not lie in quotes but in content that has been copied from [20], including text such as "As a comedian, Hunt has toured comedy clubs across the country and has been featured at the Chicago Comedy Festival and the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen. She has performed as a member of the world-famous Groundlings Theatre in Los Angeles and has studied with Second City in Chicago." The website is marked "Copyright © 2006 - 2009 Dramatic Publishing". In order for us to reproduce content from the site, we need clear licensing permission, which must be provided outside of Wikipedia itself. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the processes which we can use. I do need to be sure, however, that you're aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and what we refer to as our "law of unintended consequences". Once a biography is established on Ms. Hunt, you will not be able to control its contents beyond the parameters defined there and here. As her publicist, you are highly encouraged not to create an article on Ms. Hunt but may choose to do so if you wish so long as you are aware of the potential pitfalls.

If you decide to clear the material at the website, let us know, and the content can be restored. If you send an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation, it will be restored once that permission is processed, usually within a week.

Let me know if you have any questions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That other website has an old version of her own bio - the updated one was seen here written by my team and approved by her. It is a general use bio that she herself approved and would be used anywhere appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvanbrink (talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The material isn't under copyright to that website - that is a website to purchase something she wrote and it includes an old bio that she used to use herself. What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be a process to get this approved as the bio doesn't belong to this other website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvanbrink (talk • contribs) 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just checking back in on this as I'd love to get the issue resolved this week. If you simply look at the website to which you are referring, it is a website to purchase plays and includes official bios of all authors. Saying they have the copyright to the bio is like saying a Broadway Play has the copyright to an actors' bio when it is the actor who wrote it. Literally it is impossible for this website to own the copyright to any of the bios listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.202.130 (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sergio Rendine

So this article has been blanked for copyvio and there's a clean rewrite in place at Talk:Sergio Rendine/Temp, but we also got permission for the original text. I added the OTRS tag to the talk page, but should I just merge them together using edit summaries for attribution and then G6 the temp page or is there a better way to clean it all up? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the permission actually came from Rendine himself. The original uploader of the text, User:Passioet, claimed that he "owned" it but then said that he is only a "big fan" of Rendine and got permission from him to use it. See Talk:Sergio Rendine. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We got permission from the website. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Because of the talk page discussion and agreement between Voiceditenore and Passioet, I'm going to merge the two page histories. this will leave the agreed upon Temp page as the current version. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad that's all settled. :D I'm off to poke at a CCI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Just make sure you use a pointy stick and aim for the eyes; they're feisty critters. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Especially the ones that won't die. Heh. :/ (This one, though, is a CCI of a different color. It's mostly tedious. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Franz Lidz

For the last week or so, the Wikipedia page for the writer Franz Lidz has been under attack by Robert Garside (using two different Wikipedia accounts), the subject of a lengthy 2002 profile in Sports Illustrated by Mr. Lidz. Lidz's Wiki page mentions the story and provides a link the the actual piece. Mr. Garside, whose curious and questionable past was chronicled in the 2002 piece, has repeatedly tried to delete the description and the citation, calling it "libellous" and a "personal attack." This speaks more of Mr. Garside's paranoid -- richly detialed in Lidz's article -- and not at all of the story, which has gone unchallenged -- and remains posted prominently at SI's website -- since 2002. Mr. Garside is attempting to alter, if not entirely erase history, and won't take NO for an answer. Is it possible to bar him from further edits on Mr. Lidz's page? He seems to spend an inordinate amount of time preventing others from citing published sources on his OWN page (see the history of Garside's page). This is more than a case of a contributor being a mere nuisance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrentonBot (talk • contribs) 19:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I am far more puzzled why on having just had one account blocked for username issues with a notice, User talk:Wikiadminost, specifically advising you that your name cannot end in "Bot", you would immediately create an account ending in the word "Bot." I'm afraid I've had to block this account as well. I'll be happy to discuss your concerns with you if you register an account that does not seem to be deliberately in violation of our policies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only account they've created. I've blocked a few more they've set up. TNXMan 19:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is passing strange. :/ I don't know if you saw, but I took this one to ANI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Out of copyright sources

Hi Moonriddengirl! Just a quick question: in general, should the snippets taken from out-of-copyright sources marked somehow specially, or is just the normal citation/attribution enough? I think Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 has it's own template, but what about the others? I could probably use Boulenger (1882) to flesh out other articles, too—see Nannophrys guentheri for example. 78.27.71.157 (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) There are a bunch of attribution templates at Category:Attribution templates, including a general-purpose one at Template:PD-old-text. If you're using more text than you want to put in quotation marks, consensus at Wikipedia:Plagiarism is that using one of those is fine. Also fine is noting yourself that you've copied content verbatim in the reference section or in footnotes. I've never tried doing the footnote method. Fleshing out article is great. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Garside

Understand my frustration...

Over the passed five years the name "Robert Garside" has been abused on the following pages:

Robert Garside Guinness World Records Royal Holloway university of London

and now

Franz Lidz

What does it take? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.186.3 (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Patience, I'm afraid. If you communicate clearly with us the problem, we will try to help take care of it. Other admins will now be looking at Franz Lidz, and if they agree that the material violated WP:BLP, steps should be taken to protect it. I have been watching over Robert Garside for about a year now; I understand that not all of the material in it is pleasing, but it should be neutrally representative of the sources, which is what we aim for. If there are ongoing issues in the other articles, I would be happy to watch them, too. I'll take a look and see if there is currently any problem or if there have recently been. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

• News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief

• WikiProject report: Show Me the Money: WikiProject Numismatics

• Features and admins: A week for marine creatures

• Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review

• Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months

• Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo for Eric Birley

Hi MoonRiddenGirl! Is there any copyright “rule” that would let me upload this photo to the wikiarticle on Eric Birley? I would like to use it in the article’s infobox. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Here's where we hit a gray area in non-free content guideline and policy that I must admit I find confusing: pictures of dead people. Non-free pictures of living people are not allowed (except in some circumstances; for instance, we evidently can't have a non-free picture of a living actor in his own article, but we can have a non-free picture of a living actor in article about a character he's played), but non-free pictures of dead people frequently are. The rationale, evidently, is that images of living people are replaceable, because we can always find somebody to take a new picture. I have seen non-free images of dead people deleted under the argument that we can find existing free pictures of them as well, but by and large there seems to be wide consensus that if the person is dead (and the photo does not belong to a Press Agency), a low-res image is okay. I myself stay clear of this. I've had one image of a deceased person for which I wrote a FUR deleted at WP:Ffd (back when it was still IfD) and another retained in the same time period. So far as I could see, there were no significant differences between their usages. Complicating things here a bit, that seems to be a painting rather than a photograph. Generally, we use paintings only for critical commentary about the paintings, I believe. User:VernoWhitney, I think you handle non-free image issues far more than I do; do you have any sense where the community would stand on using a painted portrait of a dead person? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Off the cuff I'd say it should be allowable, since from what I can tell still being used to identify the person (as a photograph would) and not for some other purpose (such as using a magazine cover which had the person's picture on it). It would obviously have to be much lower resolution, but it should be okay (again, just my opinion). VernoWhitney (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is great information Moonie and Vero! Now I have a followup question: How do I write up the rationale? Is there an example that I could crib from? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 03:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You use the {{Non-free use rationale}} template and fill out the appropriate fields. File:JD Salinger.jpg is the first example that comes to mind that I know is decently filled out. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Verno for your quick answer! I took a look at the {{Non-free use rationale}} at File:JD Salinger.jpg. It is a great exemplar. Unfortunately, I do not have that level of detail for this image. I do not know who created it, when it was created, etc. I understand it to be hanging at Hatfield College along with portraits of each of the masters of the college. I assume the copyright would be held by the college. I cannot find this image anywhere else but on the college’s website, and there is no information given about the image. It is also the only image I have been able to find of him. Any suggestions? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks Moonriddengirl for letting this discussion take place on your talk page! — SpikeToronto 19:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't really have to worry too much about the information you don't have, just make sure to include all of the information you do have - I have a similar situation for one of the images I've uploaded at File:Charles-Amable Lenoir.jpg where I have absolutely no information about the original source so my FUR is about as barebones as it gets. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free; make yourself at home. :D I'm sorry I missed this conversation up here, but I suspect that Verno is better all around at image matters than I. I've really not done that much with them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Verno, should I finish it with the {{Non-free historic image}} template or the {{Non-free fair use in}} template? Thanks and sorry for so many questions. Images are new for me. Moonriddengirl, thanks for letting us use your parlor! :) — SpikeToronto 21:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So far as I know that doesn't really matter for this kind of situation. I like to think that the "historic images" tag should be reserved for cases where the image is actually old or itself of import (as opposed to the subject of the painting/photo being the notable part), but I've seen it both ways and if there's a firm statement somewhere I'm unaware of it. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done  The image has been uploaded as File:Eric Birley (resize) 002.jpg and had been inserted into the infobox at Eric Birley. For licencing, I used the pulldown list and selected the only one that applied for deceased persons, etc. This generated the {{Non-free historic image}} template. Thanks again to both of you for all your help! — SpikeToronto 04:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Music - notations?

What do you think? File:AIM Song repeated motif.png - copyright or not? The music itself might be PD but this is not a sample of the actual music. And the uploader did not upload any other music notations or transcriptions so it is hard to tell if this is really their own work or not. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You do find some odd ones. :) Well, let's see. If the music is PD, the uploader would have the right to transcribe it, and I don't know if the uploader transcribed it or copied it from somewhere else. There's software that permit making some pretty professional looking music. I don't know if they retain copyright to their output or if there are any free. (I wanted to make a flow chart utilizing tools in Microsoft Word recently, but realized I couldn't when I noticed that it was licensed for non-com only.) If the music is not PD, then the brief snippet would probably be permitted under WP:NFC if it otherwise meets criteria. It's used for critical analysis, so that's good. It's not sourced, so that's not. If the transcript belongs to somebody else, I don't think we can use it. The uploader seems to be still active, though infrequent. He was here last month. Unless you find another source, maybe this would be a good occasion to ask him. The poor guy has never had a personal word on Wikipedia, even though he's been contributing here a couple of times a year since 2007. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears from this blog discussion (yes, I know...) that its origins are at best cloudy. The best attribution is to someone who says he didn't create it. In any case its use at powwows is clearly widely known and has not been challenged by the author. It's what can best be called "anonymous". A transcription of a folk tune is a non-creative process that could even be done algorithmically. The song was known by that name at Wounded Knee and is so described in this news article of the time (April 1973). LeadSongDog come howl! 19:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blog discussions may not be reliable, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. :D Good sleuthing. I've never heard the tune, but the creativity of the transcript would depend on the degree of creative interpretation, similar to the translation of a foreign language work into English. If the transcript is devoid of creativity to the point that it could be created mechanically, then I'd agree that copyright is unlikely to be a concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The usual thanks for being a great editor

Thanks. You rock. As you have for quite some time on wikipedia. When I have more time I'll figure out how to do the requests properly, but that was such a monster! vio! and I'm desperately categorizing algae the few minutes I have. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. You're the one who found the problem and followed through with it. All I did was mop up. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Copying material from one Wikipedia article to another

Moonriddengirl, I believe that according to copyright law, editors need to attribute material copied from one Wikipedia article to another in the edit summary and/or talk page. Are you aware of any policies and/or guidelines that are telling our editors to do so, and how to do it? I can't find a reference to that scenario in WP:Copyrights; if it is a legal requirement, I think it should have a prominent section somewhere.

If I'm just daft and have failed to spot it, please let me know where it is, for future reference. If it isn't me, and we don't address it specifically, I propose we add a corresponding section to WP:Copyrights. Thanks! --JN466 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:Copying within Wikipedia. –xeno^talk 19:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. :D That's the one! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both stalker and stalkee. :) --JN466 19:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Greetings!

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

Hope you're having a good day! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Moffat

Hi and thanks for your message. Have looked at the site where I obtained the image and it has been removed. It is therefore perfectly possible that the image is not Ivan Moffat so I would support its being removed. Thanks Jack1956 (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Mayra Conde

Could you look at Mayra Conde for me, please? On the face of it, it looks as though the article has been lifted from this article from Female Muscle dated 25 November 2009. But then when I look more closely and compare dates, it seems to me that it may be the other way round.--Plad2 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. :) I'm off to take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're probably right and that it's a reverse infringement. The major sources are archived here and here. It looks like the first source was the primary one; you can follow along with the paraphrase fairly well. See the paragraph beginning, "In Canada, Conde was thrown...." The language has changed substantially, but that follows point for point in the article: "Her early years as an immigrant were tough; "I was constantly picked on because I couldn't speak English and was very small". Conde proved up to the challenge, never failing a grade, and is now bilingual, speaking both her native Spanish and adopted English."

The tone is all wrong, but I don't think there's a copyvio of that source. It would probably be a good occasion for {{backwardscopy}}. Since you found it, I'll leave it to you to place if you'd like, but I'll be happy to do it otherwise. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a new template to me. Thanks for the tip. I've added to the article. Would appreciate your eyes on it to ensure that I've handled it correctly.--Plad2 (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Close. :D We put it on the article's talk page rather than its face. Other than that, it's perfect! I went ahead and moved it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Another memo to self to make sure I have read every word in the instructions and not to do things in a hurry. Thanks for putting that right.--Plad2 (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of The Tidy Boys

I've just realised that this page has been deleted, despite - as I recall from my last edit to it - it containing much more material than could have been copied from [21]. This is an exceptionally notable DJ duo, and I find it rather incredible that the page was deleted in its entirety. I would note that in crecent weeks there seemed to be a concerned effort by IP editors to pare the page down, as well as others related to it. Was the page history checked to see when the copyvio text was added? Nick Cooper (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yes, the history was checked and archives of the source pages were compared to ensure that it was not a backwards copy, as does sometimes happen. I looked at this 2005 version of the external source. The copyright violation was foundational, I'm afraid. I suspect from small differences that what was actually copied was a different promotional source. At the article's creation, for instance, it said this:

Their production and remix work has spanned the last 10 years under various guises, such as Hyperlogic, Untidy Dubs, Tidy Boys and many more. The weekend sees the boys hitting clubs both in the U.K and oversees as they join their a-list friends behind the decks.

(Compare to the previously published website: "With all this going on it's hard to imagine the boys find time to continue their production work which has spanned the last 10 years under various guises, such as Hyperlogic, Untidy Dubs, Tidy Boys and many more.")

Much of the content is exactly the same, however. The article had been edited many times, but the bulk of the text is little changed. The article had six paragraphs when deleted, as compared to the five at the source. Two of the briefer paragraphs were not copied.

The article was blanked for over two weeks to give contributors an opportunity to verify permission for the text or rewrite it, but unfortunately there were no takers in that time. If you want to work on the article, I'll gladly userfy the non-creative elements for you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure if the page was in my watch list, but I missed it being blanked, as I've been quite busy later. I do think it unfortunate that this happened, as they are a very notable duo in their field, and as I said, there did seem to be a questionable pattern of editing by IPs a few weeks/months ago. I would like to re-start the page, if the non-contentius material can be made available. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've put the non-creative content at User:Nick Cooper/The Tidy Boys. The categories are currently commented out, since it's in user space, but, of course, easily restored when ready to go live. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mute (short story)

Hi, I responded to the OTRS request at Ticket:2010102010000718 before I noticed your note there. Sorry. On balance I believe it's better not to take the risk, but feel free to undo my deletion if you do think this is likely a reverse copyvio.  Sandstein  21:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked at Sandstein's page, but you appear to have missed it so I'll ask here: where/when was this article listed at CP before the 20th? It's not in any of the backlinks to the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I really just presumed it was, because I had already checked it. Maybe it was listed at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems or the author was undergoing a check? That may have been only September, but it's completely gone from my internal memory banks. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooodles of non-free image uploads

Vadjihoudine has been warned several times by me and by a bot that his non-free uploads, without any info, are inappropriate. I gave him a final warning and reported him to AIV but was not sure that is the best place. Can you look? TIA ww2censor (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

72 hour block. Let's hope he gets the message. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 30+ images. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So I saw. What a mess. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Better to catch these ones early rather than let the work fester and they think what they are doing has no consequences. Again thanks. ww2censor (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Scania N113

User:Scania N113 has left an "odd" message (basically a threat and personal attack) on User:Dave1185's talk page, per this diff. I can't find any actvity by Dave on Scania or any of the users he mentioned in the last few days, , and Scania has made only one edit since Aug 31 before posting this message, so this appears to be some sort of trolling. I've removed the comments from Dave's talk page, and warned the user, but since you've been active on Scania's talk page in the past, I wanted to inform you of the activity. Thanks. (PS, a check-user on all the listed accounts might be informative, just in case.) - BilCat (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if I can figure out what's up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a serious stick issue. This user is very nearly a WP:SPA, focused heavily on Airbus A340-200. The exchange with Dave at the bottom of that talk page gives indication of his attitude towards Dave. I would sooner suspect Scania's been following Dave's footsteps than that he is those users. (Though I could be wrong. :)) At this point, I think watching to see what happens may be the best approach. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think User talk:218.188.3.66's recent block may have something to do with Scania's attacks now. - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ho. And after well-reasoned debate like this? Yes, I think you're onto something there. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

After further reading, it seems pretty obviously the same person. Since this is block evasion, I've blocked Scania for the same duration as the IP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Much obliged! - BilCat (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you MRG, while we're still on the topic of sock evasion, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scania N113/Archive, his other socks has been blocked for other violations (note that they all have the same MO and duck pattern!). Granted that, can you help reopen this SPI to sniff out sleepers, I want to end this for him once and for all. Besides, as we know it... his persistent attempt at WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:HARASS, WP:HOUND, WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE are already more than enough to indef him. Correct me if I got it wrong. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Article written back in 2005 (Copyright or plagerism problem?)

Hi Moonriddengirl, there is a RFC going on at the talk page of the article Paul Bern. The discussion isn't the problem though the article is. The article was written for the most part I believe in 2005, at least that's when the article was started. The article needs references so I was doing a search and came to this. As I was reading this source to see if it would be useful I felt like I was reading our article so I compared. The article looks close to a copy/paste of this source minus a few changes here and there. I brought up my concerns at the talk page but there are only two active editors there which was the cause of the RFC. I got there due to seeing it at WT:Actor and the other two who commented after me got there by a comment I made at my talk page asking my lurkers to please check out the RFC and give an opinion on it. Now, I think I've gotten better at seeing plagerism and copyright problems but this time it jumped out at me. I still feel I need your opinion on what I am seeing and if I am seeing it correctly. Then, if I am, I don't know what to do with what I found if I am correct. I sure would appreciate it again if you would take your precious time to check this out for me. This shouldn't take long at all to check out since the article is real small and you can decide in the beginning of the article, not the lead part so much as the first paragraph or two Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Crohnie. :) Long time no see! I'll go take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good news with this one! TripAtlas is a Wikipedia mirror, so they've copied it from us. I run into them often in copyright cleanup. :) They do give us credit, albeit tucked away pretty well. Down under where it says "external links", they say (in small letters): " This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source." I appreciate you checking into this! As you know, I value copyright cleanup, and it relies on people being aware of potential issues. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I feel silly though for missing it was a mirror site. :) Thanks for looking for me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No reason! We've all overlooked one or two of those. It's more important to ask and be wrong than not to ask and be right. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Socking

I have reason to believe that this user is a sock of this user which is a sock of someone who has been socking and bypassing indef blocks since early this year (sock archive). They're editing the same articles (Kate Plus 8, 19 Kids and Counting, Law and Order: SVU, and Smallville; all focuses of the previous socks (if they add Murder She Wrote and 7th Heaven, they'll have covered all their bases)) and have already made the exact edit the most recent sock made as their very last edit before being indef blocked (here and here). It looks like a pretty clear cut duck to me, but I'm always very hesitant to go forward in case I'm wrong. Could you please give me some advice on what to do? --13² 20:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Socks are not my major category, but I'll go check the quacking myself. :D BRB. (After I leave somebody a note.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --13² 20:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there's very strong quacking, and another piece of evidence to consider: the IP block on 174.91.240.0/20 expired two days ago. I don't do that much with socking, but I would think it would be a good idea to reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TH43/Archive. If there's no collateral damage, given the persistence of this user, blocking the IP again might be a good idea. The reappearance of this sock two days after the IP block expired suggests a stable IP range. If we block the main account, we get another sock 24 hours later when the autoblock expires. (Checkuser can't confirm what IP is used, but they can locate and block the IP range if needed.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've only made one sock report ever that I can think of and it's been so long that I forgot how to do it (would I just open up a new case and link to the archive?). Also, should I have it listed under needing Checkuser? --13² 21:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have limited experience with that, too. :) I believe when you open the new case, it automatically connects to the archive. And, yes, list it under needing Checkuser, explaining that a range block seemed effective the previous time and that a block of the underlying IP or range may be needed again. Do be sure to point out that the last IP range block expired just days ago! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(By the way, I'd be happy to file it, if you'd prefer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC))

Hi MRG, I thought we weren't allowed to publically say someone is a sock, etc. Isn't that why editors can email checkusers, etc.?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No. :) If we weren't allowed to say that, there'd be no WP:SPI at all. Such allegations should be made carefully, however, and followed up on in a reasonable manner. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If you could file it, I'd be very grateful. The whole thing just confuses me. Before, Redfarmer was filing them, but he went into semi-retirement, so I don't know if he'd even see a message if I left one for him, let alone file it if he wasn't in the mood. Thanks! :) --13² 22:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'll handle it later today. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! It looks like the checkuser was denied, but an IP account has surfaced. --13² 04:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised checkuser was denied. Hmm. I've asked for clarification there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Directive 2001/116/EC

Just in case me passing on one messy issue isn't enough, now you can get two for the price of one!! Directive 2002/24/EC is listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 October 14. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Once the European Union question is settled, the next one will be a piece of cake. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on your editorial and thanks for teaching me new things

Hi Moonriddengirl,

congratulations on the new editorial in the Signpost. As with your previous editorial, I have learnt new things. While it now stints my writing style till these new skills become second nature, I am grateful to have learnt it albeit at a late stage. This of course forces me to raise my English skills to a higher level. I consider this learning, painful though it is, as a reward for my contributions to Wikipedia and I thank you as the agency through which I recieve this gratification.

AshLin (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you very much! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Dave1185's talk page.
Message added 05:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks~! Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Always happy to help with copyright problems. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Moon BLP issue

MRG, I could use some advice on handling a BLP issue regarding an author, Elizabeth Moon. Hopefully you don't have a COI issue here! :) See the main discussion at Talk:Elizabeth Moon#"Controversy" about 9/11 remarks. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL! No, are unrelated. :D Let me take a look, and I'll see what input I can offer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a tough one. If her blog meets WP:SELFPUB, reference to it is not a problem under WP:BLP, but unless that particular entry is notable, then drawing attention to it is undue and is a problem under BLP. (Likewise, if there is no doubt of the provenance of [22], then its usage in the manner it is currently included is no issue.) The overwhelming question, then, would be whether the blog and the withdrawn invitation are notable enough for inclusion. Has this been picked up in media? Wikipedia is "not news", of course, and we can wait to see whether this is a flash in the pan or an event of sufficient significance to warrant reference in her biography. "Do no harm" is an important consideration in BLPs. I am myself conservative with respect to them, but if I were involved here what I would do is open a section at WP:BLPN and seek assistance forming consensus from the volunteers there as to how this should be handled. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had intended to go to BLPN anyway, but wanted some advice too. Will do later today. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

DSM criteria copyright issue

Hi MRG, I'm back again looking for your advice! Do you remember an issue from last March with the DSM? I presume the procedure for blatant copy-pastes is still just to remove them, as usual, but I wanted to check whether any further developments had come out of that case. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 07:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! And, oh, do I remember that! :/ Yes, that's still the procedure. No new directions have been handed down from on high, so we still have to treat it like regular copied text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thought so, thanks! :) --BelovedFreak 15:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Junior Odd Fellows

stripping to what does not seem to be copied. The parent organization is notable; is the Junior?
I doubt it.
I think it is adequately covered on IOOF, or if it's not, it could/should be.
Ditto, the girl's org. (Theta rho??) [I now can't look it up because you've deleted everything! BTW: I'm not complaining, just making an observation.]
Does that agree with your assessment of the situation? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything retainable for the girls. :) Yes, it completely agrees with my assessment. If it weren't for the fact that I usually try to keep my copyright hat separate from my editor hat, I would have turned the article into a redirect to the parent. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have complained! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, ditto with the boy's org. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I was actually speaking of the boys' org. :) When there's no salvageable content, copyvios are routinely deleted, though there's nothing to prevent a new redirect being created under the girls' title. As far as the boys' title, the creator might feel that I am using my admin status in resolving the copyvio to push the usable content away, so I'll leave that for other contributors. You can feel free to redirect it, if you find it appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Chortle. No, not really: LOL!

There's some relevant Monty Python quote about red rags and bulls, but I can't remember it.

You can feel free to redirect it, if you find it appropriate - Oh yes. "I find it appropriate". (ROTFL.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A.M.Rajah

Amantha (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Moonriddengirl,

Appreciate your revising and condensing the article.But, you have removed lot of information which were available in the previous artcle like the names of music composers and the female playback singers with whom he worked with.These are probably not even complete, but leads you to find out information on the other artistes as well..These are historical facts which also connects to lot of other artistes involved.It was interesting and does not seem like a fan's jabbering.The introduction at the top referring to his old songs was meaningful.The blog is in Telugu, but main thing is that it guides you through to his first songs in Telugu for HMV, his first Tamil song, his first Hindi song, etc.We all do not read all the references at the bottom, but drawing attention to this was a good and it was a treat.I note that the nunmber of visits are steadily increasing going beyond 100 visits during the last few days. I think you have been too severe in editing by chopping off lot of information, some of which reveals his character, the good points and the bad points about him.

Kind regards

Amantha

Amantha (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Amantha

Hi. Lengthy lists of information are not easily readable and therefore not helpful in Wikipedia articles. While the primary problems with the article were its violations of the neutrality policy and its poor sourcing per Wikipedia:Verifiability (which leads to a strong conclusion that it is also a problem under Wikipedia:No original research), important facts about the artist should be explained in prose. This is analogous to the prohibition against "Excessive listing of statistics" in the policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I know you know what to do

Raycrosthwaite has redirected his user page and talk page to John Crosthwaite. I don't know how to revert that other than a cut and paste which is wrong. Can you fix it and explain it to the user? ww2censor (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

More RevDel needed

Hi MRG, I was just going through the talk stalk report. Below is a partial list of articles that have had copyvio removed but have not had any revisions deleted.

• Bruce Tulloh -- the first three or four edits, including Darius's original. The person who removed the copyvio noted that he had done so in his edit summary.
• Bryan Ivie -- everything up to Pichpich's edit.
• Chris Timms -- everything up to Hutt's edit.
• Dominican Republic at the 1999 Pan American Games
• Bradley Cooper (athlete) -- everything from first edit to SFB's edit.
• Brian Hewson -- everything from DD's third edit up to the most recent edit by SFB.
• Cathy Sulinski -- everything from first version to SFB's most edit (only a few, so not so bad).

Another issue

AGradman said that he "remedied copyvio" in the Canada Cup (soccer) article. But what he really did was reword it. I don't know if he really found copyvio or if he was just playing it safe. Currently he's on an extended Wikibreak so, short of emailing him, there's no way to find out. I'm dedicated but not interested in emailing him.

I hope you are doing well. --*Kat* ^(meow?) 06:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am, thanks. :) Hope you are, too. I have revdeleted all of the above, including the Canada Cup (soccer) article. If there had been copying, giving the minimal material, it should be okay now. Removing the history hurts nothing and is supported by what we know of Darius. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MRG, I appreciate it!--*Kat* ^(meow?) 02:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

RevDel

• Melanie Clewlow -- Everything up to my edit.  :-( --*Kat* ^(meow?) 02:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Marco Evoniuk -- same as above. --*Kat* ^(meow?) 03:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Doing, as MRG's time is more valuable than mine. :) Courcelles 03:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Both done. Kat, you can always drop these on my talk page as well. Courcelles 03:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Courcelles. Appreciate it greatly.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 03:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Me, too! (I would argue that my time is by no means more valuable than yours, Courcelles. Some days I have more of it than others, though. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A.M.Rajah

Amantha (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Amanthas

Dear Moonriddengirl, I appreciate your comments.But, wikipaedia is an encyclopaedia and should be more informative.It is good to know the famous films he sang for, the music directors he worked with and the famous female playback singers he sang with.I for one, far removed from the fifties and sixties , did not so far have much knowlede. May be this information must be formated in a differnt way.

Best regards

Amantha

Amantha (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Amantha

Information on the films he sang for and the singers he sang with is present in the table in his discography. If content is missing, it can be easily added there (including noting the directors who worked on those projects.) If work with any of his collaborators has merited special attention in the press, it may be appropriate to include a referenced discussion of his work with that particular collaborator, although it does need to be kept neutral and verifiable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio in Saint Kitts and Nevis

Hi MG, I decided to start checking this article also. I found that in the section "History", the first rather long sentence and paragraphs 4 and 5 (all but the last half a sentence) are copied verbatim from [23]. I also think that some of the rest of it is copied from [24]. Invertzoo (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) In the case of the former source, they've copied from us. If it had been the other way around, we could have dealt with that through attribution, since that Wiki is compatibly licensed. In this case, they've taken our content without credit. I've left a note about it there. (Not the first time I've registered at a website just to note licensing violations!) The other one may be a reverse infringement; it's not uncommon to see commercial sites that take text from Wikipedia without credit rather than developing their own. Since you've already compared the documents, can you point out some problematic text so that I can verify that? It'll save me the time of reading through both of them. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User issues

I thought I'd bring this to you, as you're always very impartial and helpful. The usual places don't work, so I'm asking for a personal review. I'm having a problem with a user. Everything ends up looking like content issues, but it's not. First off, can you look on my talk page and tell me if that's a personal attack. I have tried to reason with the user in the past, but the user only replies when it's something positive and nothing contesting an edit. I'm trying really hard to keep pages notable. I added a ratings section recently to the 90210 (season 3) page, with information on repeats too, if you tell his edit summary saying "nobody cares," I find that rude. I don't care much for repeats, but any extra information, reliably sourced, is allowed? The user in the past has been a constant ratings inflater, but gets away with it. Removes information from pages based on personal opinion. All I need to know is if I have a case here. Here is the user's talk page, Here's the most recent edit summary made by the user on 90210 (season 3), My talk page. I don't know what else I can dig out, but I don't think the user knows how to be friendly when his "opinion" is challenged. All my warnings go deleted, nice comments unanswered. I don't know what to do. Jayy008 (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"act like a normal person for once" is the comment I'm particularly referring too. I'm really sorry to burden you with this, but I feel like I'm going mad. Jayy008 (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up "You really need help" "Don't add things without consulting me first".... Jayy008 (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. My habit of starting at the bottom of my talk page has made me slow to get this one. :( Let me take a look and see what advice I can offer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This is beyond the pale: "if you add it back without consulting me first, you will be reported." The tone of his communications are indeed problematic under WP:WQ, telling you to "act like a normal person for once" is inappropriate. At this point, I think you have two options for the content dispute part of things. First, you could start at the top of dispute resolution, probably with WP:3O. If you haven't ever requested a 3O before, please be sure to read the instructions and follow them carefully. If you aren't neutral in your request, it may be removed without assistance. It might be even more beneficial to request feedback on whether repeat ratings belong under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television) at the talk page for the guideline. (I would notify of that conversation at the talk page of the project and at the talk pages of each article involved.) For the tone of the conversation, you may wish to request feedback at WP:WQA. Keep in mind that the goal here is to bring communication in line with community standards. Include diffs of the problems and be aware that your own conversations with him will be equally scrutinized, so be sure you're comfortable discussing your own behavior, too. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of the information. I will look into which option is best. Jayy008 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you think?

Karen Smith

• This is the WP article: [25]
• This is DD's source:[26]

Too similar for Wikipedia or no? --*Kat* ^(meow?) 02:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Two, out of three, sentences were copied. Given the overall context, here, I recommend removing the prose and starting from scratch. Uncle G (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. I've reduced it to the minimal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sean Rooney

Darius's original version of this article is a word for word copy of the first paragraph of his source. None his original text was removed, per say, but it was expanded, referenced, revised and reworded until it looked nothing like the original.

Is this still considered a derivative work? Thanks, --*Kat* ^(meow?) 02:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• This edit seems to be the most important one. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the link, Uncle G. :) That's a tricky question, *Kat*. Technically, expanding, referencing, revising and rewording incrementally does create a derivative work. Whether it's an actionable derivative work (violating copyright) depends on whether it includes "substantial similarity" to the original. The answer to that, in this case, depends on which version in the history we reference. While I have seen dissenting opinions here, the traditional practice on Wikipedia seems to be to focus more on the end product except when the original has been marked as a copyright problem. In those cases, I've seen a number of admins and editors who focus more on the requirement of rewriting from scratch (as do I). In my case, this is because once a work has been brought to our attention as a copyright problem, due diligence requires that we take no chances with the replacement, or we stand the risk of knowingly contributing to infringement. The contributors who incrementally rewrote this content were presumably unaware of potential copyright issues with the text. If the final revision does not constitute a copyright problem in itself, I personally would focus on the end product here and do our revision deletion to guard against inadvertent restoration of the content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Kewl. Thanks Uncle G and MRG.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 18:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reviewing

If you think that knowing copyrights is actually essential, then there needs to be a serious talk where every admin who's granting it to editors without checking if they have a history of copyvios can be straigtened out. The topic has come up before and there was no interest from...well, anyone. There's also a reluctance to remove reviewer once granted even when violations have been pointed out; I seem to remember a discussion saying that there had to actually be documented abuse of this right to remove it but I couldn't tell you where at the moment. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Since one of the things they're supposed to be looking for is copyvios, I think it's pretty essential. :) I have no such reluctance; I've just done that myself and have already opened a discussion about it at the pending changes talk page. I'd be shocked if anybody contested that action, as I think it would be pretty hard to demonstrate how it benefits the project to permit them to continue in that capacity. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you're willing to take the flack for it, I'll go ahead and point out that Anikingos (talk · contribs) has reviewer too (in case you missed it, we had a nice CCI for them last month). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a slightly different issue. :/ In this case (where I removed the right), the contributor's copyvios postdated the granting of right. If there are any subsequent problems, I wouldn't hesitate, but unless there are documented ongoing issues from after the granting of the right, I think it would not be uncontroversial. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see the difference between the two situations now that you pointed it out. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion appreciated

While I wanted to start Brian Tuke and had worked on the DNB wiksource pages, some one got to it first but I see that the article seems like a close paraphrase of the DNB Brian Tuke page. What is the general guideline and how much is too much prose to paste? TIA ww2censor (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

When the content is free, there isn't one. :) In that case, doing even a complete paste is all right as long as full attribution is offered, and I see that the attribution template at the bottom of the article complies with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. (We have run into problems where people copy later editions and claim to have copied the free version, though.) It is generally regarded as better to produce content in our own words, though, so feel free to modify that if you'd like. I think a lot of people consider the non-free content copies as "start" texts for further development. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Have a great weekend. ww2censor (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User issues

I've posted my case Here, please read and tell me if you think it's okay, and if I put it in the right place? Jayy008 (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, aren't user only allowed to display a page like this when they meet the requirements? Jayy008 (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You put it in the right place, yes. I think it's well put. I'm glad that you note that you are open to feedback about your own approach; you are likely to receive it. The volunteers there are generally used to trying to look at all sides in conversations. It looks like given what you say about the user deleting things that you may not be familiar with "diffs". Unless he's an admin, everything he's removed is all there in history. You can still dig it up and provide a link to it. See Help:Diff. That way, you can highlight exactly what you mean to point out. If you have not notified him of the WQA discussion, pleaes be sure you do so. All you need to put on the page is {{subst:WQA-notice|User:CloudKade11}} --~~~~ It'll make the notice for you. I hope it goes well for you! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for everything as usual and the well wishes :). Jayy008 (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Moonriddengirl, The AfD is still open. I understand there's a backlog, but this article has been up now for 2 weeks. Do you know if this will finally be decided today? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it will be decided today. It's transcribed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 16. Those won't come current for admin closure until 10/24 UTC (which is a couple of hours from now), but there are 75 other AfDs from that day and frequently the easier ones go first. Meanwhile, there are still discussions unclosed on the 13th and 15th. It should wrap within the next few days, though, since the admins who work there are doing a good job keeping backlog down. It'll resolve soon, though it is open for comments until it does.

By the way, you should move the conversation between you and TMCk to your talk page. That conversation is harmless, but if we permit him to interact there, we'll need to open it up for others as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Best to keep a clear separation there even though, as I said, that conversation was harmless in itself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at User:Malke_2010/Mentorship.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Is this paraphrased enough?

Themistoclea - is the 2nd para now rewritten enough so it isn't copyvio of the 4th para at [27]? I've edited it twice today (as has its creator, who may not know about 3RR although seems to be sophisticated in some aspects of markup). Thanks. (I also don't want to appear a heavy-handed male in this case) Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a close paraphrase...since it uses some of the language, it's particularly worrisome. I've tagged it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse my butting in … I’ve tightened it up a little and made the order of paragraphs more (IMO) logical. Presumably there’s a point at which a summary or abstract of an original becomes short enough to be less than a paraphrase, so to speak. Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Copy Check

I know you're probably super busy on here, but if you have some free time, can you please look at some more of this? As I'm very close to deciding to RfA, I don't want too many copyvios to derail me. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 18:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I do tend to be super busy on here; I'm afraid I had completely forgotten about that! :/ I will certainly put it on my "to do" list, though I will probably will not get to it this weekend. I'll get my computer calendar to ping me on Monday. (By the way, one good way to prevent them from derailing you is to help review them yourself! If you find any issues and address them, that will go a long way to showing that you 've got the hang of the copyright thing. :) Feel free to make notes at that page if you find something.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Good thinking, that will show I understand copyvio better. CTJF83 chat 19:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up

I'm really sorry to trouble you again. It seems I always trouble you with tedious issues that shouldn't be issues in the first place. I have done what you said, but the user basically turned it all on me. And the impartial user who responded, pretty much said everything the user said to me was because he was frustrated or irritated. And accused me of being "less than civil" to begin with. I don't think being his reasoning is accurate. It feels like I'm just supposed to allow a user to potential say hurtful things to me (could be classed as bullying), and another user make excuses for it. When to begin with I always start a conversation politely. Anyway, yawn, yawn, where can I go next? Again, really sorry to trouble you. Jayy008 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, you wait for other feedback. Things move slowly in dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You should also consider carefully whether the bystander has any valid points. People who are uninvolved often see things differently than you do, and they may see facets of your behavior that might have contributed to the problem. If you sincerely believe he is misunderstanding, you might civilly and patiently explain why, but, again, I'd just wait a bit and see what else comes of it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yeah, I'm sorry, I think I was hasty posting this here. I should have waited for other replies. Jayy008 (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A.M.Rajah

112.135.23.144 (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Amantha

Dear Moonriddengirl,

I take your point.But, discography like the references is for the keen fans.Main body should present facts which can be picked up at a glance.Further, you have deleted the names of films given there for which he composed music.There is only Kalyana Parisu and then you go straight to Nenjil Or Alayam.The linking events have also been omitted.It is rather incomplete now.

Best regards

112.135.23.144 (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Amantha

I have removed lists of information from within the body of the body of the article. There is no "at a glance", I'm afraid, in an article that was 57 kilobytes long. As I said above, if content is missing, it can be easily added to the chart (including noting the directors who worked on those projects.) If work with any of his collaborators has merited special attention in the press, it may be appropriate to include a referenced discussion of his work with that particular collaborator, although it does need to be kept neutral and verifiable. The lists themselves are not in keeping with our styleguides or general practices. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Theories of dyslexia and Dyslexia articles

The Wikiproject Dyslexia main aim last year was to slim down the main Dyslexia article to become a summary article, and then to develop a series of new sub articles to provide more detailed information on some of the more complex issues regarding dyslexia. The "Theories of Dyslexia" article was one of the new articles which was created during this process. When the article was created it I copied to existing content of the "Theories of dyslexia" section of the Dyslexia article to the new article with the intention of adding more detail at a later date. At this point I had been left on my own by the other members of the Wikiproject Dyslexia to do all of the proposed editing. Then some members of the Wikiproject Dyslexia and others started something close to an editing war regarding some parts of the new articles and revising the recently revised main dyslexia article. As a result of trying to keep track of these various interventions, I did lost track of the overall changes that had been made, and due to the nature of my own information processing disability I forgot about some of the outstanding edits required to finish the aims of the 2009 Wikiproject dyslexia targets.

If there are any problems I would appreciate it if you could inform me so that i can try to make the required corrections. From my perspective due to the nature of my disability, I am very able at sourcing information but my real problem is copy editing, I prefer to rely on others to do this task, who do not share may disability. dolfrog (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Loading error?

I just noticed, as George's talk page is on my watchlist, that you alerted him of an RFC/U. However, your comment, happening today, is actually placed above two other threads which happened earlier, so I'm wondering if there was some error that caused this to happen, instead of placing the message the bottom like normal.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Weird! I generally press "edit" on the bottom note, so I don't know what happened. I'll go take a look. Thanks for letting me know! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dunno if it's related, but there were server problems an hour or two ago. Either Squid bombed, or the servers that Squid caches bombed. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be one of those mysteries I never figure out. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Mentee

User:Malke 2010 is not playing well with others.[28][29] If there's anything you can do to help prevent another ANI thread about her this would be a good time to do so.   Will Beback  talk  10:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Will. :) Thank you for your note. I will speak to her. If you feel that another ANI thread is necessary, of course, I know you need to do what you consider best for Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

MRG, could I shortcircuit processes for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive4? I don't know how to tell if the copyvio there is ours or others, but we had the text over a year ago-- I listed info on the FAC. The article was pretty much over the hump at FAC when I stumbled upon this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've gone back to April 2009, trying to determine if they copied us or we copied them-- do you have a tool for this job, because it's impossible! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy! Sure, for you. :D Let me look into it. (I've been distracted by another matter. :P But I'm here.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much-- I've been working my way back, trying to see if they lifted a version from us, but all I can come up with is-- how the heck do you do it? I hate to interrupt a FAC when it might just be a mirror. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

First thing I do is pick a distinctive phrase and put "WikiBlame" to work (I presume you're familiar with it? It's under tools for each article. It finds the point of origin of text. Great tool in our work!) Once I find where that distinctive content entered, I start looking to see if it evolved naturally or came all in one fell swoop. Best case scenario: clear major evolution in the article. The odds that we will have copied it in bits and pieces is slim. :) Things are slow on my computer tonight, but WikiBlame is chewing away. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but I've never been able to make Wikiblame go. Also, Erik posted something that may be helpful on the FAC page-- that BBCAmerica site was created in 2010 according to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That kind of thing can surely help. :) I think reverse infringement is likely, but I won't be able to decide for sure into WikiBlame finishes. I find it works best for me if I set a start date rather than increasing the number of edits for it to evaluate and, when in doubt, I don't do "binary" but instead focus on "linear." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My stupid computer is really slow tonight. I should be able to find you evidence to prove reverse infringement soon, I hope. I'm focusing on this: [on June 24 2009, our article said, "Sally Hardesty (Marilyn Burns) and her wheelchair-bound brother Franklin (Paul A. Partain) travel with three friends to a cemetery holding the grave of Hardestys' grandfather." (omitting markup). Right before blanking, our article said, "Sally Hardesty (Marilyn Burns) and her brother, Franklin (Paul A. Partain), travel with three friends—Jerry (Allen Danziger), Kirk (William Vail) and Pam (Teri McMinn)—to a cemetery containing the grave of the Hardesty's grandfather." The external site says, "Sally Hardesty (Marilyn Burns) and her brother Franklin (Paul A. Partain), traveling with three friends, Jerry (Allen Danziger), Kirk (William Vail) and Pam (Teri McMinn), a cemetery containing the grave of his grandfather Hardesty." This is clear evidence of evolution, but I'm looking for the coffin nail. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much again-- I was working in the same vein, but manually ... ugh! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wikiblame took its sweet time, but it's not the tool's fault, because I couldn't get pages to load worth a darn myself. :/ (My word, that article has a ton of edits!) Okay, coffin nail 1: [30]; coffin nail 2: [31] & [32]. Content evolved naturally towards the version of the article that appears at the external source. Mind you, I cannot account for some stuff that we don't seem ever to have had: "The man speaks and acts weird, and then slashes and Franklin himself with a razor blade to a group of his strength from the van....Franklin says Kirk and Pam local hole basin, and the pair head to find him." (local hole basin? What? Why would they change bizarrely to weird?) I'm trying to use Wikiblame to find if there was a vandalized version that they copied, but that would be icing merely. If Wikiblame doesn't find it soon, I'll give it a break. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

MRG, thank you so much for getting right on that, and my apologies for "jumping the line" and not going through regular channels (not that I know where to find those :). I greatly appreciate your speed, so a FAC wasn't held up. You're still the best! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. :) I'm happy to help, any time. And in this case, especially! FA should not be held up by copyright concerns; I think we owe our best articles (or even those who are likely to be our best articles) some expedited attention. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Now to return the favor, even if all you get out of it is a chuckle. Way back when that discussion occurred at WT:FAC, I ordered a copy of "Elcobbola's article" (the typewriter) on LLC Books from Amazon. [33] LLC Books paired it with Jockstrap (to our amusement). Jockstrap has a big fat copyvio tag that has been there for a very long time. LLC Books simply removed the Copyvio tag, and printed it anyway! Their version picked up this change, so it was clearly printed after August 2010, but didn't pick up this September change; it was an exact copy without the copyvio tag of the article just before the September change. The copyvio was added to the article on October 23, 2007, and shockdoctor.com is in archive.org at May 22, 2007, so it is our copyvio, yet LLC Books removed the copyvio tag and printed it. I understand Wiki has no recourse, since the damages are to shockdoctor.com, and they would have to pursue the copyvio. More interestingly, no one ever blanked the text (so I just did). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(Is there a good icon for a dropping jaw?) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In an attempt to commandeer this thread, I'll mention that after SandyGeorgia removed the text from Jockstrap I went ahead and blanked it and listed it at CP so it can have a histpurge. I mention this because it ties nicely into a question I posed last night at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#More copyvio work/automation? Opinions appreciated! VernoWhitney (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Verno. :) I'll look at it soon, I hope. The stupid drahma of the weekend has eaten away my Wiki time, and I am so behind. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at User:Malke_2010/Mentorship.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help?!

Hey, I spoke to another admin about a problem I have regarding copyright and he suggested I ask you. I've been working on the article London Road Stadium and there is an image I would like to put on it. It's a CG image from the BBC's website and it's relevant to the article. However, I'm not really sure how to go about uploading it. In the past I've only really uploaded my own photos and when I've tried to upload images from the internet, I've (rightly) been pulled up about copyright issues and the images have been deleted. Could you tell me exactly what I should do, since I feel that the article should have this image and knowing how to do this will help me in the future. Thanks very much,

AndrewvdBK (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Non-free content is not my major area of work. Basically, you need to be able to explain why we need the image and why it works within our non-free content policies and guidelines. Can you give me more detail, including maybe a link? What do you want to use it for? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've attached the link here. I basically would like the main image on this page to go with the 'Future' section on London Road Stadium. It's not vital, but if it can be done then I think it would be a useful addition to the article. If it can't be done for copyright reasons, then that's fine. I don't really know much about the non-free content policies and guidelines, so I can't really comment in that respect. Thanks,

AndrewvdBK (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we probably can make a "fair use rationale" for that. It's an artist's concept of a building that does not exist, so it's not replaceable. I've got to run now, but I'll try to look around and see if I can find a similar non-free image somewhere that we can draw on. Maybe one of my "talk page stalkers" who knows something about fair use rationales can weigh in on this in the meantime. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Novice stalker here ;) … There are quite a few templates for setting forth the rationale; Template:Non-free image rationale & Template:Non-free image data or maybe Template:Press kit rationale would be suitable, helping you ‘get your ducks in a row’. Be sure to have the article ready to link to the image: non-free material is not allowed in User space, and if ‘orphan’ is liable to immediate deletion. Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've found this image and this image. They're both artist's concepts of proposed stadia for Everton and Tottenham respectively and they both use Template:Non-free use rationale. Do you think I should use this template for the image I want to upload?

AndrewvdBK (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure! That's a standard template. What I meant in drawing on it was what arguments are advanced. The advice Odysseus1479 kindly offered above, though, might save you some trouble, as Template:Press kit rationale generates both a "fair use rationale" and a tag. You would have to edit it a bit after using it to make sure that the contents are appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks both of you for all your help. I'm pretty sure I know what to do now! I'll come back if I get stuck again. Cheers,

AndrewvdBK (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Copying within wikipedia

Thanks for sorting the copyvio on Parracombe & I presume your happy with St Petrock's Church, Parracombe now (which someone else removed the copyvio tag from). After your note I've looked at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia but can I just check when you say copying from one wp article to another you need to give credit is it enough to put a note in the edit summary or is some other action required?— Rod ^talk 17:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The rewrite seemed fine. :) A note in the edit summary (with a direct wikilink) should be sufficient if it's not extensive copying. If it is, I also use the recommended {{copied}} at the article's talk page and at the talk page of the source article. That helps especially if the source article is ever deleted for something. For instance, if the copyright problem had not been found when it was but disclosed later, we might never have realized that content had been copied from that article to another. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I have a slightly complex one currently with List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England where most of what is in the notes column comes from the articles about the specific churches (many of which I created in preparation for the list) with excerpts taken and shortened for the list article - is it necessary to add to the talk page of the list all the individual church articles I copied bits of text (+ references etc) from?— Rod ^talk 17:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A complex question deserves a complex answer. :D Did you copy or closely follow creative content from any article? If so, unless you were the sole creator of that content in the other article (in which case you own the copyright), then, yes, I'm afraid you do. For any article into which you've copied only content you authored or uncreative content (like refs) or into which you've written summaries completely in your own language, then no. And if that's not complete enough, please feel free to keep asking. You can give me examples if you'd like. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry its not that simple :D. Using List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England still as the example Part of the lead (1st 2 paras) from List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England - however it was copied into my Sandbox at User:Rodw/Sandox/List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England while I was working on the list - Template:Copied doesn't seem to cover multiple moves. Some more specifics - The first article in the list relates to Old Church of St Nicholas, Uphill which I wrote originally, however it has since undergone (minor) revisions before I copied bits of it (small sentences from paras 3,4,6,7 & 8) into the list. The 2nd one is about Church of St Nonna, Bradstone which no one else has edited yet so that one is OK. The text about St Giles' Church, Imber is more complex. I didn't start that article but did most (but by no means all) of the revisions which ultimately ended up in the list. I thought wp's license allowed reuse, with attribution & by linking to the article concerned could be read as implying that source, or have I got that all wrong??? (UK v US v world copyright rules don't help my understanding!)— Rod ^talk 17:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Copied multi}} covers multiple sources. You don't need to attribute yourself, so you don't need to give credit to work done in your sandbox if you were the only working on it. Just credit the original source. If others have modified your content or you have modified theirs, you do need to attribute it. I'm not entirely sure I follow the question here: "I thought wp's license allowed reuse, with attribution & by linking to the article concerned could be read as implying that source." If you're asking if you can copy content from an article and imply that you've used it by linking to it in the article, no, I'm afraid not. We have to maintain a list of contributors, and the "edit summary" puts it in history. Again, though, the copied template is really only necessary if the copying is extensive, as a safeguard. It's recommended as good practice, but if the bits from others are small, you might omit that step for a source. Since Old Church of St Nicholas, Uphill was primarily by you with minor revisions, you might just link that one in edit summary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I've started to build copied multi at Talk:List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England but I'm just using the bulleted list as Diffs etc don't work when the time I used them was the first creation of the article. Is that sort of list OK?— Rod ^talk 18:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Election symbols copyright

Do Election Symbols like the Elephant used by Political Parties Worldwide have copyright.There is a dispute going on here after a few images were marked for deletion Unlike Company Logos they are not exclusive.I feel they do not .Can you please clarify on this and do I need to go the broader community.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. In terms of the broader community, I note that there is already a conversation for the broader community, as the images are up for PuF. Without seeing actual case law, I'm afraid can't answer you definitely. However, I'm afraid it's probably bad news. The Government of India does not release even all of its own work into public domain, and political parties are not stripped of the right to own copyright. Note here for instance that the Democratic Party of the United States declares copyright, even specifically on their symbols and logos, and so the symbol they use that is sufficiently creative for copyright is used under "fair use": File:Democratslogo.svg. I suspect that any political party symbols unless they lack creativity or we can find verification that they are PD should be handled accordingly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Wendt

Since I'm the one who cleaned it once and then blanked it I'm not sure if I count as a fresh pair of eyes, but I haven't read through it in a couple of weeks, so if you think that's close enough to fresh let me know and I'll look at the rewrite.

In exchange, maybe you would be interested in having a further talk with Wipeouting (talk · contribs) about close paraphrasing? I just skimmed over their recent articles and saw some similar issues in Merciline Jayakody, such as the article:

While at Duwa he wrote script of the original Duwa Passion play related to Jacome Gonsalves. He introduced live actors both male and female replacing. traditional puppets used before as actors

versus the source:

While at Duwa he dared to change the script of the original Duwa Passion play related to Jacome Gonsalves. He introduced live actors both male and female replacing the traditional puppets used till then.

I think there're more at Solias Mendis too, but I haven't blanked either of them or checked any more of their articles yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Deal. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so only checking against a handful of the sources I can confirm that a good chunk of the rewrite is still unusable and I've compiled the most blatant examples. Do I just relist again and put the examples on the talk page or do we stubbify the article and leave the examples on their talk page as explanation? My first choice at this point would be to stub the article but I'm afraid adding another explanation right after your copyright block notes would be even more intimidating. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Verno! I didn't see this up here. I got a huge job dropped on my lap this morning and, as with all such huge jobs, they really needed it yesterday and surely I can overlook their own last-minute request this time? :P I think we stubbify the article; I've already explained that this might happen earlier. By the way, my preliminary look at Solias Mendis is concerning, but I haven't completed it. (Please, me, don't forget that you haven't completed it.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Stubbed, thanks (and don't worry about missing it, I figured as much and saw your explanations to others earlier). I'm thinking a CCI may be in order to keep a record of everything (and since I just found more blatant copyvio here). I'll probably set that up later today after I put a dent in the SCV backlog I've let pile up again. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Help with copyright (and possible COI) issue?

Hi there. I was hoping you can help me (or one of your talk page stalkers). I need to direct another editor to the correct place. I recently removed text from Leeza Gibbons for WP:COPYVIO which was copied from her home page [34]. The editor Leezagibbons (talk · contribs) left a comment in the edit summary giving the impression that it might actually be Leeza Gibbons, so when I added the copyright warning to the users talk page, I also added the COI warning. Today, the editor left a message on my talk page that he is Bobby, Leeza Gibbons' online media person. He wants to know how to update her page with a bio she wrote, and photos she owns. I'm not sure how to help him (assuming he is who he says), or the rules for using text from a persons personal website. Where should I direct him? WP:PERMISSIONS? Thanks for your help, this is way beyond my knowledge and I am uncomfortable giving him advice. Thanks! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials covers what they need to do as far as permissions go. The COI issues would have to be addressed as usual, of course, with judicious editing. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much!! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Mandrake band.jpg

Hi there, I've found a complicated case (or so I think). This image was taken from a site that states how their web content can be "republished" with attribution. At the source site there's however nothing said about derivatives or licensing, so the pic is most-likely non-free after all. Which kind of license tag should be applied to it? I guess we could go with a fair-use rationale? De728631 (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As far as we're concerned it still qualifies as non-free, since as you pointed out it doesn't necessarily permit derivatives (or commercial reuse). I would say {{Non-free fair use in|Article}} would be an appropriate tag and it would also need a FUR, however, at a glance it would appear that this image would fail WP:NFCC#1 since someone could just take a free photo of the band, and so we can't use the photo (unless there are some exceptional circumstances I'm unaware of). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, let's go with {{Non-free fair use in|Article}} with a rationale then since reusing the image is explicitely allowed. De728631 (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

How do I go about reporting a sockpuppet for blocking. I suspect one. Thanks Fry1989 (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations CTJF83 chat 22:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just put it under Open Cases right? Fry1989 (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, i see what to do. Thanks again Fry1989 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Sure...any more questions feel free to ask. CTJF83 chat 22:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, I'm not sure if I did it right. I used the one on the right, "Start an SPI case WITH a CheckUser request", and when through the prompts, and after saving the page I got this. But the report doesn't show up anywhere else, such as the "Open cases:awaiting Checkuser processing" section on the main SPI page. Fry1989 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks right to me. It is listed way at the bottom Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Yattum, this can be a long process that can take several days to a week or more. A clerk will first review your evidence to see if the case has merit. CTJF83 chat 22:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

AHH, there it is. Thanks again. Fry1989 (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoot! I love talk page stalkers. :D Thank you, CTJF83, for taking the time to pitch in. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

• News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced

• In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news

• WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?

• Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

yoshiko chuma

you did a great job on the article about yoshiko chuma. As I have written the text for her website, in the original article, I simply copied some of my (uncited) texts. HOwever, your text is much much better. I have added a few more ciations and links to press articles that exist online. thank you. bashadetroit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashadetroit (talk • contribs) 04:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Since we did not have permission for the text, we couldn't retain it, and I thought she was far too important to not have an article on her. I'm glad I had the time to do a rewrite. I enjoyed learning about her work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright check

Hello copyright types,

I created The Bridge in Curve and just want a quick sanity check that I have sufficient originality in the text from the sources used. How's the sport article copy-vio problem going? Need any help there at the moment?

Bigger digger (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) The sports article cleanup is progressing thanks especially to the dedicated work of a few individuals. I'll be happy to take a look at The Bridge in Curve, but alas can't do it immediately. I've got some pressing "real life" work stuff going on this morning and am just touching base before diving back into it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, put it on the back burner, no rush! Does the sport article clean up need some more hands? Bigger digger (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Always. :) We've got more than enough copyright problems to go around! I'm putting your article on my to-do list and should get to it soon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what I could see was fine (books not all accessible). Since you asked, I did take the conservative step of restructuring the opening paragraph to avoid following the structure of the original, and I provided attribution for the quote in the text. It's not a full sentence or more (WP:MOSQUOTE style), but since the whole paragraph is a summary of their work, it seemed like a good idea to me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Most of the books were only Gbooks snippets — I'm hoping an Australian will go to a library near them at some point in the future to expand it now I've shown them where to look... I've been doing some vandal patrolling recently and it is amazing how many times I've found people just copying and pasting information in from another website. Quite often the editor is COI'd, so I guess they just assume they can use it. When I warn them and then offer to help improve the article according to WP:PAG, they just disappear! Anyway, enough of my Voyages with Copyvio, and thanks again for casting an eye over The Bridge in Curve. Bigger digger (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

question

Has this [35] all been decided now?Malke 2010 (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Malke. No. Unless somebody "snow" closes it at some point, it will probably remain open for some time. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing for the ordinary ways in which these are closed. The hoped for outcome of an RfC/U is for the contributor to recognize when the community is viewing his behavior differently than he himself and to adjust his behavior to conform with community standards. Frequently, if an RfC/U doesn't work, the next step is arbitration or a community discussion of sanctions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I read it all over and it took some time, and I've made an "outside" comment. I hope I did it right as I've never commented on an RfC/U and it is so formal, etc. I didn't bring out diffs, etc., as I felt others had already heavily documented the concerns. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fine; you make some good points, although you do make me blush in comparing me to the U.N.! :D You do need to endorse it, though. I will not endorse it because of our relationship. (I think it's appropriate for you to comment, though; you have been involved with both me and Xander, and you are bringing in a different perspective and suggestion.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done I didn't realize I should do that. I actually found the RfC by accident and decided to comment especially as he's got no supporters. I had not been familiar with all the back and forth over time, so reading all of that made me see how things have been going. But I do have faith in the community, and in Alex, and I think one more try is all anybody can ask. And that's what really gave me the push to do it. I don't understand all the different variations on the images, but I can understand the emotions on both sides. And things being so one-sided, someone needs to toss him a life preserver. I think he could be a collegial contributor if he had a mentor. He's really a good fellow.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It will be entirely up to him. The RfC/U may help him to realize that there is strong consensus that his behavior is problematic. Maybe as you've planted the seed in his mind he will look for somebody to help him, but it's only like to work if he sees that there is a problem and is very motivated to address it. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

user:Uhhmazinq

I honestly hate to do this, but I have noticed a user that needs to be dealt with by an admin. I happen to run across what he did while working on the {{puf}} dissuion board. I spoke to user:NuclearWarfare first (he deleted the first image), but he asked me to bring this up with you. Five days after user:NuclearWarfare deleted this image [36] user user:Uhhmazinq turned around and re-uploaded it on commons here using the same {{pd-self}} claim. I tagged it to be deleted here. This user has 11 other images on commons and 15 on Wikipedia that have been tagged for having bad copyright claims. I think he need to be delete with by an admin. --ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look into it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see you've already found Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Uhhmazinq and located the source of an image, which will help strengthen the reason to address the others. Good job! I've given him a block caution on Commons and on Wikipedia. If he uploads any more images on Wikipedia that do not conform, he should be blocked. I'm not on admin on Commons, but if he continues there, he should be brought for attention to the admins there. Maybe user:NuclearWarfare will be able to help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Translations of articles from one Wikipedia to another

It is indeed against the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. If you copy or modify content from any Wikimedia project, you must attribute the original. This includes copying from one Wikimedia Foundation project to another. Failure to do so is a violation of the copyright of our contributors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. We discussed it on Turkish Wikipedia. You are right. Thanks anyway :)--Rapsar (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for updating. I will make a note at the administrator's noticeboard that the matter has been resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest.--Rapsar (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Worth the effort?

Hey, Mrg. There is a group of six lengthy articles that were created last March by User:Waterfox1 which were copied from this book. See Cold War nuclear legacies for one example. On his user page, Waterfox stated he was using the text and said that he is A. DeVolpi, one of the 4 listed authors. I do believe he is who he says he is. So I listed the articles at CP rather than speedy delete them as obvious copyvios -- thinking that he might want to release the text. (There is no way the text could be rewritten without being a foundational copyright violation, so without a release, it will need to be deleted). My problem is that: even if he is contacted and could somehow provide a release for the text, wouldn't it still require all four of the authors to release it? What do you think? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As I understand it, that would depend on the particular copyright agreement (between authors and publisher) and the specific author(s) of that section. If we get a release which asserts that he is the sole copyright holder to the particular content that he added (and freely licenses it of course) then we take their word on it and accept it in the absence of evidence to the contrary. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) This is absolutely true for collections. Copyright ownership in these is individual. If the contributions are inseparable, copyright ownership is joint. Each author has an independent right to exploit the work and to non-exclusively license it (though all authors must consent to copyright transfer or exclusive license). They are required to share jointly in resulting proceeds, but in this case there are none. Unless something contractually prevents him licensing it severally, then he should be good to go. For Wikipedia, though, there could be problems with accepting the content. See section 4 & 5. According to this, "some countries require consent of all co-owners even for nonexclusive uses." And there are implications for commercial reusers. Hmmm. I wonder if this has ever been thoroughly discussed? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this book isn't a compilation or collection of individual authors (usually which have an editor and author bylines in separate sections). There is no differentiation made among the four authors, they clearly state co-authorship and even address themselves as "we, the authors" in a few places, and, from what I have seen so far, there are no individual bylines. It appears to be a joint effort and probably edited by all four. I guess it won't hurt to ask DeVolpi, though. So it's a firm maybe, huh? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping to give you something better than that soon. :D I just finished writing to Mike about it. (It seems to me that if we can we're going to have to note for our reusers that they need to check the legality of reuse in their jurisdictions. That seems potentially messy. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. No rush in making things messier:) In this specific case, I think we might get DeVolpi's release for a separate published source. It looks like he may have previously extracted the same text from the book that he used here and published it separately anyway. On the website it mentions another publication, Nuclear Insights, which "is a monograph derived directly by coauthor Dr. Alexander DeVolpi from Nuclear Shadowboxing." That's the same thing he said on his user page about the Wikipedia articles. And one co-author's webpage, George Stanford, links to the page for the monograph, so I wouldn't think he has a problem with any release. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! If this question turns out to be theoretical, all the better. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor with continued copyvio issues

Hi there. I am sorry to bother you again, you are my copyvio go-to person when I am not sure what to do. I have found an new editor Moviebuff 1990 (talk · contribs) who is repeatedly creating new articles with copyrighted text. (They are TV articles, and s/he copies the plot from elsewhere. I have cleaned 8 of 13 so far.) I warned the editor several times on their talk page, but s/he is continuing to introduce such articles with copyvios. I was hoping there was a way to temporarily block this person to let them realize this is a serious issue? I can't go to WP:AIV because it is not vandalism. WP:CCI isn't really necessary, it is a new user, and I have been trying to keep up with it. That's just for cleaning, right? (Although I have not found all sources yet, I am certain that each article has copied material.) Where do I go with this? Thanks --Logical Fuzz (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm honored to be your copyvio go-to person. :D Here is fine. Otherwise, you can take it to WP:ANI. I'll take a look at it and see if a temporary block seems helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked, since I've confirmed the situation with my own eyes. That's a check on repeated infringement after good faith warnings (and very well expressed ones, too.) It's a 48-hour block, and if the behavior continues after it expires, additional sanctions may be necessary. Thanks for bringing this to my attention before it turned ugly! We don't need any more CCIs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure what to do. I hadn't thought of WP:ANI, but I will know that for the future! I wish the copyvio warnings had different levels, where the increased seriousness of the issue might be better expressed to an editor, like with the vandalism warnings. Thanks for the help, much appreciated! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Copyvio is really kind of a "one strike" thing. If they've been clearly warned but keep doing the same thing, they need it brought home that we mean it. I will give more warnings if their behavior changes--for instance, if they go from blatant pasting to obviously well intended but inadequate efforts to rewrite. In that case, we're still hoping to educate them out of the behavior. (I'm not sure a template would work there, though, because it takes explanation why what they're doing doesn't work.) I patrol ANI occasionally for unaddressed copyright problems, but unless a block is likely to be contentious I think it's just as valid to go to an individual admin in these situations. WP:ANI works if there are none around, but that page can be really hectic sometimes! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A question I have been meaning to ask

Hi Moonriddengirl I have been seeking an admin who knows about copyright issues, to ask about a question regarding a table I would like to add to a Wikipedia article. I have created a table to reproduce a diagram which appears in a number of research papers to explain the psycholinguistic models of reading, which most researchers admit are still incomplete because they still do not fully understand all of the cognitive processes involved in the task of reading. I would like if possible to use the table in the Alexia (acquired dyslexia) article to help explain the various subtypes of Alexia. I have created the table on Sandbox page One of the research papers, review, Aphasia, Alexia, and Oral Reading If it possible to use the table then it would be a key part the next step in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Proposed organization, and from what you have mentioned on my talk page will require a great deal more organisation to comply with Wikipedia requirements.

This will also now require a new team of editors, as it has become increasingly apparent that my own disability means that i am not really suited to this type of task. dolfrog (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Dolfrog. Lists and tables are real bears from a copyright perspective. :/ It depends on the degree of creativity (and similarity) in presentation and on the degree of creativity in content. I'm short on time right now (it's late afternoon here), but I'll try to take a good look at this one tomorrow. In the meantime, perhaps a talk page stalker can give an opinion. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm looking at them. It's a bit hard for somebody without experience in the field to assess the creativity of the sources. I am concerned, though, that the ones you've created seem structurally identical. Figure 1 on p. 24 seems to correlate to the table marked "formatting". Figure 2 (p. 25) to "phonological dyslexia"; Figure 3 (p. 25) to "deep dyslexia". Figure 4 (p. 26) to "semantic dyslexia". Figure 5 (p. 26) to "surface dyslexia". I'm going to ask for feedback from an administrator who does more with visual work, and hopefully we can figure this one out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, it's my opinion that this table which precisely emulates the presentation of the original diagram crosses the line of copyright violation (such as the position and shape of the boxes and arrows). The structure of the diagram - what boxes there are and how they are connected - may not be eligible for copyright (this merely describes a model with connections between concepts), but I don't believe that someone given only that information would reproduce this exact layout. I think an alternative diagram done in some other manner would be okay though. Dcoetzee 14:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi all I have made a few alterations to the main table which was nominally called "formatting" I have now added "formatting 2" and "formatting 3" which in turn can be broken down for the various subtypes of Alexia when one or more of the processing system fail. I have renamed some of the concepts, made a mirror image of the diagram in "formatting". Dcoetzee has mentioned changing the type of arrow, I would love to do that but it is not within my current technical coding abilities. If others could produce an alternative diagram which complies with copyright regulations and still provides the same information It would be very much appreciated. dolfrog (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Alex Riel

Moonriddengirl, nice to meet you. I am hear in need of your help an guidance.

Some very important photos of Alex Riel, a Jazz recording artist, are around the Internet. You can find hundreds of them if not thousands. There are four-specific photos which are highly relevant to Mr. Riel's article. Since I started editing, I improved it a lot and it now looks much more balanced. I am planning to expand the article with a Bio section icluding Videos sub section. This recording artist has a rich Jazz history behind. He is 70 years old. He played/recorded extensively with many American greats such as Ben Webster, Dexter Gordon, Bill Evans, Art Farmer, Nat Adderley to name few. He received his "Danish Jazz Musician of the Year" award from the hands of Duke Ellington. A photo depicts that and a 1965 video too. Here [37], here [38] and here at his official site [39] you can see these photos and watch some of the videos.

• My question is: How, (with what type of license if any,) can I use these (4) photos which all are with low resolution? As I said before, these photos are everywhere.

It is rather important to his article, in terms of Jazz history. Do I have a chance?:-) Cheers and thanks. Fusion is the future (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm afraid there's not a lot of chance. :/ Our non-free content guidelines are particularly strict with images of living people. The fact that the photos are everywhere doesn't mean they're hosted everywhere legally or that they can be freely reproduced. You may have luck asking for permission, though. Sometimes that does work out. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for ideas how to approach that.

One question I have: I see you've uploaded an image already on Commons, indicating that it was released into public domain by its author. Can I ask where you see that? I may be missing the obvious (I've got a headache), but I don't see that at the website. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for a kind response. I hope your headache wasn't triggered by my question.:-) So, it seems I can't use them, even with low resolution.

Mr Riel sent me an e-mail with attached photo and a permission given by the author which I forwarded to Permissions on October 23rd. I am still waiting their response with a ticket#.

I think headache is better than a heartache. Cheers and thanks. Fusion is the future (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL! No, your question is completely blameless. I suffer from migraines and every so often my neurological system just decides I need some time off. The OTRS permission queue can have a slight backlog, but if you've sent it off, it should be addressed in good order! And I agree: headaches are an annoyance, but heartache is much worse. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)