User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at MLauba's talk page.
Message added 23:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Schwyz again

I think we may have a sock of this user, specifically User:TakakaCounty. Their move log shows a very similar pattern as does there adding of categories to pages (edit log). It's also somewhat suspicious that they started editing just a day after Schwyz left. Thought I'd ask you if you agree with my concerns before taking this any further (so as not to bite a newbie if they are unrelated). If you do, is a SPI appropiate? Personally I'd consider starting another account to avoid a RfC/U and then carrying on with the same behaviour to be abusing multiple accounts but I'm not sure if there is a precedent on this that I'm not aware of. Dpmuk (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's clearly not a new user, and I think your concerns are quite valid. IF this is the same user, I think it's a problem under WP:SCRUTINY. It's not a good faith cleanstart if he immediately resumes the behavior that was under evaluation before. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the informal nature of RfC/U I wasn't 100% sure it would have been seen as abusive (although I certainly think it is). Anyway SPI now started. Dpmuk (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Another damn copyright question

The article Pakenham Watermill is pretty much a direct copy, sentence fragments and all, of this description used with a number of photos—all uploaded by the same person who wrote the description—at the Geograph.org site. (There are a few typos and other very minor differences.) Rather disingenuously, the author of the article has mostly cited as references various of the photo pages bearing this identical snippet; the other two references seem to have been added just to make it look as though the article has more than one source. My basic question is this: Although the photos at Geograph can be freely used in WP because they have been uploaded there with a compatible license, is any text that appears there also freely usable? My reading of item 6 on Geograph's terms-of-use page is that the "photographs and accompanying metadata" there are CC licensed, but, for all other submissions, the copyright holders grant rights only to Geograph itself. I'm terrible at interpreting such legalese, though; what do you think? Deor (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Page stalker response) - the Terms of Use page states The site source code is copyrighted by Geograph Project and available under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence. All photo submissions are copyright their respective owners and licensed under a Creative Commons licence. All rights not expressly granted by these licences and this Agreement are reserved by Geograph Project or by the respective owners of the intellectual property rights. Geograph Project reserves the right to impose additional terms and conditions upon Your use and viewing of the Site, and any such terms and conditions may be posted on the Site in connection with those Site Materials. If you have any questions, please contact us. That implies the text may be freely re-useable, while the "License to Use Submissions" section states that All comments, articles, tutorials, screenshots, pictures, graphics, tools, downloads, and all other materials submitted to Geograph Project in connection with the Site or available through the Site (collectively, Submissions) remain the property and copyright of the original author. A bit further down it states: All submitted photographs and accompanying metadata are licenced under a Creative Commons licence. For all other types of site submission, you grant Geograph Project a worldwide, non- exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You. SO it sounds like it is a wiki-tpye project that you may freely re-use anything. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I read the same material and came to the opposite conclusion, so let's see what MRG thinks. Deor (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

According to their T of U:

• Source code is GPL;
• Photos are licensed under Creative Commons
• Everything else is reserved.

Further down, they say:

• Photographs and accompanying metadata are CC.
• For everything else, they require a right to reuse and license content without restrictions.

As I read it, while the photos are CC, along with metadata, nothing else currently is--including the annotations of photographs--but they could be, if Geograph chose to license them. I'd be happy to get other opinions on that, but I'd go ahead and blank the content and list it at CP in the meantime, Deor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Deor (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think most of what MRG said I said, with the exception of the text part. So to be sure I contacted the site and they said that the text that is with the images is considered to be under the CCL. It is only the text that users post in forums (i.e - found here:discussions) is considered to be part of the Geograph Terms Licence, but if you wanted to use a post in a forum they could license it under the CCL. So, for example, the image and text found here: Pakenham Windmill is CCL. And, as the page you linked to above, states "49 images use this description" it does fall under a license acceptable to Wikipeida. So, rather than revert the Pakenham Watermill article myself I figured I would let Deor do it. Also, for reference, here is a link to Ashley Daces' "articles" - all of which are under a CCL. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Where on their website does it say that the text with the images is CCL? If it isn't explicitly posted, we'll need to take it through OTRS. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I just added the link (and others) above - Pakenham Windmill contains, at the bottom of the page © Copyright Ashley Dace and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence. Likewise the link that Deor provided states 49 images use this description with a link to those 49 images - all of which also have © Copyright Ashley Dace and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence at the bottom of them. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't believe that overrides their terms of use. If you follow the links that says, "Find out how to reuse this Image For example on your webpage, blog, a forum, or Wikipedia" (emphasis added), it leads to [1], which says, "Thank you for your interest in this photo, you are more than welcome to use it as long as you follow a few basic requirements...." It doesn't say a word about reuse of text. If you are in communication with them, perhaps you can suggest that they should alter their Terms of Use so that not only metadata is explicitly licensed along with photos, but image descriptions as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

←(edit conflict)I was bout to post a link to this: Reuse for the Windmill and I saw you posted at the same time I did - I think you are not looking at the "bigger picture" as it were. The link is to an "article" with a picture - or "picture with an image description" if you want. At the end of the text it says © Copyright Ashley Dace and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence. The rest of it - looks like a "form" much like the ones used here on Wikipedia. (At least in the pre License discussion/merger - GFDL is not really for images but it was used a lot for them) But I am FWD'ing the email to you and you can send that along to OTRS if you want. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I'm going to leave the article blanked and let the copyright experts deal with it. I don't know that a random person answering messages to Geograph really knows what the score is with regard to this; and frankly, your sentence "And, as the page you linked to above, states '49 images use this description' it does fall under a license acceptable to Wikipeida" is incomprehensible to me. We shouldn't be hosting plagiarism in any case—which is what this amounts to, unless the person who created our article happens to be the person who wrote the stuff on Geograph, which is unlikely. If the article's author or anyone else wants to rewrite the article in his or her own words, he or she can follow the instructions in the copyvio notice. Deor (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently it's more than just plagiarism; unless credit is supplied, even if the content is licensed under CC-By-SA (unless it's the same person who wrote the text), it's a copyright violation. That license requires attribution. Once they've clarified their Terms of Use or written to OTRS, I'll be happy to provide attribution not only to meet the requirements of the license but also Wikipedia:Plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I don't see how the Ashley Dace person is a reliable source for this information, so an article that relies primarily on the Geograph description for references is going to be in trouble anyway. Deor (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow - well, I don't want this to go off an some wild tangent about copyvios and plagiarism but here were have, in essence, another Wiki and it does clearly state CCL, but anyone is free to contact them about issues. Talk about not assuming good faith. The comments above make it seems as though Wikipedia is better than them even though we do almost the exact same thing. What makes any of the editors here better than an editor/contributor at another project? Say I send off an email and MRG gets back to me, either as an admin or as an OTRS rep, and I relay that message and another editor says I don't know that a random person answering messages really knows what the score is with regard to this and tosses it out as meaningless. Likewise say I use text from, I dunno - say the Arena Active Protection System, and somebody blanks it as a copyvio from Wikipedia and that it is plagiarism and that any/all the editors who worked on it to get it to FA are unreliable. The CCL license on Wikipedia articles is non-existent compared to how large it is on geograph.org.uk. Oh my - this is just shocking to me really. As for the "attribution" portion - you both do realize that that *is* part of the CCL Wikipedia allows right? Working with images (and copyright) for the last 3 or so years here I know that a lot of editors and admins would automatically delete any image where the uploader says "Credit must be given to" however one of the key things in the CCL is attribution, just because a lot of people do not choose to use it does not mean it is not enforceable, nor does it mean it is against Wikipedia policy. Also do you know that images from geograph.org.uk have been moved, en-masse, to Commons? This includes any required attribution? I was just trying to be helpful here and am very surprised by this response. Don't get me wrong - Wikipedia is not a reliable source either because of the simple fact it is user created, this has been discussed over and over again but as the concept behind it is now widely used all over I do not feel it is fair to look down on another wiki-type project because they aren't "us". Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI: File:Pakenham Watermill - geograph.org.uk - 1996889.jpg is used ion the article. It is on Commons, taken from geograph.org.uk and carried the common license requirement for "attribution" - You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). This means the image must contain a caption that states something such as The contributor of this photos is Ashley Dace. I have added a photo credit to the image in the article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There seem to be several issues mixing here. I'm not getting into which Wiki is better or whose writing is superior. But so far as I can see, it is clearly stated at their Terms of Use that images and metadata are CCL, while everything else is equally clearly reserved. The language on their pages seems quite specifically to relate to images. We frequently send back OTRS communications that are ambiguous to request a clearer licensing statement; in my opinion, this is not different. If they want to clearly release their text under CC-By-SA, great. I'm all for it. I do not believe at this point that they do.

I'm not sure what you mean by As for the "attribution" portion - you both do realize that that *is* part of the CCL Wikipedia allows right?, so I'm going to assume that perhaps you have misunderstood me above and better explain. When an image is imported under CC-By-SA, the author is identified in the Image description page, thus meeting the attribution requirements of CC-By-SA. When text content is imported under CC-By-SA, it, too, must meet attribution requirements. If authorship is not acknowledged, it is no different from importing a CC-By-SA image without attribution; it is used outside of the provisions of the license and is a copyright problem. Additionally, when text is incorporated under CC-By-SA but not also GFDL, we must identify the single-license of the content in order to meet the terms of WP:REUSE. We have to let reusers know what license applies. For that purpose, we have an attribution template, {{CCBYSASource}}. If the license is clarified, as I said, I will be happy to provide attribution. I do not at this point believe the license is unambiguous. I cannot fathom why this is making you so emotional. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What I mean by attribution is just that - credit. In the case of a photo it would be a photo credit. There have been discussions in the years I have been active here (and before) that deal with that and I was a bit surprised when it was announced the CCL - Attribution license were the ones to be used. The reason is they require attribution based on what, and if, the "author" chooses. Wikipedia is *not* the copyright owner, so Wikipedia (nor anyone else) can not make their own adjustments to this license. In other words if I, a photographer, upload an image and choose to license it under an acceptable CCL license I, as the copyright holder, stated how I want my attribution that part of the license can not be changed by anybody. So, in this case I think we all are in agreement that the image is licensed under an acceptable CCL. If that is that case than the break down found at reuse also must be followed. On that page the example they give is this:

[[Image:Pakenham Watermill - geograph.org.uk - 1996889.jpg|center|thumb|210px|[[:Image:Pakenham Watermill - geograph.org.uk - 1996889.jpg|Pakenham Watermill]]<BR>Copyright [http://www.geograph.org.uk/profile/29497 Ashely Dace] and licensed for reuse under this [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ Creative Commons Licence]<BR>]]

But it does not *require* the end user to format the image that way. The text states Under the Creative Commons Licence, the image must be credited as specified by the contributor, an example of good wording is shown above. (The contributor of this photos is Ashley Dace) (the "above" mentioned is for an image box such as the example with text that states A view of the outside of the watermill, milling at the time. © Copyright Ashley Dace and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence. But, at the least, the image needs to appear with a photo credit - such as The contributor of this photo is Ashley Dace, Photo by Ashely Dace or Photo: Ashely Dace or even copyright Ashely Dace. That fact can not be changed by any end user.

So my comment above was based on your comments: Currently it's more than just plagiarism; unless credit is supplied, even if the content is licensed under CC-By-SA (unless it's the same person who wrote the text), it's a copyright violation. That license requires attribution. Once they've clarified their Terms of Use or written to OTRS, I'll be happy to provide attribution not only to meet the requirements of the license but also Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I see now you were only talking about the text portion, but the CCL also applies to the image as well so That license requires attribution does not simply apply to the text. That is why I pointed out that most all of the CCL license that Wikipedia accepts require attribution, and that images from this site had been uploaded en-masse to commons meaning they carry over the required attribution...ti does not make them copyvios, nor does it make them unacceptable for use here. And on a personal note I always ask for photo credit that runs with the image, in the same location. (With the exception of record Albums - my name appears in the "credits" such as "back cover photo/s by" or "inner sleeve photo/s by").

Giving such credit on a link to another page, or the author is identified in the Image description page, such as is fairly common with images here, is not acceptable unless the photographer states that it is ok. Given the examples on the authors [reuse page for the image credit needs to appear wherever the the photo appears. Part of why I am so emotional is because of the wording used. Stop for a moment and think about this: There is text all over the place from Wikipedia - pretend I am a website owner/editor/admin who does not know Wikipedia and I have a question about material taken from here. Another editor contacts somebody - say Orange Mike - and he says everything falls under a CLL and my response is: I don't know that a random person answering messages really knows what the score is with regard to this, We shouldn't be hosting plagiarism in any case—which is what this amounts to, unless the person who created our article happens to be the person who wrote the stuff on Wikipedia, which is unlikely. I don't see how the editors at Wikipedia are reliable sources for this information, so any article that relies primarily on the Wikiepdia for references is going to be in trouble anyway. How would you respond/feel? Now even if that is true (And I have been involved in discussions here about user created content being acceptable sources, that is why I did say that Wikipedia is not even considered a reliable source, so I do *get* it) that should not be the first response to new information that is, at least in my eyes, a good indication of not being a copvio. And if I was the user/editor/admin who did the legwork to find out the information I would be taken a back - just as I was here. Hope that helps to explain things. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The image attribution has nothing to do with me or with this conversation, so I've more or less skimmed over it. I'm concerned with the text here, and just focusing on the other issues is taking me quite a long time.

As to how I would respond: User:OrangeMike has clearly written reuse policies to point to, at Terms of Use, WP:C and WP:REUSE. If what Mike says does not accord with those policies (after pointing that out to Mike), I would advise the person he's talking to seek written clarification from the Foundation and to retain it for his records. These are legal concerns, and it's not much good in a court of law to say, "Well, a guy called Orange Mike said it was okay for me to use this, so I believed him even though the Terms of Use said differently...." (If I got back to you as an OTRS rep regarding re-use, I would include the standard disclaimer: Please note: Neither the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the authors of articles on Wikimedia sites, nor the volunteers answering mail to this address provide legal advice. It is your responsibility, if you intend to reuse content from Wikimedia sites, to determine how the licenses of the content that we host apply to your intended uses. The policy pages I would point to as an admin say basically the same thing. I understand that what for me is a casual comment can have very serious ramifications for them. When I do give reuse advice via OTRS, I not only use the standard disclaimer but do so with caveats: "based on my understanding." If they choose to go over my head to somebody who is authorized to speak with authority, it would not disturb me.)

I would agree with whoever was corresponding with Mike wholeheartedly that they could not host our content without credit, but I would correct them that this is not merely an issue of plagiarism: it's a problem of copyright if they use our content outside of the license.

I would also agree that any article that relies primarily on Wikipedia is going to be in trouble, and suggest that they should read and consider the suggestions in Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. We don't accept open wikis as reliable. I wouldn't expect them to. That said, I have not at all considered the reliability of this information (though looking at it now, I see Deor's concern); I seldom mix copyright concerns with other issues. But if the content is cleared, it's going to wind up tagged for its over-reliance on self-published sources at best.

I'm sorry if you felt that your contacting these people was to no avail. It wasn't; you made initial contact and are in position to follow through to obtain a usable release. We are not authorized as users of Wikipedia (even admins) to accept permissions that are conveyed solely to ourselves. Even as an OTRS agent, I have to go through OTRS with permissions that are given to me. These permission letters are kept on file so that if there are questions later, the WMF foundation is not put in the position of saying, "Well, a guy called Orange Mike said somebody told him it was okay for us to use this, so we believed him even though the Terms of Use said differently...." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

← Too many of the same conversation now. ;) First I don't think my work was to no avail - that is why I am still working with them to send OTRS a clarification letter. As for the attribution section you "skimmed over" that was an answer to a question you had asked, so I thought it did have to do with this conversation. My bad - I misunderstood your comment that started with I'm not sure what you mean... as a question that needed a response. As for the rest - again I want to say that I do *get it*. But that is not what my response was based on. I have tried to explain that a few times now. You know that I do a lot with images and I am not an idiot when it comes to copyright, and you also know how I feel about user created content as a source. So I don't for a second feel you are talking down to me and blowing my work off as not mattering...and I hope that is not what you felt. Matter of fact your last comment in one I say over and over again when I am questioned by editors (As well as admins and OTRS "agents" as well) why, when an image says it was uploaded and/or authored by by "me" or "somebody told him it was okay for us to use this", is not always acceptable. I get accused of not assuming good faith a lot because of mt stance on copyright and images here. At a recent discussion the fact I had asked you for an OTRS check on an image was brought up and I was accused of not only canvassing but acting in bad faith. So, again, I *get it*. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. I wasn't really asking you to explain what I meant, but prefacing my clarification of what I meant, in case you wondered why I was going over it again. I skimmed the image bit because I'm very familiar with the attribution requirements of CC-By-SA, but I do now see why it seemed relevant to this conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OTRS submitted

The OTRS has been submitted. I was cc'd a copy as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:TheodoreNg Copyright problems

Hello. This user (TheodoreNg (talk · contribs)) has created another two articles regarding mixing, Mineral Processing mixing and Consumer products mixing. After these two Afds resulting in the deletion of 5 articles and the ensuing copyright questions, which I believe you handled here, I thought I would ask for your input on the text and its CV potential. I left him a message about the images and articles, and have not yet received a response yet. All of the images have been tagged as lacking permission. Thanks in advance! --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Permission for those is actually advancing, though it's going slowly as there are many people involved. It's possible that we've finished the process of those two but I was not aware of it, since there are usually multiple permission letters per article. Let me go take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Things are getting very complicated there. :/ I see one of his approved articles has been userfied at User:TheodoreNg/Mixing in mineral processing. Nothing wrong with that, but if he pastes it back in userspace, it's likely to lose its attribution. I think one of the articles is cleared; still reading the thread. It's a big long. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the original version of Mineral Processing mixing is exactly the same as the copy in his sandbox, so a histmerge may be necessary there. And this mess may get even more complicated once the process of making these articles coherent begins. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, boy. :) Consumer products mixing is cleared. It's hard to say if any of the others are. They don't necessary have the same titles as their original sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All right; it looks like the ones he's posted on Wikipedia are the ones that we've completed clearance for. It's a bit confusing, as the articles don't bear the same titles as the essays that are being copied into them. I've done the history merge, so that's all right. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Have any of the Images been cleared over at OTRS? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. We've got several dozen letters in the thread I've been involved in, and none of them mention images. I'll check the queue to see if he's sent separate mails. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing found. The only OTRS communications I find relate to the text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hill Place

Hi! I accidentally tagged this as cleaned at WP:SCV on August 16. Can you take care of it (I'm terribly busy at the moment)? Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. The IP who exposed it last removed it from the listing at CP. Temporarily blocked for egregious copyright violation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up Geocities project

Thanks for setting up the project to improve Wikipedia's Geocities links. They are an unusual resource, although of course very uneven in quality, I am glad we will try to retrieve for our readers material of value. Questionic (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. :) It's going to be a challenge, but if people are interested in pitching in it's doable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

How does copyright permission work?

I am in the process of sending an email to the owner of the image on this page, in order to use it for the Yukon Wolf article. If the owner does say yes...how do I get that to translate to me being able to use it on Wikipedia? Silverseren^C 22:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There are steps listed at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, but the short of it is getting them to send an email following the format at WP:CONSENT makes it clear and easy for us to confirm permission. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so they have to release it to the public domain in order for us to be able to use it? That makes things more complicated. Not very many photographers want to allow their images to be used for commercial things if they aren't going to get anything out of it. Can't they just release it for educational purposes, of which Wikipedia counts as? Silverseren^C 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't accept non-commercial or educational-only licenses; we aren't just collecting stuff for us, but for reuse, too. They don't have to release it into public domain, but they do have to choose an acceptable license that permits modification and commercial reuse. We really recommend WP:CC-By-SA. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

More OTRS stuff to check

If you have time could you OTRS check all these:

File:2-kristin20rt.jpg was tagged March 21, 2010 with a CSD for copyright status, April 4, 2010 with an otrs pending tag, April 13, 2010 summary says give a few more days prior to deletion and April 20, 2010 summary says OTRS is pending; only an OTRS volunteer should tag this as no permission. Form the image it seems to be taken by a photographer named Jim Darling, the summary says the "author" is Kristin Davis. The uploader, User:Tisane, seems not only to have been blocked "indefinitely" (August 10, 2010) but also "banned from editing Wikipedia" as of August 12, 2010.

File:Achilles (band).jpg was marked otrs pending on November 16, 2009. Source website returns "The requested URL /Web-Site/HOME.html was not found on this server."

File:AliBrochure small.jpg was marked otrs pending on May 30, 2010.

File:Jack Rubinacci.jpg was uploaded on April 4, 2010 *with* the otrs pending tag. Subject is "Jack Rubinacci in concert", author is "Jack Rubinacci". date image was taken is marked as "2009-??-??" and the source is a photobucket link. The uploaders talk page is full of image notifications. I looked over his uploads and found lots (emphasis on the "lots") of Non-free images, but also File:Pallas2.jpg - uploaded May 13, 2010 *with* the otrs pending tag. Found older OTRS upped images that have already been deleted. (File:Jimmy Haun.jpg, File:Circa 2007.jpg, File:Wang Chung today.jpg - you get the idea)

There is more - but all for now. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. :) I'll get to these this evening. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay: File:2-kristin20rt.jpg; Ticket:2010032110008884. Unusable, but shockingly nobody ever wrote her back to tell her so. I'm not sure how that happened. :/ I'll respond. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, something is wrong with it. I can't reply. I'm checking with the list. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Could it be because the user/uploader was banned from using Wikipedia? Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue. Never seen anything like it. One of the OTRS admins dropped it in my queue, so I can respond to it now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You may already know this now but I was wrong. The photographers name is not "Jim" is "JM" - his "model" website is here: http://www.modelmayhem.com/1568121 and he says I'm a staff photographer for godsgirls.com. I am currently the campaign photographer for Kristin Davis's New York bid as Governor of New York. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, talk about just in the nick of time! I was about to ask them to get confirmation from Jim Darling (whom I thought to be [2]). If he's the campaign photographer, we should have no issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Achilles (band).jpg, no follow up since November. Tagged for {{npd}}. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::You may have uncovered this yourself - sorry I missed it first time around: User:TigerShark/temp is supposedly what was sent to OTRS for the File:AliBrochure small.jpg image. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

File:AliBrochure small.jpg; can't find this anywhere. I've searched under every term I can think of. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(see my post just now above) Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, had not. I'll search for some of that text, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, still not there. Tagged {{npd}}. Will notify uploader. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Jack Rubinacci.jpg, there, not usable. Never replied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Pallas2.jpg, also found, incomplete. I've npd'ed. I think I'm going to point out WP:ENQUIRIES. It may be he's not asking properly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all the OTRS checking for me. Someday when I grow up I hope to be just like you. Sorry, couldn't resist. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL! I will so be seeking payback. :D Seriously, though, any time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It may have been earlier this year that I asked Jack Rubinacci and Pallas for pictures. I lost the emails, but have forwarded them to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I know the artists said it was OK, even though I have to prove it. FotoPhest (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have left messages for both on Facebook in order to confirm this. FotoPhest (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Block

Thank you for apprising me of the fact that I had been violating Wikipedia copyright policy by copying materials from Banglapedia. I know that copying materials from copyrighted source is absolutely prohibited in Wikipedia. But I thought that Banglapedia is a free source and so it may not be harmful to copy text from it. However, as a Wikipedia editor, I am obliged to comply with all the policies of Wikipedia. Therefore, I apologize for my mistake. So I would like to request you to unblock me as soon as possible. Thanks. -- Tanweer Morshed, August 28, 2010.

I have replied at your registered talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Halting massive ongoing violations

Please review Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles. It appears that while this case is awaiting review the contributor, having been repeatedly notified and yet declining to assist in identifying or cleaning up his problematic contributions as requested, has actually accelerated generation of additional material without regard to its potential violative nature: He has, in the last several days, made hundreds of edits similar to those of which the complaint speaks. They appear to be potentially violative either because they 1. are article moves made in violation of WP procedures, thereby recklessly damaging or destroying article and discussion page histories, 2. populate articles with substantial portions of text that appear to be copyvios, and/or 3. uploaded photos that appear non-compliant with standards for use in WP. Please consider taking immediate steps to assess, prevent and reverse these ongoing abuses. FactStraight (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide me with a diff of any copy and paste issues of which you are aware postdating his warning of August 18th? Diffs make things a lot easier. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Aug. 21/10 Revision of Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal Wikipedia page/ replacing links with actually working archives

Dear Moonriddengirl: On behalf on my father Thomas Kierans and myself I would like to thank you for replacing the links from the Great Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) Canal Wikipedia page to the newly revived GRAND Canal Website. Below is an email I wrote to wayback@archive.org in April of this year when we found out that the website had been deleted when Yahoo discontinued Geocities. I was aware that wayback@archive.org was reviving some of the old geocities websites but was not aware that they had got to the GRAND Canal. I am curious to know how you found out.

In any event. Thank you.

Michael Kierans mkierans@yahoo.com PS: Good luck with your migraines. Mkierans (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sirs: My 96 year old father Thomas Kierans is an engineer and the originator and promoter of the GRAND Canal which is a proposal to remedy some of North America’s freshwater shortage problems. In 2004 with the expenditure of a great deal of money and effort he established a website located at http://ca.geocities.com/grandcanal2005 which he put together to explain and promote this proposal. Since 2004 he has owned and operated this site along with the other web sites to promote other projects that he has originated: http://ca.geocities.com/deltaport2005, and http://ca.geocities.com/fixedlink2005 .. Today when we tried to access these sites we received a message that these web sites have been closed down. We tried all the alternatives offered and were unable to either access the sites or recover the documents. We would like to know if there is any way to recover the documents and graphics which were located on these sites so they can be transferred to another Web address. Yours very truly Michael Kierans Národní 37 110 00 Praha 1 Tel: 224 228 862 E-mail: kava@mbox.vol.cz Mkierans (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm glad if I was able to help. :) I entered the URL of the website into the search engine at [3], and there it was. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi. :) I've got another question about the unblock list (and your templates are working fabulously for me! Not to mention all the terrific information you gave me about setting up canned responses and whatnot. You do rock :D). How hard-core are we about the ISP, school, university, or workplace issued email address? I've got a correspondent from Indonesia who claims he doesn't have one. He's contacting us via Gmail. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hem, i am incredibly glad that the unblock mailing list now has few extra admins who actively involve themselves with the requests. The past two weeks it seems that everyone had little time for them, which meant we ended up with a huge backlog that i have been attempting to clear away during the weekend. Its fun work, but after 20 requests in a row it can get a tad tiresome.

But on to the "Require e-mail" part of the question. I would say that this requirement depends a bit upon editorial judgment and believability of the request. A few things i tend to watch are:

• The block reason for the range \ IP adress. If it is a sockpuppetry range i tend to be more cautious.
• The likelihood someone has no paid mail address. A substantial share of ISP's provide such an address, but geographic location and requesters age may make it possible someone doesn't have such an address.
• The age of the block. If someone requests an unblock of an IP 2 minutes after its blocked its quite likely to be the person who was origionally causing the block.
• The amount of people a block could possibly impact. A request from a range with 65536 address is more likely to originate from someone innocent, then from range with 16 addresses.

• As a sidenote - some relatively small ranges (Or even single IP's) may host a LARGE amount of contributers per IP. In that case you can just check the range contributions to see how active a range is normally.

Other then this you should just trust your instincts. We have incorrect blocks at times, so i have no doubts we also have incorrect account creations or creation refusals as well. WP:AGF or WP:ROPE may help in such cases; If someone is out to stir up trouble this will be visible. Personally i do a standard check on accounts i created or unblocked after some time, and in cases of doubt i tend to monitor them a while for vandalism. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Space opera page numbers

There are - p.10-18 (a range, yes). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a range of eight pages is quite specific enough, I'm afraid. :) Tedious as it may be, I think we really should identify the specific pages from which information is drawn, especially quotations. :) Otherwise, whose to say how wide a page range we could do?

But this saves me writing in my archive. I was about to write that I've concluded the check and that between us we found only a few issues, as you know. I really would encourage you to do a thorough investigation of your own into your back catalog. I know you got permission for some text; if it didn't go through the OTRS process, we need to make sure that the formalities are followed or the text should be rewritten. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the range; I usually try to keep it on 1-2 pages. I don't think that the tag you added is the right one, in those instances we need a new tag (as the pages are given, but the range should be narrowed done). Perhaps we should create it?

Yes, I am looking to see if any more permissions need to be revisited. For a while now I've been updating my older articles, verifying unreferenced content, adding inline cites, improving prose, etc., although as I noted some articles may have to wait a while for that update process, due not only to their sheer number (such as the fact that I've created about 2,5k articles, not counting significant expansions...) and to certain factors beyond my control. Brining them up to modern standards is however on my agenda, ASAP, with the stress on the AP... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fabulous. :) As to creating a new template, any ideas? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about {{Pagenumbersimprove}} I just created? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. :) I've tweaked the language a little bit. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Iranian anti-Bahá'í conspiracy theories

Could you help me keep an eye on this article and/or adjust the blanking? It was created by User:AdibMasumian and I confirmed at least some of the content as close paraphrase copyvio before I blanked it. The other major contributor who has added about half of the article feels I shouldn't be blanking the whole thing, but while some of their additions are neatly separated [4], others are largely interspersed [5] with the original, so I'm not sure how easy it would be to restrict the blanking to just the problematic sections. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted. I can try to adjust the blanking later, but I'm on very limited time right now. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm working on limited the blanking right now. Somewhat time consuming, since, as you know, it requires a pretty thorough evaluation, but I'm on it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Note for me: an IP editor who may be AbidMasumian later copied content from [6]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've adjusted the blanking, so to speak. There's no way we'll get permission for that content; I went ahead and processed the CP. It's a good thing he had rewritten so much of that completely. I was worried more of it would be derivative, but I think what I extracted is original enough. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Question, also

Moonriddengirl, you are undoubtedly super-smart and knowledgeable in the fields of copyright, editorial standards, and interpersonal relationships, so I have no doubt at all that you are both able and willing to resolve a query. Will you please have a look at (no kidding) Mudflap girl and the recent spat over the trademark? Further information can be found on User talk:Thomas Hugh. Perhaps you care to weigh in one way or another. (And if Mudflap girl seems a bit low-brow to you, consider that LadyofShalott and I used to meet and discuss the ingestion of jizz!) Drmies (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Moonriddengirl. I should have been nicer to the editor earlier. :( Drmies (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You weren't not nice, I think; you were attending to business. I've been there myself, only later to stop and consider that I was dealing with a newbie who might be a bit lost. :) Had I come along before his last explanation, I might have perceived things differently myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I really appreciate it. Now--can I call you Mudflapgirl? What is the name of the feminist variety? Drmies (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
      • LOL! I don't know. I had no clue what Mudflap girl was prior to visiting the article. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Clearly your uncle was not a trucker who'd take you on his lap to work for a day, like mine was. He had sideburns too! (There's a very dirty word for that in Dutch.) Have a great weekend Moonriddengirl, Drmies (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor article

Hello Moonriddengirl, I think it would be fine to improve article editor. I think, that it can effectively spread knowledge about this theme. I wish to know what is the relationship among editor and copyright. I think, that those two volumes of the Fauna of British India by Gerard Pierre Laurent Kalshoven Gude are public domain although there are listed also other editors on the title page of the book. Am I right? Have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Any book that he published prior to January 1, 1923, is public domain in the United States and so can be used on Wikipedia. Any book published solely by him is also public domain in any country that recognizes the rule of "life + 70", which would include the UK. If there are co-publishers, they may not be PD in other countries, but we can still use them here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... this is an unexpected answer. I would like to ask you more precisely: can an editor gain some copyright? I would like to ask you for some reference or an evidence for the answer.

I will give you an example: PERSON-A will write something and PERSON-A will release it under PD. PERSON-B will edit it, arrange it somehow (without creative process) in some way. In the final work is the PERSON-A mentioned as an author, and PERSON-B is mentioned as an editor. Is the final work still public domain? I think, that yes. Am I right?

I was asking for editor. I was not asking for publishers or for co-publishers. --Snek01 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

By co-publisher, I mean co-editors or contributors of any kind who hold copyright interest.

In answer to your question, yes, but only to the extent that you are right that it lacks creative process. :) Arrangement can meet the minimal creativity required for copyright protection under U.S. law. So, for example, I could edit a volume of Dante's Purgatorio. The original remains public domain; the elements of the original I've used remain public domain; but my own creative elements would not be. If I rearranged his verse (for some bizarre reason) into a new creative order, for instance, that could be copyrightable. Certainly, my annotations would be. Sometimes, the amount of creativity is in the title; for instance, a copy editor may not have copyright; a development editor might ([7]). But I'd have no idea where to send you for reliable sources on this relationship. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation. I see, that the final decision will be on me and on the best known available information about the work. Usually an editor who makes arrangement of scientific articles into an journal gains no copyright. And usually and editor of an multi-volume work gains no copyright. I usually consider an editor of different field of zoology than an author to be an copy editor. / So I will consider the above mentioned book to be public domain in its country of origin. / At least, that I can be sure for pre-1923 works in wikipedia (that is also this case). Thank you for consultation. --Snek01 (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FDACS

Hello Moonriddengirl, I have started article Ovachlamys fulgens based on text from Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). I have found evidence that it is public domain at their related websites http://www.fl-seafood.com/about.htm and http://www.florida-agriculture.com/about.htm: "Since the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is a public governmental agency, original data generated or compiled by the Department that is contained in this web site generally is in the public domain and is available for you to use as you wish, unless otherwise specified."

But it is de facto impossible to find such information on wikipedia for this FDACS. Those agencies are very complicated. Does it mean that works by all of them in the Category:State agencies of the United States are public domain? Could it be possible for example to place Category:Government agencies of the United States into Category:Public domain? Is there any easy clue for this?

Nothing from those articles links to this FDACS:

• Copyright status of work by the U.S. government
• Federal government of the United States
• United States federal executive departments
• List of United States federal agencies
• Independent agencies of the United States government

Those only two Agriculture ministry and List of law enforcement agencies in Florida does not provide sure evidence for me (as a non-expert in this).

Maybe it would be useful to for example add some identification (template?) to the certain institution talk page, that the certain institution produces public domain works or not. For me it would be very useful. Maybe it would be useful for everybody.

And I am the most confused with this, because I think, that informations on those webpages are contradicting each other:

• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 January 19
• Talk:Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services#Copyright problem removed.

--Snek01 (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The Florida question is complex and was eventually resolved (as far as I'm concerned) by an e-mail from our attorney. Basically, many Florida state websites do claim copyright, but the last court cases in Florida on the question suggest that the cannot do so legally based on their own state laws. The matter doesn't appear to be entirely settled, but until the courts find differently, we are treating Florida state content as PD. (See Wikipedia:PD#Public records).

Florida agencies are aren't linked in

• Copyright status of work by the U.S. government
• Federal government of the United States
• United States federal executive departments
• List of United States federal agencies
• Independent agencies of the United States government

because they're not an agency of the United States government, which is federal. They're simply a state agency.

That said, we can't place all of the contents of Category:State agencies of the United States into the public domain category, because this is not true for the vast majority of US state agencies, most of which can and do claim copyright.

Your idea of templates for insitution pages could be a good one, though we'd need to be careful with our wording. Even in Federal agencies, some works are not public domain. That might be something to run by WP:VPP.

Not quite sure if I've answered all of your questions. :) Please let me know! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. I was then able to create about 6 nice new articles theses days. --Snek01 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Tanweer Morshed (talk · contribs)

I have unblocked this user as his latest unblock request unequivocally gives the assurance you had asked him for. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and for handling it. :) That assurance is all I personally was waiting for, though my attention has been on putting out a different fire this morning! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Tanweer has also contacted me in Bengali wikipedia and given me a similar promise regarding his wikipedia activity. I do believe that he will follow all copyright related rules this time. --Ragib (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and that's all I ask for. :) (Thanks for your response on the matter below, too!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Mangalkavya (talk · contribs)

Quacking for Hetam (talk · contribs), same disruptive moves and edits. I don't want to block unilaterally (yet), but since you performed the earlier block evasion block, can you comment and/or block? And I have a lot of clean up to do! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'd say it's highly plausible and perhaps even likely, but I'm not sure. :/ I've asked for feedback at User talk:Ragib#Sock again?, as User:Ragib is far more familiar with the master account, Surajcap, than I am. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks; I'll wait for Ragib's response. He seems to have stopped editing after I posted the block evasion note on his TP. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly a Hetam sock. See my comments at my talk page.

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

.--Ragib (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted everything but the moves, which I leave to those more familiar. Contributions by block-evading socks are not welcome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, now I know his favorite haunts, so it'd be a bit easier to tackle. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've had to block three more of these socks today, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Surajcap is ever expanding. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• And I blocked one. That's four today. I've also done a soft rangeblock. Maybe that will help slow him down. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Entry for Rebel Cole/copywrite issues

Professor Cole has granted permission for this material to be posted from his website. I can have him send you an email to that effect. You can contact him at rcole@depaul.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanchicagoloop (talk • contribs) 22:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

West Baden

I just started working on this before I left for vacation. I'm on a dial-up connection at my mother's home, and it is sooooo sloooow I'm not trying to do anything of consequence until I return home on Tuesday the 31st. Thanks for the heads-up, and I will resolve the issues on Tuesday, if that is acceptable. Mgrē@sŏn 02:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Leftover from today's log

Karava Heraldry and I'm not sure which way to go with that one. I'm leaning reverse vio but not 100% positive. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops! I archived prematurely! Let me take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reason I'm leaning reverse is I looked at one of the pics with a visible red timestamp of 22 Nov 2006, uploaded to here on the same day, present both here and the alleged source site. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly reverse infringement. Take a look at this other page, in the blue box that says "Radala", which seems to be taken from Wikipedia. It concerned me at first that it was the same contributor, but there's evidence of natural evolution of that content here and here. I'm just poking at a few more places. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at [8]. See where the text changes, with "the traditional occupation". There begins substantial duplication of content at Govigama. The core of this was present in the article at creation ([9]) (not to say it wasn't copied from somewhere then), but missing (at least) is the passage beginning "Traditionally the Govi caste had worked the fields..." under Kandyan Period. Again, we have evidence of natural evolution here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You're so much better at this than me :) Fully concur with your analysis. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; I archived it without doing anything about it at all. :D (And I'd have never thought of looking at images.) I've tagged the other two articles. You want to get the primary one? I'll go log these guys at WP:MIRRORS. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Bagged and Tagged. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: File:AliBrochure small.jpg

Hi. Thanks for your note. The email that I received back from LoveHeals is posted here. I understand that it is probably not enough and that we need to go back to them with the full template, and get it sent to OTRS. I just wondered if there is any chance that you would mind doing this for me. I understand that I posted the picture in the first place and that I should really be responsible for chasing it up, but I am concerned that I might not get it right, and I feel a bit bad to keep going back to these people, and taking up their time, when they are working for a charity (which is why I haven't gone back to them again yet). So, I thought that, if somebody who knows what they are doing sent the the email, there would be a much better chance of doing this in one go, and so minimising the disruption. Is there any chance that you would be prepared to do it, please? TigerShark (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll e-mail them. Keep your fingers crossed. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, for my records, it's Ticket:2010083010004325. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Just wanted to says thanks very much for doing that, it's very kind of you and I really appreciate it. TigerShark (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Jaydev Kenduli

Good work in checking vandalism. Keep it up. Thanks. - Chandan Guha (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Persistent socking there, but we're trying to put a cap on it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

• News and notes: Most linked websites on Wikipedia, New York Wiki-Conference, and more

• In the news: Agatha Christie spoiled, Wales on Wikileaks, University students improve Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: Studying WikiProject Universities

• Features and admins: Featured article milestone: 3,000

• Arbitration report: What does the Race and intelligence case tell us?

• Technology report: Reusability of MediaWiki code, Google Summer of Code: Interwiki transclusion, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you have a bunch already...

The Public Domain Astronaut goes to anyone who helps Wikipedia by killing off copyvios. I am sure you have a bunch already, but you deserve them all :) Piotrus, 15:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :D I have never had an astronaut, no, and sometimes these expressions of appreciation help when the workload seems discouraging. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Antonio Paoli / Talk:Antonio Paoli/GA1

Hi Moonriddengirl, I need some of your expert quidance.

I'm currently reviewing the above article at WP:GAN. On an initial read thru, it looked to be a good article (a strong GA); the only obvious problems appearing to be some direct quotations without citations.

The problem is, that most if not all of the referenced paragraphs are direct copies and pastes from here: [10] - a US Gov publication, so it may not be a Copyright problem; but it appears to me to be Wikipedia:Plagiarism. There's not attempt to paraphrase. Any thoughts? Pyrotec (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm looking at it. I'm not yet sure that it is PD, since it seems to be an application. If the person who applied or wrote up that material is not a federal employee and if they are not required to yield copyright, it may be non-free. I'll get back with you in a minute. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, at the very least this is a clear violation of WP:Plagiarism, as you note. It has no attribution, which is required for verbatim copying from previously published sources. I remain concerned that it is a copyright violation, as the form was filled out by one Juan Lianes Santos, who is not a federal employee but rather an historian for the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office. Puerto Rico is governed by US copyright laws, which means that state employees are entitled to copyright protection unless the state otherwise designates. Puerto Rico does not so otherwise designate; at [11] they say that they retain proprietary rights and copyright in their content. This is unclear. It doesn't say all text is public domain, though it doesn't exclude it explicitly, and it doesn't indicate whether applications have been released. I don't believe that this content can be presumed to be public domain. I'll blank it and list it until we find verification otherwise. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your quick and competant advice. Pyrotec (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for bringing up your concerns. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Antonio Paoli- Hello, Moonriddengirl, I am the original creator of the article which you can see had no copywritten material, see: [12]. I agree with you that copyrighted material seems to have been added and therefore I left a note in the talk page of User:Mercy to such respect. I have removed the copyright notice from the page in order to give him/her an opportunity to make the proper corrections. I would hate to see the article deleted and would rather have it fail GA and have it's contents returned to the original state before that happens. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response. I will gave Mercy an opportunity to fix the situation. If not, then back to the original content. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible misuse of OTRS pending

Hi,

I have raised a discussion on an issue involving you at Current cases. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Userification Request

Please could you move Hotel Lanassa to my user space? Thanks. --jmenkus ^[T] 10:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Linked from your talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --jmenkus ^[T] 10:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion deadline of article titled - Hameed Al Husseinie College, Colombo 12, Sri Lanka

It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:

   Non-notable school; fails WP:ORG and GNG. 

Please refer to the link I'm giving as this is the first Muslim Boys' School established in nov 15 1884 in Sri Lanka before her independence from the British Rule in Feb 04 1948.

Forwarding you also the web page link of the Old Boys' Association of the College.

http://www.obahahc.lk/

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankaman7777 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Moonriddengirl, we meet again! I was the one who put the prod tag on; and besides, the link provided is a primary source related to the subject of the article, so without any secondary source it's not good enough, would that be right? Strange Passerby (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Primary sources are not used to establish notability, so secondary sources would be a good idea. You may have seen the note I left at the user's talk, suggesting he read over WP:YFA; it might help him. It seems that another contributor is also working on the article, so s/he may find good sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the concern

I understand clearly the copyright issues but I want to acknowledge that I'm the author of the article appearing in the old boy's website of Hameed Al Husseinie College. My Name is Sirajul Anam J. A. and I'm the Assistant Secretary of the Executive Committee of the OBA and I have the authority to give permission to use article from the website.

So I request you to keep the article contents of Hameed Al Husseinie College, Colombo 12, Sri Lanka, web page in Wikipedia.

Regards

Sirajul Anam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankaman7777 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

De Administrando Imperio

Thanks a lot for following up on this. As a couple of points to make:

1. I've just worked my way though 20 of the edits in the CCI and found copyvios in about half of them; this is clearly a systematic problem. The only edits they've made to articles about recent events which don't appear to have been copyvios are those in which they added or changed the infobox or added references as external links.
2. I've blocked several other editors in the past year or so for similar behavior (albeit on a less serious scale) and warned a few others. This appears to be a serious problem with articles covering ongoing warfare and terrorist attacks. The mixed response to my post reporting that this editor had been blocked at Wikipedia talk:In the news#Copyvios suggests that some editors active in these kind of articles aren't aware of the potential ramifications of copying and pasting text from news stories (though the overall response was positive). There appears to be a culture among editors who focus on on recent events articles to produce as many articles as quickly as possible and update them continuously as news develops, and this obviously encourages copyright violations. I'm not sure what can be done about this.

Anyway, thanks again, and I hope that my point 2 isn't too depressing for you! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm so sorry about this one, and I appreciate your work there! I also appreciate your generally keeping an eye out on things. Sadly, I am very well aware of the challenges we face with keeping copyvios off the project. The only thing I know to do is keep spreading the word. Too, I think as people see cleanup of this sort happening, they will begin to realize that Wikipedia really is serious about copyright and they may stop...or begin to take efforts to address it themselves. It doesn't help anybody when a collaborative article gets taken down because somebody pasted too much into it for us to use it. I'm working on an essay for the Military History newsletter (draft at User:Moonriddengirl/Milhist). I've been thinking about Signpost. I have on occasion even considered proposing a temporary edit notice for some articles warning against pasting for articles under attack. I'm all open for brainstorming, if you have any fresh ideas. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That article is looking excellent. An edit notice somewhere in the scope of 'In the news' would be helpful to discourage this, and the admins who work on updating the ITN section of the main page and current events portal need to keep an eye out - most of the copyvios I've found here have been blatant and fairly obvious (and sourced!) so it probably shouldn't have taken this long. Nick-D (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Antonio Paoli

Hi Moonriddengirl, sorry about the above editors tone of note. I believe to have taken care of the Antonio Paoli situation. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

mail

Hi Moonriddengirl, hope you had a lovely summer. I've sent you an email.Malke2010 01:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding File:Hahlogo.jpg permission

Hi,

Thank you for your mail. I have sent an e-mail regarding the permission for the usage of File:Hahlogo.jpg. I also would like to know how we can incorporate related historical photos for Hameed Al Husseinie College, Colombo 12, Sri Lanka.

Your assistance in this regard is highly appreciated.

Thank you

Sirajul Anam J. A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankaman7777 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hemachandra (singer) still copyvio

Since you dealt with the copyvio on Hemachandra (singer) once already, I thought I'd let you know I found the little remaining content there also seemed to be a copyright violation; I was looking for sources and found an interview that appeared to be copied almost word-for-word into the article. I've reflagged the article and opened a new ticket.

I don't know if you're interested in this, but seeing as you've dealt with the article once already, I thought I'd let you know.

Cheers!

--me_and (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! No reason to run it through another seven days; it got no attention in the first seven. :/ That's a very good find on your part. I appreciate your flagging it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Look at rewrite

Could you look at Talk:Jennifer L. Lawless/Temp and double-check if it's clean compared to this source? I think it is, but I'm kinda out of sorts tonight. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and on a completely different topic, I still haven't listed all of the contributions for our newest CCI - just the created pages. I'm still working on cutting all of those created articles out of the Contribution Surveyor results. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ay carumba. :/ I've proposed a very specific cleanup task for the subject. Since I'm still working up the talk page this morning, I haven't checked to see if he's responded. Meanwhile, I'm off to look at the temp. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm getting a "The page cannot be found" error and Wayback is laughing at me. Let me see if I can find a Google archive. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Found another version here. Now checking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's good. Cleared. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! VernoWhitney (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio assistance

Hi, Moonriddengirl! I'm currently posting from my mobile phone so am hampered. Could you take a look at Larry Rosen (producer) please? It's been deleted for copyvio twice before, most recently in July; much of the text on the current article, while wikilinked and some paraphrased, is still taken almost word-for-word from the site listed i the deletion logs. Could you check? Thanks! Strange Passerby (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

They've released the site under CC-By-SA. Guess they got tired of it being deleted. :D I'll tag it for cleanup and make sure it's attributed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for voting--Please say how to implement it.

How to implement public domain in Wikipedia and other projects? Please Give me instructions. Are there any village pump for meta or foundation wikis? I have mistakenly thought all wikipedians prefer copy left. Thank you again. Please inform other admins about this village pump threads. Are village pump threads properly implemented? Please help me to make Wikipedia public domain.

There is no evidence that the community wishes public domain to be implemented on Wikipedia or other projects. The overwhelming majority of responders to your listing at Village Pump are opposed to your proposal, including me. If you wish to make a meta proposal, you take it to meta:Meta:Requests and proposals. However, your proposal isn't likely to be any better received there than it was here. I would suggest you make your proposal succinct if you wish it to have a chance to succeed and avoid the impassioned rhetoric. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

de:Mizongyi

Hallo Moonriddengirl, thanks a lot for Your fast response. Many greetings to You across the ocean :-) Redlinux^···→ 10:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a block

Hi,

I am a sysop on Malayalam Wikipedia. A couple of editors with good standing there have complained that they have been blocked from editing English Wikipedia due to an IP block. It seems that your 1 month range block of 117.254.0.0/16 is the culprit. That range is of BSNL, the broadband service provider that most people in India use (Just do an IPLocate on any of these IPs). So I believe that there would be a lot more people affected. User:LIC Habeeb and User:Netha Hussain are editors of good standing on Malayalam wikipedia and have been IP blocked here.

So please consider reversing the rangeblock as it would just shut out a lot of innocent users, perhaps newcomers from editing Wikipedia. Or at least try to give the two users I have mentioned an IP block exempt (I have already asked them to request for it on their respective talk pages)

If you have any queries regarding this, please contact me on my home wiki talk page. Thank you for your time. Best wishes

--Raziman T V (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Repaired and replied at your talk. So sorry for my error to anyone affected! I thought I had set it for anonymous only. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action. One of the users has told me that she is able to edit now --Raziman T V (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• MRG, could you take a look at User talk:Bharat S Raj? Also affected by the Surajcap rangeblock, but I'm not sure why. I've left a note asking the user to check again, but the block settings seem to be fine and if it didn't affect the above user, it should affect here either, right? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why, either. I checked the account with autoblock finder and didn't find anything (the standard "No autoblocks were found, be sure you spelled the user's name correctly and that the name has the correct case", but I pasted the username, so it should have been right) and the block settings do seem appropriate. If the contributor still has a problem, I'll see if I can scrounge up somebody who does more range blocks than I do (this being my first and only :)) to see if they can figure out why. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Milhist draft and flowchart software

Hi. I noticed User talk:MLauba#Milhist thing and made a small fix to your draft, since it would have been more difficult to point it out. I hope you don't mind.

Regarding free flowchart software, I found OpenOffice.org Draw and a wikiHow primer. I haven't used it, but I've heard good things about OpenOffice in general. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I use OpenOffice and can readily recommend it (not so much re the database Access equivalent, but certainly in most other MS Office equivalent areas). EyeSerene^talk 09:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I never mind people helping me out. :D Thank you very much! If you have other input, Flatscan, I'd be grateful. I'll visit OpenOffice and see what I can cobble together. A nice flow-chart would visually punch it up. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It covers the basics well, and I learned something new – WP:Copyrights versus copyright infringement. I added a permanent link to one of the footnotes. In case you need it, I found another OO Draw guide. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright advice (again)

Hey MRG - if you get a chance (not urgent) could you have a look at Latham appliance? I listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 September 1 and have since been told that it was a split from Cleft lip and palate. Looking at that article, I can see that the text was added in 2006, which I'm pretty sure was earlier than the external website. In this situation, is it ok for me just to remove the listing at WP:CP and leave a note on the article talkpage? I wasn't sure... Also, is Latham appliance ok as it is, or would it need to be recreated with proper attribution? Or given how small it is, maybe it should just be redirected back to Cleft lip and palate? So many questions! Your advice/help, as always, would be appreciated! --BelovedFreak 09:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Good sleuthing. :) The article at the external source was created by "Spuds". I can't access it at Wayback (either because its wonky at the moment or because it's not there), but "Spuds" has only been a member of that site for three years. That means he was not there in 2006, and in 2006, much of the content he's using was in the source article: [13]; http://hubpages.com/hub/about_cleft_palate. Hence, Spuds is being naughty. :/

Rather than removing it from the CP listing, I would recommend you just drop a {{y}} in front of the comment noting how it was resolved. That way, if we ever need to track down what happened, we have the listing and the note to refer to. You can also revert your own {{copyvio}} without any worry about process; you tagged it, if you are fully convinced there is no problem, you can remove it. :)

The attribution from Latham appliance's creation is sufficient. If there were any chance at all of the source article's being deleted, I'd drop a {{copied}} on the talk page of the source article, but I don't think it's going to go anywhere. :) I've put it on the newer article's talk page, though, just to make things easier.

Now I'm going to put a {{backwardscopyvio}} tag on each page so that future reviewers can easily determine that this has been investigated and that we haven't done anything wrong to Spuds...but the other way around.

(All that said, it may very well need to be redirected back to the original article. It hasn't expanded in over two years, and there's not really enough there to stand alone at the moment.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for sorting that out. I've put a note at the CP listing. I feel a bit more confident about finishing the job myself now, so thanks! :) --BelovedFreak 08:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Help please

MRG, I know that Kamboj sikh is a copy paste from somewhere, but try as much as I can, I can't seem to figure out from where. Would you be able to wave your magic wand? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[14] is substantially identical in the opening... Courcelles 04:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Courcelles, I went to that site, but somehow I missed these pages (the one you linked and a couple of others that were elsewhere on the site), kinda like going on vacation and coming back and finding that you don't popup on my watchlists (I now know why)! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Good morning! :) Thanks, Courcelles, for finding and thanks both of you for taking care of it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Re milhist editorial

Consensus here seems to be that we'd like to run the editorial over two editions, if that's okay with you. We'd then like to purloin it for our Academy - with your permission! I'm aware this is a further imposition on your time and goodwill, so if you'd like us to do the editing to split the editorial into two parts please say so. Once again, thank you for everything :) EyeSerene^talk 09:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine with me, and you are welcome to put it in your Academy if you please. :) You had mentioned that when you brought it up. Please do not concern yourself with my time or goodwill; I am dedicated to copyright cleanup and thrilled to have the opportunity to spread the word. That said, I am willing to retool the material as seems suitable to you to fit your Academy or as an editorial, but am also open to your direct input. I can collaborate. :D What's important to me here is the message; my ego doesn't get in the way of that. (To which end, I remain completely open to input about the clarity of that message. I work with that stuff a lot, and it can be hard for me to imagine myself not knowing it. User:MLauba helpfully pointed out to me that one section had been unclear, so I tried to rework it. If you see anything that seems muddy or poorly explained, please let me know. I'd be grateful, promise.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest CCI request subject

So late last night I found us a new editor worthy of a CCI whose modus operandi after material is removed/marked as a copyvio is apparently to replace it with different copyvio material. See the histories of David Beckham Soccer after I cleaned it once and Barbie Super Sports after CSBot tagged it. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you caught that one early. It could have been a huge mess further down the road. I've given him a temporary block to emphasize the importance of this and left him a personal note suggesting he seek guidance if he doesn't know how to do it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and hooray for CSBot tagging one of their articles ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Zooaction

Hi Moonriddengirl, I've noticed that you've been keeping an eye on the edits of User:Zooaction who is clearly Jordan Schaul. I've gone through his edits and now find that not a single page edited or created by this user is not in some way connected to Mr. Schaul. (I also suspect that he has the sock-puppet 66.230.109.117 and, perhaps, 209.112.219.57--both IPs in Alaska.) The level of self-promotion and end-running around policy (by deletion of COI tags, etc.) exhibited by this user is truly unacceptable. I am not an active or even experienced user and wonder if you, as an admin, might be willing to take some further action regarding Zooaction? Yours, P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I think unless he persists from this point, there's not much we can or need to do. I did restore the COI tag to Jordan Schaul. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for looking at this. You know best. Yours, P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Potential copyvio problem

Found another apparently unwatched talk page with a copyvio concern: Talk:International Peace Bureau. The article has not been changed significantly since then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Good find! I very recently altered Wikipedia:Copyright violations to hopefully help address this kind of thing, here. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Good. Of course, the chances that a new editor (IP...) will be familiar even with the existence of a copyvio policy, not to mention realize there are specific places to report, is... sigh. Ha, even I just report stuff to your page (sorry! :D). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I dropped a note on the talk page of the editor who added the problematic content; he is inactive - and there is another copyvio note above mine (User_talk:Odengatan#Copyright_problem:_OnSpot). I wonder if this may not indicate a larger problem? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DAVID LAWRENCE PRODUCER

Hi Moonriddengirl, and congrats to your latest award by MILHIST :) I've just come across a rather promotional and professional bio that looks like it was copied straight away from some source text, especially with all the tabs, indents and line breaks in the early versions. I can't find anything online though, but it might have come from a page written in Flash or from an e-book PDF. Anyhow, if you can spare some time, you might want to have a look for evaluation. I was first inclined to tag it with db-spam anyway but then went for the softer option. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :D And sure thing! Let me wrap the thought I've got going right now, and I'll come right over and take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I just tagged the article and the talk page for possible COI and warned the creator of the article as well about COI and usernames. (Sorry about the first part - that was someone else talk and article page I tagged) I am sure the fact the mainspace article and creators username both are the exact same is no coincidence. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This one's pretty clearly COIish, yup. :/ I can't find a source for this content, but I share your concerns, De728631. I'll look a bit more later, but it's possible that this bit of promotional content belongs all to us. If nothing else, it's ripe for stubbing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Just an update in case you didn't notice - mainspace article deleted and user blocked. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I don't know why they're so insistent sometimes. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

question

Hello MRG, I've left a question on our page.Malke2010 20:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

user group question

In doing what I do I am thinking having a "Researcher" level might be good. However I can't find anything on this and who to ask/who grants it. Do you have any information than what is found here? Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, none, I'm afraid. Maybe somebody at WP:HELP will know something about it. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Skylon, Reaction Engines Limited, and Reaction Engines SABRE image issues

Since I am not an admin, I thought I would bring to your attention the above articles with image issues. I am trying to improve their quality and since that includes the legality of their content, I was wondering if you can remove the unfair-use images found in them. Thanks!--Gniniv (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You don't have to be an admin to challenge fair use images. :) If any editor feels a non-free image does not meet the non-free content guidelines, including because there are too many of them in a single article, he can take action by removing them from the article (orphaned non-free images are deleted after a certain time, in case others dispute the removal) or bringing them up for community review at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. (I'd try the former first, unless you think the action is likely to be controversial.) You'd probably want to explain at the article's talk page why you think the use is excessive and why you've chosen to remove the ones that you have. If you want to approach it conservatively, you can begin with an explanation at the article's talk page of why you think there's a problem, adding {{non-free}} to the article's front. If there are no objections, you can go ahead and prune the ones that seem unnecessary.

I myself do not do much with images, so I would not be comfortable assessing the relatively use and value of these, but if you don't want to act on them yourself I'd be happy to ask a contributor who does more with them to take a look and take action if they feel there are issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Maggie Roswell.jpg

File:Maggie Roswell.jpg was promoted. Can you let the photographer know? :) Thanks, Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, congratulations! I will indeed. :) Please let me know if it's ever the day's featured photograph, and I'll tell him. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have passed on the word. I'm sure he'll be very pleased. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Weird stuff

First I found User talk:Kamol Kamoltrakul - the talk page being the only edit, and then [15] which seems to be in part at least the same thing, a paper by Kamol K. - a real person, see [16]. I'm thinking that without evidence to the contrary, both of these are copyvio. Not much compared to what you're currently working on, but do you agree? I'll blitz them if you do. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, wholeheartedly. Unless we get permission, it's a problem under [17], [18], [19] and [20] at least. There are very probably more. Beyond that, though, even if we get permission, I can't think what we'd do with it. :/ It's clearly political speech. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Image OTRS check please

File:1935 205 jpg.ashx.jpg is sourced to www.fotofinders.com, tagged di-no permission on April 9, 2009 and Says an OTRS was sent/received on April 10, 2009. Tagged using {{OTRS received}}. No other activity since that tag was placed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's the last tag, that probably means we've heard no more since. I'll double check. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it; the last communication concluded that permission was unlikely to be forthcoming. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) We really do need a bot that picks up these lingering tags. I've dropped a few myself, I'm afraid. If there's been no update within a couple of weeks, we really need to figure out why. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke_2010 concerns

Hi there, MRG. I hope you don't think this is out of line, but this is the space I thought might be most appropriate for bringing up concerns regarding Malke_2010's post-block behavior, as a condition of his/her return was apparently your mentorship. It seems he/she spurred a little bit of a kerfuffle on the Tea Party Movement page pretty much immediately after his/her return. Though I don't think anything happened worth reporting to ANI, Malke_2010 does seem very aggressive with enforcing his/her own opinions over those of others, and is very quick to make huge changes and delete entire sections he/she doesn't agree with. Malke_2010 made multiple attempts to delete the same large chunk of established material in an apparent disregard of BRD. When multiple editors confronted him/her on the talk page, he/she seemed to slow down, but by then the page ended up getting completely locked due to the edit warring.

I realize there are a lot of different stances amongst editors, but as his/her actions have caused problems at TPm (and apparently have in the past as well), I just think Malke_2010 might benefit from a little help explaining that especially in controversial political articles like this, it can often be best to tread lightly and that it is especially important to respect other people's opinions and the work of other editors as much as possible. Thank you for any help or guidance in this regard. 67.58.153.46 (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not true.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Good morning. I had been aware of the exchange there before logging off last night. Malke is not under any editing restrictions with regards to articles. If Malke's edits don't meet with consensus, other editors have all the options of responding that Malke does, which begin with polite conservation. It's too bad that the conversation didn't start with this, which seems like a reasonable note (whether it itself represents the consensus view or not), rather than this edit summary, which to a bystander seems provocative. (This is true even if by "vandalized" you meant that you had also corrected actually vandalized content from others; in that case, it probably would be better not to address them in aggregate, as there is undeniable implication that it is Malke you are accusing of vandalism, problematic per policy.) When I had first seen the conversation emerging on her talk page, I was concerned that Malke's tone might seem unnecessarily tense, but once I saw that edit summary, I revised my opinion. As to your point that "...especially in controversial political articles like this, it can often be best to tread lightly and that it is especially important to respect other people's opinions and the work of other editors as much as possible", I do agree. I would hope that all editors would follow that approach. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP also repeatedly came to my talk page despite my asking him to keep his comments at the article talk page. His tone seemed provocative to me also, with the edit summary as it was. And he seemed to confirm that by not respecting my request and continuing to post on my talk page, including interrupting a conversation I was having with an editor from the help desk: [21]. Another editor saw this comment and deleted it. I know it is preferable not to ask editors to comment on talk pages, but in this case, I felt it was wise to do so in order to keep the conversation about the article. I have mentioned this on Toddst1's talk page since he is the one who protected the article when the IP got to 3RR.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

email

I've sent you an email. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Let me check my watchlist and see if any fires have sprung up during the night, and then I'll log in and see what's up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your unstinting dedication to finding and eliminating potential copyright concerns in military history articles. Your diligence and commitment have been crucial in helping maintain Wikipedia's reputation as an outstanding scholarly resource on military matters. On behalf of the coordinators and with grateful thanks, Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well deserved, congratulations :) EyeSerene^talk 09:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WOW! I've been working on my talk page (I go from the bottom up) for almost an hour and had no idea this was waiting for me! Thank you. That's quite a day brightener. And I trust you know that I hold you and your project in great esteem. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What a lovely, thoughtful award. Congrats, Moonriddengirl.Malke2010 12:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well deserved indeed. Just so you know, you were considered for this award once before, but you did not have the prerequisite for it at the time. You are:

• One of only 41 people to have been honored with this award,
• One of approximately 5 people to have been honored with this award who were not strictly speaking members of milhist,
• One of only 3 people (yourself included) to have every been granted the award on a renomination, and
• The first ever renominated awardee to have not been a Military history Project coordinator.

How's that for perspective? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 18:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Stunning and humbling. Thank you for the perspective. I will treasure it all the more. And it's things like this and people like you that keep me going when it all gets to seeming totally overwhelming. (And now I'm all choked up.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh :) Tom's spot on though, and the pleasure is genuinely all ours. We're (notoriously) stingy with our most prestigious award, but it's times like these, when we can acknowledge in this small way the incredible contributions made by editors who give so freely and with no thought of material reward, that make it all worthwhile. It's very satisfying to know that the Chevrons with Oak Leaves have found another good home :) EyeSerene^talk 20:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and you have choked me up all over again. I will not finish my copy-editing if I have to keep blowing my nose. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what ES said. We're stingy with it, but when it is awarded to someone, it means all the more. Congratulations; you deserved this ten times over. Thanks for your dedication and persistence! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Darius Dhlomo

I've been through so many that I'm losing the ability to spell {{copyvio}}. Here are ones that I found too complex to deal with quickly, that you might want to give more in depth consideration to:

• Mike Agostini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Definitely a wholesale copy of a 2004 article in the Trinidad Guardian, but compounded by this edit, which is somewhat suspect itself for coming from here.
• Johnny Kelley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Does this pre-date or post-date the article?
• Janet Nutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Does this pre-date or post-date the article?

Uncle G (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping out there. :) Let me take a look at thoseto see what I can find. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, with the first one, even though archive doesn't confirm the second source predated, the contributor linked to it when adding the content, so we know which came first. Purged. With the second, it predates. Darius listed it as the first reference when the article was created. :) Purged, but did not rev delete. The third one almost certainly predates. She was inducted in 1986, which is likely when they wrote the text. We may never be sure on that one, but this is where the contributor's reputation seals the deal. When I find duplication with a guy like that, unless I can prove they copied from us, I assume he's the one in the wrong. He has been, demonstrably, so many times. :/ I'll remove it with appropriate tags. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above issue but with regards to the CCI, I'm trying to get the created articles sorted in order of size per a request at the talk page, but it's giving me some troubles, so it may be a little bit this morning before I get it straightened out again. :( VernoWhitney (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Okey dokey. :) We need to get some of that on subpages as soon as possible, though. I added a note to explain the issues, and it choked my computer! I won't try to help split it up, because I don't want to disrupt what you're doing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll split it into smaller ubpages while I'm at it. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the subpages for their created articles are all straightened out and all entries that were marked as clear are marked as clear again...now I'll finally get around to adding another 14 subpages of their additions to other articles! :/ VernoWhitney (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A class of articles that I'm finding non-trivial to determine is those that match entries in the Beach Volleyball Database. Which came first, the BVB entries or the Wikipedia article? Try Vassiliki Arvaniti versus this for one of many examples. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can figure out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, one might presume that we came first, since the website was launched in 2009. But so far they don't seem to have copied from Wikipedia articles by other contributors: Eugenio Amore, [22]; Riccardo Lione, [23]; Paolo Nicolai, [24]; Nicole Branagh, [25]. I'll poke for a few more minutes, but if I don't find even one other case of them copying from us, I think we have to presume either he copied from an earlier copy of their information or that they've both copied from the same source. Again, this is based on his history. We can't presume in his favor, under the circumstances. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    • More where they didn't copy: J. P. Calderon, Eric Fonoimoana, Brent Frohoff, Matt Fuerbringer, Dax Holdren. Occam's razor would suggest to me that it's more likely that this known copyright infringer copied from them (or somewhere) than that they selectively copied just his stuff from Wikipedia, leaving alone stuff from others. Unless we find something that they've copied from somebody else, I think we have to remove it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The BVB was launched in 1999, according to its article. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
      • 1999. (hand meets forehead.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Now here's interesting. I might have picked a random example that solves my problem. BVB article from 2007 as recorded by the Wayback Machine. Wikipedia article as created in July 2008. That seems conclusive. I wonder why I had WBM difficulties with the other ones that I tried. Uncle G (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have a very uncomfortable relationship with Wayback. Sometimes it works for me, sometimes it doesn't. But it's great when it can conclusively resolve things, and when I can't I've learned some tricks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in; I didn't want to make a new thread over a related topic. I just went through these and I wanted you to do a quick check to see if I got the clerking/CCI-check procedure done right. I realized afterward that I was supposed to remove the diff links; is that a big deal, or can I just leave them there (it's faster that way)? I might have some extra time this week, so instead of trying to achieve my impossibly long list of writing goals, I can try to sift through a couple hundred diffs or so and clear off the non-cv ones to save time for others later (I'm still trying to figure out what to do if there actually is a cv in a diff, but I haven't seen one yet). Thanks, —fetch·comms 04:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I almost missed this up here. :/ CCI is very much IAR territory. We usually remove the diffs just because in some CCIs pages are looong. Removing the diffs makes them shorter and easier to edit. Once an article is cleared, they aren't really needed anymore. But leaving them in harms nothing. As long as you mark that an article is cleared so that others know there's no copyvio, it's all good. :)

If you actually find a cv in a diff, you remove it and just mark at the CCI page that you found an issue and cleaned it. If it's enough of a vio to kill the article (not leaving enough to survive), we either stub with new content or (usually) tag for deletion with {{subst:copyvio}}. With this one, it may be better to delete it more expeditiously in that case. An approach here is still evolving at ANI. :/ (And, by the way, I really appreciate your pitching in. Anything you can offer, we can use! :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Labor Day in the US means sitting on the couch watching the Jerry Lewis MDA telethon, so I needed to do something useful anyway :P —fetch·comms 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mehdi Hosseini

hi, I have a problem with the article Mehdi Hosseini,as I was writing for so long time for this page and all information i shared to other sites later after Wikipedia, just now we need a helper to decide this problem as I am not also professional WIKI UESR! Thank you for help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexey-spb (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Simon Harris Copyvio?

Could you have a look at the Simon Harris article? It seems to me to be a direct lift from the bio on the subject's website which has a (c) 2010 tag on it. But since the Wikipedia article appears to have been edited several times over the years, I'm wondering whether the copying is actually the other way round. On the face of it, it looks as though I should blank the entire page as a copyvio but that seems rather drastic unless I'm certain and so I'm seeking your advice. The article is also unreferenced and I'm coming up blank on sourcing it with anything reliable (it's in the the current focus month for the UBLP Rescue Project, which is how I came across it). I can carry on trying to find sources for the content but there doesn't seem to be a lot of point if what it really needs is to be stubbed.--Plad2 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Let me take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Before it was where it is now, it was published at his old website. See this and this. Content entered in March 2007 seems to very closely paraphrase from those sources.

Based on editing patterns, I would not be surprised if this individual has a connection to the subject, so it's possible that permission will be upcoming. There are two options at this point: blanking to give the contributor time to provide permission or going ahead and replacing the content with something usable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this so quickly. So (just so I get this right),if I blank the text and tag the article as a possible copyvio and leave a message for User:Megalaser on his/her Talk page and the article talk page suggesting that he/she gets permission for the copyright content pronto, that would be an acceptable course of action? If so, I guess it would be an opportunity to suggest that the editor provides the missing references as well.--Plad2 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the right thing to do, and asking for the missing refs would be a great thing to do. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerning article Mehdi Hosseini

20:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Alexey-spb (talk) Hi, I am trying to explain but as I am not a good user as you who knows so good wikipedia, I can not do so well that is why i am writing directly to you as you could help me to support this page. thank you so much for all.

Just i wanted to mention you somthing concerning Mehdi Hosseini's article by following:

you are bringing this site as a source: http://www.classical-composers.org/comp/hosseini ok, that is my work and if you see under this page you can see one source is wikipedia there, before I created that page. please check it. thank you.

second address is: http://www.compozitor.spb.ru/eng/our_authors_engl/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=19695 if you read the text all provided recently in 2010 and Mehdi Hosseini's article is created before this one. even there is some others sources which from Times about Mehdi Hosseini, all of the them are from this year.

again thank you if you help and direct me always as I need your help!20:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Alexey-spb (talk)

Diff

Saw this a while ago. [26].Malke 2010 (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's uncivil, but I would recommend ignoring it if it does not repeat. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

File:AliBrochure small.jpg

Hi. I just wondered if the copyright holder ever responded to the email request that you put through the OTRS system. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, sadly, they have not. :/ Another agent wrote them again on September 3rd, but they haven't responded to that second e-mail, either. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some sort of image policy?

I would like to upload and use the cover of Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass for the said article's infobox, but I don't know what the copyright is for images of non-fiction works. Is there some sort of static policy for such images that would allow me to use it? Silverseren^C 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, book covers are permitted om articles about the book under WP:NFC. You want to keep it low resolution, and when you upload it place {{Non-free book cover}} for the license and for the file summary use Template:Book cover fur. The first one is just a matter of pasting; the second one has to be filled out. There are instructions for doing that at the template page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's useful. Thanks! What exactly would count as low resolution though, how do I tell? I mean, among a search like this, what would count as low resolution? Silverseren^C 22:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong girl there. :D The album Wikiproject recommends not going over 300 px. per side. I usually figure that if a book is that or less, we're okay. This one I uploaded is a bit bigger than that, but not by much, and I am graphically challenged. This may be better, but it has white space around it. This one seems to be just right. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(Maybe this one? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC))

Is this good? Silverseren^C 23:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think so. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And your opinion is all that matters to me. :D Silverseren^C 23:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes analyzed, Foundation report, Main page bias, brief news

• In the news: WikiLeaks and Wikipedia; Google–WP collaboration to translate health information

• Book review: Cognitive Surplus, by Clay Shirky

• Dispatches: Tools, part 1: References, external links, categories and size

• WikiProject report: Putting articles in their place: the Uncategorized Task Force

• Features and admins: Bumper crop of admins; Obama featured portal marks our 150th

• Arbitration report: Interim desysopping, CU/OS appointments, and more

• Technology report: Development transparency, resource loading, GSoC: extension management

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexey-spb (talk)hi, please check this new article [[27]] if it dosent have a problem I will workit over. thanksAlexey-spb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC).

Concerning Mehdi_Hosseini's article

08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Hi. as it; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexey-spb/Mehdi_Hosseini# already has a new version and I hope that it dose not have a problem with copyright and etc. any way you can add or recommend me how to change it if you think that it has a problem with copyright.thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexey-spb (talk • contribs) 08:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Alexey-spb (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

More admin eyes on potential sources misrepresentation

I invited Sandstein to take a look at this, but am thinking a third set of admin eyes might be helpful...

See: Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities

Somewhat problematic user Communicat (talk · contribs) has been credibly accused of having misrepresented a source rather badly. I am waiting on a detailed response, but I wanted to see if you could review the situation and comment there if you have some time.

If you want to wait a while to let him reply and explain his reasoning, that's fine. This is early and he really hasn't had time yet to respond appropriately (just some grumpy throwaways, but not substantiatively as of yet). Nothing needs rushing here.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk: History of South Africa is not the only place where Communicat has been shown to be posting things not supported by the sources he lists. This was also discussed on Talk: World War II where another user shows Communicat has similar problems in their edits of other pages.[28] Thank you. Edward321 (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfounded WP:NPA struck out. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion centralized at User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Communicat 2 or at Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities. I have struck out the WP:NPA above. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I see he's now replied. I'll go see if I can offer any input. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see he's replied several times over. Sorry! I've been distracted by our brand new monster CCI. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, someone on Wikipedia has a life? When did that happen? ^_^ Thank you for taking the time to look at this. Edward321 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go that far. :) I'm afraid that my delay isn't going to make me any more useful here. :/ I don't have access to the books, so I can't address his use of them with any authority, I'm afraid. Is it perhaps time for an WP:RfC/U? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you checked Googlebooks links I provided? They are enough to show Communicat posted things that were not supported by that work or in some cases were contradicted by the work. What does a WP:RfC/U involve? Edward321 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I did, and I agree that there seems to be a problem, but I don't have the book, so I can't personally verify that. It seems that User:Petri Kohn does and might be in position to help determine the extent of the problem.

Basically, it comes down to this: if a user is creating hoaxes that can be verified to be hoaxes, then you may have a case for immediate admin action via WP:ANI. If it's more complex than that, then you have a much harder road ahead. You need to be able to demonstrate misuse of sources (intentionally or otherwise), demonstrate that you have tried to work with the contributor to address the problem, and demonstrate that your efforts have not remedied the problem. For an WP:RFC/U, you need two people who are able to say that they have attempted to address the problem. And you need to propose a solution: what is necessary to put an end to the problem? That the contributor avoid certain types of contributions? Certain topics? The community will evaluate your arguments and discuss. If consensus supports a certain action to address the problem and the contributor ignores that, sanctions may be necessary.

If you haven't reached that point yet, you may need to get wider input first. I'm not quite sure the best place to get wider input for a question like this. :/ I guess Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, but I don't recall ever having posted anything there. This is a little bit out of my usual neighborhood. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. User:Petri Kohn has been heavily involved and very opinionated. The IP on World War II will be getting the book, but he is involved as well. This needs someone totally uninvolved before this can be resolved. Would the MilHistory group be a better group to initially contact? Edward321 (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If the scope of the articles is military, that may be an excellent place to get feedback. They're an active and conscientious project, so I suspect that they would give your concerns a fair hearing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not been "heavily involved". I have only commented on the issue after you asked for comments at User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Communicat 2 and Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities. I have also edited the article in an effort to find a compromise version that I could verify was supported by the sources.

Now, there are several things in your actions I do not like:

• Making repeated accusations against Communicat with nothing to back them but your personal opinion is a personal attack.Petri Krohn (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not my personal opinion, it is fact which I have provided multiple links for. Edward321 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• You are spreading this discussion to multiple fora, as if you were looking for the most favorable response. You should have kept the discussion in one palace.Petri Krohn (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not Georgewilliamherbert. Are you accusing us of being sockpuppets? Edward321 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• You have removed my comments from talk pages here, here and on this page here.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing further proof of your level of involvement. I have removed your accusations from my talk page twice so far. I am fully within my rights to do so. Edward321 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Are you using the "collective you" there? If so, you may want to let Georgewilliamherbert know that you object to his bringing this discussion here, as I'm not sure if he is watchlisting this talk page. If not, I believe that Edward321 may have done the same thing you've done: noticed it was here and stopped by. Edward321, I noted you had disagreed with the strike-out. I did not note that Petri Krohn had left another comment, which you removed. That should not be done per Wikipedia:TALK#Others' comments. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Naturally I do not object to Georgewilliamherbert asking you to join the discussion. However I do not think the discussion needs to happen at four different locations at the same time, especially with the WP:NPA issues I pointed to. It feels like forum shopping – repeating the same claims or requests on multiple fora until someone agrees with you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, thanks for pointing out the mistake I made on your talk page. I have self-reverted to restore Petri's accusations against me, which I accidentally removed when I was undoing his striking my comments. Edward321 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I'm "the IP" and I believe I'm uninvolved. I stopped by Talk:World War II to try to help with the Communicat situation after Communicat's premature arb filing a few days earlier.[29] I engaged Communicat in some discussion intended to help sort out his confusion about Wikipedia DR and sourcing expectations, and ended up checking a particular diff of his which I felt did not come up to our standards. While on the talk page I also made some general suggestions about the article, but I've never edited the article (it's semi-protected so I can't). Communicat then moved to History of South Africa and I made a few further comments on that article's talk page. If Petri Krohn has the Angelo del Boca book, IMHO the best next step with regard to verifying it is if Petri could scan the relevant pages for GWH or someone else to look at. I haven't attempted to get hold of it myself (I merely said that I could ask my library to get it through interlibrary loan if it came to that). As an unregistered user I don't have access to Wikipedia's email system so I'm not the ideal person to take that on. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issue

Hi there. Concerning this entry I'd like to inform you that after having sent an email to the website owners, the content was removed from their website after about 4 weeks. As the situation is no longer current, is there any need to keep the entry in the Mirrors & Forks page? If the entry is removed, will a copy of the issue be stored for reference? Amsaim (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) We can remove it if they have taken the copied content down. Are you comfortable that they have it all? These things remain in the histories, but it wouldn't be easily visible for future reference. That said, the backwardscopy tag will still remain at the individual articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The copied content has been taken off the website, yes. There is no saying however, if at some point in future the person who previously copied the content won't do the same thing again. Now that the copied content is off their site, what is the usual Wikipedia procedure in such a case? Would a notice in this entry suffice stating that the issue has been resolved? Apart from this how is it with the issue of the site no longer being a reliable source as stated in WP:MF? The site is the official page of The African Movie Academy Awards, and unfortunately the page hasn't been operated professionally. At what point will the site be considered a reliable source, or will it remain unreliable due to the previous content copying? Amsaim (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't really have a usual procedure for this case; I can add a note saying that the issue is resolved for now. I'll do so. As to the reliability of the source, that one is well beyond my usual work. :) I would probably raise that one at the reliable sources noticeboard to see what other contributors think. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your assistance. Amsaim (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Geroge Sernack Article

Hello Moonriddengirl, I want to preface this by saying this is my first article submission and I am new to this so if I am or have done anything outside of the correct protocol I apologize up front. I am trying or was trying to submit the article for George Sernack. I am not sure if what I wrote has been completely deleted and I need to start over or if it is still available in an archive somewhere. I could have sworn I read that I had until the 9th of September to make changes. My first question is in regards to references. George Sernackis again a Martial artist who currently competes in Brazilian Jui Jistu Tournaments as well as an Instructor and Martial Arts School owner. I handle marketing for Mr. Sernack. Aside from the organizations and Associations that put on the tournaments, there are not really any other sites I or he can reference. You or anyone else from Wikipeida are welcome to contact George directly at the school to verify the information. What would an appropriate reference be for someone like Mr. Sernack? My second question is, am I overlooking something? Is there something obvious that I could have included that would have satisfied the criteria? Lastly, would it just be easier for George to submit this bio himself? Again, I apologize if these questions are somewhat insipid but trying to figure out an appropriate reference for Mr. Sernack has me a bit confused. By the way, I am not sure if your name showed up somewhere in your directions. I could not find it so that is why I addressed this to Moonriddengirl.

Thank you,

Rich Serpa

PS. I hope I can find your response. My email by the way is rserpa621@gmail.com. I hope I am doing this right and you are seeing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rserpa621 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding copyright violation and close paraphrasing.

I must thank you for this editorial. Despite being a fairly experienced editor, I have not really been aware of or really cared for avoiding copyvios. I guess I thought close paraphrasing did the trick. Now my eyes have opened and I shall be more careful and also revisit my edits.

I found this advice in the essay you recommended especially useful :

The right way to use this source would be to read it, read other sources about cats, internalize the information, and then write original content without looking at the structure of the sources... The sources should also, of course, be attributed.

Thank you for this valuable public service.

Regards, AshLin (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. :) I'm glad if it proves useful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright investigations question

I have joined the effort, but don't know where to begin. The associated page shows some investigations by I don't understand the process and steps to get involved. Thx. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 18:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and you are very welcome. :) Are you talking about the copyright investigation du jour, here? If so, that one is a little bit complex because we're trying to work out the best way to handle it, but it like other CCIs will still come down to the typical copyright cleanup: we look at the linked "diff" to see what the contributor added. In this case, if what he added looks like creative prose, it's probably better to replace it. Very, very basic information should be clear of concern (though the threshold of originality is pretty low in the U.S. law that governs us), but if it's more than a sentence or two or seems very creative, we're better safe than sorry. If there's a lot of creative text, it may be a good idea to find the source if you can, since we're still trying to figure out really how widespread this copying is. If you find a source, you put a note on the investigation page with a {{y}} You should add whether you cleaned it or blanked it if you can, but the important thing is to note that you investigated it and confirmed copying. If you clean it up presumptively, we usually put a {{?}} Presumptive removal tag next to it. If there's no creative content or you're very sure it isn't a problem, the thing to put is {{n}}, and your signature.

Does that answer your question? If not, please let me know what more I can do. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all good info, but I still don't know where to find work to do, and how to go about doing it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 18:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry; I'm jumping ahead. :) I presumed you were talking about the copyright cleanup effort that's getting talked about at various points around Wikipedia.

There are all kinds of ways and places to pitch in with copyright work on Wikipedia. I went ahead and updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/How to clean copyright infringements, as it has a number of suggestions for areas that need assistance. We could use it in any of them, but I expect that the place we need it most is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

We are running in circles here. I'm saying I do not know what to do. I've been to the page you recommended, but I don't know how to do the work. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 01:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You said above, "I still don't know where to find work to do, and how to go about doing it." You know where to find work, then, at this point, as you've visited the page. Tell me what work you want to do from the work that is available, and I will try to help you figure out how to do it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

CCI tools

Regarding your comment here. It would be perfectly possible to write something which would revert every article someone edited but didn't create to the version immediately before they touched it. This could also be fed to the same kind of parameters as Contribution Surveyor uses to ignore small changes and probable reverts. Since this would involve checking every edit it would also have the side effect of being able to generate a list of created pages (just like toolserver, but it could immediately post it on-wiki) which it of course couldn't roll back, but they'd be handy to ensure that "nuking" hit them all, since I assume that mass-rollback would only be used if the collateral damage was deemed acceptable. I could start working on this if you think it'll actually be worth using in some cases.

What other copyright cleanup tools have you been dying to have? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the first tool under discussion here would be used only very rarely. If When Who am I kidding? User:Siddiqui launches another sock, for instance, it would be nice. I would not launch it in your run of the mill CCI, because the risk of collateral damage is too great. I worry about bystanders. :/

The tool for which I've been pining the longest is this one, evidently abandoned by TheEarWig: "You are also welcome to try the URL Intersection tool, which compares an article (or previous version of an article) with a specific URL and runs a more in-depth copyvio check." Something that could highlight text matches between URLs could assist in determining whether copyvio is reverse and also whether copyvios have been fully removed. (I'd love it if that URL Intersection tool could compare an article with a specific earlier version of an article.) It could also help us find where in a lengthy page copying begins and ends. I've stared at many a listing at CP wondering just where the copying is, when a specific section is not blanked and the copying is not wholesale.

How about a tool that will scan a user's talk page history for matches to the word "copyvio" or "copyright"? That way, we could easily determine who has been warned before and when.

There've been a few others about which I've spoken with Dcoetzee, but I can't recall specifics right now. Either of these two would make a grand start. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for your response. I clearly am going to have to spend a lot more time crafting this. I don't want to do it wrong and then have it be harder for mr. Sernack to have his article be approved. There seeems to be a lot of ways i could screw this up. Some of the options may be difficult. For example, waiting till someone has written an article about him. He is a very humble person. Too humble I think sometimes. His school has been featured in Gracie Magazine many times but whenever he is asked for a quote or is quotes, he is only too quick to heap praise on his students and I can't say I ever recall him talking about himself or his many achievemnets in the sport. The information I had used from his website is all factual and again I have permission to use it. Would it help if perhaps I paraphrased it to some extent?

Thank you again for taking the time to provide me all those links and references. As I said, I am going to have to spend some time and try and develop an article that will hopefully pass the criteria.

PS: I love the user name Moonriddengirl and I tottaly understand why you would want to keep yourself anonymous. I imagine you get all types and you probably run into some very big egos.

Rich ( Ps, that is my real name and I am sure you can make out my last name as well : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rserpa621 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I answered at your talk page again. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Guess what?

Can you check OTRS Ticket:2010090210007829 and see if the wording is ok. My concern follows a similar concern you had/have with the geo website. The photographers copyright information on the website says written permission is needed for any use of the images. My concern is the OTRS may have been "written permission" giving Wikipedia only permission - or that the photographer thinks they are only giving Wikipedia permission and OTRS thinks it is the "world". I just want to clarify because of the copyright informaiton on the website. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, and sure: let me go take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We have two separate permissions being negotiated in that chain. The first is for a single image, [30], and that one is all in order. His first release was not usable, but he clarified. Another, still ongoing, is negotiating permission for additional images from his website. The agent is well on top of this one and in his last letter wrote specifically, "I would - just to avoid any possibility of a misunderstanding - like to make clear that your release of your photos under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license extends to the whole world, not just to Wikipedia." The agent has not yet responded to the last communication from the licensor, but in my opinion will find it perfectly acceptable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so the first one is an OTRS from about Jan Tschichold, the photographer subject of one photo, and the rest fall under a separate one. Ok, good - and as I type this I see the OTRS agent just told me the same thing - but I didn't realize they were the agent, I thought they were just asking/commenting on the images. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Milhist editorial update update

I've been bold and divided your article into two sections (one per each edition) and pasted the first across into the newsletter. I hope this isn't too presumptuous of me - please feel free to alter anything you don't like up to and including a complete rv! If you're fairly happy though, would you be able to give this month's edition a final look over before it goes out? Thank you! EyeSerene^talk 08:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not too presumptuous at all. :) I appreciate it; I'm behind on WP:CP courtesy of our latest CCI and the resultant sturm und drang (which is a good thing, even though the chaos of it all has me a bit confused...people are caring! and helping! whoot!), so your input is tremendously helpful. As soon as I get enough caffeine in me to be sure I'm making sense, I'll go have a read through part 1. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the editorial—it was highly informative, yet easy to read. I'm not sure how many people will see it right away, but the cool thing about having this written down is that I (and others) will link to it whenever we are trying to explain copyrights to an editor. It's much easier to point them at your article then trying to type it all myself. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I just saw your editorial in the Bugle, too, and I must say it's a beautiful contribution: clear, concise, cogent, ... um "cozy", just to have a fourth "c" word? ;-) Thanks, it's very nice work, indeed. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both! I am seldom credited with concision. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Image copyrights

MRG, I tagged File:NammaMetro.jpg under {{db-nopermission}} because the source link still says "All rights reserved" and the copyright logo and "All rights reserved" are also included in the image caption on flickr. However, in the comments section of the flickr image the editor who uploaded the file on to WP has asked the photographer if they can upload it to Wikipedia under the sharealike license and the photographer has responded "ok". I take that to mean, ok, I'm open to that, but something that the photographer hasn't followed through with. What's the verdict on this one? There are some more images like this that may have to be tagged suitably if my interpretation is correct. The conversation is at User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#File:NammaMetro.jpg. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's a problem, and I've explained more fully at your talk page. Nice lab. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, image deletions was one area that I was going to actively avoid, but I've been sucked into it for {{WP India}} pages as there seem to be a lot of problem images on there. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoot! It's a win for image work! :D (They need you, terribly. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm lost scratching my head on this one File:Rajesh Tacho Signature.png. What's your opinion? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Copyvio. Names are not copyrightable under U.S. law, but their appearance can be, and handwriting is highly individual and creative. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks, there's one image File:Bird's eye view of Anini.jpg uploaded by this editor that I can't find a source for, everything else was incorrectly claimed as PD. Should it go to FFD? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think, if everything else is a copyvio. The person who uploaded this now deleted watermarked photo, not to mention that map! as his or her own work is not credible. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you, it's at FFD now. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Copyright problem: Antonio Paoli ---> Casa Paoli

Hi -

yes, I used the material also in Amalia Paoli and maybe nowhere else since it only seemed applicable to those articles. Anyway, I went to Amalia Paoli already and fixed it in a way that I believe makes it compliant. If I am not doing it correctly, tell me and maybe Marine can work on that one too, although I'd like to learn how to fix this problem by myself.

Is it is possible that I could myself try to fix this Casa Paoli article that you blanked the way Tony The Marine fixed the other article (Antonio Paoli)? Maybe you could tell me which was the last version that seemed good like you did before and give me a TEMP folder like you did Marine. Thank you, Mercy11 (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Just let me know if you'd rather I roll it back now or if you would prefer to rewrite it first." Well, which way did Marine choose? I prefer to do it that way. Just tell me whcih one, do your rollback or whatever thing it is you'd need to do, and then I will work on the article. Is that fair? Also, did the Amalia Paoli pass your review? So I start budgeting my time for that one also if it still didn't pass and you had to blank it too. Thank you, Mercy11 (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I think I have enough info now. I will work on it from that version forward. Thanks you, Mercy11 (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I had just "gathered my energy" to start working on those two CR-violation articles (Casa Paoli and Amalia Paoli) when I went in I realized you had touched up the latter apparently just enough to pass the necessary review. This was truly a huge relief as I can now concentrate on the other one (on Casa Paoli). I wanted to thank you. And going over to the fixing the problems with Casa Paoli, it seems that a lot of the in-violation stuff I added was about Antonio Paoli and not the house itself,,, so I expect to be able to produce rather quickly a version that does not violate CR. My POA is to take the last acceptable version and work on it offline, make CR-acceptable additions, etc, and then present it to you for approval. Would such plan be acceptable? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am done. Hope it looks at least half decent. Check it HERE. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, I hope that the new version takes care of the issues involved. Happy editing everyone. Mercy11 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Darius Dhlomo investigation

Hi, sorry to bother you, but can you check to see if the first sentence in this article created by User:Darius Dhlomo is a copyright infringement. I traced the sentence to this site, but I can't tell if the site copied WP or if it wrote the sentence. By the way, it isn't currently on the list of mirrors and forks, so...

Thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) It's no bother at all; you are very welcome! In this case, I think we can safely conclude reverse infringement. One good tip here is that they have copied other content contributed by another Wikipedian: FC Zwolle in the national cup; [31] and Pro Evolution Soccer; [32], for instance. Websites like that seem to take our text to drive up their presence in search engines. :/ Darius might have copied it from somebody, but not from those guys. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above, but still regarding the CCI: Your opinion on the copyrightable on the information presented in a table is requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI#Cyclist tables. (I feel like we just reviewed this general idea yesterday :P ) VernoWhitney (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL! And over and over again. Stupid lists. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dhlomo cleanup

I'd be willing to take on 10 articles to shepherd to "clean" - or is that not the way the winds are blowing? I checked WikiStalk and determined that DD hasn't contaminated any of the articles I've worked on. --Lexein (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm not entirely sure where the winds are blowing at this point. The CCI is running atypically. As I understand it, a bot is shortly going to blank the articles he's created, but my intention is to go through the articles once they've been tagged and restore those which have already been checked and cleared. As long as you log your findings at the CCI subpage, I'll make sure your efforts aren't wasted. They're very much appreciated! We can use all the help we can get. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

IP block evasion by User:Amir.Hossein.7055

This guy seems to have changed tactics somewhat. He is now editing as an IP here, but uploading images to Commons and re-adding them to the articles edited by him here on WP previously. He currently seems to edit as User:80.191.41.237. This IP consistently goes through the articles where immediately preceding edits were by User:Amir.Hossein.7055's socks, e.g. Jafar Sharif-Emami‎, Gholam-Reza Azhari, Shapour Bakhtiar, Mohammad-Javad Bahonar, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, List of Prime Ministers of Iran, etc. He often adds images that he has uploaded to Commons under the same usernames as his socks user here on WP, eg. this edit[33] and this image[34]. I don't know if some sort of a rangeblock is feasible for the IP range that he is using, maybe you could look into that? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Having recently implemented (badly) my first range block, I may be up for this. But I'd need to identify his range. :) Let me see what I can figure out, based on previously SPI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I see that he has jumped to another IP, User:85.198.7.95 - this IP has started re-adding the images that User:80.191.41.237 tried to add earlier today, e.g. see here[35][36]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And yet another one User:85.198.7.37. The guy is persistent. Nsk92 (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Too bad; the last range block didn't cause much damage. Let me see how widespread this one would be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't block the entire range, as it would potentially block 134,217,728 users. I've done another narrow range block and can expand it incrementally as necessary. But I note that you also talked to User:Tnxman307 about this. If you talk to more than one admin at a time about handling a problem, you may cause redundant efforts. I really appreciate your being so diligent about this sockmaster, but do please make sure you let people know when you're asking about something at more than one place to help avoid that. Range blocks are time consuming for me, because I'm not used to them. I don't mind doing it, but I'd be a bit disgruntled to investigate it only to find out somebody else had already handled it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks and thanks, I will definitely follow your advice. Nsk92 (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks again for keeping such a careful eye out for him. My first rangeblock was for a similar situation: a copyright infringer sockmaster who would not take "no" for answer. Let's hope we've knocked him off stride for a bit; if not, we'll keep trying with smaller ranges. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A new sock has just popped up, User:Nimatehran2010. He is systematically going through edits of the previous socks of Amir.Hossein.7055 and restoring those edits, e.g. here[37], [38] etc. I am thinking that maybe one should just start semi-protecting the pages that this guy has edited... Nsk92 (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I did file a new SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055, for the record. I have not filed any requests at WP:RPP yet since I wanted to get some feedback first regarding using semi-protection here. Nsk92 (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Those articles are a great "honeypot" for finding his socks. Semi-protection will just mean that he has to edit a few other articles for a few days before he's autoconfirmed. :/ But we can always give it a shot to see if he can be discouraged that way. I need to find out how that account was created. If he did through request for account creation, we may be able to identify him. If he registered it himself, he's working through an IP we don't know yet. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

48

A 48 hour block is rather lenient. I would disagree with an indefinite since indefinite usually means permanent. Consider 7 days. Anything up to 30 days would be ok with me. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Presuming you're talking about my last ANI action, I'm not going to adjust the term of the block myself because 48 hours seemed like a good time to me for a "first" NPA, even one as distasteful as that. But, as I said there, I realize that some may disagree and am very comfortable with anyone adjusting the time of the block for longer, though I would object to it being shortened. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Blue Moon of Kentucky

Thanks for the message. You know. I have a special place in my heart for editors who, rather than rewrite material that adds important content to an article, paste tags, HUGE tags, at that. That's a lot easier, isn't it, than spending time trying to paraphrase something and not mangle it? In fact this is one of the reasons I am now writing my own book! Don't know if I have the will to deal with it, so delete agway. And, really, thanks for the message. And the world at large, and the founders/admins of wikipedia wonder why interest has peaked. Steve Pastor (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you might have picked the wrong time and the wrong place to uncivilly remark about copyvio text which has been properly tagged, and the work done by others to remove it. Please note the larger situation around you: an editor named Darius Dhlomo has damaged, through thoughtless copy/paste, thousands upon thousands of articles which must now be either mass deleted or gone over with a fine toothed comb, accompanied by mind-numbingly repetitive content-similarity searches to determine the degree of copyvio. Please note just how strong are the policy and consensus against derivative work based on plagiarized text (the paraphrasing which you seem to think is so easy). Please consider the "HUGE tags" a Call To Edit. And consider the words which inspired master chef Ferran Adria of the Michelin three-starred El Bulli, from the great French chef Jacques Maximin, "Creativity means not copying." (History of El Bulli, p. 29).

--Lexein (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill Black

ditto Steve Pastor (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Thanks for responding, but I'm not sure if I'm complicating this matter more than I need to. Favoritething (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Well, I think it's glaringly obvious. How exactly do I proceed? Favoritething (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Thanks in advance! Robyn Hitchcock at 13:34 and 13:36. Favoritething (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for assisting me in this learning process! Favoritething (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Genre assessment

I am not sure where to ask for an assessment on the genre article Neo soul, so can u refer me to where or assess yourself? Dan56 (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Dan. I've never done a genre assessment before. I'll take a look a little later, and if I can't figure out their criteria will see who I can track down! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Eeps! I forgot about this! I'm sorry. I've had a lot of copyright stuff going on. I'm on it now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to track down somebody who can review it. I'll stay on top of it, promise. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Zidane tribal (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel like deleting some images as presumed copyvio?

So User:GrapedApe had done a fantastic job with one of our image CCIs and has sorted the remaining images by EXIF data and given some analysis at Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Conk 9. I've looked them over and agree with his conclusions, but I figured that maybe I could just ask you to look at them directly instead of doing a mass listing at WP:PUF and waiting the two weeks there. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Lovely! I'll be happy to pop by with my mop. The CCI process is meant in part to avoid PUF listings when unnecessary; no reason to drag it out. BTW, speaking of image CCIs, I'm organizing Norton's into files that will need looking at and files that don't. Once I get that done, I'm planning to ask for assistance at WT:NFC, as many of them will require determining whether usage of the image meets that guideline. There will also be some images that will need evaluation to determine if they truly are PD by age or whatever criteria is being alleged. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been following your progress on organizing that one, I just haven't made the time to jump in and help yet. WT:NFC sounds good for recruiting help, and probably also WP:MCQ since it's the highest-traffic image copyright board. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries about jumping in. :) It's a bit tedious, but not demanding at this stage. Most of his images, as you know, are clearly fine. I could probably do a better job of organizing if I were more comfortable with consensus on NF images of dead people, but as I have had an image for which I wrote just such a FUR deleted, I recuse myself from that judgment. I can't make any sense of when such images are purely decorative and when they are actually encyclopedically useful. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. The only ones I didn't delete were an image on Commons that is a derivative of somebody else's image and seems legit and an image on Commons that I can't delete, but have nominated for deletion. If that's all that is remaining, you can close it out, and I'm off to barnstar GrapedApe. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! It's now closed. One more down, 34 to go... Maybe the motivation for Darius Dhlomo will stick around and we'll acquire some additional helpers for some of the others too. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

question

I nominated an article for deletion. I think I did not do the link in the edit summary correctly. Is it possible to fix that? [39] Malke 2010 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Malke.No, really, the only thing you would be able to do is make a "dummy" edit to the article and put in a new edit summary. It's not really necessary, as the AfD is linked from the article's face. But if you do it, just add a blank line or remove one from the categories or other sections and put in the edit summary you meant. I see that your nom statement includes the following: "Reason Malke 2010 (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)" You may want to remove that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a relief. I'll leave it as is. Also, I do have concerns about copyright violations on this article. The editor will not provide reliable sources. When I questioned an edit I know I've seen elsewhere, he simply deleted it. I've also seen this edit elsewhere on a Catholic website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer#Prayer_as_a_source_of_strength. These websites are not duplicating Wiki articles like Wapedia, etc. These are original pieces by laity. Also, a lot of material seems to be taken from New Advent, a lay Catholic encyclopedia but without attribution. I'll get you some links in a bit, I have to go out for a bit.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible violation?

I'm sure you've got plenty on your plate regardless, but do you think this article could be a violation? I'm finding nothing via google except for the end list of inducted Oklahomans which was stripped from here. The style seems very much like a biography written for his induction into the hall of fame, or perhaps a similar career retrospective. It's also very unusual that this rookie editor randomly appeared a year after his last edit to create a complete article and nothing more. SFB/talk 21:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that those are red flags. Let me see if I can find something out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've got nothing, although those lengthy quotes are probably a problem under WP:NFC. Certainly, they're inadequately cited. Given that this contributor is long gone, I think there are probably two good options here: we can rewrite it proactively with sourced content or we can tag the talk page with {{Cv-unsure}}, revisiting it later to rewrite it with sourced content if nobody else has done so. Since it seems to be a BLP (I don't see a death date), I'd go for the former. It might not be a copyvio, but since it doesn't meet our other core policies it doesn't matter much. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi. I'd like to ask about copyright in the context of Darius Dhlomo's contributions. I'm not arguing with the decisions made, I'm just trying to understand. Can you tell me, for example, why this is a copyvio? It seems to me that these are just facts. In order for something to be copyrightable, I feel that there has to be some original creativity in the work. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• There's a discussion with Moonriddengirl of whether such things are copyrightable at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI#Cyclist tables that you should read first, in order to prevent covering some of the same ground again. Uncle G (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Uncle G. :) Yes, Richard, you might find that conversation helpful. Nobody is saying that all of his content is infringing, though we know a significant amount of it is. If that conversation doesn't satisfy you, please let me know; I'll be happy to go over it further. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • No, I'm happy. I accept that if some of his content is copyvio, then it's better to err on the side of deleting all of his edits and starting again, since it's impractical to personally assess each contribution. However, I maintain that some of his contributions are not copyvio. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
      • No, many of them will not be. I've estimated all along that the problematic articles will come down to hundreds rather than thousands. I'm not advocating deleting his content wholesale; we're just requesting assistance of the community in reviewing the content. Work on this has been going quite quickly, so I hope we'll get it all sorted and back into circulation soon! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I'd offer to help, but I'm lost by some of the terminology, as you are. I wouldn't know how to interpret the information, let alone find whether it's a copyvio. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
          • You can help if you get the chance just by making sure that others know what's going on. :) I'm sure this is bound to cause some confusion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Perhaps you'd like to give some feedback on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo/How to help, then. You're in an ideal position. What more could it do to explain how to help, to you? Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Well, some of this you only find out once the FAQ become "frequently asked". :) It had not occurred to me that we would need to repeat the instructions from CCI that people with a history of copyright problems should not undertake this work. It seems that some people are worried about mass deletion. I'll reread it to see if I can minimize that impression. Right now, I'm double-checking our first major snafu to see if other copyvios have been restored. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
              • I was actually asking Richardcavell, who seems perfectly placed (in not knowing how to help) to explain to us how to make the instructions better — what they aren't explaining and so forth. As to your second point: That's why I put the big green box at the top of the task explanation. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
                • Oh, of course. I should have noticed the threading. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I've done a sample run of 22 articles with the 'bot, deliberately choosing one that you've already deleted as part of the test; found and fixed two problems; and am awaiting developments at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Uncle G's major work 'bot. I have a list of titles and a working script to feed to it. I'm ready. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Trackinfo

Further information: [[:User talk:Uncle G#CCI bot|User talk:Uncle G § CCI bot]]

On my talk page, 67.119.12.29 (talk · contribs) has pointed out the edit history of Pat McCormick (diver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and from that the edit history of Trackinfo (talk · contribs). From there I find some rather disappointing statements at Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo/How to help, including statements that Darius Dhlomo's "legwork" in creating "these highly accurate wikifications of public record documents" is "so valuable" that "I would be willing to overlook the occasional tendency toward copyright violations in prose". Note that this editor has been crossing many articles off the list. If this is the level of review by this editor, what you now have ticked off on the list is tainted. I suggest a very strong word. Uncle G (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

He is not eligible to help, as CCI clean up can only be done by those with no history of copyright infringement. From CCI: All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to clean up. At the very least, there's Ventura County Transportation Commission, which was deleted as a copyvio. There may be other issues, but that one is at the top of his current talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, he's already reintroduced a copyvio. See his talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Casa Paoli

Hi, I posted a message here 2 days ago, but never got an approved/not approved response. I spent more than a mouse click of time working on something that complied with your suggestions, recommendations etc, but while awaiting your response another user who had worked on the article just went in removed your copyvio and with a mouse click installed an older version. I never received a response to my message. Was my version which incorporated your suggestions verbatim (except for some erroneous info that apparently you missed) not approved? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry; copyright cleanup can get hectic, and this past week has been particularly so. I'm afraid I misunderstood your note. Since I had said those were the only lingering issues, when you wrote, "Done, I hope that the new version takes care of the issues involved. Happy editing everyone" I presumed you had put your content into place and thought that the "happy editing everyone" had a bit of a farewell to it. :) But, there's no great harm that you didn't, because you can do so now. Those were the only issues I found. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am pointed to this discussion here by Mercy11, and given another link. Neither this conversation here nor the other link indicate to me that the situation is magically cleaned up. I am involved in the Casa Paoli article too, and feeling some responsibility to see that it is cleaned up properly, given my personal contact with NRHP nomination document author and photographer. I reverted the article to an earlier version before the long passage noted at Talk:Casa Paoli was added. I want to see that the article does not contain close paraphrasing without proper attribution (which would usually involve NOT close paraphrasing, or exact copying plus use of explicit quotation marks). The article was pretty good when it was DYK. I don't see need for copying or near copying of material. Anyhow, I will follow at I'll follow discussion at Talk:Casa Paoli. --doncram (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As I'm doing that whole "uninvolved admin" bit, my only concern here is whether the content is copyvio clear. Other than that, I leave it to involved contributors to oversee the development. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Shalvoy clean-up

Just logged in to do it ! Sorry you had to do it; busy couple of weeks. --Cmagha (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It came up in the list at WP:CP, and it wasn't so hard to clean. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Adish Aggarwala

Looks like you cleaned up copyvio here before, but there seems some attempts to re-add copyrighted info e.g. [40] from [41].

I came across this from the comment on User talk:Jimbo Wales#Adish Aggarwala, thought it worth letting you know. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  13:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've rev deleted again and am now watchlisting. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

merger question

What's the best way to propose an article merger? And also, is it acceptable to post this proposal on the relevant Wikiprojects page, or is that seen as canvassing?Malke 2010 (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said here, you start by following the steps at Help:Merge#Proposing a merger. Note that it directs that if you think the merge will be controversial, you should consider listing the merge at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. As far as notifying the project is concern, a lot will depend on the circumstances. A brief, neutral notice that a merge discussion has been launched might not be inappropriate if you fear that the conversation will not attract responders. The thing is to keep it limited and neutral and to make sure you don't cherry pick the project to get the result you want. Hard to come up with an example of that, so I'll fictionalize one. If you wanted to propose the merger of Wal-Mart (Store 12 Des Moines, Iowa) into Wal-Mart, you wouldn't notify Wikipedia:WikiProject individual stores should not have articles. That would look like you were deliberately choosing a project you expected to support you.

If you do notify the project, to best avoid concerns about canvassing, don't go into your reasons or necessarily even make obvious your position. Simply say something like, "There is a proposal to merge Wal-Mart (Store 12 Des Moines, Iowa) into Wal-Mart. Interested contributors are invited to weigh in at Talk:Wal-Mart#Merge proposal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I love the Walmart example. That's exactly what I needed to know in presenting the proposal to the relevant page. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

David Croft (rugby union)

Hi Moonriddengirl, I extended the article after your "cleaning", could you please check for the spelling? English is not my mother tongue so it's very likely you'll find either some mistakes or typos. Greetings from Italy :-) -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 13:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) No spelling errors, although I turned a comma into a period and changed the usage of a preposition. The only real question I have is what you mean by "He retired from professional rugby in 2008 aged 28, and definitely in late 2009, aged 30." Do you mean that he still played rugby non-professional between 2008 and 2009? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Actually Southern Emisphere rugby union is structured in clubs and franchises. The clubs are mostly non-professional and sort of tank for the franchises that are professional. Croft stopped playing professional rugby union in 2008, still aged 28 (he would be turning 29 in December, but the professional season ends in May in the Southern Emisphere). Then he went on playing for his amateur side for the rest of 2008 and the whole 2009 season that ends in December. Hope it helps to clarify. :-) Regards -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 17:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Item you deleted

Hello,

We need to retrieve information from a insertion you deleted, according to the site. The article was regardign author Gary Alan Wassner. How do we retrieve the information? Thank you. 96.232.208.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

Hi. I'm afraid that I cannot restore content that was deleted for copyright infringement, but if it is of any use to you, the article is substantially the same as this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

• News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes

• In the news: Public Policy Initiative, Houellebecq plagiarism?, Article revisions as book

• Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment

• Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration

• WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab

• Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge

• 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) 20:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to convey my gratitude to you for putting so much effort into a project like Wikipedia. Lord Bless you and I hope you always remain happy and that you receive the recognition that you well deserve. 41.239.83.166 (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

are you around?

Hi MRG, are you around right now?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I take it you're not. Good, I hope you're lying down in a dark quiet room with an ice pack. Feel better. [42] Malke 2010 (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) As I said at your mentorship page, I am feeling much better this morning. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

West Baden Springs Hotel

Greetings, MRG! I have finally come to a stopping point on the rewrite of this article, which had close paraphrasing. It is located at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 2, and I'd appreciate another set of eyes reviewing it. I'm not in a big hurry, but if you expect to be unavailable for a week or more, I will make other arrangements. Thanks! Mgrē@sŏn 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have no such expectations. :) I've put it on my mental "to do" list, but this morning has been crazy already. If I should lose that list, as I sometimes do, please give me a nudge. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUNDING

Hi, sometime ago we talked and you suggested that I should no longer look at the mentorship page you had for Malke, given that I noticed that you had asked her to stop following me. I respected that request for keeping that page semi-private and have not looked there, but Malke wants a reference to that discussion. Instead of looking on there for a diff, could you please comment on User_talk:Malke_2010#WP:WIKIHOUND_warning. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't mean at all to suggest that you shouldn't look at the page. I've only requested that others keep their comments to her main page. That said, I'll follow your link. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

ORTS

Hi there, If possible please look in to ORTS tickets for following files File:NH 45 Ulundurpet Padalur.JPG and File:Udaipur_highway.jpg. I already sent mail to ORTS today. Thanks KuwarOnline ^Talk 09:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be happy to take a look once I've caught up with on Wikipedia stuff, probably within a few hours. If it has not been handled before then and I find it, I'll process it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Thirdaccount

Hi Moonriddengirl. I wonder if you could take a look at what this user is saying on their talkpage? They posted a bunch of ozone related articles, two of which are copyright violations (one from an UNEP site, the other of a news article which the user asserts is itself a copyvio of original UNEP text). He/she is saying that they are trying to create the pages and are the original owner, and that they will edit out the copyright violations. I was thinking of offering to move them to userspace for them to work on them, but really my understanding is G12 applies over all namespaces.

I'm really not sure how to proceed. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Syrthiss (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll come right over. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you had any more communication with Thirdaccount through OTRS about permissions? Looks like another person in his/her office has started OAs Initiatives which is copyright violation from http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/about/mf.htm (and nocontext to boot, in that if I didn't know what it was about at this point it would be hard to tie the article to the name). I didn't want to act on it in case you had been getting emails from Thirdaccount. Syrthiss (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not a thing. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Boo, this is really troubling. Not only are they creating copyright violations that would be so easy to fix, but all of this leaves a bad taste of using wikipedia for advertising for their initiative. :( Syrthiss (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There's a clear COI. Would you consider filing a notice about this at the COI noticeboard? I've got so much copyright work to do and so little time to do it. :/ Given how little ground I made on the copyright problem with them, I'm loathe to even try to explain WP:COI and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. Lemme pop over there. Syrthiss (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go see if I can get the work done at WP:CP. :) Here's hoping a fresh voice of reason can hold sway. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Undelete

Missed that it was under discussion, sorry - I see that you beat me to the undelete, too. Looks like I need a cup of coffee. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's fine - your restoration was completely proper, especially since you were directly referring to it. The important bit is that you told me after, which is exactly right. No worries, and hope it all works out. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Okely dokely

Here is a "good" question for you. What to do in the case of many possible image copyvios from one user? If it were only a few of them I would just tag them as I did File:64 Eric Pinkett.jpg and not bother you. However as I started to look over the users image uploads I began to notice they were mostly marked the same - "Own photograph"/"own photo". Some are marked as "own artwork" and only one is/was marked as "This is my own personal photograph taken in 1964". So I dug deeper and the user runs a website about "players from the Eric Pinkett era" of the Leicestershire Schools Symphony Orchestra. Now here comes the bigger copyright issue - while the website states No permission is required to download or print any of the items. it also gives gratitude and thanks to all former players who made contributions to the Photo Gallery, and particularly to Nigel Pinkett for the 'Special Collections' section. Wikipedia has no proof that any of the actual photographers signed over their copyright to the uploader so they could license them here via {{PD-self}}. Aside from that there may also be a COI concern (Ok, well there *is* a COI concern) because since October 2009 the uploader (Most likely also I.P 86.144.118.211) has been the main contributor to the Peter G. Fletcher article, which they are mentioned in, and, since May 2007, the main contributor to the Leicestershire Schools Symphony Orchestra. (Possible to also be I.P 86.130.109.46, I.P 86.144.118.45 and I.P 6.130.118.93) There is also some WP:OWN going on as well it seems - "My article has been somewhat decimated."

So where to start? Is there a protocol in place for dealing with this many images or do I just start tagging them all {{di-no permission}} and ask for OTRS's to be sent in for each image on the users talk page? Or should send all the unused ones to PUI and tagged the used ones with {{di-no permission}}? Advice welcome. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good place to start: talking to the guy. Is he still active? If so, drop a note on his talk page politely letting him know your concerns and that if he has uploaded content to Wikipedia from other photographers we need verification of their license. I'd recommend being very friendly at this stage; he's likely to be dismayed by the situation, and a spoonful of sugar surely helps. When the contributor is working on good faith, this is always a good approach to telling somebody, "Hi, you may have created a major problem!"

If he asserts that he is the photographer of all of the images, and you feel you have good reason to doubt him, I think you basically have two options: WP:PuF or WP:FfD. I would not go the {{di-no permission}} process unless he akcnowledges that he is not the photographer but does not within reasonable time verify permission through OTRS. The COI concern is a separate issue, and I would leave it to resolve for after resolving the copyright concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Did it. Placed a message on the talk page. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism

Would you mind investigating whether Central place theory is plagiarized or not? I came across a report on the talk page that it might be, but I don't have time to properly investigate. I saw this while demo-ing Wikipedia for a class for the Public Policy Initiative, so it would be nice to report back to the class that we did something about it! :) Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take a look at it and see what I can figure out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Whew, that was a bit of a slog. :) I'd say "unlikely" and I've commented at the article talk page. I'd need to see more sources to be really sure, but I think the structure is the standard way anyone would describe the theory. The ordering and development of the concepts look subtly different as you read farther down, if someone was being lazy, they weren't being lazy enough. :) The original publication of the theory would be of great interest, but it's likely in German anyway. Franamax (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Malke

I just wanted to let you know that I blocked Malke for 24 hours over that Raccolta comment -- it seems to me to be a clear case of WP:HOUND.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say about this one. :/ I think she's acting in good faith but confusion on the copyright issue, but the whole situation with the ANI report has just gotten out of hand, and it was so unnecessary. :( (massively discouraged) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I thought your summary in the ANI thread was insightful and highlighted the same things I'd observed. Unfortunately, things appear to have flared up after I went to bed. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Your advice at your talk page was also spot on. I hope that these two can come to some accord in their work, if they are going to continue working on the same article types. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Your efforts on copyright problems are greatly appreciated!

I wanted to say thank you for the incredible amount of effort you have put in on keeping Wikipedia's copyright problem under control. It's not always well appreciated work, but it's important, and it means a lot to me that you've been so diligent and involved.

Thank you! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, so much. Today is a perfect day for it, too. :) (Sometimes it seems a bit overwhelming.) I try, and I'm always encouraged by how many Wikipedians are willing to pitch in to help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Request

Can you delete the edit summary/comment for File:Hank3.jpg to remove the personal information? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Henry Grow.jpg too. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, we have to reupload the picture and delete it for that to happen. We had a recent request through OTRS for similar, and revdeletion did no good with the images. Can you reupload with proper attribution? If so, I'll delete. And if that doesn't work, I'll run to User:Avraham for help, because he's the one who fixed the problem the last time. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

New copies uploaded. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you look at the logs for the first image and see if that worked? If the identifying information is still visible in the logs, I'll ask Avi to help. (It's still visible to me, but I don't know if that's just because I'm an admin.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Hank3.jpg looks good, the only upload I see is mine and in history there's only my two edits. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. :) I've done the other one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And another one unrelated to the above - Dalbster (talk · contribs) from one of our more recent CCIs is back after their 72-hour block as 92.4.238.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and is now adding more copyvio (see this addition copied from this source. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've rolled back and warned. It's pretty obviously the same person, but.... Any more copyvios out of that IP will lead to longer sanctions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't rolled back yet since I keep finding earlier and earlier copyvio and have been trying to figure out if anything in that article is clean. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I wondered that. I ran it through the Earwig checked and spot-checked a couple but didn't find matches, but I wouldn't be surprised if you find a source for quite a lot of that. Often, people return to the copyrighted text pool because they can't generate their own content. :/ (If you have a mo', can you tell me: does this post from me make sense?) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So far I've found sources for everything I've looked for, it's just been taking me time to look through sources I know Dalbster copied from and I just haven't made it back to the beginning of the articles yet and I'd rather not have to remove all of the plot summaries. <sigh> Anyways, I think your post there makes sense. It (to me at least) does a good job of explaining why we have to take action like we (try to) do when copyright problems are brought to light. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good ol' pile of 'stars

Thank you for your incredible work on copyrights... I will never have your determination, but you will always have my admiration. (Did that rhyme by any chance?) Renata (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :D And for the rhyme! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Creating a page for the SOA-manifesto

As the header says - I'll let you answer this one. :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Iop23

It appears that this new editor has created a number of questionable articles. You have initiated a review of some of the work, but the article Action on Methyl Bromide is very strange also. We would normally include such content in Methyl bromide. I recomend that Iop23's entire inventory of new articles be considered for deletion. Thanks,--Smokefoot (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Admins have limited authority to delete articles, and I'm afraid that I am not empowered to make such decisions unless the articles meet the narrow criteria of "speedy deletion". If you think that the content should be included at Methyl bromide, you do have the option of merging it. I myself would have no idea what or how much to save. :) Otherwise, you can nominate for uncontroversial deletion or for deletion debate. As this is not my area, I am not the best person to make that determination myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

By the way thanks for your handling of the issues. You were so effective and fair that I think you should copyright your style somehow, if not trademark it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I do my best. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A little change if you could

Template talk:Di-no source#Slight wording change. I use that tag all the time and I never noticed this until today, so I made the request. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk)

Question

Hi! I removed a possible copyvio sentence added by user:Дунгане, thinking that was a close paraphrasing case. See the source the user added. Was I correct? I'd like to know your opinion. If it's not CV, I will revert my edit and strike the warning on the user's talk page. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you very much for being conscious of these issues. :) I'll go take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence too closely paraphrases its source. While parts are in quotation marks, the parts that are not are also taken from there. By itself, this would be a "de minimis" situation under U.S. law, almost surely, but our policies do require that we either rewrite content completely or quote it (in limited amounts). We don't push that boundary. I don't know if the warning is necessary, however, since the text addition predates his CCI and the ANI conversation about him. I would most certainly take note if you run into material like that after 3 August, but he may know better now than he did in July. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I first removed this which was not CV. But I thought it was undue weight because an individual murder case should not belong to the section unless it was really a notable big case. Then I checked his past addition. It seems to me that he has a general tendency to emphasize the Chinese Muslim and Hui people on his edits. Not that I think they are not important, but some of his additions look like undue weight. I think he needs to learn some more to edit on WP. Oda Mari (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh khanna

you had once suggested that its better to make a seperate page Rajesh Khanna Filmography.

iam not aware as to how it should be made or edited.if the page is created i can definitely help you update the filmography. it would be better if Rajesh Khanna Filmography is created seperately with 6 columns Year,Film,Role,Actress,Director,Other Notes.

the reason being that many things about khanna is missing from the wikipedia article right now, but if information is added then page will look longer so seperate page of filmography is the need of hour.

preferably the new page of Rajesh Khanna Filmography should appear under letter R and not K. I MEAN IN THIS LINK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Filmographies

Shrik88music (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not intending to make a filmography for this individual, but good luck to you should you choose to do so. If you have not yet found a mentor, as I've suggested in the past, a mentor might be able to help you with formatting. Alternatively, you can visit the help desk. I'm afraid I still do not have time for taking on new duties at this point. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 14 zSeptember 2010 (UTC)

atleast tell me how should i create tht page in such a way that it does appear in that link under R to the world.i cn fill up all those six columns viz. Year,Film,Role,Actress,Director,Other Notes. by myself but only if iam able to create that page.Shrik88music (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you create the article as Rajesh Khanna Filmography, it will appear under R to the world. The only way it will appear under K is if somebody puts in a code requesting that it appear there instead. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I HAVE CREATED http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajesh_Khanna_Filmography.

but please show me six colomuns with the headings i asked for. later on gradually i will fill it upShrik88music (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please visit the help desk. I'm afraid I do not have time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have crrated a seperate page Rajesh Khanna Filmography. iam not aware as to how it should be edited that there would be 6 columns Year,Film,Role,Actress,Director,Other Notes. i wil by myself manage to fill up all details if u dont have time but just create that page with those 6 columns atleast. if you would be able to fill up the columns actresses,year,role with help of the already created filmography by me at present it would be great. gradually i will fill the columns roles,other notes,director.Shrik88music (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to be unhelpful, but I'm afraid that I don't even have time to do the work that I need to do. I have suggested mentorship would be helpful for you. If you don't want to seek mentorship, that's fine, but we do have a help desk with volunteers who do have time to help you and will be happy to do so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry – I've sorted it. I'm sure you've got enough on your plate with the Darius Dhlomo work. I really admire all the hard work you put in. Best regards — Hebrides (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your giving him a hand. I hate turning anybody away. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

i by myself keep taking help from few selected people as they seem to be intelligent and not biased fans....rajesh khanna article must be made semi protected i feel as those who have not got themselves registered are editing rajesh khana articleShrik88music (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

another question

I've posted a question on our page. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke 2010

Hi. I have not been a party to anything that has gone before in the current editing block of Malke 2010, but I would like to chime in here as a "character witness", and plead for assistance in lifting/shortening of this block. How can I help in this situation? Malke was a very calming influence in a couple of contentious situations I encountered in the past with other editors. When I was ready to throw in the towell in the face of irrational argument, she drew me back to the table. When I became a little overbeariung, she restrained me. I have only ever known her to deal in good faith, and I believe that whatever this situation is, she IS dealing in good faith. Eastcote (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As a placeholder, I'll note that I'll come take a look at this pretty soon. I'm fresh up this morning and need a little more clarity before wading in to what is obviously an escalation of the last I knew. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi MRG, To my horror, I discovered this edit when I checked my contributions this morning. I must have hit the stupid rollback button by mistake. Head now suitably hanging in shame. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I got a good chuckle out of it. :D But no worries on my account; I have done it myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your thoughts please?

Hey, M, can you leave your thoughts at User talk:Malke 2010 regarding the pending unblock request, and the block in general. Thanks. Courcelles 09:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending unblock request sounds ominous, since the last I saw she was editing again. :/ A little more coffee, and I'll come over. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Aaah. Another person who can't make it through the day without copious amounts of caffeine ;) Courcelles 15:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

bot task explanation (to Moonriddengirl and Uncle G)

This CCI case

CCI pages
CCI case main page 'bot task explanation how to help 'bot discussion cleanup discussion changes to the 10,000 articles list of tagged articles
Policy
Copyright policy

I've started rewriting the bot task explanation for a more general readership. Please tell me (preferably here) if you think

Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo/Task explanation/sandbox

is heading in the right direction.

75.62.2.105 (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC) For what it's worth, I think that the task explanation should stick to just that: the explanation of what the task being performed is. We don't need a "How can you help?" section. I suggest refactoring what's already there and placing it into the "Why this is happening" and "What happens next" sections. Uncle G (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would prefer a slightly more businesslike opening than "Welcome to the CCI Bot-assisted copyright cleanup of September 2010." :) It sounds very like a community rock festival or something, and I'm not sure that it's going to strike the right tone for the dismayed and angry, of which we will encounter plenty. (Voice of experience here. People do shoot the messenger.) I wonder if we could remove Darius Dhlomo's name from the header of any versions, while I'm at it. Those who choose to contributor can read the specifics further down. Those who just want to know why the article is blanked don't need to. I see, Uncle G, that Darius has been subject to some abuse. :( I like the "What is happening" explanation; it's thorough and it suggests the WP:AGFC. I think from there, though, that I prefer the original's brevity of just going straight into "Where this was discussed" and "What happens next." Those who want to help can follow the instructions. I'd incorporate some of "How many and which of those articles actually infringe?" into "What happens next." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • At least it's on my talk page now, not Darius Dhlomo's. I had my 'bot clear my talk page because I knew this was coming. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• This is not to say, of course, that there's nothing there that I like. On the contrary, I like the short and long factual answers. I also like the idea of greater flow. Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• I defer to MRG about the rock festival issue and will try to make a change. I agree about removing DD's name from the header, and in general about not plastering it around more than necessary. I think we need to address several types of readers, maybe by splitting the page out to two or more separate documents:
  • Readers who come across one of those articles while looking for info, see that template, and wonder what's going on but probably won't get involved in review/cleanup
  • Editors involved in athletics articles / copyright cleanup / general maintenance, who might want to help with reviewing
  • Non-Wikipedians who hear about the incident on (kidding I hope) CNN, probably in some distorted form (the WP Signpost article already had problems) and think WP is a nest of copyright pirates. So the idea is to have some kind of FAQ explaining the overall situation to the best of our knowledge, and what we are doing about it.
• The bot is likely to cause considerable disruption and get people asking questions, so before we launch it, I think it's worth our while to create some reasonably complete and well-organized writeups to point people to. So that's what I was trying to start in on. Obviously there's a ways to go. I'd much appreciate any further thoughts. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • We already have such a split. We've had it for more than a week. Again, see the executive summary at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI#Implementing bot?. Uncle G (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Reasonable point about that split in the exec summary, but I think the need for an overview is not addressed by what is listed there. The idea is to have a completed document or two (that are editable like anything else, but that organize the info and present it in finished form) rather than pointing into the middle of discussions that sprawl all over the place. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Some merger of the two documents would seem good to me. I'd like to keep the lead businesslike, myself. But we need to get whatever we're going to use drawn together quickly, I think, as we've already publicized this. Delay in implementation is only going to further add to the confusion, I fear. But I would like to see some explicit mention in this document that only contributors with no history of copyright problems should help out. We've already had one problem related to that, and it's best to make sure that everyone is aware of that up front. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Please feel free to edit or merge/transfer anything I wrote as you see fit. I can probably spend some more time on it tonight but have other stuff to do between now and then. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
          • All right, will do. But this is tonight in my part of the world, so I probably won't do anything until tomorrow. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
      • If you want some completed document to work on, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo is now the place. Note the navigational infoboxes. The cleanup instructions there require review. The quick overview requires expansion. Uncle G (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
        • The cleanup instructions look like (I'm guessing) standard CCI instructions and as such they seem ok to me. More to the point, the CCI pages are directed at people involved in cleaning up articles. This is going to be such a disruptive operation that I'm thinking we need a FAQ-like document geared mostly towards folks who just want a quick understanding of what's going on, but probably don't wan't to get involved themselves. Does that make any sense? That's part of what I was aiming at in the sandbox text linked above. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Then please work on the new section of that page that I've just started. ☺ This is, after all, the main CCI case page. I've put it at the top of all of the navigation boxes. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Nice! I'll see if I can think of anything to add, but it looks very good already. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I added a bit of intro to the overview. I'm quite uncomfortable writing about how to assess the legal status of anything so I'm going to leave the cleanup section alone. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Franamax

Moved from previous section by 67.119.14.196 (talk); I hope nobody minds

• Just stalking here, but as a matter of principle I frown on asking BAG to make these kind of decisions. Requesting the bot flag is essentially saying "I m going to make thousands of edits without really looking at any of them and I want the special bit that lets me do this without any recentchanges patrollers seeing it (even though it will flood individual people's watchlists and the most common response of bot operators is to steadfastly deny they ever did a single thing wrong, I'm not like that and anyway it's too late to go back once I've run the bot)". Now, I'm philosophically opposed to simple blanking of articles created with a copyvio, because I feel it devalues the subsequent work of many others and paints much to broad of a stroke, so maybe you should ignore me. And I realize my alternative of examining each case and dealing with it appropriately is very time-consuming and I haven't done my share, ao again, maybe you should ignore me. I'd rather see a much more tightly defined task though, like if the article was created with 10 bytes of content and is now 100Kbytes by other editors, will it still get blanked? Franamax (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Franamax, the best place to bring up points like that is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI, where wider discussion of this operation is happening. I think the point of the BRFA is to get technical feedback about the bot operation itself, rather than to get a bot flag (a separate decision). Re your question about a 10-byte article with 100k of later contributions, yes it would still get blanked, but then anyone looking at the edit history could see what had happened and unblank it. In practice most of these articles have little substantial editing by anyone other than Darius. 75.62.2.105 (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to add to that: Franamax, you really should have read Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Uncle G's major work 'bot first, before writing the above. You are not correctly informed. Uncle G (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Picking up with User:Franamax, this isn't my ideal solution, either, but we currently have hundreds of thousands of articles that require review at CCI, with over 20,000 alone in this CCI. The listing already excludes anything below the "minimum" threshhold by this creator (100 bytes, I believe). We have CCIs over a year old. Leaving them unblanked does nobody any favors, either, as contributors who build derivative works off of unusable bases will have completely wasted their time. At least with this method, they are informed. I'd much rather find the article I want to work on blanked and know I have to start over than put hours into something that will later be deleted, especially if I'm then told, "Oh, yes, we knew last year that all of his stuff was going to have to go, but we didn't get around to it in time to keep you from wasting your effort." :/ Beyond that, the operations of bots and their capacities are well beyond me, so I leave that one to people who understand them. ;) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot

Maybe the CorenBot could be programmed to identify copyrighted text added to existing articles so that this fiasco doesn't happen again? Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• From what I understand (and I am not a bot person, by a long shot!) this is not really possible because of the amount of material added to existing articles and the workload it would place and because of the prevalence of Wikimedia mirrors. Coren's got a pretty good ratio of actual problems/false positives, but I suspect that would tank if he tried this. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think you're right. And mirror sites are always a problem... The question is how to stop this sort of thing happening. Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Now that I have a backup copy of CorenSearchBot's code running I've been thinking about playing with it to try and do just this, since we won't really know how feasible it is until it actually runs, but other things keep climbing ahead of it on my todo list. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Chances are, you'll drown in false positives unless you manage to have and maintain a list of mirrors and (legitimate) copies of Wikipedia articles. I tried running version 3 of the code over recent changes, with a trigger that it needed to be a substantial addition (IIRC, > 300 words or so) and even then it had trouble doing the web searches fast enough, and it was buried in hits.

    Mind you, if you did the search on the added text as opposed to resulting article, you might have better success — but diffs aren't very good to determine what is addition or not since it's newline (i.e. paragraph) based. — Coren ^(talk) 16:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Plus, of course, there's the problem of the search engine that the 'bot uses. Yahoo doesn't pick up, at least from the search strings that I used, the copyright violation at Maurizio Damilano that Dr. Blofeld was talking about earlier, for example. Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That too; though it's fairly simple to switch search engines. (Indeed, it already has the code to use Google instead — which gave better results — but whose license did not allow that use) — Coren ^(talk) 18:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• In these Darius articles there's lots of text that's obviously copied from somewhere (because Darius doesn't write like that), but gets no search hits, so all we can do is blank it and rewrite it. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. Unless the text is very simple, I would presume infringement in line with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Coren, if you're still here, can you program CorenSearchBot to pick up any edits that remove an article from Category:Articles tagged for CCI copyright problems? That gives at least a slight re-check of articles that editors un-blank from Uncle G's bot sweep. At least one person has already re-introduced copyvios by restoring insufficiently checked stuff from Uncle G's initial test run, and CorenSearchBot has at least some hope of picking up on that. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, a question?

Dear MRG, if you're not too busy, can you perhaps give your opinion about a question I asked at Commons, here? You know all this stuff, and I don't, and it seems there isn't a very clear consensus. Thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that they're right; if the images are not public domain in the United States (and it seems like they aren't), they can't be hosted on Commons. The U.S. has much more narrow laws about copyright, and Commons and en Wiki both have to comply. :/ Unless you can find something free or validate something under NFC, you may be out of luck on that one.

Wikipedia:PD#Country-specific rules helps explain a bit why: "being in the public domain in its home country does not automatically mean that the work was also in the public domain in the U.S. because the U.S. does not follow the "rule of shorter term". Commons:Public domain#Country-specific laws also suggests how complex it can be: "Images uploaded to Commons, unless uploaded from the United States, involve the interaction of two or more copyright jurisdictions. Generally, the policy applied on Commons is to only allow images that can be used in all (or at least most) countries"; "Also apply the copyright laws of the country you are in and the copyright laws of any web server you got the work off. In the case of a French painting uploaded to Commons from a French web server by someone living in the UK three copyright jurisdictions would apply: France, UK and US." Mmm, okay. Complex much? (Understandably complex, but still, what a nightmare!) As far as the U.S. is concerned, a somewhat oversimplified list of considerations is offered at WP:PD (reproduced with minimal modification here):

• If the work was published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the U.S.(With a caveat for works published without copyright notice, see footnote 1.)
• If the work was published 1923 to 1995 (inclusive) and not copyrighted in its countries of origin in 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S.
• Otherwise, if the work was published before 1978, it is copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years since the original publication (i.e. at least until 1923 + 95 = 2018), and if it was published 1978 or later, the work is copyrighted until 70 years after the (last surviving) author's death.

U.S. copyright law is slippery and frustrating enough, at times. The interaction of international copyright laws is lightyears beyond that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Girl...I appreciate your time. Now I'm stuck with an ugly article! Drmies (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. :) I've got a number of those myself. Maybe somebody will come up with a free image! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)