Jump to content

User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

Seeking your opinion on my articulation of the position on copyvios

There's a tempest in a teapot at my talk page, but I did end up posting my opinion about dealing with copyvio issues. My post is below, to see it in context go here

Sorry, I just can't let this "We're here to write an encyclopedia, not delete it, and your fail-safe position should always be towards content retention" pass. I consider myself closer to the inclusionist end of the spectrum that the exclusionist, in most cases, but not when it comes to possible copyvios. We probably have thousands of copvios in Wikipedia, and detractors of Wikipedia would find it easy to assemble evidence including a large number of exhibits. On the chance that someone does make such a ruckus, I want to be able to present evidence that the community is making a good faith effort to remove copyvios, and that the community is working hard on this, not just lip service. In close calls regarding copyvio, we err on the side of exclusion. We do not need some outside body concluding that Wikipedia is cavalier about addressing copyright issues.

I think you and I are largely on the same page, but I wouldn't mind a review, as it is an admin who is taking a different position.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I prefer to give an opinion without seeing context, and I am responding at this point only to what you say above. That helps me avoid being distracted from the main issue: whether or not I agree with your statement. :) I'll take a look later and weigh in on your talk page if you'd like, but I agree with the general approach you describe here. Wikipedia:Copyrights does not support a position of always fail-safe towards content retention. It says and has said in substance since long before I got involved in copyright cleanup, "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." With copyright, the fail-safe position is to remove dubious content. While I frequently do rewrite content where I am not sure there is an issue, in line with policy, content that violates that policy is routinely removed. And I agree with you for one of the main reasons why. We have a good record for diligence in copyright cleanup (even though we are woefully undermanned), and it will stand us in good stead if we are ever challenged. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It would be quite troubling if we weren't on the same page, as my views have largely been shaped by reading your talk page. No current need to weigh in at my talk page, unless the other party takes strong exception, in which case I'll plead for support :) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Rsmtenon

This account is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

12:12, 30 April 2010 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) blocked Rsmtenon (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ({{UsernameBlocked}})

Hi, I am the webmastrer for RSM Tenon and have been charged with adding some new facts to our page. On trying to set up an account I discovered an account already existed. I don't know who in the company set up this account (we have over 3000 staff) or why it was suspended by you back in April 2010.

Are you able to help or do I need to create a new user account?

Hi. :) There are two issues here. First, you should not choose a username that is connected to a company. Accounts cannot be shared with others, and account names should not seem promotional. It wouldn't be appropriate to unblock that particular account for those reasons, but you are welcome to create a new one. In accordance with user name policy, you should select a name that represents you as an individual, whether your own name or a sobriquet, as many of us use.
Second, as you work for RSM Tenon, you should very thoroughly review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations before editing the RSM Tenon article or any other article related to your business. While there are some edits that you can make without controversy (as explained in those documents), there are some you should instead request others to consider. This will help avoid any seeming of bias on your part. If people believe you are editing with bias, it can lead to complications, including reversion of your edits and even potentially the blocking of your new account. I myself recommend being conservative there; if you aren't sure if it's an uncontroversial edit, I'd check before making it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the article for Salter's duck a while back and I noticed that someone added a link to another language Wikipedia version of the page. On a whim, i decided to see what it looked like and I found that it has several images of the subject that I didn't know about. From what Google's translation software is telling me, they all appear to have a public domain tag on them. What would be the process of utilizing these? I want to confirm that they are public domain before I use them, just in case the tags are wrong, but I don't know how to check that. SilverserenC 11:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If the images are on Commons, it's as easy as adding a link. If they aren't, you'll need to import them to Commons.
I have some serious doubts, though, that those images are public domain. :/ The explanation for why the uploader knows that the first two images are public domain is "Image was released on several different web address" (slika je objavljena na više različitih web adresa). The last one looks like your best shot. It claims permission, but there's not an OTRS tag. I don't see the image on the page it is linked to, but the disclaimer on that site indicates the contents are released under GFDL ([1]), and the page does seem to have been created by Neven Duić. If you can actually find the image there, it could be okay. If not, you might want to ask at WP:MCQ. They're pretty savvy people. :)
Meanwhile, I've got to look into getting somebody to evaluate the PD claims on those first two images. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
That was downright surreal! I found the category of users who speak English there, but most of them listed themselves as a "0" level of Hr. I can't understand why so many people would have accounts on hr who don't speak the language! Eventually, I realized that my usual method wasn't going to work, so I went to hr:Wikipedija:Administratori and found an active administrator there who speaks English fluently. I've left a message here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I guess i'll just wait and see if they respond. So you're saying that I would be okay in taking this image and using it? SilverserenC 20:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
And I found the image on that website. It's right here. SilverserenC 20:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
That should be okay, then. If I were you, I'd upload it to Commons, linking to the source and linking to their disclaimer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to upload images to Commons. I...kinda make it a point not to. But I can see how it's necessary here. How do I do it? SilverserenC 19:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a good thing to learn. :D The Upload Wizard is pretty easy, but in this case you're best to move the file. While written for En Wiki, Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons points you to a tool that will make it pretty easy: [2]. You'll need to have a TUSC account to use it. Let me know if you run into any problems. I've only done that once, so I'm not a master by any means, but I can try to help you figure it out or find somebody who knows more about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't I just upload it locally and tag it to be uploaded to Commons? SilverserenC 05:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it's really just as easy to use the Upload Wizard and put it on Commons. Commons isn't that hard. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If you've got a moment...

...could you look over Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh? I'm reviewing it for DYK and had to ask the nominator to rephrase some parts to avoid close paraphrasing, but the rephrasing having been carried out, I thought it would be a good idea to ask you or another copyright person to check it out and make sure I'm not missing anything or being too lenient. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure! Looking at it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Eh. :/ It's not exactly a thorough rewrite, but I don't think it rises to the level of a copyright problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Is that good enough for DYK? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry that took a while. It is now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Should I add you as co-credited, since you added content and didn't just rephrase what was there? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't think about that! It's not necessary, but thanks for thinking of it. I enjoy when I make DYK, but I don't think I'd feel quite the same in this situation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Brideshead Revisited

Hello Moonriddengirl:

There seems to be a copyvio problem in Brideshead Revisited. Please take a look. Within the article itself, not on the talk page, someone wrote:

"It appears that all the material in the preceding sections has been lifted, holus bolus, virtually verbatim and without attribution, from http://www.emanuellevy.com/comment/brideshead-revisited-the-sacred-and-the-profane-4/ Brideshead Revisited: The Sacred and the Profane. Poor effort."

The three sections immediately before this comment are all on the subject "Motifs" & they are very similar to the page at emanuellevy.com. It's possible Levy took words from us but, based on our article about his reputation, that seems unlikely. But I don't know anything about that.)

I was surprised to find out that this copyvio (if indeed that's what it is) was in the article in 2008 and portions are there in 2006. I would have deleted the whole "motifs" section as copyvio except that it seems to have evolved over time and I'm not sure this is consistent with it having been lifted from elsewhere. I'm hoping you have access to tools that will let you figure "what went on here" more precisely and easily than I could.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No tools, per se, but a lot of practice. Looking into it now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Right now, I'm thinking this is clearly a case of "we had it first." I zeroed in on the phrase "secular literary form". It has been in our article since October 2005, entering here. This is not the kind of wholesale copying we'd expect with a copyvio and is in fact somebody addressing what they perceive as bias. He changed this passage:

If we take into account the background of the author, the most significant theme of the book is Catholicism. Evelyn Waugh was a convert to Catholicism and the book is considered to be an attempt to express the Catholic faith in literary form

to this:

Taking into account the background of the author, the most significant theme of the book is Catholicism. Evelyn Waugh was a convert to Catholicism and the book is considered to be an attempt to express the Catholic faith in secular literary form.

Looking further back, we see that the earlier text ("literary form") had been added in one chunk the month before ([3]). Now, this would raise copyvio red flags with me, but I don't find any matches in Google or Google books for the "If we take into account..." sentence. And it's clearly not copied from Levy; the section on gay themes is there, although not with the language I've picked out to research ("pique the curiosity"), but the section on English nobility is not yet in the article.
In terms of "pique the curiosity", that enters here, and that editor surely didn't copy and paste it from Levy, because he misspelled "curiosity" (and corrected it in his next edit).
Taking the phrase "One reads in the book" from the nostalgia section, that enters also in 2006 with an edit attempting to address bias, as this:

The Flyte family, and more broadly, Waugh himself, see the arrival of the modern period as the conclusion of civilized life (Brideshead itself has "the atmosphere of a better age"). Note, further, the comment on the death of Lady Marchmain's brothers in the Great War: "these men must die to make a world for Hooper ... so that things might be safe for the travelling salesman, with his polygonal pince-nez, his fat, wet handshake, his grinning dentures."

Becomes this:

One reads in the book that Brideshead has “the atmosphere of a better age,” and, referring to the deaths of Marchmain’s brothers in the Great War, "these men must die to make a world for Hooper ... so that things might be safe for the travelling salesman, with his polygonal pince-nez, his fat, wet handshake, his grinning dentures."

The base text had been added ~ two months before here.
We either have to assume that multiple people have slowly copied from Levy over years, sometimes incrementally and with misspellings that he does not have, or that he copied from us.
I'll put the backwards copy template on the article talk page and remove the note from the article. You had good instincts in not removing the content from the article, and I appreciate your looking into it rather than presuming that a person of Levy's stature simply wouldn't do that. Sometimes it happens, and until we have further evidence otherwise, I think we have to assume it happened here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. You are quite amazing. (But this business of preparing and sometimes even rewarding violations really should stop.) Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
LOL! I'm afraid I am incorrigible. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

RD1 RfC draft

Hi. I finally posted that draft that I mentioned last month (User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 41#G12 versus stubbing (and RD1)): User:Flatscan/RfC draft: RD1 guidance. Feel free to leave comments or edit directly. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I still haven't heard back from the attorneys about that. I bumped them a few days ago. They've been pretty busy with the Terms of Use update, the SOPA stuff and a few things in Europe. I've asked them again today, emphasizing that we are about to have a community discussion of the matter. I think I'll probably get a response under those circumstances pretty quickly, and I'll add in any relevant information I get. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for following up and continuing to be the intermediary. With the upcoming holidays, I think that we should take it slow and target early January. Even if we were able to start the RfC within the next week, participation would be lower than normal. Flatscan (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I have attorney response, and they have opined that Revision Deletion of contents does not violate the licenses under which content is contributed, either GFDL or CC-By-SA. So long as retain attribution, we are not required to attribute specific portions of the work. Of course, they reemphasize that we do need to maintain the names of contributors if the contents are derivative of their additions, but we're not talking about removing names. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I'm chatting with Dpmuk, who has pointed out a glaring lack of introduction and background in the draft. Flatscan (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadia Sheikh

Great additions on Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh. Hope you also receive DYK credit. Confused by one thing -- you wrote, "According to AFP reports, her brother Mudusar Sheikh was also injured by a bullet, in the arm." The reference provided does not say that and through other sources, I had only read that the other sister was injured by a bullet -- and her brother later confessed that he had also tried to kill her. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't need credit; it just seemed like the language was still a bit close, and I didn't want that standing in the way. I find sometimes the best ways to get language away from the source is to use more sources, so I went to see what I could find.
I had linked the wrong AFP report; I've fixed it. The one that says he was shot is [4], which says:
"I am confronted by two acts, one that succeeded - that eradicated a person, Sadia - and one that failed, on my sister Sariya," said Mudusar, who was wounded by a bullet to the arm in the 2007 shooting.
I have no clue how he could have managed to get shot; it would make a lot more sense if it was Sariya, since once of the other sources said she was holding her sister. But that's pretty clearly Mudusar they're talking about. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I was puzzled by that too when I was reviewing the article, and I've got to conclude that that's an error - that the writer was looking over another news report or a court document and either they misread or the syntax was ambiguous. Sariya was the one who was shot. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I've done a little more searching and have found a source that confirms that Sariya was shot. I'm not quite sure what to do with the probable misinformation? For now, I'll just add in the conflicting info. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I've changed it to a fact that the sister, Sariya, was shot. I am quite convinced that the AFP article is just guilty of poor sentence structure. I had initially read it as Sariya being shot myself - it wouldn't have made sense for Musudar to be shot -- especially given his comments and other sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You may be able to remove it, but you can't site a source that says "Mudusar, who was wounded by a bullet to the arm in the 2007 shooting" to substantiate that Sariya was shot in the arm. That's WP:NOR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." There's no way that source clearly advances the position that Sariya was shot, even if what it does say doesn't make sense. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
All or most of the other sources say that Sariya was shot, so one of those could be substituted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The one that's in there works, I think. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-ad

Template:PD-ad has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

More American Football Helmets

Can you have a look at the uploads of Saathoff37, it looks like they are photoshoped versions of this file (take note of the light source and shadows cast by the gril) - are they G12 ? Mtking (edits) 11:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I think you've found something there. :/ I would recommending WP:PUFing them as derivative works, with an explanation to the uploader who will probably have no clue what the issue is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Have listed them, can you check I have done so correctly. Mtking (edits) 12:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me. :) Thanks for locating and listing the issue and taking the time to explain it a bit to the contributor. Many people aren't familiar at all with derivative works. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

May you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
It's the festive time of the year, and I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! If you do not celebrate Christmas, may it be a peaceful time for you, and may the New Year bring you new hopes and good luck. Season's Greetings --&レア (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)|}

Copyvio cleanup

Hi MRG,

I've just encountered another copyright violation at Tropical Storm Washi (2011), and I've cleaned it up by removing one entire section. Could you delete the revisions between 13:27, 23 December 2011‎ and 13:45, 23 December 2011‎? Thanks. HurricaneFan25 — 13:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. :) Thanks for cleaning up! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Last Man Stands

I just deleted one article which was copyvio from the Graham Hancock website (and the editor had deleted a well referenced article to turn it into a redirect to his new pov one. I'd like someone else to look at this so that the editor realises I'm not picking on him just for his fringe article, but some is from [5] and this Google search of pages before our article was created [6] shows some more sources for some the text. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a problem. It has been blanked, and I have spoken to the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair use question

In my role as a reviewer, sometimes I'm doubtful that a source is being represented accurately, and only the article writer has the source. Is it okay for me to ask them to quote a sentence or two on an article talk page to check whether they're correctly following the source? - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe strongly that the answer to that is yes. :) Unlike non-free media, we allow non-free text to be used outside of article space--sometimes even decoratively. People do have brief quotes on their user pages, for instance. I quote from sources in talk pages all the time, frequently in evaluating copyright concerns, and often more extensively than I would do if I was using the source to write an article. I'm confident that such use is transformative. If it is part of a dialogue towards building an article, I think you can certainly host some non-free text at the talk page and you can remove or truncate it after you're finished with it if the context seems excessive. Unless they're Faulknerian, a sentence or two should not be excessive in most sources and can probably safely remain in the record. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful answer, right from the "source", thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Ferns for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Ferns is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ferns (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a great Christmas

Christmas pudding is hot stuff!
Have a wonderful Christmas. As the song says: "I wish you a hopeful Christmas, I wish you a brave new year; All anguish, pain, and sadness Leave your heart and let your road be clear." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I've never tried a figgy pudding. Someday, I'll have to remedy that. :) A Merry Christmas to you as well! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes

Bet you wish you were here!
Warmest greetings from the Land of Smiles, and let's keep smiling together throughout the coming new year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Boy, do I ever! :) Thank you, Kudpung! And to you as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope you have a good one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 06:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

'Tis that season again

Happy Holidays!
Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! And you as well, Ed. :) Beautiful scenery. We've got chilly and damp, but I'll be lucky to see snow any time soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunate for you – I definitely have snow. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
LOL! We're not even going to dip below freezing until next Tuesday. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from London...

...and a very Happy New Year, Maggie! Thanks so much for all your help this year. All the best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Voceditenore! And thanks for all your help this year. You were particularly outstanding with the IEP stuff; I know you impressed some of the WMF staff with your approach there. :) I hope you also have happy holidays and that next year will be a good one...copyvio free. (Wonder who I would have to pay off to arrange for that? :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Pretty! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC

Hey there :-) Can you please tell me if this artwork complies with WP:NFCC (its a second artwork being used on a GAN). Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) My opinion is no, it doesn't comply with NFCC. Traditionally, Wikipedia allows use of cover images to illustrate an item under discussion. Alternative covers are generally permitted only if they are necessary to understanding the article - for instance, if there is something critically remarkable about the image. (As Template:Infobox_album#Template:Extra_album_cover puts it, "an alternative or regional non-free cover image may be used only if the image is discussed by critical commentary within the article it is used in (see WP:NFCI).") The cover being appended as extra is not discussed within the article. Its use seems decorative merely for that reason.
If this were an album article, the situation might be a bit different. With album articles, the top image should be of the first release - the one being used as extra now. The one currently at the top of the infobox actually is discussed in the article, and a case could be made for its inclusion. Not a strong one, I think, but a case.
If this were my article, I would either flip the images in accordance with the practice on album articles or remove the one you link as superfluous and failing WP:NFCI.
(And thank you for the holiday wishes! Hope yours have been and continue to be happy as well. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for replying I will leave a note to the nominator. I also was told that second non-free covers fail criteria but I just wanted to be 100% sure. You're welcome :-) And thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing at Greek government debt crisis

Hi MRG. I have reverted, twice now, close paraphrasing in a large new series of edits diff. Example string: Angry European leaders issued an ultimatum demanding that Greece decide once and for all if it wanted to remain a part of the eurozone, and withheld an overdue $11 billion loan payment to Athens from the New York Times which states: nd drove angry European leaders to issue an ultimatum on Wednesday demanding that Greece decide once and for all if it wanted to remain a part of the European Union and its currency bloc, the euro zone. There may be more but due to the volume of the edits I did not check further. Your attention would be greatly appreciated, even though it is holiday time and I would completely understand any delays. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

More examples

Another example from the same series of edits: In October, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou won a parliamentary vote on a further round of austerity measures necessary to secure another tranche of international aid to stave off default and win any reduction in Greece's debt burden from Business week. Original text: Ringed by a cordon of police, lawmakers debated the second round of austerity measures in four months that are necessary to secure the next tranche of international aid to stave off default and win any reduction in Greece’s debt burden.. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And a third from UPI: French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said around midnight Wednesday they would deny Greece the money, which it needs by mid-December, unless the referendum -- now in doubt -- resulted in a swift yes. In article text: French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said they would deny Greece the money, which it needed by mid-December, unless the referendum resulted in a swift yes.

Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I have spoken to the contributor and hopefully the issue will be resolved. I don't have time to further check the content added to the article at the moment - quite a backlog I'm coming back to. :) A spot check looked okay. If you see anything else, could you please point it out to User:Iloveandrea for repair or let me know so I can? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much MRG. I will check again and see if any copyvios remain after they rewrote it and I will let you know. I apologise for the trouble especially during the holidays. Season's Greetings to you and Happy New Year. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Overhauling

Hey Moonriddengirl! Merry Christmas, have a great day! Thank you for your continuous great efforts here on Wikipedia. I'm curious, like the "sources needed" and "copy-edit" needed templates you add at the top of a page, is there one for general overhaul needed? Like sources, copy-edit, expansion, but not simply expansion, it just needs work in general. Let me know, thanks! Jayy008 (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've added an expansion template to the "List of The Vampire Diaries characters..." It says "using the source below," I don't understand what that means, can I add a source into the template? Jayy008 (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker here.) With regard to your first question, the most general cleanup tag is {{cleanup}}, but other editors will usually find it more helpful if one specifies exactly what sort of improvement is needed. For an article with several distinct problems, one can use {{multiple issues}} with the relevant parameters. A list of many cleanup tags, addressing many types of problems, can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Deor (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
And with regard to your second question, see the instructions at Template:Expand further. Deor (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Happy Christmas! Jayy008 (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a passing comment about the "This article has multiple issues" template. To a lot of people using real world language, what that flag says is "This article is riddled with inaccuracies and someone in authority thinks it's sufficiently rubbish to post a warning that tells ordinary people that it's rubbish". It should be used with care. MRG, don't comment. Have a proper Christmas break - you've more than earned it.Opbeith (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. To me, it just means there is items in the article that need taking care of, and I don't have time to do it right now, so I'm making the community aware. Just in case they can do it in the mean time. Jayy008 (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with both of you here. :) First, I think Opbeith is right that the template should be used with care. We don't want to discourage new contributors, who can find it a daunting task to bring an article up to standards especially when they are first starting out. For that reason, I will usually focus if adding tags on one or two major issues at a time. While the tags can be useful in bringing the community, I try not to put too many on an article unless I'm pretty sure it's been abandoned. If I don't think discouraging editors will be an issue, I might be more liberal with the tags since they actually do draw assistance sometimes. I got my start on Wikipedia cleaning up tagged articles. (I had a great Christmas break, Opbeith! Hope you did. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought you'd probably ignore well-meant instructions - I don't know how you managed to force yourself to have a break! You describe exactly the sort of way I hope people would use tags - to identify specific major issues, rather than simply tying a general multiple issues label around an article's neck and giving the dog a bad name. The "Community" may understand one thing, the day-to-day user often understand something completely different. Opbeith (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

India state Gazetteers

See the text in two articles on Maratha at this link [7], Maratha Empire and Battles involving the Maratha Empire, copied from a 1974 official publication [8] with a slight spelling change. But I don't know if that's PD or not (and if it is, don't we need to make it clear it's copied?). Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If it were PD, we would need to attribute in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. However, India releases only relinquishes copyright protection to some official publications.
The copyright rules of 1957, section 52(q) excludes as copyright violations the "reproduction or publication" of "(i) any matter which has been published in any Official Gazette except an Act of a Legislature". But The Gazette of India is a specific publication of the central government of India; this does not release the rights to the gazetteers published by individual states. Copyright law of India provides that "In the case of a government work, government shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein." In my opinion, we cannot use this text unless we are able to verify that the contents of state gazetteers are also free of copyright. I'm running out of time at the moment; any chance you can do the tagging and listing at CP of the articles if the content is extensive? Or remove it if it isn't? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, hopefully cleared it up. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion requested on semi-standardized wording I am using in some copyvio situations

MRG,

I often run across an article where the editor objects to the deletion on the grounds that they wrote the words, so it is not a copyright violation. You and I both know this is incorrect, but it is quite understandable that an editor would feel that way. I know our standard deletion template covers the situation, but the words come after talking about infringement and saying they may be blocked, in bold wording.

I wanted to acknowledge that we did see their claim, and that the deletion isn't simply pro forma.

In addition, I wanted them to understand that this action actually protects them. It is this last point where I could use your counsel and advice, to make sure what I am saying is appropriate. I'm worried that I might be a little over the top when I say "Wikipedia could insist that you are not allowed to post the words on a site you create without giving proper attribution to Wikipedia" becasue while I think that is legally true, it is highly unlikely. My goal is not to scare anyone, but to help them understand why we deleted the material, and that leaving it could have repercussions for them they hadn't considered.

A recent example can be found at User_talk:Meliladances, copied here for convenience. (The italicized phrase comes from the article talk page, which of course is now deleted.)

Meliladances example
padding

You said:

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because I took the boigrasphy from my own website. It is a biography of my own life that was written by myself giving me full rights to publish.

This sounds like a pretty solid reason, but let me see if I can convince you it is not.

If the article stands, then Wikipedia owns the copyright to the words. Wikipedia could insist that you are not allowed to post the words on a site you create without giving proper attribution to Wikipedia. Perhaps not a big deal, but you might find it odd to have to add proper licensing to your site to cover words you have written.

Furthermore, anyone can edit the words, so you might decide to copy the latest version from Wikipedia, and find it doesn't match what you originally wrote. You have no standing to object.

Additionally, we allow anyone to register just about any user name. Anyone in the world could have registered the screen name you chose and anyone could claim to be you. Surely you would be unhappy if some other person, claiming to be you, said it was OK to copy your words.

There are ways for people to ensure they are who they say they are, but we have specific procedures for that, and they are more complicated than simply making the claim.

See Donating copyrighted materials

So, while it may seem odd to delete an article using a copyright rule when those words are almost certainly yours, it is being done for your protection. You can give up the rights to your words, but we want you to do so understanding the consequences.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You could also suggest that they CC-license the text on their own website? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Good point, I'll modify accordingly. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
One major point for further modification is that Wikipedia doesn't actually own the copyright. :) Contributors retain copyright to the text, but simply license it for modification and reuse here and downstream. Contributors can continue to publish their material under other terms elsewhere - even full reservation - and there's no requirement to credit anybody else, but if they copy a version from Wikipedia that incorporates the text of anybody else, the situation changes. In that point, they have to attribute, or they are infringing on the copyright of that other contributor.
Aside from that, with Roscelese's suggestion, I think it's a good approach.
I have a template of my own (typically much too long) that I use in talking about this issue with people who are probably the creator of the articles: User:Moonriddengirl/vp. You are welcome to use it or even just take from it, if text is useful to you. You can have it without attribution. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Good point about WP not owning the Copyright, I was sloppy, but that's why I decided to ask the expert. I've already incorporated Roscelese's suggestion. Now that I've looked at your template, I'll probably just steal it :).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of article: Robert F. Murphy (computational biologist)

Hi:

I am writing to inquire why this article was deleted. I read your deletion and copyright sections, but still do not understand the copyright problem with this article, which seems to be why it was deleted. Thanks in advance for your help.

Tgulish (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) The article was deleted because it duplicated the subject's profile as published at FIAS, here. The contributor may very well have been the subject of the article, and could own the copyright to that content, but as Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials points out, we do need verification of license. We don't have any means of verifying the identity of people who create accounts. The article's submitter was given notice of the copyright concerns on April 27 including directions for repairing the problem. When verification of license was not supplied, we had no choice but to delete the content. A note was left for the author at User talk:Rfmurphy1953 explaining how to address the problem so that the material could be restored. We just need him to contact us to confirm that he has the legal right to license the text here and the article can be restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! The following email was sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org by Dr. Murphy today: I am the copyright holder for the biographical material on the deleted web page for "Robert F. Murphy (computational biologist)". I wrote the material many years ago and continually update it. I gave permission for FRIAS to use the material on the page describing me on their web site. You have permission to use the material under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. Sincerely, Bob Murphy

Should this be sufficient to enable the page to be put back up? Tgulish (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be, yes. If there are any issues, the member of the email volunteer team who responds to the permission letter should let Dr. Murphy know and as soon as it is properly logged by our team the article should be restored. Thank you for helping to straighten this out! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and processed it myself. Good thing; there's a two-month waiting list there! We need more members on our team. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

stalker fyi

The template on your archives is borked. sonia♫ 09:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the poke. :) I'd noticed it a bit ago, but not been motivated to do anything about it. :D I'm trying out {{Automatic archive navigator}} as a replacement. User:George Ho used it an earlier archive to fix the issue (thanks, George), and it looks like a winner. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Aww... Now I'm blushing! You're very welcome! Using the "automatic archive navigator" to me is easier now. --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hello Moonriddengirl, I'm trying to understand why my edits are being removed for Criss Angel, i was told i'm using copyright materials from his website but that's not the case and there was other data I submitted that was also removed along with a recent photo that was posted. Do you know why this is happening and what can I do to fix this? In the past I've removed sourced information and now I understand I cannot do that. I'd really appreciate any help you can offer. Lolorenabanana (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

cough. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've answered at the talk page as well. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much MRG. :) I saw your reply and covered some additional issues for whenever you have the time. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've already responded. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
That was really fast. :) I did too. Sorry for missing the clarification. Thanks again and take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair use for this image

The photo from http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/290925 for use in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadloch As the person is dead its not freely replaceable and this photo has been freely used on TV and in hundreds of newspaper articles on the death. I wondered what license would allow me to use it in the deaths section of the Wikipedia article on the loch in question? RafikiSykes (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I have some real doubts about that one. :) The only way to use copyrighted images (and we have no reason to assume that one isn't, even if it has been widely used) is to assert that they meet non-free content policy and guideline. WP:NFCI does allow images of people who are deceased in articles about the people, but it doesn't provide an allowance for articles that just happen to discuss them. You might want to ask at WT:NFC, as I don't do that much work with non free images, but I'm not sure they'll be able to help you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the rapid response. I'd wondered if it might be something along those lines. I think I will just leave it then as there is no way he would be notable enough for an article on his own.RafikiSykes (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

attribution

Hi - I have never done that before - I thought I needed admin status to add/merge to the history, so I don't think I know how to correctly attribute like that. I am here for my lesson on how to fix attribution. The original posting on en wiki is here in this diff, do I need to link to that? Youreallycan (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool - thanks Moon. - Best wishes to you for and throughout the New Year 2012. Youreallycan (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again...

...but I'm not sure which, if any, of the normal copyright boards would handle this. We have an article, Catholic peace traditions, that in the course of an AfD has been found to be by Ronald G. Musto, the author of an article of the same title in the Oxford Int'l Encyclopedia of Peace. The article was created before the book was published, so it's not copied from the book. (We don't know if it's the same text because there's no GBooks preview and no one in the discussion seems to have online access.) Am I correct in guessing that if the text is the same or substantially similar, we must remove the article even if the book was published later and if Musto donates the text to Wikipedia? It doesn't seem to be a standard case of backwards copying because Oxford University Press actually owns the copyright on the piece. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI... the source in question is online and can be checked against the material, however, the online source can only be accessed by people enrolled or connected to a major UK tertiary educational institution.[9] I don't think the Oxford encyclopedia entry is the only issue. It is likely that the the article content may be based on previous material published by Musto, including The Catholic Peace Tradition (2002) [1986][10] and Catholic Peacemakers: A Documentary History (1996) [1993][11] To clarify, the vast majority of the current article appears to have been written by Musto himself (allegedly using three accounts, one IP and two registered). Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Argh. *facepalm* Thanks for clarifying the extent of the issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
What an interesting situation!
Looking at the case as first proposed, in my opinion, we would still be able to use it if Musto had published the content here first, before entering into a contract with OUP. There'd be no backwards copying because he retains the rights to his text (although our license to what he places here is perpetual) and can publish it elsewhere under whatever terms he may like. Oxford might not be happy with him if he had granted them "first publication", but that would be between him and Oxford. :) If he had already entered into contract with them that limited his ability to license the content, then we would not be able to accept the text.
If it is based on previously published material by Musto, we've got two issues: first, we need him to prove that he is Musto rather than some paste-happy fan. Second, we do need him to verify that he has the right to license the text. A few years ago, we wound up pulling quite a bit of good material that was placed by a Scottish historian whose publisher had sewed up reproduction rights. A standard letter to OTRS would do it. Is he still active? Usually in these cases I put a modified version of User:Moonriddengirl/vp on their pages, asking them to verify license and making sure they're aware of the potential issue with publisher's rights (covered in WP:DCM by the line "If you are the original author but the rights have been assigned to your publisher, you have given up the ability to license the work to us."). If he's not still active, leaving a note on his talk page isn't likely to help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, he's not been active in a while, alas. Do you know if there's some more urgent channel of resource request, since AfD is somewhat time-sensitive? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
No, alas. The only thing I can suggest is tagging it for {{copyvio}} and listing it at WP:CP. This will give people a chance to rewrite it if they wish and may draw the attention of the original contributor. (Somebody can send him an email, if they can find his contact information.) The copyright board and AFD are separate processes; an article may be "kept" if challenged at AFD for notability concerns or otherwise, but if it doesn't meet WP:C, we can't keep it. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's a link to Musto contact information outside of Wikipedia.[12] --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Great! Do you know if anybody's written to him? If not, I'll give it a go. I don't want to hit him with redundant requests, as that might only confuse matters. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, no one has. I think everyone would appreciate your contacting him. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Done! I went through the OTRS system to make it easier to keep track of any reply he may offer. For those with access, it is Ticket:2011123110017103. For those without, I've basically just asked him to verify that he is this user and that there is no restriction that would prevent his licensing the text. While I've told him that the article is read by typically several dozen people a day, I've also reassured him that if he did not place the material we will remove it, as we respect his copyright. Let's hope he's quick to respond. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

More copyvio problems

They're at Florida Keys, from [13]; the revisions between 10:45, 29 December 2011 and 10:49, 29 December 2011 are the problems. Cheers, HurricaneFan25 — 00:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Mop applied. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a thankless job

I've been a fly on the wall for your advice to Wtshymanski. I know it can be a tad frustrating to work with crusty older Wikipedians who assume that they know everything about the project, and who can get a bit prickly when they find out that their assumption is mistaken. As always, you deserve thanks for doing a thankless job with style, aplomb, and superhuman patience. Along with Newyorkbrad, you're probably one of my top two Wikipedians I figure that we ought to clone as soon as technology – and user donations – permit. (I hope that doesn't sound too creepy.) Keep fighting the good fight, and best wishes for the new year! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Truly, that means a lot to me. :) I hope the New Year is kind to you as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Hazega, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ethiopian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote Parameter in citations

You contributed to a discussion either here or here. I'm attempting to summarize and move the discussion forward here. You may well have this page watchlisted, but as I am trying to carny on in a slightly different place, I'm letting everyone know who contributed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Belatedly appreciate the heads up. :) And I like the idea of you "carnying on"--sounds very festive. ;) (And also like something I'd say.) I was kind of worried that it would cross over into "fair use" territory - I think there's probably not much way around it. I'm not sure we can really separate the content choice from the copyright restrictions. But it's an area that needs clarity, and if WT:CITE draws more attention, all the better. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Public Domain date

Thank you for that fast response. Wishing you the best in 2012! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope yours is good as well. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Template for deletion of article listed at WP:CP

Hi! :) When I delete an article listed at WP:CP, isn't there a template that I can place on the creator's talk page? I think I remember there being one... Theleftorium (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Left! Long time no see. :) Happy New Year! There's {{cup}} if they're the article's creator. There's also User:Moonriddengirl/carticle which I use very rarely if somebody hasn't notified them that the article was listed at all. Usually, I just relist it and give them the standard {{copyvio}} template, but if it would have been a valid G12, I might just process it and leave that note. And I whoot over your working at CP. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Heh, well I was bored! :) Yes it has been a long time! Happy new year to you too! :D Theleftorium (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

Hi, Moonriddengirl. I was wondering how much of a copyright violation List of Top Gear test track Power Lap Times is. The list is published at http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/powerlaps.shtml and is shown on each episode of Top Gear. The "Price" and "Dollars per second under 2:00" columns aren't featured on the show (and who knows what the second one means). The other sections below the main table are all published times featured on the show too. Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry for the deletion of all those comments in the adjacent thread. I apologize for the confusion and inconvenience this caused. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Katarighe's talk page.
Message added 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS ticket 2011122110016945 has this

"I own the company "Blues Images". I also own the Charley Patton photograph that appears on wikipedia as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Patton I did not give permission for that photo to be used on Wikipedia.


I found and first published that photo myself in my 2004 "Classic Blues Artwork From the 1920's" Blues Calendar. I purchased the original photo, for many thousands of dollars, from the photography studio where it was taken and bought the rights with it.


Some years back I was approached by someone from Wikipedia to have this photo on Wikipedia and I denied the request because I keep strict control on the use of this photo and charge a fairly substantial fee for it's use. For many years, on Wikipedia, it simply had a note about the photo saying that the owner has not approved it to be posted on Wikipedia. Now, someone has just taken the photo and put it there, not even crediting me or Blues Images as the owner.


I am sorry, but I have to request payment of $500.00 for the use of the image or hereby ask that it be removed from the listing immediately."


Fair use is claimed, but as there has been a complaint can't we just speedy delete this? Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The point of fair use is that we are asserting that the use we are making of the image doesn't require permission.
If I were handling the ticket, I think I'd tell him that I don't have authority to unilaterally delete an image used under claim of fair use if it seems consistent with our fair use policies, but that I would bring up its usage for community review and, if it is not consistent with fair use, it will be deleted. If the community believes it is fair use, I think he'd have to register a formal complaint under OCILLA with our designated agent to have it removed, per Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. But if you can give me a couple of hours for the people in San Francisco to wake up, I'll ask either one of the legal team or the head of reader relations for advice on best handling of a situation like this.
It's very strange that Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation doesn't mention the fact that we may be using content under fair use. It simply implies that if something is owned by somebody else, we'll do something about it. I don't think that's the case, but I can check. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it's best to wait until you can get some advice, as we want to avoid any conflict and perhaps have someone more appropriate respond to it. It's locked to me at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, community processes take precedence here unless he contacts our designated agent. Speaking from my volunteer perspective, the only processes that I can think of here are {{dfu}} or WP:FFD. There's WP:NFCR, but that's a slow and probably inefficient method for determining something like that. I'd probably offer to courtesy list it, if I were you, at FFD and notify him how to contact our designated agent, if he'd rather go that way. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm doing that. I see the uploader, User talk:BootleggerWill has had a number of files he uploaded deleted. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Procedure for a trans wiki-move

I don't know if you read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive734#WölffReik and his "personal library" of articles., but following the deletion User:BusterD commented at my talk page (see here) that it might be an idea to transwiki some of the deleted kickboxing pages that have been been deleting previously to Edge MMA is this a. possible and b. if it is what is the procedure? Mtking (edits) 19:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

ping, you may have missed this ..... Mtking (edits) 11:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I got distracted and might have forgotten I hadn't finished the talk page. :) The two things we have to consider here are (a) whether the wiki is compatibly licensed so that our content can be moved to it, and (b) whether, if not, the contributors of the content here are willing to donate the content there as well under whatever license they use. Let me take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Wikia allows individual projects to set their own license, and I haven't been able to figure out the license of this one yet. I need to see if I can find some indication of whether or not license defaults to CC-By-SA if the individual project does not specify otherwise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, according to this, except where otherwise specified, projects are CC-By-SA. So, the site is compatible. The best practice for transwikiing to non-Wikipedia projects is set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki. Frankly, if there's only a contributor or two, I think I might go the easier route of copying over the content with a full list of contributors. The problem, I guess, is going to be determining the true origin of this content. We can't copy it over if it's been violating copyright all along, as the ANI seems to suggest. :/ Are we able to identify the original locations of all of this content, rather than his copyright violating versions? (The ANI may identify that, but I'm on tight time and hoping you'll know. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking from the sidelines, I think the userspace pages were unattributed copies of deleted or soon-to-be-deleted mainspace articles and violations of WP:Copying within Wikipedia, not copyvio of external sources. This confusion is why I'm somewhat ambivalent about using G12 on these sorts of copies. I'm not sure if the originals are clean, but I didn't see any specific issues pointed out. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes they were internal copies, I have no reason to suspect that they were copyvio's of any external work, the articles I would think that we could look to move are the ones that have been deleted from main space. Mtking (edits) 05:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on the state of Texas copyrights. I was a weekly newspaper editor in Central Texas for 20 years and never knew that. Still not too old to learn. :_) And thanks for the kind words about the re-write. I do miss Texas though not the heat. john ater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnater (talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC) ~~I, too, am always surprised at what I DON'T know. Just spent a few minutes on your talk page and have to say you are a kind yet firm editor. We need more like. john ater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnater (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

ORTS

Happy New Year.I tagged George Withy article for copyright violations under G12 and it was deleted.Now an IP came to my talk page with this message.

I have received notification that the page I created for "George Withy" has been deleted, due to copyreght issues - but I had submitted an e-mail to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" to confirm that I was the copyright owner and that it could be used. Is it possible for me to re-submit the materail again?

Many thanks

Andy Worrall

Can you help me on how to proceed further in this and know whether they have got the ORTS ticket.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been resolved.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I arrived here to ask for advice re Edward Withy and possible copyvio/close paraphrasing concerns, and I wonder if they are related. Lots of the article looks like a copy & paste but I can only source one paragraph (starts "On 2nd November 1872, a patent (No. 3252) for Improvements in mixing...") which is a direct replica of this web page but other parts may have been revised. I haven't put the copyvio banner on the article as I'm unsure & would appreciate your advice.— Rod talk 20:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting coincidence. :) Very probably permission can be provided, but it's not the same website and not covered in the OTRS notice, which is page specific to [14]. I've taken it out pending permission, but will not rev delete it, since permission is likely. I'll speak to the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi - firstly apologies for taking up your time!

I have sent another e-mail to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" to confirm that I (writing as "andyjohnw) am the author and copyright owner of the subject pages.

regards Andy Worrall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjohnw (talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Season greetings and evangelists

Happy holidays Moonriddengirl! Been a while, as usual. If you get a chance, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Tony Anthony (evangelist)? I could not figure it out, but I saw you were involved. Thanks a bunch, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Eeeps! I missed this! This was a weird one. We got an OTRS complaint that the deletion log was a BLP. I wasn't quite sure what, if anything, could be done about that, so I tried to address it by resurrecting and moving the article. That didn't work. :) But the article is where I relocated it.
It was an ordinary PROD other than that, so far as I know. I'll take a look. --User:Moonriddengirl 19:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Wtshymanski userspce pages

I see that Wtshymanski has nominated User:Wtshymanski/Article edits 1 and User:Wtshymanski/Article edits 2 for speedy deletion. Normally I would speedily delete under WP:CSD#U1 (User request in own userspace). However, since you created the pages, and clearly know more than I do about the whole problem they relate too, I thought it better to check with you first. I have declined the speedy deletion for now, and will leave it to you to decide what to do with the pages (e.g. delete them, move them out of the user's userspace, or whatever). JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

How strange. :/ I'll move them out of his userspace, if he prefers. But if they're deleted, I'd either have to resurrect them or run the CCI tool again. I have no idea what his objections to the list are; last I checked, we were talking about finding a tool user to cross check the list against edit summaries. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. What you say is exactly what I thought, but, as I said, I thought it better to leave the decision to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks much. :) They're moved, and I've left a note at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw you asking around about filtering the raw contribs list, so I took a shot at it. I wasn't sure about formatting, so I created it as a spreadsheet on Google Docs. It's filtered for "erg" (to catch the "nerged" typos) edit summaries and ordered by date ascending. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked for the pages to be removed because I couldn't see any way to use them for the problem at hand. These lists of articles were not filtered to detect merges or redirects that I created. After looking at a line like "Manitoba: (1 edits, 1 major, +50990) (+50990)" - I've made many more than 1 edit to that article, I'm sure I've never added 50990 bytes in one edit (I can't even find a blanking revert that size), and for the life of me I can't think of anything that's been merged to that article. I'm pretty sure I've edited more than 920 pages in the last 6+ years. The lists are highly un-useful, and of dubious accuracy. Since the bots can't help, I'm going through my edit contributions year by year and looking for merges or redirects in edit comments, using the browser search function to look for the word "merge". No doubt wizards can find a slicker way of doing this, but since wizards are few and far between (and best not disturbed), I shall plug away with the dummy's solution. I'm up to 2009 so far, but there are hundreds more merges to look at; though I am finding a very few where I've linked the source page in the merge comment, which I understand is the requirement. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like I'm a little over 20% of the way through the spreadsheet - that one is much more useful. --Wtshymanski (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, Flatscan, that's fabulous! Thank you very much. :) The "erg" text string is a good idea. Wtshymanski, that tool isn't always designed to show every edit to an article. It filters out edits below a certain size and reversions (that are recognized by the software as such). That's what happened with Manitoba; you reverted. Every number in that list is actually a diff; you can click on it and see exactly which edit it's talking about. Your other changes to that article have been below the threshold of size or reversions that were recognized. Changes like this, for instance, won't show.
If the list is not filtered to omit reversions and small size contributions, the list is pretty different. It includes 4,250 articles. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I think my present scheme has the advantage that I can read my own edit comments to see which ones are likely to be merges, instead of clicking on numbers and waiting for pages to load to see what the nature of the edit was. I can get 500 edit history entries at a time and grep for "merge" much faster than I can load 500 pages and look for merges. Even if I'm looking at more edits (essentially...all of them, I guess), it feels much faster; one gets tired of watching the screens blink and flash.
Is it the case that redirected articles with non-trivial, human-mediated edit history often, sometimes, or rarely don't have appropriate accreditation in the target article? There must be a bajillion redirects...some of them may be trouble. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

copyvio A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, is revdel needed?

Hi Moonriddengirl, first of all Happy New Year! I found a copyvio problem on A. P. J. Abdul Kalam which I removed, talk page and contributor notified. Only I'm not sure if revdel is needed. Can you have a look? -- SchreyP (messages) 08:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much. :) It looks like a textbook candidate for rev deletion for me! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks for handling the revdel. -- SchreyP (messages) 19:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

in good time

Clerks or admins opening investigation pages are requested to keep an eye on them to ensure that they are handled in good time. Please do.S711 (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter how many times you say this to me; I'm afraid it's not going to change the speed at which your CCI is handled. Last time we went through this, I explained your options, here. I don't have anything more to say about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Just as a small piece of advice – I'm interested in helping at CCI; I'm working on a rather large one that is stalled, so could consider looking elsewhere, but you didn't even bother to provide a link. I've managed to find it, but when asking volunteers to do something, the least you can do is make it easy to find the task.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

fair use?

Hi there MRG. I am wondering about our posting of this large statement which is almost all of the content in the citation. Kobe Bryant sexual assault case#Settlement Previously I have seen, rather than posting all the text a small section or just a link to the statement rather than posting in in totality here. Could it be uploaded and a fair use rationale created or is that unnecessary in such situations. Discussion is at Talk:Kobe Bryant sexual assault case#Copyright status - large quote - I think it basically boils down to is the text copyrighted at all, and if it is, then is the large quote in violation of Wikipedia:Fair Use#Text - thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Complex situation! I've weighed in there. I think under the circumstances that the total quote may be okay, but would feel more comfortable with that if there were a bit more critical material around it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, interesting - I had the feeling it was not so cut and dried. I think I will get that book you linked to and have a read of it. Your comment there are appreciated. Many thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A proposed rule of thumb

It is my (tentative) view that any editor who is the subject of a CCI investigation, in which any problems are found, should have the autopatrolled right removed, until such time as understanding of the rules has been demonstrated. If you agree, I plan to remove the rights from S710, but if you think that "rule" is wrong or needs tweaking, let's discuss.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I agree with you in general, but this is an unusual case, so I probably wouldn't do that without first verifying that he still has the issues. It seems that at some point between editing as S710 and now, S711 has probably learned a bit more about copyright. Last I looked, no real indepth evaluation had happened under his newer account, so I would be less inclined to presume that copyright concerns linger until we have some evidence of more recent issues.
I routinely remove those kinds of rights when I open a CCI investigation and sometimes even when addressing a CP listing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, good advice. I'll not do it then.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

another copyvio cleaned, only revdel is needed

Hi Moonriddengirl, I found another copyvio problem now on ABET, Inc. which I removed, talk page and contributor notified. Only the revdel is needed. Can you help? Thanks, SchreyP (messages) 21:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Done! Thanks much. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Altucher

If it wasn't clear enough, that BLP has been heavily edited by the subject. The IP editor has admitted he is Altucher if you read the recent edit summaries, in addition to earlier editing under a login name. He just needs to be pointed in the direction of making his correction attempts on the talk page, instead of his constant reverting. I'm sympathetic to such cases, so not trying to be a jerk about it. It's no fun having a BLP about yourself on WP. Cookiehead (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Coincidentally, I was just leaving the IP a message: [15]. I've given him links to some of our guidance about it, and I'm hoping that will help. I agree with you that he needs to be directed to how to correct the article. Hopefully, the link will help! I'm going to try to keep the article on my watchlist so if he needs more guidance I can help. And I agree with you. I'd be horrified if somebody wrote an article about me! (But take comfort in the fact that an A7 would swiftly follow. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Football helmet images

Hello again. I saw your comments in the deletion pages about various football helmet images taken from [ia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/textversion.html The Helmet Project], and I wanted to confer with you before taking any action. If I understand you correctly, it is because the images use a non-free template by this website's operator that they are not allowed. If I were to re-create the helmet designs using a template of my own (which I already have), would they be permitted to replace the deleted ones under fair use? (It would take a bit of work so I don't want to commit to a project that can't be used.) Thank you. — Michael J 08:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yes! If you use your own football helmet design, the only "non-free" issue becomes the logo, and currently, it seems, the logos are fair game under our "non-free content" approach. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Cool beans! I will get to work. — Michael J 21:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
One other thing to consider within WP:NFCC, is point 3a. you need to be satisfied that the use of multiple copies of the same copyright logo in the single article is acceptable and if the same information can be conveyed differently, for example say a teams logo is a boat, if there helmet is all green with the logo on it, it could be said in the prose "the helmet is all green with the team boat logo on it" which may negate the need for both the stand alone logo and the helmet with logo picture. Mtking (edits) 22:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Also starting with the text only logos might also be a good idea as they are not copyrightable anyway. Mtking (edits) 22:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to raise this issue: close (verbatim) translations of copyrighted text in other languages are a derivative work and hence if posted without permission, a copyright violation. I think a lot of editors are not aware of this aspect of copyright. I also couldn't find any mention of this issue in any of the copyright-related policy and help pages on Wikipedia. Given that we do have a large number of editors who speak languages other than English I think this is something which should be made more visible and more widely known. I'm not sure which of the copyright related policy and help pages would be most appropriate to raise this at however. Thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Pet peeve, I've been trying to drive this point home for years (at FAC, and in my Spanish-language editing). It can be hard to paraphrase other language to English, since sometimes others demand almost literal translations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear (because material in xx:Wikipedia is subject to copyright, we are talking about translating material other than other language wikipedia pages, right? Because I assume that if it is a wikipedia page, we want a close translation (and atttribution).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No, what you raise is a secondary problem. If one is translating from another Wikipedia without consulting the original language sources, one has no idea if they are plagirizing, or even if they are representing the sources correctly. Wikipedia is not a reliable source-- we shouldn't be translating directly from it all, without consulting the sources, whereby one can also detect copyright issues. Two separate issues: 1) translating verbatim or with too close paraphrasing of other language sources, and 2) translating from other language Wikis, which aren't reliable sources, and where if you aren't consulting the original sources, you don't know if what you're translating is accurate much less copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am talking about copyrighted non-English sources - which excludes xx:Wikipedias - being translated essentially verbatim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point, Marek! Maybe we should add something to Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think both places could use it.VolunteerMarek 18:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you help (or ask someone else to help) with this page? Katarighe made several reviews, but he's been blocked as an impersonator; if you check the "possible hijacking of a retired/vanished user" thread at WP:ANI, you'll see that Salvio giuliano and I are both highly concerned with this user's actions (he created multiple copyvios in userspace, for example) and don't trust his statements at all. I'd do the reviewing myself, but I'm not familiar enough with it — I don't want to remove a Katarighe review in such a way that it doesn't get re-done. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's worse than that. Katarighe has been participating at SCV, I think, for weeks. :/ I had spot-checked and found basic competence, but only spot-checked, and looking at that day, I immediately see glaring errors. (I've G12ed an article s/he marked as "cleaned" with no remaining infringement. Tomorrow I hope to catch up a bit with the WP:CP backlog, but I'll go ahead and put a note on each of the SCV days alerting people that Katarighe's conclusions are not to be trusted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The lackluster discussion at Wikipedia talk:Suspected copyright violations made me suspect that it wasn't the best place to go for a semi-urgent notice like this, and I didn't know where else to look. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I've relisted all SCV days this user has touched. MER-C 05:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I've checked 12-14 December and found a variety of oddities (I've commented in each case). Only one missed copyvio so far (which I have dealt with). Thought I'd better check in here to make sure that what I've done so far is OK. Definitely don't want to be creating extra work for anyone!--CharlieDelta (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Bless you! Your actions there look spot on. Far from making extra work for anybody, you've been one of the heroes of SCV. I'm trying to drum up some help for you (and the rest of us) at the administrators' noticeboard. If that notice doesn't bring in at least a person or two, I'm going to have to think hard about where else I can look. I can't help but think that there are people out there willing to pitch in who just don't know about the need. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to help, if you "coach" me ;) HurricaneFan25 14:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Woohoo! You have a coach! You wanna talk about it here or there? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There ;) HurricaneFan25 14:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Help?

Hello again Moonriddengirl. We have a fairly new person at WikiProject Gastropods, User:Shellnut, and he asked me today about a contact of his in Russia that wants to donate a lot of images of cone shells to Commons. User:Shellnut uploaded one of them, as a test, here but it will get deleted. You are welcome to read and answer Shellnut's note to me on my talk page, or to talk to him on his talk page. He has been a very good contributor so far and an asset to Project Gastropods. All best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Zalău City Hall

The "history" section had nearly-identical content to [16], though it was just two sentences long; how does the cleanup look? HurricaneFan25 15:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks good. It helps that creativity is low and the passage is short. I tweaked it just a bit further, partially because it said "in a trapezoidal matter". :D I figured if I was editing it, I might as well nudge it more away from the structure of the original.
With longer content, it's best to remove the material or rewrite the problematic passage from scratch. The danger of modifying it is in creating a derivative work. My own gut instinct is that rewrites should be if anything more scrupulous when copy-pasting has already happened. The courts sometimes take a dim view on what they have called clumsy efforts to disguise taking, and I would want to be able to point firmly to proof that that didn't happen. :)
Did I mention already how grateful I am that you're helping out?
Did my basic approach make sense? If it did, I may push it somewhere in SCV space and link it from AN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks fine – at least, I can understand 99% of it. :) I'm going out now. HurricaneFan25 15:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability for pages on Wikipedia

Hi MRG, could you please help me? I don't know what course of actions to take as it's getting very irritating. User:Left4Deadseries FAN keeps taking off redirects to pages. All the time, despite being told that some pages do not qualify for inclusion and what a page needs to look like for it to be included. I wanted to send a warning, but it obviously isn't vandalism, so I don't know what to do. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Jayy008 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jayy. :) The best approach is probably to politely address him at his talk page and explain what you believe is the issue, and then listen to his response. If you guys can't reach consensus, you can use dispute resolution. WP:3O might be good for something like this. But you need to try to talk it out with him first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I have spoken to him many times, as have other users as can be seen on his talk-page User talk:Left4Deadseries FAN. Could you explain how 3O would help? It's not my opinion, I am only following WP:N. Am I to just keep reverting? Is there a non-vandalism warning I can send? Jayy008 (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I haven't looked at his talk page; I'm afraid I don't have time to investigate beyond taking what you say here at face value. The usefulness of 3O and other dispute resolution fora is that they establish when a contributor is working against consensus pretty clearly. Until that's established, what you have is a content dispute. Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace is a list of templates, but templates are generally not as good as actual notes at demonstrating your good faith effort to resolve the dispute. If consensus has been established, the next step is like WP:RFC/U or Wikipedia:DE#Dealing with disruptive editors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, MRG! :) Jayy008 (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

re copyvio help

Hi MRG, I know I owe you one (the Kimo williams thing) - so I have an offer: Take a look at this vs. Noel F. Parrish, and my editing history there. (now a GA). If you think I have a basic understanding of copyvio and plag., and are willing to offer feedback - then I'll try to help with the backlog stuff. All my best. :) — Ched :  ?  17:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ched, I would love to have you aboard in that work, temporarily or permanently. :D I'm quite confident in your abilities. Copyright is huge; I'm always learning more, but you can take it at a comfortable pace and don't have to go it alone. If you run into something you're unclear on at any point, you can get feedback. You're welcome to ping me; whether I'm here or a talk page stalker weighs in, I think it's faster than most of the copyright talk pages. :)
There's Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins for WP:CP. There's instructions in the beige collapse box at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations and I've just thrown together some basic steps at User talk:Hurricanefan25#On the job training.
The important thing to remember, I think, is that you don't have to do the ones you aren't comfortable with. Pitching in to any degree would be a huge help there and very welcome! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy call

I'm about a week late, but I plead the fact I've only just returned from four months off Wikipedia, so... Happy new year! Keep up the great work you do, it really is a tough job and I'm sure many people appreciate your work. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Four months off of Wikipedia? How does that even happen? :O Happy new year to you as well! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:

Hey, MRG. I was pretty sure that stuff had to go but I hadn't read the revdel criteria close enough. I'm over-cautious with revdel and in this case my inaction was incorrect. Thanks for taking up my slack. I appreciate your hard work with copyrights and I'll be sure to keep you from have to do my maintenance in this regard in the future. See ya 'round Tiderolls 00:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I wouldn't say it was incorrect; I just came upon the listing at WP:SCV . :) Since I had to stop by the article anyway to make the entry there, I just mopped up as I usually do, and since he'd already put it back once, rev-deletion seemed like a good idea to keep it from coming back. We have been talking about clarifying when rev-deletion is best for copyright work and when not, but as usual stuff happens and there's no time. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films

Sorry to bring this one up but every time I see it in my watchlist I cringe and having just looked at it again it's got worse. Can we really justify the incorporation of the full top ten multiple times on the talk page? Indeed it would appear that some of them are being regularly updated and not even discussed. I think we'd struggle with a fair use claim even if we were discussing them, unless for some reason there needed to be discussion about the whole list, but as they're not even being discussed I can so no reasonable claim of fair use. I'm minded to remove them all but wanted a second opinion before doing so (and if I'm honest admin backing wouldn't go amiss). Dpmuk (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I haven't paid much attention to the talk page. I've done it. At least, I think I got them all. I reduced them to the ones suggested we use, although it's certainly questionable whether we need even that much over and over again. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Katarighe divboxes

I'm adding a "Done" checkmark to the Katarighe divboxes, when all articles for a day have been reviewed. If you'd prefer some other action, including not editing the box, please let me know. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's a good idea. They can even be removed. Whatever works. :) The days I closed out, I just left them, but that's because I wasn't thinking about it. BTW, if I haven't said it lately, I appreciate the time you've been putting into copyright. It's been a huge relief to know some ground is being made on these CCIs, and I'm so glad that you're poking at SCV, especially with the suddenly bloated backlog. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I considered removing them, but decided they might be a worth saving, otherwise some future historian might wonder why there was a double-check of some entries:) I'll continue, because some reviewers are not admins and cannot check the deleted articles, which are probably fine, but I wanted to check them anyway, just to make sure that someone didn't delete a little too quickly, so some days have partial coverage.
I'm happy to help out, want to move cautiously, as there is a lot to learn. I'm a bit stalled on the RAN CCI, I've found so many instances of long quotes in footnotes; we are working on community guidelines, and I thank-you for your input, but I don't think that issue is settled. I started looking at S711, naively thinking that if I started at the end, I could knock off a few easily, but I did run into some issues (thankfully, no copyvio issues.) I'm on pause there, as I don't want to pile up too much, but smiling at the irony that the editor was looking for faster response, and now hasn't responded to my questions over the last couple days. Oh well, one things, for sure, it isn't hard to find something to work on :)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Some of them are quicker than others. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ii (IRC client) review

Sorry, but want to hear (and learn) how to deal with Ii (IRC client).

The article contains five sentences from the readme. I think it is properly referenced, and it is presented as a quote from the readme, so my initial reaction is that this qualifies as fair use.

I'm not thrilled that the length of the material under copyright comprises the majority of the article, but in other discussions, I haven't heard anyone support the notion that this is a problem. (size ratio matters, but the size of the excerpt relative to the size of the original, not size of the excerpt relative to the size of the target.)

The license requires an inclusion of the license in "all copies or substantial portions of the Software". My belief is that five sentence from the readme, without a single character of code, does not rise to the level that would require the license.

The article does contain a copy of the MIT License, as a hidden comment.

While inclusion of material under copyright in a hidden comment does not insulate it from being a copyvio, I would disagree that inclusion of a license agreement in a hidden comment constitutes compliance with the requirement. (In other words, the situations are not parallel - "hidden" is construed against us, it is deemed as present, for material not allowed, it is deemed as not present, for material required) Your thoughts on this subject obviously desired.

I don't think including the license is required by the terms, but if it is, I don't think we've complied. It may be that we all agree it isn't required, but it is helpful, so the hidden inclusion is fine.

(I'm expressing no opinion on other aspects of the article, such as the apparent notability shortcomings at this point.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) This is an interesting one.
Size of the excerpt relative to the target matters tremendously in context of point 1 of fair use. Copying from our article, because it's early here yet and I'm too tired to go dig up a reliable source:

The first factor is regarding whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit. To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative.

There's nothing transformative about the use of that quote. It has very little that's new to add; it's simply moving it to a new location.
Generally speaking, the more you prop non-free content with critical commentary or other material to "advance knowledge", the more easily you can support your use of non-free content as "fair". This is why WP:NFC constantly harps on the fact that non-free files must be used for critical commentary. It's the key issue of why we should be permitted to have it at all. :)
In terms of use in the article, I think that quote makes a very poor argument for fair use. It seems to exist only to describe the product, and its only purpose is to avoid our having to describe it in our own words. In other words, it seems to be purely derivative.
In terms of the license, including the MIT license doesn't affect our handling of the content one way or another, because the MIT license is not compatible with our text incorporation requirements for the same reason that GFDL-only content is not compatible: our base license of CC-By-SA does not permit additional requirements, such as requiring that a copy of another license be appended. To be compatible, content must be at mininum be compatible with CC-By-SA, as per WP:COMPLIC. There's no doubt that MIT has a similar aim, but it just misses the shot.
Ordinarily, I would recommend resolving this by turning that quote into free text. But there's an even easier solution. That article has been previously deleted through PROD because of notability concerns. Creation of a new article constitutes a de facto challenge to that PROD. I'll restore the history and put the earlier text on top, notifying all concerned. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Should I be surprised to find out that the earlier versions of the article were an undiscovered copyvio? :/ Nevertheless, I've incorporated as much free text as I could find. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for handling this. And thanks for your comments on the relative size of the excerpt versus size of the target.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

question about copyvio

you're the resident expert on copyvio matters. Can you tell me if this section is okay? (note, i am biased because i think the whole article should be merged/deleted)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(Talkpage stalker) - if you're talking about the extensive quote then that kind of thing is discouraged but I don't think it's a copy vio per se. Though if it was a bit longer it could be. Basically what the guy is saying should be paraphrased. If this was an article I personally was active on I would remove this quote, replace it with a one or two sentence summary, but not per WP:COPYVIO but per ... whatever guideline it is (I forget atm) that says to avoid long quotes (which is somewhat related to WP:COPYVIO but not exactly the same).VolunteerMarek 00:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, whether or not it's a copyright infringement could really depend on the interview from which it's taken. If the quote is "substantial", it can be an infringement. Both WP:C and WP:NFC indicate that quotes must be brief, and I do not believe this one is. I agree with Volunteer Marek's recommended handling. Usually, I use an edit summary that says something like "truncating quote per NFC." I'll tag the section for overuse of copyrighted content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The File:AzzamInterview.jpg was deleted, however, exactly the same scan is used by Barnett and Efraim Karsh in the (American) Middle East Quarterly, here. Does this mean professor Karsh is violating American copyright law? 82.205.32.14 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
We're not responsible for what others do with content. However, it's very likely that they could successfully claim "fair use" for the use of the image. Commons does not allow images under fair use. Wikipedia does; if you think the image can meet fair use, the thing to do is review WP:NFC and, if you aren't certain, ask at WT:NFC.
However, there is conversation on Commons about whether or not such content is permitted on the grounds that the law that makes it illegal in the United States (the URAA) is being legally challenged and may be overturned. Whether the image is retained or not at this point, if it is, the legal problems with our using the content freely will be eliminated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

hey

Thank you,your information is clearly stated! Your Cool,Fressh I bet you have SWAGG!;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.125.81.14 (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

CCI-style DR at Commons

You and I previously worked on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Conk 9. There's a similar and really complicated DR at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Fraternity COAs 2, and I'd appreciate your input. --GrapedApe (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll be happy to come take a look a little later, when I have more time. Don't want you to think I'm ignoring you in the meantime. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

LGO article/OTRS ticket

Back in April of last year, you placed an OTRS ticket on Talk:Local Government Ombudsman. Over the last week, an editor has attempted to add editorializing comments (see [17] and [18]) to the article which basically state that WP policy is preventing xyr from adding "neutral" info. Of course, the sources that the user presumably wants to add are those that were removed as a result of the OTRS for being nothing more than biased self-published sites criticizing the LGO. While it's only been a few edits so far, I'd rather this get stopped before it escalates back up to OTRS level again. Can you place the article on long-term semi-protection? I'm, of course, WP:INVOLVED. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've started with three weeks, and I'll try to keep an eye on it. From the talk page, it looks like they aren't much interested in working within policies. :/ Three weeks may not be long enough, under the circumstances, and if it continues I'll extend. Poke me, please, if I forget! Thanks for taking care of it for so long. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Qwyrxian (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been accused of "vandalism" in this article and this is highly offensive. It desperately needs a health warning because it is heavily biased due to the treatment of complainants first hand experiences as "not reliable" (where the self congratulatory and self publicising web site of the LGO himself is considered the "reliable" source.) It is one thing to impose this censorship of criticism but quite another to hide the fact of the imposition and I have been attempting to ensure that it is made clear what is happening, making certain that I include the ever changing rationale for it. If Wikipedia policy refuses to accept that the sources in question are valid then it should be open and honest about that. And not hide its censorship under accusations of vandalism. 194.202.213.254 (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't see your note sooner; Wikipedia policy does refuse to accept that the sources in question are valid. To quote from Qwyrxian's note on the talk page:

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a set of rules about what can and cannot be used as a source in articles. Full details can be found at the reliable sources guidelines, but the quick summary is that they need to be sources that are authoritative, and with a reputation for editorial integrity. Blogs, self-published websites, partisan sites pushing a particular point of view, etc., are not reliable sources. Ombusmanwatch is not a reliable source, and thus may not be used as a reliable source.

The colored text in that note links to some guidance for identifying what is a valid, reliable source. Anybody can make a website and say anything they like. This doesn't make it true. Because Wikipedia has a responsibility to present verifiable information - particularly where living people are involved - we must in almost all cases uses sources that have a reputation for responsible review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I found it surprising that you were so enthusiastic about the bullying way that the article had been managed and your condemnation of a new editor who appeared to have made good faith attempts to accommodate officious hectoring on the talk page before s/he was goaded into inappropriate posting in the article space. In very marked contrast to the careful way Tom Harris and Mucky Duck worked to achieve a compromise with another discontented real world user a few years previously, this past year's history that you seem so enthusiastic about has been one of aggressive sanitisation of the article by a heavy-handed enforcer who acknowledges that her/his 100% confidence is not always justified. Very limited effort was made to engage in any meaningful way with someone who appeared to have specific relevant knowledge and was apparently willing to be cooperative in trying to negotiate the movement of a somewhat abstract article towards a closer relationship with reality. Remembering how your careful, conciliatory approach did a lot to make me more aware and respectful of copyright rules and their importance, I was taken aback to find you so readily endorsing the sort of treatment 194.202.213.254 (/Childs/Charliechilds?) received and dismissing her/his good faith. (To be upfront about my own interest, despite several years experience of rough and tumble at Wikipedia when I was on the receiving end of similar dismissive imperatives from Qwyrxian and his/her associates I didn't take well to the treatment I received at their hands, so I feel considerable sympathy with the response of someone not expecting the sort of bruising, erratic and sometimes untransparent environment they're liable to encounter here.)Opbeith (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Opbeith. I don't know what your history is with Qwyrxian, but my perspective on this is very different. I don't see that the article has been handled in a bullying way, nor do I see hectoring on the talk page. Not only has Qwyrxian made an effort to explain policies, but he has offered to help put in information if reliable sources exist. He has documented what he's done on the article at every step. And he is the last person to engage at the talk page, with explanations and even questions that went unanswered.
I understand that people may be unhappy with this organization and they may even have legitimate beef with them - I have no clue - but they cannot use Wikipedia as a primary avenue for airing those grievances, however much they wish they could. If they can get a reliable newspaper interested in covering the story, then, great, we can include it.
The IP hasn't been blocked. Semi-protecting the article has brought the IP (whether it's the same fellow or not) into conversation at the talk page of the article rather than his continuing to make inappropriate commentary within the article itself, which almost certainly would have led to his being blocked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I won't waste your time pursuing the issue.Opbeith (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
You're not wasting my time. :) We may not always agree, but I always value your input. It's important to keep the needs and perspective of newer users in mind. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Harpy New Year~!

Hi, Dave. Happy New Year. The images being on Commons, there's nothing really to be done about them here, but the editor is edit warring on the article. He has been alerted to these issues before and even blocked for it. Accordingly, I have blocked him again, escalating his last edit-warring block from 1 week to 2. I've also cautioned User talk:Mananabliadze, who is in danger of violating 3RR. I'm tagging the images I see that are problematic on Commons and will bring him up at their AN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad Iqbal

Hello MRG and tps's, I've got a little (and by little I mean apparently copyvio'd former TFA) problem, and I'd like an admin to help us out. Of course, when pairing the words "admin" and "copyright" you're the first name that jumps out, but if you are not available atm could you point out another editor for me to push my problems onto? Thanks! Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(tps)I ran Muhammad Iqbal through User:CorenSearchBot/manual. Which doesn't constitute proof, but does prompt me to ask for more details about why you are concerned. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
See the talk page for a more detailed discussion. The gist is that the old article was deleted by Fastily a few days ago as a G12 copyvio of this. I recreated the article, and Justice007 and I are slowly expanding it, but a few of the editors who watched the old page are concerned about a) the tagger b) how/if a former FA could be a copyvio c) if disna really has the copyright or if they copied us. There was talk of going to ANI, but I'd prefer that we tried to settle this away from that bastion of good-feeling, so I'm looking for an admin who can look through the deleted article's history to see when exactly the copyvio was introduced, and possibly recreate the non-copyright material. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
And I hope CSB didn't find anything bad in the current article...Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
There was apparently some oversight there, as that article was not eligible for speedy deletion under that criterion. That criterion only applies where there is no clean content in history, and that 9 year old article has clean content in its history. Let me take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I've restored and subpaged the history for evaluation at Talk:Muhammad Iqbal/Article history. I'm actually pretty good at looking for reverse copying (lots and lots of practice), and I'm happy to help with that, but I don't have time right now. However, it's there, and there's more about it at the talk page, if anybody wants to get a head start. Once we've figured that out, I'll help figure out the best way forward. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Headsmack I started to look at the talk page, looked at the FA history, and failed to look at the rest of the page, sorry. the CSBot report was fine. I'll try to look in to this after lunch--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hehe...and my thanks to both you of you. No experience with "reverse copying" here, so I'll watch and learn. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 17:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed this and initiated the talk page discussion. I'm an admin. I looked through diffs when it was deleted and do see some indications that the wiki article was the one copied. In particular, both some early wiki content and some phrasing from early 2009 are in the off-wiki page. I also asked Fastily. Fastily has not responded with any evidence so far. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

There's no set rule, some people get sniffy when their name is used without their knowledge, some don't. I think you would be one of the non-upset people and I've never told you the many times I've referred to your opinions or yourself as a great person to consult with problems. However, since I revealed your secret identity here, thought it would be better to let you know. Regards! Franamax (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

👍 sonia likes this. sonia♫ 05:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Awwwww. (fiercely blushing) That's very kind of you (both of you, and Sitush, I see). And great! Some kind of complicated copyright issue! LOL! :D (I'll be reading that page as part of my MDennis stuff later today; can't wait to see what it's about.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Dr. K told me to ask you...

Dr. K told me to ask you about the copyright issues on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dominic.

Dr. K deletes all the revisions that I make saying that special permission is needed even though all references and writing are from http://michaeldominic.com/?page_id=437 which I wrote for him Mr. Dominic from an interview and research that I did. Dominic also states at the top of the page that it may be reproduced.

I also emailed him to ask him if he wanted me to update it for him with the notes from his site and he agreed. What else needs to be done? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dominic 98.14.0.184 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) The problem is that his permission is not compatible with our license requirements. He says that information may be used and reproduced "for informational purposes copyright free". While we use content for informational purposes on Wikipedia, we license our entire website to be reused and modified for any purpose. For that reason, we can't accept content that has restrictions of that kind on reuse. We don't require that content be released into public domain or that no restrictions be applied, but the only restrictions that we permit are (a) a requirement for credit and (b) a requirement that reusers use the same license. It would be easiest if Mr. Dominic put this release on the page:
The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
The first license is required; the second is optional. Either way, we'd need to provide proper attribution to his site, which we do with a "template" at the bottom of the page: Template:Dual, for instance. If he decides to go this route, Dr. K or I should be able to help you.
One thing that Mr. Dominic should realize is that there's no guarantee that content will remain or will remain unchanged on Wikipedia; in fact, we almost guarantee it will not. Everything here is open for modification by anyone within the allowances of our policies and guidelines. It is a very collaborative project.
If he doesn't want to put the release on the website, he can mail it in to the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team. Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries gives directions for doing that. In that case, the volunteer who responds will help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As a thank you...

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
I don't know how often you do that particular job, or even how hard/easy it is for you by now, but thank you so much for what you did at Muhammad Iqbal. Absolutely amazing from this poor noob's POV. Thanks again! Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much! :) It can be very time consuming to confirm a reverse infringement, but so worth it to me. I hate to see good content lost. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Kunalkanodia77k

Could you take a look at this user's contributions (especially deleted ones) and see if anything needs doing? Given the number of copyvio notices over a long time I think a block could possibly be in order but I don't know where to go to ask for one. I don't think it would be worth a CCI given the small number of contributions so I'll try to look into the others later today. As an aside I've often thought that we're missing an obvious place to report editors for multiple copyright violations for consideration of blocking. We have CCI but that doesn't cover the situation where an editors contributions are repeatedly speedied. Dpmuk (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Glanced at his or her last article and it is now blanked at CP. I've blocked for 48 hours. Please let me know if you don't have time to review the other articles, as I think this problem is likely to be rampant. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Certainly rampant - just about all the text they introduced was a copyright violation. I think between User:CactusWriter and myself we've got it all. Dpmuk (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, not sorted. One of my G12 speedy requests at India-Paraguay relations was denied. There's numerous direct copies and the structure is even the same. To me this is a very clear G12 so thought I'd ask you for a second opinion rather than edit-war with an admin. Dpmuk (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Whenever anybody challenges a G12, the thing to do if you are convinced it is a copyright problem is to put it through WP:CP. Unless you can clean out the problem and leave a functioning article, in which case you can also do that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to take a step back from this before I say something I may later regret. Dpmuk (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I've cleaned what I found. There's one sentence that looks like it could be a title in the source, and thus not copyrightable: "Agreement between India and Paraguay on Exemption of Visa for holders of Diplomatic and Official passports – 1996". Otherwise, what's left is a quote that isn't really transformative. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel like I owe you an explanation now I've had a chance to step back from it a bit. I was afraid that if I said something at the time I'd say something that was specific to the admin involved rather than a more general comment and I've tried hard in what I've written here to keep it as general as I can. I've long had a concern that admins are automatically considered knowledgeable enough to deal with copyright problems as soon as they pass RfA despite rarely being questioned on copyright and the fact that if they weren't previously working in copyright there contributions won't show their understanding of it (I hasten to add that I've no idea whether this applies in this case). Editors holding "higher" positions have been the subject of CCI but yet it is assumed they know what they're doing. In most cases I'd be happy for admins to learn on the job as mistakes can be easily reversed but that may not be the case with copyright if, for example, they end up leaving copyright on the site and it goes to court. Unlikely I know but the consequences could be severe, and probably made worse by the fact that we were aware of it. All that said I realise that's the system and I'm not going to be changing it.
It also irked me a bit that the G12 tag was just removed and a potential copyright problem remained. Is it worth adding a note to {{db-g12}} that admins should consider adding to WP:CP if they decline rather than leaving it to the editor to notice the decline and add it.
Finally I was also a little irritated by how different admins interpret the speedy criterion differently. I realise this is inherent in the system and there's no way round it so I normally let it slide but yesterday it did add to my irritation.
I wasn't willing to change the article myself for two reasons, a) It would have been hypocritical for me to do so as I have voted delete before at AfD for these sort of articles as I don't believe all such relationships are automatically notable and b) in my opinion the sort of work you did still leads to a derivative work (especially given the similar structure) although I accept your greater knowledge in this area. With hindsight I should probably have tagged for AfD and CP (although this combination has it's own problems).
Sorry for the length of that. Dpmuk (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
(tps)First, I appreciate your cautious wording, as that is more likely to lead to improvements. I wrote as someone interested in copyright issues. I've had passing interest for years, and fancied myself as moderately knowledgeable. However, the more I'm involved in CCI and related areas, the more I realize how much there is to know, how much there still is I do not know, and how hopelessly deficient was knowledge was when I thought I knew a fair amount. I'm trying to tread cautiously, and learn as I go along, but I do appreciate that mistakes have potentially more severe repercussions if a copyvio is left. I've been mulling over how best to develop a school for copyright investigators (we do have some good resources, but could use more, such as case studies.) it occurs to me that any such effort should be part of admin school as well. I just took a quick glance at Wikipedia:New admin school, and don't see much advice beyond the link to CSD criteria.
Oh, and mainly as an aside, I can't put my finger on it, but I've noticed when I do some CCI work, and see an X-Y relations article, I tend to skip over it and work on something else. Not sure why.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Dpmuk, we all have stuff that frustrates us sometimes on Wikipedia. At least, I assume we do; I know I do. :) But the value of it being a collaborative environment is that, when we hit the wall, we can step away and let somebody else do something about it. I tend to agree with you that if an administrator removes a G12 tag from an article because he doesn't think it rises to that limit, he should generally put a {{copyvio}} tag on it instead. I'm a little baffled that he didn't, given the copying I found, but he's not the first I've seen that didn't. This has been a head-scratcher for me for a long time. I didn't see close structure in the remaining content, but that doesn't mean I didn't overlook something. I excised what I saw. If you are feeling less frustrated and want to, please feel free to poke further. I've got a few things I need to do this morning, and I won't have time. :)
Sphilbrick, brilliant observation about new admin school! It never occurred to me that we were so light in that area. If nothing else, maybe a link to Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101? The case-study resources sound like an interesting idea. :) Oh, the stories I could tell. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I'm sure we all do have things that frustrate us - this one just happened to involve several at the same time so it get to me more than normal. I also wouldn't normally air things in quite the way I did here but thought I owed you an explanation given my abrupt reply. I will see about modifying the G12 template. I also agree that he admin school one is a good point. Dpmuk (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
G12 changed. You or any tps should feel free to change the wording - that's definitely not my strong point. Dpmuk (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for raising this issue, Dpmuk. It does become the responsibility of the admin who declines a G12 to address any partial copyvio issues which remain. I've added a bit more clarification for G12 on the CSD criteria page. (I think most administrators tend to glance at that criteria page rather than the read the full guideline at Wikipedia:Copyright violations.) I hope the extra emphasis there helps. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I saw these edits on my watchlist and wondered about their motivations. I agree that declining editors (not always admins) should not simply untag, and I hope that these notes help. The G12 definition is getting a little long, so I'll keep an eye out in case someone tries to trim it. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I updated the New Admin School with a brief blurb and link to CV 101--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Takis Fotopoulos

Hi MRG. Thank you for clarifying the details to the IP above. I am here for another reason though. Please see this edit and this. I am concerned that this user is going to import on Wikipedia large swaths of translated, but copyrighted, text from Greek just to prove a point. It is not looking too good on many fronts, BLP, COPYVIO, POINT etc. This unfortunate article Takis Fotopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is already listed at BLPN and the dispute is ongoing. I would appreciate any action on your part, with the usual disclaimers and apologies. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've put the article on my watchlist. If I see issues with extensive quotations, I'll stop and have a word with him. Please feel free to nudge me if I overlook it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much MRG. Will do. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Pakistan Barnstar of Mohammad Iqbal

The Pakistan Barnstar of Mohammad Iqbal
This Pakistan Barnstar of Mohammad Iqbal is awarded to you for a great contribution to Pakistan related article (Mohammad Iqbal)- Justice007 (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Tinsley

The NZ government requested the University add a wikipedia page on Prof Brian Tinsley. So with his permission and materials supplied by the university (some of which are also available at also available at http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/faculty/tinsley.html) I created the page wikipedia page. This page has been seen by Prof Tinsley who was the author of the material and was approved by him. The material is available for reuse under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL.

Please would you unblock this page and not reblock it.

Thank you

Sincerely

Prof. David J Lary Office: +1 (972) 883-5643 Cell: +1 (972) 489-2059 William B. Hanson Center for Space Science Office: WSTC 2.808 800 W. Campbell Rd. MS/WT15 Richardson TX 75080-3021 USA

David.Lary@utdallas.edu

http://utdallas.edu/~david.lary/ http://mints.utdallas.edu

Davidlary (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks 129.110.5.91 (talk)

Alabama Moon (film)

This one is moderately confusing, so I'm calling for the big guns.

Alabama Moon (film) looks like it was created today (16 January) by User:The Shadow-Fighter. Which is sort of true. However, editor claims here:

You must be confused. I didn't create that article, I just moved Alabama Moon to Alabama Moon (film). That bot must have made a mistake.

I think what happened is that Alabama Moon, which was created in 2009, was created about a future (at that time) film. User:The Shadow-Fighter notes that the book preceded the film, so moved the content (maybe via cut and paste) to Alabama Moon (film), then edited Alabama Moon so it was about the book.

I think this leaves the history messed up.

Plus, it looks like a copyvio, as it seems to be created today and content matches another site. However, given that it isn't that new, there's a decent chance it is a reverse copyvio. Note that when at the purported source, clicking on more brings you to the WP entry.

I think some cleanup is warranted to preserve the history and I don't have practice doing that (yet).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have history with that one. :) I cleaned up the article on the author in 2008 and was intrigued enough by the article to go read that book. Let me look at it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, point 1: the editor is wrong. He didn't move anything; he did a copy & paste page creation. First, I'll work that out. Then I'll look more deeply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I tried the Wayback, but couldn't find the site, so I haven't confirmed whether the prose in the WP article preceded the site.
The first instance of the prose appears to be this edit, added by Jarrod K, who hasn't edited since 2009, and was blocked for copyright vio, leading to suspicion that it is a copyvio.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It probably is. Plot descriptions frequently are. :/ Now that I've got the history of the film article tucked in at Alabama Moon (film), I'll take a look at that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
And so it is; see this August 2009 source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like I'm sucking up, it is a pleasure to see a pro at work:) I hope to be able to handle something like this myself someday, but until then, it's nice to have the experts to ask.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Aww. :) You make me blush! I'm delighted that you're pitching in. They make splitting and history merging sound more scary than it is. You do want to be careful with history merges, as they can be a royal pain to undo when the history is complex, but it's really just a matter of "delete them all; restore some; move; restore the rest." Voila. You have a split. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks like a key step is creating a temp, cause you can't simply move A to B and vice versa, so you need a temp place. I'll try one sometime.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Hi MRG! I got confused between what ordinary editors can do at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. I had blanked Mobile Payments in India and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 January 9 (clear copyvio from 3 different sources). I then thought I'd help out by evaluating the other articles listed on that page (both bot and manually reported) as there seemed to be quite a backlog. If an article was a false positive, I only marked it as such and didn't actually remove {{Copyvio}} from the article. I now realize that only Copyright problems board clerks can evaluate the manually reported articles listed at Copyright problems. I'll go back now and add notes to that effect for each entry. But I'd be happy to apply to be a clerk, if you need more. How do I go about it? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You've pretty much just done it. I'll file the paperwork. :) I'd love to have you aboard! Today I'll be pitching in on that backlog. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems/Clerks#Voceditenore. I've notified the active folks at the board, but have boldly added you already. If there's any issues with my action, be it on my head. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Okey Dokey. I'll try not to bring things landing on your head . I'll start out with just a few articles a day there, mainly the bot reports. They generate an awful lot of false positives. I've also started doing work on the IEP CCI. I'm concentrating on the users who don't appear to have had any evaluation done by OAs at Wikipedia:India Education Program/Students. I must say, what a behemothic task it is! Sigh... Voceditenore (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
On a tangentially related note I'd consider myself still active as I'm working on trying to clear the (rather large) backlog of {{copypaste}} tags that has built up since the bot broke which stopped them being automatically listed at WP:CP. Of course as they're not listed at WP:CP it may seem I'm no longer active. Dpmuk (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I've seen your work there, so I know you're active in copyright work. Sorry I didn't think about pinging you! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been moving home for the last week (I've recently moved to the US so this mainly consisted of making flatpack furniture) so probably wouldn't have had a chance to look. I made the point more so I didn't get removed as "inactive". Dpmuk (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

SCV

Sorry; I haven't been on SCV in a while (my main focus on WP is to write articles), but I should be "back" by the 20th :) Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 21:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Any time you can give is welcome. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Moon. I sometimes wonder if you get sick of being the go to person for all things copyvio by everyone but, well, you are. Anyway, there is a question at the help desk that I thought raised some interesting copyright questions for text attribution that I had not come across before (and I'm not so sure the advice given thus far is correct, and my gut reaction is that it is not) but I don't know. Not asking you to do anything. I just thought you might be interested and would certainly have something to add if you were. See Wikipedia:Help desk#School project related Question - How should I go about this?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoa! Holy wall of text! I'm reading. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Phew. If I were this contributor, I would do one of the following: (a) work offline with my classmates and submit the entire document under my own user account, acknowledging in edit summary that it is a collaborative work and potentially listing at the talk page all authors involved (we only need the license of one of the authors of the collaborative work) or (b) take the IP editor route. The tricky bit about what's being proposed with his giving attribution in edit summaries is the clause of WP:C that reads, "If you import media under a compatible license which requires attribution, you must, in a reasonable fashion, credit the author(s). You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain." That could create some red tape. I'll speak to him at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Ankitbhatt

Hi, this user has requested me via email to bring this to your attention. He wants to discuss an urgent matter with you before the blackout begins. He stated that he had sent two mails to you earlier, but no response was forthcoming. If you recall the fellow, he was blocked indefinitely by you upon request. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 17:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I haven't checked that email address in weeks. I wonder why he didn't ask at his talk page? I'd have seen that. :D But it's just as well I didn't, as there were other letters there that need my attention. I appreciate your letting me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Early history of Jaffna kingdom

I just copied this from the main article Jaffna kingdom and then created a new one. Corenbot says it is a potential copy of this, my analysis says that the website copied it originally from Wikipedia including the references and now Corenbot thinks the new (not new), but newly generated from the old article is a copy. Just for your information. Kanatonian (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I have no doubt that the page is a mirror of Wikipedia, since the links are to Wikipedia pages. :D But these kinds of "finds" sometimes work out well anyway, because it sometimes alerts us when content has been copied from one article to another. You are certainly the main author of Jaffna kingdom, but because it's a collaborative article, I need to ask you if you are 100% sure that you are the only person who has ever edited the content you copied. If not, we do need to "attribute" it to copy it from one article to another. The procedure and the reasons are explained at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, but I'm happy to help. Is there any chance that anybody else contributed to it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, few other editors actually contributed to it. Kanatonian (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll do the attribution. We have to do this because Wikipedia's content isn't public domain either. Legally, those people who have copied our article are violating your copyright (and theirs). People are allowed to reuse our content, but they must meet our licensing requirements, which includes giving credit and releasing the content under the same license. :/
Attributing when you copy from one article to another is pretty easy. The required bit is the edit summary - all you have to do is write in it something like, Content copied from [[article]], which see for attribution. It's also recommended that you put the {{copied}} template on the talk page.
I'll do that now, and you'll see how it's done for next time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Done! Thanks. :) I'll make a note at the Corensearchbot "suspected copyright violations" page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
OK Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Brian Tinsley

Thanks for your advice. To avoid copyright issues the article has been rewritten at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brian_Tinsley/Temp Davidlary (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Could use your input

Hi MRG! I think your input would be really helpful at meta:Talk:India Program/Education Program/Documentation#Plagiarism section is both inaccurate and misleading. I also suggested that they run the final text of the brochure past you before using it with students.

I had a look at Understanding and Avoiding Plagiarism done in 2009 as a booklet for schools and universities using WP as an assignment, but I'm wondering if there ought to be an additional simpler and shorter version which stresses the copyright infringement issue clearly and succinctly including avoiding image copyvios. There was some talk of producing something like this in the middle of the IEP brouhaha, but I suspect it got lost in the shuffle. The current booklet is quite "advanced" and possibly too nuanced for many students? Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) I sent an email to Nitika offering to help work on that section, if she'd like. (In my Mdennis capacity.) The Understanding and Avoiding Plagiarism piece was originally written for the Signpost. I'd agree that it's probably a bit indepth as a primer for students, especially if it is one of many pieces and especially because it was never meant to be used to address copyright issues! Would you like to collaborate on pulling together something a little more basic and to the point? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
On looking at the edit history, the section seems to have been written by one of the Pune CAs, not Nitika. Yes, I'd be happy to help with a short and sweet guide. I think it would helpful for all students editing Wikipedia as an assignment. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Great! I understand that the Global Education Department may be working on official guides, but I kind of think that having our own around might be a good thing anyway, in case they don't grok the first one. :) If you agree, maybe we can start pulling something together on Saturday. I will shamelessly pillage some of my previous writing on the matter, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/A Beginners Guide to Copyright on Wikipedia. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing RfC?

Maggie, would you be willing to be the closer for this RfC? I plan to launch it tonight or tomorrow, and it's been suggested that we should decide on a closer and a duration before it launches. Please let me know today, if you're willing, since if you're not I'd like to find someone else before starting the RfC. I haven't heard back from other editors as to whether you'd be an acceptable closer, but your name has come up before and nobody has raised any objections, so I'm guessing you'd be a good choice. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If they'll have me, I'll close. :) However, if it's difficult to read consensus, I may reach out to some other uninvolved admins to help. I kind of like that new model. --User:Moonriddengirl 14:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Great; thanks. I'll drop you a note when it launches. Thank you very much! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi -- I'm about to launch the RfC; you may want to read this in case you want to try to get any of North8000's concerns resolved prior to closing. (He thinks they should be resolved prior to starting the RfC, but I don't think there's enough patience for that.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Now launched. The link above is now broken, since I archived that talk page in preparation for the RfC; the discussion I meant to link to is here. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment here, since that section has been archived, and let him know. The recommended length of time for an RFC is 30 days, unless consensus becomes clear significantly earlier. I'll make notes to myself to look in on the RFC every 10 days (on Saturdays) until that time in case consensus emerges sooner, but my gut instinct is that this isn't going to be a "snow" closure. My gut has been wrong before, though, so I'll just wait and see what evidence emerges. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Mohammad Torkaman

Hi

Please make a version of this article in my userpage, If it's possible. thanks Amirreza talk 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Userfied. Note at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! got what you said at my talkpage. :D Amirreza talk 13:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Please Userficate Amirhossein Ipakchi and Mehran Farziat too. Amirreza talk 18:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 Done, see User:Amirreza/Mehran Farziat and User:Amirreza/Amirhossein Ipakchi--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, SPhilbrick! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

History of Champa

Hi, Moonriddengirl, I am concerned about copyright on History of Champa. The information was split out of the Champa article, but a large amount of the split out text appears to be duplicated at http://worldvisitguide.com/salle/EP0840.html, where copyright is claimed. Do you have any idea which might have come first? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Pending any evidence of copying, I think it's probably ours. It says "cf: Wikipedia" near the bottom, right above that weird little red divider line that says "Related." :) Added to that, the oldest archive is 5 September 2008, and the little diamond question marks are a classic sign that somebody has copied unrecognized symbols from another page.
This seems to be a habit of theirs. The earliest archive of the Louvre shows the same kind of unrecognized symbols and textually duplicates this 2002 description of the museum (which is itself probably copied from something official).
The article on the Van Gogh museum, archived around the same time, more explicitly acknowledges that it's copied: "from Wikipedia."
Got to give these guys credit for at least acknowledging us. It may not be license compliance, but it's more than we get from a lot of sites! :/ I'll add them to mirrors and forks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Added. :) (Lazily; I didn't bother with the box.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed that cf.  :) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. :) It's not exactly prominent! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it me or is this category missing several hundred members? I seem to remember it containing hundreds (thousands) of articles going back years. I can see no way we could have got rid of all of them seeing as how, by my understanding, the only way they could get removed is a) we find a source and remove the copyvio or b) we prove it definitely wasn't a copyvio and I can't believe that would have happened for all of them. I'm hoping that either a) I've missed some change in how we deal with them rather than or b) there's some coding error somewhere. If it's not a I'll investigate b more. Dpmuk (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty odd. :/ I can't believe that we have none between 2006 and 2010. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Having looked into this a bit this is because User:Rich Farmbrough used AWB to tag them with a date when the template was updated with a month parameter. In doing so he used the current month (July 2011) for all then existing tags. He also removed the user from the template and added it after the template (e.g. [19]). This had the undesirable effect of a) leaving signatures in the banner area of talk pages and b) sometimes making it look like someone placed the tag that didn't (as in the example I give, I tagged it based on someone else's concern). I remember some back and forth discussion at the time and it was agreed that the user could stay in the template. I note that this change isn't happening to current taggings (with just a month being added) but I'd have hoped Rich would have gone back and corrected the change he made. Oh well, seems like it was a bodged job of automatically updating the tags but no real harm done. Does the total number look broadly right to you? If so my memory must be playing tricks on me and we can put this one to bed. If not I'll dig around a little more. Dpmuk (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Weird! Wonder how that happened? :/
I don't honestly remember how many of those pages there are, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number is roughly accurate. I think maybe not a lot of people know about that tag. I know I've placed an awful lot of them myself, usually when somebody has tagged the page as a copy-paste but not provided a source and I can't find one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Late Cretaceous North America

I wrote an article (link above) a while back that I think too closely paraphrases its only source. Could you please speedy delete it? I've already archived it in user space, no need for a temp page. I'll rewrite it soon in a more appropriate fashion. Abyssal (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Abyssal (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sylvester Medal

Hi Moonriddengirl, I need your expert eye on this one. Looking at Sylvester Medal I was wondering if putting all the "rationale" for all recipients in this article is in line with the copyright rules on quotations? It looks too much to me, but maybe this is allowed for award citations? Note that this article reached FL status, and the current reference for the award is changed to http://royalsociety.org/awards/sylvester-medal/ (I have not updated the references yet). Thanks, SchreyP (messages) 08:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's really not. :/ I spoke to the contributor who did that work (not formally, but he's a co-worker, and we were discussing a work matter, so I brought it up), and he indicates that he was less familiar with issues at that time and is all for the material being reworked to be free. He doesn't, however, have time to help out with it right now. He's under a massive time crunch on a work project. Do you understand the subject well enough to help with that? Math is most definitely not a strong point for me. :/ Oh, I can calculate percentages like nobody's business, but I have no clue what "theories of aggregates and of sets of points of the arithmetic continuum, of transfinite numbers, and Fouriers series" means. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, I can help with the rework but it will take time. I was thinking of blanking the column with rationale and add the reworked sentences one by one. And add a note on the talk page. No hard feelings to the contributor, I had to learn it also bit by bit and I have still the feeling I can learn more in this area. Any process I have to take care off related to the FL status of the document? -- SchreyP (messages) 18:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer not to rock the FL status if we can help it. Maybe we can in interim replace the quotes with content copied from the various articles? Let me look at that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, were you able to look into this article? -- SchreyP (messages) 14:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid it slipped my mind completely. :/ Let me do that now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done about half of it, incorporating only a few quotes from the source (the source links were dead, so I've updated that as well. I'm sure there's a huge backlog at WP:CP, and I need to look at that. But I think if we can graze the articles on the subjects, we can probably salvage this situation. :) I'll try to work on it more later today if the CP situation is not as bad as I'm fearing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re your unwarranted removal of my posts onnPost Modern PortfolionTheory

You are an ignorant bureaucrat! How dare you delete all my work on the erroneous basis that I was using copyrighted material. If you had done your research properly you would have discovered that (a) itbiw I who had written the chapter in the Downside Risk book, and (b) that material had been initially written by me and others many years prior., (c) we were given assurances at the time that Dr. Sortino asked me to contribute that our unpaid efforts would NOT become the property of the publisher or anyone else. I see you have also killed the historical cies. I demand that you restore my work immediately and in future refrain from meddling in areas in which you have neither the requisite qualification nor understanding. Brian Rom brianrom@investmenttechnologies.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmarc (talk • contribs) 04:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you so much, Voceditenore. :) I would gather that in his initial dismay over the removal of the content, he may not have read the original message to see the process for restoring. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Looks good now TVM! Brianmarc (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi Moonriddengirl, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in this? Kind Regards -- Marek 02:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Gyan, goin'

I've mentioned you at RSN here. If you can spare some time? - Sitush (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've weighed in and will keep an eye on the conversation, if I can. :) Thanks for letting me know! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocking

Hey MRG, can you please block: User talk:76.66.85.158. I send a warning based on many past discretion's. I don't know if the user is called "Carter" but he keeps adding that character to season pages, making up a back-story and incorporating his storylines into all season pages of One Tree Hill when no such character exists. He adds summary to every episode summary. Jayy008 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Dates mixed up, my bad. I will post if he does it again. Jayy008 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Specimens of Archaeopteryx

I checked article Specimens of Archaeopteryx Coranbot also marked it and found it to be copied from http://archeopteryx.info/history_of_discovery.html They claim copyright for their article Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved. Archaeopteryx.Please go through this he copied it from Archaeopteryx and Maxberg specimen articles .[20] Later marked Archaeopteryx for copyright investigation it has been copied from various pages from archeopteryx.info .Later it was found that they had copied from us [21].But the issue is that they are claiming copyright for our work in there website.There website was created only in 2011 and we has created the article much before that. Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is reverse infringement. :) We catch these a lot through Corensearchbot, when articles are split and pick up matches to mirrors elsewhere. I'd recommend adding {{backwardscopy}} at the talk page of the article and linking in the comment section to the explanation on your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes but here sadly they claimed copyright for our articles which made make a request for a copyright investigation it is better this gets resolved now rather than after another user has worked hard and edited the article . Mirror sites normally do not claim copyright for themselves even if they do not acknowledge Wikipedia.Added the Backwards copy tag to both Specimens of Archaeopteryx and Archaeopteryx and this solves the issue.Thank you.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

For one of the Pillars of Wikipedia.

For the Ultimate Wikipedian
You are truly a pillar of Wikipedia in Knowledge,Commitment ,Dedication both in article space,admin and Wikipedia space and also both onsite and offsite.You are totally consistent both in policy and firm yet kind and cool and been around since 2007 without a break .Truly the project runs due to committed people like you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow. That is so very kind of you. Thank you so much! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

That old favourite again

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films could do with some admin action again, RD1 and semi-protection may be sensible. Dpmuk (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And List of highest-grossing Indian films. Dpmuk (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I wish that BOI would give us permission. :( But until they do, we don't have much choice. I've held off on protection, since the IP following seems to have made good edits. Maybe it won't be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. I'd mentioned the semi- because of the glut of weird edits that were going on, in the space of a few hours, and I couldn't quite decide whether they were an attempt to update the tables (not a problem), change to a top five (a problem) or both. As things have quietened down for a bit now and there's a useful IP about I'd agree protection isn't warranted. Cheers. Dpmuk (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Could probably do with another round of RD1ing. Am starting to debate running for admin myself and taking the flak that will undoubtedly come... Dpmuk (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Mildred Seydell

Dear Moonriddengirl, I have been referred to you by >User:LadyofShalott. If you go to User_Talk:LadyofShalott, there are more details. The article has now turned into a "copyright violation investigation." I am frankly appalled. I replied here. If I can reach you with an e-mail (you can reach me via wikipedia e-mail), I can send you the two reports I got from Desktop Plagiarism checker. Sigh. If you would please take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Posted a rewrite of the article. Then put back the immediately prior iteration which included copyright violation investigation template. Please access the reswrite through the history. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. :) I am just waking, and assessing copyright concerns that are based on close paraphrasing takes some mental acuity. I will look at the article and help straighten things out once I feel fully functional. I want to be sure that I'm bringing my wits with me so that I give you the best response I can. :D I did have a look at your conversation with User:Madman, and I just wanted to explain that he did not put the duplication detector report up; it's automatically generated by the copyright template. I'm really sorry that you're appalled; I can understand that this would be distressing. Please remember that he is trying to help Wikipedia just as you are, even if he is mistaken or his approach was not the best. In cases of close paraphrasing, whether content follows too closely is subjective. Sometimes, there's enough following that anybody would agree it does, but there's considerable room for divergent standards. As a community of creators and editors, we just have to keep working together to make sure that we're all on the same page as to what standard to follow. I'm not saying that you've followed too closely, because I haven't looked yet, but I think it's important to keep in mind why these disagreements sometimes happen. It's an uncomfortable part of a collaborative project. But we make it through, with the end goal of a great encyclopedia. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
All right. I'm awake. I've warmed up with some straightforward copyright work, and I'm going in to investigate this one now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've looking at this one pretty closely. I see that Corensearchbot tagged it in its earliest edit ([22]) for its resemblance to [23], and I'm afraid that the earliest edit was very likely much too close to the source. Besides having some precise language duplication ("They resided in Belgium for twenty years before returning to Atlanta in 1967"), the entire paragraph beginning "She was born" follows lockstep on the source in terms of structure, although language has been changed. The lead, too, is substantially similar to that of the (then) sole source. While every article has to start somewhere, it's a bit risky to create articles like this, as you can wind up with a derivative work of a copyrighted original. :) We can see this at play in the "early life" section at the time of the blanking. It would be pretty easy for the copyright holder (were they so inclined) to make a case that you had clearly taken from their source.

That said, by the time the article was blanked, I think that the content was no longer substantial. Madman's later thought that {{close paraphrasing}} might have been a better approach is certainly correct, I'd say. It needed a bit more reworking, but I think that the blanking was unnecessary. Most likely, I would have rewritten it a bit myself to separate it more from the source. In fact, I've done a bit of that.

One of the hardest things, I find, in terms of appropriating creativity from a source is avoiding appropriating the structure. The degree or creativity in a structure will depend in large part on how selective the material is. Chronological representation of facts has very low creativity, which helps. :) But when we take facts from a source and present them in the same order that the source does (or with very little change), we run a much higher risk of crossing that intangible line. For this reason, I usually try not only to change the words I'm using but also, where feasible, the structure. It's really hard to do this if you try writing your paraphrase sentence by sentence from a single source. Sometimes, it's very useful to me to take notes (elsewhere) and then see if there's another presentation that makes sense. The most helpful thing is to find multiple sources that discuss the same time period and blend together facts from both. Alas, that's not always so easy to do. :) It certainly wasn't easy digging up information on Seydell's early life, but I've managed to put some together. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice job on the extra sources on the early life. Thank you for your advice and assistance. FWIW, I had used multiple sources, multiple structures, and paraphrased. The Bot hit on the article within five minutes of the first edit, and I had edited the article away very quickly thereafter. There are only so many ways you can say "circus Gorilla" and deviating form that will make the statement inaccurate. The "They resided in Belgium for twenty years before returning to Atlanta in 1967" shared some of the facts, e..g. that there were two decades, but was a completely different sentence from the original. Pulling out two and three words in a row, and then saying this is a "close paraphrase" is a flawed methodology that leads to an unwarranted conclusion. Blanking the article and threatening to delete it was 'using a shotgun to kill a flea.' It may get the job done, but there will be a lot of 'collateral damage' in the process. There was no illicit appropriation, and there was everything (except proper names and citations -- and usually my citations were as good as or better, and more complete than the source) lined up according to the MOS. The bot is a limited tool that will encourage off kilter conclusions. Ultimately, this is a matter of style and human judgment, and reliance on misguided mathematical formulae will just create problems. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
It's best not to put an article on Wikipedia that include close paraphrasing of a copyright source. :) Not only will it draw the bot to tag the issue, but it puts a clear record in history that can be used to argue that our article is a derivative work. If your early drafts must closely follow your source (which I generally don't recommend, for reasons I explain above), it's best to start them elsewhere, such as in a word processor file. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your second set of eyes on this, Moonriddengirl! You're absolutely right that a {{close paraphrasing}} template would have been more appropriate in this case (though, for the record, I was never threatening to delete the article). I was hoping to rewrite as well, but had to sleep on it (likewise "mental acuity") and when I woke it up, you'd already done it! How do you have the stamina to work so hard?! (I guess being an employee could help. ;)) Cheers! — madman 18:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
It helps with the stuff I do as User:Mdennis (WMF) to be sure. :D As Moonriddengirl, it's a labor of love. Thanks for keeping up with WP:SCV, and if you ever want a second set of eyes on review, please feel free to come by. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

scribd .com

As you no doubt are aware are notorious for copyright infringements. The book, Baloch nationalism: its origin and development published 2004 is currently used as a source, and is linked to a full copy of the book on scribd on the Baloch nationalism article. Is this a copyright violation under wikipedia policy? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this would almost certainly be a WP:LINKVIO. I've removed the links accordingly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I will search for other articles using the same source. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A question about CCI process, now partially moot

As I work though some of the CCI entries, I am often comfortable that I can resolve them myself, but occasionally I run into something where I am not sure how to proceed. I’ll walk through my thought process below (written in more detail than necessary, because it might end up being part of a case study). I’d appreciate any thoughts on how you would handle this entry.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of Almoravid dynasty

The CCI entry is entry 115 The current article is Almoravid_dynasty The two contributions are:

My first observation is that they have the potential to be of concern, that is, they aren’t simply addition to a simple list, additions to a list of External Links, a reference, or a small copyedit that generates a larger byte count. On the other hand, while they are potentially of concern to us, if the addition happened to be a straight copy-and-paste of material under copyright, they are not long enough to be of legal concern, as the copy of a single sentence (not part of a very short poem) is highly unlikely to be found to be a material copyright violation. However, our internal rules are deliberately more conservative than the law, so I cannot simply move on due to the length; if it is a straight copy/paste, we should take action.

The first can be disposed of relatively easily. I look at the current version, and see that almost all of the contribution is gone, with only the phrase “root r-b-t” remaining from the original contribution.

Technically, if we determined that the original contribution was problematic, we should consider a revdel, but it is my belief we can move along, using the assumption that we should revdel if the passage were much longer, but not necessary in the case of a single sentence.

The second passage isn’t as easy.

The first step is to determine whether it remains in the current version, and it does, exactly as added.

The next logical step would be to look at the reference, and see if the words were lifted or lightly paraphrased,, but it isn’t referenced.

Next, I do a Google search for a phrase, such as "Yusuf ibn Tashfin had in the meantime". That generates many hits, but this isn’t proof of copying. The first hit, not surprisingly is the WP article itself. Subsequent entries look like either WP mirrors or sites which have scraped WP content. Do we have a definitive list of such mirrors and a way to exclude them from the search? My guess is no, and even if someone has complied a partial list, I suspect that it may not have all the sites copying material relating to Morocco.

When I started writing this, my planned next question was “Now what?” I will go on to show what I did find, but if I did not find anything, I wouldn’t feel comfortable simply concluding that some of the sites look like mirrors, and I’m not about to check 3000 sites (I realize there probably aren’t that many, but even a couple dozen would be tedious). Is there another technique I’m missing?

I did go on to check Google Books, and did find something.

In the Encyclopdia Brittanica


Ibn Tashfin who was largely guided by Zainab had in the meantime brought what is now known as Morocco to complete subjection and in 1062 had founded the city of Marrakesh Morocco City He is distinguished as Yusef I In 1080 he conquered the kingdom of Tlcmccn and founded the present city of that name his rule extending as far cast as Oran

Compare to contribution:

Yusuf ibn Tashfin had in the meantime brought what is now known as Morocco, Western Sahara and Mauretania into complete subjection; and in 1062, had founded the city of Marrakech. In 1080, he conquered the kingdom of Tlemcen (in modern-day Algeria) and founded the present city of that name, his rule extending as far east as Oran.

(Bold for exact match)

This is too close a match. However, the source is the 1910 version of the Encyclopedia, so it is pd, right?

As a tertiary source, Encyclopdia Brittanica is not a preferred source, but doesn’t seem to be disallowed, and per WP:PSTS, this may be one of the cases where it is acceptable, especially given the reputation.

Despite being pd, it still must be referenced, and we have some pd templates which may need to be added (any for EB in particular?)

My next plan is to report to S710, request that the editor make the fixes, and if that doesn’t happen, make the fixes myself.

Again, the irony is that I decided to write this up asking advice about what to do if I didn’t find the hit (the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence) but if you want me to come up with a better example before answering, I will.


Okay. Dealing with the specific first: you're quite right that the book is public domain. :) We actually have templates specifically for the 11th Edition; Category:1911 Britannica templates. There's a specific citation template here: {{Cite EB1911}}. Because it's very small, I would probably use that template and after it add {{PD-notice}}. It's entirely up to you if you want to ask him to do it or do it yourself. I'd usually do it myself and then tell him how for next time. If you want to give him a chance to do it first, that's certainly a valid approach.
If I were cleaning a CCI like this and found something like that, I would probably determine my action based on (a) the extensiveness of the content and (b) the overall "feel" of the CCI. If a contributor copies extensively, and that has been confirmed (and I mean beyond the level of confirmation I look for in opening a CCI: if I've found plentiful instances of copying after it's been opened), I'll default to removing or rewriting. The more extensive the content, the more necessary such removal/rewriting is, but the more time I'll invest in trying to determine if backwards copying happened. Probably too much time sometimes. We don't really have the luxury of spending an hour on a single article in a CCI; we've got too many. :/ That said, I am also more likely to default to removal or rewriting if the loss of the material will not appreciably impact the quality of the article. In those cases, there's littie reason not to play it safe, and I won't put a lot of time into checking for backwards copying. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. On the point of who should do it, I understand that sometimes it is easier to do it than to ask. But I also view this as a learning process, and on occasion I’ve asked someone how to do something, and I’m a tiny bit miffed when they just do it for me. That doesn’t help me learn as much as if I try it myself. So I will ask, but not push, if they’d like to fix it, fine, if not, I’ll do it.
Thanks also for the broad guidelines on how to address in general.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that's something for me to watch out for! I often do things myself when people ask me how and leave an explanation of how I did it. :) That was actually kind of a weak spot for me as an instructor; my first critical review they noted that I had a tendency to be too "give a man a fish" and less "teach a man to fish" in working with students. Took some major doing to correct that. And the last thing I want to do is miff people when they ask how to do something. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I started an RfC on this issue a couple of weeks ago following some discussion on the use of some Iranian images. Although most users agree that these images are PD and that the legal position is not in doubt some editors seem to think it's worth asking the foundation for their opinion. I'm not sure whether the latest request is just to get a legal opinion on whether they're PD or get a more general policy statement. However there's definitely been some previous discussion with people asking us to get legal opinion on whether they're PD. I know images aren't normally your area but I've come here to ask whether you think it's worth seeking the opinion of counsel on whether they're PD or not as I don't want to waste their time and knowing you deal with them reasonably frequently thought you'd be a good person to ask whether this was worth escalating. Cheers. Dpmuk (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If by reasonable frequency, you mean multiple times most days, you've got that right. :) I am very happy to ask a legal opinion, if you like, or to see if I can get a policy statement. I'd do so as part of what I do as liaison. Just let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you ask for an opinion please, it would appear that it's going to be the only way to take things forward. I would ask legal myself but it would appear some people are also after a policy statement and I don't know who to ask for that. As far as I can see there are three question:
  1. Are images such as these PD in the US - i.e. can we legally use them?
  2. If they are what countries does it apply to?
  3. Does the foundation have a policy on whether we should use them? One vocal argument is that because they may leave PD it is / should be foundation policy that we shouldn't use them. It would, I think, be useful if they specifically mentioned this last point in an reply just to avoid any doubt.
Although I started the RfC I'd like to think of myself as still neutral so hopefully the above is a fair representation. Obviously I'm now asking this in your WMF role but it seems silly to split this across two user talk pages! Thanks for the help. Dpmuk (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Dpmuk, I certainly appreciate your input in the matter and MRG is a great asset to utilize in this discussion. If you don't mind, I'd like to present the case as I see it (I think you may have missed some nuances in the way you phrased the questions). The questions that need to be answered are:
  1. Are the images in question PD in the US? Are they PD elsewhere?
  2. If PD in the US and elsewhere, how should such images be labeled? (i.e. They are PD in the US, but copyrighted in Iran...so they should be labeled like this? Or in some other fashion) In my less than humble opinion, just labeling them as either PD or just as copyrighted does users on WP and elsewhere a HUGE disservice.
  3. How should such images be used on WP. I don't care whether we use them as copyrighted images, PD images, or "as the en-wp community decides...as long as it's in line with what the WMF dictates." I think it is FAR more important to have a clear answer on this, than what the outcome is.
  4. Lastly, just because they might someday become copyrighted in the US (for example, if Iran signs the Berne Treaty tomorrow), it doesn't change how we should treat them today. I don't disagree that they might someday become copyrighted, but that doesn't change the fact that they are PD now. An opinion on this situation would be most helpful.
I concur with Dpmuk that specifically mentioning this issue will help clarify the situation. Buffs (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you guys concur on this expanded group of questions? If so, I'll shoot them along. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy for them to be asked. Apart from 2. they get at pretty much the same thing I suggested just re-worded and extended a bit. I didn't ask two because I couldn't imagine there ever being a "ruling" from the foundational on something that specific, and so think it would just get kicked back to us, but given the strong views now being expressed if people want it asked then it's probably best that it is. Dpmuk (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I concur that they are right along the same lines and we're at least on the same page regarding the matter. I also welcome White Cat's input on the submission if he feels there's anything I missed/misphrased. Buffs (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
We'd like formal foundation input for this issue at the rfc. I have made my case there. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the WMF probably wont make a direct input, but MRG will serve as a liaison for that sort of input. Correct me if I'm wrong here MRG. Buffs (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
That's frequently how it works, although there's nothing to preclude them contributing directly if they so choose. :) They tend to be busy. A Certain White Cat, if I bring back a response, it will be in my capacity as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation and not as a volunteer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
When should we expect a reply? Buffs (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I submitted it on Friday; depending on what was going on, they may have reviewed it then or may not review it until Monday. For straightforward questions, I usually expect something within one or two business days. (Very straightforward questions, instantly. :D) That varies depending on the complexity and the interference of other factors (such as massive lawsuit threat popping in the inbox in the interim). As an example of one that is taking longer, the legal team is currently researching the legal ramifications of the recent court decision around the URAA for Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA. I can't predict exactly when, but with a multipart question like this one, I would myself prompt them on Wednesday if I have not heard back from them before that. It's difficult syncing the speed of Wiki discussions with the speed of the business world. That was one of the harder things I had to adjust to when I started working with staff. Wikipedia runs full steam 24-7. While quite a lot of staff do some work seven days a week (*cough*), it's not the same steady speed at all. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Fabulous. Thanks for the inquiry...perhaps including their legal review as part of the answer may be useful (it seems to touch on some of the issues brought up here). Buffs (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Intervention needed at Problem solving

Recently I put a Copyvio tag on Problem solving to get a long standing copyright issue resolved. I was trying to follow the procedure given in Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101#If the entire article is a problem where is says "if it's foundational but there's reason to believe the person who added it here is the copyright owner, tag it for investigation with..." since that seemed closest to the situation, though I find the directions to be extremely confusing and self-contradictory. There hasn't been any response from Copyvio board yet but another user restored the material in question, saying the tag was inappropriate, and is now actively editing the article so it may become impossible to separate the new material the COPYVIO material (if it is, in fact a COPYVIO). We are now going back and forth on the talk page about whether there is a copyvio issue and whether I was following correct procedures but this seems rather pointless since apparently neither of us understands the policy very well.

First, I'd like to request that you take a look at Talk:Problem solving#Is plaigarism an issue? and inject some copyvio expertise into the discussion. I don't like to circumvent the normal channels and I'm not sure the other editor was incorrect in restoring the material, but if so then continuing to work on it will turn the issue into an intractable mess and action needs to be taken soon to avoid this. There is also some urgency in that the article is viewed about 1000 times a day, the copied material has existed since the article was created and a concern was raised on the talk page over a year ago.

Second, I'd like to know if there is a forum where the copyvio procedures are discussed since they seem to be unnecessarily difficult and painful. Ideally I would have liked to just do the Google searches to determine when and from where the material was copied and leave the rest for someone with the necessary expertise. That should have take 15 min. but instead I've spent hours trying to figure out the correct procedure and the extra effort has done nothing to advance a resolution of the issue.

You probably don't remember but I worked with you two years ago on a contributor copyright investigation, which is why I'm coming to you for help on this.--RDBury (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I've restored the copyright tag and replied on the article's talk page as I believe you're very definitely right to have concerns for the reasons I explain there. As for your second point WT:CP is probably the best place to raise them. I for one would certainly be interested in knowing what part you found so difficult - I've been doing this for long enough that it's obvious to me that in a situation like this you just put a {{copyvio}} tag on the page with the appropriate source as the parameter but if it's not so obvious to others we may need to change something. Dpmuk (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The author of the text in question would appear to be Joachim Funke, but they haven't edited in about four and a half years. Would you be willing to try to get in touch with them if it came to that? Dpmuk (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I will. :) I've found his address at [24]; here's hoping it's still active. {{copyvio}}, alas, can be tough to work with when you have a long link. Maybe that contributed to the issue? Thatks, User:Dpmuk for stepping in and explaining things at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I've emailed the professor; 2012012810012375. Let's hope he's available; this may be swiftly resolved. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the quick responses and clarifications; it's a big load off my mind to know this is being addressed and further problems will be avoided. I'd also like to mention that I really appreciate the job you guys do with this kind of thing; it takes a lot of effort and specialized knowledge and the people who do the behind-the-scenes work that keeps WP going rarely get the recognition they deserve. I'll compose some suggestions to post at WT:CP when I've cooled down and thought it over a bit, meanwhile I'll keep an eye on the article to see how it goes.--RDBury (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yippee! Confirmation already. :D And a very friendly letter (sometimes people are a tad annoyed when I have to write them and say, "Hey, is this really you?") I'm off to process and close out this one. Thanks for prompting the investigation, RDBury. The letter in our system will help secure us against future challenges to the legality of the content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
If only they could all be that easy! Did you see my extra post above about our regular not so easy one? Dpmuk (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, belatedly. Thanks for pointing that out. :) (And you totally should be an admin.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting organized

I’ve been mulling over a thought, and the post above by RDBury prompted me to write. We have a LOT of material about copyright issues, a fair portion of which has been written by you. However, as Sue Gardner recently noted, we are pretty good at churning out good material, we are not so good at organizing and trimming out material. I saw a recent post at Jimbo’s page, and briefly thought that the answer was to do a Copyright Portal, but we don’t have portal for other Wikipedia issues, so I no longer think that’s the right answer.

I’d like to take a crack at organizing the material, but want your feedback first - are there other failed attempts that would be good strawmen for starting, or are there other well-organized Wikipedia subjects that would be a good model for organization? Any other thoughts you have would be appreciated.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind. :) There's Wikipedia:Copy-paste, which is meant to be a brief overview of the issue. There's Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101 and WP:GID, which goes way beyond copyright issues. There's Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/How to clean copyright infringements (which includes both text and images) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Resources. If you can give me more detail about the kind of structure you're thinking about, I might be able to offer more input. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
My initial issue is that if someone were interested in Wikipedia copyright issues, how would they know where to start? And where could they find an exhaustive list of all resources. I’ve seen many of those, but had not stumbled across Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Resources before, so I suspect there are other places I’ve missed. I’m still wrapping my head around what I want to do, I’ll see if I can organize my thoughts.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This is something that keeps on crossing my mind too, partly from working with the backlog of {{copypaste}} tags. Given the amount of those taggins I see where listing at WP:CP or a straight G12 would be more appropriate I think we have a problem with how we get information across. Indeed do we even need the copypaste tag to have an url option? If the source is known surely WP:CP is more appropriate? I'm also amazed at the almost complete lag of information about how to deal with copyvios at WP:C. I know that page has got a different aim but it seems an obvious starting point for someone looking for information and yet it has a single link buried amongst eight "you may be looking for". Hardly makes finding the information easy. I don't know what the answer is, which is part of the reason I've not done anything, but I would certainly welcome someone taking a look at it all in a methodical way. Dpmuk (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Me, too. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've been unblocked, I just want to let you know I didn't appreciate it since it was all a misunderstanding. I never copied the plot of the "iGot Jungle Worms" episodes from an MTV website that there was some warning over. I never saw this "warning" and all I did was move the episode from the Season 5 page over to a Season 6 page since it was already there. So it was already copied to begin with. Perhaps you should have waited to hear my side of the story before taking action. - Jabrona - 22:47, 29 January 2012

I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi MRG, there's at least one article from Jan 12 that still has outstanding copyright problems. Way beyond my experience of copyright to address, or I have done it myself in the first place! PS Thanks for everything you do round here, especially copyright stuff. --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh! Sorry if I missed one. Let me go look. (We used to have a bot that would bring those back around but, alas, like all our copyright bots it's gone.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
A foundational copyright problem with no rewrite proposed; I've deleted it. Thanks for pointing it out to me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems I forgot to come back and thank you. I have redeemed myself somewhat, below, but apologies for that. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Moonriddengirl, hope you are doing OK. Perhaps you can read this (now somewhat compressed) exchange, look at the link and tell me and/or or the other user, what you think:

"Thanks for starting Proserpina (gastropod)! Hello Smintheus Fallin and welcome to Wikipedia! I am part of the Gastropods Project here on Wikipedia and so I was very happy to see that you started an article on an interesting land snail genus, Proserpina. I wanted to ask you about the very beautiful image of the shell. On its file page the photo is described as being your creation, however onthis site the photo appears to be the work of Thomas Eichhorst. Are you Thomas Eichhorst? If not then we have a copyright problem. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

":Thank you, Invertzoo: I just created the stub following a disambiguation link for Proserpina (disambiguation), as I was making an entry for the Rossetti's painting. I saw that the entry was still in red as non-existent and so I created it. I'm not an fan of gastropods, even though my sister is a malacologist, and I took the image from a website she often uses for photographs. I then retouched the photo and edited it a bit (that's why I stated "my creation"), but you may be right: there could be a copyright issue, however she told me that those photos are for public use and are often reprinted in her magazine, without any acknoledgements... What to do?--Smintheus Fellin (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)"

Thanks for all your good work MRG! Invertzoo (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Invertzoo. I'm well, and I hope you are. :) I've replied at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I am always happy to hear from you MRG. Thanks so much for your very good and very thorough advice to SF! I am pretty well, my leg is in fairly good shape now, 5 months after rupturing the ACL in my knee (a classic sports injury), without having had surgery but having done a huge amount of physical therapy to build up the muscles, which had atrophied after 6 weeks on crutches with the leg in an immobilizer. Sigh. Looking forward to spring. All best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Attribution question concerning copying from one Wikipedia article to another

Moonriddengirl, I notice some of your recent comments to one of our editors. Your are right that there should be an attribution to give credit to the other editors. Where should that go in the normal course. Talk page? End of article? Footnote? Somewhere else? What format? Is there an explicit policy statement somewhere? Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Proper attribution is in an edit summary, and {{Copied}} on the talk page is a recommended additional step. WP:Plagiarism#Copying within Wikipedia has a little on why footnotes would be excessive. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Flatscan. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Flatscan is a master of this. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair use images in infoboxes

Would you care to comment at User_talk:Pernoctator#Images_at_Nadar_.28caste.29 ? - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've replied there. J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Talk page stalkers rock. :) Thanks, J. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Saadian Tombs

I’m reviewing Saadian Tombs. I had a momentary start when running a CSBot, and getting a hit. However, the hit was this site, with a prominent notice: “The description of this photograph (or parts of) is based on this article of the free Wikipedia encyclopedia and are covered by the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Authors are named on the Wikipedia page.”

My first question (and possibly this should be directed at Coren): Do we know if CSBot quits after finding a hit? In other words, can I assume that this is the only high probability hit, in which case the text is probably OK, or does the existence of a hit mean it stops, and I should pursue other means?

Second, I searched for “corpses of about sixty members” and got a hit with Travel Morocco: Guide, Maps, and Phrasebook. Includes: Rabat, Casablanca . However, that guide was published in 2010, well after the contributions by S710, so is a reverse copy. I looked briefly to see if that book acknowledged the source, but didn’t see it, so my second question is, to what extent do we pursue issues like this? My sense is that we shouldn’t get to excited if some personal website copied some info and didn’t attribute it correctly, but when a publishing company is making money by recycling content (which I know is permissible) they should be attributing correctly. Is there a process for reporting this?

I did search for another phrase, the one including twelve columns, and got a hit, but a book discussing a building in Delhi, so I’m going to conclude that this article is fine for copyvio issues, and await your comments on the two other questions.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I have no idea how CSB works. :/
In general terms of reporting backwards vios, the only people who have a legal standing are people who substantially contributed to the content. Any contributor can write them to complain, but they don't have any legal authority to do so - not even the Wikimedia Foundation.
In the case of this publisher, they are a known reuser: Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Mno#MobileReference. We believe that the "1" at the bottom of the page (where they say it uses text from) probably links to the article, but we can't tell through Google books. They do not seem to include the full text of the license as required, but they do acknowledge the license on the back cover of the book. They aren't 100% in, but they're better than some. :/
If you ever want to write to a reuser who doesn't attribute, whether you're a contributor or not, you can. There's some recommended text at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Sometimes they actually listen. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to the mirrors site; I'll know to check there first. Given that they are known, I don't see much to pursue in this instance. I'll run the other question by Coren.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

2nd opinion on revdel request at List of past General Hospital characters

I noticed that you've done last edit on that article before the revdel request. Looking back on the history, it appears that the entirety is going to have to be revdelled as it looks like the original edit 3/12/11 was a cut & paste from somewhere else that included all of the (C) materials. If you're of the same opinion, just leave a note here & I'll go ahead and revdel the lot :) Skier Dude (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know; I'm undecided. George would like them gone, certainly, but as I explained to him at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 January 6, "I think the benefits of revision deletion would outweigh the disadvantages of losing access to the article history. The odds of copying or reverse infringement in the future are high, and it'll be much easier to investigate if we can keep the history. My opinion will change, I'm sure, if people start restoring the old content." That said, I have no objections whatsoever if you feel differently. My gut just says that we're not done with that history and will have to restore it eventually to resolve future issues. :P --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sort of in agreement with you - looking at some of the history, it appears that there might have been attempts to cull the copyrighted stuff. We know that its not just admins that are going to be looking at these specific articles (the soap opera ones) in evaluating what can be kept and what needs to go. On the other hand, we do now have copyright bots that are scanning for new violations, which theoretically will catch inappropriate additions. I'm thinking that we probably need some additional admin input on this one - maybe take it to the admin notice board? Skier Dude (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


Pope John Paul II article

Hi Moonriddengirl, I have a question about the quotations of John Paul II. Does the Vatican holds the copyright on these, and if so are we allowed any in the article? -- Thanks -- Marek.69 talk 01:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm uncertain who would own the copyright but I think that's irrelevant. From the quotes I saw in the article I would suggest that their use qualifies as fair use especially as they are mainly used to give his opinion and views and these can often be distorted by paraphrasing. The article does seem to have quite a lot of quotes but given that giving views and opinions (forgive me if I use the wrong words) was one of his main roles I don't think their use is excessive. Dpmuk (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree that we rely on fair use here. :) Ownership of quotes is a complicated question. Whether or not they're copyrightable depends on a number of factors, including whether, when and by whom they were written down. If a news agency transcribes something the Pope says in a public statement, they do not own the copyright, because there is no creativity in transcription. But if the quote is part of a prepared speech, the speechwriter (or his employee) owns it, and if the quote is part of an impromptu speech that is later recorded by the speaker then it also attracts copyright protection.
What's important for our purposes is that we must record faithfully who said them, when and where, and we must keep their use reasonable. The only problem I see with this quote is that no source is cited. You should always attribute your quotes with both intext attribution and a footnote. Wikipedia:Citing sources notes that "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy describes when sources should be cited, and what kind of sources are considered reliable. It requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." So, you need to add your footnote. :) Quotations without them can be removed at any time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Thank you, Moonriddengirl. I have added the source :-) -- Marek.69 talk 14:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_42&oldid=1147949539"