This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.119.14.196(talk) at 02:28, 18 September 2010(→Thank you for your quick response: self-rev likely misunderstanding, "original article" probably referred to WP article, not online class biography.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:28, 18 September 2010 by 67.119.14.196(talk)(→Thank you for your quick response: self-rev likely misunderstanding, "original article" probably referred to WP article, not online class biography.)
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 11:36, 27 December 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Hi Moonriddengirl, I extended the article after your "cleaning", could you please check for the spelling? English is not my mother tongue so it's very likely you'll find either some mistakes or typos. Greetings from Italy :-) -- SERGIOaka the Black Cat13:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) No spelling errors, although I turned a comma into a period and changed the usage of a preposition. The only real question I have is what you mean by "He retired from professional rugby in 2008 aged 28, and definitely in late 2009, aged 30." Do you mean that he still played rugby non-professional between 2008 and 2009? --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Actually Southern Emisphere rugby union is structured in clubs and franchises. The clubs are mostly non-professional and sort of tank for the franchises that are professional. Croft stopped playing professional rugby union in 2008, still aged 28 (he would be turning 29 in December, but the professional season ends in May in the Southern Emisphere). Then he went on playing for his amateur side for the rest of 2008 and the whole 2009 season that ends in December. Hope it helps to clarify. :-) Regards -- SERGIOaka the Black Cat17:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel like deleting some images as presumed copyvio?
Lovely! I'll be happy to pop by with my mop. The CCI process is meant in part to avoid PUF listings when unnecessary; no reason to drag it out. BTW, speaking of image CCIs, I'm organizing Norton's into files that will need looking at and files that don't. Once I get that done, I'm planning to ask for assistance at WT:NFC, as many of them will require determining whether usage of the image meets that guideline. There will also be some images that will need evaluation to determine if they truly are PD by age or whatever criteria is being alleged. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've been following your progress on organizing that one, I just haven't made the time to jump in and help yet. WT:NFC sounds good for recruiting help, and probably also WP:MCQ since it's the highest-traffic image copyright board. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about jumping in. :) It's a bit tedious, but not demanding at this stage. Most of his images, as you know, are clearly fine. I could probably do a better job of organizing if I were more comfortable with consensus on NF images of dead people, but as I have had an image for which I wrote just such a FUR deleted, I recuse myself from that judgment. I can't make any sense of when such images are purely decorative and when they are actually encyclopedically useful. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The only ones I didn't delete were an image on Commons that is a derivative of somebody else's image and seems legit and an image on Commons that I can't delete, but have nominated for deletion. If that's all that is remaining, you can close it out, and I'm off to barnstar GrapedApe. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It's now closed. One more down, 34 to go... Maybe the motivation for Darius Dhlomo will stick around and we'll acquire some additional helpers for some of the others too. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Malke.No, really, the only thing you would be able to do is make a "dummy" edit to the article and put in a new edit summary. It's not really necessary, as the AfD is linked from the article's face. But if you do it, just add a blank line or remove one from the categories or other sections and put in the edit summary you meant. I see that your nom statement includes the following: "Reason Malke 2010 (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)" You may want to remove that. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's a relief. I'll leave it as is. Also, I do have concerns about copyright violations on this article. The editor will not provide reliable sources. When I questioned an edit I know I've seen elsewhere, he simply deleted it. I've also seen this edit elsewhere on a Catholic website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_beliefs_on_the_power_of_prayer#Prayer_as_a_source_of_strength. These websites are not duplicating Wiki articles like Wapedia, etc. These are original pieces by laity. Also, a lot of material seems to be taken from New Advent, a lay Catholic encyclopedia but without attribution. I'll get you some links in a bit, I have to go out for a bit.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible violation?
I'm sure you've got plenty on your plate regardless, but do you think this article could be a violation? I'm finding nothing via google except for the end list of inducted Oklahomans which was stripped from here. The style seems very much like a biography written for his induction into the hall of fame, or perhaps a similar career retrospective. It's also very unusual that this rookie editor randomly appeared a year after his last edit to create a complete article and nothing more. SFB/talk21:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got nothing, although those lengthy quotes are probably a problem under WP:NFC. Certainly, they're inadequately cited. Given that this contributor is long gone, I think there are probably two good options here: we can rewrite it proactively with sourced content or we can tag the talk page with {{Cv-unsure}}, revisiting it later to rewrite it with sourced content if nobody else has done so. Since it seems to be a BLP (I don't see a death date), I'd go for the former. It might not be a copyvio, but since it doesn't meet our other core policies it doesn't matter much. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright question
Hi. I'd like to ask about copyright in the context of Darius Dhlomo's contributions. I'm not arguing with the decisions made, I'm just trying to understand. Can you tell me, for example, why this is a copyvio? It seems to me that these are just facts. In order for something to be copyrightable, I feel that there has to be some original creativity in the work. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Uncle G. :) Yes, Richard, you might find that conversation helpful. Nobody is saying that all of his content is infringing, though we know a significant amount of it is. If that conversation doesn't satisfy you, please let me know; I'll be happy to go over it further. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm happy. I accept that if some of his content is copyvio, then it's better to err on the side of deleting all of his edits and starting again, since it's impractical to personally assess each contribution. However, I maintain that some of his contributions are not copyvio. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, many of them will not be. I've estimated all along that the problematic articles will come down to hundreds rather than thousands. I'm not advocating deleting his content wholesale; we're just requesting assistance of the community in reviewing the content. Work on this has been going quite quickly, so I hope we'll get it all sorted and back into circulation soon! --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd offer to help, but I'm lost by some of the terminology, as you are. I wouldn't know how to interpret the information, let alone find whether it's a copyvio. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some of this you only find out once the FAQ become "frequently asked". :) It had not occurred to me that we would need to repeat the instructions from CCI that people with a history of copyright problems should not undertake this work. It seems that some people are worried about mass deletion. I'll reread it to see if I can minimize that impression. Right now, I'm double-checking our first major snafu to see if other copyvios have been restored. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually asking Richardcavell, who seems perfectly placed (in not knowing how to help) to explain to us how to make the instructions better — what they aren't explaining and so forth. As to your second point: That's why I put the big green box at the top of the task explanation. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is not eligible to help, as CCI clean up can only be done by those with no history of copyright infringement. From CCI: All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to clean up. At the very least, there's Ventura County Transportation Commission, which was deleted as a copyvio. There may be other issues, but that one is at the top of his current talk page. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I posted a message here 2 days ago, but never got an approved/not approved response. I spent more than a mouse click of time working on something that complied with your suggestions, recommendations etc, but while awaiting your response another user who had worked on the article just went in removed your copyvio and with a mouse click installed an older version. I never received a response to my message. Was my version which incorporated your suggestions verbatim (except for some erroneous info that apparently you missed) not approved? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm sorry; copyright cleanup can get hectic, and this past week has been particularly so. I'm afraid I misunderstood your note. Since I had said those were the only lingering issues, when you wrote, "Done, I hope that the new version takes care of the issues involved. Happy editing everyone" I presumed you had put your content into place and thought that the "happy editing everyone" had a bit of a farewell to it. :) But, there's no great harm that you didn't, because you can do so now. Those were the only issues I found. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am pointed to this discussion here by Mercy11, and given another link. Neither this conversation here nor the other link indicate to me that the situation is magically cleaned up. I am involved in the Casa Paoli article too, and feeling some responsibility to see that it is cleaned up properly, given my personal contact with NRHP nomination document author and photographer. I reverted the article to an earlier version before the long passage noted at Talk:Casa Paoli was added. I want to see that the article does not contain close paraphrasing without proper attribution (which would usually involve NOT close paraphrasing, or exact copying plus use of explicit quotation marks). The article was pretty good when it was DYK. I don't see need for copying or near copying of material. Anyhow, I will follow at I'll follow discussion at Talk:Casa Paoli. --doncram (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As I'm doing that whole "uninvolved admin" bit, my only concern here is whether the content is copyvio clear. Other than that, I leave it to involved contributors to oversee the development. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said here, you start by following the steps at Help:Merge#Proposing a merger. Note that it directs that if you think the merge will be controversial, you should consider listing the merge at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. As far as notifying the project is concern, a lot will depend on the circumstances. A brief, neutral notice that a merge discussion has been launched might not be inappropriate if you fear that the conversation will not attract responders. The thing is to keep it limited and neutral and to make sure you don't cherry pick the project to get the result you want. Hard to come up with an example of that, so I'll fictionalize one. If you wanted to propose the merger of Wal-Mart (Store 12 Des Moines, Iowa) into Wal-Mart, you wouldn't notify Wikipedia:WikiProject individual stores should not have articles. That would look like you were deliberately choosing a project you expected to support you.
We need to retrieve information from a insertion you deleted, according to the site. The article was regardign author Gary Alan Wassner. How do we retrieve the information? Thank you. 96.232.208.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Would you mind investigating whether Central place theory is plagiarized or not? I came across a report on the talk page that it might be, but I don't have time to properly investigate. I saw this while demo-ing Wikipedia for a class for the Public Policy Initiative, so it would be nice to report back to the class that we did something about it! :) Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whew, that was a bit of a slog. :) I'd say "unlikely" and I've commented at the article talk page. I'd need to see more sources to be really sure, but I think the structure is the standard way anyone would describe the theory. The ordering and development of the concepts look subtly different as you read farther down, if someone was being lazy, they weren't being lazy enough. :) The original publication of the theory would be of great interest, but it's likely in German anyway. Franamax (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to convey my gratitude to you for putting so much effort into a project like Wikipedia. Lord Bless you and I hope you always remain happy and that you receive the recognition that you well deserve.
41.239.83.166 (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you had once suggested that its better to make a seperate page Rajesh Khanna Filmography.
iam not aware as to how it should be made or edited.if the page is created i can definitely help you update the filmography.
it would be better if Rajesh Khanna Filmography is created seperately with 6 columns Year,Film,Role,Actress,Director,Other Notes.
the reason being that many things about khanna is missing from the wikipedia article right now, but if information is added then page will look longer so seperate page of filmography is the need of hour.
Hi. I'm not intending to make a filmography for this individual, but good luck to you should you choose to do so. If you have not yet found a mentor, as I've suggested in the past, a mentor might be able to help you with formatting. Alternatively, you can visit the help desk. I'm afraid I still do not have time for taking on new duties at this point. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:33, 14 zSeptember 2010 (UTC)
atleast tell me how should i create tht page in such a way that it does appear in that link under R to the world.i cn fill up all those six columns viz. Year,Film,Role,Actress,Director,Other Notes. by myself but only if iam able to create that page.Shrik88music (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have crrated a seperate page Rajesh Khanna Filmography.
iam not aware as to how it should be edited that there would be 6 columns Year,Film,Role,Actress,Director,Other Notes.
i wil by myself manage to fill up all details if u dont have time but just create that page with those 6 columns atleast.
if you would be able to fill up the columns actresses,year,role with help of the already created filmography by me at present it would be great. gradually i will fill the columns roles,other notes,director.Shrik88music (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to be unhelpful, but I'm afraid that I don't even have time to do the work that I need to do. I have suggested mentorship would be helpful for you. If you don't want to seek mentorship, that's fine, but we do have a help desk with volunteers who do have time to help you and will be happy to do so. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry – I've sorted it. I'm sure you've got enough on your plate with the Darius Dhlomo work. I really admire all the hard work you put in. Best regards — Hebrides (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i by myself keep taking help from few selected people as they seem to be intelligent and not biased fans....rajesh khanna article must be made semi protected i feel as those who have not got themselves registered are editing rajesh khana articleShrik88music (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, MRG!
I have finally come to a stopping point on the rewrite of this article, which had close paraphrasing.
It is located at User:Mgreason/Sandbox 2, and I'd appreciate another set of eyes reviewing it.
I'm not in a big hurry, but if you expect to be unavailable for a week or more, I will make other arrangements.
Thanks! Mgrē@sŏn03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have no such expectations. :) I've put it on my mental "to do" list, but this morning has been crazy already. If I should lose that list, as I sometimes do, please give me a nudge. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIKIHOUNDING
Hi, sometime ago we talked and you suggested that I should no longer look at the mentorship page you had for Malke, given that I noticed that you had asked her to stop following me. I respected that request for keeping that page semi-private and have not looked there, but Malke wants a reference to that discussion. Instead of looking on there for a diff, could you please comment on User_talk:Malke_2010#WP:WIKIHOUND_warning. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I didn't mean at all to suggest that you shouldn't look at the page. I've only requested that others keep their comments to her main page. That said, I'll follow your link. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ORTS
Hi there, If possible please look in to ORTS tickets for following files File:NH 45 Ulundurpet Padalur.JPG and File:Udaipur_highway.jpg. I already sent mail to ORTS today. Thanks KuwarOnlineTalk09:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'll be happy to take a look once I've caught up with on Wikipedia stuff, probably within a few hours. If it has not been handled before then and I find it, I'll process it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close paraphrasing
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at CeeGee's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Moonriddengirl. I wonder if you could take a look at what this user is saying on their talkpage? They posted a bunch of ozone related articles, two of which are copyright violations (one from an UNEP site, the other of a news article which the user asserts is itself a copyvio of original UNEP text). He/she is saying that they are trying to create the pages and are the original owner, and that they will edit out the copyright violations. I was thinking of offering to move them to userspace for them to work on them, but really my understanding is G12 applies over all namespaces.
Have you had any more communication with Thirdaccount through OTRS about permissions? Looks like another person in his/her office has started OAs Initiatives which is copyright violation from http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/about/mf.htm (and nocontext to boot, in that if I didn't know what it was about at this point it would be hard to tie the article to the name). I didn't want to act on it in case you had been getting emails from Thirdaccount. Syrthiss (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boo, this is really troubling. Not only are they creating copyright violations that would be so easy to fix, but all of this leaves a bad taste of using wikipedia for advertising for their initiative. :( Syrthiss (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There's a clear COI. Would you consider filing a notice about this at the COI noticeboard? I've got so much copyright work to do and so little time to do it. :/ Given how little ground I made on the copyright problem with them, I'm loathe to even try to explain WP:COI and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine - your restoration was completely proper, especially since you were directly referring to it. The important bit is that you told me after, which is exactly right. No worries, and hope it all works out. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okely dokely
Here is a "good" question for you. What to do in the case of many possible image copyvios from one user? If it were only a few of them I would just tag them as I did File:64 Eric Pinkett.jpg and not bother you. However as I started to look over the users image uploads I began to notice they were mostly marked the same - "Own photograph"/"own photo". Some are marked as "own artwork" and only one is/was marked as "This is my own personal photograph taken in 1964". So I dug deeper and the user runs a website about "players from the Eric Pinkett era" of the Leicestershire Schools Symphony Orchestra. Now here comes the bigger copyright issue - while the website states No permission is required to download or print any of the items. it also gives gratitude and thanks to all former players who made contributions to the Photo Gallery, and particularly to Nigel Pinkett for the 'Special Collections' section. Wikipedia has no proof that any of the actual photographers signed over their copyright to the uploader so they could license them here via {{PD-self}}. Aside from that there may also be a COI concern (Ok, well there *is* a COI concern) because since October 2009 the uploader (Most likely also I.P 86.144.118.211) has been the main contributor to the Peter G. Fletcher article, which they are mentioned in, and, since May 2007, the main contributor to the Leicestershire Schools Symphony Orchestra. (Possible to also be I.P 86.130.109.46, I.P 86.144.118.45 and I.P 6.130.118.93) There is also some WP:OWN going on as well it seems - "My article has been somewhat decimated."
So where to start? Is there a protocol in place for dealing with this many images or do I just start tagging them all {{di-no permission}} and ask for OTRS's to be sent in for each image on the users talk page? Or should send all the unused ones to PUI and tagged the used ones with {{di-no permission}}? Advice welcome. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good place to start: talking to the guy. Is he still active? If so, drop a note on his talk page politely letting him know your concerns and that if he has uploaded content to Wikipedia from other photographers we need verification of their license. I'd recommend being very friendly at this stage; he's likely to be dismayed by the situation, and a spoonful of sugar surely helps. When the contributor is working on good faith, this is always a good approach to telling somebody, "Hi, you may have created a major problem!"
If he asserts that he is the photographer of all of the images, and you feel you have good reason to doubt him, I think you basically have two options: WP:PuF or WP:FfD. I would not go the {{di-no permission}} process unless he akcnowledges that he is not the photographer but does not within reasonable time verify permission through OTRS. The COI concern is a separate issue, and I would leave it to resolve for after resolving the copyright concern. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what to say about this one. :/ I think she's acting in good faith but confusion on the copyright issue, but the whole situation with the ANI report has just gotten out of hand, and it was so unnecessary. :( (massively discouraged) --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I thought your summary in the ANI thread was insightful and highlighted the same things I'd observed. Unfortunately, things appear to have flared up after I went to bed. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your advice at your talk page was also spot on. I hope that these two can come to some accord in their work, if they are going to continue working on the same article types. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
Your efforts on copyright problems are greatly appreciated!
I wanted to say thank you for the incredible amount of effort you have put in on keeping Wikipedia's copyright problem under control. It's not always well appreciated work, but it's important, and it means a lot to me that you've been so diligent and involved.
Thank you, so much. Today is a perfect day for it, too. :) (Sometimes it seems a bit overwhelming.) I try, and I'm always encouraged by how many Wikipedians are willing to pitch in to help. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, we have to reupload the picture and delete it for that to happen. We had a recent request through OTRS for similar, and revdeletion did no good with the images. Can you reupload with proper attribution? If so, I'll delete. And if that doesn't work, I'll run to User:Avraham for help, because he's the one who fixed the problem the last time. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look at the logs for the first image and see if that worked? If the identifying information is still visible in the logs, I'll ask Avi to help. (It's still visible to me, but I don't know if that's just because I'm an admin.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I hadn't rolled back yet since I keep finding earlier and earlier copyvio and have been trying to figure out if anything in that article is clean. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered that. I ran it through the Earwig checked and spot-checked a couple but didn't find matches, but I wouldn't be surprised if you find a source for quite a lot of that. Often, people return to the copyrighted text pool because they can't generate their own content. :/ (If you have a mo', can you tell me: does this post from me make sense?) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far I've found sources for everything I've looked for, it's just been taking me time to look through sources I know Dalbster copied from and I just haven't made it back to the beginning of the articles yet and I'd rather not have to remove all of the plot summaries. <sigh> Anyways, I think your post there makes sense. It (to me at least) does a good job of explaining why we have to take action like we (try to) do when copyright problems are brought to light. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good ol' pile of 'stars
Thank you for your incredible work on copyrights... I will never have your determination, but you will always have my admiration. (Did that rhyme by any chance?) Renata (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75.62.2.105 (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think that the task explanation should stick to just that: the explanation of what the task being performed is. We don't need a "How can you help?" section. I suggest refactoring what's already there and placing it into the "Why this is happening" and "What happens next" sections. Uncle G (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a slightly more businesslike opening than "Welcome to the CCI Bot-assisted copyright cleanup of September 2010." :) It sounds very like a community rock festival or something, and I'm not sure that it's going to strike the right tone for the dismayed and angry, of which we will encounter plenty. (Voice of experience here. People do shoot the messenger.) I wonder if we could remove Darius Dhlomo's name from the header of any versions, while I'm at it. Those who choose to contributor can read the specifics further down. Those who just want to know why the article is blanked don't need to. I see, Uncle G, that Darius has been subject to some abuse. :( I like the "What is happening" explanation; it's thorough and it suggests the WP:AGFC. I think from there, though, that I prefer the original's brevity of just going straight into "Where this was discussed" and "What happens next." Those who want to help can follow the instructions. I'd incorporate some of "How many and which of those articles actually infringe?" into "What happens next." --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not to say, of course, that there's nothing there that I like. On the contrary, I like the short and long factual answers. I also like the idea of greater flow. Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to MRG about the rock festival issue and will try to make a change. I agree about removing DD's name from the header, and in general about not plastering it around more than necessary. I think we need to address several types of readers, maybe by splitting the page out to two or more separate documents:
Readers who come across one of those articles while looking for info, see that template, and wonder what's going on but probably won't get involved in review/cleanup
Editors involved in athletics articles / copyright cleanup / general maintenance, who might want to help with reviewing
Non-Wikipedians who hear about the incident on (kidding I hope) CNN, probably in some distorted form (the WP Signpost article already had problems) and think WP is a nest of copyright pirates. So the idea is to have some kind of FAQ explaining the overall situation to the best of our knowledge, and what we are doing about it.
The bot is likely to cause considerable disruption and get people asking questions, so before we launch it, I think it's worth our while to create some reasonably complete and well-organized writeups to point people to. So that's what I was trying to start in on. Obviously there's a ways to go. I'd much appreciate any further thoughts. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable point about that split in the exec summary, but I think the need for an overview is not addressed by what is listed there. The idea is to have a completed document or two (that are editable like anything else, but that organize the info and present it in finished form) rather than pointing into the middle of discussions that sprawl all over the place. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some merger of the two documents would seem good to me. I'd like to keep the lead businesslike, myself. But we need to get whatever we're going to use drawn together quickly, I think, as we've already publicized this. Delay in implementation is only going to further add to the confusion, I fear. But I would like to see some explicit mention in this document that only contributors with no history of copyright problems should help out. We've already had one problem related to that, and it's best to make sure that everyone is aware of that up front. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to edit or merge/transfer anything I wrote as you see fit. I can probably spend some more time on it tonight but have other stuff to do between now and then. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cleanup instructions look like (I'm guessing) standard CCI instructions and as such they seem ok to me. More to the point, the CCI pages are directed at people involved in cleaning up articles. This is going to be such a disruptive operation that I'm thinking we need a FAQ-like document geared mostly towards folks who just want a quick understanding of what's going on, but probably don't wan't to get involved themselves. Does that make any sense? That's part of what I was aiming at in the sandbox text linked above. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then please work on the new section of that page that I've just started. ☺ This is, after all, the main CCI case page. I've put it at the top of all of the navigation boxes. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit of intro to the overview. I'm quite uncomfortable writing about how to assess the legal status of anything so I'm going to leave the cleanup section alone. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Franamax
Moved from previous section by 67.119.14.196 (talk); I hope nobody minds
Just stalking here, but as a matter of principle I frown on asking BAG to make these kind of decisions. Requesting the bot flag is essentially saying "I m going to make thousands of edits without really looking at any of them and I want the special bit that lets me do this without any recentchanges patrollers seeing it (even though it will flood individual people's watchlists and the most common response of bot operators is to steadfastly deny they ever did a single thing wrong, I'm not like that and anyway it's too late to go back once I've run the bot)". Now, I'm philosophically opposed to simple blanking of articles created with a copyvio, because I feel it devalues the subsequent work of many others and paints much to broad of a stroke, so maybe you should ignore me. And I realize my alternative of examining each case and dealing with it appropriately is very time-consuming and I haven't done my share, ao again, maybe you should ignore me. I'd rather see a much more tightly defined task though, like if the article was created with 10 bytes of content and is now 100Kbytes by other editors, will it still get blanked? Franamax (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Franamax, the best place to bring up points like that is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI, where wider discussion of this operation is happening. I think the point of the BRFA is to get technical feedback about the bot operation itself, rather than to get a bot flag (a separate decision). Re your question about a 10-byte article with 100k of later contributions, yes it would still get blanked, but then anyone looking at the edit history could see what had happened and unblank it. In practice most of these articles have little substantial editing by anyone other than Darius. 75.62.2.105 (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Picking up with User:Franamax, this isn't my ideal solution, either, but we currently have hundreds of thousands of articles that require review at CCI, with over 20,000 alone in this CCI. The listing already excludes anything below the "minimum" threshhold by this creator (100 bytes, I believe). We have CCIs over a year old. Leaving them unblanked does nobody any favors, either, as contributors who build derivative works off of unusable bases will have completely wasted their time. At least with this method, they are informed. I'd much rather find the article I want to work on blanked and know I have to start over than put hours into something that will later be deleted, especially if I'm then told, "Oh, yes, we knew last year that all of his stuff was going to have to go, but we didn't get around to it in time to keep you from wasting your effort." :/ Beyond that, the operations of bots and their capacities are well beyond me, so I leave that one to people who understand them. ;) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CorenSearchBot
Maybe the CorenBot could be programmed to identify copyrighted text added to existing articles so that this fiasco doesn't happen again? Dr.Blofeld15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand (and I am not a bot person, by a long shot!) this is not really possible because of the amount of material added to existing articles and the workload it would place and because of the prevalence of Wikimedia mirrors. Coren's got a pretty good ratio of actual problems/false positives, but I suspect that would tank if he tried this. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have a backup copy of CorenSearchBot's code running I've been thinking about playing with it to try and do just this, since we won't really know how feasible it is until it actually runs, but other things keep climbing ahead of it on my todo list. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chances are, you'll drown in false positives unless you manage to have and maintain a list of mirrors and (legitimate) copies of Wikipedia articles. I tried running version 3 of the code over recent changes, with a trigger that it needed to be a substantial addition (IIRC, > 300 words or so) and even then it had trouble doing the web searches fast enough, and it was buried in hits.
Mind you, if you did the search on the added text as opposed to resulting article, you might have better success — but diffs aren't very good to determine what is addition or not since it's newline (i.e. paragraph) based. — Coren(talk)16:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, of course, there's the problem of the search engine that the 'bot uses. Yahoo doesn't pick up, at least from the search strings that I used, the copyright violation at Maurizio Damilano that Dr. Blofeld was talking about earlier, for example. Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That too; though it's fairly simple to switch search engines. (Indeed, it already has the code to use Google instead — which gave better results — but whose license did not allow that use) — Coren(talk)18:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In these Darius articles there's lots of text that's obviously copied from somewhere (because Darius doesn't write like that), but gets no search hits, so all we can do is blank it and rewrite it. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coren, if you're still here, can you program CorenSearchBot to pick up any edits that remove an article from Category:Articles tagged for CCI copyright problems? That gives at least a slight re-check of articles that editors un-blank from Uncle G's bot sweep. At least one person has already re-introduced copyvios by restoring insufficiently checked stuff from Uncle G's initial test run, and CorenSearchBot has at least some hope of picking up on that. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this new editor has created a number of questionable articles. You have initiated a review of some of the work, but the article Action on Methyl Bromide is very strange also. We would normally include such content in Methyl bromide. I recomend that Iop23's entire inventory of new articles be considered for deletion. Thanks,--Smokefoot (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way thanks for your handling of the issues. You were so effective and fair that I think you should copyright your style somehow, if not trademark it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sentence too closely paraphrases its source. While parts are in quotation marks, the parts that are not are also taken from there. By itself, this would be a "de minimis" situation under U.S. law, almost surely, but our policies do require that we either rewrite content completely or quote it (in limited amounts). We don't push that boundary. I don't know if the warning is necessary, however, since the text addition predates his CCI and the ANI conversation about him. I would most certainly take note if you run into material like that after 3 August, but he may know better now than he did in July. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I first removed this which was not CV. But I thought it was undue weight because an individual murder case should not belong to the section unless it was really a notable big case. Then I checked his past addition. It seems to me that he has a general tendency to emphasize the Chinese Muslim and Hui people on his edits. Not that I think they are not important, but some of his additions look like undue weight. I think he needs to learn some more to edit on WP. Oda Mari (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear MRG, if you're not too busy, can you perhaps give your opinion about a question I asked at Commons, here? You know all this stuff, and I don't, and it seems there isn't a very clear consensus. Thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that they're right; if the images are not public domain in the United States (and it seems like they aren't), they can't be hosted on Commons. The U.S. has much more narrow laws about copyright, and Commons and en Wiki both have to comply. :/ Unless you can find something free or validate something under NFC, you may be out of luck on that one.
Wikipedia:PD#Country-specific rules helps explain a bit why: "being in the public domain in its home country does not automatically mean that the work was also in the public domain in the U.S. because the U.S. does not follow the "rule of shorter term". Commons:Public domain#Country-specific laws also suggests how complex it can be: "Images uploaded to Commons, unless uploaded from the United States, involve the interaction of two or more copyright jurisdictions. Generally, the policy applied on Commons is to only allow images that can be used in all (or at least most) countries"; "Also apply the copyright laws of the country you are in and the copyright laws of any web server you got the work off. In the case of a French painting uploaded to Commons from a French web server by someone living in the UK three copyright jurisdictions would apply: France, UK and US." Mmm, okay. Complex much? (Understandably complex, but still, what a nightmare!) As far as the U.S. is concerned, a somewhat oversimplified list of considerations is offered at WP:PD (reproduced with minimal modification here):
If the work was published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the U.S.(With a caveat for works published without copyright notice, see footnote 1.)
If the work was published 1923 to 1995 (inclusive) and not copyrighted in its countries of origin in 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S.
Otherwise, if the work was published before 1978, it is copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years since the original publication (i.e. at least until 1923 + 95 = 2018), and if it was published 1978 or later, the work is copyrighted until 70 years after the (last surviving) author's death.
Hi. I have not been a party to anything that has gone before in the current editing block of Malke 2010, but I would like to chime in here as a "character witness", and plead for assistance in lifting/shortening of this block. How can I help in this situation? Malke was a very calming influence in a couple of contentious situations I encountered in the past with other editors. When I was ready to throw in the towell in the face of irrational argument, she drew me back to the table. When I became a little overbeariung, she restrained me. I have only ever known her to deal in good faith, and I believe that whatever this situation is, she IS dealing in good faith. Eastcote (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a placeholder, I'll note that I'll come take a look at this pretty soon. I'm fresh up this morning and need a little more clarity before wading in to what is obviously an escalation of the last I knew. --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies
Hi MRG, To my horror, I discovered this edit when I checked my contributions this morning. I must have hit the stupid rollback button by mistake. Head now suitably hanging in shame. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you doing your typical "Copyright removal" work today! Anyway, may I request you to rev-delete some edits on the Beaver Creek Camp page please? The content that was added by User:NAKANA were copyright infringements. I reverted most of their edits and gave NAKANA a warning. [5]Minimac (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's back! On one of his old IP's. He used an edit summary this time, but I disagree. I've put it up for discussion as you know, so unless he makes the effort to get involved. Can he be blocked again or page be protected? I don't want to revert until action has been taken. Thanks for your help as always :). Jayy008 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Edit summary is progress. :) Why don't you try to invite some other editors to achieve consensus? You might revert (not as vandalism) with a note that you are reverting per WP:BRD pending consensus and a pointer to the talk page (I'd put this in edit summary and at the latest IP talk page) and then ask for feedback at Talk:One Tree Hill (TV series) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Make your question neutral, something like, "Conversation about formatting and inclusion of characters blahblah." :) If he's going to make an effort to talk, we should encourage more of it. If other editors weigh in (knock wood) and clear consensus emerges, he might learn to work within Wikipedia's consensus model. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good plan! By the way, it is vandalism because the format he uses ruins other pages. When you don't use the equals sign in headling characters it prevents direct linking to the page. Like for expample one of the characters of One Tree Hill has had their page redirected, it can't re-direct to the exact character in the current format because the name is only bolded and not equals sign. Hope I'm clear. Jayy008 (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding you correctly, that may be wrong, but not necessarily vandalism. Vandalism happens when a contributor is deliberately trying to mess things up. We sometimes have to block people who mess things up accidentally (and won't stop), but that's a different problem. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. Jayy, this isn't exactly what I had in mind. :) It reads a bit confrontational. Maybe you could change it a bit so it sounds more like, "Hi, thanks for explaining what you're going for! I'm afraid, though, that it may not really work for us because....(explanation) Please come by the article's talk page to talk about it more." We want to be friendly, even if he's been a bit difficult to deal with in the past. :D Who knows? He could wind up being a great contributor. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...as an aside that I appreciate the tone of your conversation and your willingness to consider the matter more fully. Essential qualities in a Wikipedian. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and no worries.
I will say that more tha once I've felt the slight irony that in the cci discussion, I was (at least for a bit) being seen as the "hardliner". (Though in the case of CV, I believe we pretty much have to be cold as ice about it, compared to FU which is pretty subjective at times.)
Yeah, the whole FU thing baffles me. Why can we have pictures of living actors in articles about characters they've played, but not in the articles about the actors? And how is an album cover in an infobox not decorative? I just throw up my hands over the whole thing and leave that to others to work out. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you ever have an issue, I've found user:J Greb very helpful. He's usually who I go to regarding the various infoboxes and images thereof, when I have questions : )
And speaking of going to other people, jut out of transparency, in case you didn't see it, see user talk:xeno. I thought a 3PO might be a good idea (and I think he's capable of neutrality even when he has a personal opinion - at least just to give me advice : ) - and I feel he helped. - jc3701:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of a Wikipedia article about me
I was wondering why the Wikipedia article on myself, Michael Korolenko, was deleted. There was nothing false in the article and nothing copyrighted in the article. I myself did not write the original article (it was pretty much taken word for word from my biography in one of my online classes). It has been on Wikipedia for a while and I edited it a year or so ago if I remember correctly to simply update it. I see no reason why it should have been deleted. If you could reinstate the article I would appreciate it.
Thank you, Verno. Mr. Korolenko, it wasn't deleted because anything it was false, but because it was copied from your website, which bears a clear copyright reservation notice. Even if it did not bear that notice, it would be copyrighted under U.S. law (as copyright is automatically bestowed). It would need to bear an explicit release for us to retain it. I see from my colleague's note that you have already written to the Wikimedia Foundation. Once you have responded to their note with a licensing statement that we are able to use, the article can be restored. Alternatively, if you decide to verify permission on the website, please just drop be a note here telling me that you have done so, and I can restore the article. --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that WP biographies have to be written from published sources that are independent of the subject. Citing a fact or two to the subject's website is one thing, but if most of it is copied from there (even with permission) there may be neutrality problems. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's simply text from the person's CV, then it shouldn't be a problem. CVs are almost always self-published and it's hard to find the info from anywhere else. In such cases, we can WP:AGF I think. Offliner (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I meant was that using a self-published CV as a source should be OK. Naturally, the subject would still need coverage in reliable third-party sources to be notable. Offliner (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
text copyright question
Hi I saw you did some work on the copyright project-page regarding text. Is this a copyvio?
"After the 1970–71 season the Inter Cities Fairs Cup was taken over by UEFA. A match was played between the first ever Fairs Cup winners, FC Barcelona, and the last winners, Leeds United, to decide who would get to keep the old Fairs Cup trophy permanently."
a copyright violation of this:
"After the 1970-71 season the organisation of the Fairs Cup was taken over by UEFA. The competition was renamed the UEFA Cup with a new trophy being introduced. A match was played between the first ever Fairs Cup winners, FC Barcelona, and the last winners, Leeds United, to decide who would get to keep the old Fairs Cup trophy permanently. These two teams also had the best overall playing record in the competition since it's inception in 1955. "
Yes, in the sense that it is a problem under our copyright policy. :) We require that content either be (a) reproduced precisely (in limited quantity) in quotation format with attribution or (b) rewritten completely. Stuff like that should be more fully rewritten. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a doubt
I am checking into P. Niyogi's contributions and have a doubt. Niyogi has created content sourced to many offline books published locally and not available in gbooks. What to do in such cases where there is no way of checking the text?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you so much for looking into this! I'm extremely sorry to say that we usually presume they are a copyright violation and remove or rewrite them. In this case, it may be valuable to get a better sense of where he has violated copyright. Sometimes we can begin to recognize a pattern in a contributor's work so we can recognize his own language patterns and see where his language differs. If you can point out a specific source that seems to be heavily used in any given article, I might be able to find somebody who can dig it up for comparison and that could help us. If we identify a major problem in one specific text, it makes it more likely that there are major problems in other inaccessible texts. If the content is copyright clear, we may be able to act less aggressively. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An OTRS question
On the commons I nominated this stamp for deletion because Australian stamps are copyright for 50 years per Public domain stamp templates because I disputed the validity of the attached OTRS ticket. Túrelio declined the nomination and left this comment on my talk page saying that the OTRS permission obviously came from Australia Post but when I questioned him he cannot confirm the ticket as he is not an OTRS volunteer. Would you kindly have a look at it for me as I have never heard of a postal administration giving a free licence for any of its stamps other than press and media use, which is essentially fair-use? TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Communication is from the Australian Post, but I'm not entirely sure about the license. In his first letter (not to us; he is speaking with an intermediary), the copyright holder says, "There's no fee for educational use." His correspondent is very good at seeking to clarify that, noting among other points that the content may be reused by "commercial entities", and his correspondent responds (among other things), "All fine." This seems like he's quite comfortable with commercial reuse, but I'd like to write directly to the licensor to ask him to explicitly confirm the terms of release. I'll get back with you on it, and if I should forget (oh, that never happens), please nudge me. :D Seriously, if I write a letter and he doesn't respond, I may well forget to follow up. There are always ten billion things going on, it seems. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG! Could I get you to help me at T:TDYK with this nomination? As I stated in my review of it:
Reading Town Hall appears to be copied in wording, style and tone from the first reference, and not re-written from scratch as required by WP:COPYVIO. Am concerned about putting a potential copyright violation (not saying it necessarily is one, but it's subjective) on the main page.
I suspect that my actions at the article speak for themselves. :/ I've left examples at the article's talk page. Thanks so much for keeping an eye out for this! --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some guidance. I believe I recognize File:Arecibo naic big.gif because of its similarity to a photo that has been hanging in my office (without a copyright notice). The photo was taken in order to document the 1974 upgrade of the telescope to an aluminum dish. I can tell by the antenna that the photo certainly predates 1998 (the date claimed by the uploader). The person uploading the photo claimed it was the work of NASA because he found it on a NASA website. I then put a {{puf}} tag on the photo page and on the Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 17 page. However, a robot correctly noted the image in on Commons and not on Wikipedia.
The uploader claims that this is a NASA image. However it comes from APOD which in turn states, "Specific rights apply." The subpage states, "All the images on the APOD page are credited to the owner or institution where they originated. Some of the images are copyrighted and to use these pictures publicly or commercially one must write to the owners for permission. For the copyrighted images, the copyright owner is identified in the APOD credit line (please see the caption under the image), along with a hyperlink to the owner's location." In this case, Cornell University. The NAIC website gallary says, "Note to the media.... You are welcome to download these images for non-profit / non-commercial use. For permissions and credit policies see our "media services and support" page. Please credit all photos with: "courtesy of the NAIC - Arecibo Observatory, a facility of the NSF"
I could not find a puf page on Commons, so I changed the attribution to {{PD-US-no notice}} even though I cannot prove that this is the 1974 photo. Could you please resolve this or forward it to someone who can resolve it. The photo is currently available under a "no commercial use" license. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Good sleuthing! Since I'm not an admin on Commons (or that heavily involved with images), I'll dig one up who might have time to help work this one out. There are a couple I turn to routinely. I appreciate your following through with your concerns! --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G: I am not advocating the deletion of the file, I just want the problem solved in whatever way is appropriate and I don't want to be the judge of what is required. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it certainly seems that you should be. Commons doesn't take images with such licences, and you are certainly making a case that it has that licence. So deletion from Commons is one step to be taken, here. A normal, non-speedy, deletion nomination is where to put that case, and have it discussed by multiple people. It's not as if Commons is a stranger to this issue. It's come up many times over the years. They do have some familiarity with addressing it, You simply need to go there and start the ball rolling. Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response
Once I hear from the powers that be at Wikipedia, I will give them permission to use the article. And thank you again for the quick response.
Michael Korolenko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.81.187 (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![[4]](http://www.flowerstochennai.com/images/flowers/50white.jpg){kind=link}
