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.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. 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. 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. 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.
I will not consider it wheel-warring if you reverse my admin actions as long as you leave me a civil note telling me what you've done and why and as long as you're open to discussion with me should I disagree.
Sorry to hear of your pain; I'll try not to be one. : ( I read eight or nine sources for CIT and the duration was different for many of them. I'll cite more sources for that statement and the age range. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :D It's a bit frustrating; we're trying out several new medications, and I'm thinking some of those are worse than the migraines. Today I am (knock wood) pretty clear. So long as I stay that way, I may be able to knock out this backlog! --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for helping out previously! It still doesn't appear Sea888 (talk·contribs) understands the problem though, as his first edit when returning after being blocked for edit warring was inserting (diff) the line...
"Carano and Cyborg, the consensus two best female fighters in the world, will be the first women in MMA history to headline a major MMA fight card. In addition, they will fight for the first STRIKEFORCE 145-pound Female Championship.
from this press release to the Strikeforce article while replacing the perfectly fine mention of it already there (also, that they're the "consensus two best female fighters in the world" is Strikeforce hyping up the fight as it's pretty far from the truth (as described by me at WT:MMA while citing proper rankings etc., but as it's sourced (Fox Sports posted (but didn't write) a small note on it retelling the press release etc.) I don't know what do to about it). His other changes in the diff is copy-pasting the rules section from the UFC article, which shouldn't be a problem I think, and while I don't like the "Mainstream emergence"-section I don't think there's any copyvio involved. Could you take a look again? Thanks, --aktsu(t / c)14:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that, on the introduction of text into another article and that the rules seem to have come from a blacklisted site (see the URL at his talk page), I have given him a brief block to emphasize that copyright policies must be followed. Please feel free to let me know if you see further issues. I hope you will not. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rules section in the UFC article is pretty old though. Archive.org's latest revision of the UFCHeaven-page is Aug. 2007 (while the last-changed-paramter in the header gives July 2007) while the text was introduced in the article around May 2006... --aktsu(t / c)14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I didn't really see the point in it taking up space in the first place when we already have an article on it, and the sole difference in Strikeforce compared to other US-promotion is easily described :) --aktsu(t / c)15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. :) I wouldn't usually use a cclean template for something that minor, but the first edits were really what I had in mind. I'm glad you found the text useful; I would have generally rewritten in passing but the copyright problems board is pretty swamped today! --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor issue with another user
Hi. I was wondering if you could clear something up for BreakingDawn 90210, who has a habit of uploading replacement images for articles such as Blair Waldorf and Kelly Taylor (90210). The problem is that this person's uploads use the same file name as the preexisting image, but feature completely new pictures that the original copyright, source, and rationale info doesn't apply to.
I've undone the uploads and attempted to inform this person a few times of why this is improper (in edit summaries and on their talk page now). Since then, the user has done the same thing with the Naomi Clark image. Since I don't appear to be getting through, I'd appreciate it if you could put a word in, as perhaps you can explain it more clearly. Thank you. -- James26 (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Many (particularly newer) contributors don't check edit summaries for communication. It seems that she or he got the idea from your last note; I see that s/he restored the earlier version. If this persists and you need assistance explaining the problem, please let me know. I'd be happy to help out. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Is there a policy/essay about this sort of thing, BTW? I imagine it would be called something like "piggybacking," or some similar term. -- James26 (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, If you've a moment could you please have a look at Talk:List of Jewish Nobel prize winners. An IP (85.250.189.18) has deleted all the comments of User:Jinfo and removed the copyvio template from the article. If it were simply a matter of using Template:uw-tpv1 I wouldn't bother you, but because there is an underlying copyvio argument I would appreciate your assistance/advice before I do anything. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a copyright infringement. Sweat of the brow is not protected, and this is a straightforward compilation of facts: a chronological listing of Nobel winners who are Jewish. However, since it's the copyright holder himself complaining (albeit not with a takedown), I think we need to let Mike in on it. I'll ask him what he thinks we should do. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - can you pls. explain what you did to the Saul Steinberg (business) article? I am fairly sure there was a version that could have been used between 2007 and today. By deleting not only the copyrighted materials but also the entire edit history it is difficult to say what is there and what is missing. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I "selectively deleted" back to the last clean version as per Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins in cases where there is a clean version in history but extensive infringement from one point on. http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/18/0618steinberg.html was pasted into the article on 4 April 2007, at 14:54 by IP contributor 64.61.105.42. There was not a usable version after that date, as extensive text from that source was present in every subsequent edit (although some of it was removed subsequently as inappropriate to the article). Even the lead was mostly copied from that obit (see, for example, [2], so long as google is still caching).
The only unusual thing about my handling of that article was that there had already been extensively deleted copyright infringement which was still stored under the primary title. I raised that from the dead, so to speak, and moved it to Saul Steinberg (business)/deleted revisions. That text dated back to 2006. The more recent infringement is stored at Saul Steinberg (business)/deleted revisions 2009-07-03.
Because of the tagging I cannot get the cached version of the article. My only problem is that I know numerous edits have been made and it is difficult to tell what you have salvaged and what you have not because there is no "usable version" since 2007 to review. The fact that you did this so quickly without any tagging doesn't make a lot of sense given the the problem has evidently been there for two years. Your approach makes it difficult for other editors to salvage material that might be useful. Although I cannot recall exactly what was there, I am fairly sure the article could have been reworked and cleaned up even though you decided there was no "usable version". I would have suggested following this suggestion:
"If there is a copyright violation and there are clean revisions in the page history or if the text in question is a minor part of the article, there are a couple of options. In either case, a short explanation on the article's talk page is helpful so other editors will neither revert nor add the text back to the article. (There is a template at cclean which may be used.) Revert back to the last clean revision or remove the infringing text from the article, using an appropriate edit summary. You should also leave a note at the article's talk page cautioning against inadvertent restoration of the copyright infringing material. This is the best choice in most situations where the violation is not extensive. The infringing text is removed from the public face of the article, but it will not be removed/deleted permanently unless the copyright holder complains via OTRS."
I'm sorry you missed it, but the article was tagged and listed for 7 days to allow contributors interested in it to address these concerns. (see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 June 25) I'm not the tagger. I came into it as an uninvolved administrator through the copyright problems noticeboard. The text in question was not a minor part of the article, which is why I handled it as I did. I followed the instructions for administrators in closing the matter. I salvaged none of the text, or there would be a note attributing it in edit summary. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you salvaged none of the text and I don't even know what text was there. It is basically back to the beginning on that article which as you can appreciate is very frustrating and which I am not going to spend time to do again. I will have to believe that it was tagged but again there is no way to know that now since there is no revision history. I still don't understand why was it impossible just to revert the article back without deleting the revision history? that seems like a perfectly acceptable solution. I can believe that there was potentially borrowing from that article but it is difficult for me to believe it was just a blatant drop of the text. I would like for you to provide a constructive solution short of, start over. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for assuming good faith, but you don't have to believe me; I've linked to the date it was listed. You can see for yourself, including who the tagger was. The article was blanked for a full seven days, with a note explaining that at the end of seven days it was likely to be deleted if it was not address. It even linked to a temporary space where the material could be rewritten. The copying was extensive. The IP who pasted the text wiped out almost everything that had already been there (the text that has published now). I can't restore copyright infringing text and am not supposed to knowingly link to sites that infringe copyright, but you can see one "archived" version of the article at (redacted). (I'll be redacting that link very soon.) Please note that even if the text is not in the Forbes version, you will need to put it in your own words to avoid infringing on the Wikipedia contributors who placed it.
I'm sorry that none of the editors who may have been interested in that article took the opportunity provided to rewrite in a usable version. I have myself rewritten over 150 articles that have been listed at the board when there was no clean version to revert to, and I have painstakingly added in clean material on a good many. But as an administrator closing out copyright problems, I simply do not have time to rewrite all of the problematic articles that are listed. If you're interested in helping to avoid such collateral damage, you'd be more than welcome to join WP:COPYCLEAN (or simply follow some of the steps suggested there for locating & cleaning up copyright infringements). Alternatively, you can simply look at the dozens of articles that are listed for upcoming admin closure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. As soon as I finish with the 27th, I have the eight still outstanding for the 28th to address. People do blatant drops of text on Wikipedia all the time. That's why, unfortunately, we have such processes as WP:CSD#G12 and WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing that archived version, I have to note that it seems likely that other sources have been infringed. (This is not unusual; when a contributor adds copyrighted text from one source to a Wikipedia article, they frequently add text from others.) For instance, the "match made in corporate heaven" sentence seems to be pasted from [3]. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And jumping on the bandwagon, I have the same issue with Crafoord Prize, also an FLC at the moment. I think I've covered all the MOS issues, but our guidelines (as far as I can tell) become a little subjective on how much is too much when it comes to infringing copyrights. I'd very much appreciate a view on that list as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←I think that using this text may be a problem. But I've asked for additional review at WT:NFC and WT:C and will also ask at WT:COPYCLEAN. Since there are several lists at issue here, it would be good to develop consensus. :) I've left my initial thoughts at the above FLC, but will wait until such consensus emerges to have a say at the second. (Just because currently I'd probably be redundant. :D) --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and also because I think it's more gray in the second than in the first. The first page puts the information in a chart, but essentially adds nothing new. The second case is a bit more transformative, at least of the PDF. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they're all drawn from one page, then, yes, I think it could. All the more reason to get additional input from various points before making any determination. I've publicized at WT:NFC, WT:C and WT:COPYCLEAN. Sometimes this draws good response. Sometimes it draws none. :) Let's hope for the good response. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do :) Following on from that, how much difference does the "all drawn from one page" part make, because in these cases each winner has a page with very little content, and each including the quote given in the table e.g. [4][5]Rambo's Revenge(talk)19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much difference it makes, but I know that in determining fair use the US courts look at how central or important the duplicated creative content is to (a) the source and (b) the destination. I'm not saying you can get away with copying extensively from large sources—since the importance is determined more by how "central" the material is than how extensive it is—but there's a gut sense that 20 sentences quoted out of 2,000 pages is probably going to be less central than 5 sentences quoted out of 6. :) Fair use examines four factors: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. We're clear on the non-commercial, but our reusers may not be. This is one of the reasons why we don't accept non-commercial licenses. 2. the nature of the copyrighted work. Educational. That helps. 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. (That's where the "one page" enters in.) And 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. I don't know what marketing use [6] might conceive of for this text, but I think we could agree that there could be significant impact on any potential market they might have. (Not that I'd buy the product, but, you know....) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indulging in a Charlie Brownesque "Argh!" here. :/ Thanks for compiling the list. Any chance FLC reviewers would be interested in helping to address these concerns? --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion may not be quite as helpful as you'd like. :) Images are not really my area. I don't even know what an "svg" is. But I can suggest a better forum! --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was not aware of the copyright tag on Concurrent relation. I disagree that this is a violation for the following several reasons, and also make these comments: 1) the source has an error that was not included but corrected in the Wikipedia article; 2) the variable names in Wikipedia were changed to differentiate from the source names; 3) although of no consequence to this discussion, another reputable website has the "exact" word-for-word definition (true copy/paste) http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ConcurrentRelation.html; 4) a mathematical definition can not change from website to website, no more than the meaning of a word can change from website to website, there will be have to be similarities; 5) the source cites 3 references from where the definition came from, hence, not an original definition; 6) the originator of the copyright tag (user Arthur Rubin) is acting with prejudice against the best interest of Wikipedia for the following reasons: a) He has stated a general negative bias against this particular source in question, "Encyclopedia of Mathematics" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_27#Category:Relations; b) He and others (possibly including user Michael Hardy) have conspired to remove or rename Wikipedia article that i have created on "Relations" http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Translation_relation&action=history (this is an example of removing, with a redirect, good information from Wikipedia). The fact is that "Relations" do exist in Mathematics. There are many sources describing "Translational relation", including my own in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_27#Category:Relations , yet these users insist on depriving Wikipedia readers based on non-cooperative reasons; c) the edits done by these users on these related topics were done in haste with insufficient thought, as can be seen with reverts on my talk page history regarding Zermelo's Theorem/game theory. Please advise if you can. Henry Delforn (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright question seems to have resolved while I was offline as the tagger has withdrawn the tag. Your overall dispute with the other editors is a bit more problematic. If the problem is that both contributors feel the source is unreliable, you might wish to seek feedback at the reliable sources noticeboard. If the question is more complex than that, you might find it useful to—in neutral language—succinctly explain the issue at a relevant noticeboard and request input from uninvolved parties. I'm afraid that when it comes to mathematics, I am not expert enough to help out with subject-specific issues. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics? I realize both of these editors are active there, but they are not the only editors active there, and I would trust that other contributors can neutrally weigh the issues without bias towards familiar colleagues. If you're less certain of that, of course, there are other fora as set out at dispute resolution. Good luck. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar awarded
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
In recognition of your excellent work in this area, I award you this much-deserved star. Great job improving the Richard Perry article too! :) Ϫ02:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thank you. :) I felt bad for the gentleman, since he evidently has a history of trying to get a good page on Wikipedia and has just had trouble understanding how to do so. He's certainly notable enough! --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medpedia
Hey there, I have a general copyright question about the project Medpedia (http://www.medpedia.com/), it says in their licensing part of their terms page
that they use the GNU Free Document License, but they don't specify which version, they only link to this page [7], so I was wondering if we could use some of their content and re-license it as cc-by-sa under the licensing clause as we did with our GFDL content? Because I was wondering that if we could it would be a great source of medical related articles and information for Wikipedia (Oh, and I was refered to you from The ed17 on IRC :) ). Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I'm afraid with our licensing transition, we can't take text from GFDL-only sources anymore, regardless of the version of GFDL they use. :/ GFDL is not in itself compatible with CC-By-SA; we were only permitted to relicense text imported from GFDL-only sites prior to November 2008. After that date, GFDL sites had to have been co-licensed under a CC-By-SA compatible license for us to use it. This is one of those sad cases where that would once have been an excellent source, but is no longer usable on Wikipedia. (See Wikimedia:Terms of Use) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will you add something there about Paterson? We haven't got very far yet at all. Thanks. If you know any of the participants who haven't responded to the thread, if you could drop them a note that would be great. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running the Contribution Surveyor program. It may take a few hours, depending on how active he's been. I'll set up a tab for him at the Copyclean project and come back to the project with more info once I've done so. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your assistance with this problem. I genuinely appreciate your prompt and professional handling of the issues as they've arisen.Jinfo (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest on the Wayne Schoenfeld page
Hello Moonriddengirl,
As asked I've added the sources where the quotes were written. Hope that all this will finally solve the problem about the conflict of interest. Thank you very much for all your help. --Exeko (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful, thank you. But at this point it may be that some of the conflict comes in your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's overall style? For example, there is unsourced, unattributed text scattered throughout. The lead says, "that are living tableaux expressing social commentary." Who says these are living tableaux? What does that even mean? It seems laudatory (and I suspect it probably is), but it really communicates nothing to the general reader. Wikipedia strives to present neutral, factual information about subjects. The single exception is the sentence "His carefully orchestrated images appear, at a glance, like classic paintings." It helps that you've provided a source for subjective opinions, but they are not attributed in text. That "Wayne Schoenfeld takes Pictures rather than photographs." is somebody's opinion, and you need to indicate within the article whose opinion it is so that it does not seem as though Wikipedia (e.g. the article itself) is espousing this view. Likewise, such text as "A disturbing visual account", "focusing on themes that are heroic and worthwhile" and "This poignant book...."
Also, you've probably read the "reference" request at the top of the article. What is wanted here are "references that appear in reliable third-party publications." Some of these seem to qualify, but blurbs from book jackets do not. It stands to reason that publishers wish to promote their products. If the publishers have cherry-picked phrases from published reviews in newspapers or magazines, then it is fine to reference those published reviews. Otherwise, they are presumed promotional.
One of the more subtle and difficult issues with editing an article about yourself is that unless other contributors research it independently, we cannot be sure that you are accurately reflecting the balance of critical response. Just as publishers highlight praise on book jackets and may not reference criticism, Wikipedia's readers cannot know with an autobiography if the contributor is reporting only good comments and excluding the bad, even if through unconscious bias. The best way to avoid this is probably to avoid both praise and criticism, sticking to a neutral presentation of fact. For example, if the book was awarded "Most Outstanding Book of the Year" for 2004 by the Independent Publisher's Association, you can include that if it is referenced. (I note that currently it is not. Can you clarify who this organization is? I tried finding a source for that one, but the only hit I get is to Wikipedia: [8] Perhaps you've gotten their name or the name of the award slightly wrong?) But it would probably be best to avoid material that reads promotional altogether, since readers cannot be certain your view is balanced. (See also Wikipedia:Autobiography). --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking of pages started by me
Thanking you for your sugession, since i have floated number of Pages
regaring towns and villages aroung Kanpur city in a very short time.
Most of the information were from india09.com (regarding description), fallingrain.com (regarging location and elevation), censusindia.gov.in, (regarding population) asi.nic.in (regarding Archaeological importance) and from official sites of Kanpur nagar district, Kanpur dehat district, Auraiya district and unnao district.
The description obtained from india09.com is very limited just two or three lines in any particular page. Presently it may appear i have copied them from a source.
Here i would like to mention that these all pages are studs and they are just evolving as more information will be available the language will continue to change. At the same time i will try to change the style of what ever limited literature they have as suggested by you.
Please further note each page have different sections and their information have been sourced from different sources as stated earlier.
I have not even tagged them as studs neither they have been catogerised nor there there is any extenal reference. It will be done.
Hello from WP:WPO, where a question was raised yesterday about the synopsis for (Macbeth (opera)). The synopsis, as well as a number of others, was originally copied (in 2005 or thereabouts) from a website called Opera Japonica). The copier (User:Kleinzach) was in real life - and still is - Simon Holledge, the publisher of Opera Japonica and the author of the synopsis. He's on a wikibreak at the moment.
At the time (November 2005), one of the other synopses (that for I Capuleti e i Montecchi) was spotted as a copyvio, and there was some dialogue between Kleinzach and two or three admins which resulted in Kleinzach attaching a statement to that synopsis (and to the other ones that he'd authored and copied) stating that the copying had been done "with permission". The permission was, of course, granted by himself as author and publisher to himself as WP editor. There is an unnumbered OTRS tag attached to the Capuleti/Montecchi Talk page, but not, we think, to any of the others, and it looks as if WP procedures weren't properly followed by OTRS people at the time. We at the Opera Project are concerned that copyvio tags may be slapped without warning on any or all of the synopses, and we'd like to regularise the situation, preferably with the aid of numbered OTRS tags or whatever else may be deemed necessary. I'm about to move the "with permission" statements from the bottom of the synopses to footnotes, but that won't solve the problem.
We will be grateful for your input on this. The discussion that we've had at the Opera Project is here. Feel free to reply direct to me and/or, if you think it's appropriate, add your thoughts to the discussion on the above page. Meanwhile, I'm emailing Kleinzach to put him in the picture. Thanks in advance for any help or guidance that you can give us. --GuillaumeTell21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl, you're a star! Thanks so much for your help with this. Must go pack my suitcase, am technically not here.;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second that! Unlike Voce, I am technically here, at least until my next trip to Covent Garden. Many thanks for the prompt and tremendously helpful response. --GuillaumeTell23:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A person with the user name The Younger removed text and sources, claiming that he "tidied up the article, edited some apparantly biased language". He replaced the sources with Citation needed tags. I restored the original version and reapplied a couple of valid changes he had made. Today he revised a paragraph, gutting most of the factual detail from the sources. I don't want to get into an edit war, but it seems like this person has an ax to grind. I value your opinion. Would you review this and tell me if I should back off? Mgreason (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you may have guessed, since I still haven't finished review your most recent, I am scrambling to keep up. :) But this seems like something I can probably help out with, at least to help figure out the best approach. Let me go take a look. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. This seems to be a straightforward editing dispute. It's not clearly disruptive of the article, as he is editing with plausible reasoning, so this is a case to assume good faith and launch a conversation about your concerns, explaining cordially why you disagree. I would suggest placing a note at the article's talk page explaining how the sources supported the text and why you think it belongs and then putting a note at his page telling him where that can be found. Give him a few days, since he's not an active contributor (I would guess, based on his redlinked talk page). If he doesn't return, you may restore the text if you're confident that it's all neutral in weight. If he does return and the two of you cannot reach an agreement on what the page should say, you might start by asking for feedback at the neutral point of view noticeboard or, since there are only two of you, requesting feedback at WP:3O. This is not exactly the fun part of Wikipedia, but it's an important part of the process. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm a bit swamped with living my stupid real life (think they can commandeer my time just because I get paid!? Honestly. Deadline = Monday) and trying to keep up with copyvios while living it, but I'll keep an eye on it. :) If I get a chance, I'll see if I can offer some input. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE:Shutter Island (film)
Thanks for note, and the kind words. And thanks, too, for (as always) doing such a great job in your role as admin and investigating the matter. I'll be sure to keep what you posted at the talk page in mind (that starting out different at Wikipedia and converging might signal a reverse coypvio). TwilligToves (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are Scott Thong (which you would need to verify through Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, you would need to verify permission to paste his text on Wikipedia, even in non-article space. Reproducing non-free text is a copyright violation. The link alone is sufficient to consider your perspective. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Hereby Award..
The Invisible Barnstar
I hereby award you the Invisible Barnstar for your diligent work on the English Wikipedia. I had only recently become aware of you when you helped me with the article Deep Eddy Pool. Thank you so much for collaborating on such a worthy project as the wikipedia. People like you assure that when I encounter a person that doesn’t use the wikipedia because of factual verifiability, I can show them, no look, it is referenced! Dillard421♂♂(talk to me)15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also :)...
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Talk:Deep Eddy Pool. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you very much! I think by and large we make a good network of workers. I was very impressed with your proactive investigation of that particular copyright concern. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think there are at least a few, if not more, copyvios at the article Expulsion of Germans after World War II. The first set of them occur in the section "Evacuation and flight to Denmark" - where a lot the text is taken almost verbatim from the Spiegel Online article [9]. For example Wiki-Article: "the refugees were interned in hundreds of camps from Copenhagen to Jutland, placed behind barbed wire and guarded by military personnel. The largest camp, located in Oksbøl on the west coast of Jutland, held 37,000 refugees." vs. Spiegel: "The refugees were interned in hundreds of camps from Copenhagen to Jutland, placed behind barbed wire and guarded by heavily armed overseers. The largest camp was located in Oksboll, on the west coast of Jutland, and had 37,000 detainees.". Or Wiki-Article: "Many of the refugees were women, children, or the elderly.[22] A third of the refugees were younger than 15 years old" vs. Spiegel: "And most were women, children or elderly. A third of the refugees were younger than 15 years old". Most of the rest of the sentences in this section are also more or less verbatim. The second batch of copyvio's appears in the "Poland" [10] section where the sentences reffed to the Gibney and Hansen book [11] are also verbatim, more or less. There might also be some based on the source The Expulsion of 'German' Communities from Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War by Prausser and Rees but I haven't had time to check everything in that one carefully.
I'm not sure what the proper steps are if the article has possible multiple copyright issues. Should it be tagged with a template?radek (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, that's what I would do unless(and wouldn't this be good luck?) you can identify that they are recent additions and can simply revert back to the last clean. I'm sorry that I don't have time to look myself at the moment; I'm struggling under a heavy workload off-wiki. When I get back on, I'll be hustling to catch up the backlog at the copyright problems board. But I am entirely confident in your handling of the matter. :) You know about archives and have been very good at catching these problems. If you need help later, let me know; I'll be glad to take a look. It may be Monday before I have anything like extra time, though. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! No hurry, it might be possible to just take care of it without extensive work (though unfortunately lots of the edits are quite old).radek (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALL THE 15 WEBSITES, AGREES ABOUT 160 WINNERS,AND THE FEW THAT LEFT (19 WINNERS),
CAN BE EASILLY,DETECTED IF THEY ARE JEWS (BY GOOGLE SEARCH),SO ALL THE INFORMATION IS MINE,AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JINFO.ORG.
--217.132.41.129 (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have answered at the article's talk page, I will also respond here. If there are lists of Jewish Nobel prize winners compiled without human selectivity as to qualifiers as "Jewish" or, alternatively, lists that rely on human selectivity that are public domain, you are welcome to use these. However, if more than 10% of the individuals on this list are not on these others, that only provides further evidence that this list is idiosyncratic and cannot be freely reproduced. One might similarly say that we could accidentally duplicate Rolling Stone's list of "500 Best Songs of All Time", but if evidence suggests we copied it, we can't claim that potential duplication by self-research is defense. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS help, please
Call me slow, MRG, by all means, but...when I come across a copyvio article and think, "the author really needs to send through an OTRS notification of ownership of copyright, since most likely the author owns the copyright", I stumble around blindly looking for a page of explanation to which to direct the author. Wikipedia:OTRS does not seem a suitable place to send someone. Worse, exactly how do you send an OTRS email to the WMF? The Wikipedia:OTRS advises "Please see our "Contact Us" page". But that page does list an obvious contact email.
Forgive me laying this on you, but do you have any knowledge of the advice & contact pages you'd point a user towards in this circumstance? thanks, --Tagishsimon(talk)11:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; very much obliged. I'll look back over the pages which I perceive failed to give me the links I wanted, and see if they can be introduced (or indeed if they're already there). --Tagishsimon(talk)11:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Lapidus
Hi. I'm contacting you as the admin who protected the page Frank Lapidus to ask if you would consider unprotecting it. Although the article was deleted for non-notability, I believe the version that existed at the time was entirely unsourced and a clear copyvio. I've written an article on the character in my userspace utilising reliable sources which I believe should meet the general notability guideline, and would like to move it into the mainspace if at all possible. Thank you :) Frickative14:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The article has several times been deleted as a copyright infringement. I have little experience with television related articles and do not know notability standards for those, but quite clearly your version differs from that which was AfDed. :) I've unprotected the space to allow you to develop it and will leave notability concerns to those familiar with the area. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you enlighten us? =) P.S. Love the user talk:MRG. Much easy to get to you and bug you with stuff like this <evil grin> –xenotalk18:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I've had an editor now that has continued to harrass my talk page after numerous attempts to communicate there are still problems. The editor Badagnani has spammed my talk page with accusations for a while now. See this [12] and now after several attempts continues to revert my edits here[13] without discussion. My edits are constantly being followed by reverts from this editor. Please take action, Thank you.Sea888 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a glance at your situation, and it's difficult for someone unfamiliar with these articles to determine precisely what's going on. I see that you removed the map here and that it was reverted. It does seem that you made an effort to compromise by introducing another map, but really I think conversation probably should have been introduced on the talk page a bit sooner. I'm glad to see you've opened a discussion there. I would suggest you leave a note to the other editor civilly inviting him to talk about the problem at that point, and I think you should probably also consider establishing consensus by inviting other interested contributors to weigh in. It seems like only the two of you have expressed an opinion. If nobody else does at the talk page, you might try WP:3O, but be warned that you have to be very neutral in asking for help there. If you seem to take a side, your request will be removed. We also have a brand new Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. I do not yet know if this is going to be a good forum for getting feedback or not.
The sockpuppet accusation is a bit odd but it doesn't seem to be ongoing. I can tell from reviewing your talk page that the two of you have a pretty embattled history. It's a bit difficult to determine what to suggest. :/ Do you feel that he is blanketly reverting other edits of yours beyond the content dispute over the map? If so, and you haven't already, you might want to try one of the fora recommended in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, working up the chain as necessary Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts can be a good first point before considering something like Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Wherever you take it, you will want to be concise and provide thorough diffs to demonstrate both that you are working in good faith and that you cannot reach peaceful terms with this other user.
I'm sorry that there's nothing in particular that I can do. In the absence of clear disruption, I'm not empowered to take immediate administrator action, and this is not really the area of Wikipedia where I work. As you know, copyrights are my thing. If I myself encountered this kind of behavior, those are the steps I would consider. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for informing me and for your constructive criticism. I already read the written exchanges you made with Drmies and I now understand the reasons why the affected section should be deleted. With your advice, I'll see to it that I would not commit the same mistake again. --JinJian (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, hope you're well. I've come across this article, which looks to have at least one section taken from the publication: Dyer, Frederick Henry, A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion. 3 volumes. (New York: T. Yoseloff), 1908. (having been flagged as a cv of [14]). Now the guy doesn't have a WP article, and I can't find out when he died so what I'm wondering is whether this would be covered by the pre-1923 publication thing and therefore be PD? Can you shed any light on the situation? Cheers, – Toon21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm doing well, though I should be working (and will be, off-site, tomorrow!). Hope you are. :D Yes, as far as the US is concerned, it's good. If it was published in the New York before January 1, 1923, it's PD. Some of the issues that make this 1923 thing complex are set out at Wikipedia:Public domain, but I don't see anything there that would make this material an exception. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate all the effort that you put into understanding the issues involved and your patience in responding to the repeated provocations.Jinfo (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
