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 23:48, 9 January 2025 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Morning. You inadvertently placed my page in the same category, which I find funny because it is so something I would do. :D (I've neutralized the category.) My note there is no longer necessary, as it's been confirmed that the contributor has e-mailed others and received a response from at least one. I'll just revert to the redirect that existed before my note. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And another case for which I'd like your opinion: Danish Landrace (sheep) from [1], listed at SCV on the 4th. Is the language used to describe the sheep race considered "factual" or can it be paraphrased more without hurting the species' description? MLauba (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can and should be paraphrased more. I'm concerned not only with the taking of language (one sentence is reproduced verbatim, I see), but also with the retention of structure. I'll speak to the contributor and rewrite it myself. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As promised, here we are. Henry Curtis-Bennett is certainly over the line:
ODNB: "born on 31 July 1879 at Brentwood in Essex, the son of Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett (1846–1913), chief metropolitan magistrate, and his wife, Emily Jane Hughes-Hallett (1855–1942), daughter of a Kent solicitor... He was educated at Radley College and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he won blues for cycling"
Article: "was born at Brentwood, Essex, the son of Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett (1846–1913), Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and his wife, Emily Jane, née Hughes-Hallett (1855–1942), daughter of a Kent solicitor. He was educated at Radley College and Trinity College, Cambridge"
ODNB:"Curtis-Bennett was called to the bar by the Middle Temple in 1902 and appointed a KC in 1919 and a bencher in 1926"
Article:"Curtis-Bennett was called to the bar by the Middle Temple in 1902 and appointed a KC in 1919 and a bencher in 1926."
As is Cockburn:
ODNB:". He was commissioned ensign in the 1st, afterwards the Grenadier Guards, on 9 May 1781, and in 1782 went to Gibraltar, where he was aide-de-camp to General Eliott during the siege"
Article:"He was commissioned as an ensign in the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards on 9 May 1781, and in 1782 went to Gibraltar, where he was aide-de-camp to General Eliott during the Great Siege"
ODNB:"For his services he was promoted captain-lieutenant in the 105th regiment in 1784, and transferred in 1785 to the 65th, then quartered in Dublin"
Article:"For his services, he was promoted to captain lieutenant in the 105th Regiment of Foot in 1784, and transferred in 1785 to the 65th (2nd Yorkshire, North Riding) Regiment of Foot, then quartered in Dublin"
No problem; as always, give me a poke if you've got any other ODNB violations. I also have access to a large journal store, so if you have some more academic copyvio suspicions, don't hesitate to contact me in that regard. Many thanks, Ironholds (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at his contributions and talk page, I think that it may be in hand. I see User:SarekOfVulcan, also an admin, has communicated with him, and I think others are interested in guiding him to work within process. I've left him an additional resource. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DC Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking
Hi, I'm part of the OTRS team, and we've received an email from a District of Columbia governmental agency saying that the text in this article was taken from a government website. It is my understanding that this would mean that the text was in the public domain, and wouldn't constitute a copyright infringement. Could you please let me know if this is true? That way I'll be able to let the person know how they should proceed. If it wasn't taken from a government website I will ask them to provide us with the relevant releases. Thank you. PanydThe muffin is not subtle20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, fellow OTRS team member. :) It's only public domain if its from a federal government website or from one of those states that does not claim copyright. The government of the District of Columbia is not federal, and it does not relinquish copyright, as per [3]: "United States and foreign copyright laws and international conventions protect the contents of the Site." That's also addressed in Wikipedia:Public domain: "The United States Copyright Office, in section 206.02(b), 206.02(c), and 206.02(d) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices, has stated its position that works of the U.S. Postal Service, of the government of the District of Columbia, or of the government of Puerto Rico are not "works of the U.S. government" and thus are subject to copyright." (It says so here.)
I hate it when we get gov material that isn't federal, because it can lead to quite a bit of running around as I try to determine if it's from one of those gov sites we can use. :/ I don't think we can accept this one without the relevant release. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I was wondering if you knew of a correct way on Wikipedia to cite the liner notes from a music album? As I think you know, I'm working on cleaning up the article on Phil Collen, and it would be an immense help if I could use information from Def Leppard's various albums as references. Thanks. C628 (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read your response at my Talk Page. Here's where I'm at right now on this whole mess...
I see three separate issues to be resolved...
Whether I should be blocked.
Whether I should give up the admin bit.
How to clean up the mess that I have caused in various edits over the past.
Re #1, I appreciate you not blocking me. There certainly is a case to be made for doing so. As a gesture of good faith, I propose to refrain from making any "new text" contributions until substantial progress has been made towards cleaning up the mess in #3. When this "self-block" will expire is indeterminate but, since any further copyvios can be found and would be pretty stupid on my part, the real issue here is one of good faith. With this step, I am proposing not to make a bigger mess than already exists.
Re #2, Well.... a bunch of people have suggested that I give up the admin bit. I might yet do so but I haven't come to that decision yet. UPDATE: I have now done so.
Re #3, This is the real purpose of this message. Looking at my watchlist, it seems that you are reviewing my edit history looking for copyvios, both blatant and those which are less blatant (e.g. weak or non-existent attributions, failure to identify text copied from other articles, etc.) Looking at my watchlist this evening, I see a bunch of articles that I have edited popping up with your username on the edit history. Sometimes, your edit relates to one of my edits and sometimes, it doesn't.
Is there a way we can work together to fix any copyvios that I might have committed? Sometimes the copyvio is blatant and other times, it's insufficient rewording and paraphrasing.
Contrary to the interpretation of another editor, I didn't mean to say "You fix it. I can't be bothered." What I meant was that I didn't have time at that very moment to fix it (I was on my way out the door) and that I would try to get back to it when time permitted.
This message is intended as a good faith offer to help clean up the mess that I created. It's also a request to you to see if you have a list of copyvios that you suspect me as being responsible for that I can use as a "To Do" list.
What do we do about 10 year olds adding personal data
This was vandalism to a couple of articles from a new account, but if it is genuine, do I raise it at ANI with links or try to get the diffs removed somehow?
Thanks Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I was going to say. :D Except with a lot more words, as usual. Depending on what it was, oversight is probably best. Arbitration determined that "Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information." --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although I may need to figure out what kind of edits she was making when she placed this stuff. Let me wrap up this copyright thing, and I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One edit was details about her age, family, town where she lived, boyfriend, the other was about the boy that she said was 9 (her name and his name were in the edits). It could be a hoax but I've got no reason to think it is. No address or phone number. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, I knew you'd do a better job than I would! The oversighter was on her cell so it would have been difficult. I've joined in on that Admin's page as you may have seen. He really should resign. He doesn't do much and got the bit when it was easy to get. Dougweller (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd have done a fine job (your welcome was nice), but my username may be reassuring, especially if her mom & dad come online. :D (OTOH, maybe we should be trying to teach her that people named Moonriddengirl could actually look like.... Well, I was looking for a file of a scary old man, but unless he's a dead scary old man, that would be a BLP issue anyway. You get my point. :) As for the other part, thanks. I think that would be the most low-drama way to proceed and probably best all around. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking of your username in fact. By the way, I just got 3 messages saying "Welcome Doug Weller". It's a great message, I may steal it. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of thing, unfortunately, requires police intervention. There's nothing we can do within Wikipedia without some indication of who is involved, because there really is, literally, nothing we can do. :/ All we'd be able to do is block somebody if it turned out they were on Wiki (per Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment). Not a good idea to delete such correspondence, but the impulse is understandable. If they were stored on his computer, they may still be retrievable (though don't ask me how; I'm not remotely techy and only know what I'm told); if they were stored remotely (such as by his e-mail provider), he might be able to get them back. Likely the best thing you can do at this point is to minimize attendant drama. If this is just some bully who gets his jollies off on bugging people, then bluster is going to be a lot of fun for him. I think you could support him best by being friendly, but focusing on Wiki activities while online. Via e-mail, of course, anything goes. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC
Yes, I can see this requires something beyond wikipedia. Agree with best means of support suggestions. I'm not techy either, but I imagine these things could be retrieved. Thanks for the suggestions, they're good ones, as always. :) Malke201022:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the conference "Buddhism and Nordlandand" as a project were started by me years ago.
And now ,ll be the queation from my side ,,,whats wrong with this?
DO I need any copyright hier in wikipedia to share my own nformation what,s written by me?
Hi. No, I'm not the person who started the discussion, but I have been evaluating some of your contributions. I did not evaluate The international conference „Buddhism and Nordland myself, but Karl Tõnisson seems to include material previously published at [5]. Other articles that have been evaluated by me or by others have contained or have contained content published from various other sources: Buddhism in Russia contains text that was previously published at [6]; Palgyi Dorje of Lhalung was listed at the copyright problems board for a week before being deleted as a copy of [7]. Natalia S. Yakhontovia was deleted as a copyright concern due to duplication of [8]. Ja Lama used to contain text copied from [9], but it was already removed.
If you are associated with the source that published text and able to verify permission for it, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. We do need verification of the license for text that has been previously published. If you do not have permission — and the diversity of sources suggests you probably don't for all of this text — you can't copy it onto Wikipedia. You have to write it completely in new language. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that as part of the review after the above remained listed for 7 days, I have extended the deadline for deletion by one week due to this discussion. If you are willing and able to provide proper permission as indicated above, please do so within this timeframe, or consider rewriting the article from scratch in the temporary space. MLauba (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then the material will be deleted. If you wish to supply new articles on the subjects, please be sure that they are written entirely differently than the ones published before. I do need to point out to you that anything you write for Wikipedia is donated under precisely those terms: anyone else can use them anywhere, even for commercial gain, and change them however they like. But they can't claim that they wrote the text or took the photographs themselves, and they can't stop other people from using them, too. Whenever you click save, you are consenting to the following terms:
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details.
Dictionary of National Biography and copyright issues
Another one of these (I raised the matter on the Copyright Problems page a little while ago, and you added a reply) is Alexander Ludovic Duff. The biography from the DNB was published 1949, so the {{DNB}} template is again misleading; this was again created by User:Craigy144. A further one that came to light was Vera Cuningham, started in 2007 by User:Talskiddy. I'm working down a list of hundreds of uses of {{DNB}}, and these are just a by-product; I have only done about 25% so far. Do you have access to the ODNB website? Typically the paraphrase is so close - more like a copy edit for length - that there are whole sentences in common (or close). Charles Matthews (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you very much for finding the problem. Sadly, I do not have access to the website, but I know a contributor who does, so I was able to verify via him that at least two of the articles were problems. :) I've relisted the three artilces you mentioned to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 January 12; they will come due for admin closure on January 20th. That will give Craigy144 time to weigh in if he has anything to say about them. After that, I will probably launch a WP:CCI, as it seems like it may be necessary.
What would be tremendously helpful is if you could blank any articles you find that are problems with the {{copyvio}}. I would probably say something like {{subst:copyvio|url=DNB, see talk}} and then put a note on the talk page with an example of two of duplication or unusable close paraphrasing. Since the source is not accessible to me or, so far as I know, the other admins who handle copyright work, that would help process them.
Do you know any other users who have access to ODNB who may be able and willing to help with copyright comparison? Wikipedia:Copyright violations permits presumptive removal after multiple infringements have been verified (I would put the threshhold somewhere around 7 major issues, but that's my personal barometer), but it's obviously far better to check where possible to avoid collateral damage. I hate having to delete material when other contributors have also put their efforts into an article, because I can well imagine how disheartening it would be to experience that. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. I'll alert them to this conversation in case they are interested in helping. In addition to your three, I have tagged Frances Anne Vane, Marchioness of Londonderry, as it seems from the limited views available at googlebooks to be a problem, too. It would be helpful to know if there are more problems in his created articles, anyway, before request a CCI. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used Magnus Manske's tool CatScan 2.0 to find C20th deaths with the DNB template - I haven't checked them at all:
Seems clearcut - the first lot (Ritchie ... Edmund Hobhouse) are all OK in the sense that there is an article from the 1912 DNB about them, so there is no reason there has to be a copyright issue. The rest include two I had found already (Duff, Cuningham), and given that DNB biographies are always posthumous, there is something wrong in each case. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should take this page off my watchlist. :) I have ODNB access and the Hardinge article I checked is a word-for-word copy. The DNB copyright appears to be 2004, could someone verify that so I can be sure I'm reading it right? I'll put a notice on the article when I get back from lunch if someone hasn't already done it. Franamax (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should? :/ (sigh) I'm not that familiar with the DNB, but from the above I presume that Hardinge must be copyrighted. However, I'll wait for verification...and keep meticulously and painfully combing through Catholic sex abuse cases for copying. Thanks, both of you. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can lend some time to this problem on Monday night, should it still exist then. Charles alerted me to an issue with Elias of Dereham, where I inadvertently inserted some 1993 text thinking it was the typical pre-1900 text one normally finds in ODNB's DNB archive. I've reverted that article back to its 01:41, 21 November 2007 state thus removing that copyvio from the displayed article: clearly the copyvio is still in the history. Apologies for that :( Meanwhile, best wishes for the new year to you & Charles, MRG; he'll want to know that I will return to the one true DNB fold shortly, when I've got the last 1,000 or so UK articles that need geocoding, geocoded. --Tagishsimon(talk)09:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Pudney - ??? - Is far from a complete copyvio. I can find one sentence which is word for word with ODNB, but there seems to have been a fair bit or rewrite. I'll look at this again on Monday.
Well that saves me some reporting time, Jenner to Cuningham on that list are my results too. Two blankies for each of the previously mentioned editors. One single-paragraph vio I chopped up and sourced directly. One mistaken set of footnoting by User:Tryde sourcing {{DNB}} for someone who dies much later. That's all I managed. Is this the whole set of concerns or has a cloud been cast on a wider range of edits? Franamax (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all, and sorry for pulling you away from your project, Tagishsimon. :) I really appreciate the time you guys put into this. The Catholic sex abuse cases article ate three hours of my life yesterday, and I'm only about half way through. (I'm going to have to notify the project today; that's an unworkable pace, obviously.) From what I've seen, User:Craigy144 may need additional evaluation, as it seems that he's done this multiple times. Inadvertent errors happen, but when they happen over and over again it's good to check for problems with other sources. I'll take a look at some of the other articles he's created. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be a while before I get all through the list by template that set these off. I'm reasonably confident now that I'm up to speed with how to handle an ODNB copy when I find it. It looks like the Craigy144 creations need to be deleted and stubbed: it's mostly that straightforward. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the ODNB side of things is in good and capable hands? Should I get access to it at some point, I'll be happy to help with review but am very limited in what I can do at the moment. I depend on snippets at google books. :/ I have not yet found problems with Craigy144's other creations, though I've spot-checked. It may be that this is the only source he's infringed. I'll poke some more when I have time just in case. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got mail
The good old Wikipad lacks two buttons (by Mike.lifeguard).
Hello Moonriddengirl - I posted a query to User:Ged UKs talk page here regarding a BLP concern I have with this page, which seems to be a hoax/joke-type article listing the real names and containing a picture of a few non-notable individuals that have formed a "literature group". The picture file lists an OTRS email related to the picture, and Ged UK suggested you may have additional input regarding the legitimacy of the photo/article. So there are apparently two issues:
1) Is the photo legitimate? and 2) Even if it is, is there any reason to have a page such as this on Wikipedia? Would it not be more appropriate for a social networking site such as Facebook or MySpace? Jezebel'sPonyoshhh16:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is showing up in OTRS about it, but that doesn't mean the contributor hasn't sent it. The image is fresh, so it may simply not yet have arrived. Research suggests that the putative copyright holder is a children's writer ([10]). She's not likely to be the photographer, as she's evidently the second woman in, but that's an issue for OTRS to work out. :)
I agree with you whole-heartedly that the material is not encyclopedic. I don't think it's a hoax, so much as it is a slightly funny article about a group of friends who write, and the contributor may not quite get that it isn't appropriate. Presuming that the contributor may be the putative copyright owner of the image, she seems to be a basically sensible, good humored woman, judging by her blog. :) I'll talk to her about it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up. I feel like a spoil-sport bringing it up as the piece is well-written, humourous, and there was obviously time and effort that went in to creating the article. That being said, I still believe it would be more appropriate for MySpace or somesuch. Cheers for your help, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh17:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings again... this one is down to 4 images - 3 of which look legit & the last... ?? Probably could be closed, as IMO there's not much more to be done on those. Skier Dude (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new article I have created. I am sure others will notice this fact, and trust I have avoided all potential copyright pitfalls. In view of what has occurred, I thought it prudent to alert you to this new article. Thanks,
Hi, Derek. Hope you're doing well and that cleanup is going okay. I'm in the middle of an article review at another CCI, but will happily come take a look when I've finished this one. :) (Could be a bit; lengthy history!) --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have edited the above linked article today and became suspicious about its partly unusual phrasing. I've searched in Google a little bit and found a copyright violation of http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=55# (the section about the Earl of Aberdeen). The text was inserted in several edits, which began here [11]. The respective contributor was Tickled Pink Inc(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), whose username additionally might be a violation of WP:GROUPNAME (see http://www.tickledpinkinc.com). Because of the rather long time since the copyright violation and the many edits since then, I'm unsure whether it would be better to revert the article to the version before the violation or to remove the affected text simply. By the way I have User talk:Craigy144 on my watchlist and have noticed your messages there ... what should explain how I found my way to you :-) Best wishes ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 18:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Copyright concerns seem to go back a bit further than that. :) I've blanked the article while seeking clarification. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, actually I think I created a bunch of Governor General articles by copying the biographies on the website. I must have assumed that as a government work they were all public domain (apparently this is true for the US, but probably not for Canada). Adam Bishop (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It appears that you copied or moved text from Catholic sex abuse cases into a number of others, including Ecclesiastical response to Catholic sex abuse cases. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for the articles you've created from this source, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to add a template at the back of the page, as I often do, but I had since noticed that somebody had already done it before me, i.e.
As for copyrights, I was not aware that the original page entitled Catholic sex abuse cases was suffering from copyright problems. If this matter has leaked onto the more precise entry, then it would be appropriate to deal with the problem in a separate way.
I think at the beginning, I separated some articles and did not atribute them clearly enough, because I was not really used to doing so. However, in recent times, you can easily tell that I have attributed them much more frequently and systematically. So, the ones you are pointing out are more likely to come from several months ago when I wasn't completely sure about the procedure. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]ADM (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Kaleb Schwade, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaleb Schwade and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. – Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
British squadron badges
A user has created several pages on British squadrons, copyvios of rafweb.org, which I'm dealing with, but has claimed the badges from the site are British Crown Copyright and thus free to distribute unlimitedly. I don't think they're right, but would you mind taking a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:117Sqn.jpg and Stephenbt63's other image contributions? Happy new year, Buckshot06(talk)03:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy new year to you, too. :) And, oh, dear. I'm alarmed even before I look. I'm familiar mostly with Crown Copyright (not being personally subject to it) as relates to text, but I know that in that department it distinctly is not free for unlimited distribution, as it does not permit modification. I'll look into it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that most of these badges should be PD by age and have left him a note accordingly at his talk page on Commons. The tag he's been using is clearly wrong, and understanding that now might save him inadvertently using it on an image that is not old enough down the road. I appreciate your dealing with his problematic pages. Please let me know if you need assistance with this. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
these are my own photoes
Thanks FRIEND for ur reply? opinion?.
photoes of prakash ambedkar with jpg file are my own work File:Ambedkarprakasadressing.JPG, File:Ambedkarprakash1.JPG & File:Ambedkarprakash.JPG r my own works.(i am photographer) thou a small and nonprofessional.
plz tell what proofs will make u and other wikipedian other so called othorities.
i wanted to help wikipedia as best as i can , i dont want to make wiki trouble, believe me if u want truely to believe a true guy.
long live wiki and jimbo...AND HIS AIM TO MAKE KNOWLEDGE FREE
sorry if any.....
rajvaddhan—Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Thaks for ur guidance , sorry for my old images from internet(thou thier pure intention was to help wikipedia).
but File:Ambedkarprakasadressing.JPG, File:Ambedkarprakash1.JPG & File:Ambedkarprakash.JPG these r purely my creations.
when mr prakash ambedkar was in parbhni , india
, i caught it in my camera .
plz give justice to justice dear friend
long live wiki
Well, CCIs are intended for situations where a contributor can be shown to have violated copyright in a good many articles or images, and he or she has so many contributions that they can't be swiftly evaluated. I see warnings going back to August 2009 on copyright, and there's a lengthy list of contributions. So as much as I would like to say, "No, CCI is not appropriate here," since CCI has its plate very, very full already, I would think it probably is. Including the earlier notices, that's seven articles. I've found another at The Macros, which I've removed (using {{Plot2}} at the article's talk page). Why don't you go ahead and request a CCI? Meanwhile, I'm going to investigate to see if a block is appropriate given earlier notices. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
