|
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.
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
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 11:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time, less frequently between 19:00 and 22:00. When you loaded this page, it was 03:50, 2 December 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
History of Poland (966–1385) (old article) was apparently redone as Poland during the Piast dynasty. Attribution template or history merge? Also, should talk pages be merged?
Same thing with History of Poland (1385–1569) and Poland during the Jagiellon dynasty.
You may want to drop a note to User:Orczar about what he should be doing with regards to mergers. He is doing a good job improving the History of Poland articles, but he seems to leave some artifacts in his wake... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Poland during the Piast dynasty was originally split from History of Poland, see these diffs: removal, cross-page diff. I think the same was done with Jagiellon dynasty, but I didn't verify with diffs. Attribution templates ({{Copied}}) are appropriate here. Since I had the oldids ready, I placed them for Piast dynasty. I'll place the others within a few days, if no one else gets to them first. I'm not sure if any content was merged from the date-range articles, as I didn't see any large increases in page size. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did Jagiellon dynasty. There's a content dispute at Piast dynasty involving some unmerged content, which needs its source to be tracked down. Flatscan (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source was History of Poland (966–1385), and the dispute is over some content that wasn't merged from there. I added the templates, so I think this is complete. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- History of Poland during the Jagiellon dynasty already has the copied template at its talk. I'll look at the date range articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- History of Poland (966–1385) doesn't seem to have been copied from anywhere. I haven't found a source. This seems to have been the extent of the merger of it to Poland during the Piast dynasty. If so, I don't think we need an attribution template. The information is basic, brief and slightly reworded. It's also attributed, albeit not with an actual link. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And, well, this is just not much of a merge. :/ (History of Poland (1385–1569) -> Poland during the Jagiellon dynasty) No attribution needed for that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I used those diffs to place {{Copied}}s anyway, we can remove or hide them later. I've been thinking about a {{Not copied}} for edit summaries that say "merged" (implying a copy) but really mean redirect. Flatscan (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl,
Yesterday, I wrote an article about William F. Moran in doing so, there were two key pieces I may have "too closely paraphrased" to one of the sources (another online encyclopedia article). One of which was pretty detailed about a school that was founded and named after him in a specific location, etc I probably followed this closer than I normally would as I did not want to hose up the names in the wikilinks. I ended up rewriting the piece hereTalk:William_F._Moran/Temp to the degree that I pulled out the material in question. The only similarity I feel it has to the source I was accused of plagurizing is that they are both summary-style biographical sketches of a custom knifemaker who died 5 years ago. Can you take a look at it when you get a chance? Thanks in advance.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that this has been resolved. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was, thanks anyway!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I realise that you're a busy sort, but could you please take a look at the copyright question at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rodhullandemu/Henry Curtis-Bennett? It concerns a userified copy of the article Henry Curtis-Bennett, which was deleted via Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 January 12. Thanks. --10:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.237.87 (talk)
- Thanks. I got so hung up on the note below yours that I'm afraid I overlooked that I had older messages for a while. Sorry for the delay. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i thought i provided a rationale. i am concerned by your comment "Its use in Two-Piece Reclining Figure: Points is purely decorative; this is currently a two-sentence stub, and there is no critical evaluation of the artwork whatsoever".
is not an image the best way to show a work of art? are all stub articles not to have non-free images? is not the 10 points a sufficient rationale, or must the lesser template be used, which leaves out information? i have no idea if i have "successfully addressed the concern". i rely on the non-free 3D tag. Slowking4 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. An image may be the best way to show a work of art, but that doesn't mean that legally we can display the work of art. Fair use in the United States considers four factors, each of which work together. The one that concerns me here is "Purpose and character". When an image of piece art is displayed alongside critical commentary, the usage of the artwork becomes transformative. When it's simply used to note that a piece of art exists, it is probably not. For a random examplean article that offers critical commentary on a piece, Lansdowne portrait (while far more developed than you probably need be) not only displays the image but analyzes it. If the image were still under copyright, a fair use defense would probably be considerably easier to mount in such circumstances than simply in an article that notes a painting exists and where it is hung. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- this is a good point, but i followed the policy. do you wish to revise the policy to incorporate your "transformative" requirement, that is not there now? this is a sculpture in public space, 3D not 2D. even the atomium is relaxing their copyright claims. let me know what your requirements are clearly, so i can comply. Slowking4 (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lacking critical commentary, it doesn't meet WP:NFCI: "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." See also Wikipedia:NFC#Applied to Wikipedia: " However, to be more certain of avoiding legal liability, and to understand the meaning of Wikipedia policy, editors should consider the legal rules as well. See fair use for further information, and the Stanford University summary of relevant cases, on the subject of fair use. Non-free material is used only if, in addition to other restrictions, we firmly believe that the use would be deemed fair use if we were taken to court." As you agree that it's a good point, I would recommend that you bring it in line by adding critical commentary to the article to sustain the use of the image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is a nursery rhyme from 1930`s ukraine copyrighted? Father Stalin look at this was deleted as a copy right infringement but I do not see how it can be given the age of it. Tentontunic (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not automatically public domain unless it was published before 1923. Let me look a little more deeply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Feh. This old, international stuff is a pain in the neck. :/ Do you have any idea who wrote it or in what year it was first published? Ukrainian copyright law protects for the term of life of the author + 70 years. If the work is published anonymously, it protects for 70 years from first publication. Complicating things, if the author died before January 1951, it would be PD (see Commons:Template:PD-Ukraine). Complicating things further, it may be public domain in the Ukraine but not in the United States because of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The author is unknown. It was a nursery rhyme from 1930. Thats all I know of it. The Bloodlands book puts first usage at 1930-1933 time. Tentontunic (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I just can't tell you definitely. :/ It could very well still be under copyright in the U.S. (which is what really matters here, since we are bound by U.S laws) if it was published first in 1930. Cornell has a handy little chart, here. As it says, if it was published outside the U.S. without compliance with U.S. formalities and if on 1 January 1996 it was in the public domain in the Ukraine, it would be public domain here. But if it was published anonymous in 1930, it wouldn't have been public domain until 2000, which would miss the Uruguay Round Agreements Act cut-off. In that case, it would be copyrighted a kind of staggering 95 years after publication date--or until 2025. For now, you might need to create an article that does not include the text of the nursery rhyme but just talks about it. And I'm sorry that I don't have better news. Copyright law is a bit crazy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can it still be used if attributed? As in, state categorically that it was published in Snyders book? It is a damn shame to have this deleted as I was still expanding on it. Tentontunic (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in accordance with our policies, I'm afraid. You can quote a little bit of it, but not the entire nursery rhyme, unless we can find enough information to prove it is public domain. For example (drawing on what you already had going), you might say something like, "The first line addresses Joseph Stalin, leader of the soviet union at the time of Holodomor, directly as "Father Stalin."[1] The second line introduces the theme of the Collective Farms which the Ukrainian peasants were being forced onto at the time.[2] Subsequently lines describe the failures of the farms with nothing to sustain the child left by parents forced onto the kolkhoz except "Just your picture on the wall." That kind of thing. (I don't know what the sources talk about.) If you'd like, I can return the article you had to you without the nursery rhyme for further development. It seems like a pretty powerful poem on a horrific event worth documenting, and it would be a shame not to have coverage on it. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should like that very much, thank you. The reason I created the article was for the very reasons you articulated, a powerful poem on an horrific event. Tentontunic (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay; I've put it at User:Tentontunic/Father Stalin just so you can expand it a bit without fearing it'll get tagged for something. :) Of course, you can move it into article space whenever you think it's ready. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came here on the same issue, to ask you to look at User talk:Tentontunic#Father Stalin and confirm that I had advised the user correctly. Also, does translation establish a new copyright? I couldn't find any definite statement about that. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) Yes, unfortunately, I agree that the content was not usable. And, yes, translation most definitely does establish a new copyright, even if the original poem is public domain. (It's a derivative work issue.) If we did manage to prove that this poem was without copyright, we'd have either had to find an English version out of date or translate it from scratch. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is interesting, if Professor Snyder gives permission can it be used? I have mailed him about it already to ask were he sourced it from you see. Tentontunic (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm afraid, because the original is not public domain (or, at least, we can't prove it is). If we could prove that the original were public domain, then we could certainly ask him to and use it if he permitted. The way the law is at the moment, we would need permission from both the copyright holder of the original work and the copyright holder of the translation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But whomever wrote the original more than likely died in the Holodomor, or the war just after it. If he responds (He is currently in DC on a talk about the book) with the source for the poem, and it proves the author died in the 30`s even then we may not use it? How can there be a copyright holder if he is dead? I am sorry to be taking up so much of your time with this. Tentontunic (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I explained above, copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author--even longer in the US if the material was not public domain by 1996. But as I also pointed out, there is an exception in the Ukraine if the author died before January 1951. But we have to be able to prove who the author was and that he died before January 1951. It doesn't help if the author is unknown and we assume that the author died in the Holodomor or shortly after. We would need evidence. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, unfortunately user the four deuces is of the opinion that it is not worthy of wikipedia. [1] Looks like there shall be no article on this nursery rhyme after all. Tentontunic (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I was looking at Cyril Heppleston which got tagged at SCV and think I've stumbled onto some overly-extensive quotations but I wanted to run it past you before I acted. The quote (at the bottom of the article) is the entirety of his entry in the Golden Book of Cycling. The book is old (earliest entries are from the 1930s) and doesn't appear to have a copyright notice, but since there's only one copy of the book (per the article) it wasn't "published" until it was put on the web which would make it still copyrighted and so the extensive quotations at both of those articles (and probably more) are in violation of WP:NFC. Do you and/or your stalkers agree with that assessment or have I gone off the rails somewhere? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree; it should be truncated per WP:NFC unless we can verify that it is no longer under copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonridden,
I don't know if you can help me or not, but I figured that if questions are in order, finding an administrator would be the place to enquire. I don't if the same thing has been happening to you but with the new Editing Toolbar that has recently replaced the old one, many of the features (if not all of them), do not seem to work - actually it appears all of them do not work. I was enquiring if you are familiar with this issue? And if you are, can you please direct me to where I might find a solution? I have always seen your name on various articles so that is why I chose you to ask, as I don't really have communication (certainly of a regular sort) with anyone on Wikipedia. I appreciate any help you are willing to offer or any virtual direction you suggest that I may travel in. Thanks...
Best Regards,
Steve Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm happy to try to help, but likely doomed. :) I just bungle about with the systems and have to run for help routinely. What I would recommend you do is ask at the help desk WP:HD; there are a wide variety of people there who may be able to nail down the issue. If they can't, I'd ask at WP:VPT. I don't really use the editing toolbar; I can never remember to. :/ But I just now took a quick tour through what I have, and it seems to work. But for all I know I've disabled something so that mine is the old one. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) You might consider simply disabling the new edit toolbar at Special:Preferences → Editing → uncheck "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" –xenotalk 20:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Xeno! Hey, if you have a moment, can you go stalk at User talk:LessHeard vanU? If you know anything about rangeblocks. I just asked him about them, but he can't help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry
Mario Moonriddengirl, your princess rangeblock expert is in another castle =) –xenotalk 20:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! Thanks anyway. It's worth a try. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
my name is <redacted>[User:Former user 9172] and i am a editor in wikipedia.
I saw that you have blocked my user account.
I would like you to look at the following pages that i have created :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Weiler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitris_Reppas *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michalis_Karchimakis *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyros_Kouvelis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milena_Apostolaki *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgos_Petalotis *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litsa_Kouroupaki *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evi_Christofilopoulou
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haris_Kastanidis *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haris_Pamboukis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giannis_Diamantidis *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlos_Geroulanos *
I would like you to look at the "View History" section of these pages.
The pages that have the star sign on their right side, are being constantly vandalized by specific users.
I was trying to protect these pages, but i do not know how. I read all these pages in wikipedia related to page protection and i tried a few methods such as Wikipedia:PAGE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), as well as Template:Protect:NAME , but i did not manage to protect them.
Yesterday i contacted the secretary of the Panhellenic Socialist Movement and informed him about these vandalisms and ask him to take legal actions to stop these people.
Today i contacted mrs.Litsa Kouroupaki, as well as mr.Haris Kastanidis and reported to them these incidences as well, however it seems that they did not manage to take any actions.
A few hours ago, i contacted wikipedia in +14158396885 and informed them as well.
The person that i spoke to, said that i should write a letter to info@wikimedia.org. .
He told me though, that the persons that operate this account are volunteers and not an employee of wikipedia, so it is usually taking time until some action will be taken, in order to stop these users from vandalising theses pages.
I asked him as well whether he knows what shall i type in order to protect these pages, but he replied to me that he doesn't know.
In case that you will go back to the "View History" section, you will see, that it is not me that it is vandalising, or performing disruptive editing on these pages, but the people that are editing them after me.
You can look at this page as well : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Loverdos , to understand, that even an unknown user, reverted the actions of these specific users saying indirectly that they are insane.
I did not want to call wikipedia and ask them for an assistance to take actions about these incidences, but i had no other choice as they were vandalising them every 10 minutes.
As you do understand, it is not me that it is vandalising, or performing disruptive editting on these pages, but the people that have editted them after me. I did everything possible to protect them, but there was no result.
I do not want you to take any actions whatsoever against these users.
I believe that i did not do anything wrong to have my account blocked, so i would like to be able to use my account. Additionally, if it is compatible according to the legislation of wikipedia, i will ask you not to allow to anyone to edit on them, apart from me that created them and if that can not happen, then please write to me on your reply what shall i do to protect these pages.
In case that i can not have the rights to use my account anymore, although i do not see the reason for that, i will ask you to delete every single one of these pages, as i have been asked to do in case that i can not find a way to protect them from being vandalized.
I am looking forward for your reply.
Kind regards
<redacted> User:Former user 9172
- I'm afraid based on your note here that you may have misunderstood the way Wikipedia works. We are a website composed by volunteers; with a very few limited exceptions, every page is open to editing by anyone. That you created the page does not give you control over it, I'm afraid. As it says at the bottom of every edit screen: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Articles on Wikipedia belong to the Wikipedia community, who will alter and expand them in accordance with policies and guidelines. Sometimes you may not like the way the articles are changed, but you must persuade others to your point of view. You can't just keep reverting them. Please see WP:OWN, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Too, I'm afraid that while we will sometimes delete articles as a courtesy when creators change their minds, we do not do this once they have been edited by others. If the articles meet our inclusion guidelines, they are likely to be retained.
- Looking specifically at Pavlos Geroulanos, there is no apparent vandalism in that article's history. With respect to Andreas Loverdos, I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the comment the other editor made. If you look at the changes he made, here, the content he is objecting to was actually the Greek introduced by you. The "sane" version he restored was that of another editor.
- In order for your account to be unblocked, we need some indication there that you now understand the way that Wikipedia works and are willing to follow our processes. You may certainly talk to other contributors about the development of these articles, but you can't stop them from being edited so long as those edits are within policies and guidelines, as it seems these are. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Moonriddengirl. Maybe we can also remind this editor to retract his legal threats as well as his personal attacks. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @<redacted: User:Former user 9172>: Suddenly after being blocked and having engaged in clueless edit-warfare for days and incommunicado against established and good-faith contributors you come here with legal threats and you call us vandals to boot. You need to seriously recalibrate your pattern of thinking and reconsider your baseless accusations. I demand an apology from you. I came to your talk page and wrote to you in Greek and in a very nice way. Instead of replying you chose to delete my message and those of my fellow editors without any justification. You have vacated reason in your discourse with your fellow-editors here. I strongly suggest you reacquaint yourself with the concept of civilised discourse. The time for Neanderthal dialectic tactics is long passed. Welcome to the 21st century. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here on behalf of User talk:PascalRoyal. He rather prematurely recreated the above article. I know that you deleted the talk page:
I'm a lowly regular user with no access to the deleted page. I have no idea upon which criterion the article failed WP:BAND. Maybe its a different Pedro Costa?
He is a new user (be genteel and specific); he will do things exactly as stated. For example, he moved the draft article we were discussing from his user namespace to the main namespace (creating a #redirect page, which I've since corrected). The picture uploaded for the article may be a WP:VIO?: I didn't get a chance to ask him about that. I was hoping that the article no longer qualifies for Wikipedia:CSD. The article includes references to de:Pedro Costa it:Pedro Costa sv:Pedro Costa; they don't help my cause for a non CSD LOL!. Please respond to his talk page at User talk:PascalRoyal. Many thanks! Argolin (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I did not delete the article under CSD, but because it was a copyright problem and he did not verify permission. (Thanks for pointing out the problem with the image! I've left him a note about it at Commons.) Prior to that, though, it was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, by User:Bearcat, who wrote "Wikipedia is not a promotional database; unsigned artists who have yet to release their first album are not notable." I'll come leave him a note at his talk page. I'm concerned about the promotion and poor sourcing in the existing article, though. :/ "Costa began exploring his talents...." "member of the very popular male quartet" "immortalized in a TV commercial for a local car dealership" "An uplifting song about self discovery". This article needs some serious work. :/ I'm very much afraid that it reads like there's a WP:COI here; the only contributions this user has ever made are to this article, which he's been working on since June 2009. I'll drop a word at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your help with this article. Citing articles are a pet peeve of mine. When I started on wikipedia, I had no clue how to do it. Now, I find it easy: I have a user page devoted to references modeled on Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue/Resources with example citations. I'm trying to get User talk:PascalRoyal to correct his link rot. Thanks again. Argolin (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First time I hear this term. Would it amuse you to know that the reverse phenomenon, apparently, exists? I've received email by (ostensibly) a young woman trying to hook up with me because I looked "cute and sad" on a photograph. — Coren (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! I guess we're all vulnerable. :) I went through a little time period where one contributor was very persistently trying to date me. (I'm thinking courtship rituals were very different in his culture than mine. AIR, he was the reason I added the reference to my husband in my userpage. :)) And one guy sent me a kind of risque photograph of himself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mooriddengirl.
I'm a fan of Pedro Costa's music and always thought he should be on wikipedia.
Of course as you can see I've struggled to make it a reality LOL.
I will try to make the article more neutral and find better references for some of the claims.
Many of them are just from what I know from either Pedro's website or social network posts.
I've emailed Pedro asking permission to use the image as well.
Thanks for all the help with this :)
PascalRoyal (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your note; I'll reply at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moonriddengirl,
Thank you for your response and feedback! I think I have come to the conclusion that for me Wikipedia is far more trouble to try and contribute to than it is worth - I see little point of completely re-writing articles I have already written due to some strange process in US (and I am, in the UK) Copyright laws.... Ah well...
Keep up your valuable work...
Best wishes,
Paul Pjk142 (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your note; I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've made the one statement neutral and removed the paragraph on similarities until I find some references.
I noticed that something is wrong with the formating of the references section now. Do you know how to fix that?
BTW i emailed Pedro Costa and got permission for the image and forwarded the email to wikipedia. Do I just wait now?
Thanks for all your help. PascalRoyal (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not happy as I have discovered that an article that I carefully wrote based on fact and sourceable material has been removed by this man David Eppstein. I think he has wilfully deleted the piece I wrote about my father and his position as a notable member of staff at Royal Holloway College without even communicating with me about it or indeed giving me guidance as to how to write it better.
John Healy
JohnDennishJOHNDENNISH (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect I did not compromise another article with inappropriate content as you suggest. If the individuals who deleted it had cared to check properly then they would have found that what I had written was wholly correct and not in any way contravening your rules or indeed being placed without sufficient sources.
JOHN HEALY JOHNDENNISHJOHNDENNISH (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shaming_Pillar.jpg
- Hi. :) Why do we doubt the origin of this one? I only vaguely remember Scania. Whose permission are we waiting for? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy, he/she is in Hong Kong, how did he/she took the shot? Best part of the joke, the photo comes with a damning watermark. Otherwise, why would I want to doubt the origin of this photo? Wait, its the dubious author I'm doubting here. Anyways, can't you get it deleted? This has become a copyvio eyesore long enoough already, wouldn't you think so too? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 04:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not an admin on Commons. :) You've tagged it for NPD, but without some explanation it probably won't be deleted under that rationale. I see the text on the photograph; I presume that's what you mean by watermark. I can't say with 100% certainty that Scania didn't go on vacation and take the photo, labeling it him or herself. I've looked around to see if I can find a match to the image, but I don't see anything and TinEye didn't turn it up. The thing to do might be to nominate it for deletion there, explaining why you think the copyright claim is dubious. If you haven't done that before, Commons makes it easy; it's a link in the toolbox. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DonaldET3 (talk · contribs) has a very shaky understanding of what can and can't be copied into WP, and appears to have a hazy grasp of copyright in general. I've blocked them once for copying lists found elsewhere on the Web that were clearly copyrighted, following a previous incident in which he made the natural but incorrect assumption that an absence of notice left the material free. He appears to be very young, and I hate to come across as a meanie, but I suspect he's disinclined to listen to me after the block. He's made various comments at Articles for deletion/List of invertebrates that reinforce the air of cluelessness and disinclination to follow advice. Perhaps a word from you might help. Acroterion (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I'll have a word with him. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - he wants to contribute to WP, but I, for one, never knew much about copyright until a fairly advanced age, so I'd rather try to educate the young and enthusiastic. Acroterion (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Always a good goal. We can use enthusiasm. :D One of my favorite copyright admins failed his first RfA due to off Wiki copyright concerns, but he most definitely proved that he could take on board those concerns and conquer them! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
^^Full disclosure:I am aware that you are not a child
I have come across a database of historic images run by the federal government and would appreciate some guidance. A few of the images there like this one (check Los Molinos, image sc1178.jpg) state that permission is required to reproduce that image. Would it be alright then to assume the images like this one (check most images) which do not have a "Permission required" at the bottom of them are in the PD per Fed government or really old?AerobicFox (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- edit: links did not link to the specific image.AerobicFox (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) (I have reached an age where being called a kid is not offensive to me. ;)) First, this database seems to be run by the California State University. That's not a federal government agency, but a state government one. The bad news is that most states retain copyright over their websites. The good news is that California is one of the very few states that release their public records into public domain. However, this is not necessarily true of photographs. :/ (See [2]). They are frustratingly vague as to how we are to know whether information on the state website is public domain, and I haven't been able to find any indication on that specific webpage (for the CSU) to indicate copyright status. I can't seem to get it to load the specific images, so I can't see the "permission required". If they have a habit of publishing that on images, then it may be safe to assume that the rest are okay, but best odds might be to write to them at their contact address to ask them. If they verify that all images which are not tagged "permission required" are PD, we can store that via OTRS to avoid any future misunderstandings. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the advice. I shouldn't have any difficulty getting in contact with them, so I will go ahead and ask.AerobicFox (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I thought the references would stay in one column. I see now how they work.
Is there anything else I need to do for this one? I'd like to add more info but will have to get proper sources.
Now that I seem to kind of know how to do this I'd like to do more articles. Will have find some other things to write about.PascalRoyal (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good.
I was not going to even assume that you were the same person that was emailing the artist.
Moonriddengirl is all I know ;)
As far as linking other pages in. I will think of others to link back.
You've been a great help. Creating the entry seemed like such a complicated thing. I'm glad I tried again.
Now I feel more confident to do more.PascalRoyal (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently looking at Cupp v. Murphy. As far as I can find most of it is not a copyright infringement of anywhere. However some of it was copied from the US supreme court decision. As the work of the US federal government am I correct in thinking that these are PD. The reason I ask is that in this edit User:Minimac removed some text as a copyright concern, but I believe it's not copyrightable (as part of the opinion) and so it would be best to readd it as it adds valuable context to the article. I am aware of the plagerism issues with this but I'll sort that after I'm finished with the copyright issues. Dpmuk (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, yes. This one is kind of doubly PD.:D Not only is it federal, but according to U.S. law, judicial decisions of any governing court are PD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. Just wanted to double check where I stood before I reverted another editor (if it wasn't for that I wouldn't have asked). Dpmuk (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it permissible to use a scan of a painting from 1848 which is from a book in an article? Tentontunic (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends on where you are. In the United States, per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., yes, so long as it is an exact photographic reproduction. U.S. copyright law does not regard these as copyrightable. But whether you can safely upload them may depend on where you live; just because they are not a legal issue for the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't mean they won't be for you. See National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. That uploader is subject to US law. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I am on safe ground as the book is an American one. Thank you once again for your help. Tentontunic (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct in my understanding that shared accounts present an issue for licensing purposes? See here, if you have a minute. Thanks, –xenotalk 22:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's kind of hard for me to get worked up about that one. :) I've heard people say that role accounts are a problem for licensing purposes, but frankly I've never really seen anyone explain why. Our license doesn't really seem to me to support that, and if it does, I don't know how we can permit IPs to edit. It says, "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." Every time the person hits save, they are explicitly agreeing to release their contents, so it's not an issue of one person making the agreement and others editing unawares of the requirement. (If anything, it seems to me that where we really run afoul of attribution is when we allow users to usurp the names of older accounts, since in that case we're no longer attributing in the manner specified by the author or licensor. :)) Mind you, I had never worked with a copyleft license prior to coming here.
- That said, of course, there is the pesky policy: WP:NOSHARE. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok... so bottom line being - (in your learned opinion) attribution is kindof a red herring here? –xenotalk 23:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my opinion is certainly not so learned on this issue that I would unilaterally declare a pass for such accounts, but, yes, I don't think it's a real issue. If we wanted to be really, really safe, we might require that those who wish to use a shared account (presuming we decide we're okay with them) specify a willingness to group attribution. But, again, I simply cannot see how from an attribution standpoint there is any difference between a named shared account and a user editing from a library or school or other shared IP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get your input over thataway? We need some copyright clarification from an expert. SilverserenC 02:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) I've read through the discussion (at great length...and done some additional research), but I'm not sure that I'd have anything to add to it other than another opinion. The copyright status of the work isn't really in question; while there may be precedent to not protecting works created illegally (In English v. BFC & R East 11th Street LLC it was held that a group of murals and statues placed in a garden without permission did not deserve protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act because they were placed without permission), it would first need to be adjudicated that the original photograph was created illegally and thus not copyrightable. So, we presume that the image is copyrighted unless it is proven otherwise. But that doesn't mean that our usage of the image conforms to WP:NFC, which is a subjective standard devised by Wikipedia and intentionally more narrow than "fair use." Personally, I think that the image has a very strong claim to fair use and to NFC especially in regard to Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed, where it is the subject of sourced commentary. I'm a little less convinced of its necessity in 2011 Egyptian revolution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
My name is Nandu kavalam. I uploaded information about the works and culture and systems of my place, through my books published . But in the profile when u check Nandukavalam, it comes its an autobiography and it will be deleted in 10 days since it HAS NO REFERENCES. IT DOES HAVE REFERENCES AND I ALSO QUOTED SITES AND BLOGS TO PROVE THE INFORMATIONS ARE TRUE. KINDLY TELL ME WHY IT STILL SHOWS IT HAS NO REFERENCES AND WILL BE DELETED IN 10 DAYS? my email address is nandukavalam@mail.com Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandukavalam (talk • contribs) 10:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Thank you for your note. I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have stumbled upon a long-term user who has uploaded a number of copyvios. The issue first became a concern when I reviewed Douglas D. Anderson, which was up for speedy under G12. After confirming it was a copyvio of this page I deleted it. I wanted to ensure that the article creator (and in this case the only real content contributor) was aware of Wikipedia's copyright policies, so I went to his talk page and noticed a number of copyright and unfree file notices. When I checked the editor's contributions, the first one I reviewed was also a copyright violation and I deleted it. As the editor has several hundred edits, I think they will all need to be checked. Is this a significant enough incident to open a CCI? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh oh. :( I usually go for 5. Let me take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, this is good news. :D He's only got 5 articles to which he's made large enough contributions to clear the CCI software (presuming it's working). There are like 8 images or so. I can take care of this without a CCI. :) Which is good, because the CCI software is not cooperatively producing lists. I'll see what's there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've tagged some at Jon M. Huntsman School of Business. I've removed other content from the same article. There's a possibility that the user may be in position to grant permission, as he may have created the page at the behest of the university. I didn't find any problems in the other four articles the CCI program listed (List of Business Schools in Utah, Old Oquirrh Bucket, Merlin Olsen or Mountain West Conference. The images all seem to have consistent metadata, suggesting they were made with the same camera. This would lead me to think they probably are his, unless we have some reason to suspect otherwise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was shocked to find out I was deleted from Wikipedia for "blatten copyright infringements". I just found out about this recently. Everything that was on my page was/is true. Example. I was a co-writer of the super hit "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" by Rod Stewart. Long story but my name was mistakenly left out as co-writer. It took forever, but my name is now listed in SOME alter "best of albums". I have co-written 3 other hits with Rod. I have also written other hits and have songs for major artist's releases . I am a Grammy Award winning song writer with KimCarnes and Craig Krampf for a movie called Flashdance. I am also a well known musician/keyboard player since 1968 having recording playing/credits with Jimi Hendrix, Buddy Miles, Cactus,etc. Two notes on Rod Stewart's " Blondes Have More Fun" album - John Jarvis, a friend of mine, was not the main keyboard player on that album, I was AND David Foster played the Fender Piano on "do Ya THink I'm Sexy" with me playing synth and organ. I wish you would look into this. I was sent an e-mail from you folks about where to correct this but received a e-mail telling me I had sent my info to the wrong place to your site. I truly hope we can resolve this and I can either be put back on Wlklpedia or left out because the explanation why I was exceeded from your site is wrong and very embarrassing for me. As you surely know, this is the wrong business is have bad information that makes me look like a liar. I would appreciate this being resolved as I am sure you can understand OR take the note OFF Wikipedia that I preformed a dishonest act on your site. The information you but up is blatantly wrong as I am sure you would agree if someone would look into my history.
Thanks for your time
Regards,
Duane Hitchings
615 447-5121
Captainhit@Comcast.net
Songwriter Institute of Nashville
If you would , Google my name and you will find many references to me ( MySpace, Facebook etc. )
|
