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 under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time and 21:00 Coordinated Universal Time, on weekdays. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 03:55, 2 December 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Hi Moonriddengirl. Sorry to bug you but I have a something I want a seond pair of eyes on. User:HighKing has been one of many parties involved with the disute over the inclusion/removal/alteration the term 'British Isles' from WP articles. This dispute is covered by WP:GS/BI. HighKing has a series of cautions from me about edits from June of this year to present[1][2]. He was formally warned to stop edit warring with user Stemonitis in the last 24 hrs (see[3]) and reverted him on a new article today spilling over from the dispute at the Myrmica_ruginodis article. However (and this might seem wonky but I know this action will creat a s**t-storm so I want 'all my ducks in a row') he questioned my warning and made this edit while I was in the middle of confirming that warning. Thus I want another uninvolved admin to review and give another POV on whether sanctions are warranted. I have come to the opinion that it has and have sanction TB01 (topic ban from article but allowed to discuss) from the list of remedies available at WP:GS/BI in mind. Sorry to dose this on you but I'd really appreciate some input--Caililtalk18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note also that HK as his self reverted - see here[4][5] - this hsould probably be taken into account but I would still like your POV on this--Caililtalk19:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry for my delay, but I sometimes have a hard time getting back on in the afternoon. :) I've got a doctor's appointment in a few minutes, and I'm going to need a little bit of time to look into this--I hope to be able to get back with you in about an hour. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Okay, first, this is obviously outside of my usual area. :) I agree with you that sanctions seemed called for (TB01 sounds like a good one) prior to the self-reversion. I don't know if the self-reversion is sufficient, because I do not know the editor's pattern as well as you do. Do you believe that (if MickMacNee was an aggravating factor) the contributor will be able to work within the general sanctions now? I gather from your earlier notes to him that you regard him as generally a productive contributor. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at his Moonriddengirl. In fairness to Rashers's point, MickMacNee did insert himself into a conversation about the harassment of HighKing (an ongoing problem on and off site) trying to cause trouble but I shut that down. So as regards this issue, MickMacNee has in no way shape or form been involved either with my review of HighKing's edits since June or with this last issue. He had no impact on the series of edits in question. I agree, the self reversion gives pause for thought - as it shows HighKing understands what the community's problem with this type of edit is. HighKing's contrib history, while not a single purpose account, is dominated by removals of the term British Isles. However, in the last 4-8 weeks the majority of those edits are explicitly mandated by policy. (There has indeed been action at least in the past by 'the other side' to insert the term in articles without sources. That said the confrontation with Stemonitis is not part of that dispute, as far as I can see Stemonitis is correct in his edits.) Perhaps there is another remedy that can be tried, a 0RR (zero revert restriction) for HighKing on the British Isles naming topic widely contrued. But before we go further with that - you've got mail. I'll come back to this again later tonight but thanks for your time and your thoughts, it's always good to thrash these things out with someone who's got a fresh eyes--Caililtalk15:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Note: there are issues outside of Wikipedia that make this a sensitive subject to discuss publicly, but I feel it's necessary at this point to note here that I support at least a 0RR restriction on HighKing. He is evidently familiar with Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log which notes that "Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors." "according to Flora Europaea" is not "clear sourcing" for this edit (or [6], this, [7], etc.) On July 25th, another contributor at HighKing's talk page recommended that HighKing take a break, noting "[y]ou're still labouring over replacing/removing British Isles wherever possible." HighKing took issue to that, without diffs, but actions such as the ones I've just linked seem to support that. Given the level of disruption that ensues when agendas of the sort are pursued, it is not in Wikipedia's best interests to allow it to continue unchecked. Since HighKing is by no means interested in only this one activity, putting a halt to it would not prevent his constructive contributions, but I deferto Cailil's greater experience in the area if he does not think a topic ban is the best approach. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey MRG... I know, I know, I only call when I need something. But you're just so helpful!
Okay, so, I ran into this conversation at PUF. The contributor uploaded a large number of high-quality photos and licensed them under a free license. These same photos are at his website, without notice of a free license there. He got a lot of notices about these uploads and gave up on Wikipedia in disgust, sadly enough. I e-mailed him through his website (as I detailed in that conversation), and he verified that he was the same person as User:Dmitri1999 (which is kinda obvious if you look at his user page). Does something more need to be done here? Thanks again, – Quadell(talk)00:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Pshaw! I've bugged you for assistance so many times.
The only thing that should need to be done, really, is for you to forward that to OTRS with a list of the images involved. Let me know when you do, and if nobody gets to it before I do it, I'll handle it. :) In your cover letter, just explain that you are verifying the identity of the uploader. permissions-enwikimedia.org should be the place to send them, unless they've been moved to Commons. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I am continuing contact with the photographer, to try to get as much information as possible about the existing images, and even (perhaps) to persuade him to license more of his work under a free licence. – Quadell(talk)13:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Close Paraphrasing Check
Hi Moonriddengirl, I was wondering if you could check Herb Kawainui Kane to see if the paraphrasing is too close. I have already used the Duplication Detector (results posted at the DYK nomination), but I am not sure if it is too close or not. Could you leave the feedback at the nomination page? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to take a look at this one, but it'll have to wait until I'm a bit more awake. :) Assessing paraphrasing takes more cognitive skills than I could muster at the moment. :D I'll aim to do it on my lunch break. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. Sorry for the delay. :) And the tool should probably default to the 5 word minimum. I may speak to Derrick about that. The smaller stretch is sometimes useful, but most of the time not needed. --User:Moonriddengirl15:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For your work in helping to save many, many excellent images, including a few I brought to your attention, please accept this Wikilove balloon! You're a shining star of Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell(talk)
While trying to improve sources for Alliaria petiolata, I saw that the first part of the "Description" section is word-for-word identical to this article at CitSci.org. They list four sources, but Wikipedia isn't one. At first, I thought we plagiarized them, but after carefully inspecting the history, it's clear that they plagiarized us. Is there a list of pages that are known to have plagiarized Wikipedia, so that we don't accuse our own articles of plagiarism when they are similar to one of those sources? – Quadell(talk)19:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not MRG, but you can place the template {{Backwardscopy}} (filling in the appropriate URL) on the article's talk page to preclude anyone's identifying our article as the copyvio. Deor (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. :) And if you see that the website has copied from multiple articles, you might want to list them at Wikipedia:Mirrors. Though I'm not sure that people check against that list very often; frankly, I seldom think of doing so myself. :/ Still, I try to keep it up to date with what I find. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain and movie trailers revisited
Hello, there is a discussion here about certain movie trailers and the public domain. I saw that you discussed it a few months ago here, but there does not seem to have been a final answer. Any suggestions on how to follow up? Please comment at the new discussion! Erik (talk | contribs) 19:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had a concrete answer for you! I've made a fairly useless comment there. You've already got User:Quadell involved, but you can still ask for more input at WP:MCQ, if you like. That's where I would have gone with it myself. Most of the people who hang out there seem to be pretty up on such issues. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. I've never seen that category! :O Have you considered looking at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status? I've thought about adding myself to that list, but for the next little while my time is limited in this capacity and my focus is so niche that I'm not sure I'd get many takers. :) (Sadly, not so many people want to be "copyright" admins. :/) Is it culturally frowned upon these days to self-nom? Some of our best have done it. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@MRG - there are still a few who will oppose a self-nom, simply because it is a self-nom. Not enough to derail a bid by themselves, so only worth worrying about if your goal is an unopposed bid.
I don't know if it is taboo, but people who are nominated generally have a higher approval rate... if I remember correctly. RFA can be scary enough without having to worry about the headache that is copyright; I think the last comment here may be a general feeling in the general populace. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to do a copyright check on some of the articles I have created or improved. Is there something similar to the duplication checker which checks an article against the web?RyanVeseyReview me!13:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I have now is this external checker, which is a bit of a pain, as it can't exclude mirrors and you must exclude footnotes when copying content into it. :/ Generally, I find it's easier to just spot check a few striking phrases. And hope Coren works things out with Google quickly! --User:Moonriddengirl13:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeeze, maybe Wikipedia has to get an account on Turnitin :) I was freaking out because every sentence of my lead was labeled possible plagiarism and then I realized it thought I plagiarized Wikipedia.RyanVeseyReview me!14:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Case for you to look at
...in case you're running out of work. :) Hi MRG! I decided to look over some recent DYK noms and on the 3rd one ran into Surajt88 (talk·contribs). It appears that basically every substantive article edit they have made is a copy-paste, with either very minimal or usually no rewriting at all. If you look at my contribs over the last day, you'll see what I've found and removed. Some questions:
At Stand-alone inverter I removed one clear copy, but I'm uncomfortable with the rest. I rather suspect there is more copying, but it becomes difficult to spot as there is so much interleaving of sources, and I'm not clear on whether "slicing and dicing" as in the Features and Applications sections crosses the threshold of impermissible copying. Can you have a look? I'm not sure whether removing everything as presumptive copyvio is in order here or not.
Some of their articles have been userfied, do these need to be further checked for copyvio, or blanked?
Do we need a CCI? I'm basically going through their new articles one-by-one anyway, but not sure what to do about any loose ends I leave behind.
And is rev deletion in order here, or is my slacker approach enough? ;)
I've raised the issue on Surajt88's talk page and they haven't returned to editing yet, so I'm going to wait a while for their response. Just wanted to bring it to your attention for now. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt this is a case of mass copy/pasting, but. The editor appears well meaning and a newbie, from India, where copy/pasting is a norm. Thus I felt like trying to make the author rewrite their articles, which is why userfied some of them which I immediately saw (delisted them all from DYK suggestion page). It would be a pity to lose a prolific contributor by drastic measures, thus I think a soft approach is worth trying in this case. Note that my measures were a quick reaction and are likely incomplete. Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the editor seems well-meaning and that they may find it a great surprise that the work they are most proud of may be largely invalid. That's why I'm waiting for their response before moving ahead, There seems to be some good material there and it would be much better to keep the editor, minus the bad habit. Hopefully they will respond soon, but I vculd understand someone taking a few days off when they get that kind of news on their talk page. Franamax (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Franamax, Materialscientist. Good to see you. :D First, I really like the approach that both of you took to this contributor at his talk page. I really hope that we can convince him to stick around and conquer these issues, and I agree with you, Materialscientist, that this is a cultural problem.
The question of a CCI: oi. Well, first, CCI is barely functioning. There are some contributors who keep working there (I'm sure there are more, but I regularly note and appreciate the efforts of User:Wizardman and User:MER-C) and I intend to dive in hard core once my contract ends, but it's got major limitations in getting things done. That said, it's the only option we really have if a contributor's work is too extensive for you to go through yourself or in a timely manner. (Back note: CCIs used to be something I did, unofficially, in my own userspace. Until it overwhelmed me. :)) If he's got too much to do for you to look at it, Franamax, the CCI is the best option.
In terms of rev deletion, we sometimes do, sometimes don't. :) If you don't, you need to be especially clear that you're removing copyvios to prevent later inadvertent restoration. I usually do when content is extensive, because I have myself inadvertently restored copyright problems. (Contributor introduced identified copyvio in edit 12, say, of an article, and I reverted back to edit 11--not knowing that his copyvio had replaced an earlier one by somebody else.) But what really matters is just getting the stuff out of publication. The first community wide CCI we did, we didn't bother with rev deletion--we just stubbed everything the guy ever wrote. (User:GrahamBould).
Hello again, MRG. I'm reviewing the GA nomination of John Neild, and I was wondering if you could help me determine if there are copyright problems. The author has heavily used this biography, and adequately credits the source. None of the information is copied word-for-word... but there are many tracts in which each sentence of the article corresponds to consecutive sentences in the source. Check out the three paragraphs in the "Early life" section of our article, and compare to the first two paragraphs (and first two sentences of the third paragraph) in the source. See what I mean?
On the one hand, we can't allow close paraphrasing of a copyrighted source, especially in Good Articles. On the other hand, there are only so many ways to state facts in someone's life, and we kinda have to order biographical statements sequentially, just as the source does. So is this (A) a serious problem meriting a {{Copyvio}} tag, (B) a minor problem that should be fixed before GA status is attained, or (C) not a problem?
(As an added concern, his other principle source is a hardcover book which is not available online, even in snippets, and I have no way of knowing how close the text is followed at this source.)
Hi, Quadell. I couldn't ask for a better description than this, by the way. :) Which is helpful, as I am struggling on day 3 with a persistent and annoying migraine. I can medicate it into near-submission, but it just won't go away. :P
Migraine or no migraine, it's immediately obvious what troubles you in comparing the two documents. I also understand why you're a bit concerned about the hardcover. :/ I think I would opt for (B) here. It does follow lockstep on the source, but it is as you note sequential biographical detail. It's not so devoid of creativity than it cannot be altered, but it's close enough that I don't think it warrants immediate removal. If he were not actively working on it, I'd be inclined to tag it for {{Close paraphrasing}}. I'd recommend that he try to mix it up a bit--are there are any biographical details of the period that can be obtained from other sources to break the reliance on the single source? --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question about "reciprical" editing
Hi Moonriddengirl!
It's been a while. Hope you've been having fun dealing with copyright concerns. Quick question:
If my company wants to make corrections to their article but, obviously, shouldn't be editing it since we have a conflict, is it appropirate (allowed under conflict policies, etc.) for us to go to a competitor (who appears to be editing their own page I'd say inapropriately but maybe not knowing that they shouldn't be) and suggest that we submit edits to one another in a reciprical fasion, rather than each editing our own pages (since I won't do that, I'm not sure how else I'd get the edits done)?
(talk page stalker) The policy allows you to make edits carefully, so you wouldn't have to trust your competitor. If something is veritably false (as shown through references to reliable, third party sources), it could be changed. However, to avoid COI problems you should make sure to follow all of the policies to the letter (as shown at the 4th criteria on that page). At least, that's my reading of the policy. Just keep #4 in mind. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's very good advice, Crisco 1492. :) For changes within the guideline, Ludasaphire, you can do them directly.
Your company would also have the option of proposing edits on the talk page and placing {{Request edit}} next to it. My observation suggests that you are more likely to get response to this if your edits are incremental. I wouldn't propose a major rewrite in this way, but only a paragraph or two here or there.
You might also go to the conflict of interest noticeboard and ask the editors there to review your proposed changes and, if they think them neutral, implement them. I've seen that successfully used before.
In terms of reciprocal editing, well, I think the thing you'd really have to be careful about there is an appearance of "meatpuppetry", a lovely term which refers to contributors solicited to promote the interest of another user. If you entered into an arrangement like that with a competitor, I would recommend being very open about what you are doing at the talk page of the article and being scrupulously neutral in any edits you make. The fact that the arrangement is reciprocal may be seen as a "conflict" in itself, if it seems likely that you would be inclined to slant your writing in favor of your competitor in the hopes that they would do the same for you.
Based on your feedback I'll drop the "reciprocal editing" idea. Instead, I'll write up an internal policy for how we should update our Wikipedia article using your suggestions. Depending on how they turn out, maybe I'll propose them be added as guidance on Wikipedia since I bet there's a lot of marketing people within corporations, not-for-profits, law firms, accoutning firms, and on and on, who would find specific guidance in this area helpful.
You have deleted my article about myself because of copyright issues with the bio that I wrote about myself that is on the Acmeeducatioanal.com website that is owned by me. HOW can I be in copyright violation of my own copyright? There is no such violation under the 18976 copyright act Copyright holders do not self violate the copyright they hold when they use their copyrighted material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.156.252 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The article was deleted because permission was not verified after more than a week was permitted to verify. If you were the contributor of that content, you were given information at your talk page on how to verify. As we have no means of verifying identity on account creation, we do need you to follow those processes if you wish to reuse content you have previously published elsewhere. Please let me know if the note at your talk page does not make the procedures clear. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! And especially thank you for finding the problem. :D With CorenSearchbot not functioning at the moment, we really all need to keep a good eye out for these issues, or I'm afraid we'll be swamped. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not merely on removing it, but the additional work on using the plagiarized sites as a source to at least leave the article a 'respectable' stub is particularly very nice of you. :) I wonder, would it help If I do things like that beforehand just so it won't be that much of a problem when it reaches the noticeboard? i.e. attempt to patch copyvio'd text with acceptable text, even if not quite at the same level of detail pre-copyvio. Not that I actively hunt copyvios though, I prefer article writing and losing my temper in discussions I really didn't care about that much anyway. LOL. -- Obsidi♠nSoul20:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Duane Hitchings " Captainhit"
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I believe I had contacted you before about my deletion of me - Duane Hitchings "Digital Hitch". I had an article on me and my history as a songwriter and musician when Wikipedia first started. Following is the first letter I sent you. Thank you. Duane Hitchings ( By the way, I no longer want "Captainhit" included in my credits. I have NO idea why Wikipedia put that on their page for me. I use that sometimes to keep my privacy and real name private on music and music business sites before "checking them out" Below is the letter I sent you.
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 later "best of albums". I have co-written 3 other hits with Rod – “Young Turks”, “Infatuation” and “Crazy Bout Her”. I have also written other hits and have songs for major artist's releases ( Heart, Pat Benetar, Michael Bolton, Dennis Lambert of the Temptations – my bass line and chords have been sampled on over 120 hip hop and rap artists including Tupac , Notorious Big, Snoop Dogg, Lil Wayne, N-Trance ( Europe) etc. . I am a Grammy Award winning song writer with Kim Carnes and Craig Krampf for a movie called Flashdance - "Home Where The Heart Is". 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 Wikipedia as I was before or left out because the explanation why I was from your site is wrong and very embarrassing to me. I have had quite a few inquiries from friends and powerful people who are also friends that want to know why and what dod I do wrong ! As you surely know, this is the wrong business to 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 Wikipedia wrote and claim is blatantly wrong as I am sure you would agree if Wikipedia would REALLY look into my history.
Thanks for your time
Regards,
Duane Hitchings
615 447-5121
Captainhit@Comcast.net
Reverbnation
Songwriter Institute of Nashville
MySpace.com/duanehitchingsdigitalhitch
Facebook
If you would , Google my name and you will find many references to me. I am a very well known songwriter and musician since 1968 when I joined the Buddy Miles Express to 2010 AND just started writing for Rod Stewart once again.
