Jump to content

User talk:Moonriddengirl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.104.28.176 (talk) at 21:16, 4 April 2013 (→Web archives: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
Wikipedia adsfile info – #178
Welcome

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.

Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it.
Hours of Operation

In general, I check in with Wikipedia under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time on weekdays. I try to check back in at least once more during the day. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 23:00, 16 December 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.


RAF Merryfield & possible copyvio

I went to the RAF Merryfield article to try to add some references and found much of the text is very similar to this site. It was added to wp in 2007 (diff) but I have no idea whether wp or the other site had the text first - should I add a copyvio label?— Rod talk 21:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) A quick search suggests that website is rather new ([1]), but that's not definitive, because it could have come from somewhere else (meaning the website - they do sometimes move. :D). Their "About Us" page suggests that may be the case, as they claim to have been around since 2001. Given that, I want to take a look at the evolution of the content to see if I can tell which came first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, typo at insertion point ("to he built") suggests it was either transcribed from a book or developed here naturally. That error is not on the external site. Excellent sign minutes later with small changes such as camp->airfield and August 24->24 August. The external site uses both of them. The "Ahhot" typo is a little concerning, though, as that kind of thing usually indicates a poorly digitized source - the scanner misreads the lower line of the "b". Also note "2$" for 26 and "September &" for "September 6". Here's more of that: "Ramshury" instead of "Ramsbury". But again a change is made ("with Merryfield" becomes "with the station"). I think the source you spotted copied from us, but if I could get inside of it, I'd be looking at UK Airfields of the Ninth, the source, for matches. :/ I don't suppose you have a copy of that book, do you? I'd love to eliminate that concern. Unfortunately, the contributor who added the article does have an early history of issues (see 1 and 2, for instance. There are other CSB notices, but I'm not checking those, having verified these two). I need to make sure that the content was not copied and that, if it was, the content is PD and properly attributed per current plagiarism guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. I don't have the UK Airfields of the Ninth book but did get the Berryman one out of the library - which prompted my interest in the article. Your expertise and tenaciousness in these queries is brilliant.— Rod talk 13:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've had a lot of practice. :D I guess I'll start with WP:REX. They can sometimes help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check back at REX, me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI, OTRS, Disclosure

Hello! I heard you might be interested in this discussion. I'd love to hear your thoughts about how we as individual community volunteers could best handle this.

They involve what happens when a COI editor or representative is led to a talk page and advised to engage there. Since this sometimes happens through OTRS with sensitive or controversial subjects; I'm trying to clarify guidance on how to make it clear that COI editors even when assisted through OTRS get no special privileges and other editors have no particular obligations to do what is requested or suggested. I've also emailed the OTRS list to ask a similar question about clarifying our position in these situations. Cheers :) Ocaasi t | c 20:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talk page. I'm not yet convinced this is needed. If needed, I'm not yet convinced this is the way to respond. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've put some thoughts on the talk page, too. I'm a bit confused by the first two sections, I have to say. I think I lack the background to understand what's going on there. At my work talk page, you suggested that you were looking for "how best to make it abundantly clear that COI editors even when assisted through OTRS get no special privileges and other editors have no particular obligations to do what is requested or suggested". I guess my main question would be to whom? If you want to make it most clear to the COI editors, I would mention it briefly at every point where they are directed to OTRS, such as Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. Are you planning to propose edits to the COI page or a separate page? Either way, perhaps a clear "What you should/should not expect" section like the one here would be useful.
If you want to make it clear to other editors, I'm afraid there may be different issues - they should already know WP:Consensus and should certainly WP:AGF. Why should the motives of OTRS agents be suspect? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good points MRG. At the moment this guidance is incorporated into WP:PSCOI. I'll take a look at the Contact us page and see if there's a good place for a note. I think it already covers the community process priority, but I'll check. I don't think that OTRS motives should be suspect by default (I'm an OTRS'er myself), but I learned last week that some people interpreted OTRS requests brought to talk pages as coming from 'on high' as if they were blessed with special power. I was responding to that in drafting the text. I agree that AGF would help, but AGF and COI sometimes get fuzzy at the intersection. Ocaasi t | c 17:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where to list copyright problem - text from obit copied into article space

Hi there Moonriddengirl, I hope you're doing well.

I have a concern about text from an obituary copied into main article space, for the article about deceased journalist, Anthony Lewis.

It's technically not yet a copyvio because the user that did this also in the same edit commented-out that material for some reason.

I've raised this issue on the user's talk page at User_talk:Bmclaughlin9#Copying_New_York_Times_content_directly_into_article_space.

  • I also asked the user if they have ever done this practice previously of copying text directly into article space and then making it commented-out.

Perhaps you can help in the proper way to list this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, as I'm not sure precisely where it goes there?

The article itself is notable and obviously shouldn't be deleted, and the edit is recent, and there appears to be some good sourced info added elsewhere in that edit, but certainly at least that part of that edit is problematic.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the original material in question has since been removed from the article by the editor that added it, but this issue could still use some looking into. — Cirt (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: user removed that section I'd referred to above from his talk page. — Cirt (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think that would be a copyright issue - even commented out, the content is still published on Wikipedia. The best way to handle it is an interesting question. CP is generally for where the content can't be easily excised or where removal is controversial, with something like, removal is pretty easy. But this practice is concerning and does lead to close paraphrasing issues in articles. For instance, I see he placed text here that included the following:
Source Article
In 1991, Mr. Lewis published “Make No Law,” an account of New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 Supreme Court decision that revolutionized American libel law. The Sullivan case, applying First Amendment principles to state libel law for the first time, ruled that public officials suing critics of their official conduct had to prove that the contested statements were made with “actual malice,” meaning with knowledge of their falsity or with serious subjective doubts about their truth. In 1991, Mr. Lewis published Make No Law, an account of New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 Supreme Court decision that revolutionized American libel law. In Sullivan, teh court held that public officials suing critics of their official conduct needd to prove that the contested statements were made with "actual malice", that is, with knowledge of their falsity or with serious subjective doubts about their truth.
The first sentence is still copied exactly from the source - the second follows lockstep on its structure and includes significant runs of language.
I'm not sure how widespread an issue this may be in his writing. :/ It's generally pretty time consuming to even evaluate that. I see that the editor explained that he was interrupted when working on the material, and you've advised him that it isn't best practice - with which I absolutely concur. Hopefully, he won't continue to work in this way, but the question still remains of what may linger from the past. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. :) You're more of an expert in this arena than I, what's the next prudent step? — Cirt (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The next prudent step is to run him through the CCI program and evaluate his major text contributions to see if a WP:CCI is needed. :/ After I do a survey, I spot check generally 10 to 15 articles, depending on what I'm finding as I go. If I check five articles and find no problems, I may assume that it was a one-off, not a pattern. If I find concerning traces, but am unsure the level it reaches, I may continue to look more indepth. I'll do that this weekend. (Note to me: do it!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you very much. — Cirt (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep me posted with what you find out? — Cirt (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I've checked a number of articles that seem fine (and a few where the source is tucked behind a paywall), this is the first problem I've found:
Source Article
In 1899 he was asked to head the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey’s Office of Weights and Measures, where he developed the plan for the establishment of a bureau of standards. IIn 1899 he was asked to head the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey's Office of Weights and Measures, where he developed the plan for the establishment of a bureau of standards.

Update

Okay, I've spot-checked a number of articles, with some notes above. I see plenty of evidence of thorough rewriting in many articles, but I think there is a pattern of suboptimal composition practice, with using non-free content as the basis for writing that may then lead to inadequate paraphrase. I've popped a worksheet into my userspace: User:Moonriddengirl/20130330 and would be ever-so-grateful for another opinion or two. I am loathe to recommend opening a CCI if problems are minimal, but also hate to say, "Oh, I think corrective practices going forward is good enough" if there are more extensive issues than I've found and could see. People who can see the NYT especially welcome! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing?/Remove autopatrolled status?

I haven't contacted the author because I wanted to see what you had to say first. Minea (given name) states "Minea is a feminine given name created by Finnish author Mika Waltari for a character in his 1945 novel "The Egyptian." He may have based the name on the Swedish phrase "min egna," meaning "my own."" While the source says "Created by the Finnish writer Mika Waltari for a character in his novel 'The Egyptian' (1945). Waltari may have based the name on the Swedish phrase min egna meaning "my own"." These statements are similar to the extent that I can't imagine that it is acceptable. There's also an issue that reference two seems to either not support the statement or to be original research (it comes from some PDF's that I can't read). Finally, the references are bare urls. I haven't done my due diligence and checked other articles yet, but a really concerning thing here is that the editor has been autopatrolled since 2010. I don't know if that means a huge copyright problem might exist but I think it might be a case where autopatrolled status should be removed. Ryan Vesey 22:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I couldn't not finish my research so I checked some more:
  • Farah (given name), uses bare URL, "mirth" not supported by source, Pronunciation isn't IPA so is useless.
  • Marwa (given name), uses bare URL
  • Suha (given name), uses bare URL, i'm nitpicky here, but it should probably mention that Al-Suha is the Arabic name of the star, is the link to the special page Kosher?
  • Farida (given name), information not supported by source, bare URL (I didn't think to check these things for the earlier ones, but the article was only improved with a list of names by another editor after it was created link at creation
  • Reem (given name), contradicts the source
  • Khalid (given name), includes information not supported by the source
Problems with the linkrot/dead URLs can be seen at Ruth Herbert where 2 of the four links no longer work. In any case, after expanding into the articles, I think autopatrolled should be removed but don't think there's a consistent copyright problem. Ryan Vesey 22:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Ryan. :) I'd agree with you that the first instance is too close to the source. I'm glad that isn't a pattern! I really don't have much to do with user rights so I'm really not sure when that should be removed or when it is better to simply talk to the editor and explain the concerns. Looking at the contributor in question, he seems quite experienced - he lists at least a number of good articles and DYKs. Maybe the best thing to do is explain to him why bare links are an issue. In terms of adding content not supported by sources, I have to say that I am not encouraged by this, which was pure speculation that gradually improved when he (or she) found a source that at least mentioned Locklear and Sambora (but didn't support that their use of the name added to popularity). If that's an ongoing issue and he (or she) isn't open to discussion about it, that might be a dispute resolution situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've pointed this discussion out to the contributor so we cna see what he says. Ryan Vesey 19:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't paid much attention to "auto patrolled status" or the administrative aspects of Wikipedia so no, I don't care if you remove it. In recent years I've focused mainly on the names article and have tried to create short articles defining the meaning/usage of the names based on sources I find online. If you think there's a problem with the articles, by all means fix them. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I looked back at the various articles you referenced and I don't think I am entirely to blame for some of the issues you mentioned. Some of the information in these stub articles appeared to have been added after I created them. I meant them to be stubs that could give a quick definition and language of origin when people clicked on the List of most popular given names links. Yes, I did use Behind the name.com or other name sites online. I probably used the bare links, which I agree aren't ideal, because it was quick and I was writing them quickly. Regarding the dispute over the Ava name, the name did in fact begin increasing in popularity the year the two celebrity children were born and one of the books I had (but one that wasn't immediately at hand when I was discussing it) referenced that fact. That conversation obviously wasn't my finest hour as an editor. I'm not proud of it and hope it isn't a habit. And yes, I am a woman, not a man. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open Access?

While perusing CP, I ran across Nasopharyngeal carcinoma, which has some copy pastes from a journal article. The journal calls itself Open Access, a term I have not seen before. Their terms are here. I am worried that the final sentence may not be acceptable to us, but as it is so close, I wanted your opinion. The source is not attributed at all, so I've left a request that attribution be added as a minimum, but we need to decide if excision or major rewrite is required.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this is usable. :/ "provided that no substantive errors are introduced in the process" - who determines what's a substantive error? It does not explicitly permit modification, and that line suggests that if they don't approve of any modifications the license is void. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that pretty much matches my concern. Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Dash article

I am writing you to request semi-protection on the Julie Dash article due to long-term persistent vandalism and harassment from anon proxy IPs by WP user whose identity is known. Will provide name privately upon request. Thank you. Best Wishes Coronerreport (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've looked through the history of the article since the start of the year, and I see one negative edit by an IP: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Julie_Dash&diff=next&oldid=531860376. There are several positive edits, and a couple of weird requests for source clarification that may be valid, given that I cannot myself find any mention of "Making Angels" in the blog post linked to support it, and it is a blog post. (Could be a reliable source, though.) I'm afraid I just don't see enough to justify page protection under policy. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Web archives

ping. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded there and to the edit request at WP:C. As I recommend in both places, you should consider a WP:VPP proposal or an RFC if you wish to propose a change that substantial to policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it isn't a unilateral decision" - it seemed to be just that when it was added. But, yeah... that's the way of Wikipedia now, sadly. Can't change anything without 1000 pages of pointless discussions. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl&oldid=548729745"