|
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 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 04:39, 30 November 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
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]
Hi, I see you removed quite a bit of content from Czech Republic–Iceland relations, I have restored some of it as I don't see how it could be a copyvio; however since you originally challenged the information this is just a courtesy notification. Thanks, C679 16:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied at your talk page with a more complete explanation, and removed content again. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reply, it was much easier to address the concern once you had highlighted the "offending" url. I believe the version I have since added is free of copyright concerns and is a fair description of the sources. Of course the lead needs working on but the "state visits" seem, to me at least, to be ok. Thanks, C679 19:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you still deal with this anymore, but I think there might be another IP sock of User:Billy Hathorn at James D. Martin: 107.28.253.154. You would probably know better than me, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Canadian Paul 21:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) Almost certainly, I think. User:Amalthea and I were talking about Billy a few days ago, here. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what the best approach is to him. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know either, but I've left you another reply on my talk page earlier today. :) Amalthea 21:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just nominated File:FrederickForsyth TheDayOfTheJackal.jpg for deletion. I rarely do this because I find the procedures on deleting files at Wikipedia to be difficult to follow (Commons is easy). So, my questions are: (1) did I do it right? (2) could I have done it differently? and (3) could I have done it better? Thanks, as always.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure wherever you are you're having more fun than I am. If you read the deletion "discussion", you'll see that I am the devil incarnate. I'd really forgotten how joyless deletion discussions are. If I were to guess, I think the image will be kept, not because it complies with policy but because policy and practice don't match. Cheers.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Sorry. :/ (I was not much on this weekend, as I was helping my nephew move. Strangely, when I was online, I was on Commons!) You did everything right. :) As to whether you could have done it differently, possibly. Until April 6, that article used the first edition cover. On April 18, User:Centpacrr overwrote the first edition with the anniversary edition, for some reason. Several days earlier, he had uploaded the first US cover. Wikipedia:WikiProject Books says "If using an image of the book cover art, try to select the cover of the book's first edition." Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images says, "First edition covers are preferred." Alternatively, you might have restored the first edition for the infobox (as per established guideline consensus) and nominated the US version Centpacrr uploaded for review at WP:NFCR. NFCR is a very slow forum, but it is visited by those who are familiar with NFC and discussion there tends to gravitate less towards "I like it" and more towards "Is this appropriate?" Matters may not be resolved for months, however. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) For what its worth you could have fleshed out the nomination rationale a bit for those who don't get the shorthand and can't click links. Mentioning that it wasn't in an infobox as identification in your rationale would have helped too; I honestly doubt some of these commentors are checking the article itself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks to both of you for your comments here and particularly for your comments at the deletion discussion. Unless there's something compelling, I don't intend to comment any more at the deletion page. The two of you are handling things admirably. That said, I would like to clear up a few points because I want to understand better about how this works for the future. So, as usual, I have questions:
- Does having a non-free book cover image in a book article infobox (let's assume no other images anywhere else in the article) comply with policy? I haven't done much work on book articles, so I've never paid attention, but I have seen a lot of theatrical posters in film articles in infoboxes (just about all of them), and I don't see why they comply with policy. If it's just a matter of convention/practice, I can live with that, but it seems to me there should be a change to the policy to conform to the practice. I saw Moonriddengirl's salient comment about Virgin Killer. Now, there's something I could live with because the commentary is truly about the image itself, and the image assists in understanding the commentary. But my assumption is, just like film posters, there's generally no discussion about the book cover.
- Before Centpacrr's changes to the article, there was only one image, and it was in the infobox. In my view, it did not comply with policy. Then, he added the other image to the body along with the commentary. I objected to that, as you know, but, frankly, I would have objected to the one in the infobox, Crisco, but, as is often the case, there's a back story. Centpacrr added the image and the commentary to the Forsythe article first, and I reverted, partly because I thought the whole discussion about the book was undue in that article and because of the image. Then, he threw a hissy fit and added it to the book article, so I followed him there. As the book article now stands, at a minimum, shouldn't the image in the body be removed?
Anyway, some of this is more commentary than questions, but, as I said, what I'm after here is not to resolve this particular case but to understand better how all of this fits together so I handle this "better" next time, if I'm ever foolish enough to handle it at all. Thanks again for all your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I need your help
I need a small held on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._P._Yohannan . I had added a section controversies over there a few days back and based on some reputed media published articles. Some people are continuously removing that section. What should I do remove it ?
Dear moongirlxxxx
I wrote the wikipedia page and the IMDB page about J. Ralph so there is no copyright issue. I authorize it to be used here on wikipedia. The whole bio is neutral and contains only facts. If you object to the line "Considered by many to have had a profound impact ...", which was taken from a famous quote, I will remove it. The wikipedia page in its current reverted form contains factual errors (eg. J. Ralph does not play the oboe) and is missing the bulk of his significant career developments (eg. oscar nomination). Please reinstate my account and the J. Ralph wikipedia page.
Sincere thanks,
Charles Riggens
Eldorado74 (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hello, I am medha. I wrote the wiki article Osho Tapoban as an assignment for my english class. I request you to please clarify to me why my article is only an advertisement. If so please guide me make the article unbiased.
Sincerely,
Medha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medha0110 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK, thank you. I had found (as stated in my earlier Talk:William H. Gass comment) that one editor struck me as responsible for all the matching items, but I did not probe in detail. Note also that there had been earlier copyvio issues pre-2010, as mentioned on the Talk page: I have absolutely no idea what that involved. Choor monster (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to evaluate such matters. :) It's always good news for me when it turns out that the other guy is copying from us! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know that your talk page got signed by Sinebot. Seqqis (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC){{User:Anonymouse321/Userboxes/Signed by SineBot}}[reply]
- Thanks. I'm not entirely sure why this is useful information, though. I'm sure it's been signed by Sinebot many times. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Unexpected kindness is always a day-brightener, and today I could use one! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, calling on your expertise in these matters: Kintong (talk · contribs) created several articles that appear to rely on copied content--Peter Rogan, Roman Catholic Diocese of Kumbo, Cornelius Fontem Esua. My question is whether the articles began, and continue to be, copyright violations totally or in large part, and would be candidates for speedy deletion, or if they constitute a more complex issue, perhaps involving close paraphrasing as well. Thank you in advance, and cheers. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First one I've looked at (Roman Catholic Diocese of Kumbo) it is way over the line. :/ I've blanked it. I'll take a look at the others. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter Rogan is now blanked, too. I did an immediate purge of Cornelius Fontem Esua, but didn't find any copying in the two sections remaining. If you do, please yank them or let me know. :) Honestly, they might have come close to WP:CSD#G12 and another admin might have just gone there. With the backlog at WP:CP being what it is, I'm more inclined to go there myself. :/ But I tend to reserve that still for the kind of text dump & run that shows no effort at all, or for repeat issues (where they've been warned and continued). Thanks for finding the problem! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done--I know that's your bailiwick, and you can diagnose, parse, and handle those situations much more quickly than I can. There's a type of novice editor who introduces articles that satisfy notability guidelines, yet compromises them through copyvio. Very best, 99.0.83.243 (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MRG! Per your messege, I sorted them out and left notes on the talk pages. Neither was a clear case of copyvio, but to be on the safe side, I did considerable re-writing. The whole thing was quite a pointy and acrimonious mess, to put it mildly, and I suspect at least six of the protagonists are probably sockpuppets of the same...er... interested party. Anyhow, I just discovered the existence of Talk:Liana Alexandra/Temp and Talk:Şerban Nichifor/Temp. These need to be deleted. I don't suggest history merging as they appear to be prior disputed versions of the original articles simply pasted onto the temp pages. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, I wondered if you could take a look at an article I'm currently looking into for copyright concerns. I'd appreciate a second opinion. The article is State Board of Technical Education and Training and the copyvio URL is http://sbtetap.gov.in/view/History.aspx?Band=L&LinkId=History. In its present form the article only matches the source in paraphrasing (the article was copyedited from its original form), but if you look at the article in its original state [2] it was a blatant violation. I have two questions: 1) Do you feel the current version is sufficiently distinct to say no violation or attributable legal issue exists? 2)Do you think there is any revdel action that can, or should, be taken here? Pol430 talk to me 20:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! Well, in my opinion the major rewrite undertaken by Myrtlegroggins save this. But, yes, I've revdeleted the history. I also ran the CCI software and am greatly relieved to see that this user hasn't added much text, and that you've already cleaned up. Thank you so much for finding this and following up on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome! Thanks for your assistance and thank you very much for the barnstar :) Pol430 talk to me 18:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I am waiting for the creative commons license to publish on the IMDB page that I wrote, but can you please confirm that this is okay to post in the time being because the J. Ralph Wikipedia page in its current form doesn't reflect his accomplishments accurately, factually or in totality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eldorado74/sandbox
Thank you,
Charles Riggens
Eldorado74 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Categories as currently implemented are a worthless pain in the ass".[3] You got that right. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Hi. :) The header isn't actually mine - I think categories as currently implemented are sometimes worthwhile, and sometimes a pain in the ass. :) They're just not reliable enough for in-depth research, but if they were evenly applied, maybe. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry to misattribute you. Let me just say then that I think that categories as currently implemented are a worthless pain in the ass, and that any reasonably intelligent 14-year-old could quite easily come up with something more fit for purpose. Assuming everyone could agree on what that purpose actually is of course. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I use them a lot on Commons, anyway. :) They may be incomplete, but at least they generally have some stuff I'm looking for. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I only use them to avoid the annoying uncategorised tagging. The problem with categories is that they're a hierarchy unrelated to what most people are searching for, and they ought not to be a hierarchy at all. Try typing "19th century american female novelists" into the search box and see if the results make any sense to you. Readers don't make use of categories, and neither do I. But it would be quite easy to develop a rational solution if only there were any rational developers around. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I have made changes per your notes. I am eager to get this up as the current J. Ralph site is woefully lacking. I would like to add more, but this is a good starting point that can be built upon. Please get this approved and let me update the page soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eldorado74/sandbox
Thank you,
Charles Riggens
Eldorado74 (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I just wanted to leave a comment and apology for the way things were handled on the KP Yohannan talk page.
I wasn't part of the group, but I did get the email that asked people to comment on the page.
It wasn't a malicious attempt to abuse wikipedia, but a misguided attempt to help get the controversies section removed.
That wasn't the right way to do things, and we're sorry it happened that way.
Also, I request that you please look at LoveYourNeighbor1's account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LoveYourNeighbor1
He was not associated with the group, has a history with wikipedia, and was making constructive progress on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#K._P._Yohannan
His account was blocked, and his unblock request declined, but I believe that to be an error. We'd be sad if a legitimate user took the rap for this.
Thank you. We appreciate the work you are doing on this.
If I can do anything to help, please let me know.
HappyPmachine (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave well alone. The other website had copied from Wiki - not the other way around. So called super editors like you are a pain in the proverbal. If you wish then contribute to the Wiki but do not go around deleting things. OK.
|
