This is an archive of past discussions with User:Moonriddengirl. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'm off in a bit; there's a world of other shite afoot. Look for it or not, as you wish. Have two cups ;) Thanks, Jack Merridew11:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Typically, I try to avoid it. :/ Except in the sense of bad television. Occasionally I grab the pooper-scooper and try to help clean up, but.... Well, maybe I'll brave a look after some caffeine. Maybe I'll launch the RfC, publicize it and keep working on copyvios. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Moonriddengirl, how is this? To suppose that YOU, and only YOU, can tell me what to do? I am completely BAFFLED at you. As you can see, my IP Address changes. No attack to you, but that other editor makes deletions to Seagate Technology a lot. Also, how is this that you protect a page I was playing with. You make me laugh. Thank you. 152.31.193.80 (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
As a point of order, no one can edit that page- not you, not most editors, and even though we have the technical ability to do so, even sysops like Moonriddengirl and myself don't have the permission in policy to edit that page right now. Courcelles (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems there's been quite a bit of activity here in the hour or so I was off Wikipedia.
I was not aware that the shared ip notice would bother you, or I would have made sure you understood its purpose when it was left here. You said yourself that your IP changes frequently; contributors need to know that the user of this IP may not stay the same. Among other purposes, explained in the template, the notice lets future users of this IP know that messages here may not have been intended for them (some are confused by this), and it lets those who leave future messages for persons at this IP know that earlier actions may have been taken by different people. It isn't here to hurt or offend you, but rather to protect you and users like you. If privacy is a concern of yours, your best option is to create an account.
Your note on my talk page suggests you may not understand some of the ways Wikipedia works: "To suppose that YOU, and only YOU, can tell me what to do?" I do not suppose this. My advising you on how to resolve disputes and cautioning you about our personal attack policies are actions that any contributor could have taken. While only administrators may enforce these policies, we have over 1,500 administrators who may do so. We are a community. But we do have rules.
If you are, as you seem to be suggesting, the IP who opened this request at ANI, perhaps you did not realize the potential consequences of doing so. When you first requested protection, protection was unnecessary. The article was not yet undergoing a heated content dispute. That changed, in part because of your actions. As our protection policy notes, Wikipedia:Protection, pages that are protected for content dispute are protected in whatever version they happen to be in at the time of the protection. As an uninvolved administrator, that's what I did; I have not assessed the content.
Semi-protection - which was what was explicitly requested - is not appropriate for content disputes. And there's a good reason for that: it privileges registered contributors. In this case it would have prevented nobody but you, it seems (if you are the IPs who have edited the article lately), from editing it. Every other contributor, including the one with a COI, would have been able to edit the content. I doubt you would regard that as fair.
When your block expires, your next step should be to explain at the talk page why you believe that the content is appropriate for inclusion. You'll want to support your position with policy-based reasons (our core policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). You need to speak civilly to other contributors and to respect their input, in accordance with WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS.
I think this might be a mistaken deletion. I can't access the history now, but I recall the article definitely having been developed by normal Wikipedia process; I think the RAS page [1] must have got its text from Wikipedia rather than the other way round. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. The article was developed from the time it was created, but the only way I know to prove that it was copied from us is to show that content added after creation by a different contributor was copied to the external source. I'm happy to look again to see if I missed something. The material was widely interspersed. It was never a complete copy.
Most likely, the content in the article and the content in the external site were created by the same person, David J. Farrar, and this explains the similarity. Proving point of origin, though, can be a real pain. :/ Anyway, I'll dig it up and see if I missed some proof that it was backwards copyvio. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you're right. When I saw that the first edit (here) moved the content away from the purported source within two days of creation, I presumed that the content could not have been copied from us (change of "David" to "Farrar" in the third sentence is not mirrored). But a later addition proves me wrong. Text introduced in this edit is mirrored in the external source. And so far as I can see, that's the only edit in the history of the article that supports a backwards infringement. The article didn't exactly develop by normal process; it was more a matter of cleaning up Mr. Farrar's initial text dump. :)
Hi. Been a long time since last i requested your wise advice.
Here`s the deal.
El Tri redirects to Mexico national football team because they normally wear tricolor clothes and is a nickname born from TV commentators. Now, El Tri is also the name of a (excuse the fanboyism) legendary Mexican rock band, with 44 years of career; I changed the disambiguation page, but was changed back, i leave a comment on the editor that changed it back and went looking for a guideline. i found that the disambiguation should go to the primary subject. My question is what is more important and/or encyclopedic? A Nickname or a band (unfortunately for my argument the band article was visited a little over 150 times last month and the team article well over 300 000 times)
Hi. El Tri didn't used to redirect; it used to be the article on the band. It was moved without conversation on 18 June. This is fine per WP:BRD, although I've advised the mover that he needs to follow through with the process completely on moving pages. But since you have evidently concerns, the move is contested. Pending resolution of this issue and primarily because all incoming links refer to the band, I have restored it to its original location and advised the mover.
Which article is hit the most doesn't answer the question of which one most uses the term, since we don't know how many people who visit the football team are using the nickname to get there. What we need to figure out is how relatively likely people are to use the term to find which topic. It may be possible to get an idea by looking at google or some other search engine to see where the term is used with higher frequency. Today, out of the top 10 hits, 7 are for the band, but the top is for the team. This may not be simple to determine. You should discuss the matter at Talk:El Tri.
If the two of you have difficulty reaching a decision, I'll be happy to suggest some ways to invite others to contribute to the conversation. If a determination is made to move the page, you must correct incoming links so that those expecting to find articles on the band do not instead arrive at the page for the football team. Moreover, the football team must at least have a hatnote telling those who expect to find the article on the band where it is. Our job is to make things easier for our readers; not harder. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
He just removed my notes from his talk page. He has no desire to work with me and by the WP norms. Maybe you can get through to him.
Look at his English:
"In 1946, Ted Lyons, former Chicago White Sox teammates with Moe Berg (1926-1930), was the new manager of the White Sox, offered Berg a coaching position. Berg declined. Boston Red Sox owner Thomas Yawkey, who was much closer to Moe Berg when Berg played for Boston Red Sox, offered same as Lyons' offer, but Berg still turned them down. Berg did not apply for a teaching position, join a law firm." from Moe Berg.
Hi. It seems like he's decided to communicate with you, which is good. If his English is not strong, though, you might want to avoid idioms like, "Age 20 ain't going to cut it anymore on this cattle drive." Might well confuse him. :) If you do not speak Spanish, which is evidently his native language, you might want to recruit somebody who does to help explain your concerns with his editing. User:Alexf, for instance, is an administrator for whom Spanish is native. (You can find Spanish speakers in Category:User es.) Alternatively you might ask at Wikipedia talk:Translation. I'm afraid that the only languages I've studied enough to claim fluency in them are solidly dead. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
His name appears Spanish, but his edits appear Japanese (or maybe Taiwanese). The bulk of his edits are in that area, and not Spanish articles.
Yes, I often think about a hundred years ago that Oxford and Cambridge stressed so much the importance of Greek and Latin for the next 50 years while their empire was dying. If they had spent that time and effort on International Trade. I just can't see why they put so much time and effort into such studies. The U.S., Canada, and Australia, should right now require a year of either Chinese or Hindu. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:CP
Sorry about the mass of blanked articles that came up for review today, but since DumbBOT hasn't been listing them like it's supposed to (and Tizio hasn't responded to my question about it yet) I started doing it once VWBot started making the lists for me.
On a somewhat related note, VWBot is currently approved to trial listing newly-tagged close paraphrases at WP:CP. Is the format I used for the last entry here fine (including the source if it's tagged with one of course), or would you prefer some other format to make it stand out from the copyvio-blanked listings? (Talk-page stalkers also invited to comment.) VernoWhitney (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I figured it was something like that. :) I'll catch up with it eventually (knock wood) and maybe get to work on some painting articles. I think that format works just fine. We have to look at every listing anyway; my thought is just to determine if it's a close enough paraphrase to constitute a copyright problem or not. If not, I may retag it (with what? Dunno). If so, I'll rewrite it or blank it for further work. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl,
I'm not sure about the citations for this edit, (I fixed the formatting, it's not my edit) [2]. Do we use Youtube as a reliable source? It's from an IP, I put a welcome template on his page with editing info, but I don't know what to tell him about youtube.Malke201020:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, my. Sometimes YouTube can be a reliable source (for instance, if it's hosting a reliable news broadcast from the news service itself), but in this case those are clear problems under WP:LINKVIO. The uploader at Youtube is obviously not the copyright holder. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad I asked. So if ABC News uploads its broadcast to Youtube, we can use that in an article citation, because it's theirs. But if Joe at Home does it, then no, that's a copy vio?Malke201020:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for trying to drum up some response at WP:ELN to my WP:COPYLINK question. It seems that copyright issues don't worry/anger/excite most people as much as they do me.
As it happens, my other pet hates are false claims and the misuse of sources, so it's not surprising that my 'contributions' at Wikipedia have been mostly deletions rather than additions so far. I have some hope to reverse that in the long term, but it's distant aspiration right now.
Many thanks and all the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I think a lot of people aren't familiar enough with copyright to feel comfortable taking it on. :) Plus I'm sure that some of them don't quite grasp the importance of the issue, given widespread copyright violations on the internet. Never mind damages to the copyright holder, they don't quite get the potential impact on the WMF. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Mary Engle Pennington
Sorry to drop this article on you out of the blue, but I recently spotted Mary Engle Pennington and had been intending to clean it up, but was wondering if that counts as a copyvio? It looks copied from some book, but what is done in such cases. Is it simpler just to clean it up and convert into a stub, or should the editor who added that article be asked where the text came from? Carcharoth (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is. :) Not a copyvio, just a bit of plagiarism from [3]. I wouldn't regard it as a serious issue even under that guideline, though, as creativity is minimal.
As to a general approach, I think it depends on the activity of the editor. If the editor is currently active, you can ask, if you can't find it yourself. (I would usually try to find it myself because, honestly, not everybody who copies text is going to admit that.) Otherwise, just cleaning it up is fine, though I might leave a note at the talk page explaining why I had done so. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) No, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid not, at least not anymore. :/ Since we underwent our licensing transition, we can no longer accept content under GFDL unless it is also compatible with CC-By-SA. Would have been perfectly fine before November 2008. See our copyright FAQ for a list of some compatible licenses. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your, as always, prompt response to my query! I have read the Copyright FAQ to which you directed me and found it very informative. (This is not to say that I will remember any of it by this time tomorrow, however!) From it I have confirmed, as you say, that since the material at Camerapedia.org is available only under a GNU Free Documentation Licence and not under CC-BY-SA, it cannot be brought over here. By the way, and just out of curiosity, why did Wikipedia migrate from GNU to CC-BY-SA? — SpikeToronto19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yup, and the burden of having to reproduce the entire GFDL on reuse. If there were other motivations, I never heard about them, but it didn't really matter to me which license we wound up with. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses! I now have a very vague recollection of when the migration occurred, I just could not remember why. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto15:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
reviewer status
Hi Moonriddengirl,
I'm supposed to have reviewer status, but I never did get a reviewer status template, and I'm not seeing any 'pending changes' so something is not working there. Could you take a look/fix it? Thanks.Malke201018:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Great! Thank you very much. :) Cats are, of course, not copyrightable and hence there's no problem. That intro sentence is also insufficiently creative to constitute an issue. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm here to ask a favor
Hi, there is a banned blocked user putting garbage here. This is the same editor I was asking about at the administrator's board to see if the IP's could be blocked. I understand that they can't be but would you be kind enough to semi protect Wildhartlivie's talk page since it's under attack? I've also been getting messagages from this IP on my talk page but for now I'd don't want the protection, at least not yet. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk19:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Since problems have persisted after this, I've temporarily protected. If this continues after it expires, longer term protection may be a good idea. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much, it very much appreciated. I will let you know if it continues after this protection. I sure hope she gets bored. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk22:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Some people get quite bold when they are editing with their cellphone. My guess is that being permanently banned has had its ill effects. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
An editor has added an image to Tea Party Movement, but there is no credit for the image, i.e. who made it, etc. [4].Malke201013:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
If you think the source information at File:Second Revolution Flag 2x3.svg is incomplete, you might ask the uploader to fill in it. Since obviously he didn't take it as a screen cap of that shaky video, I'd agree that more info is needed. He probably means it was based on that, but specificity is good. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't know if that would be okay. Glad to hear it looks good. It's an interesting addition.Malke201015:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was wanting to know the validity of deleting the info on the LeFlore Magnet High School Page? I was hired in 2007 as the school's historian and web designer. I know that you may not have been aware of this, but I typed all of this info onto wikipedia before I put it onto the school's website. When you viewed the school's website, you must have thought that I took it from the school's website and put it onto Wikipedia? It was actually the reverse. That's all that I can think of as a reason for deleting our school's history at such a critical time in the graduation of our heritage to the next stage of education. Either way, I composed all of the information from scratch back in 2007 & 2008, that was viewable on Wikipedia and our school's website. I'm listed on LeFlore's school website by my first and last name while my log in for wikipedia is my middle name? Did you think that those were different individuals? I'm not about the glorification of school's, I'm about the promoting of education. There are many LeFlore Rattlers that don't have access to our school's history book because everyone doesn't visit the school's website. Primarily because if it's in Wikipedia, it googles first. This is where my situation with this deletion comes in to play, because LeFlorians aren't educated on all that is or are mislead to believe that there is nothing more than what is displayed. That's not educable. Of the many articles donated to Wikipedia, legitimately educational ones would be believed to have some priority to many since education in America is currently at an all time low. I'm an educator in Alabama and California simultaneously and would go the distance for any school and school board that I'm employed with because I'm about the education of America not the glorification of any school. I dug deep into the school's archives, spoke with the teachers and the principal that have been employed at the school since its inception, contacted the local news stations and libraries, the school board, and interviewed past graduates to compile the information posted to this website. Someone's or something's history has to begin somewhere with someone creating a template of who the school is as an idea, school, and character-builder. That was my job so the information is valid. I wrote it as objectively as possible for this is what I was employed to do, so I only know to do my very best. I need your help. Thank you ma'am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santeni (talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I have recently added data about Awam a 1987 Hindi Film.
I dont know the reason but some one is opposing the article and it has been propsed to b deleted.
Please if disambiguition is to be provided then please you yourself help me out as i dont really know how to give refrences.
Article about Awam- the Rajesh Khanna film is obviously genuine.
Please respond in my talk page.
Following are the links where details of the film are given
THIS site actually gives 2 stars to a movie -- named awara ladki
the picture awam doesnt appear in that scanned paper.full details of the book is not there.
which sorces should i bring as ever where either the Vcd is on sale or its about the songs.
By the way Rajesh khanna movie it is so if the plot , cast ,song details are given so that layman gets to know about this film released in 1987 --wats wrong in that.
Refrences given by me say that there was indeed a film by that name.
Sometimes it happens that comments or even about an article everything is written only for the 1st time.
The plot of the film is a must.
I did reproduce them in my own words but someone has again deleted it.
Hope- the line that it would be deletd is removed.
Reason being --I hve provided the cast,songs and plot too.
At the time of its release it didnt perform in box office like any other usual Rajesh Khanna or BR Chopra film. But reality is its a good dfilm with a message and it didnt flop at the box office.
Amar (Rajesh Khanna),a captain and the son of a freedom fighter is employed as the P.A. of Jagrattan (Om Shivpuri), the minister of Defence Purchases on the recommendation of Mohanlal (Shafi Inamdar), his father's friend.Amar meanwhile also falls in love with Sushma,daughter of Mohanlal.On meeting Colonel Zaidi (Nana Patekar) Amar learns that he was purposedly shifted to DELHI so that he can unviel a mystery. In a few days Jagrattan gets killed but he does give a clue to Amar before his death. Thereafter the story is all about how Amar gets the culprit exposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrik88music (talk • contribs) 18:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello there! I noticed that you deal with copyright issues, so I was wondering if you could take a look at this recently-started article for Maroon 5's next album. It appears to have some copy-pasted content from the sources it cites. Moonriddengirl(talk)00:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. That was incredible. Not in a good way. :( I've deleted the copyright problems and cautioned the IP who added the content. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Sorry it was not-in-a-good-way incredible. Oh, is there any chance you could check out one more thing? Someone accidentally started two AfDs for an article using Twinkle. The AfD log for July 6 was displaying the second nomination, so I just edited it to show the first nomination. If you just deleted the second discussion page, which is no longer visible to anyone and has no deletion discussion on it, would the matter be resolved? I don't think it's a big deal, but I don't know for sure because I've never dealt with something like this. Cliff smithtalk00:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl, Cliff smithtalk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Why, thank you. :) It's always a pleasure to help out, particularly with stuff this easy. :D (No matter how unpleasantly incredible the first situation was. I mean really. Wow.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for setting up the initial post for the Asia Petrochemical Industries Conference. I represent the company that is responsible for creating the website for this major regional conference. Please see - www.apic-online.org. As I am still relatively new to Wikipedia, can you please advise how I might be able to get the APIC logo updated in the current post on APIC which I believe was done by you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Petrochemical_Industry_Conference.
Thank you for your advice. I will be more than happy to continue enhancing the initial work done by you but honestly speaking, sometimes it can be very disappointing making the contributions only to have someone delete the entries. I had previously submitted some posts but got deleted because it was felt that they were advertisements. I disagreed because I was merely making it known to the members of the industry of the existence of some forum which would be of interest for them to participate. In a sense there are many similar posts in the Wikipedia which appears to be of similar orientation and yet have been left unedited - these are particularly those of multi-billion dollar corporations.
I sincerely hope you will restore my faith in Wikipedia.
How would I best word the RfC so that it would cover the larger question? And this would not be forum shopping, right?Malke201018:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'll come talk about this at your mentorship subpage. I started a reply to you there long ago, but real life keeps pushing at me. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
That's the way it's usually done. But you would want to be sure to make clear that this is a broad issue relating to images in general and not specific to a single article. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking the big question seems to be, is there really a policy that prevents these images?Malke201020:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, the admin suggested this: [5]. The continuing arguments, etc., and behaviors should really be dealt with there. I don't think any of this has anything to do with valid policy. It's just disruption.Malke201021:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on an answer to your first question but am interrupting to address your second post. I have two questions for you: (1) Has your experience at ANI suggested that this is likely to be helpful? and (2) In what way (specifically) are User:History2007 and User:Scolaire being disruptive? --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
That would seem to start from the supposition that all images should belong. :) But I can actually answer that question: yes. WP:CONSENSUS. The mother of all policies (outside of WP:C and WP:BLP, which are handed down from on high.) And consensus, of course, could be the same policy that includes them. If consensus found original research or lack of verifiability, then those policies would prevent them. If consensus found the images were UNDUE, not reflective of general perspective, then WP:NPV would prevent them. If consensus found that the artist's interest in using these images was to promote his commercial website, then I guess it could be an issue under WP:NOT would prevent them, under WP:NOTPROMOTION.
An RfC that starts with the question, basically, "What's stopping us?" isn't likely to help much. :) People could answer "Nothing" and still develop consensus not to include them.
If you don't want to, you certainly don't have to start of even consider an RfC; User:History2007 was looking for a wider forum, but seems to have dropped the subject for now. If the debate does not spread beyond the current article, a wider RfC is not likely to be helpful...though an RfC about that image, at that page, might. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Lest you think me crazy, I sure wouldn't be going to AN/I. An RfC on the talk page might be a good solution.Malke201021:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, I'm putting a reply on our subpage, as I think that's probably best to keep it there.Malke201000:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's nicely complex. :/ The unidentified college students are almost certainly the copyright holders under U.S. law; copyright should be conveyed by legal document, such as a formal "work for hire" situation. Students do not generally assign copyright to their professors, even if they turn their papers in. If they did, their professors could pick the cream of the crop and save themselves some trouble in that "publish or perish" problem.
Really, we would either need verification either that copyright was transferred to the professor or that she was authorized to license the material. The former could be helped if she could produce some paperwork - the document signed by the students, say, indicating that they've released their rights to her - and the latter would require identification of and communication from the students.
I've taken over the OTRS ticket, but I'm not really sure that this situation is going to resolve well. I'm afraid that they probably don't have proper authorization to release this content. :/ Do you want me to write them back about this via OTRS? --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The way they phrased it seems to imply that the students knew that the article will be published on WP. Does that make any difference? It would be great if you could write them back. Thanks a lot! T. Canens (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Not really, since we don't know if the students understood the extent of the license they'd be granting. But I will gladly help out. I'll write them back tomorrow. :) (It's nearly my bedtime!) --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, notwithstanding bedtime, I went ahead and wrote them while it's all still fresh. :) For my own reference and any other OTRSers who care to peak, it's at Ticket:2010061510047321. If perchance they should mention that communication on your talk page and attach my name, please discretely remove it. I try to keep that name off of Wikipedia. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The above mentioned thing I have collected from different sources.How can I improvize moe.Can you help me when you are free so that this contribution of mine doent get wasted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alag_Alag
this is the link where u can help me out
WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Images and Media for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like a great cause, but I'm afraid that I'm not that active in the project. :/ I'm in it primarily as an adjunct to my copyright work. I helped out more when it was first getting going. However, I've notified the guy who was really the driving force behind its creation (User:Drilnoth) and also sent an e-mail to User:Quadell, who was also quite active in its early days. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I should be able to spare those. :) I don't have it right now; I'm behind on my copyright work today, but I'll try to get to it later today or early tomorrow if that's okay. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
All right, I've run it through two mechanical detectors with no match. That's good. I've read it over and compared it to the sources, and I think you've done a good job. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, if you don't mind, I'll ask for you to look over the next few articles I create just to be certain. CTJF83chat01:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, instead of splitting the page history, I just moved it back. You can go ahead and copy & paste it. That's way less complex than doing the limit restore and move and then the rest of the restore. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll be by soon. When copyright questions require three opinions (I'll gather, since yours is labeled "second opinion"), I want to be able to focus fully on it. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
One Tree Hill
Hello, I was wandering if you can help me. There's this IP who keeps making an edit to "List of One Tree Hill characters" and won't stop. I have posted a message on the users page that's gone unanswered (I've forgotten the page where the vandalism templates are). Can you either semi-protect? Block the user? or point me to the place where I can post and admins can decide. Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Good heavens, that's a long article. :) I'm not at all familiar with One Tree Hill outside of Wikipedia and I don't usually work on television articles, so I can't tell: can you explain what he's doing that's vandalism? Why is this wrong? Once I know that, I can better get an idea how I might help. Semi-protection wouldn't be appropriate, because he's the only guy doing it, but blocking might be if it's blatantly wrong. If not, I might try to just explain to him why what he's doing is a problem.
Basically, current regular characters and former regular characters should be separate until the show is cancelled. Recurring and Guest Stars should be separate as they are different things. He adds a box to the top of the page a box which is usually only on the main page of the TV show itself. I like to keep things on there scope, for example every tv show characters page to be of the same format. Which is is with my edit. 2 other people have reverted his edits too back to my edit, so I think that's the consensus on the matter. He never replied to people either, so I don't know how you'd be able to speak to him. Jayy008 (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
He may or may not listen. But while I see a bunch of warnings on his talk page, I don't see that anybody has explained to him why what he's doing is wrong.
He put 2 1/2 hours into the article in one stretch yesterday, between 13:50, 6 July 2010 and 16:32, 6 July 2010. That's an awful lot of work. If he doesn't know how to read edit summaries — and a lot of newcomers don't — he might be pretty confused as to why his work isn't acceptable. Even if he does, he still might not really understand. You wrote something here, but most people who have reverted him are just labeling it "vandalism". WP:VANDALISM explains that any good faith effort to improve an article is not vandalism. Even if what he is doing is against consensus and he keeps doing it after he's told that, it's not vandalism; it's disruptive editing. Blockable, certainly, but a different kind of thing.
Anyway, I'll go and encourage the guy to take it to the talk page. Would you mind posting a nice explanation at that talk page about the problem? If you're willing, remember when you're writing it that this guy has put hours into what he probably thinks is a good approach and may be a bit dismayed to find out he wasted his time. Be friendly. :) If he doesn't work with process after that, we'll have to consider other options. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Woops. I will afterwards. I think for now I just want to tell him why, and then if he still disagrees I'll tell him to bring it up for discussion. Because for now it's only him that disagrees I only want to discuss with him about it to see what his problems are. Jayy008 (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If you do it that way, you'll be contradicting what I've already said to him at his talk page. I think it's a better idea to demonstrate yourself how content disputes work, since he's not likely to know. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Got it, I'll see if he replies first on his user page to you or to me. Because then I know he's willing to actually discuss. If he does reply I will post a discussion straight on the talk page of the OTH character article. Jayy008 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I said, it's been brought up before, but I found your explanation very succinct and easy to follow. :) Somebody was planning to do something about it a while ago, but then went on Wikibreak (sorry for the vagueness; can't currently remember who and it doesn't seem worth searching out at this point!). Once of the reasons for the autoblanking is that people often didn't remove the text at all, so keeping the autoblanking is probably going to be a good idea, even if the instructions are now again to remove the text. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Bandish
another problem i want you to solve.
see the page i created is Bandhish but the films name is Bandish.
all the data provided me is right w.r.t cast,music,plot but please do something by which if we type bandish in google we get the article made by me.
if i click on Bandish the artcile must come. and is shouldnt be Bandhish.
what should be done so that if people search for bandish then the artcile i wrote shold come as the first one?
the 1980 film starring Rajesh and hema malini which becams a big superhit.
the films name is Bandish
what i want is that the article of wikipedia which i have contributed-- should appear when some one types bandish in google tab.
right now only hindustani music related one --article named bandish is appearing.
the place where the film article is present --there there is a spelling mistake-- it has been wrongly written as Bnadhish.
same mistake has appeared in case of CHHAILLA Babu. wikipedia article has spelling of Chaila babu,which is wrong
spelling should be bandish and any layman should be able to get access to my contribution when he mentions the film's name as - bandish - directly, instead of mentioning bandish 1980 film etc..Shrik88music (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
this is the spelling which should appear in the article.
to make it convinient for a lay man is it possible to redirect him -- if he searches foir say Chaila Babu or Chailla Babu or Chhaila Bbau -- all to the same place where its written Chhailla Babu.
in this article in the above link, filmography is given but in that -- the film bandish appears in red colour as if no data is written about it in wikipedia.
what i want is bandish should appear in blue colour. what i suggest is the article about the film appear as --- Bandish(film)|Bandish in edit mode otherwise at present its embrassingly appearing as film name followed by a bracket Bandish(film)120.138.125.75 (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajesh_Khanna
in this article in the above link, filmography is given but in that -- the film bandish appears in red colour as if no data is written about it in wikipedia. what i want is bandish should appear in blue colour. what i suggest is the article about the film appear as --- Bandish ie only name of film in blue otherwise at present its embrassingly appearing as film name followed by a bracket- Bandish(film) Shrik88music (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
What I would have done is post a link beneath his unblock request linking to the warnings you gave him and explaining that his removal of these warnings is evidence that he had read them. User:FisherQueen is far too savvy to fall for that kind of trick, but it makes it amply clear to other admins that he's not being truthful. :) And, no, I would not unblock following clear warnings such as you gave and given an obviously bad faith unblock request. If he had said, "I'm sorry; I won't do it anymore," I might have given him early release. But that's not what happened. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
hello there moonie. So here is a question maybe you can look into - came across some photos and checked them and a conversation about them. At first glance things seem to be in order because they have an ORS number however what I am wondering is this: the person the photos are of appears to be the person who released them into "public domain". On the "public" side I don't see anywhere that the uploader says the subject had obtained permission from the photographers, perhaps the OTRS includes this information? For example look at File:Yusuf_Islam_and_David_Spero.JPG, it has an OTRS and the permission listed says "David Spero gave permision to use under a free license". This is much like other images upped by the same user about the same subject, the photos all have David Spero in them and they were originally obtained form his facebook page. According to this thread the uploader contacted a newspaper who directed them to the subject, David Spero who, in turn, released the images into public domain. Speaking as a photographer I would be more than a little upset if the subject of one of my images gave my work away without my permission which, at face value, seems to me is what happened here. But my question is can you or someone with OTRS access check the actual letters sent to OTRS to see if the original photographers gave the subject all copyrights? File:Yusuf_Islam_and_David_Spero.JPG File:Michael_Stanley_and_David_Spero.JPG File:David_Spero_M105.JPG File:David Spero with his father.JPG File:David_Spero_1990.png <== No OTRS but sill PD File:Spero_in_Ante_Up_Studio_B.jpg <== No OTRS but is PD and says "Photo by Josh Solomon of David and Adam Spero while recording at Ante Up Studio B in October, 2009"
Thanks - and I know Photos is more my thing than your thing but the OTRS is throwing me off and thought you could offer and another view on it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm looking into the OTRS matter. For confidentiality reasons, I can't say much about your other concerns. I'll talk to the contributor about it via e-mail. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As for the "confidentiality reasons" I am not so much concerned about the "who is it" as much as I am about the possible copyvios. But, as an aside, I took a closer look at File:Josh_and_the_Empty_Pockets.JPG and while it was upped by User:Ludasaphire it is being used in a sandbox by User:PhillipSoloMoN at User:PhillipSoloMoN/Josh and the Empty Pockets and who also created the article about Solomon curve that, according to the article, "is the graphical representation of the research conducted by David Solomon." In looking over the history that article was created in mainspace by User:Ludasaphire and User talk:PhillipSoloMoN has edits made by User:Ludasaphire. So the "who" part of this may be not so private after all, in which case I stand behind my COI thought. A family member doing articles about other family members would for sure be COI. I think their are multiple issues going on here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I cannot comment on that one. :) If there are COIish issues with the content, you might choose to address them. But the copyright matter, I'll get back to you on as soon as I get more information. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I know you won't forget - even on this 4th of July. Now go eat something with family and watch fireworks...well, too early in the day for the fireworks part. :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing in the OTRS communications to indicate on what authority David Spero is releasing photographs in which he is the subject of the photo. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
So what is next step than? If I slap an copyvio or invalid license tag on them the OTRS comes into play as why they are all acceptable. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure, honestly. I have talked to one Commons admin who believes we should make OTRS releases public, but we can't do that without getting clearance for it from our correspondents. I think for transparency, it could be a good idea. I'll raise the question at the OTRS mailing list of how to challenge a release that has OTRS clearance. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I think OTRS should be private in some regards but in other it should be freely available. In the case of images it for sure needs to be more open in regards to the "who" part. This is a perfect case for that - we have several different photographs that are clearly not taken by one person where the sole subject, or one of the subjects, has released them all to Public Domain. I think the whole OTRS = Private issue should not apply in this case for a few reasons - namely every photograph says it is from "David Spero's private collection" with a link to his facebook page. You and I both know that we can not take images from social networking sites, or anywhere on the internet, (or even our own private collection) and claim them to be our own. Clearly the uploader has not made a claim they are his photos but the OTRS, combined with the links to the subject of the photos facebook page, clearly indicate that David Spero is claiming them as *his* own. I think it is clear he did not take any of the photos in question. In which case the OTRS, unless it came from each individual photographer, is invalid if he, himself, or a third party acting on his behalf, actually made/submitted the OTRS. Combine all this with an account that is now looking like an SPA gaming the system with COI articles and this entire thing, to me anyway, becomes more questionable. (FYI - I have opened a Quick Checkuser request related to this as well) Now if this OTRS were public, at least to the extent we all could freely see who made the request and than we could easily see if, indeed, the uploader is also the subject of an article they created and, if that is proven to be true, than the subject was/did have a close personal relationship with the subject of another article they created and uploaded photos given to them in some manner by the subject of said article. And, in turn, they are in some form closely related to yet another article they created.
And as an aside, last year there was an article I had added edited and cleaned up, adding links/citations and some minor information and an editor/admin with OTRS access started removing some of the the information, claiming the sources cited were no good. When I added even more the same editor removed them and, more importantly, said there had been an OTRS submitted saying the information was not valid. I questioned who it was because the subject in question was dead and anyone else would have been closely involved, in which case Wikipedia has rules/guidelines that address information being removed by subjects of articles. Of course I was told OTRS is private so they could not say who the information was from only that some of the information I had cited wasd claimed to be incorrect. I had a hunch who it may have been but, of course the editor/admin would not tell me. Unknown to the editor/admin who had been warring with me about the information, I had gotten an email from the person who had sent in the OTRS. They actually confirmed the information was correct, not incorrect, but that the wording of in the article may be misleading to someone reading the article. As this user had been issued a few COI warnings in the past they did not want to edit the article themselves - so they sent in an OTRS. (I have issues with that as well because we don't allow the subject of an article to edit their own article but this seems to be clearly saying that if they submit an OTRS the article can be edited with whatever information they want. That is wrong as well - and another reason we need transparency with some of these OTRS's) Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a conversation currently ongoing on the OTRS mailing list about how to handle these cases. Evidently one of the OTRS permission lines in another language Wiki has a line indicating who granted credit. This seems sensible to me. Maybe something will come of that. We have to cite the source when we mark permission for text, so it shouldn't hurt too badly to mark it for images as well. I'll update you.
I also work the courtesy queue, so I know that when we receive complaints from article subjects, we have certain things we are and are not supposed to do (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help explains some of these). I'll admit that it can be a tough balancing act. I had one situation where I was trying to help escalate to legal because I didn't help enough. :( Help too much, and we overstep our bounds. I don't know the specifics here and am not asking, but there's a delicate balance. Granting privacy to people who complain to OTRS is really meant to give BLP subjects an outlet that does not require their self-exposure - an important legal safeguard, I'm sure, without even taking into account the moral issues - but perhaps it's also meant to protect whistleblowers?
Hi, Can I ask for your help in applying WP:CALM between me and Malk please? All of a sudden pages I have created are getting tagged and edit wards are a few minutes away. Calm is needed, and Wikihounding is to be avoided - which I hope has not been the case. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I am talking to Malke, but I wanted to ask you to please be careful when restating the position of others. I am not Catholic and my studies of Catholicism are strictly limited to the early Middle Ages, so I have no opinion about the debate here, but I know Malke has expressed her frustration on feeling that her words are being misrepresented, and I'm afraid that statements like, "So now you have agreed that there are two different chaplets." distress her, even if you follow it up with "Do you accept that or do we need to continue to discuss that?" She may not be alone in that. It might be better to ask more directly, "Are you saying that you agree there are two different chaplets?" than to seem to be "leading the witness", for lack of a better metaphor. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
He's posted on our subpage and since that page is for us, perhaps you could move his comments here?Malke201021:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
You should also know that he's now using the subpage as part of his argument to the 3rd Opinion Noticeboard.Malke201002:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, I moved the comments to my talk page but they would probably be better here since they are addressed to you.Malke201002:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Blocking
Thank you for your help. It was very fast you sorted the problem, I'm very greatful! What happens after the block expires and he persists; permanent blocking? Jayy008 (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
No, we don't permanently block IPs. But I have to warn you that you need to be careful, too. Remember that not much is an emergency, and you also have to be careful not to cross the "three revert rule". The difference between vandalism and content dispute can be a fine line, and you may sometimes need to explain at the talk page why you know that the edits are the former rather than the latter. You mention the removal of characters: is there any chance that this is done in good faith? Are they marginal characters or might the IP feel they don't belong? Please make use of the article talk page to discuss these things. That's what it's for. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Basically, I've tried talking to him as have other editors in the past. The characters he deleted are the five main ones, I always personally delete the non-important characters. I don't know why you say discuss things on the article talk page, I'm not being rude, it's just he won't even listen to go there, he ignores everything we say. Sorry, it's just frustrating getting ignored. To me, it's not a content dispute I just overhaul pages to meet how other pages are. The way he's doing it is different to how it's ever been and it's odd. I was perfectly happy to discuss the issues but obviously that's not an option. Could the page be semi-protected? If I take it as a request, they'll just say "not enough IP vandalism". Jayy008 (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The note of explanation at the talk page isn't just for his benefit, for others as well. I didn't see the problem until you explained it to me, and I still haven't seen the character he's deleting, because I don't know them. If he returns, we can extend his block, but not permanently. Still, I don't want you to wind up getting blocked for edit warring, so it would be good for you to be careful to be clear with what's going on. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't want you to not think I'm being ungreatful. I appreciate you warning me about it. He's deleting the five main protagonists of the show, because they have their own articles, but that's not how it works, I find it difficult to explain considering you don't really edit TV articles and aren't a One Tree Hill fan. I will add the thing on the talk page as a "just in case" in future for others, even though he's the only one with the problem I'm sure there's always another one who'll disagree. Thanks again :). Jayy008 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
see in the filmography section -- even now bandish name is appearing in red color as if no article about the film bandiosh is available in wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrik88music (talk • contribs) 18:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
in the help desk how can i speak to some one expert offical of wikipedia.where to send a message or in whose page should i edit in manner that the opposite person reads myu question and responds in my talk page?
by the way i request you to solve my problem of Chhailla babu and bandish.
Even if you solve my problem late its alright , i will send u reminders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrik88music (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, conveniently they haven't made many major contributions yet (only 11!), so I just reverted my blanking of the CCI and appended the new list to the bottom. I'll go through them tonight so I won't bother with adding it back to the main list. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
90210 season 3
Hello, just quickly. Someone removed the plot for season 3, the plot was from a press release, does that count as copyvio? Jayy008 (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Moonriddengirl for the innumerable hours you spent cleaning up the copyright infringements I created when I first started contributing. I look back and cringe because I didn't know any better. I'm also grateful for your patient mentoring. You're the best! Mgreason (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I'm glad if I was able to help. You have been inspirational to me, as well. You showed me that the work can be cordial and productive. It's very much to Wikipedia's benefit that you stuck around to work through the process. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)02:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, I had no idea that my user page was so busy lately. I wish I had the time to thank everyone who took time to revert the vandals but unfortunately I don't have the time. I do want to thank you for helping remove edits from my user page which I am assuming were pretty rude. I can't see it so I don't know but I'm sure you wouldn't have rev deleted unless it was really unacceptable. There were others too that helped return my user page. This actually reminds me how good this project is which is something I was in dire need of reminding. Anyways, thank you for taking time away from your busy schedule to help me. --CrohnieGalTalk22:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Happy to help. :) Given recent socking concerns, you're still on my watchlist, and, yes, it was really unacceptable, but not at all personal. S/he left the same note at a number of talk pages. --Moonriddengirl(talk)03:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
copyright problems at Economy of the Soviet Union
Could you take a look at this article; Economy of the Soviet Union. I already found one passage which was pretty close to the original source, please compare [8] with the portion available through Amazon's search inside feature (pg. 72) [9]. Davies is cited several times - though I think I removed the copy vio portions. I don't know if there are similar problems with the other citations. Thank you.radek (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It's late in my part of the world (for me, anyway), and I've got a hectic schedule this weekend. I have located enough additional problem to warrant blanking and thorough review, but I'm going to have beg assistance from a talk page stalker for further evaluation and to see if follow-up is necessary. I probably won't have much opportunity to edit tomorrow. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)02:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Unfortunately I'm quite busy this weekend myself so while usually I try to fix such problems after finding them I'm not sure if I'll be able to do it soon.radek (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey MRG, wanted to follow up with you on this article. The copyright violation tag is still looming there, and it's really quite an eyesore. What can we do about it? Can't we just remove the offending text and the tag entirely? GlassCobra22:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Years ago, when i was editing anon, got two of these warnings, NO apologies of course. This user also has ZERO knowledge of English, with all due respect (for most users) what is he doing editing here? Ahahh!! I noticed he has been blocked, but watch this my friend: he has continued to operate after that, anon (this IP and "contributions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.6.121.21), also had "the pleasure" of receiving a message from him from that address (watch the "stupid" remark, typical of the person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VascoAmaral#Mauricio_Pinilla) Watch out, keep up the great work, king regards, may the Moon watch over you - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
this needs an administrator's help.
i have made an article about awaaz 1984 hit film - with all links. but some users are deleting the facts. i have given plot, songs, proof of being blockbuster,cast and crew.would like if u approve it so that any stupid layman doesnt destroy facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrik88music (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The user making the edits to OTH character page is back, using a different PC. I know this because I used to Geolocate feature and they're both from the Netherlands. Can you semi-protect the page please? Jayy008 (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Not sure how urgent this is, since nobody but you has edited the article in over 12 hours, but I'll go ahead and bump it on my list. :)
Semi-protection is not ideal. He has come back only once so far and it would prevent good faith contributions like these: [10], [11]. (At least, I assume that the latter was good faith, but I am confused as to why you reverted it without comment. Is this some kind of vandalism that only people who watch the show would understand?) If you want to request semi-protection, you may at WP:RPP, but I suspect that it would not be granted at this time. If he comes back again, another block may be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it is, but sometimes when it gets so annoying I just revert and don't bother explaining why, because as you said maybe people who watch the show would only understand. The IP good faith edit wasn't important, but I left it because the wording was better. The only reason I said urgent was because I don't want to be blocked for breaking for 3 revert rule. So if he does it again he'll just keep getting small blocks? Jayy008 (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Every good faith IP edit is important, because every good faith IP contributor could be our next featured content writer. :) You say "maybe it is", what was wrong with [this edit? Was the IP contributor wrong there? Yes, if he does it again, he may keep getting small blocks. If it becomes too problematic, brief protection of the article may be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm a new fan, I've only just started watching it and I just saw season 6 where that part came from and they didn't get paid at all, or bonuses, so that was false information. And okay, I'll keep an eye. Jayy008 (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Okay. It's good to note that in the edit summary. When you are a heavy contributor of an article, reverting vandalism that is not obvious can result in an appearance that you are "owning" the article. I understand that it can be annoying, but the edit summaries there can be your friend. I typically try not to revert without explanation unless the reason would be obvious to anybody looking at the edit. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, if you have time would you take a read at the Mel Gibson article? A couple of editors actually did well at taking a lot of bloat out of sections like now called, I hope, homophobia, anti-semitism, racism, and prankster among other edits that were done. I just feel that the way these are all laid out is wrong for an BLP article. Oh, forgot about the DUI section. Most of these sections are already mentioned in other article too so there should only be a sentence or two in Gibson's main article. There has to be a way to consolidate all this negative information. I personally think the negative info is overwhelming this article and said so on the talk page. If you have the time and would like to take a peek I sure would appreciate your input on this. Maybe I am totally off base with this but then again maybe I'm not. That's what I'm trying to find out. Thanks in advance, (by the way I did mention you on the talk page, sorry about not having time to let you know earlier than this.) --CrohnieGalTalk15:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) I appreciate your concern; it does seem pretty negative. I do disagree, though, with your changing the section headers, though I appreciate your reasoning. I'm afraid that having a section baldly titled "Homophobia" may rather more strongly suggest he is homophobic than a section called "Allegations of homophobia". Pending a better handling of the material, I think we'd better indicate that we are not implying it's true. :/ More in a moment. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay; since I've got a lot of copyright stuff to do and am behind (three day backlog at CP! I wasn't able to edit all weekend :/), I went ahead and listed this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mel Gibson. I'm inclined to agree with you that it over-emphasizes the negative, but I'm hoping to recruit some neutral feedback from people with more leisure to help address the problem. :) I suspect Mel is public enough that people will come, but, if not, please let me know and I'll be happy to try to help come up with a solution when I've got more time. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
OTRS process question
If an image is tagged for "speedy" deletion in a week for having no verified permission, are we supposed to remove the tag if we receive an incomplete OTRS? So far I've just been leaving them on as it still gives them a week to follow up just like blanking an article. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I might reset it if several days have passed, but that doesn't seem like a bad approach. As long as you put {{OTRS received}} next to "Permission" and perhaps make a note in the edit summary explaining that permission is not usable. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Lists can be copyright violations under U.S. law if there is creativity in them - either in the way they are displayed or the way information is selected. An extreme example, the List of Best Movies of All Time would be copyright protected, because "best" is a subjective criteria. List of Disney Films released in 2000, chronologically would not be. There's nothing subjective or creative about it; it's a recitation of facts. :) This particular one is probably a bit borderline, because of the order of presentation. "Other" banks: other than what? It's being distinguished from something even if that is not clear. Rather than deletion, it might be a good idea to restructure the list into alphabetical order or some such and restrict the list to a simple one of existing banks. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah. That one edges over into creativity territory simply because there are no "facts" to recite when discussing fictional weapons. :) If you were to, say, write up a catalog of weapons used in World War II, you might reasonably come up with a similar list to another source and even similar details through independent observation. I can't access the putative source, so I don't know if the base of that article was drawn from it. The article was certainly heavily edited, but if the base edit was a copyvio then subsequent additions might well have created an unusable derivative. It is also possible for such list articles to be copyvios of the original source. As per Warner Bros. and J. K. Rowling vs. RDR Books (and see the judgment), if a reference guide to a fictional universe draws too heavily on creative elements, it may infringe. I don't know, but I would bet that for a property like BattleTech there would be official guides to BattleMechs. Our list would be likely to be "transformative" of in-story elements, but considerably less so of such official guides. Whether our list infringed upon them would depend on a lot of factors, including the amount of creative expression appropriated directly from them. I'm so glad this one didn't wind up at WP:CP, because I would have had no idea. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
please go thru the article by yourself.
some of the users are very unecessarily editing things.
i mean it would be great if they add refernces but deleting words , plots are not the right thing please give them some advice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrik88music (talk • contribs) 17:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
i remeber you being an administrator itself had checked my article .
then why people are overriding your sayings and making unecessary deletions.
if they add some valuable information it would be great.
For smaller things iam taking help from others.
But as far as article's approval is concerned i have been always showing you what artcile i have contributed and how does it appear.
i have always been showing my artciles to you -- an administartor.
i wonder why and who is this Shshshsh who keeps changing the articles contributed by me
Most of the films of Mr. Khanna are before 2000 and after 2000 only india became computer literate.
so online resources about films and thier real fan following is very less.
unless we write the right facts then how will the next generation come to know the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrik88music (talk • contribs) 18:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
ithink probably they are just fans of some actors and just do not like giving Mr. Khanna the respect he is getting.
as mentioned before Khanna has hits from 1969 -1990 and den he has acted in very few films. Only after information technology was developed in India.So with the few refernces available i have given references plus obviously cast, box office result both i have given refernces.
even his filmography suggests how big superstar , a big name he is in India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrik88music (talk • contribs) 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm a student in graphic design and relatively new to Wikipedia. I have come across the page above and have noted your comments about conflict of interest. Martin Lambie-Nairn is lectured about significantly on my course I have spent time researching him independantly. From what I have researched and from the links on the actual page the content appears to be very factual, even though it does look like it has been put there by his current employer. In my opinion there is not a conflict here. Hope this helps. Jackie 90.209.167.151 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Jackie, I appreciate your input, but we probably ought to let the article be evaluated by somebody who has been here a bit longer and may be familiar with our various policies and guidelines. I see that so far the only prior edit of your IP was to the article about his company, last month (makes sense, since you say you have researched him independently). The material there may be factual, but it's hard to say if something relevant and negative has been omitted. --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
cut and copy additions to talkpages
Hi Moon, this has been posted to the Polanski sexual abuse case on the talkpage by User:PatGallacherhere It was originally posted by an IP and I removed it but it has been replaced, is it the kind of cut and copy possibly copyrighted content without and chance of insertion in the article that should or can be removed from the talkpage? Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi MRG, An organized paid editing incident is going on in Sinhala Wikipedia. Information and Communication Technology Agency of Sri Lanka, (incidentally whose article you cleaned up the copyvios) has commissioned a project to translate 5,000 articles from enwiki to siwiki. To carry out this they have hired a company called Felidae (their website, felidae.lk is down for sometime now). Under the username si:User:ෆෙලිඩේ (Sinhala for Felidae) they began upload a large number of articles. The community of the Sinhala Wikipedia did not pleased about the quality of the their work. The articles were fragmented, spelling mistakes were common. This only a bit of weaknesses of their writings. After awhile the community tried address the situation, in a discussion on the matter after I pointed out they can not bear a company name per our username policy, they were blocked. Now they are trying to edit under various user names. I want to know from you about the copyright situation in here. They are not using their own words to write the articles, instead they are directly translating from English articles word by word. For references they just give the link to the corresponding English article. Here is an example, si:බැරැක් ඔබාමා-පෞද්ගලික ජීවිතය, this is titled "Barak Obama-Personal life", has been moved from පෞද්ගලික ජීවිතය (just "personal life") to current title after mentioning it in the above mentioned discussion. This is a direct translation of the section Barrack Obama#Family and personal life from the fourth paragraph. I would like to know whether is this can be treated as para-phrasing? Is close paraphrasing valid across languages? Regardless of the copyright situation I believe we have an OR issue here. Since they do not refer the sources themselves they relying on the accuracy of the original article. Hope Sinhala Wikipedia community could solve the problem based on the information you could provide. Regards--Chanaka L (talk)09:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) From a copyright standpoint, it's not a problem as long as they give good attribution. A link is the minimum required under Wikimedia:Terms of Use, but I am personally of the belief that the link is useless if they don't make clear that they are copying the content. If it were happening here, the English language Wikipedia would not accept a link at the bottom of the article as good enough. Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects, we require a link in the edit summary explaining the translation (so anyone looking at the history for attribution will know where it came from) and a note at the article's talk page. If they do that, there should be no problem with close paraphrasing at all.
If we weren't compatibly licensed, though, yes, close paraphrasing is a problem across languages. Only the original copyright owner has the right to license derivative works, and translations are among the rights reserved.
In terms of original research, it would certainly be good if they were verifying sources. On the English language Wikipedia, we don't require that for translations (I don't know if some of the members of Wikipedia:Translation do, though), but local rules are entirely up to your consensus there. :) If you decide that the translations are not themselves a bad thing, maybe you could make some kind of template, "This article is a translation from another language Wikipedia. Sources have not yet been verified"? Something like that? --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'll paste this thread in the Sinhala Wikipedia's village pump. I'll discuss with the community to adopt a policy of requiring them to provide a link in the edit summary and a note in the article talk page. Personally I'm not much of a fan of translating. This article is inspired by an article in the Sinhala Wikipedia, but I wrote it in English with my own references. Thanks again for the reply. Cheers--Chanaka L (talk)13:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I know you're even more swamped than usual, but...
Hi. I think it depends largely on whether there's an issue with plagiarism or copyright. The latter would certainly be far more urgent and serious than the former. :/ If there is evidence that he has copied from copyrighted sources, then a WP:CCI would be appropriate. At a quick glance, I don't see anything in his talk history to suggest that he's ever been flagged for copyright problems, and CCI is not appropriate for plagiarism concerns. Give me a little time to poke at this one a bit further, to get a sense of the scale here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
All right. The problem with plagiarism does continue. See Daniel Keyte Sandford, reproduced from the Scottish Nation on February 2010. He has, obviously, cited his source, but has not attributed it fully as required by the guideline on plagiarism. I am finding copyright concerns. I have blanked several articles. Most of the content he added here, an unusably close paraphrase of this copyrighted source, has been replaced. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Wrapping this, I have found a number of articles that would be problematic under our current guidelines on plagiarism, though only the one I mention above postdates the acceptance of that guideline. Of more pressing concern, some of the copied and closely paraphrased content is clearly non-free; others may be. I've asked for additional review from one of the clerks at CCI, under Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Requests. If they agree that further review is necessary, that should help identify where non-free content is used. It may or may not identify when PD text is, but at the very least it would be easier to add attribution where such copying is noted. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see you've found two additional articles that are or once were a copyright concern. That would seem to warrant it. If you agree, you might as well. Though I'd rather be closing them out than adding new ones. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Problematic POV Spanish editor or schoolkid?
Per this and this edit, the uploaded image file seem to me like it was scanned from a book. Thoughts?
PS: This is not my first time dealing with this kid and I would avoid interacting with him simply because I don't want him to think that I am shadowing him. Hence, the reason why I'm leaving this note here. Cheers. --Dave♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™04:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I think simply on the face of it there is almost no chance that he is the copyright holder. A Commons admin should take a look, but I'd be surprised if he or she didn't agree. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Ay, caramba! A further probe by me reveals 3 more copyvios of scanned image files, this kid just never learn. If you speak Spanish, could you please talk to him? A woman's touch is better than a man's when handling these pesky kids, no? *facepalm again* --Dave♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™04:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Alas, I do not speak Spanish. :) Were these images uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia? Are they more recent than his last warning? If Commons, they deal with that in-house, but I'll try to find a Commons admin who can help out. If they predate his warning, there may not be any further action necessary beyond perhaps flipping through his work to figure out if other stuff has been missed. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problem: William Douglas, 4th Duke of Queensberry etc
Thank you for your message identifying a number of articles where I had created the initial content and in relation to which you consider there is a copyright violation. What you may not have noticed is that those contributions date from 2005, when I was new to Wikipedia and, I dare say, the approach to copyright issues was not as well developed as it is now (in much the same way as the approach to referencing is much more developed now). A lot has happened since then, including a very considerable number of contributions from me across many articles, and indeed the articles you have picked out have been heavily edited by others in the 5 years since I last had anything to do with them. I see you have moved very quickly to refer the matter to the CCI, before I have had the chance to have any input. I would simply encourage you and your colleagues to look at my more recent pattern of editing activity rather than concentrate exclusively on what may have been done in the early days.--George Burgess (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your further response. Based on my use of the phrase "...in relation to which you consider there is a copyright violation", you suggest that I may not agree that the content is a concern under our copyright policy. That was not my intention - I was merely seeking to reflect the language of your own message, which indicated that there "may" by a violation, or that material "seemed" to be copied from particular sources rather than asserting that there was a definite violation etc. Based on what you have presented, I would tend to agree that a copyright violation exists, or at least has existed at some time, in relation to those particular articles.--George Burgess (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, just thought I'd ask you as well. Is there a page of guidelines and rules on here for editing TV series like there is for music? Jayy008 (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, that's really helpful! My particular thing I want to know is in the infobox, it's credit order not alphabetical for cast, right? Jayy008 (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
No idea. :) I'm sure I've worked on a TV article or two in my time here (well, more than that, if you include cleaning up copyvios), but they aren't my major area. You might ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television if you aren't sure. I'm sure somebody there will be happy to discuss it. They look like an active project. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, Moonriddengirl. I'm contacting you because I'm concerned about CorenSearchBot. Ever since I had an unjustified accusation from this bot, I've been watching Coren's talk page. There's a steady stream of worried users flagging false positives. Some of the bot's actions definitely contravene WP:BITE. It was one of these from an editor last night that prompted me to contact you. And there are so many that Coren cannot respond to them, meaning that users feel the accusation still stands.
I also flagged a serious concern I have about the way that this bot sent me off to check out some low-grade webpage I was accused of copying from. I had no response to my question. It has simply been archived.
I know this bot does a lot of good, and we really do need a bot that does this copyright infringement detection, but I think it's in serious need of debugging before it's let loose to accuse innocent and well-meaning editors. I can't imagine what sort of algorithm makes errors like this.
False positives are unfortunate, but not everyone who reports a false positive actually has a false positive. In the case you linked me, the article National School Sailing Association was clearly derived from the identified source. Snagging a paragraph at random (fourth in), I see:
They do this by using the UK's National Youth Sailing Scheme which is specifically tailored towards groups of youngsters who sail on a weekly basis with easily achievable targets. The scheme includes support for those delivering the scheme with on and off the water activities which link into the educational development of the youngsters in the classroom. The membership of local associations and sailing centres use this schemes to provide sail training for hundreds of children each year.
We do this by providing a youth sailing scheme to our members that is specifically tailored towards groups of youngsters who sail on a weekly basis with easily achievable targets. The scheme includes support for those delivering the scheme with on and off the water activities which link into the educational development of the youngsters in the classroom. Our membership of local associations and sailing centres use our schemes to provide sail training for hundreds of children each year.
The person who uploaded the content may be and probably is the copyright holder, but it's not a false positive when the bot detects actual duplication. :) This is one of the reasons why the bot's message to the uploader includes a link to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. In the ordinary course of things, this user would have read that, placed an {{OTRS pending}} on the talk page and we would have gone through the verification process in the slow, ordinary way. This one seems to have had some very poor timing, though, in that the minute the article was created it was tagged for G12 and deleted. Given the contents of this article, I suspect this would have happened with or without Coren, since the copying was really blatant, as a normal part of new article patrol.
I don't know anything about the bot's functioning. I'm not technologically inclined in the least, I'm afraid. :) But while you generally see only the false positives on Coren's page (and he requests notice of these, presumably so he can track them), you can get an overall view of the ratio by looking at completed "days" at WP:SCV. Take the last completed day, Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2010-07-10. It tagged 18 articles, 2 of which were cleared as false positives. On Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2010-07-09, it tagged 41 articles, 4 of these were marked as false positives. 2 of those it turned out weren't false positives at all, but article splits. Another one included copied content that was removed by the time the investigator got to the article (though I did just put one lingering mismarked quotation in quotation marks). Only one of those seems to have actually been a false positive.
If we pulled the bot from functioning to try to keep the three actual false positive from those two days, I worry that many of the other 60 articles it tagged might still have copyright concerns.
The only real problem with false positives should be hurt feelings; the other contributors who review the tag are supposed to double check. If they delete based on the tag without doing so, the problem is deeper than the bot. :/ It seems to me that if people are feeling bitten (something I agree we should avoid), the notice the bot leaves might be tweaked to emphasize this bit in some way - "This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists." - or to otherwise insure that contributors understand that mechanical copyright detectors are imperfect and mistags are not personal. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) To chime in here also, while Coren doesn't reply to every message left on his talk page, many of us who work in the copyright area follow up directly with the editors who leave messages there, either at the appropriate article or the editor's talk page. And the serious concern you had, is valid but pretty much unavoidable unless the webpage is on the WP:BLACKLIST or in a WP:FILTER. The bot can't check every single webpage any more than editors can check every link added in a reference. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed and comprehensive reply. I had looked at the "User Contributions" for the bot, and realised that it does valuable work. I wasn't able to check on whether the National School Sailing Association article was actually a false positive because it had gone before I arrived.
I was simply concerned about the discouraging impact on well-meaning new users. I've been editing for years but was still shocked at the bot's ridiculous accusation that I had copied my Krisztián page from [12] (a page whose content is blocked by my firewall). The message was very officious and unfriendly. You only have to read some of the messages on Coren's talk page to realise how offended some people are. — Hebrides (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was gone like lightning. :/ Maybe we can find a way to improve the notice to avoid people feeling offended. I don't know how to say it succinctly, but I've noted to more than a few people that it isn't personal. The bot doesn't really accuse people of anything. An accusation is a charge that somebody has done something wrong. :) The bot's notice says, "I have performed a web search with the contents of [[:Article]]<nowiki>, and it appears to include a substantial copy of <nowiki>[source]." It makes sure that our contributors understand the copyright policy, tells them how to donate the text if they own it and then notes that it may have made a mistake. The note that it places on articles also notes that errors happen. (Here's one that isn't going anywhere.) What could the bot say that would not diminish the parts of the message it must deliver but would still make sure that contributors understand that they should not be offended by errors? Do you have any ideas? --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
My concern is mainly for the tentative new editor, someone just putting a toe in the water. These are the people who feel they are being jumped on. Ideally the bot should have two error messages: the current one is OK for experienced editors (many just shrug it off if the bot is being ridiculous); and a gentler, more explanatory one for users with fewer than, say, fifty edits. I'm sure the bot could differentiate (there are well-established edit-counting scripts out there it could call) and place the appropriate message. — Hebrides (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I would have no idea on how easy or hard that would be to implement. I'm pretty good with copyvio but rubbish with bots. :D That might be one to take up with Coren. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
One more thing, since you seem to be the mother-of-all-laws (my, what a grand pun !, BTW) I mean your resources on law seem to be excellent. I wanna some free consulation from you - we all have a User page, and a talk page, OK ? I have besides the two built a new "talk page" , you see, for what I call my "visuals" I mean pics etc. I suppose it's regular...?-- Jon Ascton (talk)06:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
hello there moonie. So here is a question maybe you can look into - came across some photos and checked them and a conversation about them. At first glance things seem to be in order because they have an ORS number however what I am wondering is this: the person the photos are of appears to be the person who released them into "public domain". On the "public" side I don't see anywhere that the uploader says the subject had obtained permission from the photographers, perhaps the OTRS includes this information? For example look at File:Yusuf_Islam_and_David_Spero.JPG, it has an OTRS and the permission listed says "David Spero gave permision to use under a free license". This is much like other images upped by the same user about the same subject, the photos all have David Spero in them and they were originally obtained form his facebook page. According to this thread the uploader contacted a newspaper who directed them to the subject, David Spero who, in turn, released the images into public domain. Speaking as a photographer I would be more than a little upset if the subject of one of my images gave my work away without my permission which, at face value, seems to me is what happened here. But my question is can you or someone with OTRS access check the actual letters sent to OTRS to see if the original photographers gave the subject all copyrights? File:Yusuf_Islam_and_David_Spero.JPG File:Michael_Stanley_and_David_Spero.JPG File:David_Spero_M105.JPG File:David Spero with his father.JPG File:David_Spero_1990.png <== No OTRS but sill PD File:Spero_in_Ante_Up_Studio_B.jpg <== No OTRS but is PD and says "Photo by Josh Solomon of David and Adam Spero while recording at Ante Up Studio B in October, 2009"
Thanks - and I know Photos is more my thing than your thing but the OTRS is throwing me off and thought you could offer and another view on it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm looking into the OTRS matter. For confidentiality reasons, I can't say much about your other concerns. I'll talk to the contributor about it via e-mail. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As for the "confidentiality reasons" I am not so much concerned about the "who is it" as much as I am about the possible copyvios. But, as an aside, I took a closer look at File:Josh_and_the_Empty_Pockets.JPG and while it was upped by User:Ludasaphire it is being used in a sandbox by User:PhillipSoloMoN at User:PhillipSoloMoN/Josh and the Empty Pockets and who also created the article about Solomon curve that, according to the article, "is the graphical representation of the research conducted by David Solomon." In looking over the history that article was created in mainspace by User:Ludasaphire and User talk:PhillipSoloMoN has edits made by User:Ludasaphire. So the "who" part of this may be not so private after all, in which case I stand behind my COI thought. A family member doing articles about other family members would for sure be COI. I think their are multiple issues going on here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I cannot comment on that one. :) If there are COIish issues with the content, you might choose to address them. But the copyright matter, I'll get back to you on as soon as I get more information. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I know you won't forget - even on this 4th of July. Now go eat something with family and watch fireworks...well, too early in the day for the fireworks part. :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing in the OTRS communications to indicate on what authority David Spero is releasing photographs in which he is the subject of the photo. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
So what is next step than? If I slap an copyvio or invalid license tag on them the OTRS comes into play as why they are all acceptable. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure, honestly. I have talked to one Commons admin who believes we should make OTRS releases public, but we can't do that without getting clearance for it from our correspondents. I think for transparency, it could be a good idea. I'll raise the question at the OTRS mailing list of how to challenge a release that has OTRS clearance. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I think OTRS should be private in some regards but in other it should be freely available. In the case of images it for sure needs to be more open in regards to the "who" part. This is a perfect case for that - we have several different photographs that are clearly not taken by one person where the sole subject, or one of the subjects, has released them all to Public Domain. I think the whole OTRS = Private issue should not apply in this case for a few reasons - namely every photograph says it is from "David Spero's private collection" with a link to his facebook page. You and I both know that we can not take images from social networking sites, or anywhere on the internet, (or even our own private collection) and claim them to be our own. Clearly the uploader has not made a claim they are his photos but the OTRS, combined with the links to the subject of the photos facebook page, clearly indicate that David Spero is claiming them as *his* own. I think it is clear he did not take any of the photos in question. In which case the OTRS, unless it came from each individual photographer, is invalid if he, himself, or a third party acting on his behalf, actually made/submitted the OTRS. Combine all this with an account that is now looking like an SPA gaming the system with COI articles and this entire thing, to me anyway, becomes more questionable. (FYI - I have opened a Quick Checkuser request related to this as well) Now if this OTRS were public, at least to the extent we all could freely see who made the request and than we could easily see if, indeed, the uploader is also the subject of an article they created and, if that is proven to be true, than the subject was/did have a close personal relationship with the subject of another article they created and uploaded photos given to them in some manner by the subject of said article. And, in turn, they are in some form closely related to yet another article they created.
And as an aside, last year there was an article I had added edited and cleaned up, adding links/citations and some minor information and an editor/admin with OTRS access started removing some of the the information, claiming the sources cited were no good. When I added even more the same editor removed them and, more importantly, said there had been an OTRS submitted saying the information was not valid. I questioned who it was because the subject in question was dead and anyone else would have been closely involved, in which case Wikipedia has rules/guidelines that address information being removed by subjects of articles. Of course I was told OTRS is private so they could not say who the information was from only that some of the information I had cited wasd claimed to be incorrect. I had a hunch who it may have been but, of course the editor/admin would not tell me. Unknown to the editor/admin who had been warring with me about the information, I had gotten an email from the person who had sent in the OTRS. They actually confirmed the information was correct, not incorrect, but that the wording of in the article may be misleading to someone reading the article. As this user had been issued a few COI warnings in the past they did not want to edit the article themselves - so they sent in an OTRS. (I have issues with that as well because we don't allow the subject of an article to edit their own article but this seems to be clearly saying that if they submit an OTRS the article can be edited with whatever information they want. That is wrong as well - and another reason we need transparency with some of these OTRS's) Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a conversation currently ongoing on the OTRS mailing list about how to handle these cases. Evidently one of the OTRS permission lines in another language Wiki has a line indicating who granted credit. This seems sensible to me. Maybe something will come of that. We have to cite the source when we mark permission for text, so it shouldn't hurt too badly to mark it for images as well. I'll update you.
I also work the courtesy queue, so I know that when we receive complaints from article subjects, we have certain things we are and are not supposed to do (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help explains some of these). I'll admit that it can be a tough balancing act. I had one situation where I was trying to help escalate to legal because I didn't help enough. :( Help too much, and we overstep our bounds. I don't know the specifics here and am not asking, but there's a delicate balance. Granting privacy to people who complain to OTRS is really meant to give BLP subjects an outlet that does not require their self-exposure - an important legal safeguard, I'm sure, without even taking into account the moral issues - but perhaps it's also meant to protect whistleblowers?
I've written to the person who issued the release and am waiting response. Meanwhile, some ideas that have been floating: a process board for OTRS on en Wiki similar to that on Commons where people can ask? Adding a parameter to the permissions template to note the name of the person (and/or authority, ala "Webmaster of Company") who granted permission? Any of these might help. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Need you to look at an image
I always tell people you're the copyright genius around these parts, well, I need your expertise. File:OnceMoreWithFeeling-Mustard.jpg is uploaded as CC-BY-SA 3.0; however, there's a concern at a FAC that the background- a copyrighted screenshot from a TV episode- makes the image non-free. I, meanwhile, avoid handling image copyright questions as if they were the plague. Thanks in advance. Courcelles (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Images. Yikes. :D I used to handle them like they were the plague, too, but I'm getting more confident. Text is my thing. :) Let me take a look. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The question before a court would be whether the image in the background is "substantial" enough to make the piece a derivative work (and see Commons:Derivative works). Lawyers spend many hours arguing that something is or is not substantial, and only a court of law can ultimately decide it. For many reasons, we are typically conservative on use of artwork, but I think that the screenshot is substantial enough that CC-By-SA could not apply. The question would the become whether the image can be used under WP:NFC. Let me ping an image admin for a further opinion. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, there is too much copyrighted content for it to count as free, and it doesn't look to me that we could justify the image under the NFCC. Your best bet would be a heavy crop (perhaps just cropping all the way down to the audience) or just removing the image altogether. J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. I already knew I couldn't write an FUR for it with a straight face, so it had to go. (It crops to 'people in seats', which isn't of much value) Courcelles (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
If this image were permitted it would be under de minimis; see commons:Commons:De minimis. A good rule of thumb is: would the image still be useful or make sense if it were edited to remove the non-free copyrighted material? Dcoetzee11:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know...
Hi there MOONGIRL, VASCO here,
Was browsing the site, then thought i'd checked User:Matthew hk's talk to see if there were any new developments, and what did i find? A long, long, long essay of him, engaging in technicalities about the world of football and his misunderstandings with other users, including me.
In the bit which relates to my person, i again found that he is not very appreciative of my efforts (i make "nonsense" in articles and "do not own articles"); my response, if you bother to check it, was polite and to the point, only wondered why he never send the slightest "memo" to my talk page, if not by chance i would have NEVER known about this. Notified you, hopefully, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Silly me! I should have known that blocked users cannot do that, although i also thought they could do pretty much everything, except EDIT of course! Sorry for any incovenience, my bad - although i still am taking offense to some of the stuff he said about me - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Economy of the USSR
The lead is not copyviolated you screw up! It has nothing to do with the books.. How do you expect me to fix the **** problems if you always revert my edits to rewrite the page? Your edits are already unproductive enough, but why are you reverting edits which re-writes the so-called copyviolated text? It doesn't make sense. --TIAYN (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I have looked over the lead and there doesn't appear to be any copyvio in that portion (I think most of them come further down in the article). I think it would be okay to restore this version [13] and unprotect the article so the problematic passages can be fixed piece by piece.radek (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your willingness to help out with this. (By the way, Verno Whitney found problems with one more print source.) Since we should delete the copyvio versions and there are too many for the selected revision deletion, what I've done is split out the copyright problem version for review. I'll provide an attribution subpage and give more information at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
OTRS request for main page article
Hi, Moonriddengirl. I just sent an OTRS email to permissions to clarify the fact that the art covers for Ann Bannon's original novels are no longer under copyright. The email is a forwarded exchange between Bannon and me. Bannon's article is on the main page today. The editor who removed the images from the article does not have OTRS access. I would appreciate it if someone who does have OTRS access can verify this information with due speed. If you need clarification, I'll be happy to do what I can. You can find more information about the discussion between Hammersoft and myself here and here. Let me know if you have questions. I appreciate your response. --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yikes. I'm afraid that her statement is not fully usable. I'll e-mail you the concerns right away and maybe we can resolve this pronto. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I've replied, but I don't know if I should let you know when I do. I don't know if you check it regularly as you would personal email. --Moni3 (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry it took so long. That's a little out of the usual realm for OTRS. :/ (User:Jamesofur was a huge help there, btw). At least two of them get to be in the article for a little while! (While its featured, I mean.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, do I remember correctly that certain kinds of images are not allowed in user space? Like, ahem, a picture of a bottle of Frank's Red Hot on a talk page, stuck there for really no good reason at all? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Non-free pictures aren't permitted in user space. I'm very much afraid that there are problems with the license on that one (ala Commons:Commons:Image casebook#Product packaging). We'd need verification of permission from all copyright holders to accept the license, and "May contain portions copyrighted Reckitt Benckiser" doesn't work for us. I'm not all that up on NFC, but I'll poke about it and see if a FUR can be provided. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, that's way too much work for a silly thing. In fact, I'll finish the entire bottle right now. One of these days I should learn some of the things you know so well. (Though I've gotten quite adept at getting permission for prayer cards and other religious paraphernalia...) Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted sandbox retrieval - with associated problems
Hi
I got your name off a list off "Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles" and wondered if you could help with this one ?
I was hoping to get a copy of my old sandbox page User:Chaosdruid/sandbox prior to deletion, which I tagged here [14], and it's subsequent recreation. I would like to use it on here User:Chaosdruid/Archivesearchmadebyme. I was very proud of one of my first major contributions to Wikipedia but, as so many others have in the past, have lost that Eureka! moment due to my not realising it's importance or its relevence. That template is in use almost everywhere now and unlike others, such as Mr Sanger, I do not want to not have proof of my contributions lol.
What, if any, do you see as the options? Could it be undeleted into a new page name such as "User:Chaosdruid/oldsandbox" or similar?
Sure, but it'll take a minute of shuffling. :) I have to move your current sandbox out of the way, resurrect it, move it and bring the current one back. I'm on it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow - thanks ever so much for all that work - I am really grateful ¦¬)
Unfortunately it looks like my massive cock up that destroyed the Gtr Manchester archive means the corruption was through my sandbox page and when the admins had to fiddle with it and delete it my original work was lost - boo hoo...
Thanks for the recreate though - it was well worth trying to get it back even if its not there now cause of my own errors lol
Nah - thats fine - I'll just use it to show why I was so worried when I realise it had gone wrong - It was a classic example of "blow the bloody doors off! [15]" and explains why I was so horrified so it will still be put to good use :¬)
Hi. I think that probably falls within the normally permitted parameters of non-free image use on Wikipedia. :) I completely understand why you might think otherwise; frankly, our non-free content policies and guidelines are pretty confusing. Theoretically, non-free images should be the source of commentary within articles, but traditionally the community does allow a cover image or poster for usage that can really only be described as decorative in the infobox. I myself have uploaded dozens of album covers for articles, for many of which there was simply no sourced commentary on the cover to be had. :/ Me, I don't quite understand why we can use non-free pictures of actors portraying characters in the articles about those characters when we could not use those same images in the articles about the actors. Sure, I get that the character is a more fixed representation, but I don't necessarily believe that the appearance of the actors/character is all that central. Maybe it's appropriate at Edward Cullen, since he's a vampire and all, but do we need a picture of a teenage girl to help us grasp Bella Swan? Do we need to be able to see the Dursleys? I kind of throw my hands in the air when it comes to non-free images. There are fine nuances here that I think may require dedicated study to understand. If you really want to try to grasp them, you might ask at WT:NFC or, perhaps, find one of the admins who often posts there and ask him or her directly. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
but what about the offcial artciles in newpapers by eminent editors abot new that khanna is receving awars etc.. and the news channel artcile whcih says he is the superstar rajesh khanna.
i dont undersatnd where from will we get resouces other than newspapers and e papers available as in 1969-2000 in india nothing was online —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrik88music (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, first of all, thank you for your help in getting the wiki article for: Stephen Auerbach up and running. However, if you check out his page, there's two 'Exclamation Points' and one 'Puzzle Piece' above his page. How do I remove these? They look horrible there :)
Hi.The way to get rid of them is to address the problems they raise. Each of the tags contains a full explanation of the concerns, including links to the various policies and guidelines that may help to resolve them. The third will probably be the easiest, since all you need to do is provide wikilinks from relevant articles (the tag explains what all that means). The other two are related and can be resolved at the same time, though they may require some research. Very little content on Wikipedia should be sourced to releases from an article's subject. Most content should be sourced to reliable sources that have no connection to the subject, such as newspaper articles or reliable industry publications. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Bigheatrerelease.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Bigheatrerelease.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
OTH characters
He's made the edit again, ignoring what you said to him. I will revert (just once), as I don't want to go over the top as he's obviously not going to listen. What's the next step? Jayy008 (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It's already been taken. The IP was blocked about an hour and a half ago, for edit warring across IPs. If you'd explain at the talk page what makes it vandalism, that might be helpful. Contributors who don't know what's going on aren't likely to revert it if the vandalism isn't obvious. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
No, the block on the other one has expired. If he makes the edit again at the first IP, it, too, will be blocked. If he begins branching out into others, the article will be semi-protected. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
No no, I wouldn't expect you too. I'm watch listing too just to make sure that edit isn't made, I will make the changes as necessary. Jayy008 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed this change and was wondering what the motivation was for it (and since I think I'm the only one who uses it if you wanted similar changes done for {{CPC}} and {{SCV}}). Is something running together which makes it difficult to read the markings? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, my bad. I thought I was changing CPC. :) I'll undo me and change that. The sole reason was to make it easier for subsequent editors to spot the division point between listings. Since I sometimes have trouble at SCV, I figured anyone who follows up at CP would have issues as well. But I hadn't yet had a chance to see if it worked...and wouldn't have, since I changed the wrong template! --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing springs to mind off the top of my head for removing the blank line from the template itself, although we could place the template differently (at the end of the entry instead of on a newline of its own) as a workaround. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't make it a priority. There's a lot more urgent things going on. :) But I thought since you know how to do stuff you might have an easy solution. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought I remembered a way, since I was playing around with the templates when I made {{CP}} as a combination of the other two, but it didn't work for me when I tried it just now. I'm also trying to wrap up everything I need to at work before I head off on vacation tomorrow, so it'll have to wait (for me at least) 'til later. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a request for while I'm gone which is completely unrelated to copyright, I created a new article this past weekend and submitted it to DYK where it's still sitting awaiting approval, could you check in on T:TDYK#Charles-Amable Lenoir from time to time in case there are any problems with it that need fixing? VernoWhitney (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Not that you'll probably view this without viewing that, but so far it's smooth sailing. No questions, just a verification and a noted preference for hook 1. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
On July 2 you indef-blocked User:Sduty as a self-admitted sock of User:Amir.Hossein.7055. Three days later, on July 5, User:Thatspeed opened an account and started editing with a similar editing pattern - mostly Iran-related articles and a pattern of uploading Iran-related images with blatantly false copyright info (see the user's talk page). It seems quite likely to me that User:Thatspeed is a sock of User:Amir.Hossein.7055. Could you take a quick look? I could file a formal SPI report if you think that one is needed. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the overview of copyright law as it applies to Wikipedia.
Hi, Moonriddengirl, I actually am a lawyer, but I haven't practiced actively in copyright law, so it was very helpful to me to read through the overview of Wikipedia copyright policies on your user page. Here I'm just saying thanks for a job well done. Going forward on Wikipedia, it looks like most articles on most subjects need to be better sourced, so thanks for the guidance on how to use sources legally with due regard to the rights of source authors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) Since Wikipedia's contributors come from many different cultures, I felt like it might be a beneficial overview. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I had submitted an article on Robert J. Vanderbei, which got deleted on Jan 1, 2010. It was found to be too similar to another page, http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/Bio.html . It was done with the knowledge of the author of that page, with the intent of deleting the older file to use Wikipedia instead. However, the author simply removed the link to Bio.html from his website and did not delete the actual file. That file has now been deleted. Can we restore the original Robert J. Vanderbei wikipedia article?
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hybenson (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, please just send me or let me access my original article, and the discussion page, so I don't have to redo everything I did already. I will copy the text to my computer and then recreate the article. Thank you, GreatBigCircles (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the article. I've copied the text to my computer now, so if you want to delete it again you can--as long as I'll still be able to re-create it. Or is it better for me to edit the restored article in place? Peace, GreatBigCircles (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
London Health Sciences Foundation Wikipedia Page...
Good afternoon.
I am hoping to get the London Health Sciences Foundation page back up and running.
I have created new text specifically for this purpose. It makes reference to London Health Sciences Centre but does not speak for them or make claims on their behalf.
I believe London Health Sciences Foundation deserves a seperate entry from London Health Sciences Centre. Despite our similarities, we are a legally seperate entity with our own Board of Directors, own vision and mission and own funding.
If you have any suggestions for the text, please don't hesitate to let me know. I will copy and paste the proposed text below so you can see it before I make any attempt to post it.
Thanks so much for your help.
```` mrb_london_ontario
Proposed text:
London Health Sciences Foundation (LHSF) is a public, charitable organization based in London, Ontario, Canada. Accredited by the Better Business Bureau and guided by its own independent, volunteer, 21-member Board of Directors, LHSF is tasked with inspiring investment in excellence at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC).
London Health Sciences Foundation was established to revolutionize our community’s response to healthcare philanthropy and strengthen LHSC’s ability to provide the highest quality healthcare for patients in Southwestern Ontario and beyond.
The charitable donations LHSF receives are separate and distinct from LHSC’s operating dollars. Government funding supports quality healthcare built upon current and proven medical standards of care – and donors to LHSF help advance that standard of care. These donors assist in the development of critical initiatives which would not otherwise be funded and which lead to new and innovative treatments and breakthrough research discoveries.
Donations to LHSF help fund innovative equipment, research, education and enhanced patient care at LHSC and create life-changing moments for patients and families locally, throughout the region and around the world as LHSC shares its research and discoveries. At LHSF, we believe that donor dollars make our Hospital – and our community – great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrb london ontario (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Another old direct copy of ODNB text by User:Talskiddy has turned up. I have left the standard talk page message, plus a few words of my own. I think the lack of cooperation from this editor is really very regrettable. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm barely active these days due to RL interference but that's nonetheless the second user I notice that gets reviewer despite recent copyvio concerns in their recent talk page history. I've raised the issue at WT:Reviewing. MLauba(Talk)22:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry that I am somewhat delayed in response; I've been out of town most of the day. Since he says that he did not understand the copyright status of the ODNB, I did a cursory check of one other article he crafted from DNB material, and it, too, seems to derive from the copyrighted recent text. It may be that he does not know how he can assist with correcting the issue. I've left him a request to help identify articles that may represent a concern. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Help?
Hello Moonriddengirl--can you help me with an image/copyright query? I just made Hochland (magazine) and had hoped that the image would transfer from the German article, but it didn't. Are images on the German wiki not usable by us? (Is it not on Commons automatically?) Is that fixable? Or is there a way to use, for instance, the image of the journal found here? It's old...
Hi. No it's not on Commons automatically; you have to import it there for the image to be usable here, and you can only import it there if it is free. If it's not free but meets our WP:NFC, you can upload a copy on Wikipedia with a non-free use rationale. It's not old enough to be automatically free of copyright in the US, and I'm afraid I can't parse the licensing terms there. Maybe User:MLauba can help, if he's nearby? --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Bharati Kapadia
Bharati Kapadia page got deleted though Bharati Kapadia had sent an email to donate the text. How can this happen?. Please let me know.
The text in the article is copied from three other sources than Bharati Kapadia, and needs to be rewritten from scratch to avoid contamination from unlicensed sources
We were unable to validate the permission mail and had to request further clarification (for reference, OTRS ticket #2010072010019018
The potentially donated text is overly promotional in nature and its tone not suitable for an encyclopedia (see WP:PROMOTION).
Due to the third point above, and considering the text that Bharati Kapadia means to license is quite short anyway, it may perhaps be better to start over from scratch at Articles for Creation with text of your own writing a neutral account of her artistic career. MLauba(Talk)08:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes you are right
The mohammad sami picture isn't mine you can delete it. Despite being an avid fan I shouldn't be adding pictures not permitted. My mistake and I'm truly sorry. Onto the topic of Taha Hussain you won't find his picture anywhere else on the internet. That is because he is a close relative of mine. I have a full picture but I can't upload it until my 48 hour ban ends tomorrow so please don't delete that picture as that is genuinely owned by me. I have proof of that with a full picture but can't upload to show you until tomorrow when my ban ends.
Sincerely sorry, I accept the ban and if I do find pictures like that I will come to you first for advice. The ban is correct it damages my reputation on wikipedia and that's my loss nobody elses.
Hi there, I recently (17 July) listed an article, Phil Taylor, at WP:CP. First of all, I'm not even sure if I was right to list it there or not. During a GA review I discovered that most of the article was identical to the subject's official website. I suspect, but can't seem to find out for sure, that his website was in fact copied from here. I wasn't sure how else to deal with it other than to list it at WP:CP. Secondly, I'm a bit worried (as is a primary contributor to the page who messaged me) that the article may be deleted in the meantime. Is that something that can happen automatically after 7 days? I realise that WP:CP is backlogged with not enough editors there, but I feel a bit clueless as to how to deal with this myself! Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, --BelovedFreak20:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) An article can be deleted after seven days if we cannot verify that the content is free from copyright, if it is extensive, and if no rewrite is proposed. In this case, the whole first paragraph is evidently clear? Usually in that case, articles are not outright deleted. If I'm the admin who handles it, I would be looking, too, to see if I can find evidence of reverse infringement (especially if you note that possibility at the listing, but I try to check for it anyway :)). I've got to run in a minute, and I'm trying to diminish an overly long plot summary, but I'll be happy to look at this more later and see if I can figure out if reverse infringement is happening. If not, we can talk about what might happen next. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. That's reassured me, I wanted to make sure I wasn't making something into an even bigger mess than it was! I'll be happy to hear what you have to say about it when you get a chance.BelovedFreak21:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, I didn't get a chance to look today; I was "out of the office" for most of it. But I haven't forgotten. :) I'll try to determine which came first tomorrow! --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, all done. :) Internal evidence supports reverse infringement, and I've cleared it accordingly. Thanks for bringing up your concerns both there and here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated! I peered over your shoulder at your sandbox edits as I was interested to see how you went about it. I'm getting a better idea of what to do if I come across something similar in future. --BelovedFreak20:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You wrote to me about my editing of National Westminster Bank. I had inserted a salient passage from the BBC News Website, which was very relevant and not previously documented. I cross referenced my source to the BBC's website, which is a public domain. Since then I have had a torid time with someone named 'Chrisieboy' constantly deleting my edit, and claiming that it was vandalism. I am sorry, although the growing perception is that Wikipedia administrators are
looking for any trivia they can find, in order to excercise their 'authority'. As I said on Chrisieboy's talk page, I have too little time to play these silly games. Thank you anyway for your interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veracitycounts (talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. First, I'm sorry that this situation has been so frustrating for you. There are several points in your note that I should address.
User:Chrisieboy is not an administrator. Although in this case he is right that the content does not meet our copyright policy, when he removed the content here he should have explained why in edit summary. Failure to use edit summaries is a problem per policy; Wikipedia:CIVIL#Avoiding incivility: "Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed." Your good faith edit should not have been undone without explanation, and I'm sorry that you encountered that. Working with others on Wikipedia can be challenging. We encourage people not to "bite" newcomers, but it does happen.
How do you send multiple images to ALL of the users on a wiki at the same time? Because were moving wikis and I want all the users to know, and since we have alot of users it will take some time. I know you can do it because I've seen people do it. 66.27.159.220 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea how or if that could be done, and I doubt it would be a good idea. You can try the help desk, but generally there are centralized noticeboards for situations that require widespread notice. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I've had a glance, and his last contribution is a copypaste from that source, too. He may be connected to them, but even if he is there are copyright issues. I'll try to look at some of his other contributions a little later. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
NatWest Bank - Copyright or Fair Use ? (2)
Thank you for kindly explaining the situation so sympathetically, it really was most helpful. Had 'Chrisieboy' stated at the outset, that the mere addition of "quotation marks" would suffice, then all this tension could have been avoided. Instead, I was doing my best as a novice in these matters, and all I was getting were threats to strike me off, like a malpracticing doctor ! Thank you again for your patience in explaining the situation, which is now clearly understood.I may come back at a future date and edit again, complete with quotation marks, although first I need a little recuperation time. Incidentally, for the migraine you may wish to try Rizatriptan, which is a prescription only medication.
(Veracitycounts (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC))
Thank you for the recommendation. :) I've had some good results with that one (as Maxalt), but my problem tends to be with side effects. :/ I seem to be sensitive to ototoxic medication. Oh, well. :/
I'm glad that you think you may be able to continue after this, and I hope that it won't take long. Interpersonal tension seems to be one of the hardest factors of working on Wikipedia. There are so many pages written simply about getting along with other Wikipedians. We have six different conduct policies (WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:EP, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS), a short ton of guidelines, a tonne of user essays (which I'm listing below) and a board specifically for addressing incivility: WP:WQA. Just a glance at that board and its archives will give you an idea of how rampant the issues are and how difficult to address.
And I'm hoping that this will not discourage you, either. :) But I do think it's helpful to be prepared for what you might run into here. At the same time, some editors on Wikipedia will go out of their way to help you and make you feel a welcome part of a community. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia AfC
I want to accept an article on WP:AFC, but I can't because I'm too new, what can be done about this? I think I have been doing good work on this project, and you can refer to my contributions for evidence. Please respond on my talk page. Solar Rocker|Talk to me!13:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing to notice the copyright violation in the article. I have removed the violation and restored the other part and removed the notice. Is it OK? Please let me know preferably on my talk. Thanks. --RedtigerxyzTalk18:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I didn't actually; I just completed the listing. :) It was listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 July 16. Since it had not been filed according to process, I relisted it under today. As I mentioned there, with a foundational copyvio that extensive, we should delete the history to avoid inadvertent restoration. If you think there's no chance that permission can be supplied or that other contributors would like access to the material to do so, we can complete the process without the requisite seven days, but I don't generally presume level of interest in areas where I don't work. If you think others are likely to want to help construct a more complete account, we should probably do it in the usual way, via the temp page that was linked from the template. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If that is the case, maybe deleting the whole history and saving the current version of the text in the temp part may be a better option. The copyvio was completed from jhulelal.com (which is an external link) in the article. --RedtigerxyzTalk10:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Since another contributor has subsequently edited the text, I went ahead and split the copyright violations from the history, preserving attribution. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
National Westminster Bank - Copyright or 'Fair use (3)
I am just copying you into my post with 'Chrisieboy'. He has really soured my experience of Wikipedia, which until now was always positive. It cannot be good for Wikipedia if respectable, albeit novice, editors like myself walk away in high dudgeon because of their treatment by other meddlesome and graceless users. Just my view of course.
Regards (Veracitycounts (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC))
Why are you so determined to insert this statement? I note it is the only contribution you have made to the encyclopedia'. Chrisieboy (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Those who followed the hostile takeover of NatWest by RBS, will know that the CEO, Derek Wanless, was a critical ingredient in the mix. It was widely and authoritatively reported that Wanless' misjudgements whilst CEO at NatWest, with ill conceived mergers, and high risk forays into investment banking, decimated its share value and led to the bank falling prey to a succession of predators, ultimately Fred Goodwin at RBS.
Wanless went off to join Northern Rock after he was ousted, from where he was to be ousted yet again in 2007. I could write a book on the banking misjudgements of Derek Wanless and Fred Goodwin, at NatWest, RBS and Northern Rock. What I did instead was to edit just a few words from a respected and authoritative BBC News article that provided succinct reference to Wanless' ousting in the period of the NatWest takeover. It is highly pertinent, albeit, omitted from the raw article. Little did I realise that I would have some busybody named 'Chriseboy' emerge from the ether and vandalise my edit. Chrisieboy - you need to understand that substance is infinitely more important than style, never more so than in Wikipedia articles. I relish honest and factual information, first and foremost that is my forte, the 'nice to have' sanitisation and polish is yours. Now, please take your petty nit-picking elsewhere. If you don't like a format, for goodness sake just change it, provided you do not alter the sense of the edit I would not take umbrage. Similarly, if quotation marks are required - just insert them ! You see, I am quite a reasonable person until someone raises my ire.
Furthermore, the vast majority of editors are simple lay folk like myself, who are not young geeks, well honed in Wikepedia's 'mangled slang'. Please try to avoid using esoteric terms like 'sock puppet' and 'edit warring', and utilise instead the rich abundance of English vocabulary to express yourself, preferably in a friendlier and more conciliatory tone.
Finally, I do not make mendacious statements. When I said that I have made many factual edits I meant it. I generally assist a family member whilst he is logged in separately, hence, even Poirot would not associate me with those edits. The fact is, this is the first time I have had an 'issue'. Chrisieboy - if you attempt to 'undo' this edit again you will rue your mistake. Please do not test my resolve and tenacity. Thank you. (I have copied this post to Moonriddengirl)
Hi. I'm glad you are talking to one another, and I do understand completely why you are distressed about this. I'm sorry that your encounter has soured what has evidently been previously good experiences of Wikipedia. I wish I could assure you that it will never happen again, but I'm afraid I can't. I pointed out above a bunch of essays on civility, which really just gives a clue how major a problem this is on Wikipedia. People don't write that many recommendations for handling issues that are rare.
I would request, though, that you moderate your approach with Chrisieboy. You guys started off very badly through no fault of your own; much of this might have been averted if he had politely explained to you his issues with your edit in the beginning rather than reverting your good faith contribution. But even if another user does not rise to the standards of WP:CIVIL, we do request that you avoid personal comments and focus on the issue. There are things you can do if you run into an editor who is persistently uncivil (they're described here), but if you have been tempted into responding in kind or even into responding with more heat, the community may not be able to figure out easily where the problem lies. One essay that may be particularly useful in this situation would be Wikipedia:Don't fight fire with fire (another: Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot). Most of your message above seems clear and to the point, but you go a bit off when you refer to him as a "busybody" and refer to his edits as vandalism and especially when you suggest that he will rue the day if he reverts your edits again. That kind of thing, I'm afraid, is likely to escalate the problem.
You may have realized that another administrator has protected the article from editing while the two of you discuss this situation. If you cannot agree with one another, you can and should invite additional feedback. Wikipedia is governed by consensus.Wikipedia:Dispute resolution has all kinds of suggestions for where to seek that feedback, but a good starting point is often the third opinion board. Before you can post there, though, the two of you need to air your respective views at the article's talk page (not your user talk pages) and request an additional view. And you have to do it neutrally, or it won't be answered. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Bujutsu Kodosokukai, review for new publishing
Hi Moonriddengirl
Your expertise as a wikipedia administrator has been recommended by JulianColton, that is why I contact you. I have been working on an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freezydk/Bujutsu_kodosokukai for more than a year. To cut a long story to a shorter version, I will now explain the issue I have. The first version of the article was deleted, I tried to upload the article several times afterwards after having made corrections to my best understanding of the wikipedia rules and guidelines. But the article ended up not beeing published/speedy deleted. I was away from this community for a while due to personal illness. I have taken up this project again and have talked a little with JulianColton and now you. I have redesigned the article in the link with this message and now need your help or support going through the article to ensure that it lives up to the standards. English is not my native tounge so the spelling and gramma may not be 100% correct. I hope that you will come to my aid with your expertize so I can publish the article. Thanks in advance
Freezydk (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'll be happy to take a look at the article and perhaps clean up a bit, but I will not "approve" of its publication myself. There are some circumstances in which administrators may delete content, but we do not have any special privileges to approve content. Given your evident connection to the article, I will instead make some suggestions for improvement following which I will recommend that you take it for community review at the conflict of interest noticeboard. I'll take a look now and see what help I may be able to offer. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll be glad to help, but you'd have to do the work first. :D Links to Nikita (TV series) (Special:WhatLinksHere/Nikita (TV series)) need to be corrected, and ideally should have been corrected before you changed the target of the redirect, although I imagine you didn't know that. As it stands, it looks like a good many articles are linking to the wrong TV show. You'd need to check each of those links and, if La Femme Nikita (TV series) is the one intended, change it in the article where the link exists.
Everything should link to La Femme Nikita. The new show hasn't aired yet, so it has no other pages. Nikita (TV series) is the only thing that should take you to the new show. Nikita (2010 TV series) isn't necessary. Jayy008 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
MRG, I've ran AWB and fixed everything in the article space; but left other namespaces more or less alone. I'll let you decide what to do with the original request. Courcelles (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm back. :) Thanks, guys. I wasn't feeling too good yesterday and spent most of my Wiki time on relatively straightforward WP:OTRS stuff. Didn't even notice this conversation going on up here! I didn't know we had a tool that could do that, Courcelles! Very cool. There've been a few times in the past it could have saved me some serious effort. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl. I've just removed over 100 uses of Icon Group International/Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases from articles, and the question now is how to stop more references to these books being added. They mostly reuse Wikipedia content and also other sources: they're computer-generated from various sources. The discussion on what to do is here at the RSN, and you view would be appreciated. Thanks. Fences&Windows13:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I am working at the Raoul Wallenberg Foundation and have permission to use their work. In fact, that's my project for the summer. I've edited many articles using information put on their website. What can I do when I edit these articles to not have them tagged as plagiarism?
Hi. Thank you for your note. You can have the website of the Foundation updated to release the content there or you can have somebody with authority to do so e-mail the Wikimedia Foundation releasing the content. We can only accept the content if the Foundation releases the text under a license compatible with creative commons attribution share alike license, which permits both modification and commercial reuse. More details are available at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, and I will be happy to give you more information on either process once you determine which approach works best for you and your organization. As I said at your talk page, if you use the e-mail, you will probably find it easier to register an account where we can record that permission. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The Honeycombs
Hi There
I have just found your message regarding editing of the honeycombs
I must point out until now I was unaware of your message so sorry for that
What I would like yto bring to your attention is the statment I have been deleting refers to Martin Murray having secured legal rights to the name THE HONEYCOMBS !!
This is not true
The rights to the name are owned jointly by
Anne Lantree
John Lantree
Alan Ward
All original members of The Honeycombs
Murray Was paid off in the mid 60s to the tune of £12.000 as full and final settlement of any claim to the name The Honeycombs and any future rights whatsoever.
I respectfully suggest untill you have been furnished with hard evidence of Murrays cliam, that you should remove this statment.
G'day Moonriddengirl, I saw your untangling of the cut and paste of Barakzai (tribes) to Barakzai dynasty. I've moved the Barakzai (tribes) main page back to Barakzai dynasty (which better reflects the content of the article - its about a ruling dynasty). I attempted to move the talk page, but this failed due to the pre-existence of the target article. As an admin, are you able to migrate it to preserve the edit history? Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know that a conversation about the OTRS images is necessary at this point. As I said, I am following up via OTRS. Conversation has not yet concluded.--Moonriddengirl(talk)23:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood you than. I thought you meant for me to post in the areas you suggested and when you archived the discussion I though that it was over on your end. My bad.
The quick checkuser has gone nowhere, as far as I can see it is because the articles in question have not been edited by I.P's in a while, so I just took the initiative and posted COI notices with all the I.P and users. And, as you saw, the main user did admit to being closely associated with at least two of the subjects of their articles. But that now leads back to one of my first questions and the "who is it?". Privacy concerns here tend to not allow revealing who anybody is but as I pointed out before one of the non-otrs photos they have uploaded as "own work"/"author", and put into PD, lists the subject of another article by name as the "author". Via the subjects Wikipedia article it says the subject of the photo is also the manager or the other subject, who I am lead to believe is also the uploader, yet the uploader maintains they do not have any connection to that subject. So do I tag the photo as "OTRS needed" or "assume bad faith" and feel the user is somehow not being 100% truthful as to who they are (or aren't)? Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It archived because I'm on autoarchive. When things get quiet for a while, they go away. :) I hauled it out of archive once, but left it in the next time.
I made contact via OTRS with the person who provided permission, and he now understands that the subject of the photographs may not be in position to release the copyright. As I understand it, he is attempting to contact the photographers. He may be connected to some of the article subjects (and I see has said so now), but he seems to be very sincere. I've got a bit of a migraine going on today, and I'm going to blame that for my inability to make full sense of your note. Can you remind me specifically which photo specifically do you mean? --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The image I mean that sort of "ties it all together" is File:Spero in Ante Up Studio B.jpg. The summary says "Photo by Josh Solomon of David and Adam Spero while recording at Ante Up Studio B in October, 2009." and the license is "PD-self". The image is used in the David Spero article and it's description there is even more clear: "David and Adam Spero at Ante Up Studio B in 2009 recording with Josh and the Empty Pockets" and, according to that article, "As of July, 2009, Josh and the Empty Pockets are represented by David Spero and Adam Spero of Alliance Partners...". What the user says on his talk page: "I am related to one of the band members of Josh and the Empty Pockets. I’m also related to the subject of Solomon curve" but maintains "I have no relationship with David Spero who I just learned about right before I started to research and write that article." I dunno but something is not adding up here. Tell me it isn't just me who feels that. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I remember that now. My brain is fully functional this morning. Or, at least, as functional as it gets. :D Hmm. Well, that would suggest that either he has been researching and writing that article for some time or, in the good faith vein, that he means that he knew about him, but only superficially until he researched him. Please remember when you talk to this guy that newcomers often have no idea that we even have a COI guideline. :) It seems natural to people to work where they know, and at the very least the David Spero article seems to be meticulously annotated. He may have stayed within guideline by professional inclination if he is, as he says, also connected to Solomon curve. I would guess he is a scientist. He's been very forthcoming about who he is, so I imagine that he intends to be sincere about the situation with Spero, even if he does not perceive that he has a personal relationship with him, but more of a FOAF thing. Anyway, as far as the COI is concerned, I think you've covered that in the caution you've already given him. We just need to get the images sorted, and it may be a few more days before that's done. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl and Soundvisions1. I hope you don't mind my joining your conversation but I was checking to see if Soundvisions1 had posted anything to the various photos, articles and talk pages of mine that he's been working on, and noticed this post. I now understand, Soundvisions1, why you are so concerned with my editing. It's because of a mistake I made when I published a photo taken by Josh Solomon. Coincidently, a few hours ago I sent a note to permissions-en@wikimedia.org (I assume in this case that's Moonriddengirl) about several other photos that I want to be sure are kosher, including the one that seems to have caused all this confusion: File:Spero in Ante Up Studio B.jpg. Although I got Josh Solomon's permission to post it and release it into the public domain, instead of documenting that properly (which at the time I didn't know how to do; I didn't yet know, for example, about the helpful people at permissions-en@wikimedia.org) I just used the same language that "worked" on a prior photo that I took myself. Good things come of bad, though, because had I not done that wrong, you may not have educated me on the whole concept of COI. Had I known about the COI rules I may have started with another article or, at least, posted the article in a way that other editors would have known to look at it carefully. I didn't think that merely having a relative who did research or who is in a band would preclude me from writing either article, although I had contemplated writing my first article about my own company, but avoided doing that since instinctively I knew that would be a conflict of interest.
I can understand how my mistake in posting the photo taken by my relative in the band led you to believe I was not being forthright (a fair reading of it would lead you to believe that I am Josh Solomon). I guess I had hoped that reading my contributions would stand on their own as notable, well researched with verifiable information, and in a neutral point of view. I assume it's not a COI to write articles about artists I care about; how boring would it be if we could only write about things we didn't care about? For example, I was a big fan of Lee Oskar growing up. Although a stub article already existed for him, I think my research added a lot to that article. Again, I understand why you think (thought?) so, but it was painful to hear you tell me "it appears you are here as an SPA."
Finally, if you're still not convinced of my sincerity and that I'm not really all that related (other than a common name and part of an extended family) then I'll give Moonriddengirl permission to send you my email so we can communicate "in real life." I'd rather not do that -- part of what I [used to] enjoy about Wikipedia was the anonymity -- but if either of you think it's necessary, it's better than you thinking I'm dishonest.
P.S. It's almost midnight and I'm still fretting about this. I've learned a lot from both of you about copyright and COI. Perhaps a little lesson you can learn from me is how painful it is -- even when based on good, solid evidence -- to be accused of being an SPA and dishonest. Goodnight. :)
Hello, Ludasaphire. I'm so sorry that this is bothering you. Please don't fret. For what it's worth, I still believe you are very sincere. Our Conflict of Interest Guidelines were created to guide people in editing in areas of interest to them. Being connected to the subjects of some of your articles does not necessarily mean you have a conflict. If your aim is "to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia" then there is no conflict. Since there may seem to be one, however, and since there may be an unconscious bias, we do ask for extra care. As that guideline notes, "You should either not edit the subject at all, or limit yourself to obvious corrections, and discussion on talk pages. Alternatively, take great care to edit to an exceedingly high standard of neutrality." As I noted above, your articles are meticulously referenced. The usual "COI" problems we encounter look very different from that.
I've requested review here so that we can get this out of the way as quickly as possible. Please don't let this fret you; it will be water under the bridge very soon. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
← Just to follow up again I concur with Moonriddengirl on her request here. And to Ludasaphire I can assure you the concept of COI and SPA's in nothing new and I have defended both sides of the coin. As a perfect example there was one editor (and another - who was their boss) who came onto Wikipedia and made the mistake of creating their userpage(s) first before making mainspace edits. Their userpages were up front about who they were and what they did but were quickly sent to deletion discussions to be deleted as being SPA's and SPAM only accounts. I took into account other discussions where it has been allowed to only create articles on subjects that an editor was close to and *than* create a user page with links to those articles in a "resume" like form on their userpage. I was very vocal about not deleting these user pages until we could see what these editors would do over the course of, say, a year. There was no hidden agenda as these editor were upfront about who they were and what articles they were going to work on. However Consensus was to delete these new users. There was another editor who only provided links to a subject and that subjects projects and tried to create articles on the subject and their projects. The editor tried hard to say that they were not in any way, shape or form related to the subject of those articles or links but in the end it caught up with them and they were banned/blocked from editing. So, while it is perhaps hard to understand and "painful to hear" you must keep in mind it is not a "attack" on you, but part of the process that can crop up when *any* editor only works on a few articles and they are almost 100% edited by the same editor it tends to raise red flags. But, as I have said, the articles you have created are good and they are on notable subjects so I don't believe you need to worry about deletions. We needed to clear up any potential copyvio and COI issues and determine of you were, indeed, an SPA. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Given the unbiased trim of unrelated or unnecessary external links by Smartse on two of my articles, it turns out that I did have some un-intended bias that came through on the articles. Looking at it now, it seems obvious, but I honestly didn't catch it the first time. So, Soundvisions1, it turns out you were right to tag those articles for review and I now realize that you were also right to not tag my Solomon curve article since the same Smartse who reviewed that immediately found that it looked fine.
So, although I hope you'll agree that I'm not a SPA (although we can agree to disagree on this), I'll concede that you were right to point out my COI and I certainly would have done things differently had I been aware of this policy ahead of time. No more fretting from me. Just some lessons learned. Kind of wish now that I hadn't written the P.S. in my note last night; another lesson for me.
Finally, I do appreciate the amount of work that both of you (and Smartse) put in to make Wikipedia work. My own contributions are, by comparison, quite modest (but hopefully, over time, not SPA-ish). But they really took quite a lot of time and effort. Thank you for helping me through these issues and your recent comments and request for review on the Noticeboard.
I'm glad you're not fretting anymore. We all start off with modest contributions in the beginning, but this site is addictive for some (not for me, surely!) and you may find that changes with time. You are more than welcome to stop by my talk page any time I can be of assistance. I'm particularly experienced in copyright matters, but over the years I've managed to poke about in a lot of areas. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've seen you around, too, though I couldn't pinpoint where. Small Wiki. :) I'll be right there to see if there's any input I can offer. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I tagged several images that User talk:Sidmylove uploaded for no source or copyright, but even after two separate warnings to stop he continues to upload new images without any info. Many have copyright watermarks and are obvious copyright violations and the others certainly look like they were stolen from websites. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, special tool, but I didn't know it would delete stuff I didn't see listed on the page, though. Oops. :/ I've had to go and restore his articles. I'm taking a hard look at those, too. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyviolation or just close paraphrasing on Len Lawson?
Hi Moonriddengirl, I just read Len Lawson and spotted very close phrasings to the source materials. I tagged the article with {{Close paraphrasing}} but some text are exactly the same with the sources. I am not certain if I should have blanked the article with {{copyvio}} intead. Can you take a look at the article and see my investigation at Talk:Len Lawson#Plagiarism? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I took a look at it and commented on article talk, with minor rewording it should be fine. I'll wait for MRG's comments though. Franamax (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I searched for pattukotai kalyanasundaram in wikipedia and found that the page has been deleted.Kindly tell me the reason for it and anything because of copyright ,why the full page have to be deleted.I am concerned more because he is my relative,he is my uncle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.37.213 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd be grateful for your thoughts at Talk:TN postcode area#OS OpenData. The UK government has recently released postcode-related data under a CC-by licence so I have used this to justify and reference a revert. But this seems to be novel use for non-file articles and I know WMF is very sensitive about copyright issues so, even though this is clearly the sort of use that Ordnance Survey intends, I am keen to get feedback. Thanks in anticipation. — Richardguk (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It looks good to me. I'm particularly pleased with the explicit, "These terms have been aligned to be interoperable with any Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence. This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence." We do, though, need to use an attribution template, because that text is not compatible with GFDL. We have to indicate when content is compatible with one of our licenses, but not the other. I'll come and add one. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's great. On reading Template talk:CCBYSASource#Accomodating CC-BY too, I presume that {{CCBYSASource}} is intentionally used (even though the licensor in this case offers the broader CC-BY) because Wikipedia itself narrows the permission to CC-BY-SA. I'm minded to create something that combines Template:CCBYSASource with commons:Template:OS OpenData (i.e. a template that calls CCBYSASource with predefined parameters) for a standard attribution template suitable for all OS OpenData textual content. Let me know if you have any views. Thanks again for your help. — Richardguk (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. :) That template is a sort of all-purpose catch-all for any license that is compatible with CC-By-SA, but not GFDL. A new template would be great. I was thinking about writing one myself. One suggestion: if you do base it at all on {{CCBYSASource}}, please don't follow my misjudgment in including the revision in which the content appears. {{Dual}} uses date, and it is ever so much easier to implement. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk)02:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Because of your awesomeness in helping others without being asked, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. It's always appreciated. :) Also, I thought you might like to have a picture of a jaguar on your barnstars page. ;) Theleftorium(talk)21:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Woohoo. :) Thank you! :D I saw the note, glanced at the article and thought I might be able to help it out a bit. I agree with you, by the way. I would not have A7ed that. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I saw the PROD on my watchlist. :) I've weighed in at the AfD as well, but if there are reliable sources to substantiate the notability of the album, it would be good to add those. I'll see what I can find among English language sources later. --Moonriddengirl(talk)03:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey :) How are you? Can you point me to the place where the non-vandalism templates are please. Templates such as "please add edit summaries" etc. Jayy008 (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
So this edit this morning reminded me of another idea I had for VWBot (and while my BRFA is getting no attention, I figure I may as well set things up to run in userspace and then I can do the edits manually). Lazer Brody was listed at SCV for May 31st, but apparently overlooked when the day was cleared. I could have it find any articles which are still blanked and listed on a daily subpage but no longer listed on the main WP:CP page (this could also be extended to close paraphrases). My question to you (and the rest of your CopyClean page stalkers) is whether it would be preferable for such items to be relisted on a new day or shunted over to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Older consolidated. Thoughts? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
New day for sure. I used to use Older consolidated regularly, but found ultimately that relisting was much simpler. Among other things, it avoids tricky stuff getting consolidated (cause that never happens :D) and then ignored for all time. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
First, I hadn't even though of checking other contributions for the latest CCI even though I ran into them at SCV a couple of times, so thanks for that. Second, JHawk88/Kirk Hinrich is now editing as User:JayhawkGuy (evading the last little bit of Kirk Hinrich's 48-hour block) and has uploaded a couple of obvious copyvio images, although I haven't found any new text problems yet. How much rope do they get? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
NP. I was wondering if we could get a bot that could flag when a contributor gets a Corensearchbot notice if he has had a significant amount before. I know we'd get false positive issues, but more often than not we'd get actual issues. Just thinking I started pondering there.
I don't feel inclined to give any rope to somebody who is socking to evade block and then continues with the same sort of problem that led to the block. Let me take a look. If I'm not 100% sure of identity, I'll file a SPI to be sure he gets a fair hearing. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll add your idea to my long list of possible VWBot tasks. I think that's something that might be best to just make a list for human review so as not to further antagonize people who get hit with repeated false positives due to the kind of articles they create, like User:Merovingian with 8 false positives or User:Leszek Jańczuk with 5. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no arguments there! Discretion is a good thing. I wonder, once we've cleared somebody, if we could put them on a "don't tell us about this guy again" filter. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
That seems perfectly doable. Of course I'm still working on ironing out the code for the first few tasks to get them approved, so it'll be some time before I add on more things, but a wishlist is always fun to have. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of repeats, I'm wondering if our newest is related to our oldest. Could be coincidental, but the pattern here is awfully familiar-feeling. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
After skimming through I do see overlap, including this history with one of the old socks, so I'm inclined to agree. I'm thinking I should start an SPI for another Checkuser run. I found one old investigation, but how were the other accounts for our oldest CCI discovered (unless that would give the game away)? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, now that you've got me looking for socks I'm seeing more relationships between the Pakistan CCIs (and at least one new account!), so I'm now writing up an SPI for a new Siddiqui CU request. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Probably a good idea. I'm not all that up on sock work, so I don't know if it's possible to connect an account that age with anything current, but it doesn't hurt to find out. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
So I got distracted from working on the harder parts of my bot tonight and wrote up some quick code based on your idea above, and apparently one of the article creators from yesterday has been tagged 26 times! Now I just need to look through and see how many of them are actual issues. :/ VernoWhitney (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
So how many do you think should qualify as a "significant amount" of CSBot notices? Maybe five to qualify for starting a CCI if they're all problems? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
26 times! Yikes. :( Five CSB notices would certainly be enough to get me to look deeper. I don't know if there's any way to handle this in a bot, but for me a bigger issue is timing. Five notices in one day can be an "Oh, I get it! Don't copy!" moment. Five notices over two years can be an "I have no intentions of following/ability to follow your policy" situation. The point here is that if somebody is a repeater, there is good reason for closer human review to be sure that the bot is not missing stuff or that the repeated notes don't mean some more one-on-one discussion is needed to make the problem stop. If you think it's doable, I might propose it at VPP as a subsection of CCI or SCV or something. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Of those 26, 4 were problematic (and already cleaned or in the pipeline), the other 21 were PD, just without the attribution tags CSBot would recognize.
Anyways, as of yesterday I started VWBot listing repeats at User:VWBot/Trial as part of its daily (still userspace-only) duties. So far I've just been having it list the user and their articles tagged by CSBot, but I could certainly add times somewhere (maybe next to each article, or just an earliest tagging time by their name; "Earliest possible violation: ..." ?). There are plenty of things that could be done with it, I'm just not sure what would be most useful. Should you feel like getting into details about what should be shown or how or what should be ignored, etc. (which would be greatly appreciated) User talk:VWBot/Trial is nice and empty and would keep the ramblings from filling up your talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, looks like the sock odor was due to something different, then. Still, it's a bit ironic that we'd find an article initially created (and deleted for copyvios) by Katiya while investigating a probable Siddiqui sock's CCI. MLauba(Talk)13:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. :) There are unique challenges to working copyvio cleanup on articles in this area. Among them, copyvios are rampant. It's not uncommon for me to find copyvios from another contributor (or even multiple contributors) while working a CCI. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
) Thanks again! T. Canens (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Ay, caramba! A further probe by me reveals 3 more copyvios of scanned image files, this kid just never learn. If you speak Spanish, could you please talk to him? A woman's touch is better than a man's when handling these pesky kids, no? *facepalm again* --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
