User talk:MLauba/Archive 7

The Olympic Runners
Has something gone wrong here? I didn't see Derek's last version, but the previous version (the copyvio one) contained (as well as Derek's original text) substantial sections of text and references that I had contributed. Those sections seem now all to have disappeared along with Derek's text and are inaccessible (at least to me). If the issue is that Derek's last revised version still has copyvio problems (which doesn't seem to have been stated anywhere), could you at least make that available somewhere to be worked on further - otherwise we will have to start from scratch for the third time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, unfortunately, what happened was what is called a WP:Close paraphrase, something that was present in some of the other rewrites I have reviewed those past days, but here to an extent where it was not directly fixable by myself.
 * I chose to remove the entire career section but still restore the rest because the lead + discography were building a viable stub, which BTW contains every single reference present at the time of the review. I'll be looking in the full copyvio version to see if there is anything else and port it back into the article when I have a moment.


 * As I expect Moonriddengirl will confirm, close paraphrasing is where copyright laws become really tough to comply with, and I sympathize with the difficulty this presents. Nonetheless, I cannot, for obvious reasons, restore the text of the career section, as any modification of that would constitute an unauthorized derivative. And of course, I appreciate that the fact that only admins can verify my statement makes it doubly difficult. That being said, I'd welcome a second look from Frank or MRG if this is desirable. MLauba (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK... I still don't really understand why my text has been removed, but.... ((sigh))...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Restoring Music Foundation and Articles for deletion/The Restoring Music Foundation
Hi. I think my choice of SCV template may have led you to miss my decision to blank - rather than delete - the above article to allow the AfD to run its course (given that it was heading to delete on notability grounds) to establish a binding consensus. I relisted it at CP for 17th and left a note at the aforementioned AfD discussion. As I say, my choice of note at the SCV listing for the 10th was not clear - this is just an FYI should you come across a similar assessment of mine in the future, it is a decision not to speedy rather than indecision on my part. Best, – Toon 19:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I had second thoughts after closing per above, see also MRG's talk page on this :) MLauba (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarath N. Silva & BLP/N
Hello--

I caught your BLP noticeboard post regarding Sarath N. Silva and wanted to let you know I'm working on a standard hackjob on it beyond your work earlier toady. A few very generic sources will support at least the basics, which by themselves are entirely notable. The only more particularly bold thing done was removing the external links section as was given, as they were instead possible sources for use in the detailed sections of the article. I know this is a rather crude fix for now, but I'm of the view of it being safer to remove anything at all questionable up-front strictly with BLPs and replace it safely later when and if verified. Cheers~  ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking charge of this. I'm glad to know that this is now in expert hands. MLauba (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wordsmith's statement
Thank you for pointing out that The Wordsmith's statement was attached to the wrong case. I have moved it accordingly. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert Rivera
Hello, MLauba. Thank you for investigating the possible copyright violations in this article. As you may have noticed, the creating editor was blocked in June 2009 for repeated copyright violations, so they will be unable to rewrite it. I am going through the editor's contributions looking for copyright violations in the articles they created, something that apparently wasn't done when they were blocked. Is it appropriate to nominate blatant copyright violations for speedy deletion, or do you suggest going about it in a different manner? Best regards, momo  ricks  22:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for helping in identifying those issues.


 * It's a bit a tough call here - if I go through the history of what led to his block, he claimed authorship on the material, and truth to be told, the advice given to him was not exactly optimal, leading him into trying to rescind his contributions. If we go by Rivera, for instance, it's technically not a speedy candidate but requires evaluation. I haven't had a look on all of his other contribs, but if he was a prolific contributor who (assuming good faith) pasted stuff he wrote elsewhere back and forth, the best way to go about it is to request a case at Contributor Copyright Investigation. If it's not too extensive, G12 where there can be no doubt that the external source came first, and tagging with copyvio + listing at WP:CP is the saner approach IMO. MLauba (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update for what it's worth, I gave it a shot and dropped Dranas an e-mail. If he responds, we can probably sort out the attribution issue relatively easily. If not, we'll probably end up with another cleanup effort. MLauba (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you for the suggestions. Perhaps I'll make a list of any questionable articles and we can see if Danras responds to your email. Does that sound like a good game plan? momo  ricks  03:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that he was a prolific contributor. I looked at his article-space contributions between March 2006 and mid-April 2007 and have identified approximately 40 articles that he created or to which he added large portions of information. You can take a look at the list here. momo  ricks  06:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there, just touching bases on this. Have you heard from the contributor? If not, should I start a CCI? Thanks, momo  ricks  22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing from him, and while Moonriddengirl will hate me for saying that, yes, I think this is warranted. MLauba (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try to keep your name out of it. ;) Thanks again for all of your help. momo  ricks  22:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As if that would help any. She's among my kind talk page watchers :) MLauba (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, oh. Busted! :) momo  ricks  22:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! It's okay. We do what we have to do. :D Thanks for finding the problem. Too bad he didn't release. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, heh. I'm no copyright expert, but if there is anything I can help you with, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. Best wishes to both of you. momo  ricks  04:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Frances, Marquess of Londonderry
While there seem to have been copyright violations in this article, does that justify its deletion, rather than attempting a clean-up ? RGCorris (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Cleanup over foundational copyvios create unauthorized derivative works, in other words, there is no way to clean up a copyvio by successive cleanup other than to start from scratch. However, if you are willing to rework a clean article, I can restore all non-creative elements for you (infoboxes, references lists and ELs). Let me know. MLauba (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you restore those elements, I will rework the article. RGCorris (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

✅ There is now a stub in place of the article. Looking forward to your work. MLauba (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyclean
Hi. Look what I found! (I'm updating Copyclean between CCIs this morning.) Since that's kind of your baby, mind if I leave handling those to you? :) (I may check later to see if I can get those automatically added to CP by DumbBot.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

RfAr
Thx. Jheald (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies
Hello. I just wanted to apologize for my mistake concerning the copyvio issue at Idiocracy. You're right - I should have discussed it on the talk page before making such a revert. Not only that, but if I had been paying attention, your edit summary would have caused me to check your user page, at which time I would have reaelized that administrator action had indeed been taken on the issue. So... my bad entirely. I do apologize. I have to say, though, that I would have appreciated a note on my talk page explaining my error rather than a block out of nowhere. Still, it was my mistake so I guess I can't complain that much. :) Also, I remember my days as an admin.  We didn't have quite so many admins then as you do now, but Wikipedia is also much more popular these days.  The workload on admins is probably the same or worse.  I apologize for the extra effort I put you to.  Well, I just wanted to apologize and let you know it won't be an issue again.  I'll also be much more careful in the future concerning copyright issues.  Take care, and happy editing!  152.16.59.102 (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Kiss All the Boys
Hi. Thanks for histpurging Kiss All the Boys. The revision by User:Nopocky4kitty in this diff restored the copyvio plot summary. I missed it myself until User:Malkinann set me straight. If you're too busy to handle it now, I'll just restore the tag. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bourla-papey (again)
I'm really sorry to burden you with all of this work at Bourla-papey, but you did ask. If it gets too much just let me know and I'll back off. My suggestions are only to help it towards GA, but I know I can sometimes be overly critical. It's already a nice article that I've learned quite a bit from. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no burden at all. I have much of the history in my head, and that leads me to make ellipses that are incomprehensible to anyone not reading the sources (and since they're in French, not everyone could). And my English isn't precise enough. This makes for poor articles. Keep it coming. I'm learning a huge amount of stuff both from your comments and edits. MLauba (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the things I learn from editors whose first language isn't my own is how subtle the nuances are between words that one might at first sight think are equivalent. I mentioned "patriot" earlier, but my favourite false cognate is the German muessen, which causes no end of confusion when translated as "must". I also recall a discussion I had with a group of Dutch students some years ago, following my use of the word "fair", as in "that wouldn't be fair". They were completely stumped, even suggested that the concept of "fairness" didn't exist in their language, which I'm certain can't be true. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright opinion
The contributor has attempted to rewrite Six Bells Colliery Disaster from. Can you take a look at this and see if you think that the text is uncreative enough to constitute a proper rewrite? I have some misgivings myself, but I'm trying to spend as much time as I can on the CCIs today. (I haven't finished the single article I've been looking at for the past two days :/, and I want to get some work done on Craigy144.) Would you have time to evaluate and address this, from Suspected copyright violations/2010-01-18? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

United States federal government copyright question
Hi MLauba, it's me again. :) Does public domain work by the United States federal government include written works? The reason I ask is that everything in Kathleen L. Casey appears to be copied/pasted from the subject's SEC bio page here. Thanks, momo  ricks  04:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. MLauba having health issues, I'll jump in here. Yes, it includes written works, as per § 105. There's a little more information at PD. Most information on a .gov website is going to be free for our use, but, if you don't mind, when you run into that kind of thing please make sure there is a properly filled out attribution template. Without that, we may have a problem with plagiarism. :) I've done it for this one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you! I'll add that template to anything I encounter in the future. I hope you feel better MLauba. momo  ricks  02:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy MLauba's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! I hope you are well recovered. I was very pleased to see you receive a day, and I hope you enjoyed it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Brought my eldest daughter to her first skiing lessons ever, she had fun, I got to try out the Snow chains I finally bought after years of believing I was way too l33t to need any (trying to go home on Friday on dodgy winter tires during a surprise 30cm of snow falling within 3 hours deflated my ego quite a bit). Yup, fun day :) Not sure what I did to deserve one, though, what with not editing for a week.
 * I'm not yet fully recovered but at least I can type halfway decently again. So I'm around. MLauba (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My observation suggests that our master day bestower plans these in advance. I suspect that your day reflects overall value in service. :D Hurray for you for putting safety before ego. ;) I'm the cautious sort, so I approve. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Kolibrios deletion and suggestions
Hello, MLauba, I find sad that the article about Kolibrios was deleted but I understand the lack of notability. I wonder in this case if the deletion process could be made more accurate and make justice to the Kolibrios crew for example by deleting other OS pet projects like: LoseThos : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LoseThos EOS : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E/OS Tinykrnl : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TinyKRNL Freedows : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedows_OS Reactos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactos

Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPLeRouzic (talk • contribs) 18:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Several things.


 * I wasnt' involved in the KolibriOS deletion decision
 * The reasoning "if this one isn't notable, surely that one can't be either" is fundamentally flawed. Clicking just on one of your examples, Reactos, I see plenty of independent third party sources supporting the article. So if you were to nominate it for deletion, you'd have a hard time explaining why it doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines
 * You misunderstand the Wikipedian notion of "notability", which isn't the same as fame or importance, as the word would suggest. Notability in the Wikipedia sense means that a topic has been "noted" and written about sufficiently by those independent third party sources that we can establish a verifiable and neutral article on it
 * Admins don't go around randomly deleting articles that may be dubious, they only enact community consensus on what should stay and what should go
 * If you feel, after reading up on the above policies, that an article doesn't meet our criteriae, you can read up WP:DELETE to find out what you can do.
 * Last but not least, do note that retaliatory deletion nominations tend to be frowned upon and treated as disruption.


 * Happy editing. MLauba (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MLauba, now I see you didn't removed Kolibrios page. This whole thing is quite upseting, Wikipedia gets too complex for me. I am not sure Reactos is more notable than Kolibrios. If you want to write an encyclopedia, the noise generated by 3 or 4 fans submitting mostly to OSNEWS Website can't count as 3rd parties assertion of notability. Anyway sorry to have bothered you as you were not involved in it. Jean-Pierre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPLeRouzic (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see Spiegel Online, a University paper, PC Magazine and ZDNet. Without following the refs, the names appear solid enough to establish notability, at least at a cursory glance.


 * Again, if you have genuine concerns about notability, you could raise the issue on the respective article's talk pages as a starter. But at the risk of repeating myself, if your only objective were to be retaliation because you felt those cannot be included if Kolibri isn't, you would be well advised to unwatch all these pages and find another area worthy of editing. It would save you a lot of grief. MLauba (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:The Last Exlixe/KolibriOS
I would suggest you temporarily undo your move of this. The request was the editor's fifth edit ever on the English Wikipedia, especially considering the fact it was deleted via AFD once, and then speedied.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless there are G11 or G12 reasons I missed, I don't see any reasons to prevent an user to work on an article draft in userspace, edit count is not relevant at all. I have however salted the article name to ensure this goes through DRV and doesn't lead to a premature recreation. MLauba (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also the issue that the request was put forth by someone who just sent a notable rival to AFD.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any policy-based reasons to suspend WP:AGF enough to decline the userification request. MLauba (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hutch48
Thanks for indef blocking that guy. I was about to open an WP:AN thread asking for a ban. He has gone to extreme measures to deny access to his materials: denying HTTP referrers from Wikipedia, denying archive.org access, sending opt-out notices to WebCite, etc. He is entirely entitled to do all that, but he's obviously not here to contribute to Wikipedia anymore. By the way, several Australian IPs (Hutch's home country) have been trolling Talk:Open Watcom Assembler, and removing talk page comments. They should probably be blocked per WP:DUCK. See also. Pcap ping  12:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He has also vandalized my user page. Pcap ping  05:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Since MLauba doesn't seem to be around at the moment, I'll note that blocking IPs from Australia is a problem, as these tend to be rapidly cycled through. If any one IP starts bombarding the place, we can briefly block it. I see that Talk:Open Watcom Assembler and User:Pohta ce-am pohtit have already been semi'ed. This is frequently the best approach in these situations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not getting back on this earlier, I asked for an independent review of the entire situation and have decided to remain silent and refrain from admin actions in regards to this topic until it was concluded. Plus, I'm rarely on over week-ends :) If more issues arise, don't hesitate to let me know.


 * And of course thanks MRG, as always, for watching my back :) MLauba (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

aus meiner Tiefe
Können Sie mir helfen? Ich bin gebeten worden, um die Übersetzung eines deutschen Artikels zu überdenken, und mein Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut. Ich würde mich freuen Ihre Hilfe. Bitte, sehen Sie User talk:Moonriddengirl. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Danke! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Managed digital allowance
I'd like to recreate the page for "Managed digital allowance" that you recently deleted. The language used was not in violation of copyright, but it can be changed if there is a problem. Can you give me some guidance on how I can do this? I'll follow on your talk page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.209.139 (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted a redirect from the main article space to your userspace, something that was left behind after a bot reverted your attempt to move your draft into main article space. Such redirects are not allowed, it was this that I deleted.


 * While the new draft is indeed not in violation of Unisys' copyright this time, it was deleted following a consensus gained through a deletion discussion determining that the article did not meet our inclusion guidelines.


 * In order to recreate the article, you should:


 * Familiarize yourself with this page that explains what kind of qualities are required in an article


 * Modify your draft so that it meets the criteria listed in that page AND addresses the concerns of the delete voters in the deletion discussion


 * Then file a request at WP:DRV explaining that you are asking to be allowed to recreate the deleted article based on a userspace draft that fixes previous defects.


 * Note that if you need further assistance on the rewrite, you can seek help at WP:N?. Best, MLauba (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Majczek and Marcinkiewicz violation
Hi,

I linked one of my pages to that page in the midst of the copyright violation resolution.

It was not a big page, so I am thinking that maybe sometime I might try writing it properly.

I am wondering now whether in a copyright violation case if the source material gets documented somewhere.

Let's say 6 months from now, I want to know where that copyrighted text came from.

Will I be able to look that up then?

I am not familiar with that case except for that short WP article.

Curious, Varlaam (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not explicitly in such cases, when we are cleaning up a massive list of copyright issues coming from the same user. Though with this contributor (see Contributor copyright investigations/Danras), the text at issue all comes from victimsofthestate.org, most likely added to Wikipedia by that site's webmaster, but who has indicated in the past he was not willing to license his material and has since vanished and could not be contacted.
 * Note that if you mean to rebuild the article, you may find the following references useful:
 * Center on Wrongful Convictions
 * Center on Wrongful Convictions
 * Center on Wrongful Convictions


 * Best, MLauba (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. That's what I was driving at.
 * But I think I was hoping for a simpler scenario though, namely one where I use the facts from a single offsite source (the violated one), reorganize and rewrite, and then cite the violated source for the factual details.
 * Is that an allowable solution in a copyright case generally?
 * Varlaam (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In general, using one single source is a bad idea since it heightens the risk of creating a close paraphrase. In this specific case, you'd be basing your rewrite on a self-published source constituting, for all practical purposes, original research. So I'd firmly advise against this approach in general, and in this case in particular. MLauba (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So his OR was not simply summarizing those legitimate sources?
 * Varlaam (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no insight in the editorial process of victimsofthestate.org (and am not particularly good at guesswork) but the three above sources ought to give you plenty of material to write a decent article. MLauba (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's cool. I will add your sourcing to my page so I will have that available "6 months from now".

IMDb plot summaries
Second copyright issue, since I have you "on the phone".

More than once, I have seen an IMDb plot appear here verbatim and uncited.

How bad is that? Is there a special agreement with the IMDb that allows copying with citation or something?

At one time, a decade ago, I was an acknowledged major data contributor to the IMDb, and I also happen to have 100+ plot summaries over there. I'm not sure how I would feel if those popped up here uncited. I have more than once seen unique and very individual contributions of mine to the IMDb appear on commerical DVDs as common ordinary facts, and that is a very weird thing when that happens.

Actually, since I see you speak German, my personal title for an early Franka Potente movie seems to have acquired some sort of official status.

Varlaam (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * IMDB plot summaries are copyrighted to their contributors and cannot be reposted here verbatim. If you spot one, feel free to delete it entirely, or, if worried about getting reverted despite noting you're removing a copyvio in the edit summary, blank the section with copyvio and list it at WP:CP. MLauba (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As a user and a reader however, I prefer information to no information. That doesn't inform anyone.
 * Is it not possible to put a blockquote around it and say
 * -- IMDb summary by IMDbContributor
 * or some solution like that where you simply acknowledge the source?
 * Varlaam (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd have to say no for several reasons. First, IMDB content is copyrighted. Second, it's not a reliable source. Third, reposting an entire plot synopsis from there, even properly attributed, violates WP:NFC: Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Pasting a complete plot summary most definitely doesn't fit this definition.
 * So to rebound on your first point, having no information is preferable to having information belonging to others (of course, if instead of removing an IMDB plot summary you were to write a new one, that would be the best solution;) ) MLauba (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And so my IMDb summaries belong to me, or the IMDb?
 * Varlaam (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your IMDB summaries belong to you, but you granted IMDB a right to reuse, modify and make money off it as they see fit. Note that we've had cases where the IMDB writer submitted a proper OTRS ticket that could be used to establish permission for Wikipedia to reuse his work, if that's something that you would want to consider, you can learn more about the process on WP:DCM. MLauba (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have seen my text reworked here, rather than copied, and that seemed sort of like a compliment.
 * That's a good suggestion. Thanks.
 * Varlaam (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't you curious about Franka Potente, since I was reminded of that?
 * That one went way over my head. MLauba (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just like to note that Wikipedia plot summaries occasionally also turn up at the IMDb, uncited. For this reason it's important to check who's copied who before removing it from the article. Of course, IMDb are free to use plot summaries from here as long as it's properly attributed. An URI to our article and to the license text should do, and it's easy to add if you have an account there. decltype (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. I will now continue with my boring story.
 * Varlaam (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm dying to tell you, but you don't have to read the story.
 * This is around 1999 or 2000. We're still excited here in Canada about Run, Lola, run.
 * She has an early film called Nach fünf im Urwald. Interesting. But its official English translation is It's a Jungle Out There, the most boring cliché in the world. Plus it creates this mental image of Dschungel in Germany. Stupid. It's just stupid.
 * I'm thinking, if I just translate the German, it's 100 times better.
 * But ... I haven't seen the movie, and there's the problem of Urwald. How do I do Urwald? Old forest? Ancient wood? Lots of choices.
 * But then I suddenly remembered a bit of old poetry by Longfellow, which uses the phrase "forest primeval".
 * So I translated it as After Five in the Forest Primeval.
 * To me, that now sounds cool. It's sounds like a movie I would actually want to see, so I posted that to the IMDb as a "literal translation" even though it's not exactly literal, it's a little poetic.


 * Since then, I have seen DVDs with Franka's filmography listed on them, and there's my translation now as the "official English title" of Nach fünf im Urwald. Probably because everyone can agree that the original English title was terrible.
 * Varlaam (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice. If I were a nitpicker, I'd probably point out that jungle is a valid translation of "Urwald" too but I don't have any nits. Or something. Anyway, I'm off, and thanks Decltype for the precision. MLauba (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice talking to you both. I am now off on a quest to seek that German jungle.
 * Varlaam (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Majczek sources
Copied over to my page.

Thanks again, Varlaam (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ok
Ok, calm down! I get the point, and I won't repeat it again. So if you copypaste any sorts of info within wikipedia you have to just say in the edit summary "copy pasted some content from ....". Anyway, since I only found this out around early January, and thought (until now) that it wasn't obligatory, what do I do about many edits in the past from which I have copypasted withing wikipedia. I've made mistakes, but I won't repeat it. Do you have to attribute even if you only copy paste info from the past (i.e. an old version of an article). Just reply and help me out here, since I'm starting to get confused!--Theologiae (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have to attribute what you take from others, regardless of the revision you took it from. Note that the Copied template has a diff parameter for this exact reason.
 * For the copies you did in the past, you can still do a "dummy edit", eg add a whitespace at the end of a paragraph, and make a mention in the edit summary like "Note: this content was copied from Articlename", and add the Copied template on both talk pages. MLauba (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, so tell me if this is wrong/correct:


 * You have to say in the edit summary, "info was copied from old/new revision of .... page for attribution". This qualifies for old or new info.


 * If you made an edit in the past, forgetting to attribute, you must state at the bottom/top of article that info was copied from ....page for attribution.


 * If that is it, then I've understood. If it's not it, then please explain what is wrong. Reply to tell me if my sentences above are correct, partly correct or incorrect (I don't want to repeat these mistakes again, and I do not want to get blocked)--Theologiae (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For the edit summary, the link to the article is enough, you don't need to specify the version. An example, for the new article "This information was split out of Article ". And in the article where you took the content from, "Section about history of cuisine moved into NewArticle ".
 * And for the older articles where you did that, do exactly the same, just make a fake edit (add a whitespace after the end of a paragraph) in both articles and give the same edit summaries.
 * The diff should be mentioned in the Copied template you place on both articles talk page. MLauba (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll do that. I was also wondering if you need to attribute translated material (i.e. if you copypaste info from, let's say, French wikipedia and translate it word by word into english). Anyway, thank you for the help, and I'll try to do some of the work. If you by any chance spot anything that was left un-attributed, then just do it for me, rather than asking me to do it or deleting it. Could I also, to save time, just write an entry in the article talk page mentioning all the articles from which info was copypasted. Reply--Theologiae (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Inevitable Flight
Hello MLauba,

'The Inevitable Flight' is a documentary film that my husband both produced and anchored, and all the information on the page that was deleted came from his website. Copyright infringement was the reason stated. But I have full permission by my husband to reuse content from his website. Besides, I still have a lot more that I would like to still add on there.

Hairhorn send me an advisory before you deleted my page. It states that I was to explain having the owner's permission to reuse content on The Inevitable Flight's talk page as well as send an email to Wikipedia permissions. I have done that. Please let me know what else I can to get my page back up. As well, what measures can I take differently to avoid this problem next time.

There is a contact page on my husband's website where you can send in an enquiry to verify my claims.

Thank you!

Sincerely yours.

EssRiz (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * As we do not check user identities upon account creation, we have to verify authorization through an external process. To do so, there are basically two ways to do that:
 * The simplest would be to release the source website under a Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 license, replacing the current copyright notice.
 * If that is not possible or desirable, you will have to follow the verification process described at WP:DCM, which can take up to a week to complete. However, if you do so and send in a permission mail, you can let me know you did so and give me a ticket number so I can grab it from the queue and speed up the process.
 * That being said, please be also mindful that in order to qualify for a Wikipedia article, its topic must have been subject to multiple independent third party coverage and written in a neutral tone, failing that, the article might still be deleted even if the copyright situation is cleared. This page contains valuable guidelines for writing a solid and lasting article, and is a recommended read while we clear the copyright issue.
 * If you need any help, you can create a new section on your talk page and add helpme followed by your request below it, someone will be along shortly to assist you. Alternatively, you may also leave me a message on my talk page. Best regards, MLauba (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Noting OTRS ticket #2010022410018281 as reference, as it reproduces the above, it is not yet sufficient for a release. Please follow the instructions from the OTRS agent. MLauba (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One hanging for the 25th
Hi. :) There's one incomplete at SCV for the 25th, which is the only open ticket for SCV and CP that day: Colette Rossant. I would appreciate another review on that one, in comparing it to . If you think it's good enough, the day can be cleared from both Suspected copyright violations and Copyright problems. There are also two rewrites awaiting checking at Copyright problems/2010 February 24, if you don't mind.

Meanwhile, Tbsdy lives continues to be fairly inactive, so I do not know when he will be available to help close out the 21st. I'll keep an eye on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to let you know that I moved a couple of these to Copyright problems/Older consolidated. At the moment, I'm keeping the 25th up, with the SCV listing the only outstanding ticket. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 25th is resolved. Second option spontaneously delivered by User:Toon05. That just leaves the stuff at older consolidated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done one of the 24th, can't access the source for the other from this location (network timeout). Will try again tomorrow. MLauba (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for my incompetence :D
If you're wondering why I'm clogging up your watchlist, it's because I accidentally used mass-rollback on your contribs page. My humble apologies. I've reverted myself, so all should be back to normal. – Toon 17:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * rofl. That's one of the three things that hasn't happened to me yet, along with self-blocking and deleting the main page. :) MLauba (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting of Jamiatu Muslim Mindanao Page
To Whom It May Concern,

We would like to inform you that the JMM page was deleted two (2) weeks ago because of the link that has been added not knowing that it was unacceptable for the same contents of the main page.

In line thereof, the deletion made us discouraged and sad since our University was aware of the publishing and for a shortwhile it was deleted.

We would like to request for the re publishing of the page again for our University not mentioning our students, staff and administration.

Your kind consideration and favourable response are highy appreciated.

Thank You.

Ms. Najmah 06:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)06:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Najmahtamano (talk • contribs)

Additional deletes required Re: 3Failed RfCs
Hi Mlauba: Thank you for your attention. Because of not being seconded within 48 hours by another user, you recently deleted three RfCs created by User:Newman Luke at: However, when User:Newman Luke created those three RfC proposals, now deleted by you, he did so by REDIRECTING the content from: from three earlier trial "RfCs" that were there for over a week at: that should now also be deleted per the 48 hour requirement that was not met.
 * 1) Requests for comment/Avraham,
 * 2) Requests for comment/Debresser and
 * 3) Requests for comment/IZAK3.
 * 1) Redirect page for AV/Avraham,
 * 2) Redirect page for dDb/Debresser and
 * 3) Redirect page for Zq/IZAK3
 * 1) User:Newman Luke/AV (was redirected by Newman Luke to Requests for comment/Avraham),
 * 2) User:Newman Luke/dDb (was redirected by Newman Luke to Requests for comment/Debresser) and
 * 3) User:Newman Luke/Zq (was redirected by Newman Luke to Requests for comment/IZAK3)

BOTH the 3 REDIRECT pages PLUS the 3 TRIAL RfC pages should now also be deleted. Meaning ALL the above should be deleted now that the 3 final OFFICIAL RfCs have been deleted by you. Thank you in advance for clearing up the loose ends of this matter. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)