User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 25

Source needed?
Hello,

Thanks for notifying me of your interest in gaining a source for the fact I had placed on the Sindhi people article. Unfortunately, while a common fact of Sindhi people in Gujarat, this language change has not been properly examined; however; it is a certain fact of life - in urban regions of Gujarat (Ahmedabad, Jamnagar etc..), the Sindhi youth have switched to Gujarati and know extremely few words of the language, let alone being able to write it. Indeed, I wish more studies were done on this language shift.

While I cannot find another source for the language change to Gujarati, here is a writing from the website of the Sindhi Association of UK (SAUK) which comments:

Even after above stated steps taken by the Govt. of India, the decline of Sindhi language in India continued unabated.

I hope that you understand.

--92.8.198.159 (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note. I've replied at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Need help in merging article...
Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir. Can you please merge the following article Rang Badalti Odhani & Rang Badalti Odhni. The correct name of the series is the first one, the one with Odhani. Thank you! Survir (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Survir. :) Done! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Gloria Stuart
Oh, resident goddess of the rights of copy... :-) Can you take a look at this article, particularly the recent edits culminating in this version? I dislike assuming bad faith, but the material doesn't look very Wikipedia-like to me. I've started some cleanup, but the more I read, the less I like. Also note one of my recent edits (more recent than that diff) where I removed the name of an editor from the page itself; note that name is the same as Stuart's husband from the 1930s. Any advice appreciated. Thanks! Frank  |  talk  12:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good morning, Frank. :D I'll be happy to take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The name of the editor, Sylvia (Sheekman) Thompson, is identified in the article as the daughter of Gloria Stuart and Arthur Sheekman, who is also named as the author of a Gloria Stuart biography (which is cited in sources).  The sentiment expressed is lovely, (too lovely), but the tone is completely wrong.  Would there be a conflict of interest in this lady contributing material from her own published work, (or other published material that she would likely have access to) but with a more scholarly tone?  Rossrs (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely; lovely sentiment, all wrong tone. I can't access the contents of the biography, so I don't know if she's taken any of her own text (if she did, we'd need to verify her identity, of course, and make sure her publisher is okay with it. We've already had massive issues with a published author whose publisher was not). I can that I did a thorough check of the article and didn't find anything in the web or book sources that I can access.


 * WP:COI would suggest that Thompson should not be writing in her mother's autobiography under any circumstances, because of her close relationship. But COI is advisory only, and it's "nutshell" kind of says it all: "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." If Ms. Thompson is extremely careful with her sourcing and avoids praise, she may be able to contribute to the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That all sounds more than fair. Thanks for replying.  I wasn't sure about the COI aspect and appreciate the advice. I won't step on Frank's toes as he seems to have this under control, and I think the edits he has made so far, have been in the right direction.    Rossrs (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, please feel free to jump in. It needs more help, for sure. Frank  |  talk  15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to take a look?
Some copyright issues have been raised here at Ani. Since you're so knowledgeable on the subject and good at dispute handling I thought you might like to weigh in. By the way your box at the top tells people they can post by clicking on the New Section tab at the top of the page, but for some reason it's not showing up for me and I don't know if it is for others either.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Does it display as "+" for you? I think it can display as either one. :) I've edited the talk page header to indicate as much; hope I'm not wrong. :D With regards to the copyright problem, I'll come take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Kk. Actually I don't get a + or anything. I have confirmed that I do see a New Section tab on other peoples talk pages, but for some reason it does not seem to appear on yours. Perhaps as the result of your talk pages formatting? You could always create one of those messages that reads something like "Click here to leave me a message"(that I've seen on other's pages) but I'm not sure how one does that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiposter0123 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just commenting to say that the tab is there for me (using IE as a browser). Although I'm still using the Monobook skin, it's still there when I switch to the new Vector skin. Deor (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm using Firefox, and I just woke up from a dream where like 20 people came here and were all like "I can see it", "I can see it also", "Wtf is wrong with you Wikiposter, why are you making up problems about Moonriddengirl's talkpage?":P . So, I dunno, maybe it's just me. :PWikiposter0123 (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! Not worth dreaming about it. :) Even if you were the only one who couldn't see it, it's worth noting the issue. Those who've watched me long enough could tell you anyway that I regard all this technology stuff as some kind of magic, anyway. It may have its own intrinsic logic, but nothing visible to me. Your "click here" suggestion seems like a good approach just in case; I think I know how to implement that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. If anybody is watching this section still, want to try clicking on it? Does it work for you? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Deor (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah it works for me too. :)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Favor
Hi Moon...it's Joe again :) Been a while. Theres a user this time "Dan56" (talk • contribs) who keeps reverting when I delete some content supported by citations from a public forum . If you can warn this user that we dont use public forums as trustworthy sources, I'd really appreciate. Peace. Jrod2 (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've taken a look (and removed some copyright issues from the talk page), but I'm afraid that your conversation with Dan56 there is more a matter of dispute resolution than admin intervention (which doesn't mean I think you're wrong). Since you brought it to me, though, there might be a seeming of bias if I intervene. Why not bring the question to WP:RSN? (He says he asked elsewhere, but I don't see any sign of it in his contribs. Maybe it was a while before those edits.) Enacting consensus should then be pretty simple, if the responders at the board agree that forums aren't reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanx Moon, much appreciation for your hard work....Jrod2 (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nikita
Hey :). Since you dealt with this before you're definitely best. I think everything with just "Nikita" should not be pointed to "La Femme Nikita" because that's so specific, people would likely type it directly. Last time we moved "Nikita (2010 TV series)" to "Nikita (TV series)". However, I've found another one called "Nikita (tv series)" which links to "La Femme". I'm going to redirect to the new one BUT you found problems before, can you let me know if redirecting that will cause problems for other articles? If I'm not clear just ask me to re-explain. Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) No worries there; it has no incoming links. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Nikita_%28tv_series%29. You can find that information, for future reference, in the "toolbox" beside the article, under "What links here." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh right! That will definitely come in handy :). Thanks very much as always! Jayy008 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you PIE?
I am searching for the roots for the two flip sides of thinking: Sense and Reason. Reason is the newer of the two coming from Ratio, or calculation, and Sense goes back farther and is evenly spread out across the PEI span. This is my writing so far: Wictionary, Rational, Etymology 1

I also found that the PIE word for Sense is Menos, which is Latin Minus, but also PIE for searching, pathway, and some mythological ideas.--John Bessa (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds very interesting. Good luck with your research. :) (I have dabbled in pie, but never as a major field of study.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing My username Help needed
I would like to change my username from Fazlu2010 to wikkan in Global account, Please Help "Achu 06:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazlu2010 (talk • contribs)
 * You'll need to place a request at WP:CHUS for that. MLauba (Talk) 09:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

One Tree Hill
Omg, he's back! How can somebody have sooo many computers? I thought I'd bring it to you again because you've dealt with it all before. Can you just block without notice this time? Isn't it sockpuppetry but with IP's? Jayy008 (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, very likely, or perhaps "meat puppetry" (where a blocked user gets somebody else to make an edit for him), since it's coming from a different country. But this is the point, now that multiple IPs are involved, for protection. I've semi-protected the article for a month. Please keep an eye on the talk page in case any IPs request edits that are good. I hate to lock down an article to stop somebody like this, but there doesn't seem to be any other way. :/ If it persists after a month, let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's annoying. There are LOTS of good IP's on this page who make great spelling and grammar changes that I always miss and now they can't because of one ignorant user. I will definitely keep an eye on the talk page, I'm happy to discuss it with anyone who wants it changed. Yep yep, I'll let you know :) Jayy008 (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dushman 1971 film should be created
there is a word named Dushman in hindi meaning Enemy.

there are 3 films of same name in hindi made in 1971,1990 and 1998 respectively. Dushman starring Rajesh Khanna is a 1971 film but the artilce in wikipedia is under a wrong spelling dushmun  and also this article a person can see only if dushman(1972 film) is written.the article is very much wrong so what can be done? shall i create dushman(1971 film) newly?

dushman of 1990 has veen perfectly made in wikipedia so no issues.

another article is about the third film which has been created on the basis of word dushman itself when infact it should be dushman (1998 film).

i want the three films to be shown as disambiguition when any one types dushman word alone in google —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrik88music (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I'm following this correctly. We have Dushman (about the 1998 film) Dushman (1990 film), and Dushmun (1971 film). You created Dushman (1971 film), but I had to delete it. I told you on July 5th, you can't copy content from one Wikipedia article to another. See that notice. If you don't understand the process for copying content, please let me know, but please do not copy content from one article to another again unless you are sure you are doing it right.


 * The thing to do is move Dusham to Dushman (1998 film); move Dushmun to Dushman (1971 film), and create a new disambiguation page explaining where to find these articles. I will help this time. That said, I've suggested to you several times that you should find a mentor. A mentor would be very helpful to you in situations like this, and I'm afraid that I don't have time to be your mentor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems like you figured out the move. :) If you haven't created a disambig page yet, I'll help with that. Perhaps it will be done before I get there! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * All right. I have added text to create the disambiguation page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Question re Russian copyright infringer
You posted on the Milhist board re User:Дунгане. Would you please quickly examine the section I deleted here and tell me whether you share my concerns about not only copyright infringement but distortion of the source used to push racial POV? I would very much like a second opinion before I start taking any action. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm afraid that I'd have to know a lot more about the subject (or have a more steady internet connection for exploring) to really give you a solid answer about that one, but I can tell you that several other contributors raised POV questions at the ANI thread discussing copyright concerns. That would suggest to me that your concerns are probably not yours alone. That thread is still open if you'd like to weigh in there and seek additional feedback from the other editors who fear racial POV. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What's written at the AN/I discussion is enough to substantiate my concerns. I'll stand by to get my hobnail boots out. Hope your computer issues get resolved quickly, and, as always, many thanks for all your copyvio work. Best regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for whatever you and your hobnail boots may be able to accomplish. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there an OTRS for this somewhere?
File:Brats4-1.jpg is an image that has been here for a while and it does not have an OTRS number with it, but the email used to show license rights implies there might be. From the email on display somebody asked if they can use it on Wikipedia with credit and the reply was "Sure, no problem." Unless I am mistaken that email, from the photographer, need/s/ed to also go to OTRS before it went from Non-Free to free. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a sign of permission anywhere. I've tagged the image and left a note for the person who suggested the image was permitted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

RIP
I happened to stumble upon User:Aranman whom I knew and know that he died at least 1 year ago. I have seen notes to this effect but do you know if is this something that should be noted on his user page? ww2censor (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry. :( I've seen various practices, but I'm not sure what's standard. Give me a minute and, internet connectivity willing, I'll see what I can find. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, we've got Deceased Wikipedians. It comes down to how you know he died, it seems. If you are able to supply "verifiable information" (it doesn't say you have to, just that you need to be able to do so), you can list him there, and we can follow the process at Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. I'm not sure how strong a consensus there is for that guideline. Certainly, I know that a separate memorial page brought some protests at the talk page of the guideline, and I wouldn't go there. Do you know his family at all? Do you think they would want a notice? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Another attempt after deleted page
Thank you for your earlier help and clarification on the deleted article on Robert J. Vanderbei. He put the Bio page on his own website back up and put a note at the bottom of that page stating that the material can be used under the CC-by-SA license. I prepared a new Wikipedia entry based on that bio, and it's one of my user pages right now. I put a note on its discussion page about the permissions granted on the Bio page. Would you mind taking a look and providing guidance on whether it's all done correctly? Thanks. Hybenson (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that should be fine. :) Thank you for your persistence. I'll move it to article space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Hybenson (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please check this out when you have time
Hi, I just happened across this new article and it is horrible and I think in need of a speedy delete for multiple reasons. This is what I am talking about. It reads like an advertisment. It has the banner on the top of the article that comes directly from the site here which is a copyright infraction. The only references for it are useless and not reliable sources. I looked and couldn't find any either. Then look at the editor who wrote this article. It seems hokey too. I am trying to assume good faith but this time after reading it's really hard to do. It reads like a sock account of someone, I don't know who's though. Would love your thoughts on this and any actions if needed. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  11:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (Passer-by comment): I don't think it fits any of the speedy deletion criteria but it doesn't establish notability either. I've prodded and watchlisted the article; this should give the author a week to knock it into shape. If they don't and don't challenge the prod it'll be deleted then; if they don't but do challenge the prod, the next step will be AfD. I also trimmed out some unsupported puffery. As for the editor, no idea if it is a sock or not. Time will perhaps tell on that one :) Hope this helps, EyeSerene talk 11:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I concur. :) The banner is uploaded under proper FUR, though it's probably too big. I'll tag it for reduction. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, both of you have been a big help for me. That's why I come here because I get such good advice and don't feel like a fool if I make an error.  I appreciate the help with this, again thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We all have the right to be foolish on occasion - I know I manage it quite often :) Your concerns seemed perfectly reasonable to me though. EyeSerene talk 12:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for saying that because I may have another silly question to ask. The editor removed the prod notice, is this allowed?  They did replace it with a cleanup template and then MRG put a notability one up.  So does the 7 days still apply?  Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a silly question. Since creators can't remove CSD notices, it's a good question. :) Anyone, even an article creator, can remove a PROD notice. If somebody still thinks the article should be deleted, they then have the option of nominating it via WP:AFD. I think, though, that the article probably can be brought in line with WP:ORG. I get 23 hits at Google books and 28 at Google news. People do love oddities. But some of those sources need to make their way into the article to verify notability. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!!!!!!!! :D
You are truly amazing! I just recently noticed the newly changed Criminals Hall of Fame article, and I must say it looks great!!! It looks so much better after you edited it! I don't even know how I can thank you! :D -BluWik (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) I would add more if I could, but those are about all the sources I can find! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have thought of going to the user's page and putting up a welcome template. I just didn't think of it.  I am going to go there now to apologize to the editor for being so rude and offering my help.  Thanks for picking up my lacking to do this.  You are always so gracious with how you do things.  I for one really appreciate watching you work with such care, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know that you were rude CrohnieGal. Sometimes when I get busy working on Wikipedia, I don't leave welcome notes or take time to pitch in with newcomers. I like to, but sometimes you're just thinking about or focused on other things or busy. I know you go out of your way to be nice to people, and I think it's great that you added another source to the article! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your Reply
Thanks a lot for your friendly reply to my copyright question. I've tried to go over and reword the article as best as I could (I made a copy on my user space when it was flagged for deletion). I've tried my best to make it as different as possible, but maths is quite a formal and succinct language and it's hard to change the words without changing the meaning. Could you take a look at tell me if you think I should put it back onto the name space. Here it is: user:Fly by Night/sandbox. Thanks — Fly by Night  ( talk )  17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm going to defer this to a friend of mine on Wikipedia who is not only also a copyright admin but in addition a member of WikiProject Mathematics. As I said, I find determining the line in math situations quite a headache. Basically, math definitions become copyrightable to the point that creativity is involved. It can be hard for me to determine when there may be limited ways to convey information in this unfamiliar field. :) I'll ask him to respond here; please keep an eye out for his answer! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked here and requested that, if he can help, User:Dcoetzee respond either here or at your talk page. He may be a day or two, depending on what else he's up to, but please be patient. I suspect he's probably the best person to give guidance here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great; thanks! Do you think I should just be bold and release it anyway ☺ — Fly by Night  ( talk )  18:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my delay! I'm only just now able to connect to the internet again and crossing my fingers I can finish this. :/ I never recommend boldness with copyright concerns. It's one of the few areas of Wikipedia where caution is almost always better. :) (BLP being the other.) User:Dcoetzee should take a look soon, if you can wait. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I can, and I will, wait. I hope your internet holds up so that you might carry on your good work. We need many more like you. All the best! — Fly by Night  ( talk )  20:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the delay. I took a look at Poincaré complex and I'm pretty confident it's not a copyvio. The specific properties described in the definition are unique and necessary, so that they couldn't be expressed in another manner (or should not be, as using an equivalent definition could lead to confusion). There's substantial variation in organization and structure. I'm confused about the use of $$\frown$$ instead of $$\cap$$, which seems unnecessary. It would strengthen the case that this is not a copyvio to introduce additional facts from a second source. Dcoetzee 05:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dcoetzee! I appreciate you talking the time to help. The use of $$\scriptstyle \frown$$ in place of $$\scriptstyle \cap$$ was two-fold. Firstly I think $$\scriptstyle \frown$$ looks nicer, and secondly the cap product article uses $$\scriptstyle \frown$$ insead of $$\scriptstyle \cap$$. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Are book blurbs copyvio?
I removed a copyvio template here, but then I thought I should double check and ask you what is our policy on book blurbs. Can we cite them in their entirety? How should they be referenced? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They should not be used, since they are copyrighted and they don't say anything which can't be rewritten. Per WP:NFC quotations should be brief, and multiple paragraphs doesn't really qualify as brief. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will add that they are also a form of advertising, indeed a very important part; and are notoriously unreliable and lacking in neutral point of view. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. :) (I am online! Please, may it last.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Help needed Images
How to insert posters/pictures in wiki articles? iam unable to put by myself in the wiki artcile about Rajesh Khanna. Please see the way i have changed the article as i have provided refernces to many of the points but some of the antirajesh and fans are unneccesarily changing and doing edits.They like shshshsh should be blocked i feel as they are having baised opinions.

are you satisfied with the refernces i have provided. more are coming in near future

please see the article as contributed by me Shrik88music (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Images may supply you with the information you need. Alternatively, you can visit our help desk. But this is precisely the kind of thing that a mentor would be happy to help you with. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying nice things about you
Hi, Moonriddengirl! I thought it'd be polite to let you know that your name was brought up at the help desk, and that we all said nice things about you there. :-) Actually, I've seen your work many times previously, and have admired your extraordinary history of contributions here extremely, without having had any reasonable opportunity to express my appreciation and gratitude for your work. So let me take this opportunity to do so: You make this an ever so much better and more pleasant a place to contribute, and I'm grateful for that, and for all your other work here, too. Thanks! –  OhioStandard  (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, my goodness. You have made my day. :) Thank you so much! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * :-) –  OhioStandard  (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User page
Pleasy delete my user page.--Somerwind (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Contributor_copyright_investigations
Per my latest response, please see my assessment at user:Agradman/sandbox.

Best,

-user:Agradman editing as 167.10.240.1 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) That will be very helpful! As my note above says, I'm having some (highly annoying!) computer issues, but we'll try to get this resolved as quickly as possible. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.179.241 (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wallenberg Foundation page
I work for the Foundation and want to resolve this issue. I know that the page has been blocked or shut down due to copyright issues, and we acknowledge that. Is there a way to get rid of the page and start from scratch with original content? Or can we only do that with a temporary page? ticket 2010072910040988

64.51.162.170 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: refers to International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation. Just a quick feedback, the ticket you mention above has been replied to on 29 July, with recommendations on what would be required to license the material. If this were feasible on your end, it would save the need to start over from scratch. In case the ticket response got lost or eaten by an antispam system, the same instructions can be found at this page. MLauba (Talk) 17:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Our organization doesn't wish to donate the material. I'm just asking, how do I create a new page and get rid of the old one? 64.51.162.170 (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. For the new content, using the temporary page would be ideal. MLauba (Talk) 17:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much.64.51.162.170 (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

tolle pic
Hi Moonriddengirl, could when you have a minute have a look at this one for me, picture is here online, it appears to be the same size and resolution as ours, the up-loader says that he has communicated with the copyright owner and the copyright owner gave permission that it can be used freely online only and attributed, he says he has sent his communication with the copyright owner to OTRS. I did that once and was refused, they asked me to ask the copyright owner to email them directly...also, if the permission is given the ok by OTRS would that level of control ..only online'' make it suitable for commons and for usage in a BLP, as non free pics are not generally used in the articles of living people when a free one can be taken or found. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rob. I've found the ticket and am responding to it. You're right that the restrictions on reuse are not compatible with our licensing requirement. I've requested a permission more in keeping with our needs. Given my internet connectivity issues, I'm pretty behind in my general work at the moment. If you can, please give me a heads up on this if there's no follow-up on those images within a week. They'll need to be deleted if usable permission is not provided. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch Moon, your the best. I will watch for replies and let you know of any updates. Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz RSN
Ha. You're rather brave for taking that on. I more or less tuned out that conversation as they just seemed to be spinning their wheels. In retrospect, though, I read too much into the source. Since it's a BLP concern, if the source is accepted it should be used only to back up claims made about the guy himself - stuff he did. If it's about other people, then it probably shouldn't be used. Is this statement sufficient, or should I reply under what you wrote on RSN? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! Not brave; just trying to help out two members of WikiProject Album who have locked horns over the issue. :D I can't really weigh in, though, because I feel like there were canvassing issues in how I came aware of the conversation. It would be great if you could clarify your position at RSN. Currently, there isn't really consensus, and I'm hoping to nail it down. As I said there, User:Dan56 is really prolific, with almost 90% of his contribs to article space. If we can give him, he really deserves a clear answer, and that'll only help us out in the future, since a good portion of our album content is coming from him. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Rachael Lorenz
Hi there, I am writing to you about a page that is marked for deletion it is called Rachael Lorenz. I have cited 2 sources that are verifiable for reference checking if need be. Am I able to talk to you on the telephone or msn or via email? I have evidence of which I can scan for you but that is not for the public etc. I can provide you my email, I am awful at using Wikipedia to chat on so if you would like to email me please do at (redacted) Thank you. --Fergasonanton (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there,


 * If you have sources you can add them to the article and then submit them for review at the deletion discussion. There is strictly no need for off-site communication: the decision to keep or delete the article is made by the Wikipedia community as a whole on the merits of the case, based on our policies. Specifically, the article requires multiple independent third party coverage to verify its contents and ensure a neutral article. As it deals with a living person, these requirements are extremely stringent (see our policy on biographies of living people for more details). MLauba (Talk) 10:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that information, I am new at this and learning. CharlesMartine (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo Bindi
As the player became notable, would you mind restore the deleted history of the player? Also for Paolo Tornaghi. Matthew_hk  t  c  04:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you want them? Trust me, there's nothing there really worth resurrecting. :/ What you have written is far, far superior, and I don't think there's any valid content there to merge. (But let me know if for some reason you do want them; I imagine it would be uncontroversial to tuck the old edits behind the articles you've written.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ivo John Lederer
Quite a bit of this seems close paraphrase from his obit. Not copy and paste exactly, but I'm not sure if it's far enough away from the NY Times obit to be ok. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Doug. :) I'm looking at it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking this is worth at least a Close paraphrasing tag. What concerns me is text like this:


 * The Times says:


 * There's been an effort to rewrite, but it uses a lot of the phrasing from the original. If you tag it, the Close Paraphrasing tag will list it at CP. If it isn't revised by the end of a week, I'll take a stab at separating it from the source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, there's at least one similar section as I recall. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, see Talk:Ivo John Lederer where I've found a lot more. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Request re milhist newsletter
Hi :) I wonder if I can ask a favour of you on behalf of the milhist project? We publish a newsletter every month which is circulated around the membership and a few others who've signed up to receive it, and this normally includes an editorial feature. Given your work with copyright issues and in the light of the recent notice you posted at milhist, would you be willing to write an editorial for us? I was thinking something along the lines of how to check articles for copvios, how to report them and how to clean them up, but anything you feel is appropriate would be very welcome. The idea is partly to try to drum up assistance for the cleanup, partly to inform us all better in this area, and partly to supply content that can be reused in our Academy as the basis for a suitable course.

This would be for an upcoming issue (probably August), so there's plenty of time as we don't usually get the newsletter out until late the first week of the following month. If you want to take a look at former editorials there's a list here. I hope this isn't too much of an imposition; please feel free to decline if it is (I know how busy you are!) All the best, EyeSerene talk 11:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and I'm so pleased that you asked! I'm always happy to talk about copyright cleanup. :) I'll have to find somebody to copy-edit me, though. I tend to run long, and WP:TLDR is a problem. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's great, thank you! You can either create a page in our essay space here or use your sandbox, whatever you prefer, and add a link to the submissions table when you're ready :) Don't worry too much about TLDR; we generally copyedit anyway before publication (not that much will be needed, I'm sure). Thanks again, EyeSerene talk 12:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With editorials being on their own page, I think TLDR isn't a problem. :-) Thanks for agreeing to write it; I'm looking forward to it! Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

All righty. Beginning work on this and commenting on it here to keep it alive. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:UAA
Thanks for your comment; I'm also soliciting admin opinions at User talk:Dank. Would adding some form of clerkship at WP:SCV make your life easier or harder, or would you like to wait and see how clerkship develops elsewhere? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't know. The only real problems we run into at SCV are when we get new helpers there who really aren't at all familiar with the work. (There's always a little learning curve; I'm not talking about the ones who need a bit of mentoring to get up to speed, but the rare few who are so far off that they do more harm than good.) I think we might be better off leaving SCV wide open, since we currently need way more copyright workers than we have and I'm happy to lure in those I can who wander through that door. :D A trial clerkship could be beneficial at WP:CP, though. There have been a couple of non-admin editors who have been willing to systematically pitch in there, but few who have stuff around. The only one we currently have is User:VernoWhitney. Articles are listed at CP for a full week before admin closure, and having CP clerks to make sure that the proper formalities are followed (articles blanked, contributor notified where possible, material that is PD or proper licensed is not listed) could be very useful, if we could find people up for the job. Any talk page stalkers have thoughts on this? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:SCV is one of the areas where clerkships aren't needed - the investigation a clerk would need to make to determine whether a report is a false positive or merits further action is the entirety of the investigation to be conducted there. In terms of (text) copyvio work, WP:CCI is the one area where clerkship makes a difference, and hence we already established one for that :) The only SCV area that would require clerking is Coren's talk page :D MLauba (Talk) 15:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL! Clerkship for Coren's talk page would be fab. :) What do you think of having clerks investigate new listings at CP? A good idea or wheel spinning? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Re:CP, dunno how much clerking is really needed. Often just the two of us (well, mostly MRG, I'm merely the helper) are enough to deal with the backlog in a timely manner. I think actually that checking whether the formalities are observed could be another VWBot task - akin to (is it Smackbot?) the bot that checks that AfD formalities are observed, the clerical tasks there could be automated pretty well. MLauba (Talk) 15:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * VernoWhitney seems to be doing a great job. This may be premature ... I don't know if there will be wide support for more clerking in general ... but do you think VernoWhitney would be able to do a better job if deleted contribs were visible?  It's entirely possible clerkship will never involve any extra userrights, but if it does, my money is on that one. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That might help. Let's ask Verno. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Deleted edits being visible would, I believe, be a net plus for WP:CCI clerking. One thing I'm worried about, though, is that if a formal clerk userright is created, granting the status may quickly become RFA-lite, and at the risk of running afoul of WP:OWN, I'd rather not have some people who never in their life lifted one single finger to help out on copyright matters and wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole vote on whether a Verno is suitable for the task or not. MLauba (Talk) 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It does occur to me that there is one way that official clerks might help at SCV: coordinating volunteers. I'm not sure if Verno or any of our other SCV people would want the added responsibility or how it would even work. But even the good volunteers we get generally need to learn a bit about copyright policies on Wikipedia. If clerks could note newcomers and spot-check them as I tend to do, that might be helpful. (Not to borrow trouble, so to speak, but the one problem I've yet to see in my 2+ years of copyright work here is a bad reviewer who just won't give up. The ones who aren't suitable almost always lose interest quickly. I don't know what we'd do if they didn't.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I'm caught up on the conversation, but please forgive me if I've missed something. I'm not sure what particular formalities MLauba's referring to with regards to CP, but that's exactly the kind of thing that I'd like to get VWBot to do. Depending on the details it may take some doing to implement (which is why automatic notification of contributors of blanked content is on indefinite hold), but at least generating a list of possible issues for human follow-up should be possible. Just let me know any ideas for CopyClean bot tasks and I'll put it on my list of things to program.


 * As far as clerking goes, I think SCV is de facto clerking for CP, since it's the cursory review and the admins still have to take care of deletions and the like at the end of the week and can at that point double-check other article assessments (and I thought everybody that worked SCV already watchlisted Coren's page...). I also don't really see that CCI clerking would benefit all that much from viewing deleted contributions, since everything should be logged as G12 deleted or at least linked to from a CP daily page, and either of these are good prima facie evidence that there are copyvio problems which could need investigating and a CCI should be opened. Finding out which pages they've created that have been deleted in the first place is generally provided by whoever requests a CCI. Viewing deleted material would definitely help out with OTRS work, but that's rather off-topic. Moving on to MRG's last point here, there really aren't that many volunteers to coordinate, and I already tend to spot-check assessments from non-regulars. I'd certainly be willing to do something more formally, since I prefer following rules and established procedures rather than winginng it, but that's just me. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: Clerking bot tasks for CP: beyond listing on behalf of the broken DumbBot that you already have as task, here are a couple of "nice to have" functions, with complete disregard for complexity of implementation:


 * blanking of the article page once the {{subst:copyvio}} template is in place
 * creating a list of entries where the alleged source is a .mil or .gov domain - if we check this one daily we don't need to keep something on the CP log for 7 daysx
 * similarly, checking whether the article has an acceptable attribution template on it (one of the PDs or of the CCs), and list these along with the others.
 * an advanced modification of the Bot task 4 would be to add a commentary below any entries on a CP day giving the notification status of the article's creator. Does no harm if the creator is not the one who didn't add the copyvio but saves a relist if he was. It could also add an information when the creator has not edited in more than 12 months for instance.
 * At least that's what I can think of atm. MLauba (Talk) 18:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm following the conversation, I'm just avoiding the urge to comment on everything I see :) I'm very pleasantly surprised at the various conversations ... imagine talking about some process with a new userright and a new voting process at WT:RFA and not getting a single "stopper" objection out of  a hundred replies :) I think we may have something here.  I'm putting together a panel discussion at the NYC Wikiconference this month, and it may be time to turn this link blue: WP:Clerking. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Next step for people who are interested: WT:CSD. The question is: if there are clerks that handle G12 speedy deletion issues (such as removing misplaced tags), would it make more sense for them to be trained and vetted as "CSD clerks" by "CSD people" or as copyright clerks? - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like an idea with some good promise. :) And I'd say copyright clerks for sure. Surely it's good for all admins on Wikipedia to have a good grasp of copyright policy, but I've seen plenty who are a bit behind the times. :) (Particularly with licensing transition.) If clerks get "training", getting it from people who are current on copyright issues is probably best. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My gut instinct: CSD clerks. G12 is an easy determination. Is it blatant? If not, but doubts subsist, convert to {{subst:copyvio}} or Close paraphrase. If yes, check article history, talk, and contrib talk page to check if there's any claim of permission or ownership, if there's one, tag {{subst:copyvio}}, list on CP, and move on. The only caveat is to make sure that anything licensed GFDL-only doesn't get cleared but posted at CP (we've had that discussion a couple of times :) ). I'd say that in the grand scheme of things, G12 is probably easier than G11 to handle. MLauba (Talk) 20:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, opposite conclusions. I still say CSD clerks, but nothing stands in the way of WP:Copyclean writing the instructions for G12. MRG loves writing these. ;) MLauba (Talk) 20:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I lean towards copyright clerks. I come across issues with GFDL-licensing and blanking-when-permission-is-asserted on a fairly regular basis, even with admins. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but admins believe they know because they used to, they look at a CAT:CSD queue and handle G12 like A7 by experience and instinct, even when both are outdated or wrong. A CSD clerk follows a procedure because if he doesn't, he has no business clerking in the first place. Plus, let's be realists here. What proportion of potential clerk candidates would want to work on copyright matters? And it doesn't have to be exclusive - if someone is clerking on CCI and is bored, he certainly has the experience to clerk at G12 too. MLauba (Talk) 21:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point ... seeing deleted contribs is a long-shot and something for the future; for now, the only difference between a clerk and a non-clerk would be that the clerks get to use on the board(s) where they ran for clerkship ... but admins aren't likely to care, admins will make up their own minds who's doing a good job. - Dank (push to talk) 21:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a preference whether there are "CSD clerks", but I don't want to say that what they do should necessarily be so easy that it won't require much oversight; who knows what they'll do, or what people will want them to do. Some clerks may be highly skilled and highly valued. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point MLauba makes about the newbies being less likely to err based on old expectations. :) Also about the concerns with the clerk process. Verno is a fabulous CCI clerk and surely one of the major players at SCV, but he started his work without wide experience, I believe. How would we avoid clerking becoming RFA-lite? If people who did not work copyright looked at Verno's contribs at the time and objected - say because he had not then much content contrib - the project would have lost a great asset in CCI. Speaking specifically of CSD clerks, I'm not sure that they are as necessary as some other fields, since any user other than the creator can remove a CSD tag. Perhaps the best thing I can think of for them might be to review removed CSD tags. We have a flag when somebody removes a copyvio, but I'm not sure if we have similar for db-G12 or db-G10. Do we? In those cases, it might be very good to have a reviewer who can take further action. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If clerkship becomes something desirable (which would be a good thing ... we want good, motivated, competitive clerk candidates), there's no way we can stop RFA voters or anyone else from participating, and we'll be better off if we extend an invitation to RFA when clerk votes are happening than if we try to "hide" it from them. With a very few exceptions, people who oppose at RFA are doing it for some reason involving content or competence or attitude.  I actually expect that when they're confronted with a different question ... will this person make a good clerk? ... they're likely to give the same advice they would at RFA, such as "you need to be more focused on content", but then support instead of oppose, since clerks have no powers and little prestige and can't destroy the wiki (not that I buy that admins can destroy the wiki, but that's the fear at RFA and I have no problem with people voting in line with their concerns).  On CSD clerks, so far I'm seeing no support at WT:CSD or anywhere else for slicing up clerkship that way; it's looking like clerkship is going to get tied to specific noticeboards, although we can't stop clerks from doing deletion work connected to their clerking, can't stop admins from advising them how to do it ... and wouldn't want to, would we? - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my moving mess
Will admit freely I didn't know what I was doing; sorry for creating the mess to clean-up. However, the only thing I find a bit odd is that you reverted my c/p move rather than cleaning it up and leaving it as intended. What is the point of doing it this way, where now I have to go do the move correctly, and in this case, ask for another admin to assist because one page would not move with the tool? Seems like a mighty duplication and waste of effort.Vertigo Acid (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Actually, somebody else reverted your c/p moves. What I did was merge the new content at Prunus avium back into the article which had been restored at Wild Cherry. It consisted primarily of links, but it seemed a shame to lose them in the transition. Actually, the fact that I did so is the reason you were able to move the article...becuase there was nothing at the destination name but a redirect. No new content had been added at Prunus cerasus, so I did not use the administrator tools there at all; that's why there's content in its history that prevents your making the move. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OTH
He's back! With an account this time... Since it's a sockpuppet does he just receive a permanent block now? He's received lots of warnings from other editors. Jayy008 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He's not a sockpuppet. His blocks had expired on his IPs, so he's free to create an account. I've warned him, though, about consensus. And if you can explain at WP:AIV what makes what he's doing vandalism, that could help. --Moonriddengirl (talk)18:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did my best. But it's difficult because it's a long list of things to explain. It's hard for somebody to understand who doesn't watch it. Jayy008 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, before I go ahead and do the whole page. When referring to seasons should it be formatted 3, 5, 7 or 3; 5; 7. I have been changing to the latter, but I thought I'd ask [a grammer question] Jayy008 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on how it is used, but generally you'd go with just 3, 5, 7. In that context, you'd likely only use ; if there were other clauses to distinguish (for example: "3, which aired on these dates; 5, which aired on these dates and included episodes 4-4000; 7" --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, sorry. The last bit confused me lol. So unless you're adding other clauses like (episodes 1-13); then you'd use a comma? Jayy008 (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. :) Basically, the ";" is used in that kind of situation to help avoid confusion if you've already got "," lying around. A "," is like a little pause. A ";" is like a big one. If you don't have little pauses already lying around, the "," should be fine. And if your little pauses are set off by "(", you can still use ",". Better? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, much better. He's made the edit again :(. Just after loads of work I was doing, I don't want to revert and get into an edit war. Jayy008 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed him. I warned him clearly that he needed to follow consensus processes. He's still edit warring, just as he did under his multiple IPs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) (talk page stalker) In lists, use of a semicolon is often advisable to avoid a comma splice. For instance:


 * "Incorrect Season 1, airing on these dates, season 2, airing on these dates, season 3, airing on these dates."
 * "Correct Season 1, airing on these dates; season 2, airing on these dates; season 3, airing on these dates."
 * "Also correct Season 1, season 2, season 3."


 * The confusion's been resolved already, but I'm bored and felt like being a stalker :P  Chickenmonkey  19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free. :) Stalkers are always welcome here. (Wait, that sounds really weird...) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help as always MRG, I'll just inform you everytime he does it. For some reason, I don't think we've seen the last of him? and great ChickenMonkey, I definitely understand the concept. Jayy008 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Licensing question
Hello Moonriddengirl. Avraham suggested I ask you the following questions. If a building is 1000+ years old, is the floorplan of that building in the public domain? Or is it copyrighted by whatever author (or publisher) put the floorplan together 50 years ago?  nableezy  - 19:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, now, there's an interesting question. Let me ponder that one for a minute. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, here's the thing. Copyright protects creative expression. Architecturally, the creativity is in the building design, and copyright has long since expired in that. However, reproductions of what one sees are also creative expressions (not digital reproductions, under U.S. law, but creative photography or drawings). They cannot prevent you making your own floor plan based on the design (since they can't retroactively impose copyright), but they may be able to protect their creative expression of it, particularly to the extent that it contains artistic flourishes. (Then, of course, there's the additional question: if the floorplan was published 50 years ago, is it still under copyright even if it does contain artistic flourishes?) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Table creativity
I know this is one of those fun recurring topics and there're a lot of opinions floating around already but I think more opinions (and your nice way of explaining copyright issues) may be helpful. Beginning with 5251902 we have the blanking of two articles comprising tables of information (1976 Lady Wigram Trophy and 1976 New Zealand Grand Prix, listed on the 8th and 9th respectively). There's conversation in OTRS and on the 8th and it's now moved to my talk page. If you could take a look and provide your opinion, or just let me know if you don't want to get involved, I would appreciate it. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I frequently don't want to, but I usually do anyway. :D (see BanglaPedia, above.) I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, read through OTRS. Off to look at your talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As you've been so helpful on this, may I ask you a related question? This section is headed "Table creativity".  Is the issue here that the information is displayed in tabular form?  Underneath the race results I have a section headed "notes on the cars" and a typical entry describes the history of the car in a simple paragraph or two of text.  These entries weren't copied.  Would Wikipedia also regard this text as "fair game" or is it only the information displayed in a table? Allen Brown (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Wikipedia would absolutely not regard copying that text as "fair game". I know you've done your reading on US copyright law, so I know that you're very aware that the threshold for creativity is very low. A sentence like "John Brown was born on July 15, 1940" is not copyrightable by itself, because it does not clear that threshold. But as text begins to aggregate, creativity rises because creativity also covers which facts are chosen for inclusion and the structure of text. Even if John Brown's fictitious biographer strung together a series of uncopyrightable sentences, the whole would almost certainly have copyright protection. (Where structure is obvious copyright is weakened--but even with obvious organization, there is generally going to be some element of creativity in a couple of paragraphs of text.)


 * What makes tables and lists more difficult is that "obvious organization" comes into play. The facts you put in a table are not copyrightable, no matter how obscure (material that relies on human judgment is), but your organization and selection of these facts may be. A chronological bibliography of John Brown's works is not copyrightable. A "select" bibliography can be, unless the criteria for selection is obvious and non-creative. But evgen a chronological table of John Brown's publications can be creative if it includes elements in a way that is not obvious--say, adding columns for page count, dates started and the number of times he used the word "amazing" in the body of the book. That information is not copyrightable; the fact that the biographer chose to table it in a certain way is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A most informative reply. Thank you.  So may we look at a specific example.  Would the information at this address meet the definition of copyrightable used by Wikipedia? This is my site's USP and I need to know whether it is safe.  If it is, my attitude towards Wikpedia's use of other information from my pages may alter.  16:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenbrown (talk • contribs)
 * Can you provide me a link to a specific page? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry! Both forgot to sign it and forgot to add the link: http://www.oldracingcars.com/results/result.php?RaceID=F76G#notes. I'm trying to function without my afternoon cup of tea and that's never a good idea! Allen Brown (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Yes, definitely; copying that content onto Wikipedia would violate our copyright policies. It clears the creativity threshold quite handily, particularly with highly individual language such as "The remains of the old tub were sold to the Domingo brothers...." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You realise I may be quoting you on this in the future don't you? Feeling confident?  And yes, I pride myself in my 'highly individual language' :) Allen Brown (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You may regret being so helpful! Another part of my site that is regularly 'reused' is 'Where Are They Now' (WATN).  Here's a typical entry: http://www.oldracingcars.com/driver/Chris_Amon.  Am I right in assuming that you would regard the tabulated information in between the pictures as 'fair game' but the biography underneath as copyrightable?  Second question - and I'm going to let you take the rest of the day off after this one - if any of the information at the top of the page is used, must it receive adequate credit?  Chris Amon is a bad example because his details are so well known but there are others where WATN is the only known source of biographical data because our sleuths are the only ones to have found it.  This isn't a copyright issue specifically; it's more to do with plagiarism. Allen Brown (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote away. I'm on the record. :) Yes, you are right that I would regard the tabulated information as fair game and the biography as copyrightable. To use it, somebody would need to rewrite the information in it completely in their own language. And they should cite you per WP:V, if your website is reliable (I mean to cast no aspersions on your website); if it's not reliable, they shouldn't use it at all.


 * well indeed - how exactly did my website satisfy WP:RS? Technically I'm self-published.  So if I could show that my site was unreliable, does that mean Wikipedians would be forbidden from using its content?  Have I found my loophole?  I feel a highly unreliable article coming on... Allen Brown (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As to crediting you for the top of the page, they should credit you under WP:V, but I suspect that the content would not be viewed as creative enough to warrant credit per Plagiarism, as "Simple, non-creative lists of information". But I have to note that I am myself very conservative on this issue; I credit like crazy, and I would certainly regard giving you credit as the right thing to do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. I would have expected that if a website was the only source of a particular item of information, even if the item was as simple and factual as a place of birth, Wikipedia would still want to credit the source.  Like you, I'd be very conservative on this issue.  I'm not expecting anyone to stop using ORC as a source and am indeed happy that they do - as long as they credit appropriately.  Thanks for your time.  Allen Brown (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, loopholes. :) Wikipedia does want to credit you, under WP:VER. WP:PLAG, on the other hand, is a bit more liberal...and, I'll note, was not universally supported even at that. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Me again
Have you any familiarity with http://oocities.com? See Administrators' noticeboard. Would these links violate WP:COPYLINK? – xeno talk 17:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they do. Replied there. Mass reversion seems a possibility. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have done. Thanks for your input. – xeno talk 20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Where's the guidance on linking to external sites with copyvio?
As you can see here, an editor is objecting to my deletion of a link to his website, saying " My page didn't violate the rules, it maybe further-linked to copyrighted material, but it was not itself and directly." Where is the actual guidance on this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:LINKVIO. If they host copyright violations they're almost always off limits. Even if they just link to copyright violations then there is still likely contributory copyright infringement going on, and there should be a good reason to use them. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, weird. I didn't get the "you have messages" flag until you replied to Doug, Verno. :/ Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Verno. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Tolle pic part two
Hi Moonriddengirl, is good for insertion and transfer to commons now? Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, it's all properly licensed now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your attention. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

possible problem with banglapedia
G'day MRG :-) - I've just been chatting on IRC, where Ottava has pointed out a possible problem - his concern follows;

Hey, chat! Attention! Someone needs to contact Moonriddengirl about massive plagiarism - here - major copy and paste and the rest. It isn't just on that page but practically all pages dealing with the banglapedia - see here

Doing a quick search of any of the pages on that list and compare them with the pages on banglapedia show major copy and paste yet banglapedia is not copyright compatible.

He'd like you to be aware of the issue, so I hope that's cool :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, MRG has stated that she didn't wish any furhter contact with Ottava Rima. But beyond reminding him of that next time you chat with him on IRC, you can also kindly point out that the next time he finds something, he can direct his call of assistance for someone to post a copyright problem on the Copyright Problems noticeboard, where they belong. MLauba (Talk) 08:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, MLauba and thanks, Privatemusings. :) To clarify my stance: I don't mind civil communication with Ottava, but I would prefer not to talk to Ottava via e-mail. Wikipedia has a great underbelly of off-wiki communication. Some of this I'm uncomfortable with, as it is far too politically charged for me. When politics are likely to be (or become) involved, I particularly prefer transparency. I'm not a politician, and I would prefer not to be inadvertently swept into political seas.


 * That said, this is transparent, and I don't see anything remotely political about investigating copyright concerns from Banglapedia, so I'm quite willing to take a look into it and appreciate the heads up. Can't say I'm looking forward to it, though. :/ The world of copyright cleanup on Wikipedia is never ending. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've found a couple of links where it served no purpose and didn't relate to a Banglapedia article and one other blatant. Does anybody know how to turn this text into a wiki list? It would surely be easier to work with, since we could mark articles that are cleared. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Working on it. MLauba (Talk) 14:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Check out User:MLauba/Sandbox2. MLauba (Talk) 14:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Fabulous! Good thing I've got my internet connection back. (Or not, maybe.... :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad news, There's probably a good additional 70ish links from http://search.com.bd/banglapedia which point (broken links) back to banglapedia. Adding to the sandbox in a moment. MLauba (Talk) 08:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And if we just thought 80 is still manageable, there's also http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/ with a million results. Adding... *sigh* MLauba (Talk) 09:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1131 text links, and we also have a bunch of files. Will move these to a separate sandbox page, but I suggest that at this stage, the best course of action is to move all this to WP:CCI as a special case. MLauba (Talk) 09:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Supplemental content is now at User:MLauba/Sandbox4. Joy. I've split the history of my sandbox2, so that it can be moved to a CCI page at will. MLauba (Talk) 09:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And we probably want to get the assistance of the WP:WikiProject Bangladesh to check out and clean the whole bloody mess. MLauba (Talk) 10:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yikes! :( Agree. Is there any way to run through and consolidate repeats? Where more than one Banglapedia page is linked, the article will be listed several times, and not necessarily together. I don't know if this is something easy to do or otherwise. And if nothing else, asking the WikiProject to help may make sure that some of the participants realize it's not a copy left source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I put a consolidation from a text editor at User:VernoWhitney/Sandbox3, so I ruined the breakpoints, but it's sorted by article now. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good start. :) We can remove links for user space and project space, which will help clarify the scope. Is there any way other than manually to carry over the annotations? If not, I can do that, but I figure I'll ask. For all I know, it's just a matter of waving your magic wand. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by carrying over the annotations, so I'm afraid I can't answer that. I should also mention that my sandbox is only an alphabetization of MLauba's supplemental content from his Sandbox4, not the whole kit and caboodle. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, it doesn't include the content from User:MLauba/Sandbox2. I see. It gets hard to tell, because I've seen some of those titles before. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I ran out of time before I had to run off to work this morning, and my software during the day just isn't up to par, so someone else will have to merge it or just wait until tonight to get it all integrated. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have some time over to work on this tonight. Where should I cross off articles? Theleftorium (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Verno's page would be great, I think, since it's already organized by article name. It'll be easier to merge together anything that's already been cleared, and we won't be checking the same article in multiple locations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, just so you know, you missed the copyvio/plagiarism at Space Research and Remote Sensing Organization. I've decided to go through User:Tanweer Morshed's contributions (http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/contributionsurveyor/survey.php?user=Tanweer+Morshed) since some of it isn't just copied from Banglapedia. Theleftorium (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've now included all of the content from User:MLauba/Sandbox2, so User:VernoWhitney/Sandbox3 should have everything, including the notes which were already made, it just doesn't have any of the sectioning at the moment, I think I'll just use letters to break it up since there're so many duplicate article entries. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are fabulous. :) I'll move it to CCI so we can invite other eyes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Open at Contributor copyright investigations/Banglapedia (source). Verno knows, because he listed it, but I thought I'd let the rest of you in on it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Atlanta Contemporary Art Center
Seems like a copyvio, although there is the usual decent chance it was written by a staff member...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh. For our intents and purposes, it's a copyvio until cleared, either way. I've put the template and will follow the process. Forgot to blank the text, though. I'm having trouble getting used to our new (or, rather, old) processes. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

CCI for an editor with 58036 edits and 2733 article creations?
Is it worth the effort? I've blocked after detecting two recent copyright violations from him (Ballypatrick Forest and Peatlands Park). After reviewing just a tiny bit of his other contributions, I've found more problems: It dates back to 2005: User_talk:Ardfern/Archive_1. Unfortunately, many of the sources he has used are offline. What do you (and your talk page stalkers) think? Theleftorium (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Manor House Resort Hotel - http://www.manor-house-hotel.com/Article_Listings.aspx?tscategory_id=5&category_name=History
 * Ardglass Castle - http://web.archive.org/web/20060502094407/http://www.ardglass.net/tour.htm
 * Ferriter's Cove - http://www.nd.edu/~archire/sites2005/DinglePeninsula.html, http://www.excavations.ie/Pages/Details.php?Year=&County=Kerry&id=3666
 * Slidderyford Dolmen - http://www.irishmegaliths.org.uk/zWateresk2.htm, http://www.megalithicireland.com/Wateresk.htm
 * Loughinisland Churches - http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetcRrI/Thejourney2.htm
 * Campaign for Social Justice - http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch68.htm
 * Owenkillew River - http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0030233
 * Ballycastle Railway - http://www.ballycastle.free-online.co.uk/info/railway/oldrailway.htm
 * I can't ever say no to that question, even when I would like to run away screaming. :/ The backlog is mounting, but it looks like we'll have to add to it.


 * Speaking of which, I've been thinking about offering a barnstar reward for CCI work, or maybe even a bounty. I don't know if it's a good idea. Or how to go about it. But if we could get some more willing bodies.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CFRD
Hi Moonriddengirl. I was hoping that you could comment on an issue that someone brought up regarding criteria for redaction #1 with regards to articles that are copyright violations from their inception but are then stubbified. The thread is here. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 13:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! NW ( Talk ) 13:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion
I appreciate you opening the discussion up and all, but I really feel like its not neutral the way User:Dlabtot and Jrod2 are commenting, the latter at my talk page as well. They quote/cite the same guideline(s) and don't consider my comment, responding defensively rather than to the actual comment. Others' comments as well, particularly the few in support. At times, they make unjustified claims, like the recent one Dlabtot made about one source not being self-publised and giving me a link to a guideline he was citing. Then I responded with a comment that expressed an opposing claim based on a policy I cited from a wikilink available at his link, but then he tells me I am being disruptive and that the policy hasnt anything to do with his link. Its nothing but verbiage and sly remarks, even in the edit summaries of their comments. It really feels like I am just dealing with these two, and I have asked several users recently, pending of course. Sure, other editors have commented, but that was before I cleared up the authorship issue with the source, which some editors expressed as the initial problem. In short, I dont believe it fair for the discussion to be left up to anyone of us since its looking like a 2:1 consensus, if that even is a consensus. If this message did not make much sense or shows me in a troubled light, then you can understand how much I need help with this matter. If there is anything more u can do, I would appreciate it. Dan56 (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dan. The neutrality of the board doesn't necessarily mean that the people there will remain neutral in their opinion on a question. It means that they start out without any preconceived ideas of the position they want to support and they aren't drafted for the purpose of supporting one side or another. Bringing others into disussion on Wikipedia is always a tricky business; we can't all monitor all conversations, so we try to get a cross-section of interested editors to help get a sense of community consensus. You took a good first step asking at the Wikiproject, but I've long known that our project is hit or miss. I figure we must be a pretty introverted bunch, because not a lot of us like to talk. :) People who go to WP:RSNB generally do. If the discussion there doesn't bring clear consensus, it may be possible to bring wider participation by asking for feedback at another point as well, but you have to do it in a way that doesn't sway your readers to one side or the other. Usually, it's better to just briefly announce the discussion and ask for feedback.


 * I'll come take a look at the conversation at RSNB and see what's going on, if I can. I'm expecting a computer technician any minute to fix my tricky internet issues, though, so I may be interrupted. (With any luck, once he's gone, I won't be interrupted anymore!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Girl, wuz up? Ya know Moon, i think the discussion at the noticeboard is come to full stop. In part, 'cause of the lengthy opinions now and before (myself included) of users like Johnuniq, Binksternet (which had nothing to do with Elevado's anecdotal comments) and part 'cause this kinda thing bout forums has been discussed already many times. BTW, I'm pretty sure what Jayjg was saying 'bout WP:SPS had nothing to do with the Red Bull video....So i just wanna ask you what ya think of all this. Do you believe that this loophole with personal forums should permit WP users to add new (anecdotal & personal research) content or should we enforce the notion that our predecessors had when they wrote the exemptions for personal blogs?? Im sure they never realized that a public forum would host sub-forums with experts who, because of their backlinks to their personal sites, their thoughts and ideas can be used as content for Wikipedia. Peace. Jrod2 (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Joe. :) Personally, I think forums would need to be used with extreme care. I started off thinking that they should not be used at all, but I am persuaded by the arguments that if it can be positively verified that the person who posted is the individual, it's as reliable as any WP:SPS. I wonder if this is worth an WP:RFC so we can get something codified in WP:RS (either for or against) and stop the constant conversations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Im right there wit ya, Girl....U read my mind. This is a serious *loophole* and we gotta bring this up for a more serious discussion to make these change on all our guidelines and policy articles (like this one) that will be effected by these new caveats. IMO whats more at risk here is the inclusion of a ton of trivial content supported by forum links that will create edit disputes and wide spread of vandalism regardless whether editors are using due diligence identifying the source or not. Jrod2 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI the noticeboard discussion is now archived. Jrod2 (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment
The other day I got a CorenSearchBot warning on Patrick Karegeya. The article is just a first cut and needs a lot of work, but there is no copyright violation. I start quite a lot of articles and have got these notices before, but this one really bugged me. I pounded out an draft essay at User:Aymatth2/CorenSearchBot. Before I put it into a more public forum, I would appreciate sane advice. Maybe I should just let it go. I suppose the bot has some value and the occasional warnings can be ignored. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm sorry. :( I know that false positives can be very frustrating to the contributors who receive them, but, really, the bot does have great value. Looking at the day you were tagged alone, there were 48 hits. Of the ones that were not copyvios (5? 6? It's late here, so I'm tired. :)), 3 look to be false positives. 2 weren't false positives, but weren't copyvios, either, because the content was either not copyrightable or was correctly attributed, and another was correctly repaired at the external site in accordance with the Bot's instructions. 5 were not problems; it seems that 43 (give or take :)) were. On the day you mention, it seems that 67 were.


 * Copyright problems can be pretty serious for our website and for copyright holders, particularly since our content is so quickly mirrored. By the time we receive a take-down notice two days later, that content is already spread internationally. If we don't receive the take-down notice until two years later (when the copyright holder notices), it could well be in print...and with our encouragement. We not only owe it to copyright holders, but also to the downstream content reusers who accept our offer to reuse our content to try to deal with this material as quickly as possible. We might spare them considerable trouble and potential expense. Not to mention that quick action is part of our protection under OCILLA. Our due diligence in the face of "red flags" will serve us well in case we ever do face action.


 * Do you think perhaps there's some change to the template that can help take the sting out of the notice? I am myself pretty clueless about bots and suchlike, so I don't know if anything can be done to reduce the number of false positives, but I share your concern about the discouragement for good contributors, while at the same time thinking that CorenSearchBot is something we really need. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I had not thought about the mirroring issue. I assume that our invitation to reuse includes a careful disclaimer of responsibility for any copyright issues. Knowing the quality of some of the articles, a publisher should check them very carefully before putting them into print. But I suppose it does happen... I am not advocating closing down CorenSearchBot, and in fact suggest it should be expanded to review significant edits to existing articles, since these will often introduce copyright violations that would not at present be detected. There is no way to avoid false positives altogether. An imaginary example:
 * John Smith was born on 13 March 1949 in Willowdale, Rhode Island and attended Willowdale High School, where he was captain of the football team. He was admitted to Harvard in 1967 and gained a degree in Economics in 1970. Going on to the Harvard Business School, he obtained an MBA degree in 1972.

Assuming John Smith became highly notable, several reference sources are likely to hold text very similar to the above, and the bot may well report a possible copyright violation. That is reasonable, and the editor will find it understandable if they are given a polite warning. My concern is that the bot has got over-elaborate. The false positive that bugged me reported a copyright violation that seemed to be related to two sentences: The facts are of course the same since the article drew from the web source, citing it, and inevitably some of the words and phrases are the same, but the bot is being far too sensitive. I checked two other false positives, Charles-Auguste Questel and Robinson (Paris RER), and they had even less in common with the source. The Robinson one is amusing: a very short article on a railway station matched to a very short web source on a helicopter company, with the one word "Robinson" in common.
 * Article: Karegeya was arrested and served an 18-month sentence for desertion and insubordination.[3] He was stripped of his rank of Colonel on 13 July 2006 by a military tribunal and fled the country in 2007.[1]
 * Web source: Former spy chief Patrick Karegeya yesterday walked out of the coolers after completing his 18-month sentence. Karegeya, who was also stripped of his military Colonel rank on July 13, 2006 by the Military Tribunal, has been serving time for desertion and insubordination.

So what I am advocating is to expand the scope of checks by CorenSearchBot to include edits to existing articles and to check more online sources, which will greatly increase the number of violations detected although many will still slip through. But in parallel review false positives like the ones given above and either remove logic that is creating them or add logic to weed out similar ones. E.g. "If the article and source have only one word in common, there is no violation."

As for the wording of the notice, the talk page message is probably o.k., although "and it appears to include a substantial copy of [url]" could perhaps be replaced by "and it appears to copy content from [url]". The banner placed on the article page is far too aggressive, particularly given the current level of inaccuracy of the bot. It should be more like a warning: Sorry for rambling on, but I do think there is a problem. We are so short of contributors... Aymatth2 (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be great if we could get something like CorenSearchBot to review other major expansions...particularly to articles that are prone to issues. After slightly more than two years of full time copyright on Wikipedia, I'm starting to feel like some articles are old friends. :) On the other hand, it's also quite a daunting thought to me. We have constant and overwhelming backlog in copyright work. We've got enough volunteers going now to keep up with WP:SCV and WP:CP, but WP:CCI has listings over a year old, and I'm pretty sure that WP:SCV would rapidly be overwhelmed if we tried to review all potentially problematic text. Which doesn't mean we don't need to. I just couldn't fathom how we can. :/


 * As I said above, I'm not really the bot type (or remotely), so I don't know how Coren has this thing set or how its sensitivity can be adjusted, but perhaps if we modify the warnings we can soften the blow. Coren has been missing for a while—at least from Wikipedia. (I don't know where he is and hope all is well with him!) He's always been very gracious about my making changes to the bot's notices, so I'll go take a look. I'm conservative about overhauling things in the absence of their creators, but maybe incremental modifications can get us in that direction. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've changed Template:Csb-pageincludes with some of the language you recommend. What do you think? I'll look at the bot's other notices. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also made changes to Template:Csb-notice-pageincludes and Template:Csb-notice-pageincluded. I'll seek feedback on those changes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the new wording better, although the article banner is still very aggressive. The change I propose could in fact help the review process. If the bot checked significant changes (whatever that means) as well as new pages, but focussed on blatant copies where large chunks of text are almost exactly the same as the source, it would not just reduce the false positives but would also increase the number of serious violations caught, which are the ones most likely to cause trouble and also the ones most easily reviewed. The more subtle ones where a shorter amount of text is involved and there has been an attempt at paraphrasing are harder to review and less likely to cause problems. With limited resources, better to work on the obvious ones. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, at least it seems to be a step in the right direction. :) I've alerted some others about the conversation here; maybe we can arrive at some additional changes. The problem is that the template on the article needs to retain directions for addressing the problem. Maybe those could be collapsed to make the whole thing less "in your face"? I'd prefer to get additional feedback on that one before implementing, though.


 * I have no idea the feasibility of bot reivew of major contributions. I've heard talk of it bandied about, but since I am so not a coder, I've stayed out of it. :) A couple of the people I've talked to do code, though, so maybe they have feedback on that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the edits you made to Template:Csb-pageincludes, but I don't agree with Aymatth2 that it is still "very aggressive". I don't think it's aggressive at all actually. But it might be worth adding something like this. Theleftorium (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this mock-up? The linked guidelines can be expanded to give a much more complete explanation, and the warning banner is no longer the most dramatic one in Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I really think the instructions should stay on the template. This just makes it more confusing for the article creators (who may even miss the wikilink). What is it about the instructions that make the template aggressive, anyway? Theleftorium (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The template just has to link to a page that gives directions. The page can give a much more complete explanation than can reasonably be put into the template. I can't see any reason a bot should not review major contributions. Maybe it could piggyback on ClueBot, which checks all edits for vandalism anyway. ClueBot would pass selected pages or diffs over to CorenSearchBot to check for copyvios. CorenSearchBot would have to be made less sensitive to avoid flooding the review queue, or else should sort out reports into different headings: "Red", "Orange", "Yellow", "Gray" etc., which could be useful anyway. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the list of options/instructions needs to be on the template, since most of the people who's articles get tagged are new contributors and may not bother clicking through to read lengthy explanations. The option to "revert to one of the previous versions of the article" does strike me as absurd though, since it's only new pages which are checked. While we may be short of contributors, I think we're shorter on copyright cleaners. Onto the other topic, having a bot checking major contributions for copyvio is something that would be great to do (and is one of the many things on my wishlist for the bot I'm working on) but it would probably take a lot of tweaking to do it right, even using CSBot or EarwigBot as a base, since as MRG says, it may start overwhelming the CopyCleanCrew's daily workload, so we'd need to find the most likely vios and make the least work for human follow-up. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is just me, but I find the size of the template, plus the colors, very intense. It takes up most of my screen when I open the page. Most warning templates are smaller, quieter, and point to another page with instructions. The page is going to be reviewed anyway and either marked clean, fixed or deleted. I prefer not to jolt the editor too hard since they may well become a valuable contributor. We should assume good faith. Now, if there were very few false positives I would much less concerned about the appearance of the warning, and it is not the most important issue anyway.


 * On the bot question, I don't think it is all that big a change (easy for me to say!). The main change would be to have it check pages reported by ClueBot as being suspicious instead of checking new pages. As far as I can tell, CorenSearchBot scores articles and then reports ones above a certain threshold. Push up the threshold, which is probably in a config file, and there would be fewer reports and presumably many fewer false positives. Or else just have the bot add an icon to the message in the review queue that indicates how high the score is. When there is a backlog the crew could skip the lower-scoring ones. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really see the colors as being that big of an issue, since it's only the line down the side, not like a speedy delete tag. Maybe the options part of the could be reduced in size some to shrink it overall?


 * As far as the bot goes, CSBot does use a threshold system, but it would need to be modified to check only the added text and not the whole page, and may need to have the calculation itself adjusted - I'm not sure since it's been a while since I looked through the code in detail. As far as pushing up the threshold (either for checking major changes or just in general) to reduce false positives, that could work but it might then miss valid close paraphrase issues - a whole series of different articles would probably have to be run and spit out feedback so we could see what the tradeoff is between false positives and false negatives before there can be an informed discussion about tweaking the code. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Breakout?
Maybe this should be cut-and-paste moved to a separate discussion page. There seem to be at least three separate threads: They probably all need more time to resolve. Moonriddengirl, it is your talk page and your call. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What should the templates look like?
 * What rules should the bot follow and how should it present results?
 * How can the bot be adapted to check changes to existing pages?
 * If my talk page is of use to you, you are welcome to have at it. :) If you want to move it elsewhere, that's fine, too. I've been loosely following, but am trying to wrap up a CCI today. I won't make it, but I'm trying. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I will take a shot at breaking it out it tomorrow. I am really optimistic that a lot can be achieved, but it should be first discussed thoroughly to get consensus. Not a simple problem and we have to stay open minded, but I should make it clear that I am determined to get agreement on the Robinson rule: "If the article and source have only one word in common, there is no copyright violation.". Aymatth2 (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! Those of us who work copyright certainly agree; we have quite a lot to do as it is. :) I wonder if WT:SCV would be a good place for a conversation about the templates? But, really, you're welcome to keep it here. Those of us who do copyright work tend to congregate anyway. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much to say at the moment except that the shorter the template is the more likely it is to be read. MER-C 11:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use picture question on Saturday Night Live cast
Hi,

I have a fair use picture question with File:Gilda-Radner.jpg's use in Saturday Night Live cast, in that I don't think it's use is not in compliance with WP:NFCC nor do I think a fair use claim can be made - I have removed the picture twice now here and here but now it has been re-added for the third time thought I should check with you for what you think. Codf1977 (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly, it can't be used without a valid FUR. :/ I was about to remove it myself, but he's trying to replace it with another image. Watching. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seen - thanks for looking. Codf1977 (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OTRS for Maggie Roswell images
Hi Moonriddengirl. I've sent an email to OTRS (commons) about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maggie_Roswell.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maggie_Roswell_and_Hal_Rayle_2010.jpg. User:Bastique has checked the email and told me on IRC that everything looks good, but he is too busy to update the description pages of the images. Do you think you could take a look at the email (the title is "Images of Maggie Roswell")? This is the first time I've requested copyrighted content from someone so I want to make sure everything has been done correctly. Thanks, Theleftorium (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well. :/ There's a couple of issues. She doesn't state that she owns the copyright of these images; we're supposed to seek clarification of that from people who permit images of themselves (since copyright is owned by the photographer, usually). And she's only joking, I'm sure, but her bit about te moustaches imposes additional restrictions. (2010081310007168, for talk page stalkers.) Do you want me to take the ticket and ask her to formally verify the license and her copyright ownership? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. If she states that she isn't the copyright owner of those photos, can you ask her to provided another photo that she is the owner of? (Note: It may take her a few days to respond to your email). Theleftorium (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You bet! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Let me know what happens. :) Theleftorium (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have CC'ed you in my letter to her. I will certainly keep you informed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great! Thank you. By the way, I just noticed that yesterday, it had been exactly a year since my first edit to SCV and the first time we talked. Time just flies by, huh? :-) Theleftorium (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, I feel like I've known you forever! Happy anniversary. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

New emails have been sent. Can you check? :) Theleftorium (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have checked. I found hers, but not his. Can you poke at me once in a while to recheck? As you know, things get busy. :) If he doesn't use the same ticket# (which I failed to mention to her!) it'll go into the general queue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you do a quick check again? :) Theleftorium (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure! I did a system search for her name, and all I found was our existing thread. Searching for his doesn't find anything, I'm afraid except that same thread. I did a visual scan of the Commons permission queue from the 12th forward but didn't find anything. He evidently hasn't sent it yet, or if he has it's gone astray. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well. Thanks for checking. Let's wait a few days and if nothing happens, we'll contact Maggie again. Theleftorium (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

E-mail
I have sent you a message. Please read. AboundingHinata (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your note. I've read your e-mail, but I'm afraid you need a Bureaucrat. Administrators have different tools. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Could this be closed?
This AfD hasn't had any new votes for three days. Can it be closed now or do we have to wait the full 7 days of the re-listment period? Silver seren C 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be closed now, but I'm afraid that there's a bit of a Catch-22. :) Given that you took a position, my closure of it might be seen as a conflict. It doesn't do any harm to leave it for a few more days until an admin does the necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true. Sorry for bothering you. It just seems like a long time period sometimes. Silver  seren C 17:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem. You didn't bother me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...*pokes* You're magic, aren't you? How did you do that? Silver  seren C 20:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! More than once I've noticed a thread at somebody else's talk page where I've chosen to take action. Last time concerned a sock that an admin felt he could not block; I could. I suspect something of the sort. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to show my appreciation for you always helping me when I ask...

 * Well, thank you very much! It's my pleasure to help out when I can, and you are always welcome. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest I couldn't find one that showed how much your are apreciated and what it is you do for me and everyone else. That said, you're welcome.  I really do like knowing that if I need help I know where I am welcomed to come to ask for it. :) Be well, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Schwyz
I notice you posted on the relevant ANI thread and as an experienced user I thought I'd ask you what you think it's best to do about the RfC/U I started on this user. My current plan is to leave it up for the normal 48 hours in case they make a very quick return. After that it will either be deleted if uncertified (if it isn't I'll ask for it to be) or very quickly archived. If the user comes back I can always ask for an undeletion or re-start the RfC/U. Does this seem fair and sensible to you? Dpmuk (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that said I'd be very surprised if this retirement is permanent. I think this RfC probably needs to happen. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also be surprised if it's permanent but an RfC/U is useless without participation from the user involved so I'll wait and see if they come back. Off away for the weekend but will look at things again on my return Sunday evening.  Dpmuk (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently working through putting these articles back to the original titles which correspond to our naming policy regarding disambiguation and capitalisation, but admin tools are needed to move Goms District to Goms (district) - would you mind moving it if you get time? Many thanks! Knepflerle (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but let me clarify first: you want it moved to Goms (district) rather than Goms, whence it came? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a disambiguation page has been created at Goms, which I think is probably required, so Goms (district) would be best. Many thanks! Knepflerle (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright question
Is it okay to upload photographs of an ancient tomb like these since the tomb is obviously in the public domain?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be so nice if we could, but, unfortunately, I think not. Images are not my primary area, but, while under US copyright law there is no copyright protection in mechanical duplication of public domain works, photography is creative in itself. Think of it, perhaps, in the same vein as a nature photographer who captures a naturally growing grove of trees. No copyright protection in the subject, but the photograph is copyrighted nevertheless, even if the photographer is not very good and there's minimal creativity in the photo. :) (Note, though, that the situation is different with faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art; see Commons:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Kk, thank you. :)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts?
Hello MRG, there's a troublesome one on my hand right now, mind taking a look here and ? Many thanks. --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 17:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I have done. :) At this point, the ball is in his court. He's been notified of guidelines on creating autobiographies. If he persists in creating the autobiography without showing of notability, further action may be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a few days back On User talk:Closedmouth I've notified him of all those you've mentioned just now but today he probably was thinking of how to circumvent the WP policy and guideline laid before him not knowing that we've dealt with more of his kind here than he can imagined. Tough luck for those wanting to get free web hosting when they turn up on WP, they usually get blocked in the end for showing their repeated unwillingness to comply despite being told not to. Oh well... trust people to believe in free lunch in this world, eh? Cheers~! --Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems/2010 August 9
Hi again. You've checked my entry there for Róka Hasa Rádió as resolved but I think you misunderstood my posting to the noticeboard. There has never been a copyright infringement claim on the article page but instead I wanted to point out that this book club thingy is apparently making money with content from WP, not only that one article but they seem to offer loads of books. Of course they don't charge their customers for Wikipedia but for wrapping our GFDL and CC texts into nice booklets. I guess there's not a lot one can do about that but I thought the Foundation might be interested in it. And it might not even be the first such case. De728631 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I did indeed misunderstand. It's not the first case; there are tons. Wikipedia actually encourages reuse of its content (even commercially): see Reuse. If they did not give proper credit, the content contributors could protest in accordance with the non-compliance processes at Mirrors and forks, but it seems like they probably do: . --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, good to know about that. *approves green hook* De728631 (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to go, then. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again...
Take a look at this "magician", seems like we have a lot of misguided peeps joining WP just to have their own autobiography but only to find themselves flounder in the very hole they've dug, by not being familiar with Wikipedia's editing guideline, policy and rule. Note also the number of image files in question. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 19:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Disregard the above, someone beat you to commons. *grin* --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 20:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Darn. Missed it while I was away. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering...
How do I put the Ed Fox page back up? I'm working on a second Taschen book and would like to have that all squared away.

Instead of deleting my page, why didn't you try to help me by fixing or adding to it? I don't want to have to go around in circles reading page after page only to be more confused, as Wiki rules seem to be (at least to me anyway)

I am owner/creator of edfox.com/footfactory.com and chromelady.com

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.146.79 (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Unfortunately, we don't really have the manpower to repair every article that does not meet our policies and guidelines. In the case of an article such as Ed Fox, fixing it isn't a simple matter of adding content; when material is copied from other pages, we must verify that the content is not in violation of copyright. This is the responsibility of the contributor who places the content. In this case, the user who noted the problem gave notice to that contributor here and listed the article for the requisite week. When no verification was forthcoming, the article was deleted per policy.


 * Copyright problems with the page can be eradicated by following the procedures at Donating copyrighted materials. If there are other issues with the page, these may remain to be addressed once the content is restored. Generally, providing reliable sources to verify that the subject meets inclusion guidelines is a very good idea. I note that prior to its deletion the article seems to have relied primarily on sources related to the subject himself, which are insufficient to verify that it meets those guidelines.


 * If you have questions about the donation process, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Adish Aggarwala
Hi Moonriddengirl! Thanks for your prompt action in response to my copyvio notice. However, I suspect that I may have led you to block an innocent user. Looking through the article's history, the current copyvio occurred here and was perpetrated by an IP editor with a dynamic IP address (see preceding article history) the day after NeoNeo1087's last edits (10-11 Jan 2010). A checkuser may confirm that NeoNeo1087's contribs come from the same IP address block, but that's hardly conclusive. The most damning edit by Neo1087 is this one in which two paragraphs are copied, but with a citation to the source added. Please could you review the evidence and reconsider the block? Many thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) I believe that the block is appropriate. Before imposing it, I checked the history of the article and found content introduced here that is clearly copied from that site. That occurred on 10 January. The user had been advised in August 2009 about the need to verify permission and the potential for a block and again told about the concerns twice in August. In January, he created the article International Council of Jurists, deleted via WP:CSD, without any showing of permission as well as adding this content. I think that the risk of recurrence is significant enough in the face of these factors to warrant some assurance that he understands and will comply with policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that seems like a good decision based on a more wide-ranging review than I'd made of the user's history. My conscience rest a little easier. Thanks :) -- Timberframe (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, and I understand. :) If he were a more frequent contributor, we could try talking to him about it, but when he logs in once every six months or so it's a bit harder. The block is a just a way of saying, "Hey, we really mean it; you have to follow process." Typically, a contributor like this will be unblocked as soon as he requests it, as long as he notes his intention of complying. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I'm not sure if this would automatically show up in your OTRS messages or not, so I thought I should let you know that I just merged some new emails into 2010072310041103 since they weren't automatically connected. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks. I've not looked at OTRS yet this morning, so I'm not sure if they did or not. I've been trying to knock some off at the Banglapedia CCI and now get through CP. (Speaking of, should have known the DuPont article would come back to bite me eventually. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Alfred I. du Pont
Saw you had done some great work on this one. Re this edit, isn't the whole article a biography? In fact I was discussing this very issue on my talk page yesterday... – ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) I'm rather forced to it, to address longstanding close paraphrasing issues, but at least I've learned a lot about the man. :) As to the header, true enough. :) I don't know what else to call it, though, to cluster biographical details as distinct from his legacy. Do you have a suggestion, or do you prefer level 2 headers throughout? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Duponts are certainly an interesting family! I prefer level 2 throughout, unless the number of level 2 headings would otherwise be overwhelming. I think level 3, 4 et seq headings are overused, so my methodology is to keep heading text and levels as simple as possible. – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with that. :) I'll go ahead and implement it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Joe Columbe
So where is the other administrator input? The Wikipedia article has be around for about 3 years, and no other administrator has flagged it as a problem.

You editing is overly aggressive. There is no copyright infringement. There is very little public material on Joe Columbe. A lot of it is work of mouth. So information has to come mostly from one source. Copyright rule said that you have to change 30% of the original article. I have done that.

I will stop contributing to the Wikipedia fund until this over aggressive editing is reversed. WLee (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your note at the article's talk page, where it is duplicated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Moonriddengirl! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 2 of the articles that you created  are currently tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Ramamurti Shankar -
 * 2) Anna Nagurney -


 * Thank you, Cactus Writer . :) (Even though I didn't actually write those articles and in fact tagged one of them for sources myself, I still would have felt compelled to add them. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

 * You're welcome. Thanks for the cookies. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Music of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
Hi Moonriddengirl, may I ask you for your opinion on this copyright matter? An IP started tinkering with a whole section, putting in spammy links and later there was an alleged claim that all the content had been copyrighted elsewhere. I'm at a loss as I can't verify the (c) claims and I'm tempted to restore the article. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'll be happy to come take a look at it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that the content was removed by User:Daniel, who is an WP:OTRS volunteer. Although I didn't find it, there may be an e-mail about it in the Wikimedia Foundation's sytem. Let me see if I can figure out what's going on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort so far :) De728631 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've asked Daniel for more information and will let you know what I find out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, it seems like we've now got an SPA on that matter, see the recent article talk. I'm watching that page anyway and have also left a note at WP:TOLKIEN's talk page so let's wait how that turns out. De728631 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm glad you mentioned something. I had forgotten all about this. Daniel has only edited twice since I approached him, but has not responded to my question. I've "pinged" him again. Please poke me again if a couple of days go by with no action. I've generally got a lot of copyright work on my plate, and I can be woefully distractible. :/ If he doesn't respond to that note, I'll try e-mailing him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Daniel confirms that the action was taken in response to an e-mail (I've logged the ticket number at the talk page). I'm evaluating now to see the likelihood of actual infringement in the material removed. Significant edits that added content found in the version removed include: Oh, but the killing blow for us is here. It may not be true that every word was copied, but the content in that edit certainly is. There is older material, though, that can be restored, from this edit. Some of the content added later by other contributors may also be okay, but you'd have to be careful that it doesn't build on Doug Adams' writing, as incorporated wholesale. (I was leaning towards thinking this is a frivolous complaint; no longer. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * December 2006, User:Serapthis
 * January 2007 IP 207.69.140.51


 * Ouch, that's in fact a pretty mess, and the IP even stated it openly... I'm going to restore the version prior to the copyvio then and leave it like that. Thanks a lot for investigating, MRG. De728631 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OTRS stuff
First I think I need to be part of the OTRS team otherwise I am going to be coming here a lot now. I was checking out some "in need of attention" and the first few I clicked on have been tagged for years with no number. I just dealt with some of them myself as they were fairly easy but having said that: File:Pledgemusicscreenshot.png is a screen grab of a web site. Normally a copyvio but could fall under Fair use. However in this case we have a notice that says an OTRS has been submitted and, supposedly, it says "Authorisation has been explicitly given by PledgeMusic for its use within Wikipedia" which, if that is the case, means it needs to be speedied. However the fact that it also states "Image is fair use as it is provided for commentary within wikipedia article" add a little twist on it. Just as an aside, as you may know the whole "for wikipedia use only" concept vs the "just slap a fur on it" idea has bothered me for a long time. I have been vocal about the fact the foundation set solid rules down about images marked as "for Wikipedia use only" must be "deleted on site" so I do not agree with the more common un-official add on "...unless an editor tags it with a FUR". This image is almost thought out that way, if you follow me. So I am not sure how to tag this one if, indeed, the OTRS says "Wikipedia use only".

Following that up with another OTRS in waiting image. File:Selenagrammy.jpg is an image of the late Selena backstage in the press room at the Grammy awards. What I am wondering about with this one is the statement "Photo taken at the 1994 Grammy Awards at Radio City Music Hall, New York on June 11, 1994, by the mother of user:AJon1992, who agrees to release it under the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL". As a photographer who has shot the Grammys before I know that access to the press area is very limited, they don't let fans hang out back there. Before anyone feels I am assuming bad faith I say this because User_talk:AJona1992 contains a discussion where the editor explains his mother and grandmother were Selena fans and his "grandmother used to live in Corpus Christi, Texas and began attending her concerts and taking pictures" and that between 1992, when the editor was born, and when Selena died in 1995 they watched TV, read news papers and "kept playing her songs while they clean, or on the radio." After moving to Florida the user says his grandmother and mother gave him "their collections (pictures, signatures, vhs tapes, etc)." So as with another recent OTRS case I suspect this image is not one taken by the mother, but by a member of the media, a print of which was obtained by the mother, clearly a huge fan, and became part of her Selena "collection".

Than we have File:Wash Post MSK2.jpg which was upped March 22, tagged the same day with and the uploader removed that tag and added an  tag the next day. Nothing has changed since.

How hard is it to get OTRS ability? Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, #3 was a tip of the ice berg. I've tagged it and all of his other image uploads with NPD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, #2 is pretty unlikely. Several other images uploaded by this contributor recently exist elsewhere on the web. I have some doubts about File:Selenaperfume.jpg, given the watermark and the low resolution. Does it look like he took it himself? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And with #1, I find nothing in OTRS. I find the search function wonky, though, so that doesn't prove it isn't there. If the OTRS said "Wikipedia use only", I hope the OTRS agent would have rejected it. :)


 * Now, as to how hard it is to become an OTRS agent, it's not that hard provided you have the right skillset and attitude. They look for volunteers who are knowledgeable about the issues (which you certainly are) and who are patient and unfailingly polite. Many OTRS letters go through without a hitch, but you might go through half a dozen e-mails just to get a usable release from somebody who just can't seem to get what we need them to say. The need particularly for image OTRS agents is extreme; we have a backlog of 150 an en permissions and 528 at Commons. They do prefer admins, and given your focus I wonder if you do much on Commons or have considered seeking adminship there. It's not essential, but it helps. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. Just to touch on one image you asked about - File:Selenaperfume.jpg is from ebay, that is what the watermark is in the corner, so it is possible he took the picture or it is possible his mother of grandmother took the picture "from" ebay when/if they purchased the perfume when someone was selling it. My thought might be to ask for the original image before it was posted on ebay - or to take a new image of the perfume if they/he still has it.


 * Now an add on to check. This is an image i took care of myself but as it has been questioned I thought I would have you look into one element of it. In my "in need of" search I came across File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg which has an OTRS tag on the talk page. From what I can tell the image was sent to deltion discussion in January 2010 because Image not necessary to understand article, and no sources indicate the significance of the image itself. At the time the result was a "keep" however after that a free image was uploaded - File:Jim Morrison mug shot.jpg. I Based on the discussions it seems like there was not any OTRS ever submitted and the tag was placed to prevent the image from being deleted. I removed the non-free image from the The Doors article in the section it was being used in and tagged the image for deletion. The uploader posted on my talk page and also on the Doors talk page and I replied on both pages. There is no mention by the uploader of the OTRS tag he had placed on the image and he says, on my talk page, that the photographer "cannot be located to comment on possible copyright problems". So just to be 100% - can you check oTRS to see if anything is there on File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk)

← Just touching base to see if you uncovered anything about the image. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I missed this. :) Let me take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a system search for every ticket created between 2/25/2010 and 3/19/2010 that include the word "Jim" and didn't find it. I looked at every ticket created within the last year that included the words "Jim Morrison", and I didn't find it. I did a complete system search for the text "Jim in Miami" and found nothing, and I found nothing by searching for the url (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jim_In_Miami_w-Hat.jpg>). I've got nothing for "David E. Levine". I don't see a single scrap of evidence that OTRS ever received an e-mail about that image from anyone. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. And FYI I have "applied" over at OTRS. If it goes through I don't need to bug you about OTRS images - you can bug me. LOL! Soundvisions1 (talk)

Another possibly very difficult issue...
Raised at User talk:Piotrus. I know my motives are not the purest, due to our long-standing conflicts, so will try to compensate by working on other unrelated copyvio problems. Novickas (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied here. I don't think it is very difficult, because over the past few years as I got interested in copyvios, I tried to ensure that my old edits from the time I didn't fully understand the policy have been rewritten. A few sentences somewhere may still be problematic... if anything comes up, do let me know and I'll be more than happy to rewrite anything that's needed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. This is always tricky. Regardless of prior conflicts, I think we'd all agree that the most important thing here is just to make sure that there are no remaining copyright problems. I know Piotrus is quite conscious of copyright concerns now, given that he has himself pointed out to me a good many issues, but if there may have been issues in the past it's worth looking to see how extensive an issue it may be. Here's what I propose: at this point, for my own uses, I'll run the CCI program and narrow it down to the time-range that is likely to have been the issue. I'll randomly select some articles for evaluation. If I find further concerns, it may be a good idea to formalize the procedure.


 * If it comes to that, Piotrus, our practice in the case of people operating under real names is to list them by date opened, and they are not indexed. You would be quite welcome to help out with any issues, including helping to locate them. As soon as the evaluation is complete (again, if it comes to that), it is courtesy blanked and archived. Low drama is a major goal of mine. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, the divine Miss M. You are the soul of tact. Piotr, I see you've been addressing these, thanks. Novickas (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I've got a list of articles in my sandbox. I would like another CCI evaluator to help me look over these and am looking into finding one with time. I mean to get started on this today after finishing CP and working a bit on an essay I've promised to MILHIST. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Blombos Cave
I could cry. This is a really important site, but I've now discovered that although I removed the new copyvio, this edit 4 years ago, most of which is still in the article and makes up the bulk of the article, is from  and presumable added by Henshilwood who is one of the main people who has worked on the cave. I should remove it forthwith I guess? I'll try to rewrite it over the next few days. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry. :( I feel your pain. Perhaps the thing to do is blank it and e-mail him? He's e-mail enabled and may be able to respond to you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Selena pictures
I have asked some questions on my talk page about what needs to be done, thank you! AJona1992 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

cut and past moves
There is a user who in the past made a number of cut and past moves. I think this was due to ignorance not malignancy (I'm spending too much time on English Civil War articles as I am staring to use the patter!) His user name is LouisPhilippeCharles and I have just slapped him on the wrist because I came across one of his cut and past moves more than a month after he was told not to do it, which means he has not cleaned up after himself. His posting to my talk page shows that his English is not the best, and his edit history shows that he is using the move tab now.

What I wanted to know is is do you know of a tool that I can use to see where he has made these cut an past moves by listing of his edits with edit sizes (large deletes followed by large inserts should be fairly easy to see). Just article creations will not be enough because he is an active editor (and may well have been creating articles) and many such cut an past moves are likely to be onto redirects. Thinking about it he probably needs to be informed about copying stuff from the French Wikipeda into the English Wikipedia as well...-- PBS (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I do indeed know a tool that will allow us to list his contributions by edit size. User:Dcoetzee made it for our copyright cleanup work, and it is an absolutely lovely tool. You can access it at Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions, or, if you'd like, I'll run it. From its early days, it's gotten very simple to use. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll have a go myself and if I get confused or after running it needs a more formal approach I'll come back to you. -- PBS (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now completed the task I set myself see User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles and by looking at the last page of the took I was able to pick on some obvious ones. A list of some previous violations were also produced by another editor which I looked through. They clearly show bad faith by LouisPhilippeCharles. Most of them had already been corrected, but the last one I looked at is troubling because it shows that this problem goes much further back and involves the use of an older account used by the same editor. Since this issue of cut and past copying has been raised several times by different editors with LouisPhilippeCharles, and to date he has not stopped, or volunteer to clean up his mess, I think he may need to be formally investigated. When you have time please take a look at Talk:Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689) to see what troubles me. I will leave it to your better judgement to decide if this editor needs to be investigated further as it could be argued that by putting a note on his edits that he has copied the text from another page that no internal copyright violation has taken place, even though due to subsequent page moves it is often difficult to piece the article histories back together. -- PBS (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I support you in your stated intention to block him if he persists and in fact I would support blocking him if he does not help to clean up the mess he's already made. This is a copyright problem, even if it is one that can be repaired. He must stop, and if he does not, we have to presume either willful disruption or competence issues...both of which are bad for the project. When you ran him through the CCI program, roughly how many edits did you come up with? If this can be handled without a WP:CCI, it would be better, as the backlog there is already substantial. If it's needed, though, we don't really have much choice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed some obvious ones by going to the bottom of the generated list and looking for large deletes (14 of them as listed on his talk page). But I suspect I have not found all of them. Also I did not look at the user name User:Tbharding. I have just run the tool on User:Tbharding. The first two in the list look OK (one was probably a cut and past move but it was fixed at the time -- I did not look at it closely as it had been fixed so it may have been kosher) but the third entry is the result of a cut and past move that has not been fixed. The history of the article is now split over two articles Princess Louise Élisabeth of France (since a cut and past move) and Louise Élisabeth of France, so as that was only the third in the list there is probably a lot more mess to be cleaned up (under both user names). :-(

Therefore I would suggest that a formal investigation is opened because since I started looking at this users peccadillos he has not offered to helped in any way to clear up his mess. -- PBS (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

US army copyrights
Hey, MRG. On this US Army webpage there is a copyright stamp on the bottom. Normally/Often, Department of Defense and US Military webpages are public domain, but it appears the DoD also hosts webpages which are copyrighted. (This disclaimer stating United States Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information seems to confirm that it is not part of their public domain material.) Also, this notice on the Army website indicates that they do use copyrighted material on their pages -- but will provide specific copyright notices when it is. Would that be your understanding, too? — Cactus Writer (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Yes, that seems to be the only reasonable conclusion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ma'am. Thank you, Ma'am (what's the emoticon for a crisp salute?)... but, ugh, this might require opening a CCI case on a rather large number of our military unit articles. A question on my talk page led me to start this discussion. Right now, I think this first group of articles can be knocked off without CCI -- Ed!'s an experienced editor who is very forthcoming in getting this set corrected. But there are others... why, oh why did I go looking for trouble today? — Cactus Writer (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. I bow to your communication skills. Very nicely handled, both. :O Perhaps at some point we'll need to officially expand CCI (via VPP and other points) to incorporate source checks. We're doing Banglapedia now. Is it specifically articles in the http://www.hood.army.mil are that are of concern? Or is it http://www.globalsecurity.org? (I've removed a good many copyvios from that site over the years.)


 * I wonder, is there any way to get an automated message with an unconfirmed contributor tries to cite one of those sources reminding them not to copy contents? Would that be worthwhile? I wouldn't propose it for established users, even though some of them copy content as well, because I suspect that the level of annoyance it causes prolific contributors would outweigh the benefit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The copying of text from the www.globalsecurity.org website was my initial concern -- and it's cited on about 5400 articles. My suspicion now, though, is that globalsecurity has copied their text from US Military websites (and other sources) that are PD. That idea was claimed by User:CORNELIUSSEON (remember him?) in this copyright discussion back in 2006. I suspect that ol' Corneliusseon was correct (even though he did run afoul of our own copyright policies later down the road). Checking origin dates at globalsecurity is difficult because they have blocked the internet archive bots. But if the same text can be found on the .mil websites -- than it should be PD regardless of globalsecurity's copyright claim. The problem for me was finding the http://www.hood.army.mil site which does not have a clear (to me, at least) "privacy and security statement". The Army's statement says their own home page is PD. Now each fort has their own homepage under the army.mil webring (and this is where the WP text on unit histories is being copied from), but each fort website has its own style -- even in regard to copyright. For example, Fort Bragg's bottom CP stamp is "This is an Official Government Web Site" and their CP statement about is it "is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." Fort Riley places a copyright notice on the bottom of all its pages, but also states "Information presented via this web service is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." On the other hand, Fort Hood's statement only says its info is in accordance with Army and DoD policies and the Army Use of Copyrighted Material.


 * Sorry for blathering on but I'm still trying to wrap my head around how to interpret all these separate Army websites. Can we say that any military website hosted by the DoD and in compliance with DoD information policies is public domain unless specifically stating otherwise? I don't want to stir up trouble for the milhist group if it isn't necessary. And that would include creating automated messages. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and just to confuse the issue more -- the subpages for the military units on the Fort websites also follow their own style rules. For example, 15th Sustainment Brigade] which is hosted by the Fort Hood site which is hosted by the US Army site which is under the DoD policy (which lived in the house that Jack built) -- places a copyright stamp on their page and their own disclaimer. The history section of 15th Sustainment Brigade was copied from there -- so is that a copyright violation? — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've seen globalsecurity come up quite a few times at SCV, and they don't always copy from PD sources. Their articles about other countries militaries are often not PD, and I'm not sure but I seem to recall at least one US military page which copied a personally written unit history instead of the PD official one. As to content which originated on .mil sites, they should be PD unless the page explicitly states who else is the copyright holder. A claim like "© Copyright 15th Sustainment Brigade" is fishy, as anything created by a federal employee (military or civilian) is PD. The only way they could have copyright is if they contracted someone else to write it who then transferred the copyright, which seems unlikely in most situations. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Verno. I also seem to recall a discussion about globalsecurity combining PD unit histories with text from published books. I was hoping that on this current first batch of copyvios copied from globalsecurity, the original unit history could be located on the army site and the text re-attributed -- rather than perform a wholesale deletion. I agree with you about the unlikelihood of the copyright claim for the 15th Brigade, but when I ran across the [Army Use of Copyrighted Material statement on the hosting website, it gave me pause. So... should we go with common sense and figure "unlikely" is good enough to let that one ride? — [[User:CactusWriter| Cactus Writer ]](talk) 19:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If the unit history can be found on an army site (sometimes I've also had luck with archived copies of army sites) then I'd say it's PD in the absence of other evidence. The Army Use of Copyrighted Material states "any use of copyrighted material, for which permission has been obtained, will carry attribution for the source of the material", and the particular page in question does not attribute any non-Federal source. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost missed this! It wouldn't be the first time that a government source had tried to impose copyright over pd content, though I think it might be the first time I would ever have seen a US federal source do so. Verno makes sense; in the absence of a specific non-governmental source, they are not complying with their own disclaimer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay -- makes sense, Verno -- any copyright on those pages, when attributed to the Army unit, remains PD per US Military and Department of Defense policy. I had already suggested that the editor seek out the copied text on the army sites, and if it is an exact duplicate of the globalsecurity site, than to consider it PD (regardless that it was originally copied from the globalsecurity site) -- but to reattribute it in the edit history to the army site as well as place the US Army template in the reference section. I did this at 7th Sustainment Brigade (United States). Common sense tells me this approach should be good enough to cover our legal requirements. (By the way, the army sites as well as global security have blocked access to the internet archive bots). — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter Ritzen
Hallo Moonriddengirl, to end the copyright problems I made a translation from the Dutch Wikipedia. Best regards, Sir Statler (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I've implemented it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a much better solution. I'm glad the problems are solved. Sir Statler (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here we go... (again!)
Hello MRG, there is this particular editor who has been blocked several times for his WP:Tendentious editing behaviour on the article page of Airbus 340 and just today  his attempt again at insulting people here as well as here (another one was added after I deleted it, note also that the definition of "無恥" is "despicable" in Chinese language). Please note that his block just ended about 3 weeks back and quite frankly, I'm all for WP:RBI when dealing with such editor who just don't get it. Thoughts? --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 06:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I did not insult anyone here nor here. If you say I did, how did I insult people? Also, "無恥" is "shameless" in Chinese, but I did not say it is you nor any other people. What I did on the page Airbus A340 was extremely reasonable, and in the past I had already explained a lot of times to you. Scania N113 (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You say "not disruptive" then why are you following me here and here? --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 07:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello to you both. My thoughts on the subject: WP:RBI only really works when the community agrees that an editor is beyond salvaging. Otherwise, we ourselves run into problems with community behavioral policies, including WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVILITY. If you think that an editor is beyond salvaging, you need to convince the community that you are right through one of the processes at WP:DR, quite probably WP:RfC/U, though if a matter is clear-cut WP:ANI can do it. Without spending considerable time (that I don't have at the moment, I'm afraid, my copyright to do list is rather long) investigating, I do not know what avenues have been tried.


 * As an aside, Scania N113, I'm not sure why your question here went unanswered, but the answer to your question is in two of our core policies at WP:V and WP:NOR. In the former see, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I do not know the details of your content dispute and do not want to as I lack time to help out, but the crux of the matter is that Wikipedia is not interested in being the first publisher of truths. That's not our mission.


 * In terms of civility, whatever the situation may have been at the time you left the above note, the civility line is certainly crossed in this comment, though you did at least soften it by this. Dave, you should not accuse him of vandalism or imply vandalism (cross-Wiki, no less) unless you have good evidence that he is intentionally undermining the encyclopedia. I know you believe he is tendentious, but that's not the same thing.


 * I have reopened the thread at Talk:Airbus A340. Scania, you should not a close a conversation against the will of another participant, particularly not in the same sequence of edits with "getting the last word." You completed this comment at 10:42. You archived the conversation 9 minutes later. Dave may have said he was leaving the conversation, but this is by no means a binding declaration. Given his objection, I have reopened it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I, hereby, officially annouce that temporarily I am not going to make edits on that page. -- Scania N113 (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's well and good, but also not particularly binding. :) As I said I don't know the history here, but it seems that at least some of the problem may be your method of going about things. Sometimes working on Wikipedia gets annoying, and sometimes we may feel that we are being treated rudely by others. Sometimes we are being treated rudely by others. In all circumstances, though, we need to try to hold our own tempers. Getting angry and saying impolite things ourselves is only going to confuse bystanders, who may focus less on the content question and more on behavior. I see you have been blocked for civility issues several times in the past. This is really unproductive for you, presuming that you are interested in working on Wikipedia. Restraint in conversation is a really good practice, no matter what aggravations you may encounter.


 * On the question of tendentiousness, again, I do not know the background of your conflict here or what has been tried. If you disagree with another editor or editors, you can seek help through the methods listed at Dispute resolution. Our project works by consensus, which is not a counting of heads precisely but more a counting of informed opinions. :) There will be instances when you are sure you are right about something where others disagree with you. If you cannot convince a reasonable sampling of uninvolved Wikipedian bystanders that you are correct, you absolutely must let it go. The best interests of the project sometimes mean walking away from disagreements even if you are sure you are right (and, honestly, even if you are). You can always revisit a subject later down the line, when the situation changes. If people oppose the addition of information for lack of sources, for instance, you can come back to it when you find good, reliable sources, and they will likely then agree. (If your sources disagree with others, they may not agree to replace the information, but will probably agree to at least note the discrepancy.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That is ok, I will start finding reliable sources then. Thanks for giving me advice. -- Scania N113 (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we block him?
Hello Desk, per his earlier edits №1, №2, №3, №4, №5, №6, №7, №8, together with his latest edit today, should I report him to ANI or WQA? Note also that he has yet to apologise to us for his previous misdemeanor. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 12:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you mean this for User:Deskana? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Its for you as well, I have had it with him! What would your advice for me be? Or just reporting this to you would suffice? --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 12:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, some of those incidents are quite stale, and he has been blocked since making them. I agree that his edit to you earlier today was beyond the pale. I do not know if you'd get a block for it from WP:ANI; I would not myself block on that alone. I do agree with you that it's not really promising. User:Scania N113, you need to be conscious of the fact that your behavior could lead to your being banned from the English Wikipedia entirely. In that instance, any edit made by you under any username or IP address can be removed from Wikipedia without further discussion simply because you are no longer welcome here. To avoid that, please follow civility policy scrupulously, no matter the provocation you encounter, and please respect the consensus process, whether or not you agree with the outcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving me advice. However, I would like to tell you that in fact User:Dave1185 personally attacked me as well. For example, he said that I was a "bugga" and a "bloke". Also, he said that I was going to vandalise the Chinese Wikipedia. -- Scania N113 (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I explained to you above that this doesn't matter. Even if somebody is rude to you, you must not be rude to him. I happen to believe that civility is good for the project, but even if for no other reason, this is important for self-preservation. Say you retaliate rudely to several users who you think are being rude to you; a fourth user speaks rudely to you and you respond. He takes you to the administrators noticeboard and shows links of you being rude to all those other people. He has only ever been rude to you. Who do you think will be blocked? You, because you've demonstrated a pattern of incivility. Self-defeating behavior. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of contents with topic Bhutani (Tribes)
May I know the reason behind the deletion of Topic Bhutani, if possible.

Regards, Gaurav —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.157.4 (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was created by and subsequently edited only by a banned contributor in violation of his ban, which is grounds for immediate deletion (see User:AlphaGamma1991). Banned contributors may not create new accounts to continue adding content to Wikipedia, but must negotiate a lifting of their ban if they wish to continue working here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion (2)
Since the discussion about the Gearslutz source and its use has been archived and at an impasse, how should this matter be approached now? Dan56 (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. It's always tough when there's no real consensus. :/ User:Jrod2 dropped by, and we briefly discussed the possibility of an WP:RfC to firmly settle some kind of guideline on the use of forums when the identity of the poster can be verified. Have you ever been involved in an RfC? If not, and if you'd like to give it a go, I'd be happy to help you pull one together, though I don't really have time to do any more than that. My copyright work keeps me pretty busy. :) This would be over the larger issue, not the specific incident. With respect to the specific incident, I'm afraid I don't really know at this point what to do. As an editor, I am somewhat conservative and try to avoid things that seem controversial, so I would let that one go, myself. That doesn't mean, though, that there is no other court of appeal. You'd just have to be very careful to be neutral and to clearly link to the WP:RSN discussion about it so that you don't seem to be "forum shopping" (another issue under WP:CANVASS). Your best bet may to be to resolve the larger issue through community discussion (if it can be resolved), which will provide more firm guidance one way or another for the smaller issue. I know that you're primarily a content contributor, though, (and a really good one :)), so I understand if you don't want to take on shaping policy. It can be a time-consuming pain in the neck. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Halps!
Hi there...I wonder if you can advise me a bit about a copyright issue; I was concerned about copyright troubles by an editor, so I looked at all the things they'd created and compiled a list - however, I didn't want to be 'bitey' so I just asked them about a couple of specific ones, and also fixed what I could. The user did add attribution on a couple of the copypasted articles.

Yesterday I asked about Doodle4Google on User talk:Mono, and they did indeed edit it (and wrote fixed) but I don't really think that their edit constitutes appropriate paraphrasing. I've been trying to 'gently' ask them to look at their contribs and fix things. I wonder if you can help at all; I'd be very grateful. Best,  Chzz  ► 22:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a difficult situation. :/ First, thank you for noticing it and getting on top of it so quickly. Particularly with unattributed splits, later cleanup can be a massive headache. Give me a minute to look into it a bit, and I'll see if I can help come up with a good approach here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, a quick glance tells me that there may be older issues that will also need addressing. For instance, : translated from what? Presumably another language Wiki, but that needs attribution. History of Google Docs is an unattributed copy of Google Docs (and a split of questionable value, really). This edit to Chinatown reproduces without attribution content from Chinatown, Brooklyn and Chinatowns in Canada and the United States. This edit uses unattributed content from Google Toolbar. This article was obviously pasted from somewhere given the tell-tale "Cite error: Invalid tag"--and if it wasn't, it's a copyvio of, which predates (but it was; that site also has a tell-tale sign of Wikipedia copying: a ref that doesn't go anywhere. :)). So, there seems to be more clean-up work to be done. Let me take a look at his or her talk page to see what conversations you've held about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this the only conversation you've had, or have you spoken elsewhere? It'd be good to figure that out, since it seems that we need to talk to this contributor about proper attribution for Wikipedia copying, ask him or her to properly attribute the content he or she has previously copied, and talk about close paraphrasing. I want to be sure, though, that the approach is optimized based on any prior conversations you've had. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (Note to me: contrib list placed here.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That diff is the only discussion on-wiki specifically regarding copyright concerns; previously, when I investigated things and fixed the histmerge, I spoke to the user over IRC, asking them to check their other edits for any similar problems. As IRC != Wikipedia, we may as well disregard that, and take the facts as they stand; I asked for your input chiefly because I am unsure how to ensure the user understands the importance here - admittedly, my concern about the difficulties is based on off-wiki activity (in the help channel). I didn't want to make a big fuss, but on the other hand, I think it is a problem that needs addressing...hence my request for help. They responded to my request re. the GoogleForDoodle with that edit, and they wrote 'done', and - as with their previous notations regarding the origins of article text, it would appear that the matter is not resolved.  Chzz  ► 09:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to note: I see this and will come back and work on it more in realistically a half an hour or so. I've got a new mess that dropped on my lap this morning. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (sigh), well that took more than a half an hour. I don't even want to think how much of my life I wasted on that. :P Okay, so, we need a primer here on the use of non-free text and on attributing splits. Will do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All right. I have left User:Mono a note. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I do appreciate it. I also get extremely frustrated spending time on things like this.  Chzz  ► 20:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem.:) The note to User:Mono was pretty easy for me. I do this stuff so much I could talk about it in my sleep (and probably do :D)). Way less frustrating for me than trying to figure out the original of a sockpuppet! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, absolutely; recently, I spent many hours fixing up the disruptions caused by two people incorrectly declining 'articles for creation', only to eventually find out they were the same person. It's frustrating, to say the least; mostly seems to be younger people who treat Wikipedia like a game; it wastes an inordinate amount of time dealing with them, and they rarely add any useful content. So when I spend hours on such things, I get a bit frustrated, because I know that in the same time I could've actually written a half-decent new article. But these people do not go away; they want to 'level up' and become administrators, etc struck; I now realise that if I continue, I will only start to rant, and won't say anything you do not already know. So, well...such is life.  Chzz  ► 20:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Great work
I am not a regular contributor to Wikipedia, but have been using it extensively for information search for my own purposes and make small corrections once in a while. I have particular interest in Bengal history and culture related articles and have been keen watching developments in that area for a long time. Recently I saw that you have marked Annette Akroyd for possible copyright infringement. The author of the article is no more active on Wikipedia and I don’t think that anybody else is going to do anything about it. Hang it with dignity. Delete the article.

I have been observing there are two sets of extreme administrators – one goes round placing Original Research tags and the other goes around searching for copyvio. The ordinary contributor is lost in between but the wily propagandists misusing Wikipedia to their heart’s content gets around merrily. See what happened to Bhurshut. You marked it copyvio and the editor (name changed) has quickly posted all the material on a new page Bhurshut Rajya. You probably don’t even have the time to do all the chasing. And what about the content? It is mostly bogus content, so badly written that few would be attracted to go through it. Is this article really fit for Wikipedia? And what about the numerous edits this fellow makes on other pages to propagate his point of view? Who reins him in? No administrator bothers.

Take another case. User:Ronosen and some his sock-puppets have been blocked but he goes on creating new sock puppets and works on Wikipedia at ease. He has an article titled Adi Dharm. It is a bogus article, developed and maintained by Ronosen, his sock-puppets or anonymous contributors (mostly he himself). You have access to David Koff’s book. Does he talk about Adi Dharm? You check Shivanath Shastri. There is not a word about it. But Wikipedia merrily hosts one and the intelligent and hard-working administrators are helpless in the face of active propagandists. And you take great pride in chasing out the ordinary contributor who copies a few sentences unwittingly from some book or website. Great work!

- Ratan Siddiqui (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Gosh. Thank you for your note. Focusing heavily on copyright as I do, I zero in on that issue, and on that in itself I say it seems like we have a pretty big problem here. You say the author has changed his name; do you know what his name used to be? It is very obvious to me at this point that he is operating under various IP addresses and has been violating our copyright policies in a number of ways. I'm pretty concerned about this. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Bhurshut page has gone through a lot of ups and downs in the last few days. I was a bit worried when everything went under copyvio. To be very frank, we are not always careful about copyright rules and do sometimes resort to copying straight away. This incident has made me wiser and I shall certainly be more careful in future. However, I can assure you that even when we unknowingly break the rules, we do not have bad intentions. Thanks for restoring some of the old work. Keep up the good work. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. :) I think one of the real problems that contributors may not recognize with copyright problems is the damage they can cause down the road. I really hate to see the work of contributors wasted when they've been building off of content we can't keep. This, if for no other reason, makes it a really good idea to keep an eye out for this material when it appears. If it's not discovered until months or even years down the road, we can lose so much good work, and discourage contributors from continuing. As far as articles like Bhurshut, I usually like to give contributors who work in the area a chance to help resolve the issue, maybe by rewriting content, but if they don't I try to salvage what I can. It was easier before we knew how many copyright problems we had. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was good of you to respond immediately. Here is some interesting data - over 500 people have clicked on the Bhurshut page, so far this month. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'm glad there was clean content to revert to. It would be a shame to have them come and find nothing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for 1. Wecome 2. Message 3. Action taken on Bhurshut. Sorry for the delay in responding. I do not have a PC at home and have to travel to a cyber cafe for working on a hired PC.


 * I have tried to revise Annette Akroyd and make it free from copyvio. I have put it up on the temporary page provided for this. Please go through the same and if you are not satisfied about copyvio, I will work on it further. My draw back is that although I have read Davod Kopf's book, I don't have it for ready reference.


 * I am quite surpised by your tough action and feel sorry for my hard words. Please don't take it to heart.


 * Thanks once again. - Ratan Siddiqui (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Selena
Um excuse me? but when do you plan on bringing back those RS to this article? AJona1992 (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hetam Bhurshut and Surajcap
Hi,

I've been fixing the vandalism from and his various 117.* ip addresses for quite some time now. His edit patterns are obvious: he copies a large chunk of text from blogs or google books, and then formats that in wikipedia markup, and then copy-pastes in multiple articles. I can't identify the source of some of his edits on Pratapadiya and other pages, but these are very likely to be copyvios as well (large amount of text added by this user).

I have blocked some socks of Surajcap and some IP addresses, but later found it easier to pending-charge-protect the articles instead. He uses a dial-up isp from India, and switches ips every day. So, blocking the IPs will perhaps affect a large section of Indian editors. --Ragib (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Revdel Question
G'day MRG - I picked this up from WP:CP and reverted it to the safe version. Would this be a case for revdel? I was hesitant given the sheer number of intermediate edits and the fact that the copyvio was "presumed" as opposed to "blatant". --Mkativerata (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) That's a tough one; we're sort of feeling our way on "rev deletion" with copyright cleanup, but I'm inclined to say yes in this case primarily because the contributor in question has come back under multiple usernames and has on a number of occasions restored the content he placed previously. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - in that case I revdelled your blanking as well as someone could copy-paste the content out of the "edit tab" (if that's ok). Thanks for the guidance. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. Wipe me out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of India Pakistan and Bangladesh
I noticed that you had tagged Dhaka City Corporation as a copyvio, and the article subsequently got deleted. Unfortunately, the source you found (Encyclopedia of India Pakistan and Bangladesh) is actually a well known copyvio of Wikipedia itself. (see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_70).

Since a lot of non-copyvio articles are at risk of being marked as copyvios, I urge you to go back into your contribution log, and undo any articles that you thought to be copyvio of this "encyclopedia". --Ragib (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm afraid you're at the wrong page; I've never edited that article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry, my mistake. I was looking at the copyright problems page for Aug 13, and the article was tagged by someone else ... you had tagged the previous entry on that page, so I made the above comment. Sorry about that. I have put the request at the actual tagging user's talk page. --Ragib (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem.:) I'm actually currently looking to see if it is listed at WP:Mirrors and forks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not; I'll add it. It's important to log backwards infringers there to help avoid improper deletions. Being human, we sometimes overlook things, but it helps! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added Encyclopedia of India Pakistan and Bangladesh, ISHA Books and Gyan Publishing House to the WP:Mirrors directory. Please, if you encounter any pages that you know to have been copied by those people, put backwardscopyvio on it? That can help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, I will definitely do this. It seems that at least the 2006 versions of almost all Bangladesh related articles are in that publication, so will check how many of the current articles have content from 2006. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Greater Hartford Article
Moonriddengirl, could you be more specific as to why you deleted the Greater Hartford section from the University of Connecticut article? If copyright is a concern please note that the article was written by the same person who wrote the UConn website listing, hence the similarity. I look forward to your response. Sem04014 (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC).
 * I have responded at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Matija Vojsalić & my past edits
Hi Moonriddengirl! I have noticed that text was same as on regularly mirrors Wikipedia content after I left message on Coren's page. So, if you can fix this article, that would be great! Regarding some of my past edits, I have copied content in similar fashion before. Usually I have copied myself, for making stubs for some GA articles. For example: I have made stub-article Pontius de Cruce in order to have less red links in GA article Klis Fortress. Any suggestions? Regards, Kebeta (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation on my talk page. I will try to use that in future, because I had no idea that you can't copy from wiki to wiki. I hope you don't expect me to located and fix all wiki to wiki copy-paste actions which I have done in my past edits? :) Regards, Kebeta (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no! Well I can't promise you anything. I guess I will try to fix one copy-paste problem every time I edit wiki. So, eventually most of them will be fixed. Kebeta (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio questions (low priority!)
Shan't be able to help much in the next couple weeks. (The Banglapedia CCI is what I'd most like to work on, but if that's done soon, clearly others will remain or crop up.) The Old Gray Mare still reads and writes Gray Lady-style content pretty well but balks when asked to do more than that. Now she even has problems reading email. So time for a new computer and/or new connection, but installing and transferring will take a while. For when that's done - a couple questions. Any updates on the WP-specific plag-checker tool that got some research attention a while ago? How does a CCI work right now - do you-all, after deciding it's needed, manually copy-paste an individual's contributions, sentence by sentence, into Google? Do you have any recommendations for free tools that check an entire WP article against Google, including Books and Scholar? (if specifying these might be seen as overly promotional, you or a talk page stalker could send me an email, which I'd be able to read eventually). Thanks, Novickas (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, and I am very sorry about the Old Gray Mare's stubborness. :) We have very limited tools at our disposal for copyright work. I don't remember what was around when last we talked (I barely remember yesterday! :D), but the only one we have, really, is this. It's great for finding larger chunks (and avoiding known Wikipedia mirrors), but for minute work I still have to do it by hand. I usually don't check sentence by sentence. I look for striking phrases and check those. I also still routinely make use of, which does require me to strip out references. It has one handy feature: when it finds hits (and it almost invariably does, since it doesn't screen Wikipedia mirrors), I can then easily transfer it to other google searches. For instance, it found this (randomly selected from the recent changes on my watchlist). (It's a quote, obviously, so the wide publication of it is not a problem. :)) Flip it to Google books, and I get this. This from news, and this from scholar. I frequently check articles against Google books, but do not always check against news or scholar. It depends on the circumstances.


 * Of course, some CCIs have special circumstances. Policy permits presumptive removal of text, so with thousands of articles (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) waiting review, I seldom continue checking after I've verified copying in a line or two. That's enough for me to presume infringement from a contributor with an established record. And we also sometimes remove content on suspicion if it raises red flags related to the contributor's past behavior. Copyright violations says, "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." I don't like to go that far, but more egregious infringers do lead to more aggressive clean-up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Poor gray mare...she's not being stubborn, really, she still tries as hard as she can.


 * Thanks for the links. Sorry to say, I was a little disappointed after the first test of the Earwig tool at Abdul Karim (soil scientist). It returned no results; but the sentence 'Karim started his academic career at Dhaka University as a Lecturer in 1947' is word-for-word from . At this point it seems to be the only copy-pasted sentence in the article - but I had to read and compare by, um, hand. Dustball found it altho the fact that it doesn't exclude WP mirrors would clearly cost a lot of time when aggregated over the number of articles at CCIs.


 * I know I've harped on this before, but...do you really see no way of getting dedicated professional (or Foundation-sponsored-volunteer) software help? If this should go at a different forum, pls let me know. Regards, Novickas (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know where to go to get it. :/ We're quite lucky now that we've got a good copyright contributor wunderkind who can code ( note: I use the term for effect; he's not a child and probably would not himself regard his skill as prodigious, tho they are to me ) and who is helping to provide some valuable bots for work we've been needing done for a long time. Finding good copyright cleanup software, though, may at the moment be beyond us. I am always open for new ideas, though, and keep my eyes open for any new opportunities. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral bystander
Regarding this: since the edit in question is by Piotrus, I have to voice my concern here. If you're looking for a neutral third party, Shabazz really isn't one. He's basically Piotrus' ally, having filed Piotrus' appeal and proxying for him in Eastern European articles while Piotrus is topic banned. It would be interesting to know who exactly recommended Shabazz as a neutral party in this issue. Please, try to find someone else if at all possible. Offliner (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. Do you know a neutral, Polish-speaking person who can handle this discreetly? There are real life reputation concerns here that do need to be respected. (What about User:Kotniski?) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have concerns regarding Kotninski too, since he supported Piotrus' appeal and also supported Piotrus during the arbitration. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone suitable. Sorry about this. Offliner (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Back to the drawing board. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about asking Marek69? I just came across his edits so I cant vouch deeply, but a quick overview shows no apparent evidence of him having been sucked into the eastern Europe drama factory.--Stor stark7 Speak 14:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks! I've looked him over, and I'll give him a shot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well, that's nice, days after his ban was very prematurely suspended, Offliner is attacking editors in good standing as proxies of banned users, non-neutral for the purpose of copyright enforcement. It is indeed hard to find "a neutral third party" if everyone who is not overtly hostile to Piotrus isn't one. Not a big deal, but what's next? "It would be interesting to know who exactly recommended" Offliner as a person to be asked about his concerns. Sorry for the intrusion, but that was really outrageous. Colchicum (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) In this case, it is probably best to find an editor who raises no appearance of involvement (whether there is one or isn't) so that if no substantial problems are found, people down down the line don't feel like a problem was swept under the rug. I don't mind looking for somebody who doesn't know him at all if it will lend to that purpose. (I hope I've found him!) I don't really want to go into motivations here, if you don't mind, as I'd rather this not turn into a larger discussion than it needs to. Kind of counteracts the discreet handling I'm hoping for. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, sorry. But it is hard to try to minimize publicity and keep this somewhat unsightly discussion here at the same time. Anyway, it is up to you. Sorry :)Colchicum (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be of no use to you because I don't understand Polish. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then, that's settled. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have looked into the copyright issue – using my excessive language skills – and find no similarity in the texts, apart from what necessarily follows from the use of a single source. As for the issue of neutrality, I am sure Offliner will not object to me looking at the issue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) I tried the same language trick, but I'm afraid that what I got must not have been as legible as what you got. For instance, "After two months in prison when he could no longer delude ourselves as to słowności Rozanski, called Cpt. Gołębiewskiego, wiceprezesa WiN, na "odprawę", na której czekali na niego tylko ubecy! Gołębiewski, the Vice-WiN, the "clearance", which only waited for him ubecy!" . I can't make sense of that kind of stuff to the point to be sure of a paraphrase. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, Google translate seems to hork anytime it tries to dive into anything Scandinavian. Failing the easy route, I've taken a look at it and didn't see any close paraphrasing.  I noted that the structure was somewhat similar (i.e. things were discussed in the same order) since both the source and the article edit seem to follow a timeline, but I noticed other good signs where bits of information from several places in the source were completely rewritten and combined into a well written sentence that didn't resemble anything in the source.  I don't believe we have a copyright concern here, but of course, for good article writing it would be nice to see someone hop in with a few more sources to round out that section. Shell   babelfish 07:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Will mark this clear. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Google Translate
I do not know what problems you are having with Google Translate. This is what I get. No gibberish, and besides, I do not think that Polish is yet a Scandinavian language! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Shell was saying it was Scandinavian; I think she was noting similar problems. I copied a phrase from the google translation results I got above (it was a direct paste). I'm afraid that your link isn't really helpful, as whatever caused it to appear when I ran it through google translate myself is still causing it to appear for me, even in your link. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What Google does is it includes the original text intertwined with the translation in the translation result page. If you copy-paste you will get both – not necessarily a nice feature. However, when viewing the page the translation should be hidden. It will appear as a mouse-over tip if you hover the mouse over the sentence.
 * What browser are you using? This may have something to do with the browser not being able to render the HTML correctly. I use Firefox 3.6 and have no problems-- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have Firefox 3.6.8, and that's exceedingly peculiar. :/ That's the worst of the passages I see and you're right that not all of the content is included in what I see (though much of it is). But when I copy and paste this one--confusing but otherwise somewhat readable, I don't get the original text: just the translation. "First poakowska underground structure, "No" was his goal saved in the name ("Independence"), but did not lead the armed struggle, sabotage and guerrilla." Perhaps it's to do with the length of the passage? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ack Slavic, I meant Slavic. Though it does tend to falter on Scandinavian bases as well.  It's not so much lack of translating as it is rather poor translating which makes double-checking paraphrasing rather difficult. Shell   babelfish 07:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Katy Perry
Hi there! I'm wondering if I could have your advice on something. put an FAC banner on the talk page of Katy Perry, but nobody has actually initiated the nomination yet. It's a GA, but hasn't had a peer review yet (not that that's necessary, but still) and I believe that FAC is something that should be discussed before it's begun. And in this particular case, this musician is about to release a new album, so I think that any FAC should wait at least a month after the album's release so that it can be detailed appropriately at the artist's article. Ziggyseventh is rather new to Wikipedia, and attempted to start an FAR and a peer review for Lady Gaga simultaneously a few months ago. When that happened, the FAR banner was just removed but the peer review did happen. Presently, I was going to just remove the FAC banner and then leave a message at the user's talkpage. Do you think that would that be alright? Cliff smith <sup style="color:black;">talk  16:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) I think that would be quite all right. He can easily restore the FAC banner once an FAC is actually initiated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you!  Cliff smith  <sup style="color:black;">talk  17:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism in this article
When I was doing project tagging, I found Talk:Middle-range theory (archaeology). Nobody has significantly changed the article since this concern was raised. If this is a copyvio, I may be able to help at least stub it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Piotr. That would be great. :) The complaint would seem to check out. I have to run; don't have time to blank the article. If you can't address it immedial, would you mind adding the copyvio until it can be addressed? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unattributed quotations ("why" questions). I am not sure if the rest of the content needs to be removed as well? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see the book, but the possibility of additional infringement is there:, . If we could see the source, we'd know how extensive it is. Lacking that, we should probably rewrite whatever content was placed by the contributor who put the known issue here in accord with WP:C's admonition to never violate copyrights, but when in doubt write it afresh. That's what I do when stuff like that is listed at WP:C. Running again, but (by the way) I hope to finish that sandbox thing tonight. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that. I've rewritten the article; frankly, I removed some sentences - they seemed hardly useful anyway. But the article should be a copyvio-free stub now, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Copied attr template
I hope I did that right: Talk:Star League. By the way, do we have a template for attribution to non-editors? There is an article that I wrote using content written by certain scholars who wanted to help expand the article, but couldn't or did not want to edit Wikipedia directly, so they just emailed me stuff "for Wikipedia". I have emailed the lead coordinator in this project to get names and confirm free license permission; when I get it what should I do, beyond forwarding the email to OTRS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Talk page looks good. You also need to make a "null" edit to the article to note it in edit summary, since that's where people usually look for attribution. In this case, I'd be inclined to write something like "content copied from article name in Month Year; see talk for specific details."


 * Yes, you need to get licensing permission and mail it to OTRS. Once that's done, it should be logged by them. We don't really have a standard template for that, but what I would do is, again, make a null edit and attribute in edit summary, something like "content written by Name added in Month Year; see talk for specific details." The OTRS note will probably specify authorship (let me know when that's sent, and I'll make sure it does!), but if it doesn't, you can add it there. Be sure that permission is not just for Wikipedia, of course, but for whichever license we were using at that time. To be safe, I'd ask for co-licensing under GFDL and CC-By-SA (see Declaration of consent for all enquiries.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger that. I just got an "out of office" bounce for that, so it may take a few more days to fix this. I will let you know when there are any updates on that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted - donal o' connor
Hi there,

I created the page donal o'connor which you deleted. I know the information is similar to what is on www.myspace.com/donaloconnorfiddle I created this page also.

Can you let me know how we go about undeleting this page?

Kind Regards

Donal O'Connor docfiddle@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.33.188 (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. To address the copyright concerns, you need to follow the procedures set out at Donating copyrighted materials. More information on this can be found at your registered talk page, here. Once copyright concerns are addressed, the content will be restored, but please be advised that the community will then evaluate the article to determine if it otherwise meets policies and guidelines. Quite often material that is suitable for a musician's own webpage does not meet the needs of Wikipedia, which strives to report neutrally what is said about notable musicians in reliable sources that are not affiliated with the subject. Before going through the trouble, you may wish to read "your first article" to determine whether you believe the content would remain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Bhurshut
Why did you delete the rewritten post which had no copyright problem? Elsewhere you said you have no issues if the article was rewritten and so was it done to avoid any possible copyright violation. Till you deleted it and so requested to restore the latest rewritten version ignoring any personal issues which you seem to have regarding this article! 117.254.79.182 (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because it wasn't completely rewritten. Compare the following from the last version:


 * The former version said:


 * These changes are superficial and do not constitute rewriting the matter. There is more information at the talk page of one of your blocked socks, User talk:Hetam.


 * However, beyond this, what you may not realize is that you are currently not welcome at Wikipedia no matter what you write, as you are indefinitely blocked under your main account: User:Surajcap. You are violating policy by continuing to edit. Accordingly, anything you add to the project may be removed for any or no reason. If you wish to continue participating in Wikipedia, you should return to your primary account and negotiate an unblock. See Guide to appealing blocks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
For the disrupting bit on my school IP. Hinata  talk  16:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm glad you stopped.:) It's really not worth it. I realize that you don't see the purpose behind the template, but so long as consensus supports its use, it's not something you'd want to argue about. If you really dislike the templates, best thing to do is pursue community consensus for deleting it at WP:TfD. (I don't think, though, that would happen.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please tell them I am from North Carolina, and that my IP User_talk:152.31.193.80 is evidence of that? Sockpuppet_investigations/Hinata is my case. Tell them I edited from Brunswick Community College. Hinata   talk  12:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can tell them about the edits, but I'm afraid that I can't resolve a sock puppetry investigation that way. After all, I can't prove that you aren't a Pennsylvanian who got a North Carolina friend to edit pretending to be you. :/ A check-user will probably be able to help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here in Brunswick Community College, their isn't a lot of people here. I never edited on any Pennsylvania IP's ether. It is just someone impersanating me. Check my case again. I've replied. Hinata   talk  13:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't doubt you. I just can't prove it. I'm not a checkuser and seldom work SPIs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, it is just that they appear to be signing my name on their sock puppets. Hinata   talk  13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy/paste template for EB and JE
I'd like to see a template like the current copy/paste template but not suggesting copyvio but saying that a substantial part of the article has been copied from ... and advising what should be done, eg rewrite prose, try to find more current sources, etc. I recently spent some time at Kohen Gadol removing material I'd found in a book, only to then discover that the book was composed of material from the Jewish Encyclopedia. I don't think the small template at the bottom of articles is sufficient - it's tiny and gives no guidance to editors, and I think that any article largely based on such old sources needs the standard type of template we give to other articles with various problems and that I can automatically tag. What do you think? Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about your wasted time! I've run into that situation myself. Under our current Plagiarism guideline, though, there's no problem with copying from public domain sources, so a tag suggesting action is probably not going to meet with consensus. :/ So far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's not a problem at this point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's weird though. It can leave an article with no inline citations at all, for instance. And full of Victorian prose. I know it's 'ok', 'legal', etc., but ipso facto it's an article that can't reach FA, right? Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to kind of shrug helplessly at that one. :) In the "choose your battles" vein, beyond supporting attribution, I've chosen to focus on copyright rather than plagiarism. You make a good point, but I'm not at all sure what the will of the community would be. WP:Plagiarism passed, but not with the universal support I would have anticipated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, "choose your battles" is a good idea, and I doubt that I'll take this one further right now. Dougweller (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Rorschach test
I wonder if you might give your opinion on an argument regarding fair use of cited material being made here/here, or at least let me know if my rebuttal is sound. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, Xeno. :) Off to take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do agree, and I have explained why. Redundantly, but it's a redundant kind of conversation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Much obliged! – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 21:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock
Please unblock me- Ramesh vyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.133.1 (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You do not appear to be blocked. There is no mention of being blocked on your block log, it doesn't appear you've ever been warned on your talk page of an ANI discussion as it appears you've never had a talk page, and usually it is impossible for blocked users to post on other people's talk pages. Are you sure you're blocked? Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Try Ramesh vyas' block log. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to appeal your block, please log in and do so at your account's talk page. You'll need to explain why we should be able to trust now that you will not continue to violate Wikipedia's copyright policy, given that you persisted in doing so after a prior block, given that I really explained the issue to you very thoroughly in July. You will also probably need to explain if you are now familiar with the the sock puppetry policy and the prohibition against block evasion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DANNY FLYNN (PRINTER)
Hi, regarding our discussion yesterday on image authorisations of Derek Ridgers and Danny Flynn, you asked me to leave any further message for you here: Well, I've received a forwarded email from Mr Flynn saying that he's replied to the Wikipedia email - (ref: [Ticket#2010052710028115]) - confirming his authorisation of the images. BUT I noticed in the Wiki email sent in to him order to confirm identity, you/Wikipedia were also emailing Mr Flynn through www.dannyflynn.com - but that is a DIFFERENT Danny Flynn! That is the website of an illustrator of the same name (he also has a Wikipedia entry), so no wonder you received no reply. It seems that Mr Flynn (our Mr Flynn, the printer) did not notice that part of your email to him. So I've asked him to reply to that email as well, pointing out that error. There must be some other way to confirm identity... -- Affable Familiar (talk) Affable Familiar (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

More OTRS stuff
Can you run a check on the image in this IFD? . There is an OTRS number for other images upped by the same editor that are of the same subject that were provided by the mother of the subject. Perhaps it was left off this image? OTRS Ticket Number check. Thanks - and guess I will be around her more again with these types of things. :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure; on it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not included. Commented at the FfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and here is another one to check. I don't see any indication there was an OTRS submitted but there is a conversation from 2009 on the uploaders talk page that indicate the photographer signed a release form (User_talk:Politicalsavvy) and another editor said Leave it up and just add the explanation to the summary, that the photos were released to you, in good faith you think they're under a CC-type license, and you're double-checking with the photographer. But I see nothing noted on the image page. Thanks again. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Searched under the name of Dan Turner and the name of the file; got nothing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Lighthouse of Houston/ Please advise.
Hi Moonriddengirl, Thank you so much for reviewing the Lighthouse of Houston site I put together. I actually posted this entry with the permission of the Lighthouse of Houston President. We respectfully request that you please reactivate the Lighthouse of Houston Wikipedia entry. Lighthouse supporters would very much like to have a presence on Wikipedia, as I know so many other Lighthouse sites in the US can be found on here. I would be more than happy to put you directly in touch with the Lighthouse of Houston President. Can you please advise me on the best way to move forward? Again, thank you! I am watchlisting this post and look forward to your response. DoubleDimond DoubleDimond (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you for contacting me about your concerns. The primarily problem is that the website does not use a license that is compatible with Wikipedia's. It is fully reserved: "Copyright 2007, The Lighthouse of Houston. All Rights Reserved." In accordance with our Terms of Use, we can only import content compatible with Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike. Under some circumstances, it must also be compatible with GNU Free Documentation license. Both of these licenses permit modification and reuse elsewhere, even commercially, with proper attribution and both forbid reusers to try to impose new copyright over derivatives of the work.


 * The simplest way to resolve this is to ask the webmaster to change the copyright statement at the website. We recommend a statement such as the following:
 * The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
 * If this text is added, let me know, and I can restore the article and note the release. (Please do note, however, that we can't guarantee that content will remain on Wikipedia; if there are other issues, the community may change or even delete the article in accordance with policies and guidelines, an overview of which can be found at WP:5P.)


 * If you would prefer not to release the content at the website, you can communicate your release privately to the Wikimedia Foundation via e-mail, so long as you contact us through an e-mail address that can be clearly connected to the cite. The procedure for doing this is at Donating copyrighted materials. We strongly recommend that you use the language at Declaration of consent for all enquiries for your release. Frequently, we must go through several rounds of e-mail before all aspects are covered, and that release form takes care of most issues we encounter.


 * If you decide to release the content through e-mail, you can typically expect a response within a week or so. If your release is sufficient, the article should then be restored. If you don't want to wait the week, I can look for the e-mail to see if I can expedite the matter if you tell me once it's been sent. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I think we will start with an email from the President (with the recommended language) to the above address. If it is OK, as suggested above, I will let you know when I send it. Thank you again!!!!DoubleDimond (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Most certainly. :) I'll keep an eye out for your note so we can resolve this as swiftly as possible. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi...one more quick question. I am helping the Lighthouse fill out the form to submit and just would like to please know the URL that I should submit to them. I'm assuming I submit the URL to the page you removed? If so, can you please provide me with this? I cannot find it anywhere now. Thank you!DoubleDimond (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's it. The URL where the content can currently be found is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lighthouse_of_Houston&action=edit&redlink=1. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Great! We will include that! Thanks!DoubleDimond (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! I just wanted to let you know that the Lighthouse of Houston President Gibson M. DuTerroil just sent the e-mail to the Wikipedia permissions address. I know you said you would be kind of enough to be on the lookout for it if I told you when he sent it. In addition, he included the link to their logo as there was a copyright statement on that as well. Is there anyway you could resolve both of these issues, or is it best for me to take another route regarding the logo? Thank you so much again for everything!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleDimond (talk • contribs) 17:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've found the e-mail. I'll read it and see what seems best. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One e-mail will do it, but there's one technicality needs ironing it out. I've written him back to request clarification (please, if he communicates with you about that e-mail, stick to my screen name when talking to me here. To avoid harassment, I try to keep my identity out of Wikipedia itself). For my own notes, this refers to 2010082310007434. I've restored the article, but can't publish the text yet. We need to wait for that one matter, which can be resolved swiftly if he checks and responds to his e-mail soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he forwarded the e-mail to me, and I definitely will respect the real name issue and your privacy. He did send a new e-mail that will hopefully solve the remaining issue. You should have it now if you get a chance to look, and please let me know if you did not receive it. I do truly appreciate your responsiveness and help with this!!DoubleDimond (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And ✅. :) Thank you very much for your patience with the process! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!!!! I will look for it now! I really appreciate all your assistance and guidance in how to work through the process! DoubleDimond (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)